Strong Evidence for the Peleg state change

[dad]

Because it leaves behind daughter materials in the correct ratio.

Nothing makes it correct, in the way you think, except a belief. You have not shown one example we can look at, of something that is 'correct', have you? By correct, you mean old, of course. They are all correct, but not old.

Yes we do. YOU may not, but scientists do.

False claim actually. Science doesn't know the state and laws of the far past. Ask around.

Actually, science has proven itself to be the best tool we have for learning about the way the universe works. The Bible is not a valid tool for learning about how the universe works.

That is drivel. Only God's word opens the mysteries of the universe, and world around us.

 

[Kylie]

Nothing makes it correct, in the way you think, except a belief. You have not shown one example we can look at, of something that is 'correct', have you? By correct, you mean old, of course. They are all correct, but not old.

What are you going on about? I explained very clearly how radioactive decay shows there was no different state. If you can't understand it, don't come crying to me.

False claim actually. Science doesn't know the state and laws of the far past. Ask around.

Funny how you're the only person who is actually saying that, isn't it? Any competent scientist knows the answer, and guess what? You're wrong.

That is drivel. Only God's word opens the mysteries of the universe, and world around us.

Okay. You tell yourself that. Was it science or religion that told us about the microscopic world? Was it science or religion that cured disease? Was it science or religion that told us about the nuclear fusion in the sun? You can't tell me a single thing about the universe where the best explanation is a religious one and not a scientific one.

 

[dad]

What are you going on about? I explained very clearly how radioactive decay shows there was no different state. If you can't understand it, don't come crying to me.

You admitted that you will and cannot look at ratios of what exists in any other way, but to impose a cause of a same state past! How can I help that? The reality is that a different nature with different forces and laws such as those that affect atoms obviously would make things operate differently.

Funny how you're the only person who is actually saying that, isn't it? Any competent scientist knows the answer, and guess what? You're wrong.

I don't recall one ever saying that, actually, any more than they would claim science deals with the spiritual. We hear that sort of thing mostly from one trick so called science wannabes, who have no real grasp of much else but their little field, and the usual propaganda.

Okay. You tell yourself that. Was it science or religion that told us about the microscopic world?

It was not a same state past belief. You see real science is a Christian thing to a large extent, in that it was advanced by believers. The paleo fraud sciences and same state past filthy dreaming crowd are just bad religion fanatics, with an ax to grind...unless maybe some are just not so bright, and lost in the junk.

Was it science or religion that cured disease? Was it science or religion that told us about the nuclear fusion in the sun?

Whoever told you about the sun was wrong anyhow, so who cares? They don't even know what is in the core of the earth, forget the sun. They impose present state laws, and speculate. The sun will go out soon. Their ideas do not allow for that, in a way that would allow life on earth to continue. They do not know what is really going on with the universe, earth, or sun.

You can't tell me a single thing about the universe where the best explanation is a religious one and not a scientific one.

It would be hard to just pick a single thing, because they are wrong on virtually all of it. But the stars I can pick as an example of their true ignorance.


Too long now, have they dressed up their fanatical demonic invented fantasies as science. I KNOW they are very wrong.

 

[Kylie]

Yeah, I still see you providing zero evidence to support your beliefs, and I still see you being unable to explain where I am wrong.

Feel free to keep trying though.

 

[dad]

Yeah, I still see you providing zero evidence to support your beliefs, and I still see you being unable to explain where I am wrong.

Feel free to keep trying though.

I see you providing zero evidence to support your beliefs. Give it up. Obviously forces and laws govern atoms and all the rest. Rather than look at how they now operate you should have tried to show that the same forces and laws had to have been at work. You can't.

How sweet it is.

 

[Kylie]

I see you providing zero evidence to support your beliefs.

Then you haven't been reading my posts, have you, because I have described in more detail than you deserved. Don't blame me for your inability to understand it.

Give it up. Obviously forces and laws govern atoms and all the rest. Rather than look at how they now operate you should have tried to show that the same forces and laws had to have been at work. You can't.

Can and have.

How sweet it is.

You're like one of those people who claim that the earth is flat.

You aren't one of them, are you?

 

[dad]

Then you haven't been reading my posts, have you, because I have described in more detail than you deserved. Don't blame me for your inability to understand it.

No problem. If all you wanted to do was proclaim beliefs that the forces that govern atoms and life on earth was the same, you have done it.

