Strong Evidence for the Peleg state change

[dad]

No we haven't sorry that's only when it's celebrated, if there was such a person as Jesus it's not known when he was born, the favoured month is June because shepherds only tended their flocks during the warmer months so December would be out of the question.
.

Maybe the holiday after Christmas might help you get your bearings past last week...New Years! 2014!

As for sheep, do you realize that there were many thousands and tens of thousands of sheep and other animals sacrificed routinely in Jerusalem? Some speculate that the shepherds were moving some animals for the priesthood, who, apparently 'pre approved' or 'certified' (source: John MacArthur) many animals so they could be purchased by those wanting to sacrifice a lamb without blemish. Apparently this was quite a scam and carried on by the insincere high priest 'mafia' who were in power because of Rome, not God. They could easily reject any animal for sacrifice, necessitating a purchase of a pre approved one!! That means that animals could be moved and were needed throughout the year. Whether normal shepherding procedures had them staying in the fields at any time of year, or not, commerce went on! So we can't use that indicator.

 

[dad]

Then why don't you tell her and the rest of us what it was like way back in this fantasy time of yours?

Not mine...the bible's. One doesn't need to know the laws on the ground at that time, so why pretend you do?? Suffice it to say, it was different.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Kylie, No, but it's the BEST and ONLY evidence available and it makes common sense UNLESS you can tell us HOW and WHEN apes evolved into humans. I must warn you that it happened in ONE generation.
​

If you think evolution says the transition from ape to Human must have happened in one generation, then you are very very wrong. How can you dismiss evolution if you don't even know what it is?

Dear Kylie, Evolution doesn't teach the Truth. It teaches a False assumption of mortal men. God show us HOW prehistoric people produced children and the FIRST generation of new Humans built the FIRST Human city on this Earth. Here's God's Truth.

Genesis 6:4 shows that the Combination of the sons of God (prehistoric people) and Adam's descendants (daughters) produced intellectual Giants on Adam's world and makes a prediction of "and also after that" which was fulfilled on our Earth when the grandsons of Noah had NO other humans to marry. They married and produced today's Humans with the prehistoric people who were here when Noah arrived.

Genesis 10:6 shows that Noah's grandson Cush, the son of Noah's son Ham, married and produced Nimrod who built the FIRST Human cities on this Earth. Cush had NO other Human to marry, but he produced Nimrod by marrying a descendant of the sons of God (prehistoric man) on the present Earth.

This shows that Human intelligence evolved in just ONE Generation since Nimrod's Mother was a prehistoric woman. Until Nimrod was produced with one of Adam's descendants, NO Human city was ever built on this Earth. It should be clear that Adam's human intelligence evolves prehistoric people into people with Human intelligence in ONE Generation. Right?

Genesis is Scientifically correct revealing that ONLY God knew these things and got them correct scientifically thousands of years before Science. ONLY God knew:
​

Okay, let's have a look...

We live in a Multiverse. Genesis 1:6-8 and Genesis 2:4
Genesis 1:6-8:
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Genesis 2:4
2:4 These are the generations of the heavenS (Plural) and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

How do either of these refer to a multiverse? Maybe you should start by actually defining the term multiverse. And then show how science has shown that a multiverse exists.

Sure. A Multiverse is composed of more than One Universe. The FIRST Heaven or Universe was made the 2nd Day. Gen. 1:6-8 Other HeavenS (Plural) were made the SAME Day as the first Earth, which is the THIRD Day. Genesis 1:9-10 That makes at least 3 Heavens or Universes which were made by the beginning of the THIRD Day. That's a Multiverse.

The Big Bang of our Cosmos was on the THIRD Day. Genesis 2:4
​

Genesis 2:4
2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

How does this describe the Big Bang? I see nothing about a rapid expansion, nor any of the other things science tells us the Big Bang was like.

The other HeavenS which were made on the THIRD Day were our present 2nd Heaven or Cosmos and the THIRD Heaven. ll Corinthians 12:2 tells us of the THIRD Heaven and Revelation 21:1 tells us of the "New" heavens and earth, thus confirming the words in Genesis.

All living things were made from the water on the FIFTH Day. Genesis 1:21
​

1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forthabundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Which is why Christians were claiming that all life came from the water long befoe science did, of course. In any case, you are ignoring Genesis 1:24 which states that many animals came from the earth, not the water. How do you reconcile this? Surely you don't just pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe?

