Strong Evidence for the Peleg state change

[dad]

Remarkable. And how did you do this?

I got saved. He really did start too work on me from the inside out. Still under construction, of course.

I also checked out the prophesies. No way they could be accidents. No way at all.

That's what I'm talkin bout.

 

[dad]

You know nothing about me and nothing about science.

Science is like milk, not any secret where it comes from and what it is. You have stated things here that do reveal much about you.

You have tried to bludgeon folks into a belief that only a same state past could be responsible for ratios for example. No rhyme or real reason was given, and you seemed unable to cope with anything from outside your little belief box.

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

I zapped it with tests six ways from Sunday.

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

Maybe it is better to pretend you can play well, and that the only reason you can't show your moves is because a pigeon is on the other side of the board. Not all folks are fooled with that nonsense though.

Sure. Tell yourself that..

We do have forces and laws in place right now. Really. If you want to prove that they were the same and always will be, start anytime. Why pretend you can?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I got saved. He really did start too work on me from the inside out. Still under construction, of course.

I also checked out the prophesies. No way they could be accidents. No way at all.

That's what I'm talkin bout.

And in one shining moment of personal salvation you realised the bible was literally true! Prophecies and all!

What a novel method of fact checking.

 

[dad]

And in one shining moment of personal salvation you realised the bible was literally true! Prophecies and all!

What a novel method of fact checking.

Actually it takes time. Being saved is instant, but learning truth takes awhile.

 

[Kylie]

Science is like milk, not any secret where it comes from and what it is. You have stated things here that do reveal much about you.

Meaningless. Come back when you have evidence.

You have tried to bludgeon folks into a belief that only a same state past could be responsible for ratios for example. No rhyme or real reason was given, and you seemed unable to cope with anything from outside your little belief box.

I provided an explanation that any rational person could follow and understand. All you've done is make wild claims without any shred of support. Come back when you have evidence.

I zapped it with tests six ways from Sunday.

Sure you did. Until you provide details, it means nothing. You could have read the Bible, formed your own interpretation, decided it must be true and tested it by seeing if you agreed with yourself for all I know. Come back when you have evidence.

Maybe it is better to pretend you can play well, and that the only reason you can't show your moves is because a pigeon is on the other side of the board. Not all folks are fooled with that nonsense though.

Does any of this make sense to you? Because I doubt it makes sense to anyone else. Come back when you have evidence.

We do have forces and laws in place right now. Really. If you want to prove that they were the same and always will be, start anytime. Why pretend you can?

I have. Science has. Your ignorance of science is stopping you from seeing it. Come back when you have evidence.

 

[dad]

I provided an explanation that any rational person could follow and understand. All you've done is make wild claims without any shred of support. Come back when you have evidence.

It was easy to follow. You believe that the ratios exist because of forces and laws that are now in place and no other reason. That you believe for no reason, and fanatically.

Sure you did. Until you provide details, it means nothing. You could have read the Bible, formed your own interpretation, decided it must be true and tested it by seeing if you agreed with yourself for all I know. Come back when you have evidence.

Nothing to do with me or myself. I did not invent Rome or Bethlehem, or Daniel, or the cross, or the hundreds of fulfilled prophesies, or the spiritual.

I have. Science has.

In your dreams. Not very impressive. Come back when you can post some of this rather than drone on about it.

 

[Kylie]

It was easy to follow. You believe that the ratios exist because of forces and laws that are now in place and no other reason. That you believe for no reason, and fanatically.

No reason, huh? The reason I accept them is BECAUSE THEY WORK. And because they are the only way to explain how we have the particular ratios we see. You would invoke a coincidence or a deliberately misleading deity.

Nothing to do with me or myself. I did not invent Rome or Bethlehem, or Daniel, or the cross, or the hundreds of fulfilled prophesies, or the spiritual.

But you did invent your interpretation.

In your dreams. Not very impressive. Come back when you can post some of this rather than drone on about it.

Already have, many times. Of course, you would forget, you have a habit of ignoring anything you can't explain away.

Spock: Dad's ideas are not logical.

 

[dad]

No reason, huh? The reason I accept them is BECAUSE THEY WORK.

We all accept laws and stuff in this nature. Of course they work. The issue is how you transport them wily nily into an unknown state...where no science has gone before.

And because they are the only way to explain how we have the particular ratios we see.

No one has to make stuff up actually. You can declare ways that this nature could have produced stuff we see. But you have no monopoly on the unknown.

You would invoke a coincidence or a deliberately misleading deity.

It was not Jesus that told us that we should expect this state and world to last forever, or that it was always the same exact nature. That would be you.

But you did invent your interpretation.

I have a solid bible case that looks from cover to cover, past present and future! You are talking nonsense.

Spock: Dad's ideas are not logical.

Leonard Nemoy...'There really wasn't any Spock'.

 

[Kylie]

Yawn. Come back when you have actual evidence, dad.

Oh, and as for Leonard Nimoy (at least spell his name right!) saying there wasn't really a Spock...

 

[dad]

Yawn. Come back when you have actual evidence, dad.

