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

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I found this, and it makes so much sense.

The Split

 

[BananaSlug]

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

It was on topic. You stated the "daughter isotopes" were not part of radioactive decay before the "split". You then stated you had evidence to support your claims. I said show your evidence. You said you don't care to show it. I accused you of not having any evidence, then you claimed it wasn't on topic. If you have the evidence show it, if not, then say you don't have any. So far it seems you really do not have any evidence.

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

Yet you've constantly stated there is scientific evidence to support the "different state" past. Stop flip-flopping! Is there scientific evidence to support your scenario or not? If there is not any scientific evidence to support the "different state" past, then it means the past physical laws were the same.

I say this because you've stated that the omission of Christ having blood after his resurrection= he had no blood. If omission equals nonexistence, then the absence of evidence for a "different state" past means the past was not "different". You've claimed you have evidence, so show it!

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

I remember you making that claim. I'm not search savvy enough to do a full search to find the quote (it was made a while back). Perhaps some of the other readers could help me find it (the post where dad admits he came to the "split" conclusion in order to keep his faith).

Many likely would agree Jesus did the same.

Jesus pushed the social conservatives and religious fundamentalists away because he went against what they thought was a literal interpretation of their religious manuscript.

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.

That is exactly what I mean. You try to speak the truth as YOU see it. You do realize that you are a fallible human prone to being wrong? Are you fallible or not?

BTW, I used to be a Christian.

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

Care to claim how pillow lava, which is created underwater, came to exist on the side of a mountain? If you claim it was created in the waters of the flood (which happened before the split), then it means we have evidence of the same physical laws of today working in the past.

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.

No, you made the claim that scientists could not synthesize dolomite in the lab. I showed evidence to the contrary. They also have found dolomite forming naturally in lagoons. These explanations work and are testable.

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

I'm not stating it was done in alternate order (contrary to the difference between 1&2). I'm merely stating that the wording of Genesis 2 implies that God planted the Garden after he created Adam. Not to mention that God created plants on the land, not just the Garden of Eden.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
Genesis 1:9-13

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. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:8-9

Genesis 1 clearly states that God formed plants on the earth, not just the Garden. The wording of Genesis 2 implies that God planted the Garden after he created Adam.

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.

So now you are saying God didn't use "super fast growth" to create Eden? Are you saying God isn't capable of creating an already fully mature, producing garden in a few seconds? It is funny that while trying to hold up your interpretation of the Bible, you detract from God's power.

The wording of Genesis 2 still implies that God planted Eden after creating Adam.

It says "the Lord planted", not "the Lord had planted".
8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. Genesis 2:8

If it said, "the Lord God had planted", then you would have a leg to stand on because it would have shown that the garden was planted before he created Adam. However, the phrase "had formed" signifies that he did create Adam before the Garden was planted. Read the verse with the word "had" moved (note to mods, I am not adding to the Bible, just showing how much the sentence actually changes meaning when one word is moved).

Changed: "The Lord God had planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He formed."
Original: "The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed."

Do you see the difference? "Had planted" would signify the garden was created beforehand. However, the Bible is not worded that way! So here we have Biblical evidence that shows the Garden of Eden was created on the 6th day, not the 3rd. I definitely win. Any Christians agree with me?

 

[Thistlethorn]

Bleh

I grow weary of you. I'm going to give you one last chance to contribute anything worthwhile to this thread by answering my direct question:

Do you have evidence for what you call a "different state past"? If so, please present it.

Now, this is a simple question, the first part of which is "yes" or "no". The following should either be a presentation of EVIDENCE, that is, not bible quotes, not inane ramblings about how science can't prove this or that. Direct evidence for a different state past. If you cannot provide such evidence, your answer should be "no", and nothing more.

Any other reply to my question will just be more evidence of you dodging. No doubt you will try, but this is for your credibility. Can you answer a "yes" or "no" question with a simple "yes" or "no", or will you attempt to dodge the question?

 

[dad]

It was on topic. You stated the "daughter isotopes" were not part of radioactive decay before the "split". You then stated you had evidence to support your claims. I said show your evidence. You said you don't care to show it. I accused you of not having any evidence, then you claimed it wasn't on topic. If you have the evidence show it, if not, then say you don't have any. So far it seems you really do not have any evidence.

