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

[Nathan Poe]

Or that they existed at all!

So, there are no physics in dadland?

 

[dad]

More accurately they use science to study the past and to date there is absolutely nothing to indicate that this so called "different state past" existed at all.

No science exists either to indicate a same state past. That is merely assumed.

All we have on this is some goolge search that points us to a poster calling himself dad and not finding a single person who seems to agree with him and not one shred of evidence to support such claim. Meanwhile science marches on as it does not work based on bias religous opinions.

All history and the bible support it, and no science opposes it. Whether you and some others realize that yet or not.

 

[dad]

Would you be able to provide some evidence for "super fast" growth?

It doesn't happen now. It was a feature of the bible past. Unles you can go there, all we have is a record.

You didn't answer my question. I asked could you give me a specific Bible verse that says radioactivity didn't exist before the flood. If you can't then you don't even have Biblical evidence to support your "no radioactive decay".

The new heavens will not see rust or moth corrupting. In other words, in that state, things last forever.

Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

If the world was in a state of decay, Adam could not have lived on it forever.

You obviously did not get my statements. If some "big alteration" in the laws of physics changed 4500 years ago, such as no radioactive decay, then we wouldn't find any objects over 4500 years of age. Why do we find objects over 4500 years of age?

No alteration "IN" our universe. Our universe state is the alteration from the created state, and laws!

If present observations can be used to reliably explain geologic phenomena, why use anything different? Can you tell us what we should look for?

Some people use tea leaves. Why use anything different? Personally, I would prefer to head into an explanation attempt, without the baggage of insisting there was a universe state we can't prove, and call it science.



So if radioactive decay did not exist until 4500 years ago, why do we find geologic phenomena older than 4500 years of age. It would stand to reason if radioactive decay did not exist, no rocks would be dated older than when decay came into existence. Can you explain this?

Then provide some scientific evidence is support of your scenario.

There was no PO science in a different state, that applies only here.

Please give me the science that doesn't support "same state" science. If you say the science exists, please provide the evidence.

Please give me the science that does support "same state" science. If you say the science exists, please provide the evidence??? Same stateism is nothing at all but a belief.

Yes because it has reliably explained past phenomena and has been able to predict what we should find in past phenomena. It has worked and you have not been able to provide an instance when it has not worked.

It doesn't work at all. The patterns of how the past was laid down might be somewhat known, such as in the oil exploration geology. But the actual causes for the patterns, and universe fabric of the far past, are unknown.

It is not "false prophesy" if it works. If they can use past phenomena and correctly compare it to present phenomena, it doesn't seem too false!

Nope. Example?

You didn't actually answer the question. Since the reconstruction was developed by calibrating the widths of tree rings from the 1900s with rainfall records from the 1900s. Because we assume that conditions must have been similar in the past, we can then use the widths of tree rings as a proxy (or substitute) for actual rainfall amounts prior to the historical record. Why would this method work until the 4500 year mark, then all of a sudden stop working?

Because for the widths of tree rings to have present state meaning, we need a present state! The only meaning would exist when you first proved there was such a state in the far past. Of course we had this state a few hundred years ago.

No, you stated: "The evidence of a hose was not detectable, all that was seen was the present hose". So, no footprints, no signs of another hose, yet we have a book that says it was done. So you are saying Romans 1:20 is wrong!

No. I am sayinng that the observer doing the calculations didn't really look. If he saw an indentation in the grass, he may have said it was from the small hose, having it's position changed several times, and rubbing the grass, or some such!

As stated many times before, if present phenomena can reliably explain past phenomena and past phenomena can reliably predict present phenomnena, why assume otherwise?

It can't. Not when we get near the different state time. That is the problem. Not my problem, I do not claim a same state.

The only evidence for a "different state" past is a book yet the geologic record contradicts that book, even though a specific verse says "God's invisible qualities are visible in what has been made".

