Questions about origins of life timeline

[dad]

No, it knocks you out of the fight, because even if you could prove that there was a prior state, it doesn't mean that prior state would work in such a way that the bible could be correct.

Forget that, we need look no further than science not knowing what state it was to knock them out..cold.

Now we can look at the bible without their ideas. Since the bible is proven in so many ways over great time, we already know it is correct. That is no issue at all. The issue was the blabber mouths of so called science having the least knowledge or authority to oppose the word!

Additionally, it makes sense that the laws of physics wouldn't change, and there is no reason any deity would have to change the laws of physics so drastically if that deity was supposedly perfect (and thus would do everything right the first time ).

Says who?? The laws and universe will change. The life spans changed, tree growth rates, all sorts of things. Not because they were not right, but because we were not right! The world and space we know is the way it is because of the wicked sin nature of man!

Your ideas aren't provable, therefore, you might as well be claiming that invisible ghost unicorns watch us while we sleep, but we can't ever detect them.

My ideas are bible based in a real and big way. Once we see so called science knocked out of the ring, the only question is what is the best belief! On that battlefield, I think you know who would march over the defeated ideas of the opposition.

If you can't provide any evidence for an idea, it is less credible than some of the most laughable of pseudosciences,

That is why science got ignominiously knocked out of the ring!

because at the very least the cryptozoologists have some amount of blurry pictures and eyewitness accounts.

? What are you talking about?

People aren't allowed put miracles or god in the gaps in their theories, so what?

So what? That leaves them in the dark with no possible hope of knowing.

The only reason this is the case is that so far no one has proven or provided sufficient evidence that a deity exists,

No, people have just sought alternatives to God. It was never about whether He existed or not. Ever.

prove one does and there will be scientific theories which account for it,

Science is a methodology fleeing from God, and one that sprung up from a need to find some replacement ideas to worship or believe! One cannot expect rejectionist fanatics to abandon their institutionalized hatred and rejection of God, no matter how well painted the thin veneer of a covering for what they are really about may be!

but until that happens people won't use ideas they can't hope to prove or provide evidence for,

Ideas that require the kind of evidence they willing chose to reject! The physical only sort of evidences they claim to accept are too small to contain truth about creation or the spiritual.

which is why you are the one blabbing about some prior state and not some professor at a university.

To suggest some made up of mind professor is some beacon of light and knowledge about creation or the spiritual, or the truth, is to display a naivety so pronounced, that it almost brings a tear to the eye.

 

[Kylie]

The simplest way to loook at this is by looking at the future, which is also unknown to science. What, praytell might we ask you to 'go look at' to help you tell us the nature that will exist???

People have been predicting things like eclipses and comets and all that for centuries.

And also, consider that you have provided not a single shred of evidence as to what caused the past state to change to the present state, nor can you propose an explanation for something that will cause the state to change in the future. You can't even tell us when it happened, nor can you show any traces the state change left behind. You can't even show us a single thing in today's world that could only exist if the past state was different.

In short, you have nothing but a fanciful story.

 

[dad]

People have been predicting things like eclipses and comets and all that for centuries.

That doesn't tell us anything about the nature...that is a prediction within this state. Unless this state continues the predictions are bunk.

And also, consider that you have provided not a single shred of evidence as to what caused the past state to change to the present state,

Irrelevant. We do not need to know how God does all things in the future or past. Science merely assumes nothing changed.

nor can you propose an explanation for something that will cause the state to change in the future.

It is not something, it is Someone. You may not saill merrily along assuming there is no God and that he will always keep this nature!

You can't even tell us when it happened,

Yes, I can estimate from the bible and evidences of science. I estimate over a century after the flood.

nor can you show any traces the state change left behind.

A state change leaves traces? Like you know?

You can't even show us a single thing in today's world that could only exist if the past state was different.

What does existing today have to do with tomorrow or the far past?
Man existed in the far past, and this present and will exist forever. We span states

 

[PsychoSarah]

People have been predicting things like eclipses and comets and all that for centuries.

And also, consider that you have provided not a single shred of evidence as to what caused the past state to change to the present state, nor can you propose an explanation for something that will cause the state to change in the future. You can't even tell us when it happened, nor can you show any traces the state change left behind. You can't even show us a single thing in today's world that could only exist if the past state was different.

In short, you have nothing but a fanciful story.

This dad, this right here. And the crazy part is, your idea isn't even supported in the bible.

