Extinctions not asteroid after all, and dino protein real after all...

[Soul Searcher]

I mean think about it, if you created a planet, would you let debris destroy it? No. People can relax.

It's that kind of thinking that is dangerous. Don't you believe that God wiped out most of the creatures on earth with a great flood? Have you not saw earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis destory 1000s or even millions of lives? We could get hit at any time and if we last long enough we will be hit. It would be foolish to relax and think it will not happen.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's that kind of thinking that is dangerous. Don't you believe that God wiped out most of the creatures on earth with a great flood? Have you not saw earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis destory 1000s or even millions of lives? We could get hit at any time and if we last long enough we will be hit. It would be foolish to relax and think it will not happen.

My wife and I were on Guam in 1976 when Supertyphoon Pamela hit.

And yet that was child's play compared to the Flood.

 

[godsmission]

It makes you wonder why God put the KT boundary all over the world doesn't it?

 

[Hespera]

it kinda makes me wonder why there is no sign that there ever was a 'flood"

No actually it doesnt.

it only makes me wonder about the human condition, that people can believe something so strongly for so little reason, and no amount or type of evidence would ever end their rationalizing.

 

[BananaSlug]

There is biblical evidence. Since science is stuck in the here and now like a fly on a sticky tape, you will have to take that. Or leave it and dwell in the unknown.

So why would God change scientific evidence to contradict biblical evidence? Are you saying Romans 1:20 is wrong?

Yes. They don't grow in a week.

I've witnessed trees putting out leaves in a week.

Well, there is no need, actually. Because nothing says they were as present. Now does it!? So why would I doubt a flood, and fast growth, and different laws, etc????

So you are saying you have no evidence for a drastically faster deposition rate of ice core sediment? Nothing specifically says the past was drastically different either, now does it?

There are no C14 dates, not past the time where the amount and ratio was no longer a creature of this state. And science can't say how long that is. All it has done is by science of the here and now, is to assume the there and then was the same. That is meaningless, without solid evidence. And of course evidence is not what if the same state existed calculations, scenarios, and stories.

But why does the "present state" C14 age match the dendrochronological age?

If there was no decay, who needs a curve? What we had was extra material, ( or less) than would be expected IF it all transpired and was formed, and caused in, and by a same state past!

Can you 100% prove there was no decay? If there was no decay, what happened to all of the excrement all those people and animals left behind? How did people digest food? Digestion is a form of decay...

Can you tell me what difference we would expect in 'skeletons'? Would Peleg's skeleton look different than Noah's?

Do you think a 600 year old man's skeleton would look different compared to a 100 year old man?

So what, it can be explained using the tooth fairy, but she is not evidenced either, any more than a same state past. It is no less sensical to have a fairy wave her wand, and create a little speck, from which all the known universe sailed out of, than to accept the insane conclusions of science.

Coming from the man who cannot provide any evidence for his different state past either. Again, can you provide any phenomena that cannot be explained using "present state" science?

Well, If this refers to the carbon in the trees, all we do is look at trees as no more than 4500 years old. test the rest. How much of a clue do you need? I am spoon feeding you here.

You would have to find evidence against why we have 12,000 years worth of overlapping rings and why it is also supported by C14 testing.

Embedded age is interesting. But since it isn't the topic, I see no need to agrue about it, unless the one that believed it wanted to raise it.

Okay.

I never leaned to that idea myself at all, because of things like fossils in the rocks. They had to get there somehow.

Agreed.

No, you sure do not have anything remotely similar to that nature at all.

Why? Can you prove that the 12,000 years of ring growth (supported by C14) are only 4500 years old?

Not unless you could prove a SSP. Otherwise no tree is older than 4500 years, regardless or rings, which then cease to relate to years at all!

Evidence?

Bulletproof. And the C14 after that period merely reflectts the different levels present at the time, and how the subsequent decay, etc affected it.

If it is "bulletproof" then surely you can provide some evidence to back up your claims.

Although no change is really required, I do not believe you. Really I don't. I challenge you here to present us a picture of rings beyond the 4500 level???!!!!! I have asked others and, strangely, they come up empty. I would like to see you do that.

I have already challenged you to provide evidence in support of your claims. So far you have failed to do so. I will provide more evidence as soon as you provide some.