No, is supports it! Only the recent interpretations and same state belief based viewing of the record, seem to contradict the truth of what went down. In the proper light, it all comes together like a symphony.

You say one moment that science supports your scenario, then in another say the only support is the Bible. It seems the longer we go the more unsure you get.

All evidence agrees. But science doesn't cover the far past universe state.

So why would God go to such great lengths to deceive us? Doesn't the Bible say God isn't a liar?

The change in our universe was to protect us. If man got too wicked, and continued living a thousand years, no world would exist for a savior to come down to.

Does the Bible specifically say the laws of the universe were fundamentally different from now?

The bible is a record, from which we can surmise many things about the future and past.

We see evidence they were pushed up too. We also see the evidence that they are older than 4500 years.

Great. Show it to us. The older bit. The pushed up bit is easy for a different state.

Can you provide a Bible verse that specifically states such a thing?

The creation week, in Gen 1. It has the days, and has us eating the fruits of plants and trees. Also when Noah landed, as I already outlined, the fresh tree trig was brought back by the bird.

Such as? All I read is now we can eat animals for food, a promise for no more global flooding, and God confusing our language.

Remember, I suse science and present knowledge to compare with the bible past as well.

It also has the lifespans shortened exponentially. Plants no longer growing as they did. The kinds in the ark hyper evolving fast! The continents separating. A world that sees laws that make dropping a planet full of water from above, without great heat, impossible. And a present world where the spiritual realm is quite separate, indeed, invisible, and unknown to science.

Did the hyperevolution occur after original sin or after the flood? Either way it meant God created after he supposedly rested.

Both. And before sin as well, one would assume. It was merely a feature of created life.

Because if radioactive decay did not exist until 4500 years ago, the oldest rock on earth would only be 4500 years old. Unless you want to say God is purposely lying to us by making rock appear older than what it really is.

Not at all. The materials that are in the rock were here, one would assume. It is only by thoose materials, and ratios of them, that you assume the rock is old. You assume that the stuff now produced by radioactive decay of this temporal universe state, was not already there before, and engaged in something other than decay.

If it comes down to it, I'll email a dendrochronologist.

I suspect it will take a lot more than that. You made claims, and fail to produce the pics to prove it. I anm very skeptical.

In our "present state" algal blooms cause massive dieoffs in fish populations because the decay of the algae suck all of the dissolved oxygen out of the water. If God cursed creation after original sin, would the effect be the same? Why would the curse before the "split" be less harsh than what we are cursed with now?

Decay of the algae?? I think you would need to prove that they also died and/or sucked oxygen out of water back then. Have you some reason to believe that had to be how it worked?

 

[BananaSlug]

It doesn't happen now. It was a feature of the bible past. Unles you can go there, all we have is a record.

And unless you can go there, all you have is stories.

The new heavens will not see rust or moth corrupting. In other words, in that state, things last forever.

Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

If the world was in a state of decay, Adam could not have lived on it forever.

Okay so there isn't a verse that specifically says there was no radiation. Thanks for proving that for me!

No alteration "IN" our universe. Our universe state is the alteration from the created state, and laws!

My question still stands. If some "big alteration" in the laws of physics changed 4500 years ago, such as no radioactive decay, then we wouldn't find any objects over 4500 years of age. Why do we find objects over 4500 years of age?

Some people use tea leaves. Why use anything different? Personally, I would prefer to head into an explanation attempt, without the baggage of insisting there was a universe state we can't prove, and call it science.

But if there is no physical evidence for a substantial change in the physical laws in the past, why assume so?

So if radioactive decay did not exist until 4500 years ago, why do we find geologic phenomena older than 4500 years of age. It would stand to reason if radioactive decay did not exist, no rocks would be dated older than when decay came into existence. Can you explain this?

There was no PO science in a different state, that applies only here.

So there is no evidence? Thanks again!

Please give me the science that does support "same state" science. If you say the science exists, please provide the evidence??? Same stateism is nothing at all but a belief.