The creatures which were made from the dust of the ground at the beginning of the 6th Day and brought to Adam who named them were identical to the creatures which were made from the water on the 5th Day. You can't tell them apart since they look like and can produce offspring with each other.

The best example is Adam. He was made BEFORE any other creature on the 3rd Day but his son produced Enoch on the first Earth with a prehistoric woman whose species evolved from the water, on the 6th Day, after the Fall.

1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after His kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after His kind: and it was so.

His kind is the kind which Jesus made with His own Hands. Even though Jesus did NOT make the fowl of the air until the 6th Day, God created and brought forth the fowl of the air, from the water, on the 5th Day. Only God can see the future and make creatures from the water which can produce offspring with the creatures Jesus made from the dust of the ground, on the next Day.


The Stars did not light until Millions of years AFTER the Big Bang on the FOURTH Day. Genesis 1:16

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

These are different lights to the ones he made in 1:14 to show signs and seasons? Well, if the 1:14 lights were the sun or moon or stars, what were they?

They are the SAME lights which give our world it's seasons. My point is that the BB was on the 3rd Day and the Stars did not put forth light, until the FOURTH day. This is important since the latest scientific discoveries show that the Stars did NOT put forth their light at the time of the Big Bang. It was only AFTER Hundreds of Millions of years when the First Stars formed and put forth their light for the first time. ONLY God could have known this 3k years ago. It's proof of God.

And the verse hardly shows that they were created millions of years after the Big Bang. Christians throughout the ages have been saying that all this happened only a few thousand years ago. If the Bible was so clear on this, why have so many Christians held the wrong idea?

It's because Christians accept God's Truth by FAITH, and they have accepted the Theology of Ancient men who lived Thousands of years BEFORE Science, by Blind Faith. The Bible is NOT wrong, but the ancient theologians were, and Christians do NOT read Genesis for what it actually says, but instead, they read it for what the ancient men THOUGHT it said. God bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[dad]

The Bible is NOT wrong, but the ancient theologians were, and Christians do NOT read Genesis for what it actually says, but instead, they read it for what the ancient men THOUGHT it said. God bless you.

Ro 4:3 -For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Abraham was alive with Noah. Cut the nonsense about 'ancient theologians'.
2Ti 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[Aman777]

Today's Humans are a combination of Adam's superior intelligence AND the DNA of the common ancestor of Apes (sons of God) Genesis 6:4
6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Once again, I ask you to provide a single shred of testable scientific evidence. All you've done is make the claim.

Dear Kylie, The testable scientific evidence is within YOU. This is because you are obviously Human since animals don't post. This means that you have inherited the unique human intelligence, which the common ancestor of Humans, Adam had. You also have the DNA of prehistoric people who evolved from the common ancestor of Apes. HOW did you get both, in total agreement with God's Holy Word?

That is the PROOF that the sons of God (prehistoric man) evolved into today's Humans when they married and produced children with Adam's descendants on this planet. It's the ONLY way to produce Human intelligence in prehistoric man, UNLESS you can enlighten us of another way.
​

No it is not proof. It is claims that you are basing on your interpretation of an old book. You have yet to show us the book is correct. You have yet to show us that your interpretation of that book is correct. And you are yet to provide even the smallest bit of real world evidence to support your viewpoint.

I just did so I will wait until you read God's Truth which agrees with Science AND the inside of your person.

Since the Big Bang was on the 3rd Day, read Genesis 1:1-Genesis 1:8 to read of the other Days or Ages (some 9 Billion years) BEFORE the Big Bang. It is the ONLY evidence of a time which today's Science is totallly ignorant of.
​

Since the big bang was the beginning of time, how can you have years before the Big Bang?

You act as if Science has discovered everything that can be discovered. They haven't,since today's Science is Ignorant of anything that happened before the Big Bang since they don't believe God's Truth in Genesis, which shows that there were some 9 Billion years BEFORE the Big Bang.

Absolutely. Human culture began just south of Lake Van in the mountains of Ararat in PERFECT agreement with Scripture and History. This PROVES that Noah brought human intelligence to this Planet. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE The only disagreement comes from the False Theory of Evolution.

