Taking questions of the Different state past (2)

[Kylie]

The evidence is in the record.

And there's no supporting evidence. All it is is an old book making a claim. There are lots of them. You'll need more than that!

The Scripture record. Man cannot know by science or any other way. Faster. A tree could grow in weeks to bear fruit, even less.

Unsupported claim. Provide evidence.

Who says that was the way growth happened? Have you some proof of that claim?? If so we can look at it. Light exhibited different properties, so even if you were correct, that would be child's play to answer.

Another unsupported claim. And also, are you suggesting that plants had leaves with chlorophyll when such things were completely useless? Please. Your claims fall apart easily.

Got any root systems from pre KT layer? If so, we can look at that.

Here you go.

Fossil conifers from the Mesozoic era (about 240 million years ago, and well before the KT boundary) shows that they functioned the same way as modern conifer roots, even down to the symbiotic relationship with fungi.

Cretacious conifer trees have been identified by the features of their root system.

You cannot know by science that people even lived at all!!! They did not leave remains as we would in this state, so science foolishly has thought there were no people!!!!!!! You guys are in kindergarten.

Are you saying no one was alive back then. :o

Are you out to try to make the most outrageous claims you can? Or just trying to make a big noise while not actually answering anything?

How will they survive soon in the time right after Jesus returns to rule forever? How does the tree of life work? What laws and forces work together when a new state exists that includes spiritual matter? Many questions are just too big for science! The bible does give some clues though.

Blah blah blah. More non-answers.

If plants grew fast how hard would it be to grow food in days??

And how hard would it be for you to find some evidence of this in the old towns dug up out in the desert? Evidence or get out, dad.

Adam saw stars.

Maybe he'd just been hit over the head really hard.

In the future a rainbow can have an emerald appearance. Light also comes from God, and we will not need the sun.

And yet more unanswers. I'm not talking about the FUTURE!

Apparently the light of eternity doesn't burn like our light. It can be invisible to the eyes now also, and beyond our range and usual spectrum. Paul saw a great light, but those with him saw nothing.

And more unanswers. You didn't address a single one of my questions.

It may not be the speed that matters. You see if time does not exist, or exists in another way, then the time it takes light to move would be different!

Time exists in a different way? How can you say this? When I tried to play nice and suggested temporal acceleration, you disagreed with me at every turn! So stop making vague statements and start making specific claims. In what way exactly was it different?

As above, perhaps time was a factor. Also, the universe is linked to God and His will. So we need not have one universal speed of light! It may depend on how fast we or God want it to get there!?

You got any evidene at all to support this? Particular your astoundingly outrageous and scientifically illiterate claim that the speed of light is determined by how fast we want it to be.

The water and land on the planet was separated and no great heat produced.

By what mechanism?

Who says these existed as we know them?? Proof?

If they didn't exist as we understand them today, describe how they are different?

God is not a mechanism.

Once again, you are incapable of understanding basic English. I am asking you to describe what happened to make it change. Describe the process which occured.

A spirit is a being that has a body that is not physical, and has certain properties, largly unknown to man. Some properties are known, such as an ability to pass through matter.

Largely unknown, huh? How convenient. Gives you lots of wiggle room to avoid saying something specific where you will be proved wrong.

Science doesn't know. Some knowledge, if wicked mankind knew, they would be too dangerous.

So you've got no answer. And you attempt to hide the fact that you don't know by making excuses for why we don't know. You got a source that says, "I'd show you how rapid evolution works, but then you;d misuse it."

My current guess for the aprox layer where the flood was at or near is the KT layer. The iridium comes from space or deep in the earth, just as the flood waters came from the same places!

And if the iridium layer was caused by the flood, wouldn't we see features caused by massive flooding in association with the iridium layer? Can you show me such features?

BTW, I suppose that this means that you don't believe that the Grand Canyon was eroded by the flood?

Got any tough ones now?

Given that you didn't actually answer any of the points I asked, I'd say the ones I've already asked are proving too tough for you. Try them again and actually answer them this time, will you?

 

[Kylie]

Oh, and here's another question for you...

Let's assume that you are right, and the iridium layer at the KT boundary was caused by the flood. And let's also assume you are right and that the change from the different state past to the present state happened at approximately the same time.

We can then safely say that any rock layers ABOVE the KT boundary were laid down in the present state, yes?

