Different state past

[CabVet]

Wow. It only took dad 10 posts to unilaterally declare victory. I'm impressed...

Winning!

 

[Elendur]

Not if God placed a hedge of protection around them and/or cleaned up the mess afterward.

Take the burning bush for example.

What scientist back then would have believed Moses' account of that bush that burned, without burning up?

They would look at it and say the same thing you guys say about the Flood, viz., "This bush was never on fire, there's evidence that says otherwise."

Same with Daniel's three friends in the fiery furnace.

In fact, in that account, Daniel goes out of his way to mention there was no evidence generated.

Daniel 3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.

Again, you guys would say evidence shows they were not cast into that furnace.

I believe that the most likely scenario would be that he cleaned up the mess afterwards then, but what about eastern civilizations? They had civilizations at the same time, but didn't drown (since the flood was to kill everyone except the arks inhabitants).

 

[CabVet]

I believe that the most likely scenario would be that he cleaned up the mess afterwards then, but what about eastern civilizations? They had civilizations at the same time, but didn't drown (since the flood was to kill everyone except the arks inhabitants).

Haha, they will just come back to you and say that the dating of those civilizations is wrong and that the only people alive after the flood were those that were in the Ark. Of course, there is a lot of evidence against that too, the stronger one being that all of our DNA points to human origins in sub-Saharan Africa, not the middle-east, but I am sure they will say that God made the DNA look like that after the flood just to confuse us too. Interesting how they will never say that Noah's family was black.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe that the most likely scenario would be that he cleaned up the mess afterwards then, but what about eastern civilizations? They had civilizations at the same time, but didn't drown (since the flood was to kill everyone except the arks inhabitants).

These civilizations came after the Flood, not before it.

Take Egypt, for example.

The Egyptians come from Mizraim, who was Noah's grandson.

Genesis 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

Have you ever heard Genesis 10 called the Table of Nations?

Here's why: The Sixteen Grandsons of Noah.

 

[AV1611VET]

Haha, they will just come back to you and say that the dating of those civilizations is wrong and that the only people alive after the flood were those that were in the Ark.

You might -- but someone who knows his Bible and his basic doctrine might be a little more specific.

There's nothing like a non-believer trying to sound like a believer, is there?

Of course, there is a lot of evidence against that too, the stronger one being that all of our DNA points to human origins in sub-Saharan Africa, not the middle-east,

Right -- and my DNA has "Made in Agaña" on it, doesn't it?

Does AAA issue birth certificates, or are birth certificates road maps?

... but I am sure they will say that God made the DNA look like that after the flood just to confuse us too.

Ya -- you're so sure of what we'll say, you'll even post it on a public forum and look ... not as educated, won't you?

Why is it that every atheist, agnostic, and Heinz 57 acts like they've debated Christians for years?

Interesting how they will never say that Noah's family was black.

Lacks of education breed interests in the wrong direction, don't they?

But for the record, do you know what this is?

If you do, you wouldn't have made that goofy statement.

 

[CabVet]

You might -- but someone who knows his Bible and his basic doctrine might be a little more specific.

There's nothing like a non-believer trying to sound like a believer, is there?

Right -- and my DNA has "Made in Agaña" on it, doesn't it?

Does AAA issue birth certificates, or are birth certificates road maps?

Ya -- you're so sure of what we'll say, you'll even post it on a public forum and look ... not as educated, won't you?

Why is it that every atheist, agnostic, and Heinz 57 acts like they've debated Christians for years?

Lacks of education breed interests in the wrong direction, don't they?

Did you notice that you "answered" to all of my points with questions? I told you I grew up a Christian, going to church every week, sometimes more than a few days a week, so I am not a non-believer trying to sound like a believer, I am simply passing on the views of the many believers I have met. If you have a different view, it would help if you expressed it, and you might even convince me that I am wrong in the process.

Now, are those real questions or rhetorical ones? Because I won't go through the trouble of answering them if the latter is the case.

 

[CabVet]

But for the record, do you know what this is?

If you do, you wouldn't have made that goofy statement.

With all of those images, I really don't know what that is. Perhaps a Catholic Bible? The ones I know are more like this:

But more importantly, the one you keep saying that is the only one that anybody should consult is this:

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you notice that you "answered" to all of my points with questions?

For pity's sake.

Here, let me try again, without the interrogation points:

Haha, they will just come back to you and say that the dating of those civilizations is wrong and that the only people alive after the flood were those that were in the Ark.

QV please: 84

Of course, there is a lot of evidence against that too, the stronger one being that all of our DNA points to human origins in sub-Saharan Africa, not the middle-east,

I don't see how DNA can point to a specific location.

... but I am sure they will say that God made the DNA look like that after the flood just to confuse us too.

That's a cheap shot.

Interesting how they will never say that Noah's family was black.

Apparently you're not familiar with the Black Heritage Bible, where they say just that very thing.

(I think ... I haven't read it though.)

 

[CabVet]

For pity's sake.

Here, let me try again, without the interrogation points:

QV please: 84

I don't see how DNA can point to a specific location.

That's a cheap shot.

Apparently you're not familiar with the Black Heritage Bible, where they say just that very thing.

(I think ... I haven't read it though.)

Sorry for the cheap shot. No, I am not familiar with the Black Heritage Bible, will look it up. None of the accounts that I read specify race, but assumes that everybody was from Israel, which is not Black people. If the Black Heritage Bible says that Adam and Eve (along with many of their descendants) were Black, they are much closer to science than the mainstream view.

