Real time or evo time?

[dad]

Earlier, I posted this:



You replied with this comment:



But the done who called the daughter isotopes was YOU which anyone can SEE by going back to post 1137 in this very thread!

Degenerating into blather eh? Let me be real clear here. The only real daughter isotopes would be from the last 4500 or whatever years. The 'daughter' isotopes older than that, if there was a different state past, would likely have been here already, and NOT have been a result of decay. (as they are produced now in this state)

The actual content of your part of the discussion continues to be mere denial of the evidence. I'm most pleased to remind folks of the evidence you continue to deny . . .

To be crystal clear you have no evidence at all, rather you have a wish view the past in a way that suits your godless belief system. Merely having ratios is not evidence of anything but that there are ratios. How they got here is what we need to evidence. It does not prove that decay existed in the far past just because it obviously now does exist.

For example, we have starlight arriving at our telescopes from galaxies so distant that it takes light millions of years to travel so far.

How much time it actually took depends on the realities that exist in the far parts of the created universe, that you know nothing at all about. Such as whether time even exists there...etc. Until you know what you are talking about your sermons here will remain ignorance based beliefs that are circular, godless, and biased and not knowledge or science in any real sense of the word.

 

[Kylie]

I am not sure about 'identical' after all the original kind would have adapted a lot. But I have no real doubt a lion will still be a lion.

And would it look like a lion? What we consider to be the "lion look" today?

I fail to see how it would be coincidence for life processes to fall into line with the forces and laws that exist?

*Sigh*

Let me use an analogy, which is no doubt going to be a waste of my time, but I'd hate for you to be able to claim that I couldn't repsond to you.

Let's say that I'm trying to build a house in the DSP. The laws are different, so the laws governing how rocks are will be different. Since a brick is basically made of rock, a brick won't be like the present state bricks. Let's say they are twice as dense, so they are twice as heavy. And because I'm in the dsp, then the laws governing the way wood grows will be different as well. But maybe the different laws mean that wood is going to be much weaker, maybe like that styrofoam packing frame stuff you get when you buy a washing machine. Now, because of this, I'm going to need to build this house with a lot more wooden supports to hold up the extra heavy bricks. Otherwise the house will collapse. So I build this house, and then time passes. We get to the present day and the house is still standing.

We are going to see one of two things.

We might see that the wood and bricks that were used remain in the same form that they were in during the DSP. In other words, the wooden beams are still very weak compared to today's wooden beams, and the bricks are much heavier than today's bricks. This, obviously, would indicate that the laws were different, since we could see wood and bricks that behave very unlike modern wood and bricks.

Or maybe the qualities of those materials changed and are now acting the same way as modern wood and bricks. But, the house doesn't magically lose some of the wooden beams. People are still going to look at this house and say, "Gee, Kylie really used a lot of wooden beams to hold this place up. But she didn't need to use anywhere near that many. Why would she go so overboard with the wooden beams?" And this would also be an indication that things were different back then.

But we never see this. We never see anything that indicates this kind of differing relationship. And not just with wood and bricks, but with pretty much anything we look at.

Now, you can try to explain it away, but the only way you can do this is to claim that the laws all changed in proportion with each other. That is, if the bricks were twice as heavy, then the wooden beams MUST have been twice as strong! This is the ONLY way you can explain this, by claiming that EVERY SINGLE LAW OF NATURE CHANGED BY THE SAME AMOUNT AND IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

But if that is what happened, then it can't possibly serve as an explanation for why people allegedly had much longer lifespans, because all the changes would have had to balance each other out and there would therefore have been no noticeable difference.

As much as you'd like to give credit for mankind existing to some godless vague notion of 'evolution', you would need more than to look at bacteria now and see some evolving and jump to insane conclusions.

If you think our understanding of evolution is "vague", then you really have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you actually learn something about it so you don't make these silly mistakes and embarrass yourself?

Part of slugging sometimes involves slogans.

What a shame you don't have anything of substance to back them up...

Not sure why you would take some personal offense to having the fools fable factory of science exposed as being not of God and not based on knowledge.

