Different state past

[rambot]

Fair enough. To be clear, I suspect that the nature change happened over a century after the flood. That means the flood was still former state.

Capiche

No, I am not limiting Him. I am deducing from His motis operendi and other known works and ways. He is a smart guy. To run around like a loony tune planting full grown trees in cartoon hyper speed the day the garden was planted is absurd.

A deduction is NOT evidence.

Well, common sense should enter in. Why reinvent the whole concept of planting?

He's God. He invented the universe. He can create however He wants. It is up to us to evaluate the physical evidence to try to figure out how he did that.

No. The garden was planted. We ate fruit that week. Noah sent out a bird after the flood from the ark. No trees. Again a week later...this time there was trees and the bird had evidence in beak.

Rather than post a link, post a point.

The same could be said of you with your pdf. Yet I took the time to read what you provided. Why are you unwilling to do the same?
Here is the point of that link: Biblical, literal evidence PROVES a local flood.

Maybe spell check it for good measure.

Did I spell "neener" wrong?

No. Key concept is that no one else was left alive save only Noah & co. That is basic stuff.

Not according to a literal reading of the story (see link).

Why do you have a compulsion to change the obvious?

If there it is "obvious", physical evidence and some Bible verses would certainly indicate as such. Yet you provide neither so... Consider my compulsion to be a decent understanding of your specific evidence (regardless of it's quality).

Try something other than insane accusations like troll.

I didn't mean to offend with that (and I apologize if you are offended), but I am literally baffled that you have yet to present specific verse evidence of your position and what I read from your Biblical position I'm not convinced you haven't "deduced" by your own logic your position rather than relying on some kind of objective evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why should anyone follow your QV Links when you post

I don't care if they do or not.

My obligation ends at the end of my post.

Can you put it in writing; I'm not going to click on that link.

Very seldom do I clink on links outside of Wikipedia or Youtube.

 

[CabVet]

Biblical support of a different state past: no death of man or animals; no thorns or thistles.

Current state: death of man and animals; thorns and thistles.

Nobody died between Adam and Eve and a century after the flood? Dad's different state past is what he is using to explain the flood (among other things). Try again.

Fair enough. To be clear, I suspect that the nature change happened over a century after the flood. That means the flood was still former state.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody died between Adam and Eve and a century after the flood? Dad's different state past is what he is using to explain the flood (among other things). Try again.

Okay, dad says the Flood, I say the Fall; dad says different state past, I say different state past.

Either way, it's a different state past.

 

[dad]

A deduction is NOT evidence.

A reasoned and founded deduction within the context of what the evidence within the bible is indeed evidence.

He's God. He invented the universe. He can create however He wants. It is up to us to evaluate the physical evidence to try to figure out how he did that.

Great. Digging thousands of 1/16 mile long and deep craters to stick full grown trees does not seem to fit that physical evidence criteria business.

The same could be said of you with your pdf. Yet I took the time to read what you provided. Why are you unwilling to do the same?
Here is the point of that link: Biblical, literal evidence PROVES a local flood.
Did I spell "neener" wrong?

Neener? What does it mean? How does it make Noah just one of millions of people that were spared from the flood? How does it mean that the mountains were not really covered? etc... Spelling is the least of your worries here.

Not according to a literal reading of the story (see link).

According to the rest of the bible as well, only 8 survived. You disagree?

If there it is "obvious", physical evidence and some Bible verses would certainly indicate as such. Yet you provide neither so... Consider my compulsion to be a decent understanding of your specific evidence (regardless of it's quality).

Bible evidence of different nature? The lack of heat generated in a world wide movement of land and water...?

I didn't mean to offend with that (and I apologize if you are offended), but I am literally baffled that you have yet to present specific verse evidence of your position and what I read from your Biblical position I'm not convinced you haven't "deduced" by your own logic your position rather than relying on some kind of objective evidence.

Long long life spans

Lack of heat

Fast tree growth

Stars that are seen on earth by Adam

need more?

 

[CabVet]

Long long life spans

Lack of heat

Fast tree growth

Stars that are seen on earth by Adam

need more?

Not a single one of these things indicate different natural laws in the past, not even the longer life spans. For amusement, I would however like you to post what the Bible has to say about the "lack of heat" and "fast tree growth".

 

[Farinata]

This debate isn't going to get resolved because the terms of the debate aren't agreed upon.

dad and AV believe in authorities in the following manner:

1. The bible
2. Empirical evidence.

Anything in 2 that contradicts 1 must be false. But 1 is a completely baseless belief; if not accepted a prori (as no atheist or agnostic does), there's nothing in 2 that lends it support (quite the contrary).

Arguing using empirical evidence is ultimately futile against such a position because the proponents are always able to concoct some ex post facto 'epicycle' style justification. Never mind whether their beliefs say anything quantitative, are consistent, or are logically sound; they know they're right so any coherent challenges won't be fairly considered.

 

[CabVet]

This debate isn't going to get resolved because the terms of the debate aren't agreed upon.

dad and AV believe in authorities in the following manner:

1. The bible
2. Empirical evidence.

Anything in 2 that contradicts 1 must be false. But 1 is a completely baseless belief; if not accepted a prori (as no atheist or agnostic does), there's nothing in 2 that lends it support (quite the contrary).

