Strong Evidence for the Peleg state change

[dad]

So the fossil record was laid down by the flood, despite the fact that you just said that the layers with the fossils of stegosaurs and t rexes were laid down BEFORE the flood.

No.There were many fossils laid down in the centuries and centuries before the flood. Man and most beasts would not be among them. There were many after the split or nature change. Man and beast would be among them. Therefore I figure if we see man or beast the fossil is post flood. More specifically, post state change.

What is your evidence that they couldn't fossilize?

What is your evidence that they could fossilize? You merely assume that because they now can they then could. You assume a present state in the past!

Stories do not count. I want something TESTABLE.

Too bad. Science only tests with and in this state.

Glad to see a well reasoned argument can change your mind.

Truth is a good thing. I find it better than apologizing for error.

So when I ask you why you think the past was different, your answer is, "You can't prove it wasn't different?"

So when I ask you why you think the past was the same, your answer is, "You can't prove it wasn't the same?" The bible and history indicate it was different. You require more than a belief that has no basis to claim it was the same.

Well, my car can turn into a helicopter. You can't prove it can't turn into a helicopter! Therefore, when I say it can turn into a helicopter, who are you to doubt me?

If you claim my dinner plate will turn into a UFO and fly away, I might be worried. However, unless your strange silly claims oppose the bible, why would I much care? Have a safe flight, be it only in your head.

 

[Kylie]

dad, this is getting tired very quickly. The argument, "You can't prove that the thing didn't happen," is not reason to believe that the thing DID happen. You can't prove that I go to the moon when I'm asleep. That doesn't mean I really do go to the moon. My daughter is ten and she can put together a more convincing argument.

So please, try harder or go home.

 

[dad]

dad, this is getting tired very quickly. The argument, "You can't prove that the thing didn't happen," is not reason to believe that the thing DID happen.

Who cares what you believe? Either science knows the state of the past of not. It doesn't. The bible looks good.


There is no reason from science or anywhere else to accept a same state past. There are many reasons in history and bible to realize it was actually different.

Run along kid, you ran out of ammo, and are firing blanks.

 

[Kylie]

Who cares what you believe? Either science knows the state of the past of not. It doesn't. The bible looks good.

I don't even know where to begin with this.

If the laws of nature were different in the past, we would see things that do not make sense. The fact that everything makes sense when we use the idea that the laws were the same is very strong evidence that the laws were indeed the same.

Yet do you tell us how the laws were different? Was the force of gravity stronger or weaker? What was the speed of light? How quickly did radioactive elements decay into other elements? Can you tell us anything about any of these? of course not.

There is no reason from science or anywhere else to accept a same state past. There are many reasons in history and bible to realize it was actually different.

There is nothing in history which lends credence in any way to a different state past.

Run along kid, you ran out of ammo, and are firing blanks.

I have a daughter who is ten years old (and much more knowledgeable about reality than you, it would appear). Don't call me kid. Come back when you have actual evidence or don't come back at all.

 

[dad]

I don't even know where to begin with this.

If the laws of nature were different in the past, we would see things that do not make sense. The fact that everything makes sense when we use the idea that the laws were the same is very strong evidence that the laws were indeed the same.

Says who?? If there were not the present laws, then something changed, other than our present laws!

Science uses present laws to make sense of things....and only the present laws! There is NO evidence the laws were the same, by the way. Whether we are talking radioactive decay or light speed.

Yet do you tell us how the laws were different? Was the force of gravity stronger or weaker? What was the speed of light? How quickly did radioactive elements decay into other elements? Can you tell us anything about any of these? of course not.

How could we claim there was decay in the former state? Just because we see atoms in that arrangement now, does not mean the forces were the same before. The speed of light involves time. We do not even know time exists as we know it in deep space. Do not try to set all clocks to earth time.

There is nothing in history which lends credence in any way to a different state past.

You kidding!!? Spirits in Sumer and Egypt, long life spans in Sumer, for example indicate a difference.

 

[Kylie]

Chapter 2 twice says Adam was placed in the Garden.

Do you believe Adam was twice placed in the Garden?