Well, we appear to be discussing 2 different things then. Since you put your thoughts in a cohesive paragraph, I will address it.

The issue then, is what the material that is now radioactive was doing before this universe state existed. I can't recall the line of thinking, that was going on, if your recollections are correct. What comes to mind reading it, is that there is no evidence about a same state past. Or a different state past, as far as science is concerned. Therefore any evidence would be out of that realm.

If we are talking bible, then the future will not see the decay of the present. Yet, why would we assume that the (what are now daughter isotopes) will disappear? No reason. The same thing applies in a former universe state.

To be honest, I had thought you were refrring to something else, so the original line of thought is gone.

Yet you've constantly stated there is scientific evidence to support the "different state" past. Stop flip-flopping! Is there scientific evidence to support your scenario or not? If there is not any scientific evidence to support the "different state" past, then it means the past physical laws were the same.

No. All science supports the different state. Whether the fossil record, axis change, etc etc ad infinitum. But one must first start with a premise of what state the past was in, to arrive at conclusions from any evidence! Yet both observers will say that the evidence agrees.


That merely serves to illustrate that the physical realities of this universe we see now, alone, cannot stand alone as proof.

That leaves so called science dead in the ater. It leaves those that look to history and the bible, as lookin real good about now.

Hope that clears it up.

I say this because you've stated that the omission of Christ having blood after his resurrection= he had no blood. If omission equals nonexistence, then the absence of evidence for a "different state" past means the past was not "different". You've claimed you have evidence, so show it!

Who says blood was omitted? If it was not included, don't blame me! On the other hand,, descriptions of vast differences in the future and past, from the present abound! That happens to be why silly, smart alecy, little god wanna be man thought God had the book all wrong! Thanks for that.

I remember you making that claim. I'm not search savvy enough to do a full search to find the quote (it was made a while back). Perhaps some of the other readers could help me find it (the post where dad admits he came to the "split" conclusion in order to keep his faith).

I think your memory is colored.

Jesus pushed the social conservatives and religious fundamentalists away because he went against what they thought was a literal interpretation of their religious manuscript.

He also spoke of creation, and the time of Eden, and the flood. The fundamentalists were wrong, because they were lying hypocrites, that were not honest believers.

That is exactly what I mean. You try to speak the truth as YOU see it. You do realize that you are a fallible human prone to being wrong? Are you fallible or not?

BTW, I used to be a Christian.

If that is true, you still are. Once saved, always saved. Maybe one day you will tire of the so called science husks.

Care to claim how pillow lava, which is created underwater, came to exist on the side of a mountain? If you claim it was created in the waters of the flood (which happened before the split), then it means we have evidence of the same physical laws of today working in the past.

Oh. Well, science doesn't know how pillow lava forms in any other state, does it? So there are several possibilities, no problem whatsoever. Water may have covered the rock, say, during the continental separation. After all, it appears near the edge of land, near the sea! Splish splash. Remember also, that the final phase of the separation would be present state. That means heat. That is just for starters, see what you can do with that.

No, you made the claim that scientists could not synthesize dolomite in the lab. I showed evidence to the contrary. They also have found dolomite forming naturally in lagoons. These explanations work and are testable.

I doubt I said that. The gist of what I said has to do with the dolomite we have on earth, not being explained by present processes well at all. I never doubted that it was formed. I doubt that the way it is now formed explains it all! And, sure enough, it doesn't Funny, that.

I'm not stating it was done in alternate order (contrary to the difference between 1&2). I'm merely stating that the wording of Genesis 2 implies that God planted the Garden after he created Adam. Not to mention that God created plants on the land, not just the Garden of Eden.

No! Chap 2 is not an order.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
Genesis 1:9-13

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. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:8-9

Genesis 1 clearly states that God formed plants on the earth, not just the Garden. The wording of Genesis 2 implies that God planted the Garden after he created Adam.

Well, obviously, if we look at the evidence, there was no grass all over the planet. It was in Eden. Where it was needed. Not sure what you see when you read the verses. I see the garden on day three.

So now you are saying God didn't use "super fast growth" to create Eden? Are you saying God isn't capable of creating an already fully mature, producing garden in a few seconds? It is funny that while trying to hold up your interpretation of the Bible, you detract from God's power.