You answer your own question when you say there is no evidence for a different state past. A lack of physical evidence of a "different state" past is evidence for a "same state" past.

It doesn't work at all. The patterns of how the past was laid down might be somewhat known, such as in the oil exploration geology. But the actual causes for the patterns, and universe fabric of the far past, are unknown.

Prove it.

Because for the widths of tree rings to have present state meaning, we need a present state! The only meaning would exist when you first proved there was such a state in the far past. Of course we had this state a few hundred years ago.

So where is the mark in the tree rings that show the boundary of the "past state" with the "present state"?

No. I am sayinng that the observer doing the calculations didn't really look. If he saw an indentation in the grass, he may have said it was from the small hose, having it's position changed several times, and rubbing the grass, or some such!

You claimed there was no evidence. "The evidence of a hose was not detectable, all that was seen was the present hose". If the evidence of the different state past is detectable, tell us where to look! Of course you also claim their is no physical evidence for it so...

It can't. Not when we get near the different state time. That is the problem. Not my problem, I do not claim a same state.

Why not? You are the one claiming there is no physical evidence for the "different state" past.

No, is supports it! Only the recent interpretations and same state belief based viewing of the record, seem to contradict the truth of what went down. In the proper light, it all comes together like a symphony.

Then provide some evidence! There is ZERO evidence from the Bible supporting "no radioactive decay". Secondly, if radioactive decay did not exist until 4500 years ago the oldest rock on earth would only be 4500 years old. Either you are wrong, or God is the biggest liar in the universe.

All evidence agrees. But science doesn't cover the far past universe state.

Show us this "agreeing" evidence. First you claim there is physical evidence, then you claim there isn't, then you claim there is. Make up your mind!

The change in our universe was to protect us. If man got too wicked, and continued living a thousand years, no world would exist for a savior to come down to.

There was no need to change the universe. God simply kicked A&E out of the Garden of Eden to prevent them from eating the fruit of the Tree of Life. Why do you insist on adding to the Bible?

The bible is a record, from which we can surmise many things about the future and past.

Except it says squat about radioactive decay. It says squat about the physical laws of the past.

Great. Show it to us. The older bit. The pushed up bit is easy for a different state.

Radioisotope dating, zircons, etc. So why, if radioactive decay did not exist until 4500 years ago, do we find rock older than 4500 years? You say our "present state" science cannot measure past 4500 years, yet we can.

The creation week, in Gen 1. It has the days, and has us eating the fruits of plants and trees. Also when Noah landed, as I already outlined, the fresh tree trig was brought back by the bird.

In Genesis 1 it says God formed the trees. And Genesis 8 does not specifically say trees grew instantly from seed. Again, no Biblical evidence to support your view.

Remember, I suse science and present knowledge to compare with the bible past as well.

Not that well either...

It also has the lifespans shortened exponentially. Plants no longer growing as they did. The kinds in the ark hyper evolving fast! The continents separating. A world that sees laws that make dropping a planet full of water from above, without great heat, impossible. And a present world where the spiritual realm is quite separate, indeed, invisible, and unknown to science.

So where is the physical evidence for this? Can you provide it? Does it exist or does it not? Can you make up your mind?

Both. And before sin as well, one would assume. It was merely a feature of created life.

So why not regular evolution?

Not at all. The materials that are in the rock were here, one would assume. It is only by thoose materials, and ratios of them, that you assume the rock is old. You assume that the stuff now produced by radioactive decay of this temporal universe state, was not already there before, and engaged in something other than decay.

If radioactive decay didn't exist until 4500 years ago, the oldest rocks would be 4500 years old. We find older rocks. What else would those isotopes be doing? Care to explain?

I suspect it will take a lot more than that. You made claims, and fail to produce the pics to prove it. I anm very skeptical.

You have failed to support every claim and refuse to provide any evidence when I ask for it.

