4004 Bc

[Nathan Poe]

Whaaa...? You mean AVs' wrong again?

Is it "again," or more like "still"?

 

[Hespera]

.............

 

[dad]

Its not a flaw in comprehension. Its a flaw in presentation.

Hopefully you get it now.

 

[dad]

How about, The Bible is wrong about some things?

How about it? There would have to be a reason to conclude that. So far all I see are reasons to conclude that science is inadequate to intelligently address the issue. Like a little madman, it waves the same state wand, presuming to try to beat God to death with it. What a joke.

I have looked at most of the deep dark doubts raised about the bible, chewing the cud, going on all fours, the genealogy of Mary and Jesus, the Christmas star, etc etc etc etc etc, and I can say that the truth goes marching on, with a smile on it's face.

 

[dad]

I you go according to the dadological version, the measurments given of that vessel are correct and precise. If they don´t compute accoring to modern mathematics, it is math that is to blame. The "molten sea" existed in a different state, where Pi is 3. Modern math cannot make statements about different state numbers. It is only "so called math", a fairy tale and yadda yadda.

At least, so the little blue pixie on my shoulder told me.

I haven't dashed to bits a good doubt in a coon's age. I actually am not too familiar with that one, and seem to remember it is a problem. Can you present the deep dark case here, for a looksee? I suspect that it may be much ado over nothing.

 

[MoonLancer]

Hopefully you get it now.

Not really, you still haven't presented very well. You haven't defined a "state", how a state changes, or a list of changes from one state to another, or how many states their have been.

So far "stats" are the argument you tell yourself to cope with reality.

 

[Gracchus]

The interesting part of actualism is that they were not actually there, and do not actually know! It assumes that the past, actually was like the present, actually for no reason, and with actuallly no proof at all! The in box explanations, based, actually, on the same things, maust have agreement. Even though, they often toss around tens of millions of imaginary years as a comfortable margin of imaginary error!! What a scream, actually. I do not deny that they have no proof for a same state past. They don't, actually.

"Actualism" refers to the fact that science assumes that the forces working in the past were the same forces that we "actually" observe working around us today. That past can be explained by forces consistent with what we observe today.

Science presents adequate and reasonable explanations for phenomena. In an attempt to discredit science, you, without evidence, assume a miracle, which you cannot explain, occurred at some time in the past.

You are where you are now.

All that you perceive happened, at a minimum, t(=d/c)seconds ago. Where d=the distance from you that the event took place, and c=the speed of light in a vacuum. In practice, of course, the time is much greater, because it takes even more time, for the impulse of propagation in a nerve is much slower than the speed of light.

So you weren't there when anything but you happened. You weren't there when your bible was printed, and you certainly weren't there when it was written.

So, you weren't there either.

You can, when exposed to the uncomfortable truth, squirm like a worm on a hot sidewalk, but squirming won't save the worm, and all your sophmoronic quibbles can't disguise the fact that you are just making up your "split universe" and "change of state". It is not even biblical. It is imaginary.

But you weren't there. You aren't even here. You are nowhere.

 

[Hespera]

"Actualism" refers to the fact that science assumes that the forces working in the past were the same forces that we "actually" observe working around us today. That past can be explained by forces consistent with what we observe today.

Science presents adequate and reasonable explanations for phenomena. In an attempt to discredit science, you, without evidence, assume a miracle, which you cannot explain, occurred at some time in the past.

You are where you are now.

All that you perceive happened, at a minimum, t(=d/c)seconds ago. Where d=the distance from you that the event took place, and c=the speed of light in a vacuum. In practice, of course, the time is much greater, because it takes even more time, for the impulse of propagation in a nerve is much slower than the speed of light.

So you weren't there when anything but you happened. You weren't there when your bible was printed, and you certainly weren't there when it was written.

So, you weren't there either.

You can, when exposed to the uncomfortable truth, squirm like a worm on a hot sidewalk, but squirming won't save the worm, and all your sophmoronic quibbles can't disguise the fact that you are just making up your "split universe" and "change of state". It is not even biblical. It is imaginary.

But you weren't there. You aren't even here. You are nowhere.

YouTube - The Beatles NoWhere Man

 

[Jester4kicks]

"Actualism" refers to the fact that science assumes that the forces working in the past were the same forces that we "actually" observe working around us today. That past can be explained by forces consistent with what we observe today.

Science presents adequate and reasonable explanations for phenomena. In an attempt to discredit science, you, without evidence, assume a miracle, which you cannot explain, occurred at some time in the past.

You are where you are now.

All that you perceive happened, at a minimum, t(=d/c)seconds ago. Where d=the distance from you that the event took place, and c=the speed of light in a vacuum. In practice, of course, the time is much greater, because it takes even more time, for the impulse of propagation in a nerve is much slower than the speed of light.