If that were the case, I don't see how the bible could be true. After all the laws like thermodynamics of this present nature could not have applied either in creation week or the flood. Neither could the nature we know have existed to allow trees to grow fast, or people to live very long!

You would need to do a lot more than try to insist that ratios of isotopes we now see coulld have only been created in this nature. Cheers.

If the nature we know were changed now, for example, we would likely still have the red and white p and n's. What they exact relationship would be is more the question, than whether the ratios would still exist!

We need a less shallow grasp of what a nature change would mean, before trying to wave one off to protect a particular belief system!

I kid you not.

 

[Kylie]

No problem. If all you wanted to do was proclaim beliefs that the forces that govern atoms and life on earth was the same, you have done it.

Proclaimed and explained how in a way that any rational person could understand.

You, on the other hand, have only ever proclaimed. Never explained.

If that were the case, I don't see how the bible could be true. After all the laws like thermodynamics of this present nature could not have applied either in creation week or the flood. Neither could the nature we know have existed to allow trees to grow fast, or people to live very long!

Ahem. How your INTERPRETATION of the Bible could be true.

The answer's simple. Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

You would need to do a lot more than try to insist that ratios of isotopes we now see coulld have only been created in this nature. Cheers.

Have done. You lack the ability to understand it. Not my problem.

If the nature we know were changed now, for example, we would likely still have the red and white p and n's. What they exact relationship would be is more the question, than whether the ratios would still exist!

Oh wow. You have a picture with arrows and you are talking about colours and letters. It sounds so complicated! Therefore you must know what you are talking about.

You use many words, but you say little.

We need a less shallow grasp of what a nature change would mean, before trying to wave one off to protect a particular belief system!

\

Shallow? You're the one basing his whole view of the universe on his personal interpretation of an old book while ignoring actual reality.

I kid you not.

Not intentionally, I'm sure. But you're wrong anyway.

I'll be nice and give you another chance, dad. Answer me a question:

If the world had indeed had a different state past, what would we see in reality that could not be there if there had only been a same state past?

 

[AV1611VET]

If the world had indeed had a different state past, what would we see in reality that could not be there if there had only been a same state past?

900 year old men.

No thorns and thistles.

No carnivores.

No graves.

 

[dad]

Proclaimed and explained how in a way that any rational person could understand.

Inbred and circular reasoning doesn't do it for all, I am afraid.

You, on the other hand, have only ever proclaimed. Never explained.

What would you like explained?

Ahem. How your INTERPRETATION of the Bible could be true.

If you have one that is better I think we ought to see it!!

The answer's simple. Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

Great. Prove it. About what? No flood? No creation? No spirits? or ??

Oh wow. You have a picture with arrows and you are talking about colours and letters. It sounds so complicated! Therefore you must know what you are talking about.

Come on now, confess, I did make it as simple as possible for you.

Shallow? You're the one basing his whole view of the universe on his personal interpretation of an old book while ignoring actual reality.

Nothing is ignored by me, not even the word of God. You can't say the same can you?

Not intentionally, I'm sure. But you're wrong anyway.

Debating is actually not synonymous with nagging.

I'll be nice and give you another chance, dad. Answer me a question:

If the world had indeed had a different state past, what would we see in reality that could not be there if there had only been a same state past?

The very things we see in the bible. The flood could not be there in a same state past. Spirits marrying women. Fast growing trees. Long lifespans of men. Continents moved fast without producing killing heat. Probably the one language for all people also was a result of a different nature. We did see a big change around the time of the split. (that was also the time of Babel). Adam could not have seen stars creation week if the standard model of the universe had applied either! Evolution before and after the flood could never have happened fast as it had to have done in the former nature.

 

[Kylie]

The very things we see in the bible. The flood could not be there in a same state past. Spirits marrying women. Fast growing trees. Long lifespans of men. Continents moved fast without producing killing heat. Probably the one language for all people also was a result of a different nature. We did see a big change around the time of the split. (that was also the time of Babel). Adam could not have seen stars creation week if the standard model of the universe had applied either! Evolution before and after the flood could never have happened fast as it had to have done in the former nature.

Ah. So you just assume the Bible is true, and then try to fit stuff into this conclusion. Got news for ya, buddy. The real world doesn't work like that.

And I hate to break it to ya, but the claims made by the Bible about people living for centuries are just wrong. And the fast moving continents, where does the Bible say that? Book, chapter and verse please.

