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

[Alunyel]

If you so badly want empirical evidence for a "same state past", well, here, have some cosmic microwave background.

What you're looking at is a very, very young universe, not long after it had cooled enough for gas clouds of H and He to form.

The redder areas are where the gas is denser, more compressed and hotter, the blue areas are less compressed, lighter and cooler.

We get this image of the past from looking so far away, that it takes a very, very long time for the heat to reach us, in order to see it. By the time we do see it, billions and billions of years have passed.

If there was a "different state past", then viewing this image would be impossible, simply because of the amount of time it takes for it to reach us.

And do you know what? This is exactly what they predicted we'd see. Their prediction was that if they were correct about how the first stars formed, then they'd expect to see clouds of H and He, with denser areas being hotter and less dense areas being cooler. This is exactly what they saw, when they looked, after they made the prediction.

 

[dad]

If you so badly want empirical evidence for a "same state past", well, here, have some cosmic microwave background.



What you're looking at is a very, very young universe, not long after it had cooled enough for gas clouds of H and He to form.

The redder areas are where the gas is denser, more compressed and hotter, the blue areas are less compressed, lighter and cooler.

We get this image of the past from looking so far away, that it takes a very, very long time for the heat to reach us, in order to see it. By the time we do see it, billions and billions of years have passed.

Not at all, any more than light. What you mean is that in this universe that would be the case. Now, if this was a temporary state that came from a different state, we would expect there to be some remmnant of the change. We also might consider what way the stars were created, and ask if any pattern might have been a result of creating the stars. All you have done is look at all we see, and assume that it came about by present state processes.

If there was a "different state past", then viewing this image would be impossible, simply because of the amount of time it takes for it to reach us.

Oh, no, you see in a different state, light from distant stars got here in creation week.

And do you know what? This is exactly what they predicted we'd see. Their prediction was that if they were correct about how the first stars formed, then they'd expect to see clouds of H and He, with denser areas being hotter and less dense areas being cooler. This is exactly what they saw, when they looked, after they made the prediction.

The fact that He and H are so common is no surprise. Let's look at what wiki says

"...As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, stable atoms could form...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

So, really it looks like a universe temp change. Going from one state to another covers that.

 

[Thistlethorn]

As well as all the evidence that science has, but interprets it through the belief basede filter, where it concerns the past.

Projection.

No, actually, the bible is the most trusted, and reliable record on earth.

Agrumentum ad populum. I think you will find, if you do your research, that while a lot of people read the bible and believe in things that are in the bible, only a small minority take it literally. It's not a historical record. It's a historical narrative.

It's history outreaches all others. Your opinions do not change history, or the prophets, or early Christians, etc.

No, the Epic of Gilgamesh was written before the bible. I'm not trying to change history. You're trying to revise it.

The flood legends are all around the world. The records of actual spirit beings among men are in Sumer, and Egypt. Sumer also refers to long lifespans.

Yes, there are flood legends all over the world. No, these flood legends don't all tell the same story, and they aren't all from the same time period. All religions tell tales of supernatural beings. That doesn't prove they exist. It just proves that people look to the supernatural to explain natural occurences.

The bible

What about it?

Swine before pearls in this case.

That doesn't make sense, dad.

Science is not the evidence, it is the little messenger boy that tries to read the message!

The fact that science works is the evidence.

yes I have. You have not explained whether it worked for Adam, or Noah.

First, you show empirical, independent evidence that these people existed.

Or whether it will work in heaven.

First, you show empirical, independent evidence that this place exists.

Of course the silly thing works here. It is temporal state knowledge. It is only the application of that to the unknown that is in question!

No, not "of course". WHY does it work if it's based on faulty science? You understand that all physical sciences are interconnected, right? They all form a house, if you will. If a major building block fails, it all comes tumbling down. If the basic premise of all physical sciences - that there are natural laws that we can understand, and which are unchanging - turned out to be false, no science would work. So, WHY does science work today. It shouldn't if what you say was true.

Science never observed a thing before it existed, and it was born in this state, and will die here. I have given the observations of God and man.

No, you have given the personal testimonies of men, not God. Personal testimony isn't empirical evidence.

They never thought of it as different, any more than we think of this state as different. It was nature to them.

I take it you CAN'T mention any specific passage that tells of this "different state"? So, why did you tell me you had evidence?

The records simply tell of major differences, that cannot be reconciled with the universe fabric, and world of today. The bible also, such as creation week, and the flood.

Now, this is funny. You acknowledge the fact that a lot of the stuff written in the bible is impossible. However, instead of just seeing it as allegory, or as the best guesses of more primitive men, you invent this whole notion of things being "different" back then? Man, someone could do a decent psychology thesis about you.

What, you think the YECs did such a great job of expplaining the flood, that it had to happen in this state?

No, I don't think they have managed to explain the flood myth at all. It's reasonable to think that it never happened.

First of all, slow down. The new heaven state is not on trial here. The differences between there and here and now are many, and stark! And, after all the future is the key to the past, too. At least in the bible. The simplest way to understand it is to realize that this universe will pass away, this heavens. And earth as it is too, of course. The paradise of God in the future is quite similar to the one in the past.

Please present independent empirical evidence for this assertion.

The focus here is looking at present based science, and how far it can go, and can be shown to go. Once you realize it can't go anywhere, we can proceed with more details of the different state, and the clues, and references to it.

You still haven't presented any evidence to support this assertion.

Not sure what you are claiming. They all shared poverty, and followed Jesus. No one had more reason to need more money in the bible, from the apostles. That is in your head.

Are you telling me Judas wasn't payed for turning Jesus in?

And even if someone "needed" cash (a bizarre notion) Jesus would not know that he would happen to be the one that would soon dip his food with Him. Nor that the price would be 30 pieces of silver, as prophesied, nor that it would end up in the potters field, etc etc etc. Nor that one stone would not be left upon another in the temple, nor that Herod would be a madman, and His family would have to flee to Egypt, etc etc etc.

So, are you interested in a discussion about all the failed biblical prophecies or not? If you are, we can start a new thread.

The posse that would go to the far past, and enforce present laws.

lolwut?

No, I am talking about what we know, both in science and the bible.

There are no absolute truths, least of all in the bible. Science is as close to the truth as we can come.

In heaven we can fly, as can horses, so gravity as we know it is not in place. The moon sized city also come down to earth, and no great disaster happens. (crashes, tidal destruction, etc)

Please provide evidence for this (quite insane) assertion.

False, I will deny you the right to hold all evidence up just to your faith!

I don't know what you think you said with that sentence, but I can assure you, to me it sounded like *gah gah gah burp*.

Doesn't matter. I still know what bread and science are.

You might have an idea what bread is, but you sure don't know what science is, as evidenced by your posts.

If you think you have some secret definition for science that only you, and chosen others can comprehend, do tell us! Ridiculous.

My definition of science is what the dictionary says. Your definition, according to what you have told us here, differs from that.

Ego, much?

Wow. I almost fell out of my chair laughing at the immense irony in this short sentence.

Your charges are insane. Your inability to grasp what I say does not make it incoherant in any way. Your opinion or other posters being insane is both rude, and ignorant, as well as likely against the rules.

Your inability to make sense is what is insane. Your insanity is obvious to any onlooker. If you aren't insane you are at least a huge troll. Trolling IS against the rules.

And now all we need is for people to care what you think. It is evident that you can not prove a present state existed in the past, and that anyone with one braincell knows that your failure means you fail.

I'd say that it's evident for all with any coherent thoughts that I have already proven a "present state past", especially given the fact that you STILL HAVEN'T PRESENTED A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE FOR A "DIFFERENT STATE PAST".

You claim things, as if you pull them ouut of thin air.

Projection.

"Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter—no errors. (The remaining 500 or so reach into the future and may be seen unfolding as days go by.)..."

A list of 207 failed biblical prophecies.

Obviously the truth and you are at best distant cousins.

Projection.

Except it is not known. It is a bunch of same state fables, that is known.

Projection.

 

[dad]

Projection.

No. Experience and knowledge.

Agrumentum ad populum. I think you will find, if you do your research, that while a lot of people read the bible and believe in things that are in the bible, only a small minority take it literally. It's not a historical record. It's a historical narrative.

No, it is unshaken in accuracy. Nothing wrong at all. And it wasn't the numbers I was focusing on, but the quality of evidence. Real prophesies, and real lives affected. Even the calendar of man screams out..."Jesus"

No, the Epic of Gilgamesh was written before the bible. I'm not trying to change history. You're trying to revise it.

No, and you are welcome to support your dates. There was not a question of whethher the paper version of the bible, piped down, from the hard drives of heaven was more or less recent, that the pagan giggle tales anyhow. The issue was that even the Sumerian records speak of totally different lifespans.

Yes, there are flood legends all over the world. No, these flood legends don't all tell the same story, and they aren't all from the same time period.

They are not from the same people, ot time, so differences are expected. But something was passed down that had an impact.

All religions tell tales of supernatural beings. That doesn't prove they exist. It just proves that people look to the supernatural to explain natural occurences.

No, it proves nothing of the sort, that is your explanation from incredulity. The records have kings, and other real people directly affected by spirit beings. The bibvle has them marrying together even. No waving away that. The fact that present science is physical only merely rules it out of the issue.