So you weren't there when anything but you happened. You weren't there when your bible was printed, and you certainly weren't there when it was written.

So, you weren't there either.

You can, when exposed to the uncomfortable truth, squirm like a worm on a hot sidewalk, but squirming won't save the worm, and all your sophmoronic quibbles can't disguise the fact that you are just making up your "split universe" and "change of state". It is not even biblical. It is imaginary.

But you weren't there. You aren't even here. You are nowhere.

Check yo rep!

 

[Split Rock]

How about it? There would have to be a reason to conclude that. So far all I see are reasons to conclude that science is inadequate to intelligently address the issue.

A reason? How about many reasons?
- Snakes don't talk
- Men do not produce "seed."
- People do not think or feel with their heart
- Showing striped sticks to goats do not make then produce streaked, speckled and spotted offspring
etc.

I know... this was all before "The Split." That takes care of all the errors, but leaves us with the question of why the changes brought on by "the Split" were so very specific.

Like a little madman, it waves the same state wand, presuming to try to beat God to death with it. What a joke.

No one is claiming to beat God... just your flawed interpretation of scripture. You are not God, Mr. Blasphemer.

I have looked at most of the deep dark doubts raised about the bible, chewing the cud, going on all fours, the genealogy of Mary and Jesus, the Christmas star, etc etc etc etc etc, and I can say that the truth goes marching on, with a smile on it's face.

And the truth has nothing to do with your flawed interpretation of scripture.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I've never seen a mountain move either.

 

[dad]

Not really, you still haven't presented very well. You haven't defined a "state", how a state changes, or a list of changes from one state to another, or how many states their have been.

So far "stats" are the argument you tell yourself to cope with reality.

That is because we are only given so much info on it. Science, for example knows nothing at all about a new heavens coming! There are things we do know from the bible, however, such as that we will live there in spiritual and physical bodies there forever, like Jesus has! The angels will also live there. Moth nor rust will not corrupt, as incorruptible is the order of the day. There us the tree of life there (as there was in the garden, in our past) and it grows in a way no present tree could dream of, and at speeds that are unknown here. It is a state where things are made to last forever, and the temporal decaying, and corrupting is a memory only. A place where there is light that we know not here, that basks us, so we need no light of the sun, as you might call it! It's just that wonderful.

 

[dad]

"Actualism" refers to the fact that science assumes that the forces working in the past were the same forces that we "actually" observe working around us today. That past can be explained by forces consistent with what we observe today.

Yes, which actually is an unproven assumption in the extreme! They actually have no clue at all.

Science presents adequate and reasonable explanations for phenomena. In an attempt to discredit science, you, without evidence, assume a miracle, which you cannot explain, occurred at some time in the past.

I do not discredit it, I credit it with all the little, temporal state limited cudos it deserves! I, however do not blindly worship our present knowledge as if we were gods, and knew what we have no idea about. Give unto the fishbowl, what is the fishbowl's, and unto God's forever state, what is God's.

You are where you are now.

I agree, and you were not there creation week, notr have you buzzed into the future to report on what state it will be. Perspective. Honesty.

All that you perceive happened, at a minimum, t(=d/c)seconds ago. Where d=the distance from you that the event took place, and c=the speed of light in a vacuum. In practice, of course, the time is much greater, because it takes even more time, for the impulse of propagation in a nerve is much slower than the speed of light.

Yes, the speed of present light, you mean, of course. So? As we enter the spirituyal also, I think that changes, because in a moment, a twinkling of the eye, we will be in a body like Jesus now has! I would say the twinkling of an eye might be somewhat similar in time to the 'propagation of a nerve'!

So you weren't there when anything but you happened. You weren't there when your bible was printed, and you certainly weren't there when it was written.

So, you weren't there either.

But I do not claim that science says I was. A false balance is a bad thing. Not all things are equal in this debate. It is the house of cards of so called science that has been weighed, and found wanting!

So, besides making stuff up, is there anything else you can add to the debate?

 

[dad]

A reason? How about many reasons?
- Snakes don't talk
- Men do not produce "seed."
- People do not think or feel with their heart
- Showing striped sticks to goats do not make then produce streaked, speckled and spotted offspring
etc.

No one says they do?? To get the spiritual also effects on the physical we need to have the spiritual added. In the cases you mentioned, that is exactly what happened. To look at normal physical mores, and ways, and realities, where it does not happen, and try to contort that to mean that with the spiritual added, it can't is unmitigated knavish tripe of the first order.