And if they were laid down in the present state, then they have only existed in the present state, and therefore any radioactive decay we detect must have happened in the present state.

And if all the decay happened in the present state, then there could have been no contamination of the rocks with daughter material by some cause other than radioactive decay. Our understanding of radioactive decay is, after all, very accurate when applied to rocks that have existed ENTIRELY in the present state.

So why then do these rocks, younger than the KT boundary and entirely present state, still date to millions of years old? The contamination effect you claim is impossible in this case!

 

[dad]

And there's no supporting evidence. All it is is an old book making a claim. There are lots of them. You'll need more than that!

False, there is no evidence you chose to accept. The prophets were to be killed if they said anything that was false. The prophets had credentials and were known to be true. They had local real time things that came to pass as they said. The people then knew that the things far off would be true also. Jesus followed that same pattern. The witnesses observed Christ and the early apostles and miracles. You chose to wave it all off. Then you chirp about there being no evidence.

...are you suggesting that plants had leaves with chlorophyll when such things were completely useless? Please. Your claims fall apart easily.

What do we know about leaves pre flood? If you have some chlorophyll in leaves from then simply present the evidence. Otherwise you are wasting our time.

Here you go.

Fossil conifers from the Mesozoic era (about 240 million years ago, and well before the KT boundary) shows that they functioned the same way as modern conifer roots, even down to the symbiotic relationship with fungi.

Cretacious conifer trees have been identified by the features of their root system.

From your link

"The major role of nodular mycorrhizal roots in extant plants is phosphate uptake which enhances minor nitrogen uptake. It is suggested that the fossil roots may have had a similar role. "

Ha. I suggest you better do more than suggest the first present state related thing that pops into someone's head.

As for the other link about the 'mutual associations between the conifer root nodules and fungi '

That doesn't address much. Of course there were symbiotic relationships.

Are you saying no one was alive back then. :o

No. I am saying man was here from week one in creation.

And how hard would it be for you to find some evidence of this in the old towns dug up out in the desert? Evidence or get out, dad.

Name one dessert town (or ANY town) from pre flood! Try to pay attention if you bother posting.

Maybe he'd just been hit over the head really hard.



And yet more unanswers. I'm not talking about the FUTURE!

The future is the key to the past. It is similar in the bible.

Time exists in a different way? How can you say this?

Easy. It is five words how hard can it be to say??

When I tried to play nice and suggested temporal acceleration, you disagreed with me at every turn! So stop making vague statements and start making specific claims. In what way exactly was it different?

Talking about stars, it could be that time is different or even ceases to exist as we know it even now.

You got any evidene at all to support this? Particular your astoundingly outrageous and scientifically illiterate claim that the speed of light is determined by how fast we want it to be.

Daniel prayed, and Gabriel was there when he opened his eyes! There is even a promise from God that He will answer BEFORE we pray! Time is like a trained lapdog to God!

By what mechanism?

By the mechanism of His speaking and it was so. His will makes the universe appear, change, exist, or cease to exist! His word is a mechanism that triggers creative action, that affects all things.

If they didn't exist as we understand them today, describe how they are different?

Well, what I pointed out was that you don't know. So that means you can't claim that any changes were mere tweaks OF this state. Changes IN our laws!

Once again, you are incapable of understanding basic English. I am asking you to describe what happened to make it change. Describe the process which occured.

Time and space and matter and a lot more all do what God says. It is not some mere mechanism, it is the Creator.

Largely unknown, huh? How convenient. Gives you lots of wiggle room to avoid saying something specific where you will be proved wrong.

Thanks. Better than getting busted like so called science.

So you've got no answer. And you attempt to hide the fact that you don't know by making excuses for why we don't know. You got a source that says, "I'd show you how rapid evolution works, but then you;d misuse it."

I never said I would show you. I said man cannot be trusted, basically with some things. Look what he did with a knowledge of atoms!!

And if the iridium layer was caused by the flood, wouldn't we see features caused by massive flooding in association with the iridium layer? Can you show me such features?

Can you tell us something about this picture that precludes the area as having once been in water!!??

BTW, I suppose that this means that you don't believe that the Grand Canyon was eroded by the flood?

Right. I lean toward a more Walt Brown type approach, to where it was a post flood rapid event. At least from what I have heard so far.

 

[dad]

Oh, and here's another question for you...

Let's assume that you are right, and the iridium layer at the KT boundary was caused by the flood.