That doesn't make sense, dad.

Yes, rather than being cast to swine, we have the swine casting.

The fact that science works is the evidence.

Parroting absurd mantras doesn't make it so. If you claim science is evidence for the creation state, show it. Don't crow it.

First, you show empirical, independent evidence that these people existed.

The sacred record was passed down in a way that only the insane would doubt. And that without reason. Do you doubt? Why?

First, you show empirical, independent evidence that this place exists.

References to Adam or Noah is not a place. Focus.

No, not "of course". WHY does it work if it's based on faulty science? You understand that all physical sciences are interconnected, right? They all form a house, if you will. If a major building block fails, it all comes tumbling down. If the basic premise of all physical sciences - that there are natural laws that we can understand, and which are unchanging - turned out to be false, no science would work. So, WHY does science work today. It shouldn't if what you say was true.

False. Science of the present woulld woork in the present. And it does. But it is only fraudulently claimed to have worked in the past. That is why you waste time jabbering on about nothing, rather than get down.

No, you have given the personal testimonies of men, not God. Personal testimony isn't empirical evidence.

Observations of men are just that. Observed. The same state is opposite, it is noot observed, or anything else. Any more than the tooth fairy.

I take it you CAN'T mention any specific passage that tells of this "different state"? So, why did you tell me you had evidence?

Oh, I have many times on this forum. I also have a little PDF file I posted many times. But we are still inn kindergarten here. At the dead end of science. That is wheat you must face. Prove the same state past, or you lose.

Now, this is funny. You acknowledge the fact that a lot of the stuff written in the bible is impossible. However, instead of just seeing it as allegory, or as the best guesses of more primitive men, you invent this whole notion of things being "different" back then? Man, someone could do a decent psychology thesis about you.

You are getting warm. Except God invented it. I simply learned how to read.

No, I don't think they have managed to explain the flood myth at all. It's reasonable to think that it never happened.

Ok, creationists, here is his true opinion of you. Then you have no right to compare my case to theirs.

Are you telling me Judas wasn't payed for turning Jesus in?

No, I was talking about Jesus knowing Jusas would dip bread next with Him, which identified Judeas to John as the traitor.

So, are you interested in a discussion about all the failed biblical prophecies or not? If you are, we can start a new thread.

There are none.

There are no absolute truths, least of all in the bible. Science is as close to the truth as we can come.

Would you consider that absolute truth? Or will you admit it is a lie? Or do you know? Or care? Well, you should, if you claim stuff.

Please provide evidence for this (quite insane) assertion.

The fact you think heaven is insane speaks volumes about you. Rev 19, to 22 covers that pretty good. That was basic bible 101. How can I get fancy with you if you know not the basics??


[quote
I don't know what you think you said with that sentence, but I can assure you, to me it sounded like *gah gah gah burp*. [/quote] It meant thhat so called science fillters the evidence through same state lenses..

You might have an idea what bread is, but you sure don't know what science is, as evidenced by your posts.

I both know what it is and what it ain't. That is twice what you know.

My definition of science is what the dictionary says. Your definition, according to what you have told us here, differs from that.

Not at all.

"
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study."

science - definition of science by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Wow. I almost fell out of my chair laughing at the immense irony in this short sentence.

Better hold on then. Realizing it is true takes just a bit longer.

Your inability to make sense is what is insane. Your insanity is obvious to any onlooker. If you aren't insane you are at least a huge troll. Trolling IS against the rules.

Interesting. You begin to unravel.

I'd say that it's evident for all with any coherent thoughts that I have already proven a "present state past", especially given the fact that you STILL HAVEN'T PRESENTED A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE FOR A "DIFFERENT STATE PAST".

I'd say you haven't even addressed the issue hardly, and that the bible creation and history of spiritual mingling, and long lives, etc.. are clearly impossible in a present state.

Projection.

Experience and knowledge.

A list of 207 failed biblical prophecies.

The first one on the list..

""But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17"


The definition of death is separation from God, that took place. Also physical death ensued, of course. The lie of the serpent was that God was a liar, which is precisely where your lie comes from, know it or not. Nothing new there. It surfaces in many forms.

Your list is nothing but doubts, and carnal miscomprehensions, and spiritual darkness.

--much like your so called science!

 

[Thistlethorn]

No. Experience and knowledge.

No, projection.

No, it is unshaken in accuracy. Nothing wrong at all. And it wasn't the numbers I was focusing on, but the quality of evidence. Real prophesies, and real lives affected.

It's an inaccurate historical narrative. Give real life evidence of your assertion, please. Otherwise I'll go with the null hypothesis.

Even the calendar of man screams out..."Jesus"

How about the names of the months, dad? How about the days of the week? Do they scream out "Jesus" too? No. So, is the greek pantheon correct too? Where I live, we name the days of the week after the norse gods. Are they real as well?

No, and you are welcome to support your dates.

The Epic of Gilgamesh was written down between 2500 and 2000 BC. Written DOWN, dad. The narrative is probably much older. The earliest parts of the bible was first penned around 3500 years ago, 1000 to 500 years after the Epic of Gilgamesh.

There was not a question of whethher the paper version of the bible, piped down, from the hard drives of heaven was more or less recent, that the pagan giggle tales anyhow. The issue was that even the Sumerian records speak of totally different lifespans.

Support this assertion with evidence, please.

They are not from the same people, ot time, so differences are expected. But something was passed down that had an impact.

What was passed down was legends of local floods. Most of the world's population lives, and has always lived, close to major bodies of water. Floods are a given, and legends of floods are as well. What would have been significant was if they all correlated at the same time. They don't.

No, it proves nothing of the sort, that is your explanation from incredulity. The records have kings, and other real people directly affected by spirit beings. The bibvle has them marrying together even. No waving away that.

Yes, and the Harry Potter books tell tales about trolls and wizards and muggles. Does that mean that they are all true as well? If you want to use the bible as evidence for anything, you must first prove that the things in the bible actually happened. You must do this by using independent corroborating evidence. You have not done so.

The fact that present science is physical only merely rules it out of the issue.

No, the only thing ruled out is your wild "theory".

Yes, rather than being cast to swine, we have the swine casting.

No, what you SAID was that swines were cast before pearls. You can read it yourself. THAT doesn't make sense.

Parroting absurd mantras doesn't make it so.

Projection.

If you claim science is evidence for the creation state, show it. Don't crow it.

I have shown it, and you are trying to wave it away.

The sacred record was passed down in a way that only the insane would doubt. And that without reason. Do you doubt? Why?

You mean the sacred record that was written down several hundred years after the "facts" it tries to relate? The sacred record that was edited by fallible men at the council of Nicea, were a lot of the original texts were removed, and what was kept was then claimed to be the word of God by fallible men? The sacred record that has been translated and retranslated time and time again? The sacred record that has so many possible interpretations that even the believers themselves argue about how to properly worship their God? Yes, truly it is insane to doubt that.

References to Adam or Noah is not a place. Focus.

Learn to read.

False. Science of the present woulld woork in the present. And it does. But it is only fraudulently claimed to have worked in the past. That is why you waste time jabbering on about nothing, rather than get down.

You keep saying this, and I keep asking WHY. WHY would it work in the present. Physical science came from people making theories about natural laws that were eternal and unchanging. If they aren't unchanging, the science falls apart. Was it pure luck that science got were it is today? No. You are simply wrong, but you're too arrogant to admit it, even to yourself.

Observations of men are just that. Observed. The same state is opposite, it is noot observed, or anything else. Any more than the tooth fairy.

All you have is observations of men. Men that lived thousands of years ago. I have observations and research of men living today, using modern technology.

Oh, I have many times on this forum. I also have a little PDF file I posted many times. But we are still inn kindergarten here. At the dead end of science. That is wheat you must face. Prove the same state past, or you lose.

Dad, you have already lost this discussion. Your failure to provide evidence for ANY of your wild assertions is just getting sad. This debate is tantamount to me kicking the dying carcass that is your pet "theory".

You are getting warm. Except God invented it. I simply learned how to read.

No, you went insane and it all came together in your noggin, is more likely.

Ok, creationists, here is his true opinion of you. Then you have no right to compare my case to theirs.

As much as I laugh at creationist claims, even theirs isn't as full of ludicrous assertions and contradictions as yours. So, no, I wouldn't compare them. Creationists normally butcher science but have fairly decent theology. You butcher both like a madman. Your's is blasphemy of the highest order. The first commandment is completely humiliated in your theories, as it is all based on insane bible-worshipping. Let me tell you this, dad: The bible isn't God. You are supposed to worship him. Not the book.

No, I was talking about Jesus knowing Jusas would dip bread next with Him, which identified Judeas to John as the traitor.

So, he took a guess based on how they were seated? This isn't exactly a smoking gun, dad.

There are none.

I gave you a list of 207 of them. I'm pretty sure there are more. Start a new thread and I'll talk about it there.

Would you consider that absolute truth? Or will you admit it is a lie? Or do you know? Or care? Well, you should, if you claim stuff.

As I said, there are no absolute truths. Everything has the chance of being wrong. Even me. The chance of me being wrong about this particular issue, though, is almost zero.

The fact you think heaven is insane speaks volumes about you. Rev 19, to 22 covers that pretty good. That was basic bible 101. How can I get fancy with you if you know not the basics??