Oh please. Your comment was about as offensive as when my daughter was little and she called me a poo-poo-head when she got mad.

And you exposed nothing. You simply made a claim, and anyone can make a claim about anything. You need actual EVIDENCE to expose something.

It is not the act of memorizing fables that truly constitutes learning.

No, it is learning how to find things out for yourself, and then testing those things to find out if they are true or false. Maybe one day you'll start doing that as well.

 

[dad]

And would it look like a lion? What we consider to be the "lion look" today?

Why not? Maybe the teeth might be friendlier etc...

Let's say that I'm trying to build a house in the DSP. The laws are different, so the laws governing how rocks are will be different. Since a brick is basically made of rock, a brick won't be like the present state bricks.

Why? Just because some radioactive decay starts going on wouldn't mean a brick melts! But since I guess the the flood was somewhere near the KT layer, we have no houses from then anyhow. So maybe there was some effect - who knows!?

Let's say they are twice as dense, so they are twice as heavy.

That is silly speculation. Man was alive and working metal and etc at the time. If anything I would envision them being lighter..or at least that there was some force around that balanced gravity or something, so that large stones could be moved. I suspect the pyramids (earliest ones) were built post flood, but early enough so that it was still in the former state!

We might see that the wood and bricks that were used remain in the same form that they were in during the DSP. In other words, the wooden beams are still very weak compared to today's wooden beams, and the bricks are much heavier than today's bricks. This, obviously, would indicate that the laws were different, since we could see wood and bricks that behave very unlike modern wood and bricks.

Or we might see stones weighing many tons moved far and stacked high easily or something...who knows?

But we never see this.

You thought we had houses from before the flood? This is the ONLY way you can explain this, by claiming that EVERY SINGLE LAW OF NATURE CHANGED BY THE SAME AMOUNT AND IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

But if that is what happened, then it can't possibly serve as an explanation for why people allegedly had much longer lifespans, because all the changes would have had to balance each other out and there would therefore have been no noticeable difference.

If a

body had, say no radioactivity in it...what would that do? The sorts of changes in forces and laws that impacted man were invisible and took some time to start being noticed. Maybe with all the people suddenly dying so much sooner than normal, some early civilization became obsessed with tombs and death etc? Like Egypt!?

If you think our understanding of evolution is "vague", then you really have no idea what you are talking about.

We are talking about evolution of life on earth and man here, that is more than vague. That is absolutely unknown, and a matter of absurd speculation. If you are talking about some finch getting a bigger beak in the last 3000 years, or bacteria adapting or something, that is another story. Learn to separate reality from fiction.

No, it is learning how to find things out for yourself, and then testing those things to find out if they are true or false. Maybe one day you'll start doing that as well.

None of the fables of evolution of life or the universe can be tested. The only way to find out what is true is by reading what God told us about it.

 

[dad]

It remains a fact that we share, with other primates, a broken vitamin c gene . . . with the damage to that gene being the same damage across the primate species, showing it happened, once, to an early primate that later evolved into such as us and chimpanzees, apes, and other primate species.

No. It shows we know not what. You assume as always, religiously, that genes behaved and existed the same as now. That is rubbish. You have NO clue. You look at genes today and try to work back from here. No can do.
Do not ever dare to call that sort of closed minded godless dreaming evidence.

You are wrong yet again. You have zero evidence yet again.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. It shows we know not what. You assume as always, religiously, that genes behaved and existed the same as now. That is rubbish. You have NO clue. You look at genes today and try to work back from here. No can do.
Do not ever dare to call that sort of closed minded godless dreaming evidence.

You are wrong yet again. You have zero evidence yet again.

So, is the Moon the same state now as it was in the past, or not?

 

[dad]

So, is the Moon the same state now as it was in the past, or not?

I would suspect that, except for the craters, and possibly the distance of orbit and a few things, yes, unless we have some reason or evidence to deduce changes occurred, why invoke them?
We know the moon was created the same day as the stars and sun.

 

[Kylie]

Why not? Maybe the teeth might be friendlier etc...

