Different state past

[CabVet]

False.

True.

False.

True.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[dad]

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

Thanks.

 

[dad]

Can you prove it? I don't think you can, even something as simple as this.

Just like you can't prove any of your bible stories.

So if the earth orbits the sun, the bible is true? Ok. You might be not so far off after all.

 

[dad]

Support different state with physical evidence. You made the claim.

No, I never claimed physical evidence supported a different state past. But your dates are clearly supposed to be supportable. They aren't. Are they? Stop tossing out old age dream dates then. For the sake of honesty.

 

[dad]

True.

Your true was in reference to this

"science has confirmed the past state of the universe was the same"


Bring it....

 

[CabVet]

So if the earth orbits the sun, the bible is true? Ok. You might be not so far off after all.

Really? What's next? You will say that 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is a true story because there are corals in the Red Sea and shipwrecks in Vigo?

 

[CabVet]

Your true was in reference to this

"science has confirmed the past state of the universe was the same"

Bring it....

I have a good one for you: there are 1,000 parallel universes. Prove me wrong.

 

[dad]

Really? What's next? You will say that 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is a true story because there are corals in the Red Sea and shipwrecks in Vigo?

No, all I said was that the earth goes round the sun in this state. Try to accept that. Reality can be your friend.

 

[dad]

I have a good one for you: there are 1,000 parallel universes. Prove me wrong.

So who picked that number? You live in Vegas?

 

[CabVet]

So who picked that number? You live in Vegas?

No answer? That's what I thought.

 

[dad]

No answer? That's what I thought.

Why would anyone need to second guess your imaginary alternate universes?

 

[CabVet]

Why would anyone need to second guess your imaginary alternate universes?

Because the idea without support is as absurd as a "different state past".

 

[dad]

Because the idea without support is as absurd as a "different state past".

The state of the past according to God's word and history is the only supported state. Science can imagine alternate universe past and present all they like. They have no proof. You see once you leave the realm of science, you are no match for people of faith. And in the fishbowl of science, you are not in a position to talk of spirits or any past or future states!

 

[CabVet]

The state of the past according to God's word and history is the only supported state. Science can imagine alternate universe past and present all they like. They have no proof. You see once you leave the realm of science, you are no match for people of faith. And in the fishbowl of science, you are not in a position to talk of spirits or any past or future states!

God's word says nothing about a different state, please don't bring the Almighty into this.

 

[Tiberius]

False.

True.

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

Do you have any evidence in the real world to show that this is false?

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

So you are claiming that there was a point where radioactive decay did not occur? You do realise that if the subatomic particles didn't do that, then the sun wouldn't have been able to shine? Was the sun shining in this different past state, dad?

Oh, and a great deal of the heat of the earth's core is generated by radioactive decay. If decay didn't occur, then earth's core would have been much colder, which would have caused many things we see today to be different. For example, it is the molten core that creates the Earth's magnetic field. Without radioactive decay, this would not have been possible, not to the degree it is today. This would have left signs in rocks (when molten, the crystals in the rocks align themselves with the magnetic field, and these crystals are locked in position when the rocks solidify). There is no evidence anywhere of there being a disruption in the magnetic field caused by a LACK of magnetic field, which would have been unavoidable if there was no radioactive decay.

Oh, and another question...

Let's say you are right, and there was a time when there was no decay at all. Why is it then that we see that rocks in today's present state have several million years worth of decay in them? If they have only been in the present state, decay-possible form for a few thousand years at most, how did they get all that decay going on? Was it like there was a long time when there was no decay, then a time when there was greatly accelerated decay, before it settled down to the rates we see today?

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

Thanks for your reply. I hope I won't have to remind you about this post!

 

[Cromulent]

I have challenged Dad on this sort of thing before. Eventually he admitted that he thinks the laws were different, but were different in such a monumentally specific coincidental way that everything worked out so it looks like there was radioactive decay, ice cores being laid down, cosmic events, and volcanic eruptions happening exactly as they do now.

I find it hilarious that he thinks he's in a position to mock anyone.

 

[dad]

God's word says nothing about a different state, please don't bring the Almighty into this.

It says plenty about a nature that was different, don't try to keep Him out of any discussion on the past.

 

[dad]

True.



Do you have any evidence in the real world to show that this is false?

Yes, aside from the fact that no evidence exists to prove a present state nature existed, there is evidence. The present forces and laws cannot be used to explain the nature and events of the bible record up till Noah's time. So why would they be good anywhere?

So you are claiming that there was a point where radioactive decay did not occur? You do realise that if the subatomic particles didn't do that, then the sun wouldn't have been able to shine? Was the sun shining in this different past state, dad?