As for seed..
"
Date "sperm" was first used: 14th century. (references)
Etymology: sperm \Se"men\, noun; plural Semina. [Latin expression, from the root of serere, satum, to sow. See Sow to scatter seed.]. (Websters 1913)"


sperm

It has do do, apprently with what we might call 'sowing oats' sort of thingie. I understand that many products of the modern godless education and antimoral codes of antiethics might find that an unfamilar concept. The widespread same sex or sexless practices don't seem to have a lot of that sort of thing left in it.

I know... this was all before "The Split." That takes care of all the errors, but leaves us with the question of why the changes brought on by "the Split" were so very specific.

No. The cattle, and other miracles of the bible are after the change that man's world went through. But the local application of focused spiritual added by God is a fact of man's existence.

 

[dad]

If we must play by your rules with you the only one allowed to make stuff up,
then no, there is nothing more we can add.

I make nothing up. Not the bible, not history, not what science actually can cover..etc. Really.

The people that do, are those that preach drivel like the OP. The basis is not there to support the fables. If it is, show us.

 

[MoonLancer]

That is because we are only given so much info on it. Science, for example knows nothing at all about a new heavens coming! There are things we do know from the bible, however, such as that we will live there in spiritual and physical bodies there forever, like Jesus has! The angels will also live there. Moth nor rust will not corrupt, as incorruptible is the order of the day. There us the tree of life there (as there was in the garden, in our past) and it grows in a way no present tree could dream of, and at speeds that are unknown here. It is a state where things are made to last forever, and the temporal decaying, and corrupting is a memory only. A place where there is light that we know not here, that basks us, so we need no light of the sun, as you might call it! It's just that wonderful.

So with all that, you cant answer my question, and you cant explain why science has numbers that add up and affirm each other when you claim the state has changed? if the state changed, the numbers would not add up. Their would be inconsistency rife throughout science and it would be impossible to date anything with any consistency.

 

[dad]

So with all that, you cant answer my question, and you cant explain why science has numbers that add up and affirm each other when you claim the state has changed?

What numbers? Numbers calculated from this state, into an imaginary same past state would line up somewhat with themselves. Meaningless. Any numbers that tell us the state of the future or past? If not, no one needs to prove anything, since you can't prove it. Why box shadows? Get something on the table here, and it can be dissected.

if the state changed, the numbers would not add up. Their would be inconsistency rife throughout science and it would be impossible to date anything with any consistency.

Flawed thinking. The change was not in this state. Therefore the numbers coming from here go in circles, and can't penetrate the shroud of the unknown future and past. Light speed numbers are dealing with present light, and can't apply beyond when it came to exist. Decay rates are present state phenomena and cannot reflect a state wherein there was no decay! Etc.

 

[Freodin]

What numbers? Numbers calculated from this state, into an imaginary same past state would line up somewhat with themselves. Meaningless. Any numbers that tell us the state of the future or past? If not, no one needs to prove anything, since you can't prove it. Why box shadows? Get something on the table here, and it can be dissected.



Flawed thinking. The change was not in this state. Therefore the numbers coming from here go in circles, and can't penetrate the shroud of the unknown future and past. Light speed numbers are dealing with present light, and can't apply beyond when it came to exist. Decay rates are present state phenomena and cannot reflect a state wherein there was no decay! Etc.

Flawed thinking, indeed... but on your part. The numbers we talk about here go back "beyond"... and they still add up.

If they would not apply, they should not add up.

 

[dad]

Flawed thinking, indeed... but on your part. The numbers we talk about here go back "beyond"... and they still add up.

If they would not apply, they should not add up.

What numbers? Go beyond what? How? Get off the clouds, man, and put your case on the table.

 

[Freodin]

What numbers? Go beyond what? How? Get off the clouds, man, and put your case on the table.

Astronomical data. Geological data. Physical data. Biological and sociological data. The numbers add up correctly, and still add up in a "state" where, according to your ideas, they shouldn´t.

Let me give you a simple example...

You find a lit candle. By observing it, you can calculate how fast it burns down. You can observe it over a time and find that rate to be quite constant. (Constant enough that candles were used as time-keeping instruments, did you know that?).

So by measuring the candle and it´s residues, you can calculate when the candle was lit.

The calculation takes you back to a time that, according to your ideas, was "different". Your calculation is based on the flawed assumtions that your observed methods would apply while they don´t. Fine. Of the the accusations of "fables" and "so called science".

But now you go on and try to find other ways of "dating" the candle. Look for evidence from the surroundings.
And when you have taken all these different dates, gathered by different methods, found by different calculations... you see that they all agree!

So either your idea of a "different state" was wrong, or it was different in such a curious way that makes it look like that it wasn´t! Every single thing that you CAN test comes out correctly... only the things that you cannot test can you still hold within your "different" framework.

But according to your idea, you dismiss "science" because it cannot (correctly) test things. So shouldn´t you dismiss all of your stuff that you cannot test at all on the same grounds?