And maybe it had tentacles and flew by blowing bubbles from its ears.

Why? Just because some radioactive decay starts going on wouldn't mean a brick melts!

When did I ever say anything about bricks melting? Are you reduced to lying about what I said? And doing it to my face?

But since I guess the the flood was somewhere near the KT layer, we have no houses from then anyhow. So maybe there was some effect - who knows!?

No humans from then either.

That is silly speculation. Man was alive and working metal and etc at the time. If anything I would envision them being lighter..or at least that there was some force around that balanced gravity or something, so that large stones could be moved. I suspect the pyramids (earliest ones) were built post flood, but early enough so that it was still in the former state!

More guesswork.

And apparently you don't understand what a hypothetical situation is either. Not the first time you;ve given me reason to say that, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

Or we might see stones weighing many tons moved far and stacked high easily or something...who knows?

Yes, I'm sure that when the Egyptians built the pyramids, they could lift them with one finger.

Or are you just guessing when you say it was easy?

You thought we had houses from before the flood?

You also seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of an ANALOGY.

In any case, Cain built a city in Genesis 4:17. Don't you need buildings to have a city? Of course you do. Now tell me, was Genesis 4:17 before or after the flood?

This is the ONLY way you can explain this, by claiming that EVERY SINGLE LAW OF NATURE CHANGED BY THE SAME AMOUNT AND IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

You forget to put quote tags around this and reply to it?

If a body had, say no radioactivity in it...what would that do? The sorts of changes in forces and laws that impacted man were invisible and took some time to start being noticed. Maybe with all the people suddenly dying so much sooner than normal, some early civilization became obsessed with tombs and death etc? Like Egypt!?

We'll add Egyptology to this list of things you don't know anything about...

We are talking about evolution of life on earth and man here, that is more than vague. That is absolutely unknown, and a matter of absurd speculation. If you are talking about some finch getting a bigger beak in the last 3000 years, or bacteria adapting or something, that is another story. Learn to separate reality from fiction.

The nested hierarchy of Life is huge support for the thing you describe as "vague". Once again, you demonstrate that you don't even understand the things you are claiming are wrong.

None of the fables of evolution of life or the universe can be tested.

If you actually knew anything about evolution, you would know this claim is just plain wrong.

The only way to find out what is true is by reading what God told us about it.

And then accepting it blindly, because no one wants to have their point of view challenged. Maybe that's why you refuse to learn anything about science or evolution.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I would suspect that, except for the craters, and possibly the distance of orbit and a few things, yes, unless we have some reason or evidence to deduce changes occurred, why invoke them?

So you're saying that, lacking any evidence of a change in state, you assume a same state past?

 

[dad]

And maybe it had tentacles and flew by blowing bubbles from its ears.

Try to be somewhat grounded in science when posting here. The teeth really would see some changes if the lion ate grass.

When did I ever say anything about bricks melting? Are you reduced to lying about what I said? And doing it to my face?

The point was that if radioactive decay started one day, it isn't like the brick would have a meltdown, and half the planet need to be evacuated! probably you would need a microscope to notice changes.

No humans from then either.

Why would we have remains from man if man could not fossilize in the former state?? It all fits like a glove.

Yes, I'm sure that when the Egyptians built the pyramids, they could lift them with one finger.

I couln't say if they had to wait for a full moon, or somehow work with the nature of the day...or etc. Neither is their any need for honest people to pretend they must or do know.

Or are you just guessing when you say it was easy?

Educated guessing. If the nature change was post flood, and Egypt built some stuff early post flood, well, connect the dots! They also were around the time right after Babel, and sure enough, they resorted to pictowriting! Not only that they built tombs and were fascinated with death. They even claim the first rulers of Egypt were spirits! The evidence mounts. This is real Egyptology.

You also seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of an ANALOGY.

That would have to be fitting, so until you can do that, it is mere

In any case, Cain built a city in Genesis 4:17. Don't you need buildings to have a city? Of course you do. Now tell me, was Genesis 4:17 before or after the flood?