 

[Kylie]

That doesn't tell us anything about the nature...that is a prediction within this state. Unless this state continues the predictions are bunk.

And you've never provided any evidence for any different state at any time. You've got nothing.

Irrelevant. We do not need to know how God does all things in the future or past. Science merely assumes nothing changed.

You know how God does things? Please. I thought God's ways were meant to be so far above human understanding.

And again, if you want us to believe that things have changed, provide proof.

It is not something, it is Someone. You may not saill merrily along assuming there is no God and that he will always keep this nature!

Translation: "You gotta believe what I believe! You just gotta!"

Yes, I can estimate from the bible and evidences of science. I estimate over a century after the flood.

You can't make an estimate about the real world from an old book. And on what do you base this assumption?

A state change leaves traces? Like you know?

So a state change doesn't leave traces? And why not? (I suspect that the reason is that if a state change left actual evidence, it would quickly be found to be wrong.)

What does existing today have to do with tomorrow or the far past?
Man existed in the far past, and this present and will exist forever. We span states

You don't seem to understand basic science. You really need to learn how to.

 

[dad]

This dad, this right here. And the crazy part is, your idea isn't even supported in the bible.

Crazy talk. All the things described best fit in a different nature. Nothing is better supported.

 

[dad]

And you've never provided any evidence for any different state at any time. You've got nothing.

I read what the record says. No one has scientific evidence for a same state past. Why can't you provide any if you claim it?? If you have no evidence to dispute the actual state of the past as recorded by the Almighty God, then don't pretend you do.

You know how God does things? Please. I thought God's ways were meant to be so far above human understanding.

Read again..it said I do not need to know how He does things.

You can't make an estimate about the real world from an old book. And on what do you base this assumption?

I can look at where the big differences ceased to exist like long life spans. You are in NO position to tell us that we cannot glean truth about the old world nature from God's word.

So a state change doesn't leave traces?

Who knows? Why claim it should? Stick to what you know.

And why not? (I suspect that the reason is that if a state change left actual evidence, it would quickly be found to be wrong.)

The evidences are that this world does not match the one recorded! If you want to claim physical science ought to have some evidence be specific. How would the physical only cover the spiritual also????

You don't seem to understand basic science. You really need to learn how to.

Cut the pretense. You have some basic science you think we don't get?? Out with it lass.

 

[Kylie]

Yawn. Same old nonsense, dad. You make claims, but you are incapable of backing them up.

And yes, I do have some basic science that you don't get. Namely, all of it.

 

[dad]

Yawn. Same old nonsense, dad. You make claims, but you are incapable of backing them up.

And yes, I do have some basic science that you don't get. Namely, all of it.

Science is unable to back up anything about the state of the past. I do not make up what the bible claims.

You have no science we can see here...just empty blab.

 

[Kylie]

Still no evidence dad? This is getting tiring.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Crazy talk. All the things described best fit in a different nature. Nothing is better supported.

Bigfoot is better supported than your prior state idea.

 

[dad]

Bigfoot is better supported than your prior state idea.

The bible actually is better supported than even your Sasquatch.

 

[Kylie]

The bible actually is better supported than even your Sasquatch.

Hey, don't talk about my husband that way! he might be a bit hairy, but still...

Oh, you meant THAT Sasquatch...

 

[Armoured]

(Posted by dad)The evidence I have

 

[dad]

Hey, don't talk about my husband that way! he might be a bit hairy, but still...

At least you like men.

Oh, you meant THAT Sasquatch...

I didn't bring it up. I have met someone who claims he saw one pretty close up from a helicopter, fighting a fire. But as I say, the evidence for these things is small compared to the bible evidences.

 

[dad]

OK then, see you are on the case with your biting humor. This guy looks like he is sitting on something. Anyhow guess there is no safe place to run now, Armored. Cheers.

 

[Kylie]

At least you like men.

Oh great, now you're using this as an anti-gay thing?

 

[dad]

Oh great, now you're using this as an anti-gay thing?

Sorry to have accused you of liking men. I just assumed since you mentioned hairy hubby, that was the case.

 

[Kylie]

Sorry to have accused you of liking men. I just assumed since you mentioned hairy hubby, that was the case.

Yeah, just stop. You're derailing the thread and making yourself look silly in the process.

 

[dad]

Yeah, just stop. You're derailing the thread and making yourself look silly in the process.

The timeline started with heterosexuals.