Real time or evo time?

[dad]

You repeating your claims without actually providing evidence to support them is meaningless and not impressive in the slightest. Care to try again?

The claims of Scripture regarding the extent of God's realm is not something science can deal with. It is foolish to ask for evidence within the tiny bubble that is science. Just as foolish as it would be to reject the long ages of rock solid proof that Scripture affords man.

 

[dad]

And everything you have proposed has no support in science, and no support in the Bible either. We're both in the same same situation, except for one difference - I know what I'm saying is nonsense.

Nothing I say is unsupported by the bible. Nothing I say can be challenged by science, and nothing I ever say opposes real knowledge or fact or actual science.

You need to use a hypothetical because you have nothing real you can actually use.

Educated guesses are not random actually.

In other words, you are now invoking something to balance it all out.

It fits the evidence and history and the bible and answers the question about why modern science has drastically missed the mark.

Statistics is very accurate when used correctly.

Try to use it on an origins issue and we will see what is correct and what is godless chinanigry.

Your ignorance of how statistics works is not a valid reason to say it is just a bunch of suppositions.

It is a bunch of suppositions. The stats MUST be based on something, so all we need to look at is what that is.

I suspect that the only reason you decry it so is in order to dismiss it whenever it goes against what you want to believe. Likewise for probability.

What is probable in the creation debate depends on if there was a creation, and a God, and etc etc. One cannot claim a monopoly on what is probable based solely on beliefs.

And I love how you are perfectly happy to agree that evolution is real, then dismiss it as "a crazy religion with no basis, and a violently godless molestation of a small percentage of partial truth mixed with mountains of demonic insinuations, fables, foolish models, and cult like ignorance."

Evolving was a created trait, so naturally a lot happened and very very fast in the former state. Even today we have some slow evolving going on. Thus far...and no further...you shall not pass.

You must be very used to such cognitive dissonance.

Very...I read the godless posts here.

When did I say that opals have anything to do with Nod?

Why bring it up then?

Hey, if we're just guessing, I might as well guess something fun.

Most folks here call that science.

But as to the question of what anyone is missing about evolution? That's easy. The anyone is you, and the bit you're missing is everything.

Stellar evolution, and evolution of life are both a steaming crock of fables. You will see no one defend them here...and remain standing for long.

 

[Kylie]

The claims of Scripture regarding the extent of God's realm is not something science can deal with. It is foolish to ask for evidence within the tiny bubble that is science. Just as foolish as it would be to reject the long ages of rock solid proof that Scripture affords man.

Stop avoiding the issue.

If you want me to accept something that you say, you are going to have to give me a reason to accept it. You seem incapable of doing this.

 

[dad]

If you want me to accept something that you say, you are going to have to give me a reason to accept it..

There is no reason to reject the long long long history that is pregnant with proofs of the spiritual, and the demonstrated power of God. While I cannot force anyone to deal in reality, I must, in all good conscience, at the same time, insist that it be part of serious models.

 

[Kylie]

There is no reason to reject the long long long history that is pregnant with proofs of the spiritual, and the demonstrated power of God. While I cannot force anyone to deal in reality, I must, in all good conscience, at the same time, insist that it be part of serious models.

Of course, there is no long history pregnant with proofs of the spiritual, nor the demonstrated power of God.

You merely have your interpretation of events that, while they have rational explanations, you have chosen to view through the filter of your religion and preconceived ideas.

And when that interpretation is unsupported by reality, that is indeed a very good reason to reject it.

(oh, and you don't get to claim it is a serious model when you can't actually use it to tell us anything concrete. All you've done is guess work.)

 

[dad]

Of course, there is no long history pregnant with proofs of the spiritual, nor the demonstrated power of God.

No 2016 AD either?

You merely have your interpretation of events that, while they have rational explanations, ...

It is irrational to try to explain away the unexplained and, by natural means...unexplainable. But neither can you deny it with any reason or authority or fact.

And when that interpretation is unsupported by reality, that is indeed a very good reason to reject it.

When an explanation for the spiritual or miracles or angels or the Resurrection, or fulfilled prophesy is based on guesswork, and grasping at physical only solutions, no reality is involved at all.