Before. Now my turn, where was Nod!? Did it get piled under mountains of stuff during the rapid continental separation and mountain building and uplift etc? Same thing applies to the original tower of Babel, guess where it probably is!? Down under. You should relate to that.

The nested hierarchy of Life is huge support for the thing you describe as "vague".

No it is not in any way at all. It is strong evidence for a mind stuffed with misconceptions, old wive's tales, and made up stuff.

If you actually knew anything about evolution, you would know this claim is just plain wrong.

Stellar evolution? Evolution of life from a simple lifeform? Or..? You can't just spit out the word evolution and think you just said something profound or meaningful!

 

[dad]

WHy should I when you don't?

I do try to keep reality and science in mind before jumping off the deep end.

I thought you said there would be large changes. Now you are saying the changes would be tiny.

Perspective. If let's say radioactive decay inside a human body contributed to shorter life spans (no idea, just grabbing some example here) then the changes would be great indeed living 900 years less than before. Yet If i shook Peleg's hand, it probably would have looked like a normal enough hand. It would not have been shooting out red death beams at me. So in many cases the large changes may not have been visible to the naked eye.

What in the world are you waffling on about?

If early Egypt was in the former state, then gravity may have been a smaller player in the forces that were involved in moving 50 ton stones.

Please, your "education" is nothing but assuming your interpretation of an old book is real, all the while ignoring the actual reality the exists all around you.

Tell us what someone ignored, or lose the pretense.

So you don't even know? You admit you are guessing and you think that it's meant to convince me?

I have no need to know where Nod was.

Then why don't you become a scientist and write a paper refuting it. Your nobel prize awaits!

One doesn't need to become a sewer rat to flush a toilet.

The fact that you don't understand the meaning behind the word does not mean the word has no meaning.

We all understand, whether some of us admit it or not, that evolution is a broad term, routinely applied to many godless stories and parts of what some still foolishly call science. You cannot pick out some aspect of life from pond slime stories, and say that only when it gets almost a big as a flatworm is it really 'evolution'!

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think it is good for folks to look beyond Disneyland, especially when they try to talk universal truths.

So why can't you answer a simple yes or no question?

 

[dad]

So why can't you answer a simple yes or no question?

Why can't you ask questions that are something other than last thursdayism nonsense? It is not a defense for a claim of a same state past, to try and pretend that if we do not accept your religious baseless views, then we might as well be crazy and not accept last week, or what goes on in your back yard.

 

[Kylie]

I do try to keep reality and science in mind before jumping off the deep end.

But since you don't seem to understand either of them, it doesn't work very well...

Perspective. If let's say radioactive decay inside a human body contributed to shorter life spans (no idea, just grabbing some example here) then the changes would be great indeed living 900 years less than before. Yet If i shook Peleg's hand, it probably would have looked like a normal enough hand. It would not have been shooting out red death beams at me. So in many cases the large changes may not have been visible to the naked eye.

But you're just guessing here.

You will never find the truth if you can only guess.

If early Egypt was in the former state, then gravity may have been a smaller player in the forces that were involved in moving 50 ton stones.

And how convenient that they built the pyramids in a way that allowed them to stand even after the state change when gravity became greater than in the DSP.

I mean, if gravity was less, you'd think they would have built them taller, or with less support (after all, less gravity means you don't need as much support to hold them up). And yet, the builders included enough support to keep the pyramids from collapsing when the state changed and gravity got stronger.

Why is that, do ya think?

Tell us what someone ignored, or lose the pretense.

Radioactive decay, statistics, probability, evolution...

A whole lot, really...

I have no need to know where Nod was.

Then it was in Australia, and is now known as Cooper Pedy, the opal capital of the world.

Since you admit that you don't know, you have absolutely no basis for saying I am wrong.

Or maybe it was in my back yard.

We all understand, whether some of us admit it or not, that evolution is a broad term, routinely applied to many godless stories and parts of what some still foolishly call science. You cannot pick out some aspect of life from pond slime stories, and say that only when it gets almost a big as a flatworm is it really 'evolution'!