Quote the passage that gives evidence of your assertion. Evidence, dad. Also, I don't think heaven is insane. I think you are.

It meant thhat so called science fillters the evidence through same state lenses..

Projection.

I both know what it is and what it ain't. That is twice what you know.

No, it's evident from your posts that you don't know anything about science.

Not at all.

Yes, exactly. Science is about natural phenomena. What you are doing is trying to use science to support your wild ideas. If science isn't needed, what place is there for a "different state past"? Just say "goddidit" like all the other creationists, and there wouldn't be a problem. Instead, you invent this whole fairy tale about things being "different" in the past, without saying how things were different, why it stopped being different or when it's going to be different again.

Better hold on then. Realizing it is true takes just a bit longer.

It also takes a lot of physical violence to my frontal lobes, or a life time of indoctrination. I would rather not have either of those.

Interesting. You begin to unravel.

Is this admitting to trolling, or some mindless psychobabble?

I'd say you haven't even addressed the issue hardly, and that the bible creation and history of spiritual mingling, and long lives, etc.. are clearly impossible in a present state.

No no, I agree that the bible stories and creation are impossible. The problem is, I'm not insane, so I realise that this means that those stories aren't meant to be taken literally.

Experience and knowledge.

In your case? Neither.

The first one on the list..

""But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17"


The definition of death is separation from God, that took place.

Where is death defined as such? Is it in the bible?

Also physical death ensued, of course. The lie of the serpent was that God was a liar, which is precisely where your lie comes from, know it or not. Nothing new there. It surfaces in many forms.

Ah, so the devil speaks through me, right? The only one possibly with more than one personality here is you, dad.

Your list is nothing but doubts, and carnal miscomprehensions, and spiritual darkness.

No, it's a list of failed biblical prophecies.

--much like your so called science!

Rather like your "theory".

 

[dad]

No, projection.

You can't stop the bible from projecting to the past or the future, or prove that God doesn't know them. To do so is not from a standpoint of evidence or knowledge, of course, just projecting your thoughts .

It's an inaccurate historical narrative. Give real life evidence of your assertion, please. Otherwise I'll go with the null hypothesis.

You just made the assertion. You claim it is wrong, where? Far as I know there was an Israel, and a captivity, and a destroyed temple, and etc etc. It doesn't get waved away cause you no likey.

How about the names of the months, dad? How about the days of the week? Do they scream out "Jesus" too? No. So, is the greek pantheon correct too? Where I live, we name the days of the week after the norse gods. Are they real as well?

No, they are still clouded with the stains of the present state nomenclatures. But to the informed, they are rife with real meaning despite the temporary labels. The calendar points to a year ), however, as the central point of time, from which all past and future is measured.

The Epic of Gilgamesh was written down between 2500 and 2000 BC. Written DOWN, dad. The narrative is probably much older. The earliest parts of the bible was first penned around 3500 years ago, 1000 to 500 years after the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Great, now evidence the dates, and how you think you get there. By the way, that happens to be right after the flood time or so. Maybe they are close!

If so, (and that remains for you to demonstrate) we have a group of people that had flood stories, and realization of lifespans many times what we now have, etc... As I say, the evidence mounts for a different past. The records of the bible, regardless of when the first known hard copy date, represent the records from Eden.So you are not going to prove in any way that God plagiarized from the pagans!

What was passed down was legends of local floods. Most of the world's population lives, and has always lived, close to major bodies of water. Floods are a given, and legends of floods are as well. What would have been significant was if they all correlated at the same time. They don't.

Many actually don't speak of local floods, though, even if some of that is in the mix. You can't dismiss it all cause you no likey.

Yes, and the Harry Potter books tell tales about trolls and wizards and muggles. Does that mean that they are all true as well? If you want to use the bible as evidence for anything, you must first prove that the things in the bible actually happened. You must do this by using independent corroborating evidence. You have not done so.

The Potter books are known fiction, and known works from this time. If one looked at them from the new heavens observation point, in the future, one might get clues to how this state used to be! For example, if someone died, or was sick, or fell down, etc etc. Story content aside, there are basic realities of the day, and laws, that a book works with.

No, what you SAID was that swines were cast before pearls. You can read it yourself. THAT doesn't make sense.

Yes the swines of fables of so called science, dirty little things they are. They are cast everywhere, school, TV, books, etc.

I have shown it, and you are trying to wave it away.

Despite visions of grandeur, you actually did nothing remotely similar. Science is a body of knowledge and study of how the universe is. In no way does that tell how it was, or is meant to. The ramblings of so callled science on alternate creation stories are merely present state scenarios, exptrapolated mentally, into the mystic unknown.

You mean the sacred record that was written down several hundred years after the "facts" it tries to relate? The sacred record that was edited by fallible men at the council of Nicea, were a lot of the original texts were removed, and what was kept was then claimed to be the word of God by fallible men? The sacred record that has been translated and retranslated time and time again? The sacred record that has so many possible interpretations that even the believers themselves argue about how to properly worship their God? Yes, truly it is insane to doubt that.

The book that comes at you six ways from Sunday, regardless of translation. The observer must know how to observe the spiritual, otherwise all they would see was a book, and the men that God used to slap it together. That ain't seeing much. Nor does it qualify them to comment intelligently on what went on. It merely stamps their opinion as severely sawed off, and pint sized, in the big picture. You don't know if God was behind the scenes, face it. If you claim you do, prove it.

You keep saying this, and I keep asking WHY. WHY would it work in the present.

Same reason the different state will work in the future. God set it up to work. get out of the endless fluke mentality.

Physical science came from people making theories about natural laws that were eternal and unchanging. If they aren't unchanging, the science falls apart. Was it pure luck that science got were it is today? No. You are simply wrong, but you're too arrogant to admit it, even to yourself.

It got where it got (on the verge of killing all life) in a few hundred years or so since it came to exist. Do you think anyone envisions some change in the universe in that time?? No. By the time they arrived on the scene, it was a present universe scene, and that is all they have seen.
Let me put it in terms you might understand.

Some science went to sea sea sea,
to see what it could see see see.
But all that it could see see see
is the present deep blue sea sea sea.


Elementary.

All you have is observations of men. Men that lived thousands of years ago. I have observations and research of men living today, using modern technology.

Thank you for admitting it is I that have the empirical evidence! Present observations are, class, what? Observing the present universe...good.

Dad, you have already lost this discussion. Your failure to provide evidence for ANY of your wild assertions is just getting sad. This debate is tantamount to me kicking the dying carcass that is your pet "theory".

No, more like an ant licking a lollipop, seeing a man walk by, about to step on it, and looking up defiantly. It isn't about the lollipop of this state. As sweet as you may think it is. Not the future, God, or creation.

The only way for you, who already admitted it is I that have the empirical evidences, can have any case at all, is to prove the universe we see was the creation state one. Nothing else can help, and you can't do it. You appeal to us to accept it on faith. Not to question it. It just had to be real, because...golly gee, it is real now, what else could ever be?

No, you went insane and it all came together in your noggin, is more likely.

The evidence of that would be you growing a case, and being able to present it. Also, your record is bad here. Claiming things that are shown to be lies. You claimed, for example, that the prophesies of the bible were mostly fulfilled. That shows an ignorance on a basic level. Maybe you better look into stuff, before claiming stuff. And admit you do not know stuff, when you don't.

As much as I laugh at creationist claims, even theirs isn't as full of ludicrous assertions and contradictions as yours. So, no, I wouldn't compare them. Creationists normally butcher science but have fairly decent theology. You butcher both like a madman. Your's is blasphemy of the highest order. The first commandment is completely humiliated in your theories, as it is all based on insane bible-worshipping. Let me tell you this, dad: The bible isn't God. You are supposed to worship him. Not the book.

Another mad as a hatter claim. Show us your bible case, that I have wrong then! Strut your stuff. We're all ears. And also solidly evidence that the unniverse was in this state at creation. Otherwise, as is apparent, you actually have neither a bible case, nor a science case.

So, he took a guess based on how they were seated? This isn't exactly a smoking gun, dad.

Sitting round a table, if they all were sitting, does not tell you who will dip bread with you next. Guesses don't usually turn out right. Look at lottery tickets.

I gave you a list of 207 of them. I'm pretty sure there are more. Start a new thread and I'll talk about it there.

I defeated the first one. If that can't stand, you may as well consider it's friends all ran away for cover.

As I said, there are no absolute truths. Everything has the chance of being wrong. Even me. The chance of me being wrong about this particular issue, though, is almost zero.

I see. So you are as close to absolute truth as it gets. Interesting.

Quote the passage that gives evidence of your assertion. Evidence, dad. Also, I don't think heaven is insane. I think you are.

I just gave you a few short chaps. In there we have Jesus on a flying horse, the New heavens, etc etc.

Yes, exactly. Science is about natural phenomena.

Except where it serves your godless purpose, and you wave reality away at a drop of a hat. Such as pre singularity.

What you are doing is trying to use science to support your wild ideas. If science isn't needed, what place is there for a "different state past"? Just say "goddidit" like all the other creationists, and there wouldn't be a problem. Instead, you invent this whole fairy tale about things being "different" in the past, without saying how things were different, why it stopped being different or when it's going to be different again.

