Real time or evo time?

[AirPo]

Wish I could say the same, your posting empty spam with no content whatsoever got old years ago.

So did yours.

 

[dad]

That's all you can really do, isn't it? Belittle my posts and pretend that I don't make arguments.

Wholly faith based arguments hastily tossed out on a science forum, in a hit and run manner, and not followed up on or supported in any way at all have no merit.

Of course. You have to dismiss anything that contradicts your beliefs, otherwise you would have to face the fact that your beliefs could be wrong. Can't have that.

Beliefs aside, the issue is whether you have concrete evidence and support for the ungodly so called science stories you push and endorse. Since you do not the only questions that remain are what belief is more well founded and historical, etc.

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], really? Are you really this immature? You really think anyone finds you convincing when you reply like this?

All I see here is bless and do not curse...and you call me immature??

No he didn't. You have old texts that say it happened, but I have old texts that say that a mouse helped pull a thorn out of a lion's paw.

The year is 2016, if you notice. There is a reason that they year os based on Jesus and not your science or your mouse.

They would, because your own argument says that after the state change the continents moved rapidly.

Yes at one time, there was a big event. That does not mean it happens every day forever. Like the flood, that was a big event, it doesn't mean we expect rain every day since! Get serious.

 

[dad]

So did yours.

No more than The bible or relativity.

 

[dad]

I was responding to your post, which I agree, is aimless wind.

Not interested in childish titfortat. Grow some arguments of consequence and get back to us.

 

[AirPo]

Not interested in childish titfortat. Grow some arguments of consequence and get back to us.

Yet you keep responding .

 

[AirPo]

Wholly faith based arguments hastily tossed out on a science forum, in a hit and run manner, and not followed up on or supported in any way at all have no merit.

That's what I've been saying about The HI Theory for years. Glad you get it.

 

[dad]

That's what I've been saying about The HI Theory for years. Glad you get it.

Science = your theory. ho hum

 

[dad]

Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
.

From your link

"

• The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
• The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
• Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
• Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
• Time dilation in supernova light curves."

The sky is dark, wow. This is news? Sorry that doesn't help you.

To associate distance with redshift, you need to know the distance. To know that, we need to know that time exists in the far universe as well as here. You do not, you have just assumed. As for creation looking the same from earth in all directions, that is no surprise since earth was created before the rest! Time dilation requires time. We have time here...there? You don't know do you now!?

 

[AirPo]

Science = your theory. ho hum

The HI Theory.

 

[dad]

The HI Theory.

You heard of the famous HI theory?

 

[AirPo]

You heard of the famous HI theory?

Well, it's real so yeah.

 

[lesliedellow]

I was responding to your post, which I agree, is aimless wind.

There is no point in trying to argue with somebody with his own private physics, which physics is shared by no physicist in the world. I gave up long ago.

 

[AirPo]

There is no point in trying to argue with somebody with his own private physics, which physics is shared by no physicist in the world. I gave up long ago.

You think The HI Theory is arguing?

 

[AirPo]

Wish I could say the same, your posting empty spam with no content whatsoever got old years ago.

So did yours.

No more than The bible or relativity.

You're saying the Bible is years old empty spam?

Nathan?

 

[Kylie]

Wholly faith based arguments hastily tossed out on a science forum, in a hit and run manner, and not followed up on or supported in any way at all have no merit.

It always makes me laugh when believers say things like that, as though "religious belief" and "faith" are such bad things.

And, btw, I have backed up my claims. You are the one invoking the Bible as evidence and not supporting your claims with anything from reality.

Beliefs aside, the issue is whether you have concrete evidence and support for the ungodly so called science stories you push and endorse. Since you do not the only questions that remain are what belief is more well founded and historical, etc.

I do have evidence. You cannot make it go away by saying it isn't there.

The year is 2016, if you notice. There is a reason that they year os based on Jesus and not your science or your mouse.

Is this really an argument you think works? Wednesday is named after Woden. Thursday is named after Thor. Perhaps they were real too?

Yes at one time, there was a big event. That does not mean it happens every day forever. Like the flood, that was a big event, it doesn't mean we expect rain every day since! Get serious.

So were the continents moving rapidly before or after the state change?

 

[dad]

There is no point in trying to argue with somebody with his own private physics, which physics is shared by no physicist in the world. I gave up long ago.

Physicists go by today's laws. We all have those now. If you want to argue the same laws existed, do more than whine and act as if we must believe they were. The reason you can't debate is because you clearly failed to show any ability at all to be able to support your fantasies that you like to include as science.

 

[dad]

You're saying the Bible is years old empty spam?

Nathan?

I was pointing out your inability to defend the fables of science, make a bible case or do anything else but post empty blab.

 

[dad]

It always makes me laugh when believers say things like that, as though "religious belief" and "faith" are such bad things.

They are terrible things when they are presented to be knowledge fact and science.

And, btw, I have backed up my claims.

Sorry, you haven't in any way at all. Ask anyone that can read, and has patience to go back and drudge up some of your stuff.

You are the one invoking the Bible as evidence and not supporting your claims with anything from reality.

Scripture is part of reality. Unsupported fables of weird little hot soup specks tooting out the universe are far from reality.

I do have evidence. You cannot make it go away by saying it isn't there.

We get it. You insist on pretending you posted something somewhere sometime. Pretend all you like. What would you think if you read your posts and kept seeing such empty allusions??

Is this really an argument you think works? Wednesday is named after Woden. Thursday is named after Thor. Perhaps they were real too?

Yes. Demons. But it was the Great Spirit that had the years reset to mark when He came!

So were the continents moving rapidly before or after the state change?

Finally, a good question. I would say before and during. Now I think Walt Brown posited that the move was rapid, I think maybe a day or a few days so? Now if he was right, the evidence suggests to me that near the end of that fast move the state had changed! There was a lot of molten rock and heat and volcanic activity, so I assume our laws had come to exist near the final phase of the move.
(If Walt's timing was wrong, and it took longer, say years or decades, or a century or whatever, then I would still expect the great heat near the end of the event).