That is just my best current guess. The different state future and past is bible.

And let's also assume you are right and that the change from the different state past to the present state happened at approximately the same time.

I peg it at aprox a little over a century after the flood, and possibly later, because Peleg lived something like 230 years, and the split may not have started and ended when he was a babe. He was born, by many estimates about 101 years after the flood.

We can then safely say that any rock layers ABOVE the KT boundary were laid down in the present state, yes?

If my guess was right, that the flood was likely somewhere near or at the KT, then your statement would be largely correct.

And if they were laid down in the present state, then they have only existed in the present state, and therefore any radioactive decay we detect must have happened in the present state.

No. Because layers even after the flood were rapidly formed! There was also the continental move, that uplifted mountains, and piled up areas, and etc etc.

And if all the decay happened in the present state, then there could have been no contamination of the rocks with daughter material by some cause other than radioactive decay. Our understanding of radioactive decay is, after all, very accurate when applied to rocks that have existed ENTIRELY in the present state.

So why then do these rocks, younger than the KT boundary and entirely present state, still date to millions of years old? The contamination effect you claim is impossible in this case!

Noah was a contemporary with Abraham by Jewish tradition. How much layers do you think was laid down (not since the flood) since Abraham!!!!?

 

[Kylie]

False, there is no evidence you chose to accept. The prophets were to be killed if they said anything that was false. The prophets had credentials and were known to be true. They had local real time things that came to pass as they said. The people then knew that the things far off would be true also. Jesus followed that same pattern. The witnesses observed Christ and the early apostles and miracles. You chose to wave it all off. Then you chirp about there being no evidence.

Please. You're engaging in circular arguments. Besdies, what happens when they prophesize something that would occur for a hundred years? "Oh, Zorback the seer said such and such would happen, and it didn't. Kill him! What? He's been dead for thirty years? Dig him up and kill him again!"

What do we know about leaves pre flood? If you have some chlorophyll in leaves from then simply present the evidence. Otherwise you are wasting our time.

Here you go.

From Early Evolution of Photosynthesis

A wealth of evidence indicates that photosynthesis is an ancient process that originated not long after the origin of life...

There is suggestive evidence that photosynthetic organisms were present approximately 3.2 to 3.5 billion years ago...​

In any case, what do you think leaves before the flood were doing if not photosynthesizing? Why would they have the exact for needed to photosynthesize if they were doing something else? And can you tell us what the plants were doing that required them to have leaves perfectly suited for photosynthesis?

From your link

"The major role of nodular mycorrhizal roots in extant plants is phosphate uptake which enhances minor nitrogen uptake. It is suggested that the fossil roots may have had a similar role. "

Ha. I suggest you better do more than suggest the first present state related thing that pops into someone's head.

What, you think that sentence means the whole thing is a wild guess? Please.

As for the other link about the 'mutual associations between the conifer root nodules and fungi '

That doesn't address much. Of course there were symbiotic relationships.

And wouldn't it be amazing if you could give us actual examples of how symbiotic relationships were different pre-flood?

No. I am saying man was here from week one in creation.

You didn't say it very well. Of course, I'm not surprised that clear communication isn't your best point...

Name one dessert town (or ANY town) from pre flood! Try to pay attention if you bother posting.

You actually want me to show you the remains of a town that come from before the KT event?

Your illogic and ridiculous ideas keep getting worse.

The future is the key to the past. It is similar in the bible.

You can say these things, but when it comes time to actually put it into practice, you have a habit of falling flat on your face.

Easy. It is five words how hard can it be to say??

I'm asking for evidence. I thought that was obvious. Care to stop playing childish games and address the point?

Talking about stars, it could be that time is different or even ceases to exist as we know it even now.

And all we hear from you is "could" and "Maybe" and "I guess..."

Must be hard being so wishy washy.

Daniel prayed, and Gabriel was there when he opened his eyes! There is even a promise from God that He will answer BEFORE we pray! Time is like a trained lapdog to God!

Please. Old stories prove nothing.

By the mechanism of His speaking and it was so. His will makes the universe appear, change, exist, or cease to exist! His word is a mechanism that triggers creative action, that affects all things.

Yeah, that's not what I meant. Describe HOW God speaking made it so. All you are doing is saying, "It was magic." Absolutely meaningless.

Well, what I pointed out was that you don't know. So that means you can't claim that any changes were mere tweaks OF this state. Changes IN our laws!