False. The patterns that woulld exist after the state change period woulld affect all the trees in the area. But I really do not believe you will be able to provide us any samples. I would be interested to look at that.

Then scientists should have spotted such a glaring different in tree rings and reported it in their findings. Can you provide examples to bolster your scenario? Can you provide some examples of trees that were obviously affected by the physical state change?

You still need to know when the plug was pulled, and the empty rate at the unobserved stages! Any way you shake it, you come up short.

If we can get the rate at which the water is being emptied we have a more accurate observation than just making wild guesses. Perhaps you can create a new formula for measuring C14 age, since you obviously know so much about it. Why aren't you?

You miss the point, no other pool was observed either for the time. Get out of that one.

You miss the point, that is not how it works in science.

No, The evidence of a hose was not detectable, all that was seen was the present hose.

So in other words YOU have ZERO evidence in support of your scenario. If evidence of another hose wasn't detectable, why assume there was another? So the person who filled the pool was purposely deceiving the people measuring it? Are you saying God is a deceiver?

The silly observer never even thought to check for evidence, but assumed that everything was explainable by present things.

We do check for phenomena that can alter radioisotope levels. C14 doesn't work for aquatic organisms, volcanic activity/metamorphism can reset radioisotope clocks, etc. We have checked for evidence of change.

No, the universe is the pool, and the hose is the fabric and laws that now operate.

So someone was trying to deceive us by erasing the evidence of another hose? Are you saying God is deceiving us by not leaving any evidence of the past state?

Because it was well thunk out. Designed, to carefully, with all things in consideration, result in the temporal state prison man exists in.

So God was purposely trying to trick us. Are you saying Romans 1:20 is wrong?

No accident. No chaos, and fluke fest of fantastic coinceneces involved at all. No little invisible hot soup specks spitting oout the universe, or anything else the PO wisdom of man imagined.

Evidence?

No, that is same state religion, and mentally assigning imaginary dates, based on the present state happenings, and laws, and ways.

Can you provide any evidence supporting the opposite?

Why would you not show a pic of rings beyond 4500 level!!!?? How would we know, I have never seen any. You? Tell the truth. Last time I asked a super educated hot debater, he informed me, if I recall, that the rings were missing! But that is a long story. Let's see you wow us.

I have yet to see you wow me. If this is all you have no wonder you refuse to do a formal debate...

Slow down. Show us some first, before just claiming stuff. --Lurkers, think we'll get a pic?

Honestly lurkers, if you care to post, who actually has a better argument?

No decay in the former state that I am aware of. So, no decay rates.

Where did all the poop go? Maybe that was the secondary purpose of the flood...

 

[Soul Searcher]

Honestly lurkers, if you care to post, who actually has a better argument?

Do you really need to ask

 

[Hespera]

One has no argument at all, just the same ridiculous assertion over and over and over and over and over andoverandover. anyone gonna get tired of it?

 

[gaara4158]

Do you really need to ask

david is so delusional he probably counts that post as a win for himself.

 

[dad]

It's that kind of thinking that is dangerous. Don't you believe that God wiped out most of the creatures on earth with a great flood? Have you not saw earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis destory 1000s or even millions of lives? We could get hit at any time and if we last long enough we will be hit. It would be foolish to relax and think it will not happen.

No, trusting God is the only way to go. It worked for Noah. If we are under His protection, nothing will happen to us unless He allows it. And if it is time to go, we have a wonderful place prepared. Win, win.

 

[dad]

It makes you wonder why God put the KT boundary all over the world doesn't it?

?? If that was related to the flood, I would expect that. No biggie.

 

[Soul Searcher]

No, trusting God is the only way to go. It worked for Noah. If we are under His protection, nothing will happen to us unless He allows it. And if it is time to go, we have a wonderful place prepared. Win, win.

So in other words we should not be concerned with looking for a way to possibily prevent an impact that could kill millions of people? By that same type of logic we don't really need doctors either after all we will not get sick unless God allows it and if we die we have a place to go right. No need for the police to lock up murderers they will not kill anyone unless God allows it. It's all win win and we save a lot of money in the process right?

As I said before this kind of thinking is dangerous.