Oh, and as for Leonard Nimoy (at least spell his name right!) saying there wasn't really a Spock...

It would have been nice to learn how he drove the enterprise. Did he share the secrets of transporting with you?

We can say that the bible outlines a past and a future that is a different nature than this present state we live in now. We can say that ancient history, to some extent agrees. We can say that science doesn't know. We can say that science bases all models on this present state.

You have demonstrated an inability to look at the facts here. When ratios were discussed you seem to have slipped into some bizarre denial mode, seemingly unable to consider how forces and laws are what determine the ratio relationships!


Maybe have a rest.

 

[Kylie]

It would have been nice to learn how he drove the enterprise. Did he share the secrets of transporting with you?

Do you bother to learn about ANYTHING before you make comments about it?

We can say that the bible outlines a past and a future that is a different nature than this present state we live in now. We can say that ancient history, to some extent agrees. We can say that science doesn't know. We can say that science bases all models on this present state.

And I can say the same thing about Star Trek too.

You have demonstrated an inability to look at the facts here. When ratios were discussed you seem to have slipped into some bizarre denial mode, seemingly unable to consider how forces and laws are what determine the ratio relationships!

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Maybe have a rest.

Maybe produce some evidence.

 

[dad]

Do you bother to learn about ANYTHING before you make comments about it?

Not being a Treckie, we may need to look to you for intricate parts of the fiction.

You have demonstrated an inability to look at the facts here. When ratios were discussed you seem to have slipped into some bizarre denial mode, seemingly unable to consider how forces and laws are what determine the ratio relationships!

Unless you first prove a same state past existed, you may not try to use it to prop up your stories and claims.

 

[Kylie]

Go get some evidence dad. You have nothing until you do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Go get some evidence dad. You have nothing until you do.

Neither do you.

 

[dad]

Go get some evidence dad. You have nothing until you do.

You are my evidence. You demonstrate that science is mum on the subject. I have history and the word of God as evidence on how the past really was. You may no longer make stuff up. I am onto you.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

So there is an entire thread devoted to this nonsense. Interesting. Anyway, I would like to point out both that Dodwell's hypothesis involves an impact event, not a mysterious, unverifiable, undocumented alteration in the laws of physics and that even AiG doesn't think creationists should give it credence.

Carry on with your delusion, Dad. I'll give you this though: Most creationists strive in vain to prove that their belief does not violate the laws of physics whereas you have embraced the fact that such beliefs do indeed violate the laws of physics. You have just taken the rather peculiar step of trying to prove the laws of physics used to be different instead of reconsidering your beliefs. And that will be all I have to say on the matter of you bizarre hypothesis. Its novelty does give it some entertainment value, but ultimately it isn't worth paying prolonged attention to.

 

[Kylie]

You are my evidence. You demonstrate that science is mum on the subject. I have history and the word of God as evidence on how the past really was. You may no longer make stuff up. I am onto you.

And this post is proof that you do not understand science and you do not understand what I have been saying. My point seems very clear to everyone else in this thread. You are the only one who finds it difficult to grasp.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most creationists strive in vain to prove that their belief does not violate the laws of physics whereas you have embraced the fact that such beliefs do indeed violate the laws of physics.

So either way we're wrong ... right?

And for the record, you don't have a Defender's Study Bible, do you?

The footnotes in it were written by [the late] Henry M. Morris, a respected scientist; but in the almost eight years I've been here, whenever I post one of his footnotes, the scientists here shoot the messenger, rather than address the message.

He does an excellent job explaining the Joshua passage about the sun and moon standing still, and an equally impressive job with the ringstraked cattle in Genesis; yet the scientists here harp on he having been a hydraulic engineer, rather than address what he said.

Then they wonder why we don't respect them, when all they do is manufacture Catch 22 scenarios for God and His Word, while hiding behind a No True Scotsman Principle themselves.

 

[florida2]

So either way we're wrong ... right?

And for the record, you don't have a Defender's Study Bible, do you?

The footnotes in it were written by [the late] Henry M. Morris, a respected scientist; but in the almost eight years I've been here, whenever I post one of his footnotes, the scientists here shoot the messenger, rather than address the message.

He does an excellent job explaining the Joshua passage about the sun and moon standing still, and an equally impressive job with the ringstraked cattle in Genesis; yet the scientists here harp on he having been a hydraulic engineer, rather than address what he said.

Then they wonder why we don't respect them, when all they do is manufacture Catch 22 scenarios for God and His Word, while hiding behind a No True Scotsman Principle themselves.

I've personally never heard of that Bible or Mr Morris so I'd be interested to see some of these notes

 

[AV1611VET]

I've personally never heard of that Bible or Mr Morris so I'd be interested to see some of these notes

I'll bet you would.

Can't wait to get your digs in either, can you?

After all, he's "just a hydraulics (or is it mechanical) engineer."

Nevermind that some people on here who can hardly spell tell us we should be ashamed for not being omniscient at evolution.

That door doesn't swing that way, does it?

Or nevermind that geologists are here shoving SN1987A down our throats; just don't mention a scientist explaining the Joshua passage, if he's "not qualified in that area."

Right?