Dissecting an actual science article

[AirPo]

Not anything at all.

Not nothing at all. Entertaining at least. Thanks for all the laughs.

 

[AirPo]

Depends on what is believed in and on.

Which you seem to hold in contempt.

 

[dad]

Which you seem to hold in contempt.

Demons I hate, God's good spirits I love.

 

[AirPo]

Demons I hate, God's good spirits I love.

The contempt seems to be with faith, not God, spirits, or love.

 

[dad]

The contempt seems to be with faith, not God, spirits, or love.

Only when said faith is ungodly and blind faith that is falsely labeled science.

 

[AirPo]

Only when said faith is ungodly and blind faith that is falsely labeled science.

Well then, perhaps consider not labeling science as blind faith.

 

[dad]

Well then, perhaps consider not labeling science as blind faith.

Why not? It is. Try to show any origins issue that is not wholly based on blind faith and see.

 

[AirPo]

Why not? It is. Try to show any origins issue that is not wholly based on blind faith and see.

Because it's contemptable and not true. A double whammy!

 

[dad]

Because it's contemptable and not true. A double whammy!

Radioactive decay, and photosynthesis and adapting, and thermodynamics, and etc all require and result from our forces and laws. One must admit that these must exist in the far past for the models of 'science' to have any credence at all. We need to do more than wave and cross fingers and believe real hard for no apparent demonstrable reasons here.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That says little about the laws that existed.

Quite the opposite, actually.

In simple terms... If you find a body from someone that died from a gunshot to the head, then that fatal wound tells you a lot about the physics involved.

If the "laws that existed" were different, then the gunshot wound won't look like we would expect it to.

Ancient rocks, ice, fossils, geological layers etc aren't any different.
Neither are stars that are observed by satelites like Hubble, or distant planets observed by Keppler.

For example, erosion by water happens in a specific way, which is very closely tied to all kinds of physical laws. Gravity, friction, rock densities, deposit rates, chemistry,... They all play a role in how running water behaves and what its effect is on the rock beneath / around / in it. Different laws would produce different results.

Historical proof abounds.

When I ask for substance of a claim, I mean to provide actual data in support of the claim. Not merely a repeat of the claim, or the assertion that the evidence exists, without pointing out what it is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Even before He comes to take over, it seems the world changes a lot. In the tribulation, the stars fall, sun goes out, angels are on earth, and demons, etc.

Stars "fall"?

Will "the sky fall to the earth" as well, by any chance?

It's like your scientific knowledge is limited to what the ancient Gauls and Kelts believed.

 

[dad]

Quite the opposite, actually.

In simple terms... If you find a body from someone that died from a gunshot to the head, then that fatal wound tells you a lot about the physics involved.

Produce any body from Noah's or Adam's day then? Why talk?

If the "laws that existed" were different, then the gunshot wound won't look like we would expect it to.

Let's see you shoot Noah and we'll see how fast he heals then.

Ancient rocks, ice, fossils, geological layers etc aren't any different.

Yes.. they actually exist! You never actually visited the far past or any bodies in Noah's day.
Layers exist, the issue is how fast they were laid down and under what laws. Just saying 'layers..layers' doesn't help your same state past fantasy. Nor does saying 'ice' or 'rocks'.

Neither are stars that are observed by satelites like Hubble, or distant planets observed by Keppler.

We see stars here where God designed we see them. Here we have a space and time that results in certain realities, that could never exist where stars are just because you blindly wish them to!

For example, erosion by water happens in a specific way, which is very closely tied to all kinds of physical laws.

You make my point for me! So if the laws were different, then....?

Gravity, friction, rock densities, deposit rates, chemistry,... They all play a role in how running water behaves and what its effect is on the rock beneath / around / in it. Different laws would produce different results.

Explain with any specific example how that would be the case?? How would isotopes that now exist in our state, not have existed in the former one?? What, they would disappear when the laws changed? Or would the merely start to conform and operate according to whatever forces and laws exist??

 

[dad]

Stars "fall"?

Yes. I believe they will. I believe science has no real clue what stars really are, where they came from, how far or big the are...or what space and time are like where they are. There is also an association with fallen angels to stars. Science of course has no clue about this.

You do not really know what it is all about. Science does not know what it is really all about at all. Their little pagan mental projections of the universe are wholly founded on beliefs, and darkly inspired fishbowl philosophy.