How do you explain Humans using tools 100,000 years ago? SOURCE

And human made beads from between 45,000 and 110,000 years ago? SOURCE

Correction: The sons of God (prehistoric people) have lived on this Planet for some 6 million years after they diverged from Chimps. They were as advanced as Nature and evolution could make them, but they were still dumb as a post when compared to the Special Unique Human Intelligence which only God Adam and his descendants have. Noah arrived on this Planet some 10k + - years ago, and his descendants built the FIRST Human cities on our Earth.

It is because you are trying to equate the author of a man made TV show to the account of the Creation of 3 Heavens, by God Himself. Do you have no shame? You seem to believe men MORE than God. So did Lucifer.
​

Woah, hold on there, eager beaver...

You are assuming that the Bible is true in order to show it is true. Show me that God actually did it and that Genesis is a reliable account of reality, and we'll go from there. Because as far as I am concerned, we are comparing with a recent series of man-made stories about a war in Korea and a much older series of man-made stories about how the universe was made.

That is exactly what I am trying to show you. ONLY God knew the scientific Truth more than 3k years ago. This shows that God wrote Genesis since NO man, thousands of years before Science. could have possibly gotten the latest scientific discoveries correct, and told us of them so long ago. It's PROOF that the Author of Genesis is God.

It's because today's Science has rejected God's Truth in Genesis. For the last 150+ years, men have claimed the Bible to be Myth, Allegory, and Fiction and actually believed that Science knows more than God. They have ignored the Fact that God told us we live in a Multiverse and so have remained in the darkness of their own minds for thousands of years.
​

Out of the two, science and the Bible, which actually produces results? (hint: which cures more disease? Which provides for worldwide communication?)

In the long run it's the Bible, since Jesus heals you Eternally while man made Science can only prolong your agony for a while. Doctors cannot heal, and before long, they lose ALL of their patients. I know, since I've had 5 bypasses and 2 stints. I'm alive today, because of Science, but in the end, they say "we've done all that we can do" as they leave the family in grief over the loss of their loved one.

I try to help them out, but they refuse to accept anything but a man's opinion, an educated Scientist, like themselves, who continues to REJECT God Truth. Now, that's circular reasoning.
​

Circular reasoning is when you assume it is the truth in order to show it is the truth. why not treat everything as suspect and then put it all to the test? Whatever's the truth will withstand that testing, and whatever is wrong will fail, yes?

Agreed, and that is WHY I show that God's Truth is the Truth scientifically and historically. The False ToE does NOT agree with either. That's because it's a Satanic Lie and it has fooled the men of this world who have put their faith and trust in it, instead of Genesis.

Tell us HOW and WHEN Apes evolved the Human intelligence of Adam apart from the birth canal. You CANNOT since evolution is measured by the changes brought about from the birth canal.
​

Your ignorance of evolution is astounding.

Not so. The basis of Evolution is measuring the changes in the genetics over time within a population. This begins when two people produce another person, sexually. Correct? This is HOW evolution happens through the birth canal.

The False ToE falsely assumes that we MUST have evolved our intelligence over time since we can see the advancement of intelligence from Chimps to modern Humans, in the bones of the people who lived in the past. They presume that this means that an invisible concept, which they call evolution, from OUTSIDE the body of Apes, somehow changed those Apes into Humans....APART.....from the birth canal, the way ALL other Evolution is measured.

Please show the process which confirms this. You cannot, since evolution takes place in the birth canal, or it doesn't happen. To teach otherwise is teaching a "belief" and not a scientific Fact. A "belief" is a Religion.

That's because I have spent the last 17 years debating with College Professors, people with Masters in Geology and PhDs in Physics, and Evols who knew much more than you, so I feel insulted that you would ask me to read Evolution 101. I was an Evol BEFORE I read Genesis. I believe the ONLY reason you posted it was to try and show that YOU know more than me. That is Ridiculous, since you don't even know what Day it is.
​

Apparently not a very knowledgeable evolutionist. How about you provide valid scientific sources for all your claims about what evolution is supposed to be according to you, okay? Just to be sure that you aren't going on the wrong ideas. Because every single thing you;ve said about evolution has been a strawman.

Then refute me Scientifically, Historically, or Scripturally. Otherwise, it's YOUR personal opinion against God's Holy Word and your chances of refuting God's Truth are nada, zilch, and impossible, since it cannot be done. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

The Bible is NOT wrong, but the ancient theologians were, and Christians do NOT read Genesis for what it actually says, but instead, they read it for what the ancient men THOUGHT it said. God bless you.
​

Ro 4:3 -For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Abraham was alive with Noah. Cut the nonsense about 'ancient theologians'.