It changed after the flood, far as I can tell. The differences are many and varied, the close spiritual, different life processes, atomic realities, laws, light, and etc.

It also takes a lot of physical violence to my frontal lobes, or a life time of indoctrination. I would rather not have either of those. [//quote]

Your mental agony is noted.

No no, I agree that the bible stories and creation are impossible. The problem is, I'm not insane, so I realise that this means that those stories aren't meant to be taken literally.

So your definition of sanity is to doubt God for no reason. OK. If the universe of the future is different, and new heavens is possible. You don't know. Admit it.

Where is death defined as such? Is it in the bible?

That is a big topic. If the poost were not so long, we coulld look at that.

Ah, so the devil speaks through me, right? The only one possibly with more than one personality here is you, dad.

The serpent led to Eve, and the message was the same as I outlined, as what you brought up. Sorry if that is news. I wouldn't take it personal. though. It is what is behind so called science.

No, it's a list of failed biblical prophecies.

I see, mostly unfulfilled too, as you said. Thanks for showing your stuff.

 

[Danyc]

Ah, a dad thread

My daily quota of lol has been filled.

 

[BananaSlug]

I don't care to elaborate. The important thing is that you need to know the universe state, at the time of creation, and you don't. Science doesn't It has been merely assumed. Much ado about nothing, really.

Don't care to or can't?

Tell us how they dated the rock layer. And what rock layer it was, and where!? Yoou wanna talk specs, let's do this thing.

I've already gone over this. You have zero evidence in support of any of your ideas while science has been supported time and time again.

Some things are above interpretation. I like to deal as much as possible in the absolutes. One reason I abhor fairy tale so called science.

By your statement I am assuming that you believe you are never wrong and therefore think you are God.


I see why you refuse to do any formal debates. Your style is sloppy and you cannot provide evidence to save your life. You constantly ask the same questions without answering any asked of you. You are a poor Christian, and if there is a God, hopefully he will make you pay for the souls you send to hell because of your nonsense.

 

[BananaSlug]

Hey, you fail to get to a point. Who cares about pillow lava? Name one pillow on earth that I should lose sleep over?

It matters because the formation of pillow lava in the "past state" is the same way pillow lava forms in the "present state". It is evidence that shows the laws of the past were the same as the present.

Gibberish! Show us the carbon cycle, and the basis for it.

This is funny because I just copied and pasted the same information you gave about the Milankovitch Cycle.

Yes, but since science only works in the present, you need to comprehend that you must stick to that. Besides, look at all the things they explain so weakly. Other things they just don't know.

"Two hundred years ago, the French naturalist Deodat de Dolomieu first described the sedimentary rock that forms a group of mountains in northern Italy. Grey, porous and frequently full of fossils, this rock type had never before been distinguished from the limestone it so closely resembles. Now both the rock and the mineral from which it is made are named dolomite in his memory and the mountains themselves - part of the southern Tyrol - are now known as the Dolomites. But although dolomite is relatively simple to identify, its origins are less obvious. For 200 years, geologists have tried every tool available to them to discover how this enigmatic mineral forms. Field work, experiments and theory have all fallen short of producing the vital piece of evidence that defines the conditions in which dolomite forms. Since Dolomieu's description in 1791, the scientific literature has become littered with abandoned models ..."

Dolomite: the mineral that shouldn't exist - Scientists have never been able to make dolomite in the the way the mineral forms naturally. Theories have come and gone, but the mystery of its origins remains - 26 October 1991 - New Scientist

This is really funny because the paper is from 1991. In the 1950s and 60s, dolomite was found to be forming in highly saline lakes in the Coorong region of South Australia. Dolomite crystals also occur in deep-sea sediments, where organic matter content is high. This dolomite is termed "organogenic" dolomite.
Recent research has found modern dolomite formation under anaerobic conditions in supersaturated saline lagoons along the Rio de Janeiro coast of Brazil, namely, Lagoa Vermelha and Brejo do Espinho.
For or a very long time scientists had difficulties synthesizing dolomite. However, in a 1999 study, through a processes of dissolution alternating with the intervals of precipitation measurable levels of dolomite were synthesized at low temperatures and pressures. This shows the importance of finding current articles

The garden was planted. Do you get that much?? That was grasses, flowers, and trees, and etc etc. That is what I think. It is fine that the word formed was used, but the exposition came in chater 2, where we see the details. It was planted. Not all the earth brought foreth grasses. We can know that by the fossil record. I win.

The Garden was planted on the sixth day. Plants were created on the third. I win.

 

[Thistlethorn]

You can't stop the bible from projecting to the past or the future, or prove that God doesn't know them. To do so is not from a standpoint of evidence or knowledge, of course, just projecting your thoughts .

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. It sure wasn't a reply to what you quoted, though. Are you hearing voices again?

You just made the assertion. You claim it is wrong, where? Far as I know there was an Israel, and a captivity, and a destroyed temple, and etc etc. It doesn't get waved away cause you no likey.

Dad, the way logic and common discourse works is: you make an assertion, I question the assertion, you back it up with evidence. It doesn't work like what you're trying to do now, which is: you make an assertion and it's up to me to disprove it.

No, they are still clouded with the stains of the present state nomenclatures. But to the informed, they are rife with real meaning despite the temporary labels. The calendar points to a year ), however, as the central point of time, from which all past and future is measured.

This is just cherry picking. You have three sets of data, one of which conforms with your preconceived bias, so you pick that and hand wave the other two.

Great, now evidence the dates, and how you think you get there. By the way, that happens to be right after the flood time or so. Maybe they are close!

Certainly. Is wikipedia enough for you?

Epic of Gilgamesh: The earliest Sumerian versions of the epic date from as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur (2150-2000 BCE) (Dalley 1989: 41-42).

The Bible: It is believed the Old Testament was composed and compiled between the 12th and the 2nd century BC.

You see how easy it is to provide evidence for one's assertions? Would be nice to see you do that some day.

If so, (and that remains for you to demonstrate) we have a group of people that had flood stories, and realization of lifespans many times what we now have, etc... As I say, the evidence mounts for a different past.

No, that would be the crazy way to think about it. The rational way would be to conclude that these old documents were created in a time were people didn't know much about science, but they did understand the importance of selling a point. Using supernatural phenomena is a sure way to get people's eyes up. In short, it's rational to conclude that the books were stories, and not literal truth.

The records of the bible, regardless of when the first known hard copy date, represent the records from Eden.So you are not going to prove in any way that God plagiarized from the pagans!

I'm not trying to. God didn't write the bible. The bible wasn't written in Eden. Scholars believe it was written in Mesopotamia.

Many actually don't speak of local floods, though, even if some of that is in the mix. You can't dismiss it all cause you no likey.

I don't. I dismiss it because there's no evidence that it ever happened. In fact, there's evidence that it didn't happen.

The Potter books are known fiction, and known works from this time. If one looked at them from the new heavens observation point, in the future, one might get clues to how this state used to be! For example, if someone died, or was sick, or fell down, etc etc. Story content aside, there are basic realities of the day, and laws, that a book works with.

One might also conclude that there was a secret organization of wizards and witches that more or less ran the world, and that these people had epic battles that affected the world of mortal men. Of course, that doesn't happen in reality, but readers of Harry Potter in the future might think it did if they read Harry Potter like you read the Bible.

Yes the swines of fables of so called science, dirty little things they are. They are cast everywhere, school, TV, books, etc.

You're still not making any sense of this proverb. Better leave it to more intelligent people, dad.

Despite visions of grandeur, you actually did nothing remotely similar. Science is a body of knowledge and study of how the universe is. In no way does that tell how it was, or is meant to. The ramblings of so callled science on alternate creation stories are merely present state scenarios, exptrapolated mentally, into the mystic unknown.

No they aren't. Science works now because of unchanging universal laws. If those laws could change on a whim, science wouldn't work today. Sorry dad, but your argument fails.

The book that comes at you six ways from Sunday, regardless of translation. The observer must know how to observe the spiritual, otherwise all they would see was a book, and the men that God used to slap it together. That ain't seeing much. Nor does it qualify them to comment intelligently on what went on. It merely stamps their opinion as severely sawed off, and pint sized, in the big picture. You don't know if God was behind the scenes, face it. If you claim you do, prove it.

I know God wasn't the author. He might have inspired the bible, I can't say, and neither can you. However, the bible was written by fallible men, and it is most obvious that everything in the bible can't be taken as literal truth. Doing so is denying reality.

Same reason the different state will work in the future. God set it up to work. get out of the endless fluke mentality.

Explain it or quit using it as an argument. This is basically a "goddidit" argument, a logical fallacy. We're discussing science here.

It got where it got (on the verge of killing all life) in a few hundred years or so since it came to exist. Do you think anyone envisions some change in the universe in that time?? No. By the time they arrived on the scene, it was a present universe scene, and that is all they have seen.
Let me put it in terms you might understand.

Some science went to sea sea sea,
to see what it could see see see.
But all that it could see see see
is the present deep blue sea sea sea.

Wow, what an utterly stupid argument that didn't at all respond to the points I raised. Kind of like the rest of your posts, only worse.

Elementary.

There's a pink flying unicorn under my bed. Elementary.

Thank you for admitting it is I that have the empirical evidence! Present observations are, class, what? Observing the present universe...good.

