Different state past

[Elendur]

Now I'll 'copy' someone who I think quite a few would recognize:

He has not responded to my post, therefore he has lost. I am victorious. It sure tastes sweet.

 

[Tiberius]

Because what you expect to see is based in part on what exists. What exists also did exist for the most part in the former state. But do give us a clear example of something you 'expect' exists? Let me point out that a lot of what you expect is missing stuff. For example, if we have a chain of decay (supposedly) where there were say, 10 parts in the chain, we might have 4 parts missing. Missing isotopes that you 'expect' to not be there, but cannot prove they ever were there! The only reason for anyone to believe that they ever existed at all then is faith! Right?

Why don't you get this? I'm not talking about what ISN'T there, I'm talking about what IS there.

The only way for your idea to be true is if there was an amazing coincidence that meant that we see all these samples of different rocks at different places that have the EXACT ratios of isotopes that we'd expect to see if they'd decayed radioactively. And that by an even bigger coincidence, there is not a single example of a rock that does NOT fit into this pattern, even though there could be if what you propose is true. This is a very big coincidence, doncha think?

No. Because the tilting represents a different state, not a tilt in this state!

So? if the tilting was different in the past (ie, if there was a different state), an examination of the tennis balls now (ie, examining reality now) will show indications of that.

No. Impossible unless we know how much water was there when the tilt took place!

All that water had to flow somewhere, didn't it? So we can look at the tennis balls that the water would have flowed into and we can see how much water is in them.

NO! You can't which is the point! You see let us say that some of the tennis balls down the line already had water in them....how could you know? You showed up after the tilt. All you could do would be to say 'IF this state existed when the tilt took place, and there was no daughter water in any balls, then all the daughter water came from the post tilt reality.

So you actually think that the amount of water in the tennis balls now, combined with the way the board is tilted now can tell us nothing about how the board was before?

Just waiting for you to catch on that your position is a sinking ship. No more need to fire at it now. Just a matter of time and the inevitable happening.

Not going to happen, because it is not.

Of course, if you want to sink my ship, you could explain how we get the situation I mentioned up above, with the rocks and all...

because I've been waiting a LONG time for you to do that, and you never have.

 

[dad]

Now I'll 'copy' someone who I think quite a few would recognize:

He has not responded to my post, therefore he has lost. I am victorious. It sure tastes sweet.

While you are tasting, taste this..

In today's news I see so called science gets kicked down several notches.


"According to a new study, large amounts of dark matter do not surround the Sun, despite some widely accepted theories.

Some scientists believe that the Sun is accompanied by dark matter, which is an invisible substance that can only be detected indirectly by the gravitational force its exerts.

Theories predict that the average amount of dark matter in the Sun’s part of the galaxy should be in the range of .88-pounds to 2.2-pounds of dark matter in a volume the size of the Earth.

However, a team of scientists from Chile have discovered that these theories do not fit the observational facts.

A team using the MPG/ESO telescope at ESO’s La Silla Observatory has mapped the motions of over 400 stars up to 13,000 light-years from the Sun.

The researchers have calculated the mass of material in the vicinity of the Sun, in a volume four times larger than ever considered before.

“The amount of mass that we derive matches very well with what we see — stars, dust and gas — in the region around the Sun,” team leader Christian Moni Bidin said in a press release. “But this leaves no room for the extra material — dark matter — that we were expecting. Our calculations show that it should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!”

Astronomers currently believe that dark matter constitutes about 80 percent of the mass in the Universe, but all attempts to detect it in laboratories on Earth have failed.

The new results suggests that attempts to detect dark matter on Earth by trying to spot the interactions between dark matter particles and “normal” matter are unlikely to be successful.

The researchers now suggests that if dark matter does exists on Earth, it would measure just between 0-pounds to .15 pounds in volume.

“Despite the new results, the Milky Way certainly rotates much faster than the visible matter alone can account for,” Moni Bidin said. “So, if dark matter is not present where we expected it, a new solution for the missing mass problem must be found.

He said his team’s results contradict the currently accepted models, and that “the mystery of dark matter has just become even more mysterious.”

The research will be published in The Astrophysical Journal."


Mysterious Dark Matter Becomes More Mysterious - Space News - redOrbit


How sweet it is!

 

[DaneaFL]

While you are tasting, taste this..

In today's news I see so called science gets kicked down several notches.


"According to a new study, large amounts of dark matter do not surround the Sun, despite some widely accepted theories.