Dear Dad, God is correct but ancient goatherders were NOT, and that is who those who follow the traditional story of the Creation, are believing, while they are IGNORING what is actually written. It's the problem with both you and ED, and WHY you cannot support your "beliefs" with Scripture. In the end, the people you are following called for the Crucifixion of their own God. Jhn 19:6 WHY do you follow their thoughts?


http://classic.studylight.org/desk/?query=2ti+3:16&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en

2Ti 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Amen. It's truly a wonderful thing to be able to support your Faith with God's Holy Word. I suggest it to all religionists. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[EternalDragon]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Dad, God is correct but ancient goatherders were NOT, and that is who those who follow the traditional story of the Creation, are believing, while they are IGNORING what is actually written. It's the problem with both you and ED, and WHY you cannot support your "beliefs" with Scripture. In the end, the people you are following called for the Crucifixion of their own God. Jhn 19:6 WHY do you follow their thoughts?

You are going to have to include my entire church and millions of other Christians that have this so called "problem". In fact I have never heard such beliefs as from you.

 

[Kylie]

You don't. You see a ratio that probably was the same when this state started. No millions of years involved whatsoever. At least you didn't call me 'dear dad'.

You couldn't be more wrong. The ratio changes over time as parent decays to daughter material. we can look at the ratio and use that to determine how long ago there was only parent material with no daughter material.

And with the ratios we see today, it could only have been formed by decay that has been going on for millions of years. Your idea has not been able to explain this.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Dad, God is correct but ancient goatherders were NOT, and that is who those who follow the traditional story of the Creation, are believing, while they are IGNORING what is actually written. It's the problem with both you and ED, and WHY you cannot support your "beliefs" with Scripture. In the end, the people you are following called for the Crucifixion of their own God. Jhn 19:6 WHY do you follow their thoughts?

You are going to have to include my entire church and millions of other Christians that have this so called "problem". In fact I have never heard such beliefs as from you.

Dear ED, I know of No Christian Church which follows Jewish Theology, and yet many of them believe the Theology of Jews about the Creation story. Can you tell me WHY Christian Churches look to Jewish Theology in order to understand the Creation, while they reject Jewish Theology concerning Jesus?

God's Plan is perfect since ONLY those who have Faith in Jesus are born again and will enter Heaven. Since there are so many Creation Stories, from so many different denominations, NONE can be believed except by Faith that God told us the Truth in Genesis...UNLESS.... you read it for what it says instead of what you've been told it says, and see that it is the Truth in every way.

The traditional religious story of the Creation is NOT True Scripturally, just as the traditional Jewish view of Jesus is NOT True. If I can get you to just read it, you will see what I mean. Try to get it to agree with the views of your denomination. You will fail unless you reject the Scientific and Historic Truth, which has been discovered by man.

IOW, The traditional religious story of the Creation does NOT agree scripturally, scientifically, nor historically. That is because it is NOT God's Truth of the Creation. It's the misunderstandings of superstituous men who lived thousands of years before Science and education.

At the end of time, the Scoffers of the last days will NOT believe that the world of Adam was totally destroyed in the Flood nor that our world will be burned. ll Peter 3:3-7 Since this event is future, which would you call yourself? A Scoffer? Or a Bible believing Christian? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[dad]

Dear Dad, God is correct but ancient goatherders were NOT,...

Does that mean you do not accept the bible and the writers? Try being clear. There is a difference between being deep and just being unclear.

 

[dad]

You couldn't be more wrong.

We shall see.

The ratio changes over time as parent decays to daughter material.

Only if the state were the same! That you do not know. The only time we have seen anything change is a hundred years or whatever. (since science discovered radioactive decay). You cannot arbitrarily assign a same state past as the sole reason for all the daughter! That is belief only.

we can look at the ratio and use that to determine how long ago there was only parent material with no daughter material.

No you sure can't!!!! If the daughter was already here that just doesn't work. The only daughter that would work for would be the daughter isotopes produced since this state started. You can't follow decay back unless we have this state!

And with the ratios we see today, it could only have been formed by decay that has been going on for millions of years.