Decay of the algae?? I think you would need to prove that they also died and/or sucked oxygen out of water back then. Have you some reason to believe that had to be how it worked?

Wasn't part of the "curse" on creation death? I'll ask the question again.
In our "present state" algal blooms cause massive dieoffs in fish populations because the decay of the algae suck all of the dissolved oxygen out of the water. If God cursed creation after original sin, would the effect be the same? Why would the curse before the "split" be less harsh than what we are cursed with now?

So when would you like to move this to formal debate?

 

[Soul Searcher]

No science exists either to indicate a same state past. That is merely assumed.

So you seem to be saying that the whole purpose of science is to indicate a same state past. Could you possibly be anymore wrong. The purpose of science is to find the truth. This so called different state past is merely assumed [by you alone] and has no basis in reality.

All history and the bible support it, and no science opposes it. Whether you and some others realize that yet or not.

All history, try no history at all. The bible? Only if you misinterpret the bible.

The problem is that you start with a set of beliefs and you try to make reality fit those beliefs rather than makign those beliefs fit reality. The result is you are all alone on your little island of confusion and fantasy.

It seems that you know that your interpretation of events could not have possibly happened unless the entire state of things was completely different. We see no reason at all to thing they were. Your reason seems to be the inability to admit that you might have made a mistake in your interpretation. Sadly you will never learn the truth so long as you invent explainations out of thin air to conicide with your misinterpretations of the bible and history.

 

[dad]

So you seem to be saying that the whole purpose of science is to indicate a same state past. Could you possibly be anymore wrong. The purpose of science is to find the truth. This so called different state past is merely assumed [by you alone] and has no basis in reality.

Saying something like that is all that is wrong. The creation debate involves the deep past. Science lives here, not there. All science does not pretend to address the far past universe. Those branches of science (so called) that do claim to speak of it, do so SOLELY on the basis that our universe laws and fabric, and state, are the key to the past. In effect, science, when addressing the past universe or future, could not be designed to be more wrong! The errors multiply to absurd degrees, the further they get from where present state rules apply.

All history, try no history at all. The bible? Only if you misinterpret the bible.[/quoote] There can be no dispute on any semi solid ground at all, that the future universe of the bible is a new heavens. None! Ask someone, if you doubt. There can also be no doubt that the garden of Eden and creation week just is impossible in a present world.

As for the early history and records that man does have, they all speak of a world that had spirits among men. That is the key difference in states, by the way, the addition of the spiritual as part of the mix. Here, we find it is separate.

It is also true that flood stories exist, such as in Sumer, where long lifespans also are the order of the day. Therefore, indeed all records of the dawn of civilization, and records of man agree with me, and violently oppose a same state.

The problem is that you start with a set of beliefs and you try to make reality fit those beliefs rather than makign those beliefs fit reality.

On the contrary, I started with the claims of science. I saw they did not fit reality of the future, or past. So I simply did a little detective work, to see where they flew off the beam.

The result is you are all alone on your little island of confusion and fantasy.

Not at all. The calander of the planet runs to the times of my God. Nothing impacted history more. Nothing is more well time tested, and tried, and proven in the lives of billions. The bible and early history are real documentary evidence that flies in the face of the completely faith based, and unproven assumptions, and fables of so called science. The science of this world is literally foolishness to God, and even to me, and many others.

It seems that you know that your interpretation of events could not have possibly happened unless the entire state of things was completely different. We see no reason at all to thing they were.

You see no spiitual either. You see no God. But your dilemma is that you also see no same state future, or past. That is merely believed.

Your reason seems to be the inability to admit that you might have made a mistake in your interpretation. Sadly you will never learn the truth so long as you invent explainations out of thin air to conicide with your misinterpretations of the bible and history.

My reasons for uncovering the ineptness, and demonstrated false basis of so called science, is that I did not believe God to be a liar, or wrong. Turns out He was right all along, and so called science is a paper tiger, a horrible hoax, an unfounded belief system, a philosophy of fools. The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.