Some scientists believe that the Sun is accompanied by dark matter, which is an invisible substance that can only be detected indirectly by the gravitational force its exerts.

Theories predict that the average amount of dark matter in the Sun’s part of the galaxy should be in the range of .88-pounds to 2.2-pounds of dark matter in a volume the size of the Earth.

However, a team of scientists from Chile have discovered that these theories do not fit the observational facts.

A team using the MPG/ESO telescope at ESO’s La Silla Observatory has mapped the motions of over 400 stars up to 13,000 light-years from the Sun.

The researchers have calculated the mass of material in the vicinity of the Sun, in a volume four times larger than ever considered before.

“The amount of mass that we derive matches very well with what we see — stars, dust and gas — in the region around the Sun,” team leader Christian Moni Bidin said in a press release. “But this leaves no room for the extra material — dark matter — that we were expecting. Our calculations show that it should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!”

Astronomers currently believe that dark matter constitutes about 80 percent of the mass in the Universe, but all attempts to detect it in laboratories on Earth have failed.

The new results suggests that attempts to detect dark matter on Earth by trying to spot the interactions between dark matter particles and “normal” matter are unlikely to be successful.

The researchers now suggests that if dark matter does exists on Earth, it would measure just between 0-pounds to .15 pounds in volume.

“Despite the new results, the Milky Way certainly rotates much faster than the visible matter alone can account for,” Moni Bidin said. “So, if dark matter is not present where we expected it, a new solution for the missing mass problem must be found.

He said his team’s results contradict the currently accepted models, and that “the mystery of dark matter has just become even more mysterious.”

The research will be published in The Astrophysical Journal."


Mysterious Dark Matter Becomes More Mysterious - Space News - redOrbit


How sweet it is!

I wonder if a few hundred years ago, when the first guy to propose a type of germ theory was proved incorrect if he had to face the same ridiculous criticism...

I can imagine it now... "This just in: scientist got germs WRONG! diseases MUST be caused by God! Scientists are so stupid! They don't even know what causes us to get sick! How sweet it is!"

Science didn't get "kicked down a few notches" that's so ignorant I can't even believe you said it. Science only makes progress when theories are falsified. That way new theories can improve on them.

Anyone with any scientific training would understand this concept...

Did you know that heliocentricism was born because geocentrisim didn't match with current observations? Did scientists just throw in the towel and say "Shucks we were wrong! God must be the one who holds up the planets! NO! that's ridiculous. Epic fail, dude...

 

[dad]

I wonder if a few hundred years ago, when the first guy to propose a type of germ theory was proved incorrect if he had to face the same ridiculous criticism...

I can imagine it now... "This just in: scientist got germs WRONG! diseases MUST be caused by God! Scientists are so stupid! They don't even know what causes us to get sick! How sweet it is!"

I wonder if a few hundred years ago, when the first guy to propose a type of germ theory was proved incorrect, he would realize that germ warfare would be a reality after all one day!? However, that does not involve the far universe, but germs living here on earth. The issue in the creation evolution area of debate is not just how things now work on earth.

Science didn't get "kicked down a few notches" that's so ignorant I can't even believe you said it. Science only makes progress when theories are falsified. That way new theories can improve on them.

Did to!! And I am laughing.

Did you know that heliocentricism was born because geocentrisim didn't match with current observations?

Why would it, when it is possible that the former state was where any geocentrism existed? The ONLY reason then we would expect the past (when the records represent) to match heliocentric thinking is IF the past were the same state! That is your imagination.

Did scientists just throw in the towel and say "Shucks we were wrong! God must be the one who holds up the planets! NO! that's ridiculous. Epic fail, dude...

Doesn't matter what short sighted big talkers say, actually. You might as well hire an ant interpreter to get an ant's opinion! God calls their wisdom foolishness for a good reason..it is! Literally. Really.

 

[dad]

Why don't you get this? I'm not talking about what ISN'T there, I'm talking about what IS there.

Well science talks about what is missing. So that drags you in. Nowthen...what exactly is here that you think is some problem?? Example?

The only way for your idea to be true is if there was an amazing coincidence that meant that we see all these samples of different rocks at different places that have the EXACT ratios of isotopes that we'd expect to see if they'd decayed radioactively.

False. Changing the laws would not mean that we would see all material that was there disappear. You just look at all the processes of the present, and assume that these existed in the past, rather than whatever other processes different laws would necessitate.