No, trees and grass etc that grow in days are hyper fast. He was capable of creating woman from something other than a rib as well. We are looking at what He did, not coulda done.

The wording of Genesis 2 still implies that God planted Eden after creating Adam.

It says "the Lord planted", not "the Lord had planted".
8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. Genesis 2:8

If it said, "the Lord God had planted", then you would have a leg to stand on because it would have shown that the garden was planted before he created Adam. However, the phrase "had formed" signifies that he did create Adam before the Garden was planted. Read the verse with the word "had" moved (note to mods, I am not adding to the Bible, just showing how much the sentence actually changes meaning when one word is moved).

Changed: "The Lord God had planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He formed."
Original: "The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed."

Do you see the difference? "Had planted" would signify the garden was created beforehand. However, the Bible is not worded that way! So here we have Biblical evidence that shows the Garden of Eden was created on the 6th day, not the 3rd. I definitely win. Any Christians agree with me?

Well maybe you missed this. God made the plants before they were put in the earth..


Chap 2 ...in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."

!!!
That means that there was no man yet, which clinches day three, and the planting. Check, mate.

 

[dad]

I grow weary of you. I'm going to give you one last chance to contribute anything worthwhile to this thread by answering my direct question:

Do you have evidence for what you call a "different state past"? If so, please present it.

Now, this is a simple question, the first part of which is "yes" or "no". The following should either be a presentation of EVIDENCE, that is, not bible quotes, not inane ramblings about how science can't prove this or that. Direct evidence for a different state past. If you cannot provide such evidence, your answer should be "no", and nothing more.

Any other reply to my question will just be more evidence of you dodging. No doubt you will try, but this is for your credibility. Can you answer a "yes" or "no" question with a simple "yes" or "no", or will you attempt to dodge the question?

Yes.


I do.


You don't get to set the criteria for evidence, because so called science is ruled out as a player.


Try to get that.

Now, either you prove a same state past by science, or admit you can't. I admit you can't. Neither by science or any other way. Better to go out with some modicum of dignity. Because your case are finished. Kaput. Exposed. Defeated. Down for the count.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Yes.


I do.

Then present it.

You don't get to set the criteria for evidence, because so called science is ruled out as a player.
Try to get that.

I'm not setting the criteria. The Scientific Method - the method by which all human progress has come about - sets the criteria. If your evidence don't conform to the Scientific Method, it's not evidence. Try to get that.

Now, either you prove a same state past by science, or admit you can't. I admit you can't. Neither by science or any other way. Better to go out with some modicum of dignity. Because your case are finished. Kaput. Exposed. Defeated. Down for the count.

I have already presented evidence. That you are too thick to see it is not my fault. It's your turn. Put up or shut up. Present your evidence or be gone from the discussion.

 

[dad]

Then present it.

I gave a link I seem to recall you stomping your feet, and saying you wouldn't read it. The evidence for aa different state is in history and the bible. Likey or lumpy. Aside from that, all that is left is starting from a premise of belief, and looking at evidence we have. That happens to be a good description of the scientific method, by the way!!

The serpent used that on Eve. 'Oh, look, oh is good to be observed, to the senses, to the eye. God didn't reaallly tell you the truth, go ahead test it. Then repeat the experiment on Adam.'

I think we ought to be a little weary of that nonsense by about now.
My evidence is verified by God, and man, and all the records that earth has for the far past. Your belief based, present state based past scenario, leads to utterly insane conclusions, in a never never land that never was or will be. It is onlly there that the scientific method leads, and only in that dream where it works outside of reality here.

I'm not setting the criteria.[/ The Scientific Method - the method by which all human progress has come about - sets the criteria.

Nonsense, that mickey mouse, irrelevant method of same state past drooling in not a measure of anything but the present. You can't fly it to infinity and beyond. Really. It can't move an inch from the toy box of the present state universe.

Our survival after the flood was not by the scientific method by any stretch. The science of today stands at the threshold of killing all men.

If your evidence don't conform to the Scientific Method, it's not evidence. Try to get that.

I have already presented evidence. That you are too thick to see it is not my fault. It's your turn. Put up or shut up. Present your evidence or be gone from the discussion.