 

[Soul Searcher]

God a liar or wrong? I've got some breaking news here for you. God did not write the bible but men did. Add to that the fact that God does not interpret it but we do. Both the authors and the interpreters are prone to error especially when they ignore reailty in favor of thier preconceived beliefs.

I think you know that your notion of this drastically different past is nothing more than fiction created by you but are either unable or unwilling to admit it. In either case you would be wise to stop trying to use it as a defense in every post as it only serves to destroy any credability that you may have once had.

 

[AV1611VET]

God a liar or wrong? I've got some breaking news here for you. God did not write the bible but men did. Add to that the fact that God does not interpret it but we do. Both the authors and the interpreters are prone to error especially when they ignore reailty in favor of thier preconceived beliefs.

Well, I've got some news for you, SS --- God says differently:

For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

 

[Gracchus]

Well, I've got some news for you, SS --- God says differently:

A couple of minor technical points should be brought to your attention:

If you are going to use quotes from the Bible, you can simply use quotation marks, or you can use the {Bible} tags to wrapt the text.

And you nested the quotes as though the Bible were quoting itself quoting itself.

And in point of fact:

God didn't say it. Those who wrote the Bible wrote it.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you are going to use quotes from the Bible, you can simply use quotation marks, or you can use the {Bible} tags to wrapt the text.

The Bible tags don't work anymore --- I wish they did ---

And you nested the quotes as though the Bible were quoting itself quoting itself.

That's true --- I'll watch that in the future.

 

[gaara4158]

Well, I've got some news for you, SS --- God says differently:

I thought you said God said differently --- these are just Bible quotes.

Also, when scrutinizing a source's honesty or correctness, the source itself is literally the worst reference you could use.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, when scrutinizing a source's honesty or correctness, the source itself is literally the worst reference you could use.

Says those who get their information from a clipboard.

There's the Bible (AV1611) --- then there's the bible --- (AV2009 McGraw-Hill).

 

[uke2se]

Says those who get their information from a clipboard.

There's the Bible (AV1611) --- then there's the bible --- (AV2009 McGraw-Hill).

Circular logic at it's best.

 

[AV1611VET]

Circular logic at it's best.

Yup --- science verifies science.

 

[uke2se]

Yup --- science verifies science.

You are acting stupid just to be annoying, right?

That's normally called trolling.

 

[gaara4158]

Yup --- science verifies science.

What? You mean repeated, structured experiments and research verify (or disprove) other repeated, structured experiments and research?

I never! How insulting!

AV you're a delightful person and I truly enjoy our exchanges, but this... this just makes me very, very sad

 

[gaara4158]

Says those who get their information from a clipboard.

There's the Bible (AV1611) --- then there's the bible --- (AV2009 McGraw-Hill).

Ad hominem + non sequitur.

And for the record, the only information I've gotten from a clipboard is that my eye doctor charges $40 for pupil dilation.

You are acting stupid just to be annoying, right?

That's normally called trolling.

Sorry for spreading this cancer, but...
YouTube - Boxxy - Trollin' Loop

 

[Soul Searcher]

Well, I've got some news for you, SS --- God says differently:

How so? FYI The bible is not God of this you can be absolutely certian. It is a book containing the works of several men. God did not write a single word therein. He [God] is also not the one interpreting it for you. I stand by my statements as they are founded in truth rather than wishful thinking.

 

[AV1611VET]

How so? FYI The bible is not God of this you can be absolutely certian. It is a book containing the works of several men. God did not write a single word therein. He [God] is also not the one interpreting it for you. I stand by my statements as they are founded in truth rather than wishful thinking.

Then someone needs a course in the art of amanuensis, don't they?

 

[Nathan Poe]

You are acting stupid just to be annoying, right?

That's normally called trolling.

Assuming he's acting.