Different state past

[TeddyReceptus]

60154284]Just saw the spam link post now. Feel free to use your own words and make some point. ALL methods of dating are same state past methods.

Can I help out here? I'd like to try my hand at making a fun come-back Dad-style!

"Links schminks! All dating is same-state past, like my dating attempts in high school. They always suffered from the same failure! Think on that!"

There, did I do good?

 

[rambot]

I get more and more disapointed with biblical literalists every day. I can appreciate the Biblical literalists who just say "I believe in 6 day creation and the earth is 6000 years old [whatever]. I have no data to back it up and no way to prove it".

Personally, I don't have a problem with what you choose to believe. I just have a significant problem with the claims you make that indicate that the natural world supports your theory. To me THAT is what makes you guys look silly.

So I say to literalists: Come on guys! Let your freak flag fly! Just admit there is no direct natural evidence but you believe what you believe based on a Biblical interpretation alone..... I personally admire people who see the weaknesses in their opinions.
And yes, I know that you are trying to impress me. ;-)

I won't even comment on your unbelievably misguided understanding of what is considered "Biblical interpretation".

 

[Freodin]

I get more and more disapointed with biblical literalists every day. I can appreciate the Biblical literalists who just say "I believe in 6 day creation and the earth is 6000 years old [whatever]. I have no data to back it up and no way to prove it".

Personally, I don't have a problem with what you choose to believe. I just have a significant problem with the claims you make that indicate that the natural world supports your theory. To me THAT is what makes you guys look silly.

So I say to literalists: Come on guys! Let your freak flag fly! Just admit there is no direct natural evidence but you believe what you believe based on a Biblical interpretation alone..... I personally admire people who see the weaknesses in their opinions.
And yes, I know that you are trying to impress me. ;-)

I won't even comment on your unbelievably misguided understanding of what is considered "Biblical interpretation".

It is not that simple. The problem isn't the missing evidence for a young earth... there is "evidence" for that, if you want to see it this way.
It is the evidence for an old earth that needs to be explained (away) and brought into concurrance with the young earth bible interpretation.

Thus the existence of "embedded age", "different state", "Day-Age", "Gap", or whatever.

 

[dad]

Just admit there is no direct natural evidence but you believe what you believe based on a Biblical interpretation alone..

The present state in the past uses as the foundation of so called science...just admit there is no direct natural evidence but you believe what you believe based on nothing at all.

 

[dad]

They are evidence of a same state past. If you deny this you are either lying or not using the same definition.

I deny it. You cannot show it.

 

[dad]

Still ignoring my posts Dad?

You have definitely been defeatedif you've stopped even trying to back up your ideas.

Change your tag line.

Not sure what visions of grandeur dance in your head, that you think someone is ignoring something important you said....but hey, defeat is not something you should even salivate over. It'll set you up for disappointment.

 

[verysincere]

The present state in the past uses as the foundation of so called science...just admit there is no direct natural evidence but you believe what you believe based on nothing at all.

Sorry, Rambot. Me neither. I haven't a clue what he's trying to say.

 

[dad]

Boy, talk about reading into the Bible! There's nothing in that passage that comes remotely close to talking about radioactive decay.

Radiacive decay didn't get a top billing, and a name in lights in the bible. It is just a feature of the state that is slated to pass away. Does decay even sound to you like it is something in a forever state?

You don't have any evidence for your DIFFERENT state past. That's what I was asking you, dad. Surely you have basic English comprehension skills, don't you?

Yes I do. The bible and history as well as agreement with all physical evidence science has. Can't beat that. You have zilch for a same state past. Nothing whatsoever and it is opposed to reason, history and the revealed word of God.

I've provided ample proof. You have NEVER been able to explain why rocks have millions of years of decay if the state that they can decay in has not been around that long.

They have isotopes, that are now in a decay arrangement. Obviously our state and nature and forces and laws are required to make decay happen. Rocks are not old. No rock on earth is old, stop freaking.

And yet you have never provided a single shred of evidence to support your own position. Even the Bible quote you posted would seem to indicate the existence of radioactive decay, driving another nail into the already well-sealed coffin of your different state past.

Strange. If this world passes away, how is it that you think that the decay of this world won't? Not a bright point.

 

[dad]

Sorry, Rambot. Me neither. I haven't a clue what he's trying to say.

I am trying to say, ...sorry but so called science hasn't a clue what state existed.

 

[Elendur]

I deny it. You cannot show it.

Then please tell me, are you not using the same definition or are you lying?

 

[dad]

Then please tell me, are you not using the same definition or are you lying?

Well what is the same definition?? To me a same state past means that the past was...well, the same! The same in nature, forces, and laws.

 

[Elendur]

Well what is the same definition?? To me a same state past means that the past was...well, the same! The same in nature, forces, and laws.

You're avoiding, I was asking for if you were lying or not using the same definition of evidence.

So for the third time:

Are you lying or are you not using the same definiton?
(I even switched it up for your amusement)

 

[dad]

You're avoiding, I was asking for if you were lying or not using the same definition of evidence.

So for the third time:

Are you lying or are you not using the same definiton?
(I even switched it up for your amusement)

Evidence for a same state past? Define any! Show any! ..for our amusement.

 

[Elendur]

Evidence for a same state past? Define any! Show any! ..for our amusement.

Fourth try:

Are you lying or are you not using the same definition of evidence?

 

[dad]

Fourth try:

Are you lying or are you not using the same definition of evidence?

No. I think evidence is honky dory. Got some? Or do you prefer to just repeat the word a lot?

 

[Elendur]

No. I think evidence is honky dory. Got some? Or do you prefer to just repeat the word a lot?

I wasn't asking what you thought of evidence.
I have offered evidence earlier.
I prefer to repeat my question until I get an answer:

Fifth try:

Are you lying or are you not using the same definition of evidence?

 

[dad]

I wasn't asking what you thought of evidence.
I have offered evidence earlier.
I prefer to repeat my question until I get an answer:

Fifth try:

Are you lying or are you not using the same definition of evidence?

Yawn.. Bring evidence for a same state past. You have not done so. Ask a lurker.

 

[Elendur]

Yawn.. Bring evidence for a same state past. You have not done so. Ask a lurker.

Sixth try:
Are you lying or are you not using the same definition of evidence?

 

[dad]

Sixth try:
Are you lying or are you not using the same definition of evidence?

Same as...what? Now my turn..

Are you lying or are you not have evidence for a same state past?

 

[Elendur]

Same as...what? Now my turn..

Are you lying or are you not have evidence for a same state past?

Answer to your question:
In post #436 I gave you evidence for a same state past.
( http://www.christianforums.com/t7639776-44/#post60140831 )

You denied this being evidence. Thus I asked you (in post #410):

Then please tell me, are you not using the same definition or are you lying?

You have yet to answer that question.

I also noticed you haven't answered the question in post #481 (I asked for a source for the claim that people in Sumer etc had long lives).

I'm curious over the source of this claim, could you post a reference to this?

Oh, I noticed you avoided http://www.christianforums.com/t7639776-44/#post60140831

So my questions to you:

Second try:
I'm curious over the source of this claim, could you post a reference to this?

Seventh try:
Are you not using the same definition or are you lying?