It's like your scientific knowledge is limited to what the ancient Gauls and Kelts believed.

In some ways they had more on the ball than so called science today.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Produce any body from Noah's or Adam's day then? Why talk?

We can only find things that actually existed.

You never actually visited the far past or any bodies in Noah's day.

Are you playing dumb on purpose here?

I was merely explaining to you that past events leave evidence behind that we can look at and study. That evidence tells us about the event, and the nature thereof, that took place.

We know how water erodes rock. We know how rock that was eroded by water, looks like. Erosion by water, the mechanics thereof, is determined by the physics involved, the chemical composition of the water and the rock, etc.

This means that if we find a billion year old canyon, which looks perfectly consistent with what we know about the physics involved in water erosion today, we can safely conclude that the physics involved in that canyon formation a billion years ago, was exactly the same as it the physics involved today.

That was the point. A point which you either deliberatly ignored, or you really are simply incapable of comprehending it.

Considering your posting history, I think it's the latter.
Or you are the most consistent and determined Poe that I've ever met.

Layers exist, the issue is how fast they were laid down and under what laws.

All available data is consistent with a slow laydown and the exact same laws that we know and understand. There is no data to suggest anything else. And your fantasy or religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Just saying 'layers..layers' doesn't help your same state past fantasy

The only one here with a "state past fantasy", is you, obviously.

We see stars here where God designed we see them. Here we have a space and time that results in certain realities, that could never exist where stars are just because you blindly wish them to!

See? Fantasy.

You make my point for me! So if the laws were different, then....?

How you got that from what I said, is beyond me.

Explain with any specific example how that would be the case??

Are you joking?
You don't understand how different physics, would produce different results?

How would isotopes that now exist in our state, not have existed in the former one?? What, they would disappear when the laws changed? Or would the merely start to conform and operate according to whatever forces and laws exist??

Everything that exists, is shaped according to the laws of nature. Different laws produce different results.

For example, remove gravity, and you'll no longer have any stars or planets.
Change the strong nuclear force, and it will impact the very nature and composition of atoms.

It's really strange that you need to have that explained to you, in the 21st century...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes. I believe they will.

You can believe all kinds of things. But that doesn't make it true or sensible.

And this particular thing is remarkably nonsensical. Stars "fall"? Where to? The earth? lol.

Or does the universe have some "floor" that will suddenly exert such extreme gravity that stars (and planets) will suddenly fall "down" to it?

What exactly do you mean when you say that "stars will fall"?

I believe science has no real clue what stars really are, where they came from, how far or big the are...

Well again, you can believe all kinds of things.
But you might want to go outside for a moment and look at the gian ball of nuclear infurnus in the sky. We call it the sun.

There is also an association with fallen angels to stars

In your mythology?

Science of course has no clue about this.

That's beause science deals with real things, not with mythology.

 

[SkyWriting]

You have failed to show why this should be seen as hilarious.
Exclamation marks do not suffice.

Experiments are supposed to change only one variable in order
to isolate the effect of one factor of an event or outcome.

In this case they used synthetic rock and tested it for properties
and imagined it was similar to a planet.

 

[dad]

We can only find things that actually existed.

Oh? So can you find the river that fed the Oklo reactor? Can you find the hot little soup science says the bing bang started from? Can you find Napoleon? Can you find the Neanderthal leader and his second wife? Can you find the core of the earth?

You see the thing is, you just say some things existed or not. Your ability to find whatever actually existed is so laughably infinitesimal, that one could not base what existed..or not..on your ability to find.

Are you playing dumb on purpose here?

I was merely explaining to you that past events leave evidence behind that we can look at and study. That evidence tells us about the event, and the nature thereof, that took place.

We know how water erodes rock. We know how rock that was eroded by water, looks like. Erosion by water, the mechanics thereof, is determined by the physics involved, the chemical composition of the water and the rock, etc.

The point is that water now erodes rocks based on certain realities..like the consistency of rock, which in turn is due to atomic realities, which is in turn due to the forces and laws that exist! There is also factors like how a chemical reaction occurred, such as we see limestone today greatly affected by chemical reactions...again all dependent on the physics of the day. Then there were the fountains of the deep, that may have daily produced pools, or whatever, that affected the way things eroded. Then there is the flood, that was a lot of water doing a lot of eroding fast...etc etc. The way you look at eroding or continental drift or etc etc is purely religious and through a same state past, uiformitarian narrow minded lenses!