And that by an even bigger coincidence, there is not a single example of a rock that does NOT fit into this pattern, even though there could be if what you propose is true. This is a very big coincidence, doncha think?

Not sure how you are missing the obvious here. All rocks are now under our laws in this state.

So? if the tilting was different in the past (ie, if there was a different state), an examination of the tennis balls now (ie, examining reality now) will show indications of that.

Not unless you know what you are looking for. Even then, it would likely take a major effort, and science has never done that, nor even thought of the fact it may have been a different state!

All that water had to flow somewhere, didn't it? So we can look at the tennis balls that the water would have flowed into and we can see how much water is in them.

No. Because a certain amount of water was there when the tilt happened, presumably, in some of the daughter balls. There would be no way to know after the tilt. All we could see is how slow or fast the water was now flowing through the various size little tubes connecting them.

So you actually think that the amount of water in the tennis balls now, combined with the way the board is tilted now can tell us nothing about how the board was before?

Well, maybe. But not at face value.

Of course, if you want to sink my ship, you could explain how we get the situation I mentioned up above, with the rocks and all...

Done. So don't forget to memorize where those life jackets are stashed.

 

[Elendur]

While you are tasting, taste this..

In today's news I see so called science gets kicked down several notches.


"According to a new study, large amounts of dark matter do not surround the Sun, despite some widely accepted theories.

Some scientists believe that the Sun is accompanied by dark matter, which is an invisible substance that can only be detected indirectly by the gravitational force its exerts.

Theories predict that the average amount of dark matter in the Sun’s part of the galaxy should be in the range of .88-pounds to 2.2-pounds of dark matter in a volume the size of the Earth.

However, a team of scientists from Chile have discovered that these theories do not fit the observational facts.

A team using the MPG/ESO telescope at ESO’s La Silla Observatory has mapped the motions of over 400 stars up to 13,000 light-years from the Sun.

The researchers have calculated the mass of material in the vicinity of the Sun, in a volume four times larger than ever considered before.

“The amount of mass that we derive matches very well with what we see — stars, dust and gas — in the region around the Sun,” team leader Christian Moni Bidin said in a press release. “But this leaves no room for the extra material — dark matter — that we were expecting. Our calculations show that it should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!”

Astronomers currently believe that dark matter constitutes about 80 percent of the mass in the Universe, but all attempts to detect it in laboratories on Earth have failed.

The new results suggests that attempts to detect dark matter on Earth by trying to spot the interactions between dark matter particles and “normal” matter are unlikely to be successful.

The researchers now suggests that if dark matter does exists on Earth, it would measure just between 0-pounds to .15 pounds in volume.

“Despite the new results, the Milky Way certainly rotates much faster than the visible matter alone can account for,” Moni Bidin said. “So, if dark matter is not present where we expected it, a new solution for the missing mass problem must be found.

He said his team’s results contradict the currently accepted models, and that “the mystery of dark matter has just become even more mysterious.”

The research will be published in The Astrophysical Journal."


Mysterious Dark Matter Becomes More Mysterious - Space News - redOrbit


How sweet it is!

While you still haven't responded to my previous post I can still proclaim my victory.

 

[DaneaFL]

I wonder if a few hundred years ago, when the first guy to propose a type of germ theory was proved incorrect, he would realize that germ warfare would be a reality after all one day!? However, that does not involve the far universe, but germs living here on earth. The issue in the creation evolution area of debate is not just how things now work on earth.

Yes it is... creation/evolution debate is ONLY about how things work on earth... where else does evolution take place? in space? no. On mars? not that we know of yet.

Please tell me you aren't one of those small-minded creationists who can't separate evolution from abiogenesis or cosmology!

Even if you somehow proved that there was a god who created the universe, earth, and even life itself... and even if you could prove it was your version of the Christian God, evolution would still be the undeniable process that your God used to create said life.

Evolution does not " involve the far universe". This is the oldest creationist strawman ever. Just because we don't know with absolute certainty what caused the big bang or what caused life to start on earth, we still know with absolute certainty that life evolved once it began... with at least as much certainty as we know gravity exists.

However, you are proposing that we can't and shouldn't even assume gravity existed 6000 years ago... so good job at trying to undo all of science to support your irrational view of the universe.

 

[Elendur]

Yes it is... creation/evolution debate is ONLY about how things work on earth... where else does evolution take place? in space? no. On mars? not that we know of yet.