Wrong! IF there were a present state, THEN the present decay would have formed all the daughter. IF there were a different state the daughter could have been here already. How on earth could you know which it was??


Get it yet?

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Dad, God is correct but ancient goatherders were NOT,...
​

Does that mean you do not accept the bible and the writers?

Dear Dad, I accept the Literal Truth of the Bible and its author, God, the Holy Spirit and the men who wrote it down, as the ONE Truth, which I call God's Truth. This ONE Truth MUST agree with every other discovered Truth or it is NOT God's Truth.

Try being clear. There is a difference between being deep and just being unclear.

You noticed that I was a Fundamentalist concerning Jesus and Salvation. I am also a Fundie when it comes to God's Holy Word. I believe every Jot and Tittle of it, as you should be able to see from the fact that I call it God's Holy Word more than I refer to it as the Bible. To me it's Holy and God breathed from inside the men who penned it. The Miracle is that God brought it down through the Ages, through the hands of mortal men and STILL presented it to us Perfect. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[dad]

Dear Dad, I accept the Literal Truth of the Bible and its author, God, the Holy Spirit and the men who wrote it down, as the ONE Truth, which I call God's Truth. This ONE Truth MUST agree with every other discovered Truth or it is NOT God's Truth.

So you trust man's word over God's. OK. You say it must agree or it can be discarded.

To me it's Holy and God breathed from inside the men who penned it. The Miracle is that God brought it down through the Ages, through the hands of mortal men and STILL presented it to us Perfect. God Bless you.

Perfect only as long as it agrees with what so called science believes, and it's fables??

 

[Kylie]

We shall see.

Yeah yeah...

Only if the state were the same! That you do not know. The only time we have seen anything change is a hundred years or whatever. (since science discovered radioactive decay). You cannot arbitrarily assign a same state past as the sole reason for all the daughter! That is belief only.

You seem to be so insistant on arguing this that you bring it up even when I am stating a fact we both agree on. In this state, parent material decays to daughter material which then decays to grand daughter material. why are you arguing this?

No you sure can't!!!! If the daughter was already here that just doesn't work. The only daughter that would work for would be the daughter isotopes produced since this state started. You can't follow decay back unless we have this state!

Well, what if we had some way to check?

Wrong! IF there were a present state, THEN the present decay would have formed all the daughter. IF there were a different state the daughter could have been here already. How on earth could you know which it was??

Okay, here's how you know...

Let's say we have a lump of P, which is the parent material. P has a half life of 100,000 years and decays into D, daughter material. D has a half life of 50,000 years and decays into G, grand-daughter material, which is stable.

We analyze this lump and find that 50% is P, 12.5% is D and the rest is G.

This is consistant with the lump being 100,000 years old. Half of the original amount of P has decayed, which is why we see there is only 50% of P. But how can we know that the other stuff, the D and G, was the product of decay, and wasn't just there by chance?

Well, if the original lump of pure P has been decaying, for a hundred thousand years, then 50% has decayed to D (which decays further to G). In the first 50,000 years, this 50% of the original volume decays, leaving 25% of the original volume as D. In the second 50,000 years, it decays again, leaving 12.5% of the original volume as D. As D decays, it forms G, which is stable, so it doesn't decay any further.

So, if we see this particular ratio of 50% P, 12.5%D and 37.5% G, then it matches perfectly with the idea that all the material is the result of decay.

However, if we saw 50%P, 25%D and 25%G, then this would not match and we would know the radiodating technique was flawed.

Funnily enough, the ratios we see ALWAYS fit what we expect from radioactive decay.

You cannot explain this.

Get it yet?

Yes. I think I've demonstrated that I understand radioactive decay a great deal more than you.

 

[dad]

You seem to be so insistant on arguing this that you bring it up even when I am stating a fact we both agree on. In this state, parent material decays to daughter material which then decays to grand daughter material. why are you arguing this?

Long as you do not claim that all the daughter got there in this state, I am not. That isn't saying much! Do you realize how much of a daughter isotope would be produced in a material with a long half life (say a billion year half life)-in just the last 4400 years!!!!!?

Well, what if we had some way to check?

Then you could talk about it.

Let's say we have a lump of P, which is the parent material. P has a half life of 100,000 years and decays into D, daughter material. D has a half life of 50,000 years and decays into G, grand-daughter material, which is stable.