And we'll add this to the list of things that prove that you actually DON'T understand evolution.

Really, you are so wrong about this that it would be embarrassing if you ever actually learn what evolution actually is...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why can't you ask questions that are something other than last thursdayism nonsense? It is not a defense for a claim of a same state past, to try and pretend that if we do not accept your religious baseless views, then we might as well be crazy and not accept last week, or what goes on in your back yard.

So why can't you answer -- is the Moon in the same state now as it was the last time man was there -- yes or no?

 

[dad]

But since you don't seem to understand either of them, it doesn't work very well...

You said this "And maybe it had tentacles and flew by blowing bubbles from its ears." Don't be sore when it is pointed out you had no orbit with any science or the bible.

But you're just guessing here.

I wasn't making a guess, I was citing a what if example to show possible differences. The example I used was based on reality, because there is radioactive decay in our bodies. In a former state, there probably would not have been. That what if analogy has merit.

And how convenient that they built the pyramids in a way that allowed them to stand even after the state change when gravity became greater than in the DSP.

I never said gravity did that. I suggested there could have been differences in the net effect. Possible other forces were here that could balance or mitigate gravity to some extent..etc. In other words we don't know. Science is not clever enough to admit that.

Radioactive decay, statistics, probability, evolution...

Stats are based on suppositions, and are no better than what they are based on. Decay does exist now and I do not ignore that ever i any way.Probability depends on what criteria we use to declare some things probable. Evolution exists, and did in the past, but the theory of evolution is a crazy religion with no basis, and a violently godless molestation of a small percentage of partial truth mixed with mountains of demonic insinuations, fables, foolish models, and cult like ignorance.

Then it was in Australia, and is now known as Cooper Pedy, the opal capital of the world.

I jave suspected it may have been not too far from what is now Indonesia. But we don't know, so why guess. I also suspect more strongly that Eden was in Israel! I also think the ark landed there or close to there. The rapid continental movements after the flood make that hard to see now...but I digress.

Why would opals have anything to do with Nod?

Since you admit that you don't know, you have absolutely no basis for saying I am wrong.

More importantly you have no basis for any claim!

And we'll add this to the list of things that prove that you actually DON'T understand evolution.

If you claim to know something, spit it out. What is anyone missing here about 'evolution' that you think you know!? Get a grip.

 

[dad]

-- is the Moon in the same state now as it was the last time man was there -- yes or no?

It is not a rock or the moon that is in a state. A state refers to laws and forces in place. Yes, as far as we know the forces and laws are the same at least on the surface of the earth and moon. Not beyond 4500 years ago though. That is not known.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It is not a rock or the moon that is in a state. A state refers to laws and forces in place. Yes, as far as we know the forces and laws are the same at least on the surface of the earth and moon. Not beyond 4500 years ago though. That is not known.

"As far as 'we' know..." meaning you don't know for certain, correct?

 

[dad]

"As far as 'we' know..." meaning you don't know for certain, correct?

Only as certain as science, history, and reason can go. To question what is reasonably explored, and known is a far far far far cry from not knowing squat about something and demanding others believe anyhow and calling it science. You cannot try to use some small lack of absolute certainty about something well known and studied and observed in modern times - as an excuse for accepting a complete unknown far in the past or rejecting claims about it. The claims must stand up on their own. Your version of Last Thursdayism is cheap, and shallow.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Only as certain as science, history, and reason can go. To question what is reasonably explored, and known is a far far far far cry from not kowing squat about something and demanding others believe anyhow and calling it science.

Sounds like although you do believe in a same-state past, you can't accept that there are people out there who can go a lot further with science, history, and reason than you can.

 

[dad]

Sounds like although you do believe in a same-state past,

Regardless of what a purposely confused mind might prefer to claim it thinks, I do not accept your fantasy claims anout nature in the past.

you can't accept that there are people out there who can go a lot further with science, history, and reason than you can.

If they could go to infinity and beyond we would see some evidence of it in their posts, rather than the sort of posts we see from you.