(oh, and you don't get to claim it is a serious model when you can't actually use it to tell us anything concrete. All you've done is guess work.)

No model is required when we have the actual record of events and the past. Those who model are religious fanatics trying to use irrational explanations based only on what they fanatically choose to believe, and based on omitting what they desire to omit. The evil thing is when some try to call that fact or real science with a straight face...especially to young people.

 

[dad]

Please tell me you are not under the delusion that the fact that we live in 2016 AD could only come about if Jesus was really the son of God.

No. I won't tell you that.

Tuesday is named after Tiw, a one-handed god associated with combat. Wednesday was named after Woden, another god. [source] Do you think that means that those gods are real? Of course you don't. Then why do you think that our calandar system means Jesus was born then?

Yes, we will have to clean up the calendar big time, purge out the demonic names soon. Meanwhile we should be thankful that Jesus got the main spot in that show! It all points to Him, before and after He came to earth!
One interesting thing is that the evil last king on earth will think to change this also. Too bad all his changes will be vetoed and erased in jig time though!

Yes I can, and I will deny it until you can show that a natural explanation is impossible.

That would just show that you have chosen to ignore anything that is not in the little box of physical only nature of the present. Such denial is worthless.

I don't pick and choose what I accept as true based on what I like.

You just admitted you do pick only the physical natural, actually. Busted ye be.

I accept things as true based on the evidence.

In other words you reject all evidence without looking at it unless it suits your little closed minded religion of the present physical only nature....only that will you call evidence.

 

[dad]

Have done,...

Then you had nothing but closed minded religion, so no one cares if you repost it or not. I wouldn't if I were you either, since it is a joke.

Science shows it perfectly well. If you understood science, it would be shown to you as well.

If you understand science or some facet of it, post it. Otherwise you are like a cloud with no rain. A tempest in a tea cup.

One and the same.

You claim you know where Nod of Genesis is now?

Oh, you want me to give you every single example ever?

It is obvious that all explosions of stars observed were in recent history, if you mean those observed by science. Now if there is a spiritual component to the far parts of the created universe, as the bible suggests, we would need to view events accordingly to gain any insight of depth. Science does not do that. They have paganized the way creation is looked at. All things they claim must be looked at in that context. They seem to specialize in missing the point in the universe! They misunderstand by design, and choice and do so in a methodological way!

They do not even know what time is yet they claim time is involved in the far universe to the tune of billions of imaginary years! Since time is part of radioactive decay, and any importance of spectrology and is REQUIRED to know distances to any star plus sizes of any star, we have a lot of faith based pagan pipe dreaming being called cosmology today. Really.

More meaningless slogans from you. How about you address the ACTUAL POINT that I made?

No problem, I will interpret what you called a 'slogan' for you. Free of charge. If God's created universe includes spirits and a spiritual component, and/or has no time as we know it on earth, then it cannot be understood using just the things we see and feel, and experience on earth. Trying to do so is like trying to do a large puzzle while missing almost all the pieces.

Like I said, your ignorance of science means you can't recognise it when you see it.

Should we recognize it from your posts? Or are you happy just to pretend you are connected to and know all about it?

 

[Kylie]

No. I won't tell you that.

You don't need to. The answer is pretty clear.

Yes, we will have to clean up the calendar big time, purge out the demonic names soon. Meanwhile we should be thankful that Jesus got the main spot in that show! It all points to Him, before and after He came to earth!
One interesting thing is that the evil last king on earth will think to change this also. Too bad all his changes will be vetoed and erased in jig time though!

More wild claims. Let's wait and you can talk to me when it happens.

That would just show that you have chosen to ignore anything that is not in the little box of physical only nature of the present. Such denial is worthless.

No, I have chosen to ignore anything that can't be objectively checked and tested and verified.

If you can do that regarding ANY claim you make, I will accept it.

You just admitted you do pick only the physical natural, actually. Busted ye be.

I pick and choose on what can be tested and verified. I've said it so many times I've lost count.

In other words you reject all evidence without looking at it unless it suits your little closed minded religion of the present physical only nature....only that will you call evidence.

