Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation?

[dad]

Now you're claiming that a human could have given birth to a Neanderthal?

Much better than just that. A Neanderthal was human from what I've googled. In the past state with rapid evolution I suspect that the living creature could evolve on his feet! No need of offspring. Possibly it was by offspring, but I see no need because offspring is just the way it NOW works!

 

[Queller]

Thank you! I agree. That is the point. The past was different. Not the same. Same is out.

Please you aren't that stupid to think that is what I meant. Don't embarrass yourself.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that physics in the past worked any differently than it does today.

Science is all about the evidence. Your "same state past" has none. Therefore much of science is all about fables.

Actually every piece of evidence we have indicates that physics worked millions of years ago exactly the way it does today.

There is not the tiniest shred of evidence of any kind that the past had our nature and laws. That is wholly assumed. When they look at evidence they bring that belief and assumption with them, and spray paint the evidence!

I think you're confusing what you do with what science does. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that physics in the past worked any differently than it does today.

Climate fear mongers are false prophets as are cosmologists who claim things about the far future. Really. Literally. Call it what you like.

Once again, it is a very simple English phrase;

"No, I don't understand the difference between projection and prophecy."

Learn it and use it, because your every post demonstrates that it applies to you.

 

[dad]

Written language is older than 4,400 years (oldest written languages we find are from roughly 5,000 years ago), but I am sure you will try to dismiss that date too. However, humans and dinosaurs living at the same time equals humans being ate.

No. Check the basis for the dates. The error curve rises exponentially once they even get near the state change! That is because the way they check the dates is by correlating with things like tree rings etc. In the former state trees could grow rings and all in weeks. That does you no good here.

 

[Queller]

Much better than just that. A Neanderthal was human from what I've googled.

Really? Because this is the first result I got when I googled "were Neanderthals human?"

Were Neanderthals a sub-species of modern humans? New research says no

In the past state with rapid evolution I suspect that the living creature could evolve on his feet! No need of offspring. Possibly it was by offspring, but I see no need because offspring is just the way it NOW works!

Congratulations! You win the award for the stupidest thing I have read to today.

 

[Queller]

In the former state trees could grow rings and all in weeks.

What is your evidence for this claim?

 

[dad]

Please you aren't that stupid to think that is what I meant. Don't embarrass yourself.

If you didn't mean what you said, guess who needs to be embarrassed?

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that physics in the past worked any differently than it does today.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that physics in the past worked the same as it does today. The bible indicates things were different. That beats your nothing all to hell.

Actually every piece of evidence we have indicates that physics worked millions of years ago exactly the way it does today.

None at all anywhere in any way actually. You claiming it doesn't make it true. I know what you got, and that is plenty of nothin.

I think you're confusing what you do with what science does. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that physics in the past worked any differently than it does today.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that physics in the past worked the same as it does today. None. Zip. Nada.

Once again, it is a very simple English phrase;

"No, I don't understand the difference between projection and prophecy."

No? So? The thing to learn would be how to tell truth from lies and false prophesy from the real deal.

 

[dad]

What is your evidence for this claim?

The bible. Since there is no science or evidence against this it stands like a tree.

 

[dad]

Really? Because this is the first result I got when I googled "were Neanderthals human?"

Were Neanderthals a sub-species of modern humans? New research says no

From your link

"
They argue that studies of the Neanderthal nose, which have spanned over a century and a half, have been approaching this anatomical enigma from the wrong perspective. Previous work has compared Neanderthal nasal dimensions to modern human populations such as the Inuit and modern Europeans, whose nasal complexes are adapted to cold and temperate climates.
However, the current study joins a growing body of evidence that the upper respiratory tracts of this extinct group functioned via a different set of rules as a result of a separate evolutionary history and overall cranial bauplan (bodyplan), resulting in a mosaic of features not found among any population of Homo sapiens."

It is foolish not to account for the pre flood world and former nature when considering noses and uses. The klutzes who prognosticate over dead bones display such limited thinking and bias that it beggars description.

 

[Queller]

If you didn't mean what you said, guess who needs to be embarrassed?

No, I meant what I said. I didn't mean what you tried to claim I said however.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that physics in the past worked the same as it does today. The bible indicates things were different. That beats your nothing all to hell.

Every piece of evidence we have indicates that physics worked the same today as it did in the past. Even the Bible does so. Unless you want to claim that the rain the contributed to the Flood was not rain as we know it.

None at all anywhere in any way actually. You claiming it doesn't make it true. I know what you got, and that is plenty of nothin.

Actually, science has everything. Your empty claim has nothing.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that physics in the past worked the same as it does today. None. Zip. Nada.

Every piece of evidence we have indicates that physics worked the same today as it did in the past. Even the Bible does so. Unless you want to claim that the rain the contributed to the Flood was not rain as we know it.

No? So? The thing to learn would be how to tell truth from lies and false prophesy from the real deal.

We have. That is exactly how we know that your claims are nothing but empty balloons that pop at the first sign of evidence. Someday you will understand it as well, although I think that it will take Jesus personally slapping you upside the head before you acknowledge it.