No, you have not even addressed the issue of supporting the premise that your so called evidence is based on! You merely tell stories, and are not courageous enough to put the details and basis on the table. I hardly blame you, we both know what would happen to it. It woulld be shown up for what it is.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

dad, to use an antiquated vernacular made so popular by a little old lady selling hamburgers in the U.S. about twenty years ago...

"Where's the beef?"

You have yet to present just ONE shred of evidence. Either do so, or please admit that you are crazy, and we'll leave you alone.

 

[Thistlethorn]

I gave a link I seem to recall you stomping your feet, and saying you wouldn't read it. The evidence for aa different state is in history and the bible. Likey or lumpy. Aside from that, all that is left is starting from a premise of belief, and looking at evidence we have. That happens to be a good description of the scientific method, by the way!!

The serpent used that on Eve. 'Oh, look, oh is good to be observed, to the senses, to the eye. God didn't reaallly tell you the truth, go ahead test it. Then repeat the experiment on Adam.'

I think we ought to be a little weary of that nonsense by about now.
My evidence is verified by God, and man, and all the records that earth has for the far past. Your belief based, present state based past scenario, leads to utterly insane conclusions, in a never never land that never was or will be. It is onlly there that the scientific method leads, and only in that dream where it works outside of reality here.

Nowhere in this heap of dung do you present any evidence at all. You assert that your evidence is in history and the bible, but you fail to present any of it, disregarding for a minute that the bible is an unverifiable source of information, and thus discounted as evidence. I think we can now safely conclude that you have exactly ZERO evidence for any of your assertions. I've given you chance after chance to present any - ANY - evidence for ANYTHING you assert, but you have either chosen not to or been unable to. Either way, this counts as a forfeit of the debate on your part.

Nonsense, that mickey mouse, irrelevant method of same state past drooling in not a measure of anything but the present. You can't fly it to infinity and beyond. Really. It can't move an inch from the toy box of the present state universe.

I would stop using a computer quickly if I were you. The scientific method made it possible, after all, and, as you keep saying, the scientific method is "mickey mouse and irrelevant".

Our survival after the flood was not by the scientific method by any stretch. The science of today stands at the threshold of killing all men.

I have nothing further to add to this discussion. You have managed to absolutely destroy your own arguments more thoroughly than I ever could. I applaud your infinite ignorance, and your ability to shoot yourself in the foot, unequaled by any other.

No, you have not even addressed the issue of supporting the premise that your so called evidence is based on! You merely tell stories, and are not courageous enough to put the details and basis on the table. I hardly blame you, we both know what would happen to it. It woulld be shown up for what it is.

And with this sad little piece of projection we conclude dad's crumbling case. It's over, dad. Your mindless assertions is nothing but a stinking carcass, and your attempts to resuscitate it failed so long ago that you're just zapping bone by now. I hope you get help, dad. I really do, because you dearly need it. Until then, I will enjoy watching you continue to make a fool of yourself on these forums, and laughing at your constant appeals to the "lurkers", the veritable army of people agreeing with you who exist nowhere but in your diseased mind.

 

[Gracchus]

I hope you get help, dad. I really do, because you dearly need it. Until then, I will enjoy watching you continue to make a fool of yourself on these forums, and laughing at your constant appeals to the "lurkers", the veritable army of people agreeing with you who exist nowhere but in your diseased mind.

I remember the cas of a Catholic priest in Spain who emasculated himself with garden shears in an attempt to put an end to his sexuality. ("If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out.")
From fear, some cripple their minds. They should not be figures of fun. They should be pitied, and if possible protected from further self-mutilation.
Folly begets more foolishness. Unless death intervenes, it is a spiral into madness.

 

[Thistlethorn]

I remember the cas of a Catholic priest in Spain who emasculated himself with garden shears in an attempt to put an end to his sexuality. ("If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out.&quot
From fear, some cripple their minds. They should not be figures of fun. They should be pitied, and if possible protected from further self-mutilation.
Folly begets more foolishness. Unless death intervenes, it is a spiral into madness.

I agree. I should not take pleasure in watching someone humiliate themselves, but I just can't figure out what else to do. I do feel pity for the man, but I don't think he'll appreciate it, so I might as well laugh.

 

[Gracchus]

I agree. I should not take pleasure in watching someone humiliate themselves, but I just can't figure out what else to do. I do feel pity for the man, but I don't think he'll appreciate it, so I might as well laugh.