Please. I'm willing to change my mind based on new evidence. Are you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Correction - they are products of BELIEVING in a God.

Then fallen objects are products of BELIEVING in gravity.

I mean, if that's what counts as evidence for God to you, then I can give you lots of evidence of Allah, Ganesh, even Harry Potter or Darth Vader.

And I can put apples on the ground and say they fell there.

 

[Kylie]

Then you had nothing but closed minded religion, so no one cares if you repost it or not. I wouldn't if I were you either, since it is a joke.

Once again, all you can do is belittle my position, without doing anything more than saying, "Fraid not!"

If you understand science or some facet of it, post it. Otherwise you are like a cloud with no rain. A tempest in a tea cup.

Have done. If you understood science or any facet of it, you'd have recognised it.

You claim you know where Nod of Genesis is now?

Yep. Prove me wrong.

It is obvious that all explosions of stars observed were in recent history, if you mean those observed by science. Now if there is a spiritual component to the far parts of the created universe, as the bible suggests, we would need to view events accordingly to gain any insight of depth. Science does not do that. They have paganized the way creation is looked at. All things they claim must be looked at in that context. They seem to specialize in missing the point in the universe! They misunderstand by design, and choice and do so in a methodological way!

They do not even know what time is yet they claim time is involved in the far universe to the tune of billions of imaginary years! Since time is part of radioactive decay, and any importance of spectrology and is REQUIRED to know distances to any star plus sizes of any star, we have a lot of faith based pagan pipe dreaming being called cosmology today. Really.

And yet not a single shred of evidence to support this. It's getting boring.

No problem, I will interpret what you called a 'slogan' for you. Free of charge. If God's created universe includes spirits and a spiritual component, and/or has no time as we know it on earth, then it cannot be understood using just the things we see and feel, and experience on earth. Trying to do so is like trying to do a large puzzle while missing almost all the pieces.

That's a big if.

But, if this is true, shouldn't we see things that are impossible to our present state laws?

Should we recognize it from your posts? Or are you happy just to pretend you are connected to and know all about it?

Since you know nothing about science, why should we think you are in any position to comment about my knowledge of science.

After all, the pigeon doesn't know if the chess grandmaster can play chess or not.

 

[Kylie]

Then fallen objects are products of BELIEVING in gravity.

And if you don't believe in gravity, then they just float in mid air!

And I can put apples on the ground and say they fell there.

And they would be no more proof of gravity than hymns are proof of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

And they would be no more proof of gravity than hymns are proof of God.

God?

I was referring to your remark about evidence of Allah, Ganesh, even Harry Potter or Darth Vader.

Did you forget you wanted to shift the focus off of God?

 

[Kylie]

God?

I was referring to your remark about evidence of Allah, Ganesh, even Harry Potter or Darth Vader.

Did you forget you wanted to shift the focus off of God?

Do you understand analogies at all? People create works of art based off ideas. It doesn't matter if it is a hymn or a Harry Potter fanfic. My analogy was stating that the existence of these artworks does not give any indication as to the factualness of the idea that inspired them.

Geez, why do I have to explain this?

 

[dad]

I have chosen to ignore anything that can't be objectively checked and tested and verified.

So do you ignore the universe? Or have you checked and tested it? Where does it end? Have you checked out spirits and angels? Or maybe we should ignore the billions of folks over history that believe in them? Should we ignore that Jesus lived? Or should we wait till you check it out objectively?

How about when the universe unfolds differently than the theories of science thought? Should we add all the past instances of science being wrong and not being objective?

I see in the news, that the chemical composition of a star is at odds with what they thought.

"
The ALMA observations revealed that this newly discovered core in the LMC has a very different composition to similar objects found in the Milky Way. The most prominent chemical signatures in the LMC core include familiar molecules such as sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, and formaldehyde -- alongside the ubiquitous dust. But several organic compounds, including methanol (the simplest alcohol molecule), had remarkably low abundance in the newly detected hot molecular core. In contrast, cores in the Milky Way have been observed to contain a wide assortment of complex organic molecules, including methanol and ethanol.

Takashi Shimonishi explains: "The observations suggest that the molecular compositions of materials that form stars and planets are much more diverse than we expected."

