Proof of same state past.

[AirPo]

So let me get this straight.

Someone finds in the Bible that someone lived for 930 years, and another person lived to be 969 years, and so on.

Said person reports that people lived longer back then.

And, according to you, said person is making it up?

Nope, try again.

 

[AV1611VET]

We lived 1000 years.

There's no evidence in The HI Theory, you just make things up.

You can't find any of that in the Bible?

Seriously, you can't?

And if you can't find it, that means dad is making it up?

No, you find things in the Bible, then you make up what it means.

So let me get this straight.

Someone finds in the Bible that someone lived for 930 years, and another person lived to be 969 years, and so on.

Said person reports that people lived longer back then.

And, according to you, said person is making it up?

Nope, try again.

I think I'll take your comments with a grain of salt.

Even a non-believing, Bible-hating individual should be able to at least admit that ... according to the Bible ... dad is correct.

Suppose I said Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, according to the nursery rhyme?

You don't have to believe Humpty Dumpty was real; but if you say I was making that up, you would be wrong.

 

[AirPo]

I think I'll take your comments with a grain of salt.

Even a non-believing, Bible-hating individual should be able to at least admit that ... according to the Bible ... dad is correct.

Suppose I said Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, according to the nursery rhyme?

You don't have to believe Humpty Dumpty was real; but if you say I was making that up, you would be wrong.

The way the HI Theory works is to say your eggs are watching you because Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.

 

[AV1611VET]

The way the HI Theory works is to say your eggs are watching you because Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.

That's nice, but I believe you invoke it too loosely.

Here's the equivalence of what you just did:

A: Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
B: HI theory! Made up!
A: Really? You can't find Humpty Dumpty sitting on a wall in the nursery rhyme?
B: Nope.

 

[AirPo]

That's nice, but I believe you invoke it too loosely.

Here's the equivalence of what you just did:

A: Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
B: HI theory! Made up!
A: Really? You can't find Humpty Dumpty sitting on a wall in the nursery rhyme?
B: Nope.

Incorrect

This is the the equivalence:
A: Your eggs are watching you.
B: HI theory! Made up!
A: It says Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall in the nursery rhyme, so there, I win.

 

[AV1611VET]

Incorrect

No, it is not incorrect.

Dad: We lived 1000 years. (Post 54)
FrumiousBandersnatch: The evidence for this is? (Post 56)
AirPo: There's no evidence in The HI Theory, you just make things up. (Post 57)

You didn't accuse the Bible of making it up, you accused dad of making it up.

 

[AirPo]

No, it is not incorrect.

Dad: We lived 1000 years. (Post 54)
FrumiousBandersnatch: The evidence for this is? (Post 56)
AirPo: There's no evidence in The HI Theory, you just make things up. (Post 57)

You didn't accuse the Bible of making it up, you accused dad of making it up.[/QUOTE]

Incorrect again

Dad: some crazy made up HI Theory claim (Thousands of posts)
FrumiousBandersnatch: OK, so just how were things different in your view of the past? (Post 53)
Dad: We lived 1000 years. (Post 54)

You didn't accuse the Bible of making it up, you accused dad of making it up.

Exactly, dad makes things up then quotes the Bible.

 

[dad]

The irony!

I know. To think that the formerly much hallowed and revered science is actually a low down religion.

 

[dad]

The evidence for this is?

The only place man can find out about the future and past is God and His revealed word to man. That bit is laid out pretty clear. As for science, what a joke, it has no clue one way or the other. Pathetic.

 

[dad]

I think I'll take your comments with a grain of salt.

Even a non-believing, Bible-hating individual should be able to at least admit that ... according to the Bible ... dad is correct.

Suppose I said Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, according to the nursery rhyme?

You don't have to believe Humpty Dumpty was real; but if you say I was making that up, you would be wrong.

I guess some posters miss no opportunity to show disdain for God's word.

 

[AirPo]

I guess some posters miss no opportunity to show disdain for God's word.

While others miss no opportunity to use God's word to show disdain for others that don't accept their imposing beliefs.

 

[dad]

While others miss no opportunity to use God's word to show disdain for others that don't accept their imposing beliefs.

You think it is God's word?? Science = imposing beliefs on others.

 

[AirPo]

You think it is God's word?? Science = imposing beliefs on others.

Did God say that?

 

[dad]

Did God say that?

What God? You believe in a god?

 

[AirPo]

What God? You believe in a god?

You made the claim. I was asking you.

 

[dad]

You made the claim. I was asking you.

I think God knows how things were after creation myself. I know science doesn't. By the way you talked about some gap that should exist. Did you get it clear yet why it shouldn't in isotope ratios? As for tree rings, well, we'll have to say we just haven't seen the evidence present of rings from that time so we don't really know. Yes there are rings that go back that far, but somehow the pictures of the rings in any detail are not available. At least no one ever posted any on any forum I have seen yet.

 

[AirPo]

I think God knows how things were after creation myself. I know science doesn't. By the way you talked about some gap that should exist. Did you get it clear yet why it shouldn't in isotope ratios? As for tree rings, well, we'll have to say we just haven't seen the evidence present of rings from that time so we don't really know. Yes there are rings that go back that far, but somehow the pictures of the rings in any detail are not available. At least no one ever posted any on any forum I have seen yet.

Which means absolutely nothing.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I tend to ignore posters who ask for "proof" about anything in this forum because that's a big red flag they have no clue what they are talking about. There is no "proof" in science. But then I realized the Hi Theory is not science! The different past proposition is binary. Either the past was the same state or it was different. We cannot prove one or the other, but we can falsify one. If one is wrong, the other must be right. Hence, by falsifying different sate past we indirectly prove same state past.

If the past state was different, then present state dating techniques would fail at a certain point. This is testable and falsifiable. Let the point of failure be known as the threshold, or T. If different state past is correct, present state dating techniques, psdt, will give accurate results for items younger than T. Items older than T will not be accurate. Let the magnitude of the error, me, be 100. The psdt for an item that is T + 1 years old, yo, then returns an age of T + 101. T + 2 returns T = 102, etc. This means that psdt should never return a result between T and T + mo, in other words a gap in the age of all items ever tested.

There is no such gap. Hence, there different state past is falsified, hence same stae past is proven.

Let the hand ing begin!

If NASA does not get it right then people die. So I have more confidence in NASA then I do in science that does not have a funeral, widows and orphans if they do not get it right.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Measurements of the age of the universe may also depend on the perspective of the measurer. Are you taking your measurement from inside the universe? Or outside? As Einstein said, 'it's all relative'. Both very high gravity and very high speed cause relativistic effects. So... at the start of things what was the gravity and what was the speed of the expansion? VERY VERY high.

Here's a Jewish physicist and Torah expert doing some hand waving about the 6 days of Genesis. I read the book he wrote 'the Science of God' years ago. I'd recommend it to anyone.

Schroeder is OEC and the only way he can get that to work is if each day is half the length of the day before. Otherwise you can not line up the 6 days in Genesis with what is now known about the history of the universe and this planet.

Schroeder received his BSc in 1959, his MSc in 1961, and his PhD in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences in 1965, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).[2] He worked five years on the staff of the MIT physics department. He was a member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission.[3]

 

[AirPo]

If NASA does not get it right then people die. So I have more confidence in NASA then I do in science that does not have a funeral, widows and orphans if they do not get it right.

NASA uses science.