We analyze this lump and find that 50% is P, 12.5% is D and the rest is G.

This is consistant with the lump being 100,000 years old. Half of the original amount of P has decayed, which is why we see there is only 50% of P. But how can we know that the other stuff, the D and G, was the product of decay, and wasn't just there by chance?

Nope. That is not checking anything! That is imposing a belief. You look at all the stuff that is here, and assume that it got here in this state! In reality, the stuff that was produced by decay in the (for example, if my date for the nature change is right) last 4400 years, is very small. That is all you can check. The rest you believe. Actually you can't really check even that, as science has only been checking for a limited time! So all you can do is look at the sum of material, and label it with names, according to the processes and behaviors in this state! (parent, granddaughter..etc)

Well, if the original lump of pure P has been decaying, for a hundred thousand years, then 50% has decayed to D (which decays further to G).

And, conversely, if there was no decay, it hasn't! So? All science can say is that is now decays.

In the first 50,000 years, this 50% of the original volume decays, leaving 25% of the original volume as D. In the second 50,000 years, it decays again, leaving 12.5% of the original volume as D. As D decays, it forms G, which is stable, so it doesn't decay any further.

Inside your theory, yes. In reality, no. The stable stuff was here! None of your modeling can work beyond this state. You cannot use it to determine the state. Circular reasoning.

So, if we see this particular ratio of 50% P, 12.5%D and 37.5% G, then it matches perfectly with the idea that all the material is the result of decay.

No, it matches a theoretical model of decay, in that it extends the pattern we now see in this state now caused by decay, into all time. Assuming that the half lives are not more than several thousand years, we know the daughter materials were produced here. Beyond that, you don't.

However, if we saw 50%P, 25%D and 25%G, then this would not match and we would know the radiodating technique was flawed.

The patterns would match, whatever the state was, because once in this state, the material, in the pattern it existed in, would simply start to obey new rules. You cannot attribute it all to this state.

Get it yet?

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Dad, I accept the Literal Truth of the Bible and its author, God, the Holy Spirit and the men who wrote it down, as the ONE Truth, which I call God's Truth. This ONE Truth MUST agree with every other discovered Truth or it is NOT God's Truth.
​

So you trust man's word over God's. OK. You say it must agree or it can be discarded.

Dear Dad, No, but IF you cannot show the agreement of Scripture with the discoveries of Science and History, you can make up anything you wish and CLAIM it's Scripture. Right?

To me it's Holy and God breathed from inside the men who penned it. The Miracle is that God brought it down through the Ages, through the hands of mortal men and STILL presented it to us Perfect. God Bless you.

Perfect only as long as it agrees with what so called science believes, and it's fables??

False. I didn't say that. The Bible is perfect and it also agrees with EVERY other discovered Truth. That is HOW I know that it's perfect. Is YOUR interpretation perfect? or does it DISAGREE with the confirmed discoveries of men?

The ONLY thing about Scripture which must be taken by Faith is the death, burial, and resurrection the third day, of Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[dad]

Dear Dad, No, but IF you cannot show the agreement of Scripture with the discoveries of Science and History, you can make up anything you wish and CLAIM it's Scripture. Right?

Absurd. God's word pre dates science and will out date it. One does not decide whether it is true by checking with science. The other way round actually.

False. I didn't say that. The Bible is perfect and it also agrees with EVERY other discovered Truth. That is HOW I know that it's perfect.

Jesus is the only way. Not just one way, that has to agree with the other ways!

The ONLY thing about Scripture which must be taken by Faith is the death, burial, and resurrection the third day, of Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures.

Not at all. Jesus came to fulfill the scripture, so He took it seriously! Every jot and flippin tittle.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Dad, No, but IF you cannot show the agreement of Scripture with the discoveries of Science and History, you can make up anything you wish and CLAIM it's Scripture. Right?

Absurd. God's word pre dates science and will out date it. One does not decide whether it is true by checking with science. The other way round actually.

Dear Dad, That is HOW we know that God wrote Genesis. He got the latest discoveries of Science and History absolutely correct, in Genesis. NO ancient goatherder understood, and yet YOU follow their thoughts. Right? Do you also believe we will Never fly? like they did?


False. I didn't say that. The Bible is perfect and it also agrees with EVERY other discovered Truth. That is HOW I know that it's perfect.

​

Jesus is the only way. Not just one way, that has to agree with the other ways!