The LMC has a low abundance of elements other than hydrogen or helium [3]. The research team suggests that this very different galactic environment has affected the molecule-forming processes taking place surrounding the newborn star ST11. This could account for the observed differences in chemical compositions."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160929082019.htm

Please. I'm willing to change my mind based on new evidence. Are you?

Of course I have to be wiling to change my mind on all clams of science. The claims fall by the wayside in predictable patterns and face inevitable extinction. The word of God changes not though. It stands through the ages. Unscathed. Undefeated. Undeniable.

 

[dad]

Have done. If you understood science or any facet of it, you'd have recognised it.

If it was more than belief based hoey I would have spotted it a mile away.

But, if this is true, shouldn't we see things that are impossible to our present state laws?

No. Whatever we see exists here. If we see photon streams from a star..they are HERE. Here in space and time as we know it. If there were spirits and spiritual things obviously science would not see that. Whatever they see, they see here, and only see what they can see. Pitiful.

Since you know nothing about science, why should we think you are in any position to comment about my knowledge of science.

We all are in a position to comment on hat you do not post!

After all, the pigeon doesn't know if the chess grandmaster can play chess or not.

In a new study from the University of Iowa, researchers found that pigeons can categorize and name both natural and manmade objects -- and not just a few objects. These birds categorized 128 photographs into 16 categories, and they did so simultaneously.
Credit: Illustration by John Petsel (B.F.A. '15 in graphic design).

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150204184447.htm

Seems to ne evos can't even categorize truth from fiction!

 

[Kylie]

So do you ignore the universe? Or have you checked and tested it? Where does it end?

I check as much of it as I am able to. Scientists can check a lot more of it than I can, and I go by what they find.

Have you checked out spirits and angels?

No I haven't, as I have never encountered them. Please, provide one for me and I shall check it ASAP.

Or maybe we should ignore the billions of folks over history that believe in them?

I'm perfectly willing to believe in what other people say about angels and spirits. However, since I have not found anyone who has examined them in a way that is rigorous and thorough and lends itself to testing and checking, and also since there are many different claims made about spirits and angels, I have concluded that now objective information about spirits or angels exists. Not that I have encountered, anyway.

But if such information exists, please provide it. (People telling stories about them is not objective information, that is hearsay.)

Should we ignore that Jesus lived? Or should we wait till you check it out objectively?

I have, and I have not found any convincing evidence that he ever lived. All I've seen is accounts written after the events they allege to describe, and also accounts that were written by people who weren't there. No primary sources.

How about when the universe unfolds differently than the theories of science thought? Should we add all the past instances of science being wrong and not being objective?

Yes, science has been wrong. But the nature of science is that it corrects itself. New evidence is not vehemently denied by scientists because they already believe in something different. They test the new evidence, and if the evidence withstands that testing, then they change their views accordingly. I can name several examples of this. The evidence for the Big Bang, plate tectonics (which altered a few times as new evidence was discovered).

In any case, you have a much higher proportion of being wrong about reality than science does.

I see in the news, that the chemical composition of a star is at odds with what they thought.

"
The ALMA observations revealed that this newly discovered core in the LMC has a very different composition to similar objects found in the Milky Way. The most prominent chemical signatures in the LMC core include familiar molecules such as sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, and formaldehyde -- alongside the ubiquitous dust. But several organic compounds, including methanol (the simplest alcohol molecule), had remarkably low abundance in the newly detected hot molecular core. In contrast, cores in the Milky Way have been observed to contain a wide assortment of complex organic molecules, including methanol and ethanol.

Takashi Shimonishi explains: "The observations suggest that the molecular compositions of materials that form stars and planets are much more diverse than we expected."

The LMC has a low abundance of elements other than hydrogen or helium [3]. The research team suggests that this very different galactic environment has affected the molecule-forming processes taking place surrounding the newborn star ST11. This could account for the observed differences in chemical compositions."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160929082019.htm

Different to what they expected. The models that lead them to expect one thing are still quite accurate, as evidenced by the fact that they describe the vast majority of stars quite well.