As for DNA pointing to specific locations, yes, a detailed DNA analysis can pinpoint with extremely high accuracy where the ancestral populations of any species are located. Here is an example:

Haplotypes A and B are the oldest DNA haplotypes in this reconstruction. Also note the location of a hypothetical "Adam". I can go over how this is done in more detail if you are interested, but I will post back in a few minutes when I think of good analogies.

 

[CabVet]

Here is another way to show it:

The top of the image is a phylogenetic tree constructed with y-chromosome DNA relationships. The longer the vertical branches, the further they are from the others, so the left portion of the tree (red branches) is the oldest portion and likely represents the ancestral population, which corresponds to Africans (or their descendents).

 

[Elendur]

Haha, they will just come back to you and say that the dating of those civilizations is wrong and that the only people alive after the flood were those that were in the Ark. Of course, there is a lot of evidence against that too, the stronger one being that all of our DNA points to human origins in sub-Saharan Africa, not the middle-east, but I am sure they will say that God made the DNA look like that after the flood just to confuse us too. Interesting how they will never say that Noah's family was black.

I expected that, but hoping for something new. I was not disappointed, this time a got a web page.

Here's why: The Sixteen Grandsons of Noah.

Galatia, France, Spain, Wales, Armenia, Turkey, Germany, Romania, Ukraine, Medes, Persians, Iran, India, Greece, Cyprus, Georgia, Moscow, Macedonia, Yugoslavia, Africa, Ethiopia, Egypt, Libya, Palestine, Persia, Iran, Assyria, Chaldeans, Hebrew, Arabia, Lydians, Western Turkey, Syria.
(Sorry, can't get the bold to go away)

Right. First of all, can you get those results with something less biased than Creation - Creation Ministries International
Second, I fail to see a majority of Asia explained.
Otherwise, thanks for the link

 

[Davian]

Are you kidding me?

I have never said that, and never will.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Does this fallacy never get old?

What I say is: There is no evidence that shows a world-wide flood.

And absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence.

That's different from saying: Evidence shows there was no world-wide flood.

Evidence shows that you do a lot of hand-waving in an attempt dismiss the evidence you don't like.

 

[Elendur]

And absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence.

Is it?

A -> B
means
Non(B) -> Non(A)
but it doesn't mean
Non(A) -> Non(B)

It might be that I don't really have the correct definition of evidence, but I do hope that laws of logic still apply.

 

[Davian]

Does this fallacy never get old?

And absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence.

Is it?

A -> B
means
Non(B) -> Non(A)
but it doesn't mean
Non(A) -> Non(B)

It might be that I don't really have the correct definition of evidence, but I do hope that laws of logic still apply.

The correct statement is, "absence of evidence is not proof of absence".

I would think only the desperate would resort to this claim, but he is welcome to use it, FWIW.

This has been pointed out to AV only a short time ago.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Is it?

A -> B
means
Non(B) -> Non(A)
but it doesn't mean
Non(A) -> Non(B)

It might be that I don't really have the correct definition of evidence, but I do hope that laws of logic still apply.

If B must occur when A occurs, then the absense of B means the absense of A.

If a global flood means X, and there is no X, then it is correct to conclude no global flood. The absense of evidence is evidence of absense.

What usually happens then is we reassess whether it is really true that A->B. In other words, if the conclusion doesn't match up with reality, or what we think of as reality, we question our premises.

So, yeah, absense of evidence is evidence of absense.

 

[Elendur]

The correct statement is, "absence of evidence is not proof of absence".

Ah, now that sounds better, I just didn't think enough about it I'll retract the start of post #78.

Edit:

So, yeah, absense of evidence is evidence of absense.

My bad I was wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

For one thing, don't you use calibrated equipment that you built yourselves?

Let's use your example: trips around the sun vs birthdays.

If you assume one birthday per year, then you calibrate the birthday as one exact trip around the sun; this includes automatically accounting for leap year, adjusting for sideral time and whatever else.

But if the person is having a second birthday based on lunar years, then you say, "oops", and readjust for solar years.

If we see that 1 trip around the sun = 1 birthday, how is this dependent on proper calibration?

 

[dad]

Are you still playing this silly game? I've already explained to you how science has confirmed the past state of the universe was the same as it is now.

False.

Let me explain it again.

Radio dating uses the radio active decay of a material to see how old it is. You can read a good explanation of it HERE. In short, it relies on the known rate at which one material decays into another.

False. That is only what happens in this present state. It cannot be used to explain all we see.

There are several different techniques. For example, we can see how material A decays into material B, and there can be another techniques that measurs how Material X decays into Materal Y.

Now, let's assume that dad is correct for a moment, and in the past we had A --> B decay and X --> Y decay that were at different rates than what we see today. Specifically, let's assume that A decayed to B slower than it does today, and X decayed to Y faster than it does today.

Nope. You make the same mistake of assuming decay however slow or fast!


You referred to post 18....here is your answer.

 

[dad]

I say that this "different state past" was everything before last Thursday. I say the universe was created last Thursday, with everything in it, including memories. Everything was created with embedded age and embedded history. Now, prove me wrong.

I say last week was real.

 

[dad]

Are you a friend of Gene Ray?

No. Is he a nice guy?