Of course since Scripture tells us of Him. Jesus said: Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me.

Why do you doubt what is written in the Bible. Is it because you trust men more than God's Holy Word?

The ONLY thing about Scripture which must be taken by Faith is the death, burial, and resurrection the third day, of Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures.
​

Not at all. Jesus came to fulfill the scripture, so He took it seriously! Every jot and flippin tittle.

So do I, but you seem to believe things which are obviously False. ie. That the world was divided Physically just a few thousand years ago. You don't have a Masters in Geology. Do you? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Kylie]

Long as you do not claim that all the daughter got there in this state, I am not. That isn't saying much! Do you realize how much of a daughter isotope would be produced in a material with a long half life (say a billion year half life)-in just the last 4400 years!!!!!?

You just like arguing for the sake of it.

Then you could talk about it.

So let's use different techniques. Each is entirely independent of the others, so if you are right, why would they give the same results?

Nope. That is not checking anything! That is imposing a belief. You look at all the stuff that is here, and assume that it got here in this state! In reality, the stuff that was produced by decay in the (for example, if my date for the nature change is right) last 4400 years, is very small. That is all you can check. The rest you believe. Actually you can't really check even that, as science has only been checking for a limited time! So all you can do is look at the sum of material, and label it with names, according to the processes and behaviors in this state! (parent, granddaughter..etc)

You don't seem to be comprehending what I said. It is not a belief. It is a fact. It is not a belief to say that there are ratios which will support it and other ratios which will prove it wrong. It is also a fact that we only ever find the ratios that support it and we never find the ratios that would prove it wrong. EVERY single example has fit within the idea without problem. If what you say is true, then this could not possibly be the case.

And, conversely, if there was no decay, it hasn't! So? All science can say is that is now decays.

You are ignoring the ratios again. You will learn nothing as long as you ignore aspects of reality.

Inside your theory, yes. In reality, no. The stable stuff was here! None of your modeling can work beyond this state. You cannot use it to determine the state. Circular reasoning.

If the theory was wrong, then we would see examples of radioactive decay where the ratios are impossible if the state has been the same. This never happens. Everything we see is consistent with the laws remaining the same.

No, it matches a theoretical model of decay, in that it extends the pattern we now see in this state now caused by decay, into all time. Assuming that the half lives are not more than several thousand years, we know the daughter materials were produced here. Beyond that, you don't.

A model of decay which could not possibly exist if the laws of physics had changed at some point in the comparatively recent past.

The patterns would match, whatever the state was, because once in this state, the material, in the pattern it existed in, would simply start to obey new rules. You cannot attribute it all to this state.

Yes, it would start to obey new rules, but that does not mean that it could accumulate several hundred thousand years of decay in only a few thousand years. The present state laws do not allow for this. Your explanation fails.

Get it yet?

Better than you.

 

[dad]

You just like arguing for the sake of it.

You lack comprehension.

So let's use different techniques. Each is entirely independent of the others, so if you are right, why would they give the same results?

They are all same state past religion...every method. All. Really.

You don't seem to be comprehending what I said. It is not a belief. It is a fact. It is not a belief to say that there are ratios which will support it and other ratios which will prove it wrong.

Forget the ratios. Obviously we have ratios! Your claims about how they got here are what is belief!

It is also a fact that we only ever find the ratios that support it and we never find the ratios that would prove it wrong.

False. No ratio helps a same state past in any way whatsoever. You really are missing the gist here entirely.

EVERY single example has fit within the idea without problem. If what you say is true, then this could not possibly be the case.

False. If there were isotopes, when this state started, of course they would assume the present state positions, and behavior. Things must obey the laws here.

If the theory was wrong, then we would see examples of radioactive decay where the ratios are impossible if the state has been the same.

Show one example. I think you are deluding yourself.

This never happens. Everything we see is consistent with the laws remaining the same.

Also consistent with them being different, so that says nothing!

A model of decay which could not possibly exist if the laws of physics had changed at some point in the comparatively recent past.

No, not changed...started! What changed was different, not this present state nor IT'S laws! We are the change.

Yes, it would start to obey new rules, but that does not mean that it could accumulate several hundred thousand years of decay in only a few thousand years.

If the old relationship did not involve decay, then you are trying to look at this present state and time and impose it's decay where there was none!

How sweet it is.