I understand. I only laugh when it hurts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have evidence for what you call a "different state past"? If so, please present it.

I believe you guys (and myself included) thought Pluto was a planet at one time --- does that count?

Or did you mean that literally?

In which case I believe you guys (excluding myself) say the earth was a gas at one time, now it's a solid/liquid.

Does that count?

I'm sure you guys believe in a different state past as well --- (unless I'm wrong).

 

[BananaSlug]

Everybody read the red sentences!!!!!!!

The issue then, is what the material that is now radioactive was doing before this universe state existed. I can't recall the line of thinking, that was going on, if your recollections are correct. What comes to mind reading it, is that there is no evidence about a same state past. Or a different state past, as far as science is concerned. Therefore any evidence would be out of that realm.

So you are admitting you have no evidence. I wonder why it took several posts for you to admit it. Thank you for finally being honest. Maybe next time you won't claim you have evidence when you really don't. Remember this lurkers!

If we are talking bible, then the future will not see the decay of the present. Yet, why would we assume that the (what are now daughter isotopes) will disappear? No reason. The same thing applies in a former universe state.

Daughter isotopes would be indicative of decay. If daughter isotopes are present in the "future state" it would be evidence for radioactive decay in the past.

To be honest, I had thought you were refrring to something else, so the original line of thought is gone.

It is not hard to backtrack among the posts in this thread to find the original line of thought. This is either laziness on your part or deceit.

No. All science supports the different state. Whether the fossil record, axis change, etc etc ad infinitum. But one must first start with a premise of what state the past was in, to arrive at conclusions from any evidence! Yet both observers will say that the evidence agrees.

You just stated in the first paragraph that there is no evidence to support a "different state" past. You have yet to provide any evidence of what the daughter isotopes' purpose was in the "different state" past. Oh wait, you just admitted you did not have any, as opposed to earlier when you stated you did. Lurkers take note.

That leaves so called science dead in the ater. It leaves those that look to history and the bible, as lookin real good about now.

Not really, unless "lookin real good" means backtracking and contradicting yourself.

Who says blood was omitted? If it was not included, don't blame me!

You said the lack of mentioning blood in Christ's resurrected body meant he did not have any blood! I was merely using the same logic toward the scientific evidence of a "different state" past.

On the other hand,, descriptions of vast differences in the future and past, from the present abound! That happens to be why silly, smart alecy, little god wanna be man thought God had the book all wrong! Thanks for that.

You have yet to provide a verse that says radioactive decay was nonexistent.

He also spoke of creation, and the time of Eden, and the flood.

He also loved parables. In fact, I have a verse where Jesus disproves the "different state" past.

26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. Luke 17:26-30

Either this "split" never happened, or it happened much later than you claim it did because Jesus obviously says the days of Lot were the same as the days of Noah. This also means that the days leading up to Christ's return would be the same as in Noah's day (note: Jesus is not talking about the "future eternal" state, he is talking about the present state in which he returns). I just used the same line of reasoning and interpretation as you do. How will you squirm your way out of this one?

The fundamentalists were wrong, because they were lying hypocrites, that were not honest believers.

The fundamentalists were honest believers in their own eyes.

If that is true, you still are. Once saved, always saved. Maybe one day you will tire of the so called science husks.

Why do you always seem to ignore this question?

"You try to speak the truth as YOU see it. You do realize that you are a fallible human prone to being wrong? Are you fallible or not?"

So dad, will you answer the question or continue to skirt around it? Are you a fallible, imperfect human or not? Continuing what seems like a refusal to answer this makes it seem you think you are perfect, i.e. God.

Oh. Well, science doesn't know how pillow lava forms in any other state, does it?

So you had no problem with pillow lava formation until I made it clear to you?

So there are several possibilities, no problem whatsoever. Water may have covered the rock, say, during the continental separation. After all, it appears near the edge of land, near the sea! Splish splash. Remember also, that the final phase of the separation would be present state.

When did the breakup of the continents occur, during the flood or after? It is funny to see you suddenly shift the goalposts when you realized what I was talking about! Lurkers, make sure you follow this!