Are you seeing things now, as well as hearing voices? I admitted no such thing. I think you should take a course in remedial English.

No, more like an ant licking a lollipop, seeing a man walk by, about to step on it, and looking up defiantly. It isn't about the lollipop of this state. As sweet as you may think it is. Not the future, God, or creation.

What in the name of your god are you talking about? Are you just rambling incoherently? Has your mind finally snapped?

The only way for you, who already admitted it is I that have the empirical evidences, can have any case at all, is to prove the universe we see was the creation state one. Nothing else can help, and you can't do it. You appeal to us to accept it on faith. Not to question it. It just had to be real, because...golly gee, it is real now, what else could ever be?

You still haven't proven it was any different. Until you do that, the null-hypothesis is that it was the same. Burden of evidence is STILL on you, and you STILL haven't presented a shred of evidence, despite being continually asked for it.

The evidence of that would be you growing a case, and being able to present it. Also, your record is bad here. Claiming things that are shown to be lies.

Projection.

You claimed, for example, that the prophesies of the bible were mostly fulfilled.

No, I claimed that the prophecies of the bible were mostly UNfulfilled. Claiming otherwise would be a lie. Incidentally, that's what you are claiming.

That shows an ignorance on a basic level. Maybe you better look into stuff, before claiming stuff. And admit you do not know stuff, when you don't.

Maybe you should learn to read.

Another mad as a hatter claim. Show us your bible case, that I have wrong then! Strut your stuff. We're all ears. And also solidly evidence that the unniverse was in this state at creation. Otherwise, as is apparent, you actually have neither a bible case, nor a science case.

Who's we? You and your multiple personalities? Noone else agrees with you.

You are blasphemous, though. Golden calf kind of blasphemy.

Sitting round a table, if they all were sitting, does not tell you who will dip bread with you next. Guesses don't usually turn out right. Look at lottery tickets.

He had a 1 in 12 chance to begin with. Add to that the fact that he saw how his companions were placed. Add to that the fact that the account was written long after the last supper, and could have (and most probably was) altered to make Jesus look better.

I defeated the first one. If that can't stand, you may as well consider it's friends all ran away for cover.

You didn't defeat it. You haven't defeated anyone or anything on these boards.

I see. So you are as close to absolute truth as it gets. Interesting.

No, science takes you as close to the truth as you can get. I don't. I'm a human. Same as you.

I just gave you a few short chaps. In there we have Jesus on a flying horse, the New heavens, etc etc.

So, the highly allegorical book of revelation is to be taken literally as well, then? In that case we can safely say that none of the prophecies in that has come to pass. If you are to argue that they have, you need to interpret them properly, and interpretation is not literal reading.

Except where it serves your godless purpose, and you wave reality away at a drop of a hat. Such as pre singularity.

Projection.

It changed after the flood, far as I can tell. The differences are many and varied, the close spiritual, different life processes, atomic realities, laws, light, and etc.

As far as you can tell? What makes you think so? Quote the passages. And, as there is no literal mention of a different state anywhere in the bible, doesn't that mean that it is all your interpretation? The interpretation of a (highly) fallible man, and an interpretation that I have yet to hear a single other person agree with? Isn't it possible, just possible, that you are WRONG about all this?

Your mental agony is noted.

Learn to read.

So your definition of sanity is to doubt God for no reason. OK. If the universe of the future is different, and new heavens is possible. You don't know. Admit it.

Learn to read. My definition of sanity is to be skeptical of any claim until evidence is presented. Blindly accepting everything on faith is called gullibility, and blindly accepting everything on faith, seeing the faults in the information, and inventing an imagined reality to make everything fit, is what I would call insane.

That is a big topic. If the poost were not so long, we coulld look at that.

What? It was a yes or no question. Is death defined as such in the bible in a way that doesn't require personal interpretation?

The serpent led to Eve, and the message was the same as I outlined, as what you brought up. Sorry if that is news. I wouldn't take it personal. though. It is what is behind so called science.

Better stop using a computer then, and go live in a cave. If the devil is behind science, you should distance yourself from it. I'll expect you not to reply as you have destroyed your evil computer.

I see, mostly unfulfilled too, as you said. Thanks for showing your stuff.

No, those are all failed. The ones that are just unfulfilled aren't listed as far as I can see.

 

[dad]

Ah, a dad thread

My daily quota of lol has been filled.

Thanks. Laughter is as medicine for the heart.

 

[dad]

Don't care to or can't?

I can do all things through Christ, that strengthens me. But not all things are needful. For everything, a time, and place. If you get to a point where that becomes important, it may be looked at.

I've already gone over this. You have zero evidence in support of any of your ideas while science has been supported time and time again.

Science is not in question. Try to get some sort of grip. The only thinng dangling in the wind, drying, is the attempted application of present laws and science to the great beyond, the unknown.

By your statement I am assuming that you believe you are never wrong and therefore think you are God.

No, I only camr to the position I now take, by being wrong in the first place. If one admits and learns from it, being wrong is a good thing.

I see why you refuse to do any formal debates. Your style is sloppy and you cannot provide evidence to save your life. You constantly ask the same questions without answering any asked of you. You are a poor Christian, and if there is a God, hopefully he will make you pay for the souls you send to hell because of your nonsense.

Thanks for the accusatory drivel. There is a God. And far be it from me to see how pointing out that godless fables that oppose His word are a croc, sends anyone to hell??? Strange claims. Talk about never supporting your claims!!?

 

[dad]

It matters because the formation of pillow lava in the "past state" is the same way pillow lava forms in the "present state". It is evidence that shows the laws of the past were the same as the present.

Interesting. So you think you have pilllow lava formed in some other universe state!!?? Where is it!? Like to have a looksee at that!.

This is funny because I just copied and pasted the same information you gave about the Milankovitch Cycle.

It is such an absolute crock, dependent on same state premises, that it is less interesting than Aesop's fables. What about it would you like to defend, if anything? What, we are supposed to guess????

This is really funny because the paper is from 1991. In the 1950s and 60s, dolomite was found to be forming in highly saline lakes in the Coorong region of South Australia. Dolomite crystals also occur in deep-sea sediments, where organic matter content is high. This dolomite is termed "organogenic" dolomite.

What is actually funny is trying tp explain all dolomite on earth that way. Which happens to be the point. That one's on me.

Recent research has found modern dolomite formation under anaerobic conditions in supersaturated saline lagoons along the Rio de Janeiro coast of Brazil, namely, Lagoa Vermelha and Brejo do Espinho.
For or a very long time scientists had difficulties synthesizing dolomite. However, in a 1999 study, through a processes of dissolution alternating with the intervals of precipitation measurable levels of dolomite were synthesized at low temperatures and pressures. This shows the importance of finding current articles[/quote] No, measurable levels!!? How much? Syntesizing what? "intervals of precipitation "?! How long were the interval, and how much rain? Details, man.

The Garden was planted on the sixth day. Plants were created on the third. I win.

No, I would say it would be the same day plants were created. I suspect you use the after the fact chap 2 as some sort of alternate creation order? No. Hec no.

 

[dad]

Dad, the way logic and common discourse works is: you make an assertion, I question the assertion, you back it up with evidence. It doesn't work like what you're trying to do now, which is: you make an assertion and it's up to me to disprove it.

You and so called science make the assetion, however. You back it up. This is news?

This is just cherry picking. You have three sets of data, one of which conforms with your preconceived bias, so you pick that and hand wave the other two.

One down, two to go, if you dare to defend them.

Certainly. Is wikipedia enough for you?

Epic of Gilgamesh: The earliest Sumerian versions of the epic date from as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur (2150-2000 BCE) (Dalley 1989: 41-42).

Story telling is not enough. You quoted dates, support them! And if you think wiki can help use that.

The Bible: It is believed the Old Testament was composed and compiled between the 12th and the 2nd century BC.

So you really have it down!!! Somewhere within 10 centuries or so!! Get serious. You need to do more than cite what some 'believe'!

No, that would be the crazy way to think about it. The rational way would be to conclude that these old documents were created in a time were people didn't know much about science, but they did understand the importance of selling a point. Using supernatural phenomena is a sure way to get people's eyes up. In short, it's rational to conclude that the books were stories, and not literal truth.

No. Your dreamsvillle idea of rational is opinion. Godless opinion. Not sure why you would waste forum space tying it.

I'm not trying to. God didn't write the bible. The bible wasn't written in Eden. Scholars believe it was written in Mesopotamia.

It has 66 books. You think God gave them all is Mesoptamia??? No. Neither were scholars there at the time. Neither have they a time machine and telescope, that sees inspiration from on high coming down. That makes their observations pitifully limited.

You're still not making any sense of this proverb. Better leave it to more intelligent people, dad.

Intelligence has nothing to do with the patient and kindness required to reply to empty blab. God's word was the pearl in the original! Your attempt to try to make something else swine, or pearls is meaningless.

No they aren't. Science works now because of unchanging universal laws. If those laws could change on a whim, science wouldn't work today. Sorry dad, but your argument fails.

Utterly false claim! Unchanging laws have nothing to do with cars, or computers. Computers actually seem to change every few months!

I know God wasn't the author.

Pretentious lie. You have NO way of knowing. Why pretend???