 

[dad]

So why would God change scientific evidence to contradict biblical evidence? Are you saying Romans 1:20 is wrong?

He didn't. There was no science back then. It is a creature of the recent past, and jumped into the fray wrong from the getgo.

I've witnessed trees putting out leaves in a week.

Have you seen an olive tree grow from a seed to produce fruit in that time?

So you are saying you have no evidence for a drastically faster deposition rate of ice core sediment? Nothing specifically says the past was drastically different either, now does it?

Nothing says it was the same. God indicates major differences. Noo reason from science to doubt.

But why does the "present state" C14 age match the dendrochronological age?

It doesn't. The dendrochronological age stops at 4500 rings, or so, whenever this state started.

Can you 100% prove there was no decay? If there was no decay, what happened to all of the excrement all those people and animals left behind? How did people digest food? Digestion is a form of decay...

We were talking radioactive decay. Can you prove 1% there was any at all? No. You can't. All we know is that there is decay now, and has been fro the recent past. We also know that the materials in some rocks, and etc, are now produced by decay. The assumption is that all materials of that sort were produced by decay, and at the present decay rate we can measure. But if the materials were already here before the decay state started, that assumption is null and oh, so void.

I have no reason to assume they were not here, involved in whatever process would exist in a created state universe.

Do you think a 600 year old man's skeleton would look different compared to a 100 year old man?

In this state, no. There ain't no such thing. In the former state, who knows? Science? Apparently not. If a man's bones were old at a thousand, I would take a stab at guessing that they would look somewhat like an old man's bones. These days we are old at 90 or 100.

Coming from the man who cannot provide any evidence for his different state past either. Again, can you provide any phenomena that cannot be explained using "present state" science?

Coming from the man who cannot provide any evidence for his same state past either. Again, can you provide any phenomena that cannot be explained using a pre science, "different state" past? No. You can't.

I have evidence galore for a different state past. The Sumers, and all early history of man, and the very word of God to booot. It doesn't get any better than that.

You would have to find evidence against why we have 12,000 years worth of overlapping rings and why it is also supported by C14 testing.

Carbon dating cannot support anything beyond where this state can be proven to exist. It becomes ratios, and levels. Not time units. The fast tree growth, pre split, means that no amount of rings matter in the least, whether they overlap, underlap, or do a lap dance with a willow.

Evidence?

You bet. The evidence is that a SSP has no evidence.

If it is "bulletproof" then surely you can provide some evidence to back up your claims.

All evidence beyond the baby grasp of present scienvce supports it. Bible, history, etc.

I have already challenged you to provide evidence in support of your claims. So far you have failed to do so. I will provide more evidence as soon as you provide some.

Too late. Science cannot wait till others provide non science based evidence for claims, to support it's very foundation. This is news?

Then scientists should have spotted such a glaring different in tree rings and reported it in their findings. Can you provide examples to bolster your scenario? Can you provide some examples of trees that were obviously affected by the physical state change?

You were asked to show us the pre 4500 ring level pics, because you made claims about them. Lurkers, behold, the lack of simple evidence for so called science claims.!!!!!

If we can get the rate at which the water is being emptied we have a more accurate observation than just making wild guesses. Perhaps you can create a new formula for measuring C14 age, since you obviously know so much about it. Why aren't you?

Same reason I am not formulating tooth fairy age. Carbon decay only applies in the present state.

So in other words YOU have ZERO evidence in support of your scenario. If evidence of another hose wasn't detectable, why assume there was another? So the person who filled the pool was purposely deceiving the people measuring it? Are you saying God is a deceiver?

Because I see the whole picture. The reason the lazy, half blind observer found nothing, was because he looked for nothing. He was more interested in looking clever, and getting a grant. If he did see anything, he would immediatly try to explain it away using present based ideas. If the former state hose was less heavy, it might throw him off, since he may only expect a huge impression in the grass.

We do check for phenomena that can alter radioisotope levels.

Before radiation was, the levels alreasy were doing their thing not knowing or caring about how they one day would be involved in a new job in the decay process.

C14 doesn't work for aquatic organisms, volcanic activity/metamorphism can reset radioisotope clocks, etc. We have checked for evidence of change.