I don't believe he was placed even once in the garden.

But reading it, I note that the second time says why he was put in the garden. The two accounts of Adam being placed in the garden are not contradictory. Not so with the creation of the animals and when this was done relative to the creation of Adam.

QV please:

Giving me a big slab of text from the Bible will do nothing to convince me, just as I could quote a big slab of text from the Lord of the Rings and it will not convince you that the War of the Ring actually took place.

In any case, since you have blended chapters 1 and 2 together in an attempt to show that they are compatible, I will simply point out that you have God creating the animals in the water and the animals in the air, then creating the animals of the land, and then God created man to rule over and have domination over all the animals. But then, seeing that Man was all alone, God decided to create animals for him.

Seriously, that's like me starting a delivery business and getting all the supplies I need, like a truck, a driver, clerks, a warehouse to store things in, and then giving the CEO job to my best friend. Then, since my best friend is sitting around bored, I decide to start a delivery business and get a truck, a driver, clerks, a warehouse to store things in, just to give my best friend something to do.

It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Kylie]

Dear Kylie, Here is the chronology, Scripturally. It does not agree with the traditional religious understanding.

1. Adam is made from the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day the first Earth was made but BEFORE the plants grew. The plants grew on the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:12
2. Adam was therefore present at the beginning of the 6th Day to name the creatures made from the dust which Jesus brought to him. Gen. 2:19
3. Adam and Eve were "created in God's Image", or born again Spiritually, later on the same 6th Day. Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:1-2


Conclusion, from the New Testament:

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; (Genesis 2:7) the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (Born Spiritually)


Adam was born again Spiritually with Eve and this could NOT have happened until the 6th Day because Eve was NOT made until the 6th Day. Genesis 2:22 Adam was with Jesus for 3 of God's Days, each of which is some 4.5 Billion years long, in man's time.


In Love,
Aman

Do you have facts to back this up, because there are a lot of people out there who disagree with you. Why should I believe you when you claim you are right about this, but disbelieve Biblical literalists when they claim their different interpretation about this is right?

 

[Kylie]

Says who?? If there were not the present laws, then something changed, other than our present laws!

Says who? Says the fact that we see things in the world that only make sense if the laws we have today have been around since the beginning of the universe.

Science uses present laws to make sense of things....and only the present laws! There is NO evidence the laws were the same, by the way. Whether we are talking radioactive decay or light speed.

Oh, are we into the old, "You can't prove I'm wrong, therefore I'm right" argument again? Seriously, learn a new song. This one is getting old.

How could we claim there was decay in the former state? Just because we see atoms in that arrangement now, does not mean the forces were the same before. The speed of light involves time. We do not even know time exists as we know it in deep space. Do not try to set all clocks to earth time.

If there has only been radioactive decay for a few thousand years, how do you explain the fact that we see decay that works out to several million years or longer?

You kidding!!? Spirits in Sumer and Egypt, long life spans in Sumer, for example indicate a difference.

To quote Wikipedia: Citation Needed.

 

[dad]

Says who? Says the fact that we see things in the world that only make sense if the laws we have today have been around since the beginning of the universe.

Why kid yourself? We see 'things'?? Should we guess what things?

Oh, are we into the old, "You can't prove I'm wrong, therefore I'm right" argument again? Seriously, learn a new song. This one is getting old.

Prove your claims right, and we can talk.

If there has only been radioactive decay for a few thousand years, how do you explain the fact that we see decay that works out to several million years or longer?

"Works out"?? In other words there are ratios, and the parent is decaying into the daughter material. If you assume that relationship always existed you would 'work out' how long it 'would' take if that present state relationship had of existed all the time. That requires a present state to have existed! If another relationship used to exist, in the former state, then obviously all bets are off. You cannot prove a same state existed. Now don't try to give us the old "You can't prove I'm wrong, therefore I'm right"

 

[Kylie]

Prove your claims right, and we can talk.

Such hypocrisy. You demand I prove my point when all you do to support yours is claim that I can't prove you wrong.

You want me to play, sing a different song.