He might have inspired the bible, I can't say, and neither can you.

You are half right. You can't say. I, however, have looked into it. It sets the bar for inspired!

However, the bible was written by fallible men, a

I thought you just admitted that you can't say!? Lurkers, this laugh is on me.

Explain it or quit using it as an argument. This is basically a "goddidit" argument, a logical fallacy. We're discussing science here.

No, you are trying to pretend physical only science is able to span eternity. Keep it real.

There's a pink flying unicorn under my bed. Elementary.

So that you think you can say. OK.

You still haven't proven it was any different. Until you do that, the null-hypothesis is that it was the same. Burden of evidence is STILL on you, and you STILL haven't presented a shred of evidence, despite being continually asked for it.

Tell us about the null hypothesis, and how it is more important than God, or proof, or anything else in the universe. Please. This could be good!

No, I claimed that the prophecies of the bible were mostly UNfulfilled. Claiming otherwise would be a lie. Incidentally, that's what you are claiming.

True. I am claiming it is a lie.

You are blasphemous, though. Golden calf kind of blasphemy.

So you believe in the golden calf, and blaspheme? Tell us more. Did it jump over the moon cussing?

He had a 1 in 12 chance to begin with. Add to that the fact that he saw how his companions were placed. Add to that the fact that the account was written long after the last supper, and could have (and most probably was) altered to make Jesus look better.

So the long prohesied One was actually a cheap, lying, conniving con artist. I guess that His knowing He would be cruely treated, and killed, was a con too. How clever.

No, science takes you as close to the truth as you can get. I don't. I'm a human. Same as you.

So science takes us to truth, but you don't. OK. Lurkers, want truth? Believe someone other than the guy that just admitted it was far from him.

So, the highly allegorical book of revelation is to be taken literally as well, then? In that case we can safely say that none of the prophecies in that has come to pass. If you are to argue that they have, you need to interpret them properly, and interpretation is not literal reading.

Well, no, you can not safely say that! Better stick to pretending to know science stuff. You really fail here.

As far as you can tell? What makes you think so? Quote the passages. And, as there is no literal mention of a different state anywhere in the bible, doesn't that mean that it is all your interpretation? The interpretation of a (highly) fallible man, and an interpretation that I have yet to hear a single other person agree with? Isn't it possible, just possible, that you are WRONG about all this?

Argument from popularity. Now, about the split, and when it happened. Here is a little summary.


http://geocities.com/lovecreates/split.zip

Learn to read. My definition of sanity is to be skeptical of any claim until evidence is presented.

So the sane thing to do with a same state past is wait for evidence. OK. The bible already has that in spades. Jesus rose from the dead, and was seen. No one saw same state science filming creation.

What? It was a yes or no question. Is death defined as such in the bible in a way that doesn't require personal interpretation?

will this help??

"Question: "What is spiritual death?"

Answer: Death is separation. A physical death is the separation of the soul from the body. Spiritual death, which is of greater significance, is the separation of the soul from God. In Genesis 2:17, God tells Adam that in the day he eats of the forbidden fruit he will “surely die.” Adam does fall, but his physical death does not occur immediately; God must have had another type of death in mind—spiritual death. This separation from God is exactly what we see in Genesis 3:8. When Adam and Eve heard the voice of the Lord, they “hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God.” The fellowship had been broken. They were spiritually dead.

When Jesus was hanging on the cross, He paid the price for us by dying on our behalf. Even though He is God, He still had to suffer to agony of a temporary separation from the Father due to the sin of world He was carrying on the cross. After three hours of supernatural darkness, He cried, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:33-34). This spiritual separation from the Father was the result of the Son’s taking our sins upon Himself. That’s the impact of sin. Sin is the exact opposite of God and God had to turn away from His own Son at that point in time.

A man without Christ is spiritually dead. Paul describes it as “being alienated from the life of God” in Ephesians 4:18. (To be separated from life is the same as being dead.) The natural man, like Adam hiding in the garden, is isolated from God. When we are born again, the spiritual death is reversed. Before salvation, we are dead (spiritually), but Jesus gives us life. “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,” (Ephesians 2:1 NKJV). “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins” (Colossians 2:13).

To illustrate, think of Jesus’ raising of Lazarus in John 11. The physically dead Lazarus could do nothing for himself. He was unresponsive to all stimuli, oblivious to all life around him, beyond all help or hope—except for the help of Christ who is “the Resurrection and the Life” (John 11:25). At Christ’s call, Lazarus was filled with life, and he responded accordingly. In the same way, we were spiritually dead, unable to save ourselves, powerless to perceive the life of God—until Jesus called us to Himself. He “quickened” us; “not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy” (Titus 3:5).

The book of Revelation speaks of a “second death,” which is a final (and eternal) separation from God. Only those who have never experienced new life in Christ will partake of the second death (Revelation 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8)."

What is spiritual death?

Better stop using a computer then, and go live in a cave. If the devil is behind science, you should distance yourself from it. I'll expect you not to reply as you have destroyed your evil computer.

Eden had no computer. Show us how a computer works by a 'same state chip inside'!? Get serious.

No, those are all failed. The ones that are just unfulfilled aren't listed as far as I can see.

Your comprehension failed. Better stick to something you know.

 

[Thistlethorn]

You and so called science make the assetion, however. You back it up. This is news?

Nope. YOU are making the assertion. Mine is the null-hypothesis. YOU provide evidence for YOUR assertions now, please. If you do not, I will soon start to report your posts for the trolling rubbish that they are. PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR ASSERTIONS!

One down, two to go, if you dare to defend them.

Ok, please explain why the days of the week and the months of the year are not named for Jesus, but for pagan religions. YOU made the assertion that because we (only in the Christian west, remember) use the alleged year of the alleged birth of Jesus to set our annual calendars, that is evidence of God and your stupid theory. YOU cannot account for the FACT that there are days in the week and months in the year that are based on pagan religions.

Story telling is not enough. You quoted dates, support them! And if you think wiki can help use that.

I supported my dates with wikipedia. Try to click on the links I provided and you will see. You are blinded by your mindless faith here. I have supported the dates.

So you really have it down!!! Somewhere within 10 centuries or so!! Get serious. You need to do more than cite what some 'believe'!

I supported my dates with wikipedia links. You cannot even support a single of your assertions with anything. It is not known exactly when it was written, because the entire old testament is a jumble of copied myths from a multitude of different cultures way back then. A lot of it is directly stolen from Egyptian mythology, some is Sumerian. A few things are the original creations of the myth authors. Once again, I have supported my assertions. You have not supported yours. Everyone can now see your massive hypocrisy. Well done, dad!

No. Your dreamsvillle idea of rational is opinion. Godless opinion. Not sure why you would waste forum space tying it.

Rationality isn't "dreamsville opinion". Your irrational approach is. Take a remedial course in logic when you're taking your remedial course in English.

It has 66 books. You think God gave them all is Mesoptamia??? No. Neither were scholars there at the time. Neither have they a time machine and telescope, that sees inspiration from on high coming down. That makes their observations pitifully limited.

Nothing agrees with your assertions, dad. Please understand this. You have nothing with which to back up your wild claims. I have all of established science, both physical sciences and life sciences. You are a blind man struggling with his own demons. You are a blasphemous hypocrite, and you're starting to realize it. Give in, dad.

Intelligence has nothing to do with the patient and kindness required to reply to empty blab. God's word was the pearl in the original! Your attempt to try to make something else swine, or pearls is meaningless.

You still fail to make sense of a proverb easy enough for a grade-schooler to understand. I have serious doubts regarding your mental capacity.

Utterly false claim! Unchanging laws have nothing to do with cars, or computers. Computers actually seem to change every few months!

Oh ye of little knowledge. Science - all science - is based on the same principles. Computers are made possible because of physical laws regarding electricity and magnetism. The theories about these laws depend on the laws being unchanging. You fail, yet again.

Pretentious lie. You have NO way of knowing. Why pretend???

I know, because I'm not a blasphemer who puts limitations on God. You are. God wouldn't write a book so full of contradictions and failed prophecies. He might have inspired it, but he sure didn't write it. To say that he did goes against all biblical scholars, all theologian and the collective knowledge of the human race.

You are half right. You can't say. I, however, have looked into it. It sets the bar for inspired!

Now you are lying. You have not looked into it. You couldn't have. Or, are you saying that you talk to God, and God answers you directly? Could you be anymore blasphemous? I'm pretty sure there are rules against blasphemy on these forums.

I thought you just admitted that you can't say!? Lurkers, this laugh is on me.

No, this laugh is at you, dad. Once again you FAIL to read what I said. Please, go back to grade-school.

No, you are trying to pretend physical only science is able to span eternity. Keep it real.

Explain your assertion or quit using it as an argument. This is basically a "goddidit" argument, a logical fallacy. We're discussing science here.

So that you think you can say. OK.

The lurkers understood me there, dad, even though you didn't.

Tell us about the null hypothesis, and how it is more important than God, or proof, or anything else in the universe. Please. This could be good!

The null-hypothesis is the rational ground on which you base your endeavors to understand the world. Failing to ground yourself, you risk insanity. You have already fallen, as evidenced by your continued referral to yourself in plural.

True. I am claiming it is a lie.

Which makes you either a liar, or undereducated in your own holy book.

