Lake Suigetsu, the Flood and Objects of Known Age

[Loudmouth]

Are you telling me, Barry, that you cannot (that's cannot) read Genesis 1 and see a different state past documented?

No more so than the tales of Paul Bunyan document a giant blue ox.

 

[Loudmouth]

Barry, hang up the Arab phone and listen to me, please.

For the third time: Are you telling me you do not see a different state past -- (not a "different view of the world") -- documented in Genesis 1?

The map is not the territory. The evidence from reality demonstrates that the past was the same as the present.

 

[AV1611VET]

No more so than the tales of Paul Bunyan document a giant blue ox.

That was going to be my trump card; only I was going to use Humpty Dumpty.

These guys know the point I'm making, but their pride won't allow them to acknowledge it.

 

[AV1611VET]

The map is not the territory. The evidence from reality demonstrates that the past was the same as the present.

That's not what I asked.

 

[BarryDesborough]

That's not what I asked.

You had your answer,

I see a different view of the world, but not a different world.

Where is the verse that says there were ten springs every year?

Now you owe me an answer to my question.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now you owe me an answer to my question.

Rephidim?

 

[BarryDesborough]

Rephidim?

Where is the verse that says there were ten springs every year?

That is what you need to account, scripturally, for the number of varves in the bed of Lake Suigetsu. Come on, you are the one who maintains that your scripture accounts for a different state past.

Or are you all talk and no trousers?

 

[Loudmouth]

That was going to be my trump card; only I was going to use Humpty Dumpty.

These guys know the point I'm making, but their pride won't allow them to acknowledge it.

The only point you are making is that you don't understand the difference between a claim and evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's not what I asked.

It is what you implied.

 

[Split Rock]

Are you telling me, Barry, that you cannot (that's cannot) read Genesis 1 and see a different state past documented?

The problem with doing so requires too many assumptions and complications. Most of dad's responses to questions concerning these are ad-hoc rationizations and handwaving. Worse, his dadology provides no specific predictions and no insights into anything. The simplest explanation is that GEN 1 and 2 are based on earlier creation stories told by the Summerians and passed on to the Babylonians, and finally adopted by the Hebrews for their own theological purposes. Such a conclusion follows known history (including copies of these earlier stories) and tendancies of these early cultures to mix myth and religion with history.

 

[Split Rock]

That was going to be my trump card; only I was going to use Humpty Dumpty.

These guys know the point I'm making, but their pride won't allow them to acknowledge it.

Your pride won't allow you to differentiate between what is at all possible and what is the most likely. It is possible that the entire universe was created last Tuesday by an all-powerful, Invisible Pink Unicorn living under my bed. It is not at all likely, so what is the point of me suggesting it?

 

[AV1611VET]

The only point you are making is that you don't understand the difference between a claim and evidence.

And yet I can put the two together in a sentence and understand it better than you can:

I claim there is no evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem with doing so requires too many assumptions and complications. Most of dad's responses to questions concerning these are ad-hoc rationizations and handwaving. Worse, his dadology provides no specific predictions and no insights into anything. The simplest explanation is that GEN 1 and 2 are based on earlier creation stories told by the Summerians and passed on to the Babylonians, and finally adopted by the Hebrews for their own theological purposes. Such a conclusion follows known history (including copies of these earlier stories) and tendancies of these early cultures to mix myth and religion with history.

If you can't either, all you had to do is say so.

I don't need a paragraph.

 

[Split Rock]

And yet I can put the two together in a sentence and understand it better than you can:

I claim there is no evidence.

But you also claim there shouldn't be any evidence. That is only because there isn't any evidence.

 

[Split Rock]

If you can't either, all you had to do is say so.

I don't need a paragraph.

This is a discussion forum. Do you disagree with my paragraph?

 

[Loudmouth]

And yet I can put the two together in a sentence and understand it better than you can:

I claim there is no evidence.

Your claim is contradicted by the reality around us.

 

[dad]

The problem with doing so requires too many assumptions and complications.

Only if one is mired in the mud of present state science and has no ability to think freely, and look objectively at what we know and what history and the bible actually say.

A simple believing of what the bible says, and an honest look at what science actually knows, is far far less assuming, presumptuous, and complicated than the myriad of mind bending godless contrivances of darkly inspired man.

 

[Loudmouth]

Only if one is mired in the mud of present state science and has no ability to think freely, and look objectively at what we know and what history and the bible actually say.

How should the evidence be different from what we observe if the past really were the same as the present?

 

[dad]

How should the evidence be different from what we observe if the past really were the same as the present?

There should be no spirits that mingled in the world of men. History laughs at that concept. There should be no God who created all things. Good luck proving that. I can't tell you what a non existant past would leave in the way of evidence! A different state past would leave all we do have. That works for me.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

There should be no spirits that mingled in the world of men. History laughs at that concept. There should be no God who created all things. Good luck proving that.

No one needs to disprove it. You can believe whatever fool idea comes into your head. It's enough to observe that you cannot prove it.