Please tell me you aren't one of those small-minded creationists who can't separate evolution from abiogenesis or cosmology!

Even if you somehow proved that there was a god who created the universe, earth, and even life itself... and even if you could prove it was your version of the Christian God, evolution would still be the undeniable process that your God used to create said life.

Evolution does not " involve the far universe". This is the oldest creationist strawman ever. Just because we don't know with absolute certainty what caused the big bang or what caused life to start on earth, we still know with absolute certainty that life evolved once it began... with at least as much certainty as we know gravity exists.

However, you are proposing that we can't and shouldn't even assume gravity existed 6000 years ago... so good job at trying to undo all of science to support your irrational view of the universe.

App app app! Not with absolute certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt
I could be mistaken but isn't 'certain' a definitive term? If so we should avoid that.

 

[dad]

While you still haven't responded to my previous post...

Link to it?

 

[dad]

Yes it is... creation/evolution debate is ONLY about how things work on earth... where else does evolution take place? in space? no. On mars? not that we know of yet.

Stellar evolution would take place (according to the so called science folks) in space, yes. But the adapting and evolving of life on earth has taken place here on earth mostly in the past! When you look at the fossil record, that was in the past, I kid you not.

Please tell me you aren't one of those small-minded creationists who can't separate evolution from abiogenesis or cosmology!

The twisted sisters all sing in the same choir.

Even if you somehow proved that there was a god who created the universe, earth, and even life itself... and even if you could prove it was your version of the Christian God, evolution would still be the undeniable process that your God used to create said life.

No, you are dreaming. What process?? That is insane. How would you know what 'process' He used? I've heard some tall tales but you ought to win a prize!

Evolution does not " involve the far universe". This is the oldest creationist strawman ever. Just because we don't know with absolute certainty what caused the big bang or what caused life to start on earth, we still know with absolute certainty that life evolved once it began... with at least as much certainty as we know gravity exists.

I agree! In Eden. Some 6000 plus years ago. So? The evolving was after the creation fact.

However, you are proposing that we can't and shouldn't even assume gravity existed 6000 years ago... so good job at trying to undo all of science to support your irrational view of the universe.

I do question whether gravity was as we now know it 4400 years ago. Can you prove it was? If you can, then I can change my opinion.

 

[Elendur]

Link to it?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7639776-79/#post60394095

 

[DaneaFL]

App app app! Not with absolute certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt
I could be mistaken but isn't 'certain' a definitive term? If so we should avoid that.

oops sowwy! sometimes I forget I'm talking to creationists.

They are like 4 years olds who will laugh if you accidentally say the wrong words like "duty."

 

[DaneaFL]

Stellar evolution would take place (according to the so called science folks) in space, yes. But the adapting and evolving of life on earth has taken place here on earth mostly in the past! When you look at the fossil record, that was in the past, I kid you not.

Just try not to confuse the argument more than it already is please. You and I both know we were talking about biological evolution, nothing more.

Like I said, even if you proved stellar evolution false, that is, if you proved that stars and planet could NOT form without the help of a God, biological evolution would still be an observable fact on this planet.

No, you are dreaming. What process?? That is insane. How would you know what 'process' He used? I've heard some tall tales but you ought to win a prize!

Well, unless he was trying to trick us into thinking everything evolved then the process he used WAS evolution because it's the only theory that explains what we observe today.

I agree! In Eden. Some 6000 plus years ago. So? The evolving was after the creation fact.

Well at least you accept evolution... Now you just have to show how an organism can evolve from a sea sponge into a human in 6000 years.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...t-animals-sponges-earliest-science-evolution/

Again, even if we assume that God DID wave his wand and POOF life into existence, evolution still took over after he was done. Unless, again, you want to assume God was trying to trick us when he invented fossils and genetics.

I do question whether gravity was as we now know it 4400 years ago. Can you prove it was? If you can, then I can change my opinion.

Surely someone has pointed the flaw in this line of logic to you before...

Science and all human knowledge can only speak on one thing: the observable universe. We acquire knowledge through our 5 senses. We can't know anything except through those means. Even when you receive your "inspired truth" from your preacher or from reading your ancient book of goat herder poetry, you are still using sensory organs called ears and eyes to receive the information.

All science is "best guess" from what we observe. It's only safe to assume something for which we have a precedent.

Example: It's safe to assume gravity will be here tomorrow because it has since recorded time. It's NOT safe to assume gravity will be reversed tomorrow because we've never observed this happening.