So you believe in the golden calf, and blaspheme? Tell us more. Did it jump over the moon cussing?

I don't believe in the golden calf, but I think it's an excellent allegory for what you are doing. You are blasphemous to the point of idolatry. You are worshiping the bible, not God.

So the long prohesied One was actually a cheap, lying, conniving con artist. I guess that His knowing He would be cruely treated, and killed, was a con too. How clever.

Dear God, learn to read, dad. Jesus was probably not a con artist. The one's who wrote about Jesus had a reason to make his supernatural aspects exaggerated. So they exaggerated.

So science takes us to truth, but you don't. OK. Lurkers, want truth? Believe someone other than the guy that just admitted it was far from him.

Learn to read and comprehend. I know this is much to ask from you, but, man, a 10 year old could have understood me there. The lurkers surely did.

Well, no, you can not safely say that! Better stick to pretending to know science stuff. You really fail here.

Yes, you can safely say that. The lurkers understand why, dad.

Argument from popularity. Now, about the split, and when it happened. Here is a little summary.

It's not an argument from popularity. It's an argument that your off your rockers. I'm not going to delve further into your insane mind by subjecting myself to your link either.

So the sane thing to do with a same state past is wait for evidence. OK. The bible already has that in spades. Jesus rose from the dead, and was seen. No one saw same state science filming creation.

Nope. The bible has personal testimony from third parties. Not evidence. Science has evidence, as has been explained to you several times now, dad. If you are going to keep covering your ears and shouting "la-la-la-can't-hear-you", please remove yourself from these forums, as we are trying to discuss physical and life sciences here.

will this help??

Question: What is spiritual death?

No, it won't. I asked for bible passages, not interpretations. If you need interpretations you have already failed at taking the bible literally.

Eden had no computer.

Oh look, a non-sequitur.

Show us how a computer works by a 'same state chip inside'!? Get serious.

I explained that above. Get smarter.

Your comprehension failed. Better stick to something you know.

Your comprehension failed. Better get an education before opening your big mouth on a forum containing educated people.

 

[BananaSlug]

I can do all things through Christ, that strengthens me. But not all things are needful. For everything, a time, and place. If you get to a point where that becomes important, it may be looked at.

I'm taking that as a "can't".

Science is not in question. Try to get some sort of grip. The only thinng dangling in the wind, drying, is the attempted application of present laws and science to the great beyond, the unknown.

Again, zero evidence.

No, I only camr to the position I now take, by being wrong in the first place. If one admits and learns from it, being wrong is a good thing.

No. You stated in a post that you came to this position because you saw evidence against the Bible and concluded this was the only way to compromise. Somebody want to find the post?

Thanks for the accusatory drivel. There is a God. And far be it from me to see how pointing out that godless fables that oppose His word are a croc, sends anyone to hell??? Strange claims. Talk about never supporting your claims!!?

I think many Christians would agree that you are only pushing others away.

Interesting. So you think you have pilllow lava formed in some other universe state!!?? Where is it!? Like to have a looksee at that!.

I've already posted a picture of pillow lava from Ireland.

​

It is such an absolute crock, dependent on same state premises, that it is less interesting than Aesop's fables. What about it would you like to defend, if anything? What, we are supposed to guess????

If it was such an absolute crock, why did you post the exact same paragraphs? Did you not read them thoroughly or did you not understand the point?

​

No, measurable levels!!? How much? Syntesizing what? "intervals of precipitation "?! How long were the interval, and how much rain? Details, man.

http://www.jcdeelman.demon.nl/dolomite/files/NeuesJahrbuchMineral.pdf
^ Here is the actual research article.

No, I would say it would be the same day plants were created. I suspect you use the after the fact chap 2 as some sort of alternate creation order? No. Hec no.

I've always been told that Chapter 2 was a more "complete" story, whereas Chapter 1 was the basics. Chapter 2 makes it seem like he planted the Garden after he created Adam (which happened on the sixth day).

8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.
Genesis 2:8-9

Verse 9 implies that he grew the trees after he made Adam. So he created plants on the third day and planted the Garden of Eden on the Sixths after he created Adam, according to the Bible.

 

[dad]

I'm taking that as a "can't".

Well, why pick daisies, bettter to focus on something close to topic.

Again, zero evidence.

No it is proven that science only deals in the natural universe. That's all it can do.

No. You stated in a post that you came to this position because you saw evidence against the Bible and concluded this was the only way to compromise. Somebody want to find the post?

Ridiculous. There is no evidence against apple pie, or the bible.

I think many Christians would agree that you are only pushing others away.

Many likely would agree Jesus did the same. So? I try to speak truth as I see it. I see God and the bible and creation and the flood, and heaven as real, and true. If anyone has substantive arguments, they can raise them. I am not sure an atheist speaks for Christians anyhow.

I've already posted a picture of pillow lava from Ireland.

What about it? It exists, yes..so??

If it was such an absolute crock, why did you post the exact same paragraphs? Did you not read them thoroughly or did you not understand the point?

The issue is not if dolomite can be synthesized, or made from sea life, or anything like that. It is explaining the vast amounts we have on earth. There is no good reason at all to use present state things to do that. In fact it is procuced so little, it is silly to try to do so, I would think.

I've always been told that Chapter 2 was a more "complete" story, whereas Chapter 1 was the basics. Chapter 2 makes it seem like he planted the Garden after he created Adam (which happened on the sixth day).

Chap 2 is more complete, in that it provides some stails not given as to what was ALREADY done. No alternate order.

8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.
Genesis 2:8-9

Verse 9 implies that he grew the trees after he made Adam. So he created plants on the third day and planted the Garden of Eden on the Sixths after he created Adam, according to the Bible.

Ah, no!! If one plants a garden, it takes time to grow! If it all happened in a week, that is the time frame. I would think that you are getting fooled by trying to use chap 2 as another creation order. No. No. No.

 

[dad]

Nope. YOU are making the assertion. Mine is the null-hypothesis. YOU provide evidence for YOUR assertions now, please. If you do not, I will soon start to report your posts for the trolling rubbish that they are. PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR ASSERTIONS!

A claimed state for the future or far past being presented as science is not only null, it is void. Science has limits, and can't know. It is a creature of this state, and nothing else. All it says and does,, and thinks is based on those limits! That's why it ends up with foolish fables.

Ok, please explain why the days of the week and the months of the year are not named for Jesus, but for pagan religions.

The world is not yet ruled by Him, so He hasn't fixed the name thing yet. Relax, it's in the bag. Good as done.

YOU made the assertion that because we (only in the Christian west, remember) use the alleged year of the alleged birth of Jesus to set our annual calendars, that is evidence of God and your stupid theory. YOU cannot account for the FACT that there are days in the week and months in the year that are based on pagan religions.

All the pagan days revolve like little powerless feathers around the years, which all come and go from one point...Jesus!!

I supported my dates with wikipedia. Try to click on the links I provided and you will see. You are blinded by your mindless faith here. I have supported the dates.

learn the difference between story telling and rolling up the sleeves and talking hard fact, and evidences! Look at the BASIS for your dates. Tell us about that. Why so much rhetoric, and blowing smoke? Get down to it, and realize your whole house is built on the same state sands.

.. You cannot even support a single of your assertions with anything. It is not known exactly when it was written, because the entire old testament is a jumble of copied myths from a multitude of different cultures way back then. A lot of it is directly stolen from Egyptian mythology, some is Sumerian. A few things are the original creations of the myth authors. Once again, I have supported my assertions. You have not supported yours. Everyone can now see your massive hypocrisy. Well done, dad!

Let's see you show us the basis for the dates. Try it, and I will show you same state past religion, and nothing else.

Nothing agrees with your assertions, dad. Please understand this. You have nothing with which to back up your wild claims. I have all of established science, both physical sciences and life sciences. You are a blind man struggling with his own demons. You are a blasphemous hypocrite, and you're starting to realize it. Give in, dad.

My my. The bible and history is something, actually. All that we have. It is all against your religious dreams. And I think if you continue to spew this sort of heated gas, rather than show us the basis, as you are given a chance to here..you are unworthy of debate.

Oh ye of little knowledge. Science - all science - is based on the same principles.

Yes, and it is good here in the same state! It is useless tripe anywhere else.

Computers are made possible because of physical laws regarding electricity and magnetism. The theories about these laws depend on the laws being unchanging. You fail, yet again.

False! Nothing about a computer depends on anything unchanging. Even the chips change pretty fast. Electricity isn't an issue.

I know, because I'm not a blasphemer who puts limitations on God. You are. God wouldn't write a book so full of contradictions and failed prophecies. He might have inspired it, but he sure didn't write it. To say that he did goes against all biblical scholars, all theologian and the collective knowledge of the human race.

No, actually. The failing are in your head. The contradictions are too. Wisdom is plain to him that understandeth.

Now you are lying. You have not looked into it. You couldn't have. Or, are you saying that you talk to God, and God answers you directly? Could you be anymore blasphemous? I'm pretty sure there are rules against blasphemy on these forums.

I looked into the bible, and the prophesies. To an unbeliever it may seem like blasphemy. To the rest of us, it is faith. My, so shrill. I feel like a dentist that hit a nerve.