Come on now. The sun does not need this state to shine! That is a silly conjecture. Do you realize that nuclear reactions might happen in a different state too? However, they would not involve the decay and danger and etc that they do in this state.

The things that the particles did in the former state, need not be measured by what they now do. There is no evidence for that.

Oh, and a great deal of the heat of the earth's core is generated by radioactive decay.

No! Who even says the earth core is warm!!? That is all same state conjecture, science doesn't know. Really. I suspect that a lot if not almost all the heat we see down there may have been created by the rapid continental movement!?

If decay didn't occur, then earth's core would have been much colder, which would have caused many things we see today to be different.

Nope!

For example, it is the molten core that creates the Earth's magnetic field. Without radioactive decay, this would not have been possible, not to the degree it is today.

That is not what really cause the field perhaps!? That happens to be an attempt at explaining it. An attempt using ONLY our state laws etc.

This would have left signs in rocks (when molten, the crystals in the rocks align themselves with the magnetic field, and these crystals are locked in position when the rocks solidify). There is no evidence anywhere of there being a disruption in the magnetic field caused by a LACK of magnetic field, which would have been unavoidable if there was no radioactive decay.

Nope.

The magnetic field need not have been caused by anything related to 'decay'.

Oh, and another question...

Let's say you are right, and there was a time when there was no decay at all. Why is it then that we see that rocks in today's present state have several million years worth of decay in them?

Easy. The daughter materials were likely here already. They assumed a decay role at the start of this state!

If they have only been in the present state, decay-possible form for a few thousand years at most, how did they get all that decay going on? Was it like there was a long time when there was no decay, then a time when there was greatly accelerated decay, before it settled down to the rates we see today?

Forget that greatly accelerated stuff. Try none maybe?

 

[dad]

I have challenged Dad on this sort of thing before. Eventually he admitted that he thinks the laws were different, but were different in such a monumentally specific coincidental way that everything worked out so it looks like there was radioactive decay, ice cores being laid down, cosmic events, and volcanic eruptions happening exactly as they do now.

I find it hilarious that he thinks he's in a position to mock anyone.

No. If rock was of a different consistency (and the laws different) why would we need the heat for molten rock we do now?? Cosmic events? Like..? Ice cores laid down? Well, if the flood waters were fast frozen in areas, would that not make a lot of ice fast? That is not being laid down as they now are exactly!


As evidence of the different consistency and laws, I offer the key to the past...the future! lOOK AT THE TIME WHEN THE NATURE AGAIN CHANGES TO MUCH THE WAY IT WAS! In the tribulation we see 'every island fleeing away'! 'Every mountain leveled'! Ice in the form of hail vastly different from what we could have today..etc!!

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, aside from the fact that no evidence exists to prove a present state nature existed, there is evidence.

So you're starting off with the old, "You can't prove I'm wrong, therefore I am right!" argument. Best friend of kindergarteners everywhere.

The present forces and laws cannot be used to explain the nature and events of the bible record up till Noah's time. So why would they be good anywhere?

Okay, even if the Bible is 100% literal for these events, why not just say that God caused a miracle? Why the need to explain it by altering the fundamental laws of the universe?

Come on now. The sun does not need this state to shine! That is a silly conjecture. Do you realize that nuclear reactions might happen in a different state too? However, they would not involve the decay and danger and etc that they do in this state. The things that the particles did in the former state, need not be measured by what they now do. There is no evidence for that.

Do you even know what a nuclear reaction is? You can't have one without the other, because they are the same thing! It's like saying that someone is moving, but they aren't changing their location.

No! Who even says the earth core is warm!!? That is all same state conjecture, science doesn't know. Really.

First of all, we have seen Lava. Molten rock. It requires heat if it is to stay in a molten state. So when we see hot rocks coming out of the ground, we know there's heat down there.

Also, we have been able to measure the way seismic shock waves travel through the Earth's interior by measuring how long they take to get to the other side, and the way their direction is changed. The only model that explains what we see involves a very hot core surrounded by liquid rocks.

I suspect that a lot if not almost all the heat we see down there may have been created by the rapid continental movement!?

Despite the fact that the aforementioned "locking" of the magnetic field into rocks indicates that this never took place?

Nope!

Yep!

That is not what really cause the field perhaps!? That happens to be an attempt at explaining it. An attempt using ONLY our state laws etc.

The magnetic locking I've mentioned indicates that there was no sudden change at any point.

Nope.

The magnetic field need not have been caused by anything related to 'decay'.

Would you care to propose an alternative?

Easy. The daughter materials were likely here already. They assumed a decay role at the start of this state!

Fail! In many cases the daughter materials also decay! If you are correct, then there would be no daughter material left!

Forget that greatly accelerated stuff. Try none maybe?

Then how is it that we have millions of years worth of decay if it's only been going on for a few thousand years?