The gist of what I said has to do with the dolomite we have on earth, not being explained by present processes well at all. I never doubted that it was formed. I doubt that the way it is now formed explains it all! And, sure enough, it doesn't Funny, that.

Why would the formation of dolomite have to be different in the past? What reason would we have to assume otherwise? Do you have an alternate explanation? If you have so much beef with the current explanation (which has been verified by both field and laboratory research) then propose an alternate hypothesis to test.

No! Chap 2 is not an order.
Well, obviously, if we look at the evidence, there was no grass all over the planet. It was in Eden. Where it was needed. Not sure what you see when you read the verses. I see the garden on day three.

So you are saying the Bible is wrong when it clearly says,

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:11-12

Genesis 1 says "let the earth", not "let Eden". Either Genesis 1 is wrong or you are. Which is it?

Well maybe you missed this. God made the plants before they were put in the earth..

Chap 2 ...in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."

Why didn't you finish the verse? It goes on to say this:

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Genesis 2:7

This implies that God created Adam before he created the plants! I thought you said Genesis 2 wasn't different?

That means that there was no man yet, which clinch

es day three, and the planting. Check, mate.

You are still ignoring the wording of Genesis 2.

8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. Genesis 2:8

^This verse still implies, based on its wording, that Eden was planted after the creation of Adam.

If I say, "I planted a garden by my house, and there I put the wind chime I had bought", meant the wind chime was in my possession before I planted the garden.

Are you now going to argue the laws of grammar were different in the past?

 

[dad]

dad, to use an antiquated vernacular made so popular by a little old lady selling hamburgers in the U.S. about twenty years ago...

"Where's the beef?"

You have yet to present just ONE shred of evidence. Either do so, or please admit that you are crazy, and we'll leave you alone.

Except the bible and what it says, and history are not on trial here. That is the only beef you will find. The sacred cow of phony so called science won't leap to your aid, or give any meet. It just wants to be worshiped with blind faith.
Another thing that evidences the different past state is the spirits recorded. And the spiritual experiences of man since, even in this state, though we are separate now. It is still a known quantity, that can't be waved away by the poor pipsqueaks who can't even so much as detect it here!

And the icing on the cake is the hard evidence I present here, the irrefutable, undeniable, winning, concrete evidence of physical science! It is well known it ONLY deals in the present physical universe and laws!!! It has also been repeatedly demonstrated here and elsewhere, that there is not one iota of evidence from science of a same state past.

 

[dad]

Everybody read the red sentences!!!!!!!

Likely it took you that long to have a clear question. But in my last post, I show evidence from science! It is proven that it doesn't know, and the proof is in the pudding they have failed to produce.

Daughter isotopes would be indicative of decay. If daughter isotopes are present in the "future state" it would be evidence for radioactive decay in the past.

No. If the material (daughters) was here before decay, and is here after decay, most of what we see is indeed not evidence for a temporal state in between.

Also, in fine tuning the future, as told by the bible, I have to ask whether the new universe will merely be the original one retored, or a whole new one.

If the latter, then I suppose the materials would no longer exist?

The millennium will be like the pre flood. Or, if you will, pre split. But that's another thread still in conception.

It is not hard to backtrack among the posts in this thread to find the original line of thought. This is either laziness on your part or deceit.

If you want to back track, you do it. Or who is it that is lazy? That merely indicates you think you had a point somewhere you can't seem to recall or produce, as I see it. That ain't much to worry about. At least on my end.

You just stated in the first paragraph that there is no evidence to support a "different state" past. You have yet to provide any evidence of what the daughter isotopes' purpose was in the "different state" past. Oh wait, you just admitted you did not have any, as opposed to earlier when you stated you did. Lurkers take note.

No, there is no science available. Everything else supports it. And they cannot oppose it, or support their claimed state of the universe then either. They are skunked.

 

[marktheblake]

^This verse still implies, based on its wording, that Eden was planted after the creation of Adam.

Not necessarily, Gen 2 is not a chronological order of events.

Gen 2 is about Man (Adam) and therefore he is mentioned first, it does not mean he was created before Eden or anything else.

 

[marktheblake]

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?

Council of Nicea did nothing of the sort, that was not even on the Agenda.

The discovery of Texts older than any Councils show that the OT we have today is unchanged since before Christ proves that no council changed anything.

The sacred record that has been translated and retranslated time and time again?

