Real time or evo time?

[dad]

Literally from the dawn of time? I mean, it's impossible to prove 100% (as are most things, really), but it's unfathomably improbable. As in, there are numbers that reflect the odds here, but I'm not sure there's enough room in the known universe to write them out.

There are no numbers to prove the earth had the same laws at creation actually. Come down to earth.

 

[dad]

No it's not, but being in denial, one wouldn't know that.

One actually would know almost nothing if one went by your posts.

 

[AirPo]

One actually would know almost nothing if one went by your posts.

Par for course in HI Theory threads, . HI Theory is all about nothing, or at lesat making things up, which amounts to nothing, other than some laughs. So, if laughter is nothing, then it is correct that The HI Theory offers no knowledge.

 

[dad]

..it is correct that The HI Theory offers no knowledge.

Much like so called science. Thanks for helping display that science can't defend itself, and is a sack of beliefs and hot air.

 

[AirPo]

Much like so called science. Thanks for helping display that science can't defend itself, and is a sack of beliefs and hot air.

So called science only exists in The HI Theory. In the real world, it's just science.

 

[Kylie]

You need some basis to call something real or unreal. Trying to label a fantasy state past that you pulled out of your head real, and the bible record unreal is purely an exercise in vanity and faith.

And that basis is that we can go and test it, and we find that it works.

Your basis is nothing but an old book, and you intentionally keep it so vague that it can't be tested.

 

[Kylie]

Not if that silly poster was God Almighty via His verified word to man. Not if science didn't know either way. Give it up.

Except we don't have that, do we?

 

[Kylie]

No need to prove there is no known DNA from the dawn of time. That should be patently obvious to even the least informed of posters here. Male or female.

Stop avoiding the issue. You must supply evidence for your claim. Do not think you can make lame excuses for why you get to go without providing evidence and then act like you have won. Your tricks are transparent and immature.

 

[dad]

So called science only exists in The HI Theory. In the real world, it's just science.

Just science does not cover what state the future will be, or the spiritual, or what state the past was. Hence, is not relevant to the creation debate, or the thread.

 

[dad]

And that basis is that we can go and test it, and we find that it works.

Your basis is nothing but an old book, and you intentionally keep it so vague that it can't be tested.

The bible was tested. You have never tested squat in the far past or future or spiritual, or distant universe.

 

[dad]

Except we don't have that, do we?

Do to.

 

[dad]

Stop avoiding the issue. You must supply evidence for your claim.

My claim is that science assumes and believes certain things and the thread illustrates that. Get with the plan.

 

[devolved]

The bible was tested. You have never tested squat in the far past or future or spiritual, or distant universe.

Hmm. Yes. It was tested, and failed many of the tests... even when it comes to consistency of the it's own narrative.

 

[AirPo]

Just science does not cover what state the future will be, or the spiritual, or what state the past was. Hence, is not relevant to the creation debate, or the thread.

Then I suggest not bringing spirtiual into the science forum.

 

[dad]

Then I suggest not bringing spirtiual into the science forum.

Or the past, or history, or the state of the future or far universe...etc. Modern so called science is about as big as a portable toilet mentally.

 

[dad]

Hmm. Yes. It was tested, and failed many of the tests... even when it comes to consistency of the it's own narrative.

We are not talking about the tests where the religion of so called science tried to see if the truth fit into their ever changing little pipe dream ensemble. Real testing involves more than seeing if something fits into a cult mentality, and preset limitations of the godless sort.

The testing of the spiritual was through witnesses and experiences of man all through history in all lands. The testing of Scripture was Jesus fulfilling so much of it, and kicking death to the curb. Also, things like the captivity of Israel, destruction of Jerusalem, and the temple, etc etc prove beyond any rational doubt that God is responsible for Scripture.
Tried and true, tested and proven over and over.

 

[Loudmouth]

Based on the glaring fact you HAVE no DNA from that time.

Nor should we have any DNA from that time if there was a same state past. That is more evidence for my position.

A human posted your post. A human did not raise Christ from death.

You can't even demonstrate that there was a Christ.

All that matters in this debate is that the bible says that.

That is so wrong it is laughable. What matters are the facts, not stories in books.

Neither can you!!!! That shows you know nothing about the nature of the past.

If you can't tell us what ratios of rocks a different state past would produce, then you can't state that the evidence is consistent with a different state past.

On top of that, you haven't been able to refute the argument that all of the evidence is consistent with a same state past. You haven't been able to produce a shred of evidence contradicting a same state past. You have no evidence. We have all of the evidence.

"The evidence"?-- No such thing, all evidence can be looked at without your strange belief system.

They are observations, not beliefs. You can't even get that simple fact straight.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are no numbers to prove the earth had the same laws at creation actually.

Yes, we do have the numbers. The ratios of isotopes in rocks are exactly what we should see if there was a same state past. You even admit that you can't explain these ratios using a different state past.

 

[devolved]

We are not talking about the tests where the religion of so called science tried to see if the truth fit into their ever changing little pipe dream ensemble. Real testing involves more than seeing if something fits into a cult mentality, and preset limitations of the godless sort.

You are begging the question here. You are assuming that since science is "godless" then it's by nature limited... but quite the opposite seems to be true.

Since we developed better scientific framework, we have a lot more reliable means of navigating reality.

For example, all of your religious testing couldn't save millions of children who died prematurely simply because people didn't understand basics of medicine.

The testing of the spiritual was through witnesses and experiences of man all through history in all lands. The testing of Scripture was Jesus fulfilling so much of it, and kicking death to the curb. Also, things like the captivity of Israel, destruction of Jerusalem, and the temple, etc etc prove beyond any rational doubt that God is responsible for Scripture.
Tried and true, tested and proven over and over.

So, you have claims that it was tested then and "fulfilled"? Do you have anything better we can use and test now?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

There are no numbers to prove the earth had the same laws at creation actually. Come down to earth.

There are "no numbers to prove" that you're a real human being on the other side of this Internet connection, and not just a very advanced learning robot undergoing a long training session to pass the Turing test. Based off of experience and common sense, though, I'm able to figure out that you're almost definitely a person.

Same thing for figuring out what happened in the past. Technically, it's possible that the laws of physics as they are now literally just kicked in a few seconds ago, or that absolutely nothing existed before then. We can't live in that world, though, and if we tried, it wouldn't be too healthy. It's perfectly reasonable for a person to ask for proof if you're going to assert that the Universe used to be radically different (to the point where a fully formed DNA molecule could easily just pop out of the void).