So it's safe to assume physical laws were the same 6000 years ago since the physical constants haven't changed since we first observed them. It's NOT safe to assume that the physical laws were different because we have no proof that they ever were. (notwithstanding any ancient myths)

If we lived in a universe where the physical constants were constantly changing then it would be reversed. I would be foolish to assume that the laws of nature were the same in the past.

So how is your different state past hypothesis anything more than blind speculation in support of a less-than-widely-accepted interpretation of a dusty old book?

 

[Tiberius]

Well science talks about what is missing. So that drags you in.

No, science talks about what IS.

Nowthen...what exactly is here that you think is some problem?? Example?

An example of my problem is that you haven't provided a single shred of scientific evidence to support your claims.

False. Changing the laws would not mean that we would see all material that was there disappear. You just look at all the processes of the present, and assume that these existed in the past, rather than whatever other processes different laws would necessitate.

This doesn't answer the question at all.

Not sure how you are missing the obvious here. All rocks are now under our laws in this state.

That doesn't explain how they ALL have the EXACT ratios of parent to daughter isotopes that we'd expect them to have if they'd been undergoing radioactive decay for millions of years.

Not unless you know what you are looking for. Even then, it would likely take a major effort, and science has never done that, nor even thought of the fact it may have been a different state!

Once again, you need to provide a REASON why we should assume a DSP. You've never done that.

No. Because a certain amount of water was there when the tilt happened, presumably, in some of the daughter balls. There would be no way to know after the tilt. All we could see is how slow or fast the water was now flowing through the various size little tubes connecting them.

Yes, we can measure the tilt and determine how fast water would flow out of the balls. We can then look in the balls downhill, and see if there is the right amount of water.

For example...

• I look at the tilt and determine that water will flow out of ball A at 10mL an hour.
• I look at the ball underneath it (Ball B) and see there is only 20mL in it.
• Given that there is still a flow of water from Ball A, I know that Ball B can only have been receiving water from Ball A for two hours.
• i conclude that prior to 2 hours ago, the board was tilted differently.

Well, maybe. But not at face value.

I'll take that as a yes.

Done. So don't forget to memorize where those life jackets are stashed.

lol, I won't be needing them. You've been firing blanks all the thread.

 

[dad]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7639776-79/#post60394095

Post 783 responded to that.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7639776-79/#post60397970

 

[dad]

Just try not to confuse the argument more than it already is please. You and I both know we were talking about biological evolution, nothing more.

Speak for yourself. Then...say something about it, actually.

Like I said, even if you proved stellar evolution false, that is, if you proved that stars and planet could NOT form without the help of a God, biological evolution would still be an observable fact on this planet.

Since evolution was a created trait, who cares? Nothing observed could ever change that fact. Evolution is in my back pocket.

Well, unless he was trying to trick us into thinking everything evolved then the process he used WAS evolution because it's the only theory that explains what we observe today.

Absurd! Just because He made creatures able to change adapt and evolve in NO way means they got here that way! That is religion...belief only.

Well at least you accept evolution... Now you just have to show how an organism can evolve from a sea sponge into a human in 6000 years.

Oldest Animal Discovered—Earliest Ancestor of Us All?

Evolution is something that the created animals fish, etc did. Apparently it used to be real real fast even! As for dating some sponge...good luck with that! But, hey, relax, you no more evolved from a dish cloth in your sink, than from a sea sponge.

Again, even if we assume that God DID wave his wand and POOF life into existence, evolution still took over after he was done. Unless, again, you want to assume God was trying to trick us when he invented fossils and genetics.

Where it 'took over' is the issue! You don't know! Also present evolving is slow and you do not know that the changes in the far past to created kinds was slow!

Science and all human knowledge can only speak on one thing: the observable universe.

Some call it the fishbowl.

We acquire knowledge through our 5 senses. We can't know anything except through those means. Even when you receive your "inspired truth" from your preacher or from reading your ancient book of goat herder poetry, you are still using sensory organs called ears and eyes to receive the information.

We get info and have ears...yes. That doesn't help you.

All science is "best guess" from what we observe. It's only safe to assume something for which we have a precedent.

Whose rule is that!!?? Ans what about the precedent of the record of God??

Example: It's safe to assume gravity will be here tomorrow because it has since recorded time. It's NOT safe to assume gravity will be reversed tomorrow because we've never observed this happening.