"Works out"?? In other words there are ratios, and the parent is decaying into the daughter material. If you assume that relationship always existed you would 'work out' how long it 'would' take if that present state relationship had of existed all the time. That requires a present state to have existed! If another relationship used to exist, in the former state, then obviously all bets are off. You cannot prove a same state existed. Now don't try to give us the old "You can't prove I'm wrong, therefore I'm right"

And if the laws were different and the decay rates were different, then we would see that different dating techniques give different results. We do not see this, therefore decay rates have been consistent. Different past state disproved.

And where's your support for the long lives of the ancient Sumerians?

 

[Ginger123]

Such hypocrisy. You demand I prove my point when all you do to support yours is claim that I can't prove you wrong.

Either put up with it or don't answer him, the choice is yours.

 

[AV1611VET]

Giving me a big slab of text from the Bible will do nothing to convince me,

It was enough to convince you the two accounts are contradictory, wasn't it?

Yet when someone gives you the same two accounts to defend against your accusation, you whine about it?

Who gave you the 'big slab of text' in the first place?

Did you whine to them?

 

[Aman777]

Do you have facts to back this up, because there are a lot of people out there who disagree with you. Why should I believe you when you claim you are right about this, but disbelieve Biblical literalists when they claim their different interpretation about this is right?

Dear Kylie, Of course I do. How many people do you know who tells others that they can show you God's Truth, which agrees in every way with every other discovered Truth? Answer: 0 How many people do you see actually refuting me Scripturally, Scientifically, or Historically? Answer: 0

The reason is simple. I'm not preaching my views but showing what Scripture is actually saying, instead of what some man-made religion tells you it's saying. They've told us for thousands of years that man was made the 6th Day, instead of the Scriptural Fact that man was made the 3rd Day. Gen. 2:4-7

When someone tells you that they know the Truth but their Truth does NOT agree with scripture, science, and history, cling tightly to your wallet.

In Love,
Aman

 

[dad]

Such hypocrisy. You demand I prove my point when all you do to support yours is claim that I can't prove you wrong.

You claim a same state past, no? That is not my claim, it is what science claims! Do not be a hypocrite and ask us to prove there was no same state past!

The bible is well proven in thousands of ways. Jesus was born to a virgin in the city of David. I must take it seriously when it describes a past that could not be under our laws! reason demands it.

You want me to play, sing a different song.

No. You can play or take a hike. Don't blame others.

And if the laws were different and the decay rates were different, then we would see that different dating techniques give different results.

That is a claim there WAS decay!! Prove it? Really. If there was, fine, we can look at that.

We do not see this, therefore decay rates have been consistent.

No. If there was no decay and no present state how could the decay that started in this state have been consistent?? You FIRST need to prove a same state past...not just mouth one into existence.

And where's your support for the long lives of the ancient Sumerians?

Doesn't matter. They claim long lives existed. The bible does too, and for the actual lengths we must look to the accurate record, the bible. You cannot disprove it. The separation of the water and land on the planet the same week as life was created...why no killing heat? It had to be different. Hey I don't make this stuff up.

 

[dad]

Either put up with it or don't answer him, the choice is yours.

People have a hard time admitting defeat. That often causes them to try to defend their case until they have no choice but to huff off, and try to save face doing so the best they can.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People have a hard time admitting defeat. That often causes them to try to defend their case until they have no choice but to huff off, and try to save face doing so the best they can.

See Ginger, even dad knows that he is wrong.

 

[Ginger123]

See Ginger, even dad knows that he is wrong.

I'm sorry to disagree with you Sub but dad doesn't know anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry to disagree with you Sub but dad doesn't know anything.

LOL!

You got me!

 

[dad]

I'm sorry to disagree with you Sub but dad doesn't know anything.

Waiting for you to dazzle us with decisive arguments.

 

[Kylie]

It was enough to convince you the two accounts are contradictory, wasn't it?

Yet when someone gives you the same two accounts to defend against your accusation, you whine about it?

Who gave you the 'big slab of text' in the first place?

Did you whine to them?

You gave the big slab of text if I recall.

And why should I believe it if it is contradictory?