 

[Queller]

The bible. Since there is no science or evidence against this it stands like a tree.

Which verses would that be?

 

[Queller]

From your link

"
They argue that studies of the Neanderthal nose, which have spanned over a century and a half, have been approaching this anatomical enigma from the wrong perspective. Previous work has compared Neanderthal nasal dimensions to modern human populations such as the Inuit and modern Europeans, whose nasal complexes are adapted to cold and temperate climates.
However, the current study joins a growing body of evidence that the upper respiratory tracts of this extinct group functioned via a different set of rules as a result of a separate evolutionary history and overall cranial bauplan (bodyplan), resulting in a mosaic of features not found among any population of Homo sapiens."

It is foolish not to account for the pre flood world and former nature when considering noses and uses. The klutzes who prognosticate over dead bones display such limited thinking and bias that it beggars description.

Since there is absolutely no evidence that physics today works any differently than physics 100,000 years ago, there is no logical reason whatsoever to consider a "different state past".

Every piece of evidence we have indicates that physics worked the same today as it did in the past. Even the Bible does so. Unless you want to claim that the rain the contributed to the Flood was not rain as we know it.

 

[dad]

Which verses would that be?

Gen 2. God planted a garden we are told. That garden had trees. The world was a week old. Need more? Planting means seeds usually. That means they grew. No?

 

[dad]

Since there is absolutely no evidence that physics today works any differently than physics 100,000 years ago, there is no logical reason whatsoever to consider a "different state past".

Since there is absolutely no evidence that physics today works the same as physics 100,000 imaginary years ago, there is no logical reason whatsoever to consider a "same state past". Especially when that exercise results in spitting on God's word.

Every piece of evidence we have indicates that physics worked the same today as it did in the past.

NO piece of evidence we have indicates that physics worked the same today as it did in the past. None at all. Period. Get over it.

Even the Bible does so. Unless you want to claim that the rain the contributed to the Flood was not rain as we know it.

I have not seen windows in space open up to pour water down...you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Gen 2. God planted a garden we are told. That garden had trees. The world was a week old. Need more? Planting means seeds usually. That means they grew. No?

I like what one preacher said once:

God made the chapel that Adam & Eve were married in.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Gen 2. God planted a garden we are told. That garden had trees. The world was a week old. Need more? Planting means seeds usually. That means they grew. No?

No, planting can refer to placing plants at any state of development into a container or the ground.

 

[Queller]

Gen 2. God planted a garden we are told. That garden had trees. The world was a week old. Need more? Planting means seeds usually. That means they grew. No?

There is nothing in Genesis 2 that states anything about trees growing in a week. It simply says they grew. Try again.

BTW, I am pleased to see you admit that your "different state past" doesn't work without miracles from God.

 

[Queller]

Since there is absolutely no evidence that physics today works the same as physics 100,000 imaginary years ago, there is no logical reason whatsoever to consider a "same state past".

Since there is absolutely no evidence that physics today works any differently than physics 100,000 years ago, there is no logical reason whatsoever to consider a "different state past".

You're a strange one to be talking about logic. You have never used any as far as I have ever seen.

Especially when that exercise results in spitting on God's word.

No one is spitting on God's Word except you.

NO piece of evidence we have indicates that physics worked the same today as it did in the past. None at all. Period. Get over it.

Since there is absolutely no evidence that physics today works any differently than physics 100,000 years ago, there is no logical reason whatsoever to consider a "different state past".

I have not seen windows in space open up to pour water down...you?

It was was rain

4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.
6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Why do you spit on God's Word and claim that it wasn't rain?

 

[KWCrazy]

There is nothing in Genesis 2 that states anything about trees growing in a week. It simply says they grew. Try again.

Genesis 2 does not describe creation. Genesis one does. The trees grew in a day; day three.

Genesis 2 builds on Genesis one and introduces Adam and Eve. It begins with "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done."

Despite claims by some, the Sabbath was instituted in Genesis 2 not after the Exodus.

Let's look at Genesis 2:8. "Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed." Man was formed on day 6. Unless you think that Adam was in limbo for a time, it makes sense that he was out into the garden, Eden, when he was created. That was on day 6. If he was put into the garden on day six, then how could the trees have grown up naturally? It wasn't. The creation happed as described in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 adds some detail, but changes none of the relevant facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

To repeat myself, competition with placental mammals.

To repeat myself, why would this stop placental mammals from migrating to Australia?

You've made no point to respond to.

I have made several points that you can not respond to.

I don't know if I can dumb it down further for you. Nothing is stopping placentals from migrating, . . .

Then you have no explanation for why they aren't in Australia.

Again, what is this mysterious power forcing antelope to chase after moles?

What is the mysterious power forcing antelopes out of Australia?

 

[Loudmouth]

Thank you! I agree. That is the point. The past was different. Not the same. Same is out.

The life wouldn't have been possible. If you change the fundamental laws of physics then life as we know it could not exist. If you change the laws of physics, oxygen will become a poison to humans. If you change the laws of physics, isotopes will decay at such high rates that Noah would have burst into flames.

The only reason that you claim the past was different is so that you have a lame excuse to ignore the evidence.