Ok Science, prove this by showing the original documents and what they really said. Without such proof, this claim of yours is merely unsupported prejudice. You do not like what it says so you make up something to discredit it.

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.

Fair enough. But then you add the wishful thinking that the narrative is 'probably much older' why the need to stretch the claim? not strong enough or just trying to gloss over the fact that the Torah dates the flood at around about the same time is the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The dating of the Epic of Gilgamesh is absolutely no evidence that the Jews plagiarised the story from them (whether deliberately or not). The dates of the manuscripts prove nothing to us.

You can postulate this issue as much as you like, but the underlying fact is that the Torah claims to be the truth and God is the source of the knowledge. From our perspective all the arguments you are trying to present simply support our position.

 

[dad]

You said the lack of mentioning blood in Christ's resurrected body meant he did not have any blood! I was merely using the same logic toward the scientific evidence of a "different state" past.

You have yet to provide a verse that says radioactive decay was nonexistent.

He also loved parables. In fact, I have a verse where Jesus disproves the "different state" past.

26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. Luke 17:26-30

Either this "split" never happened, or it happened much later than you claim it did because Jesus obviously says the days of Lot were the same as the days of Noah. This also means that the days leading up to Christ's return would be the same as in Noah's day (note: Jesus is not talking about the "future eternal" state, he is talking about the present state in which he returns). I just used the same line of reasoning and interpretation as you do. How will you squirm your way out of this one?

What was being talked about there, was the wicked state of man in the end. Context. However, since you brought it up, I might be able to use that. See, in the tribulation, (most see that as after Jesus raptures the believers) as well as in the millenium, things are again different. Therefore it is possible that indeed, it will be the same as the days of Noah at that time!? Men on earth live a thousand years, for example in the millennium. In the tribulation a few possible clues for a universal change exist as well. For example, men will want to die, but won't be able to. That could indicate that the life processes have changed? Also a third of the stars will fall, that sure seems to be a universal change!?

The fundamentalists were honest believers in their own eyes.

So are some same state pasters..

"You try to speak the truth as YOU see it. You do realize that you are a fallible human prone to being wrong? Are you fallible or not?"

If a man rests his opinion on solid pillars, it is of value. If one merely imagines a same state past, it is of no coinage.

So dad, will you answer the question or continue to skirt around it? Are you a fallible, imperfect human or not? Continuing what seems like a refusal to answer this makes it seem you think you are perfect, i.e. God.

All men are fallible. All are depraved sinners. The issue is not about men, it is about so called science claims. It is also about the biblical alternative, and for that you need a bible case. I have one. Work on that.

So you had no problem with pillow lava formation until I made it clear to you?

When did the breakup of the continents occur, during the flood or after? It is funny to see you suddenly shift the goalposts when you realized what I was talking about! Lurkers, make sure you follow this!

No, I have no problem with pillow lava at all. Especially some right near the ocean! We should also remember that the flood waters went down. From a physical science perspective, it had to go somewhere. The explanations af it just settling in or something seem weak to me at best. Therefore, many things were covered by water that are not now.

Some claim the continents separated at the time of the flood. I am not sure. My educated opinion so far, is that it was at the time of the split. Over a century later.

Why would the formation of dolomite have to be different in the past? What reason would we have to assume otherwise? Do you have an alternate explanation? If you have so much beef with the current explanation (which has been verified by both field and laboratory research) then propose an alternate hypothesis to test.

The processes that form it today are trivial and small. There is a lot here. Science is less than certain, no?

So you are saying the Bible is wrong when it clearly says,

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:11-12

Genesis 1 says "let the earth", not "let Eden". Either Genesis 1 is wrong or you are. Which is it?

Right, and Eden was in the earth. Notice also that it doesn't seem to be magically appearing here. Planted would fit this best! Because like a garden, it brings forth stuff! back then, it brang forth awful fast.

Why didn't you finish the verse? It goes on to say this:

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Genesis 2:7

This implies that God created Adam before he created the plants! I thought you said Genesis 2 wasn't different?

No, Gen 2 is not an order. It is a fleshing out of some things already done. By chap 2 all was done already.

You are still ignoring the wording of Genesis 2.

8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. Genesis 2:8

^This verse still implies, based on its wording, that Eden was planted after the creation of Adam.