The null-hypothesis is the rational ground on which you base your endeavors to understand the world. Failing to ground yourself, you risk insanity. You have already fallen, as evidenced by your continued referral to yourself in plural.

Grounding oneself on an unproven far past universe state leads to only a short circuit. I think you evidence that for us.

Which makes you either a liar, or undereducated in your own holy book.

I suggest that howling at the moon is less productive than showing reasoned and substantive points.

I don't believe in the golden calf, but I think it's an excellent allegory for what you are doing. You are blasphemous to the point of idolatry. You are worshiping the bible, not God.

So, what, the cow that moos against the bible is the good one now? You may be braying in the wind there.

Dear God, learn to read, dad. Jesus was probably not a con artist. The one's who wrote about Jesus had a reason to make his supernatural aspects exaggerated. So they exaggerated.

So the apostles He chose were a conspiracy. Good luck with that!

It's not an argument from popularity. It's an argument that your off your rockers. I'm not going to delve further into your insane mind by subjecting myself to your link either.

Scared? Well, guess you can keep on argueing strawmen, and from the standpoint of ignorance then. Your call. That does get old fast, I might warn you.

Nope. The bible has personal testimony from third parties. Not evidence. Science has evidence, as has been explained to you several times now, dad. If you are going to keep covering your ears and shouting "la-la-la-can't-hear-you", please remove yourself from these forums, as we are trying to discuss physical and life sciences here.

You have no idea where the stuff in the bible actually came from. If God is talking direct, which is much of the time, that comes from Him! Any parties He used to pipe it to man are secondary. Science has NO evidence for a present state of the universe in the far future. Does it? Fess up.

No, it won't. I asked for bible passages, not interpretations. If you need interpretations you have already failed at taking the bible literally. [/quote[ I gave a pdf loaded with em, you ignore. Don't blame me.

Your comprehension failed. Better get an education before opening your big mouth on a forum containing educated people.

No. Nya nya

 

[Thistlethorn]

A claimed state for the future or far past being presented as science is not only null, it is void. Science has limits, and can't know. It is a creature of this state, and nothing else. All it says and does,, and thinks is based on those limits! That's why it ends up with foolish fables.

So, still no evidence for your assertion then? Your failure is reaching astronomical levels.

The world is not yet ruled by Him, so He hasn't fixed the name thing yet. Relax, it's in the bag. Good as done.

Ah, so you can't explain it, thus God hasn't fixed it yet. Fail.

All the pagan days revolve like little powerless feathers around the years, which all come and go from one point...Jesus!!

Years are more important than days. Do you recognize how stupid this argument is? My guess is: no.

learn the difference between story telling and rolling up the sleeves and talking hard fact, and evidences! Look at the BASIS for your dates. Tell us about that. Why so much rhetoric, and blowing smoke? Get down to it, and realize your whole house is built on the same state sands.

Why so much rhetoric and blowing smoke? That's all you have done in this thread. I supported my assertions. That is called evidencing my claim. As we are talking hard facts and evidence, I would have assumed you would evidence your claim as well. You haven't, so you are nothing but hot air.

Let's see you show us the basis for the dates. Try it, and I will show you same state past religion, and nothing else.

I have shown the basis for the dates. It is in the links I provided you. If you're not even going to read my sources, why do you keep asking for them?

My my. The bible and history is something, actually. All that we have. It is all against your religious dreams. And I think if you continue to spew this sort of heated gas, rather than show us the basis, as you are given a chance to here..you are unworthy of debate.

I have provided evidence for my assertions. You have not. You keep projecting, and you keep referring to yourself as "us", indicative of a split personality disorder. I am unworthy of debate? Well, you haven't debated at all this entire thread. You have done nothing but blow smoke and talk out of your behind.

Yes, and it is good here in the same state! It is useless tripe anywhere else.

Your claim is useless without evidence.

False! Nothing about a computer depends on anything unchanging. Even the chips change pretty fast. Electricity isn't an issue.

Yes, electricity is an issue. Electricity is harnessed based on the laws of Electro-Magnetism, one of the unchanging laws of physics. Hard evidence for a "same-state" past, as you call it.

No, actually. The failing are in your head. The contradictions are too. Wisdom is plain to him that understandeth.

Your failure knows no bounds, dad. You are nothing but a bag of hot air, slowly drifting into a furnace. If God exists, you will go to hell for your blasphemy.

I looked into the bible, and the prophesies. To an unbeliever it may seem like blasphemy. To the rest of us, it is faith. My, so shrill. I feel like a dentist that hit a nerve.

"The rest of us" means you and your multiple personalities. No one else agrees. Your blasphemy will send you to hell, dad.

Grounding oneself on an unproven far past universe state leads to only a short circuit. I think you evidence that for us.

Grounding oneself in reality is important to remain sane. You are evidence of what happens if you don't.

I suggest that howling at the moon is less productive than showing reasoned and substantive points.

So, stop howling at the moon and start providing reasoned and substantial points.

So, what, the cow that moos against the bible is the good one now? You may be braying in the wind there.

Are you going to answer a single one of my points, or are you going to keep making an utter fool out of yourself with this trolling behavior?

So the apostles He chose were a conspiracy. Good luck with that!

Learn to read.

Scared? Well, guess you can keep on argueing strawmen, and from the standpoint of ignorance then. Your call. That does get old fast, I might warn you.

While you're learning to read, learn what a strawman is.

You have no idea where the stuff in the bible actually came from. If God is talking direct, which is much of the time, that comes from Him! Any parties He used to pipe it to man are secondary. Science has NO evidence for a present state of the universe in the far future. Does it? Fess up.

It does. I have explained it to you. If you chose to disbelieve it in favor of your insane theology, be my guest. I know the bible was written by men. Biblical scholars and most Christians agree with me. You are one of the few who believes otherwise. Indicative of insanity.

I gave a pdf loaded with em, you ignore. Don't blame me.

You gave me interpretations. If your theology is based on interpretations of the bible, your entire argument breaks down. Interpretations are made by fallible men (in your case, extremely fallible men), and your literal approach falls short.

No. Nya nya

How very mature. Has your insane mind finally given up then?

 

[dad]

So, still no evidence for your assertion then? Your failure is reaching astronomical levels.

That isn't saying much. The present heavens we see apparently will soon be quite different. A third of the stars gone. I assume that the reinstating of the creation state may be the cause of that. But, I digress.

There is no evidence in science for a same state, or otherwise. All it does is proceed as if a certain state was and will be in effect. And all the procession in in the head only. In a morbid, death of the universe predicting, all things from a speck for no reason belief system.

Years are more important than days. Do you recognize how stupid this argument is? My guess is: no.

The earth revolves around the sun. Like the days are based on the year of Our Lord. Man still lives in days of sin, so the days are expected to be less than perfectly named.

Why so much rhetoric and blowing smoke? That's all you have done in this thread. I supported my assertions. That is called evidencing my claim. As we are talking hard facts and evidence, I would have assumed you would evidence your claim as well. You haven't, so you are nothing but hot air.

Let's recap. You claim things like dates, that you refuse to discuss the basis for. That is foggy indeed.

I have shown the basis for the dates. It is in the links I provided you. If you're not even going to read my sources, why do you keep asking for them?

Well I already know the basis, so you need no links for my benefit. The basis is a same state past, which is unproven, and ungodly garbage. Nothing more. That is hand waving to offer that without proving the same state past first.

Yes, electricity is an issue. Electricity is harnessed based on the laws of Electro-Magnetism, one of the unchanging laws of physics. Hard evidence for a "same-state" past, as you call it.

Thanks for showing you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Some may have needed that. Electro magnetism is a feature of this present universe state. Nothing to do with Eden, or the ark, or the state of the universe in the far past. If you claim it is, evidence that claim. Ridiculous.

Your failure knows no bounds, dad. You are nothing but a bag of hot air, slowly drifting into a furnace. If God exists, you will go to hell for your blasphemy.

Thanks, judge. Thankfully God will decide that sort of thing. The criteria there is believing in Jesus. I do. I hope you come to do so also. I would suggest that if you find a real solid belief sytem, rather than same pastism, you might be more happy, and secure.

Grounding oneself in reality is important to remain sane. You are evidence of what happens if you don't.

Right, so you are the poster child of sanity. I see. Must be nice. Inventing reality for a future you don't know, however is a foolish game.

It does. I have explained it to you. If you chose to disbelieve it in favor of your insane theology, be my guest. I know the bible was written by men. Biblical scholars and most Christians agree with me. You are one of the few who believes otherwise. Indicative of insanity.

They were instruments of the Almighty. All believers believe that. Or they are not really believing.

You gave me interpretations. If your theology is based on interpretations of the bible, your entire argument breaks down. Interpretations are made by fallible men (in your case, extremely fallible men), and your literal approach falls short.

Don't worry about the big kid, been around a while, well established, and founded beliefs. So called science isn't in that league. Just concern yourself with the fact that all claims of the future and far past, that deal in the creation debate, by science, rest on one big premise. One assumption, and belief, and on nothing else at all. It is that we are looking at here, and thrashing, and laughing at. It was a bluff all along. It deserves all it gets.

How very mature. Has your insane mind finally given up then?

Cowards way out? Getting kicked off the board by silly insults, so you can save face, being utterly defeated in the field of battle?? If not, take a tip. Pretend you are civilized here.