Only in the box of this state, and laws and universe fabric. You never considered that a different universe was here, and that the meterials also were already here. You assumed that they all got here as they are now produced. I kid you not.

So God was purposely trying to trick us. Are you saying Romans 1:20 is wrong?

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so [SIZE=-1][/SIZE] that they are without excuse:

"
20. For the invisible things of him from--or "since"
the creation of the world are clearly seen--the mind brightly beholding what the eye cannot discern.
being understood by the things that are made--Thus, the outward creation is not the parent but the interpreter of our faith in God. That faith has its primary sources within our own breast (Ro 1:19); but it becomes an intelligible and articulate conviction only through what we observe around us ("by the things which are made," Ro 1:20). And thus are the inner and the outer revelation of God the complement of each other, making up between them one universal and immovable conviction that God is. (With this striking apostolic statement agree the latest conclusions of the most profound speculative students of Theism). "

Romans - Chapter 1 - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary on StudyLight.org


So, we need that inner spiritual life (inside us, or as the commentary puts it 'our breasts') to interpret or have it (creation) become intelligable. That means godless science is out of the loop!

And, if we intelligenly look at creation, that goes back to Adam, and the garden, we will see a lot of differences twixt then and now! Lifespans, groth rates, spuirits walking in the realm of men, etc etc. Hec, there was even a big change in creation at the curse! Does that verse to you mean that Adam saw the same world from creation week after the curse!!!? Impossible.

Come to thinkk of it, that is biblical proof of hyper evolution! Ask anyone if moasquitos, or venomous snakes, etc are part of the curse. They therefore had to change awful fast! Same with some plants becoming weeds, etc. The evidence mounts.

Can you provide any evidence supporting the opposite?

Since what you want the opposite to can't be supported in the first place, no need exists to support the opposite of it! Elementary.

I have yet to see you wow me. If this is all you have no wonder you refuse to do a formal debate...

Tell you what, you wow me by supporting your pre 4500 tree ring claims, with a good photo of them, and I might consider it. If you can't do it here, why pretend you can somewhere else!?

Where did all the poop go? Maybe that was the secondary purpose of the flood...

The bioological rapidity by with which waste was broken down, indeed may have been fast. The rate also, on a similar vein, that plancton, or bacteria could grow, would have affected many aspects of life on earth.

 

[dad]

So in other words we should not be concerned with looking for a way to possibly prevent an impact that could kill millions of people?

No, I wouldn't worry about it. Wasting billions on such fears most likely would end up as some crude effort to fight God when He comes. Money wasted indeed!

By that same type of logic we don't really need doctors either after all we will not get sick unless God allows it and if we die we have a place to go right.

Nonsense. Medicine is like knowledge and science. The good stuff is great. But there is also the bad stuff that comes with the package deal. For example, abortions, and sex change operations.

No need for the police to lock up murderers they will not kill anyone unless God allows it. It's all win win and we save a lot of money in the process right?

I would tend to almost agree, they should be killed. Releasing child molesters, and mad dog killers on the innocent public, is a crime. Those guilty of it are accomplices to the crimes, I would think.

 

[Soul Searcher]

So in other words we should not be concerned with looking for a way to possibly prevent an impact that could kill millions of people?

No, I wouldn't worry about it. Wasting billions on such fears most likely would end up as some crude effort to fight God when He comes. Money wasted indeed!

Nonsense. Medicine is like knowledge and science. The good stuff is great. But there is also the bad stuff that comes with the package deal. For example, abortions, and sex change operations.



I would tend to almost agree, they should be killed. Releasing child molesters, and mad dog killers on the innocent public, is a crime. Those guilty of it are accomplices to the crimes, I would think.

Do you see the inconsistancy in your views here? We should not try to protect people from something that could kill every person on the planet but we should protect them from something that might hurt or kill a few. hmm.

 

[Gracchus]

No, trusting God is the only way to go. It worked for Noah. If we are under His protection, nothing will happen to us unless He allows it. And if it is time to go, we have a wonderful place prepared. Win, win.

I have no quarrel with that, but it would seem that you don't put your trust in God, you put your trust in a convoluted and irrational interpretation of a collection of books written by men bent on disparate aims.

If you would throw your book away, and trust only God I might have some respect for you.