This means that if we find a billion year old canyon, which looks perfectly consistent with what we know about the physics involved in water erosion today, we can safely conclude that the physics involved in that canyon formation a billion years ago, was exactly the same as it the physics involved today.

No, it means you ignore things like possible post flood lakes suddenly being released, the flood, the post flood worldwide mountain building and uplifting and continent movement, and etc. You look cultishly and methodically only for causes that would have to have been caused by the present state and it's processes, and laws.

All available data is consistent with a slow laydown and the exact same laws that we know and understand.

Easy to say. In reality that just means you molest all available data with your beliefs on what nature existed in the past. Show us a slow laydown for the Rocky mountains? Give some example of a laydown that had to be slow. Otherwise you are whistling Dixie.

Are you joking?
You don't understand how different physics, would produce different results?

No. Explain. Give one example.

Everything that exists, is shaped according to the laws of nature. Different laws produce different results.

Total belief. You were not there to see how almost all of what exists came to exist. The laws of nature would be after the fact, not the reason for existing generally. Yes, laws of nature affect the surface of the moon and earth, etc. But if the laws were different in the past, that would have also affected things. You need to know what is what and not just try to religiously pigionhole everything into your little beliefset.

For example, remove gravity, and you'll no longer have any stars or planets.

Why remove it? But what if gravity was not the only force around? There could be forces that balance each other, and result in a different outcome. Besides, forget the stars and gravity, you have not been there. Since there would need to be time existing in deep space for any of your calculations of sizes or distances to any star to be semi accurate, the reality is you know not ANY size or ANY distance to ANY star! Since size and distance are part of your calculations about what gravity does, forget about it!

Change the strong nuclear force, and it will impact the very nature and composition of atoms.

I know, but tha is irrelevant. Who says there was a strong nuclear force? We are not talking about hanging anything IN OUR state here! What changed is not here and our state is the result of the change!

It's really strange that you need to have that explained to you, in the 21st century...

I might say the same thing to you. You simply had no idea how little you really knew.

 

[dad]

Experiments are supposed to change only one variable in order
to isolate the effect of one factor of an event or outcome.

In this case they used synthetic rock and tested it for properties
and imagined it was similar to a planet.

I would have said that..if I'd thought of it

 

[dad]

You can believe all kinds of things. But that doesn't make it true or sensible.

And this particular thing is remarkably nonsensical. Stars "fall"? Where to? The earth? lol.

Yes. The universe is going dark soon. The stars are all going OUT. The sun also. The folks in the very end will be going by candlelight! Man has not been thankful to the creator, and will fight Him, and His people and kill them. Finally, they will not have trees and grass to be thankful for, or wind. Or the moonlight or sunlight or even stars. No fish in the sea or rivers, and all the water will be deathly foul. Be thankful for God's good creation people.

Or does the universe have some "floor" that will suddenly exert such extreme gravity that stars (and planets) will suddenly fall "down" to it?

The created 'universe' (this one we live in that was six days work for Jesus to make) we live in will roll up like a scroll and be no more. It will pass away and God will make new ones. The reality of the mysteries of space and matter and time and what it is really all about, are things far above the little pagan paygrade of so called science! You do not really know what stars are, what the sun is, or even what is in the center of the earth!

What exactly do you mean when you say that "stars will fall"?

The (at least the visible) stars will cease to shine and exist, and the demons associated with the stars will be sent to earth. The bottomless pit under the earth also will be opened up, and those demons incarcerated there will also stream out to join the fallen spirits from space, right here among men an this earth, and soon!

Well again, you can believe all kinds of things.
But you might want to go outside for a moment and look at the gian ball of nuclear infurnus in the sky. We call it the sun.

How you model that it works is based on ignorance and belief. You do not really know. You do not know how it got here, what will happen to it, how it actually works or why. So when you look up and enjoy that sun, remember it id from Jesus for you.

That's beause science deals with real things, not with mythology.

Science is fables and demonic dreaming and myth only. It knows relatively few real things and most of what is blabbers about is ungodly foolishness with zero basis in reality or fact or evidence.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

" ......... things like possible post flood lakes suddenly being released,......"

I like this. It brings all sorts of geological possibilities that would alter or obscure the uniform flood evidence that science insists on. I'm guessing there exists catchment areas and regions everywhere on earth that would mimic this were there to be another global flood.

It would be like the puddles in my parking lot after a rain.