Not IF we already know the order. It can only imply that in the head of one that looks to chap 2 for the order. No can do.

If I say, "I planted a garden by my house, and there I put the wind chime I had bought", meant the wind chime was in my possession before I planted the garden.

Are you now going to argue the laws of grammar were different in the past?

Some also take the word interpreted as eastward to mean 'in advance of'. That also makes sense, because God had the garden there before man was made, obviously. He made man somewhere else, as you may know. Then He brought man to Eden. Impossible to make the garden after He brought guests to it! Elementary.

This stuff is so easy.

 

[BananaSlug]

Likely it took you that long to have a clear question. But in my last post, I show evidence from science! It is proven that it doesn't know, and the proof is in the pudding they have failed to produce.

You didn't use science. You merely claim, "science can't know". That is not using science, it is known as an opinion.

"The issue then, is what the material that is now radioactive was doing before this universe state existed. I can't recall the line of thinking, that was going on, if your recollections are correct. What comes to mind reading it, is that there is no evidence about a same state past. Or a different state past, as far as science is concerned. Therefore any evidence would be out of that realm."

^Not science. For it to be considered science you would need to supply evidence for your claims. You have yet to provide any scientific evidence. My point stands.

No. If the material (daughters) was here before decay, and is here after decay, most of what we see is indeed not evidence for a temporal state in between.

What was the purpose of the daughter isotopes being present before radioactive decay? You have yet to give an explanation.

Also, in fine tuning the future, as told by the bible, I have to ask whether the new universe will merely be the original one retored, or a whole new one.

If the latter, then I suppose the materials would no longer exist?

Then why did you say this in the last post?

"If we are talking bible, then the future will not see the decay of the present. Yet, why would we assume that the (what are now daughter isotopes) will disappear? No reason. The same thing applies in a former universe state."
http://www.christianforums.com/t7390200-37/#post52835304

What would be the purpose of God placing daughter isotopes in rock if there was no radioactive decay?

The millennium will be like the pre flood. Or, if you will, pre split. But that's another thread still in conception.

So why would daughter isotopes be in rock if radioactive decay does not exist? What would be their purpose?

If you want to back track, you do it. Or who is it that is lazy? That merely indicates you think you had a point somewhere you can't seem to recall or produce, as I see it. That ain't much to worry about. At least on my end.

Okay. Here you go... The original post that started it:

1. It started when you claimed that daughter isotopes (a product of decay) were present in the "past state". You stated:

Ha!!! Now you are starting to clue in. False!!! Daughter isotopes were already here. But they were not involved in the decay process. (#275)

2. I asked you to prove it. You then said:

I go by deduction, and what we do know. We do know they are here, and I deduce they had to get here somehow. Since no same state is known, in the past or proven, one would have to assume they were part of creation. (#285)

3. I asked you to provide evidence. You said:

No need to, since you can't prove a same state. You can't know, let alone be sure by science!(#291)

4.. I asked if you didn't care to provide the evidence you said you had or if you couldn't provide it. You stated:

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. (#352)

5. I said you couldn't provide evidence. You said:

Well, why pick daisies, bettter to focus on something close to topic. (#357)

6. I stated my question was on topic. You then said:

The issue then, is what the material that is now radioactive was doing before this universe state existed. I can't recall the line of thinking, that was going on, if your recollections are correct. What comes to mind reading it, is that there is no evidence about a same state past. Or a different state past, as far as science is concerned. Therefore any evidence would be out of that realm.

7. Which brings us to:

If you want to back track, you do it. Or who is it that is lazy? That merely indicates you think you had a point somewhere you can't seem to recall or produce, as I see it. That ain't much to worry about. At least on my end. (#376)

So as you can see I had a point and you have failed to provide evidence when you said you had it. Hopefully I won't have to find information like this for you. Your a big boy now, I shouldn't have to hold your hand. If you have evidence to support your assertion, show it. If you don't have evidence, admit it! Your flip-flopping is getting old.

No, there is no science available. Everything else supports it. And they cannot oppose it, or support their claimed state of the universe then either. They are skunked.

What else supports it? The Bible certainly doesn't support many of your ideas. I've never read a verse that said radioactive decay did not exist before the flood. So the Bible doesn't even support some of your ideas...