 

[dad]

So in other words we should not be concerned with looking for a way to possibly prevent an impact that could kill millions of people? Do you see the inconsistancy in your views here? We should not try to protect people from something that could kill every person on the planet but we should protect them from something that might hurt or kill a few. hmm.

Not at all. No impact could occur that was not known by Him. Impacts will occur, and there will be nothing man can do to stop it, because they will be judgments of God. In case it is news, no one is getting away with what is going on now. He is simply allowing the cup to fill up, before the judgments start.


By killing just a few, I assume you refer to the releasing of molesters and killers among the population? Or abortions? If so, that is something man could do something about. In fact is supposed to do something about. Protecting His planet comes under His responsibilities!

 

[dad]

I have no quarrel with that, but it would seem that you don't put your trust in God, you put your trust in a convoluted and irrational interpretation of a collection of books written by men bent on disparate aims.

If you would throw your book away, and trust only God I might have some respect for you.

How else, but by the word He sent to man, would we know how He works? Or that He cares for us, and watches over us? How would we know there is nothing to fear in space objects destroying earth? How would we know even what God it was? How would we know that man fell, and was promised a savior from the very start? How would we know the animal sacrifices of the Jews of old all pointed to that messiah? How would we know He already came, and that we can be saved? How would we know that He prepared a wonderful place for us when we die?

How much respect can one really have for men that worship some unknown god?

 

[Gracchus]

How else, but by the word He sent to man, would we know how He works?

Uhh...by looking at the real world?

Or that He cares for us, and watches over us?

Well, maybe he doesn't. After all he works in mysterious ways. (Or so I have been repeatedly told.)

How would we know there is nothing to fear in space objects destroying earth?

Why is it important that we be fearless?

How would we know even what God it was?

Well, we could make it all up, like the folks who wrote the books of the Bible.

How would we know that man fell, and was promised a savior from the very start?

Maybe we wouldnh't know that. Maybe it isn't even so. It is even contrary to reason. It makes God out to be omniscient but stupid.

How would we know the animal sacrifices of the Jews of old all pointed to that messiah?

Animal sacrifices point to deicide? How is that?

How would we know He already came, and that we can be saved?

It isn't what we don't know that makes the most trouble for us, it is what we know that really isn't so. Maybe without the writings of bronze age theocrats intent on feathering their own nests we would see reality and not their self-serving lies.

How would we know that He prepared a wonderful place for us when we die?

So why haven't you died, and gone there? Because it is all just whistling in the dark, and it is not a pretty tune.

How much respect can one really have for men that worship some unknown god?

Better to worship an unknown god, if worship you must, than sadistically unfathomable moron. But why worship at all? Does your god like to see you grovel and plead?

From your own holy book comes this: "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" --- KJV Micah 6:8

Doesn't say that we must believe that every word of the Bible is the innerant word of God. (In fact there was no Bible when when that verse was written.) It doesn't say a word about believing in Jesus, original sin, vicarious atonement, or any kind of sacrifices, either animal or vegetable, human or divine. It simply enjoins kindness, fairness, and a little humility in religious matters. Maybe we should master that, and forego adding ridiculous dogma and ritual magic.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Not at all. No impact could occur that was not known by Him. Impacts will occur, and there will be nothing man can do to stop it, because they will be judgments of God. In case it is news, no one is getting away with what is going on now. He is simply allowing the cup to fill up, before the judgments start.


By killing just a few, I assume you refer to the releasing of molesters and killers among the population? Or abortions? If so, that is something man could do something about. In fact is supposed to do something about. Protecting His planet comes under His responsibilities!

Again with the inconsistant ideas. It is mans responsibility to protect the planet but it is not his responsibility is what you seem to be saying. We should protect it from minor threats but not major ones.

I have no doubt that we could prevent an impact up to a certian scale. I also have no doubt that the scale would increase with research and time. It is in our power to do so.

 

[Split Rock]

No, trusting God is the only way to go. It worked for Noah. If we are under His protection, nothing will happen to us unless He allows it. And if it is time to go, we have a wonderful place prepared. Win, win.

This is why creationism is actually a danger to our society. We should trust in dad's erroneous interpretation of scripture and do nothing to protect ourselves. Lose, lose.