False! Not safe. It won't be actually I assume one day. (but if we use a literal 'tomorrow' then yes I agree in the short term). If you mean in 100 years...you do not know!

So it's safe to assume physical laws were the same 6000 years ago since the physical constants haven't changed since we first observed them.

Absurd! First of all who says OUR laws changed?? They are the change from what was.

It's NOT safe to assume that the physical laws were different because we have no proof that they ever were. (notwithstanding any ancient myths)

Nor any proof they were the same, that kills your case something fierce. You also end up opposing history and the scripture records!

If we lived in a universe where the physical constants were constantly changing then it would be reversed. I would be foolish to assume that the laws of nature were the same in the past.

You do not know about constants. You just thought you did. Common misconception.

So how is your different state past hypothesis anything more than blind speculation in support of a less-than-widely-accepted interpretation of a dusty old book?

It fits history and God's word and all evidences available.

 

[Elendur]

Post 783 responded to that.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7639776-79/#post60397970

Correct, my bad. I linked the wrong post:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7639776-80/#post60401144

( this post is followed by two posts of you where you've written nothing but punctuations ( ... ) )

 

[dad]

No, science talks about what IS.

Thannks for sdmittinngg that. I guess we should qualify that a bit...the bits of what IS that it can see. The issues that are important though are not is, but what was at and after creation...the flood, the future..etc.

An example of my problem is that you haven't provided a single shred of scientific evidence to support your claims.

The continents separated...the fossil record...etc. I have ALL the evidence.

This doesn't answer the question at all.

I would think it does. Apparently you need something fleshed out a bit more....

That doesn't explain how they ALL have the EXACT ratios of parent to daughter isotopes that we'd expect them to have if they'd been undergoing radioactive decay for millions of years.

But what else do you expect!? You expect a lot of stuff that is not there buut you claim WAS there. Yet there is no proof. You claim it is a part of your model, but just decayed away already. As for your claim that you expect ratios to be just as they are, how is it that they often re date rocks and stuff sometimes by millions of years, even more!? Let's be honest.

Now for the bits that are actually here, and the daughters, what you need to do is give one example of how the amounts are as expected and why exactly

Once again, you need to provide a REASON why we should assume a DSP. You've never done that.

ALL records of the earliest times of man point that way and the bible screams it out. All evidence agrees. Name anything that you think doesn't!?



Yes, we can measure the tilt and determine how fast water would flow out of the balls. We can then look in the balls downhill, and see if there is the right amount of water.

For example...

• I look at the tilt and determine that water will flow out of ball A at 10mL an hour.
• I look at the ball underneath it (Ball B) and see there is only 20mL in it.
• Given that there is still a flow of water from Ball A, I know that Ball B can only have been receiving water from Ball A for two hours.
• i conclude that prior to 2 hours ago, the board was tilted differently.

False!!!! You have no way of knowing unless you know the forces and laws that were in place or in this case represented by the tilt. You do not. All you can do is look at amounts of water.

I'll take that as a yes.

To discern truth and real time from the evidences one could NOT do what so called science does...believe and assume that our state was here long ago.

lol, I won't be needing them. You've been firing blanks all the thread.

Maybe the hole is on the other side of the ship, and you never heard the bang, cause of the loud music and headphones?

 

[dad]

Yeah, but how can anyone refute that?
In fact, how can you even determine that?

Well, until they know and can confirm or deny our laws and space, they are sunk! They better stop claiming stuff.

So you are basing your conception of the future on what god 'has said' in the present state.

Part of it was in this state. However what He said to Adam, and Noah, etc I assume was in the former state. What He said to John who was lifted to heaven to see the future I also assume was not in earth space! Etc.

Actually I can argue against that. Plenty others have as well.

Start anytime then...time is a wastin..

"The rules that the future and past are free of are the present state ones!"
How do you know this? Is it from a present state source, like the bible?

The bible if true has to be from an eternal source. That was easy.

Save your celebration for when you've actually succeeded in something. Right now you're relying heavily on the one thing people has agreed on, nothing can be proved for certain, and twist it to your need.
(Edit: And you still haven't refuted LastThursdayism, like DaneaFL wrote.)

I feel no compunction to reject real and reasonable evidences such as we have for last century, or last year or last week. Let's not pretend that we have anything similar for 5000 real years ago. I understand that the same state past models like the big bang and first lifeform call for a total abandoning of reason. However, one must take a balanced and realistic approach, in my humble winning opinion.