Arguing using empirical evidence is ultimately futile against such a position because the proponents are always able to concoct some ex post facto 'epicycle' style justification. Never mind whether their beliefs say anything quantitative, are consistent, or are logically sound; they know they're right so any coherent challenges won't be fairly considered.

Funny thing is, they can't provide evidence, not even from the Bible, to support their claims of a different state past.

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny thing is, they can't provide evidence, not even from the Bible, to support their claims of a different state past.

239

 

[rambot]

This debate isn't going to get resolved because the terms of the debate aren't agreed upon.

dad and AV believe in authorities in the following manner:

1. The bible
2. Empirical evidence.

Anything in 2 that contradicts 1 must be false. But 1 is a completely baseless belief; if not accepted a prori (as no atheist or agnostic does), there's nothing in 2 that lends it support (quite the contrary).

Arguing using empirical evidence is ultimately futile against such a position because the proponents are always able to concoct some ex post facto 'epicycle' style justification. Never mind whether their beliefs say anything quantitative, are consistent, or are logically sound; they know they're right so any coherent challenges won't be fairly considered.

I agree. I'm trying to see if they can mount a meaningful biblical defence..

 

[dad]

Not a single one of these things indicate different natural laws in the past, not even the longer life spans. For amusement, I would however like you to post what the Bible has to say about the "lack of heat" and "fast tree growth".

God planted a garden one week. Trees grew and man and beast ate the fruits. Also Noah sent a bird...no trees. A week later lo and behold trees. From science we know that the continents moved. If that happened after the flood the heat would be too great for life on earth. Elementary. Creation week also...waters and land separated...life was not boiled to death.

Indeed a different set of laws is needed here. The only other alternative is to call it all fiction.

 

[dad]

This debate isn't going to get resolved because the terms of the debate aren't agreed upon.

Fact. Truth. reality. These are supposed to go without saying....

dad and AV believe in authorities in the following manner:

1. The bible
2. Empirical evidence.

Strange statement. Believe in authorities??

Anything in 2 that contradicts 1 must be false.

Nothing from 2 does that to one. Relax. One is safe. 2 I safe. The universe unfolds as it should.

But 1 is a completely baseless belief; if not accepted a prori (as no atheist or agnostic does), lends it support (quite the contrary).

Arguing using empirical evidence is ultimately futile against such a position because the proponents are always able to concoct some ex post facto 'epicycle' style justification.

Define empirical evidence? I suspect that it has it's little place.

Never mind whether their beliefs say anything quantitative, are consistent, or are logically sound; they know they're right so any coherent challenges won't be fairly considered.

My deductions are the quintessential essence of soundness.

 

[Hobz]

Fact. Truth. reality. These are supposed to go without saying....

Nice definition of terms, oh wait, you didn't define anything, and none of those terms appear in your initial argument. Fail.

Define empirical evidence? I suspect that it has it's little place.

Define empirical evidence? Are you serious?

You're here in the science section of an internet forum, positing that you have the true theory of whateverthehellitis and you can't even define empirical evidence? Give us a break.

Hint: Something you don't use.

My deductions are the quintessential essence of soundness.

Your deductions are the quintessential essense of delusion.

 

[dad]

Nice definition of terms, oh wait, you didn't define anything, and none of those terms appear in your initial argument. Fail.

They appear in just about everything I say. So put forward a position that includes these.

Define empirical evidence? Are you serious?

Yes. Get to it.

You're here in the science section of an internet forum, positing that you have the true theory of whateverthehellitis and you can't even define empirical evidence? Give us a break.

I never said I can't. I ask you to. Being here then, is that a problem for you?

Your deductions are the quintessential essense of delusion.

You familiar with delusion then? Tell us all about it.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't make sense to whom? you?

Big deal.

Anyone save yourself.

 

[Tiberius]

No you haven't. You only thought you did. It did not in any way begin to support the wild eyed claims of the false prophets of so called science.

Have you given any reason to believe what you are saying? No you haven't. You only thought you did. It did not in any way begin to support the wild eyed claims of the false prophets of so called different state past.

You use a lot of words, dad, but you don't actually say much. Just the same claims repeated over and over again, and then mindless dismissal of anything anyone says that disagrees with you.

 

[dad]

Have you given any reason to believe what you are saying?

People that are savvy to the prophesies and bible truths have all the reason in the world to understand that a serious bible case has weight. People with some grasp of science must realize that the present has been used as the so called key to the past and future.


I dismiss nothing, ever. I evaluate stuff on it's merits or lack thereof. Sane people do that sort of thing.

 

[Elendur]

dad, I asked you in post #201 and post #205 to define evidence, because I think you're not following the scientific definition.

So again:

Can you define evidence?

 

[dad]

dad, I asked you in post #201 and post #205 to define evidence, because I think you're not following the scientific definition.

So again:

Can you define evidence?

ev·i·dence (

v

-d

ns)n.1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.

Idiom: in evidence1. Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets.
2. Law As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence.

evidence - definition of evidence by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.



"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:"

Definition for evidence - Oxford Dictionaries Online (World English)


No such thing exists for a same state past...upon which ALL of so called science claims are based.

 

[Elendur]

ev·i·dence (

v

-d

ns)n.1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.

____________________________________

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:"

Thank you.

No such thing exists for a same state past...upon which ALL of so called science claims are based.

And that was my point.
Don't argue as if you're using the scientific standard if you're not.

I'm willing to continue this conversation later, if you want.