Your argument seems to be like declaring a map should be thrown out as useless because it got the position of one laneway wrong by two meters.

Of course I have to be wiling to change my mind on all clams of science. The claims fall by the wayside in predictable patterns and face inevitable extinction. The word of God changes not though. It stands through the ages. Unscathed. Undefeated. Undeniable.

*Sigh*

Except you don't care about science, it seems. You care about matching up what science presents with your ideas about your religion. If they don't contradict, then you are happy with the science. But if they do contradict, then you automatically assume that the science is wrong, and not your interpretation of your religion.

 

[Kylie]

If it was more than belief based hoey I would have spotted it a mile away.

HA! Have you ever heard of the Dunning Kruger effect?

No. Whatever we see exists here. If we see photon streams from a star..they are HERE. Here in space and time as we know it. If there were spirits and spiritual things obviously science would not see that. Whatever they see, they see here, and only see what they can see. Pitiful.

So a photon that comes from a faraway star that exists in a different state part of the universe passes through some sort of magical barrier that changes it to a regular photon instead of a different state whatever-it-was?

We all are in a position to comment on hat you do not post!

And yet I don't see others claiming my claims about science are wrong. It seems that by "we", you are referring just to yourself.

In a new study from the University of Iowa, researchers found that pigeons can categorize and name both natural and manmade objects -- and not just a few objects. These birds categorized 128 photographs into 16 categories, and they did so simultaneously.
Credit: Illustration by John Petsel (B.F.A. '15 in graphic design).

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150204184447.htm

Seems to ne evos can't even categorize truth from fiction!

If you think that categorising pictures is the same as being able to tell if someone can play chess or not, then we can add chess to the list of things you don't understand.

 

[dad]

I check as much of it as I am able to. Scientists can check a lot more of it than I can, and I go by what they find.

Blind faith then. OK.

No I haven't, as I have never encountered them.

So we can toss out all experiences of mankind over all history and replace that for what you experience. Got it.

I'm perfectly willing to believe in what other people say about angels and spirits. However, since I have not found anyone who has examined them in a way that is rigorous and thorough and lends itself to testing and checking, and also since there are many different claims made about spirits and angels, I have concluded that now objective information about spirits or angels exists. Not that I have encountered, anyway.

You never encountered the prophets of apostles, and etc etc. So only what you encounter maters. Got it.

But if such information exists, please provide it. (People telling stories about them is not objective information, that is hearsay.)

Unless they are alive now and can get a spirit to perform in a lab, it never happened. Got it.

I have, and I have not found any convincing evidence that he ever lived.

So mow we toss out the fact Jesus lived because you have not experienced that time. Got it.

Yes, science has been wrong. But the nature of science is that it corrects itself. New evidence is not vehemently denied by scientists because they already believe in something different. They test the new evidence, and if the evidence withstands that testing, then they change their views accordingly. I can name several examples of this. The evidence for the Big Bang, plate tectonics (which altered a few times as new evidence was discovered).

Yes it always alters. That is the cycle. It gets busted, then changes the story till it gets busted again.

In any case, you have a much higher proportion of being wrong about reality than science does.

If you could show you are right about your same state past you might have a point. Sorry that you don't though.

Different to what they expected. The models that lead them to expect one thing are still quite accurate, as evidenced by the fact that they describe the vast majority of stars quite well.

In other words they constructed a pagan model, but found that it did not fit, so they rewrite anything and everything as needed, again stuffing it all into their belief system...until busted gain. Ho hum.

Your argument seems to be like declaring a map should be thrown out as useless because it got the position of one laneway wrong by two meters.

The created universe is bigger than any gas station map actually. The maps man draws of creation and the future and past are more like random ink blotches on a used smelly tissue.

Except you don't care about science, it seems. You care about matching up what science presents with your ideas about your religion. If they don't contradict, then you are happy with the science. But if they do contradict, then you automatically assume that the science is wrong, and not your interpretation of your religion.

When it comes to talking about the unknown past or future or far universe, science is always wrong.

 

[TLK Valentine]

When it comes to talking about the unknown past or future or far universe, science is always wrong.

How about the Moon, dad? Who shall we trust -- science, or you?