All you do is assume the Bible's claims are correct and then come up with speculation as to how it might have worked. But your total lack of knowledge about the real world leads you to conclusions that have no basis in reality, and that same total lack of knowledge about the real world leaves you unable to understand that your conclusions have no basis in reality.

 

[dad]

Ah. So you just assume the Bible is true, and then try to fit stuff into this conclusion.

Ah. So you just assume the Bible is not true, and then try to fit stuff into this conclusion.

Got news for ya, buddy. The real world doesn't work like that.

And I hate to break it to ya, but the claims made by the Bible about people living for centuries are just wrong.

Easy to say. Too bad you have no clue in reality or any ability to prove that.

And the fast moving continents, where does the Bible say that? Book, chapter and verse please.

Well, if God separated the waters on earth from the land, that means a lot of movement of well...water and land! Also, we do know that there was plate movement, and the only way to fit that into the bible timeframe is fast!

All you do is assume the Bible's claims are correct and then come up with speculation as to how it might have worked.

All you do is assume the Bible's claims are not correct and then come up with speculation as to how it might have worked. Then you call it science!

... reality.

There ought to be a fine for evos even using that word!

 

[Delphiki]

Oh, my. Vacation is over, I guess.

 

[dad]

Oh, my. Vacation is over, I guess.

For some.

 

[biggles53]

Ah. So you just assume the Bible is not true, and then try to fit stuff into this conclusion.

Got news for ya, buddy. The real world doesn't work like that.
Easy to say. Too bad you have no clue in reality or any ability to prove that.

Well, if God separated the waters on earth from the land, that means a lot of movement of well...water and land! Also, we do know that there was plate movement, and the only way to fit that into the bible timeframe is fast!
All you do is assume the Bible's claims are not correct and then come up with speculation as to how it might have worked. Then you call it science!
There ought to be a fine for evos even using that word!

'Science' makes no claims, assumptions, speculations or comments generally about what appears in the Bible, or any other book of myths..... What they contain is entirely irrelevant to scientific endeavour...

But you know this......

 

[Kylie]

Ah. So you just assume the Bible is not true, and then try to fit stuff into this conclusion.

I assume reality is true and let the evidence speak for itself.

Got news for ya, buddy. The real world doesn't work like that.

Strawman.

Easy to say. Too bad you have no clue in reality or any ability to prove that.

And I say the same to you.

Well, if God separated the waters on earth from the land, that means a lot of movement of well...water and land! Also, we do know that there was plate movement, and the only way to fit that into the bible timeframe is fast!

Ah. So you just assume the Bible is true, and then try to fit stuff into this conclusion.

All you do is assume the Bible's claims are not correct and then come up with speculation as to how it might have worked. Then you call it science!

Yeah, you don't have the slightest clue what science even is, do you?

There ought to be a fine for evos even using that word!

Why? it's not like you ever refer to reality.

 

[dad]

I assume reality is true and let the evidence speak for itself.

You color evidence with a godless belief system, and limit reality to colored evidence.

Ah. So you just assume the Bible is true, and then try to fit stuff into this conclusion.

I actually tested the bible first to ensure it was true. It is. So I can rely on what it says on the past and future science knows not!

Yeah, you don't have the slightest clue what science even is, do you?

Tell us, if you think it is some mystery!?

Why? it's not like you ever refer to reality.

Reality of this present state need not be the eternal reality. We need to put present state reality in it's place. Science can't do that, because it is obsessed with it and only it. I, on the wonderful winning other hand, have perspective, and balance, and openness of mind.

 

[dad]

'Science' makes no claims, assumptions, speculations or comments generally about what appears in the Bible, or any other book of myths..... What they contain is entirely irrelevant to scientific endeavour...
....

False. Their claims are too antichrist to be coincidental! But you may not know this.

 

[Kylie]

You color evidence with a godless belief system, and limit reality to colored evidence.

You know nothing about me and nothing about science.

I actually tested the bible first to ensure it was true. It is. So I can rely on what it says on the past and future science knows not!

Please describe in detail these tests, including the way you made sure to avoid contamination by your own personal biases.

Tell us, if you think it is some mystery!?

Why should I try to teach a pigeon to play chess?

Reality of this present state need not be the eternal reality. We need to put present state reality in it's place. Science can't do that, because it is obsessed with it and only it. I, on the wonderful winning other hand, have perspective, and balance, and openness of mind.

Sure. Tell yourself that. You haven't got a single shred of evidence. Until you actually provide some, you have nothing.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I actually tested the bible first to ensure it was true.

Remarkable. And how did you do this?