Care to actually ANSWER THE QUESTION?

Time and space and matter and a lot more all do what God says. It is not some mere mechanism, it is the Creator.

Care to actually answer the question?

Thanks. Better than getting busted like so called science.

lol, it would amazing if you even came close to understanding science. You're nowhere near beating it.

I never said I would show you. I said man cannot be trusted, basically with some things. Look what he did with a knowledge of atoms!!

SO why are you debating this if you can't show us or refuse to show us? Maybe you just like making a big noise?

Can you tell us something about this picture that precludes the area as having once been in water!!??

The absence of features that form in water, for a start.

Right. I lean toward a more Walt Brown type approach, to where it was a post flood rapid event. At least from what I have heard so far.

How could water erosion have happened under present state laws so rapidly? Can you describe the present state laws that permit this to happen?

 

[Kylie]

That is just my best current guess. The different state future and past is bible.

So are agreed on this. We both understand that you consider the iridium layer at the KT boundary as being caused by the flood.

I peg it at aprox a little over a century after the flood, and possibly later, because Peleg lived something like 230 years, and the split may not have started and ended when he was a babe. He was born, by many estimates about 101 years after the flood.

Meh, close enough, for all practical purposes, yes?

If my guess was right, that the flood was likely somewhere near or at the KT, then your statement would be largely correct.

That would be a yes then. Glad we understand each other so far.

No. Because layers even after the flood were rapidly formed!

And how can this happen under present state laws? Can you give an example of deposits such as we see in the upper grand canyon forming rapidly in the present state?

There was also the continental move, that uplifted mountains, and piled up areas, and etc etc.

The trouble is that none of these can explain how rocks formed in the present state can have millions of years of radioactive decay.

Noah was a contemporary with Abraham by Jewish tradition. How much layers do you think was laid down (not since the flood) since Abraham!!!!?

Irrelevant. We are talking about rock layers laid down since the flood.

Answer the question.

How can rock layers laid down entirely in the present state have millions of years of radioactive decay?

 

[Kunjax]

I've read the entire thread, I haven't seen dad once present a single shred of evidence for his "different state past" claim.

So dad, got any evidence?

 

[Kylie]

Creationists must spend their lives scratching through lies and misinformation.

Cue creationist claiming, "Yes! So-called science is full of lies and misinformation!"

 

[dad]

I've read the entire thread, I haven't seen dad once present a single shred of evidence for his "different state past" claim.

So dad, got any evidence?

Do you consider God, Scripture and history evidence?

 

[dad]

Please. You're engaging in circular arguments. Besdies, what happens when they prophesize something that would occur for a hundred years? "Oh, Zorback the seer said such and such would happen, and it didn't. Kill him! What? He's been dead for thirty years? Dig him up and kill him again!"

Jerimiah prophesied Jerusalem would be destroyed and Israel taken captive for so long. Jesus propesied the temple would be destroyed completely. What is this hundred year nonsense? Examples?

Here you go.

From Early Evolution of Photosynthesis

A wealth of evidence indicates that photosynthesis is an ancient process that originated not long after the origin of life...

There is suggestive evidence that photosynthetic organisms were present approximately 3.2 to 3.5 billion years ago...​

That is a vague statement of faith! What they may take as a 'suggestion' for something, possibly I would take as a suggestion for another. You either know or know not.

In any case, what do you think leaves before the flood were doing if not photosynthesizing?

Why guess? Whether they used the different light in a different way, with whatever laws were in place is something we apparently don't know. You seem to be bent on assuming something. What do you know?

Why would they have the exact for needed to photosynthesize if they were doing something else?

That makes no sense. What all are you claiming they had? Some fungi on the roots?! Come on now, if you make a claim, do it for a reason.

And can you tell us what the plants were doing that required them to have leaves perfectly suited for photosynthesis?

Well, in what way were they perfectly suited? Baby steps.

What, you think that sentence means the whole thing is a wild guess? Please.

Yes. I do. Thank you. They dare not speak with authority, for they know so little.

And wouldn't it be amazing if you could give us actual examples of how symbiotic relationships were different pre-flood?

Well, we can look right here in this present state. The pattern is that creation works together in many cases with whatever they have in that state to work with! Your question then is what did they have to work with in the former state. The answer is you do not know.

You actually want me to show you the remains of a town that come from before the KT event?

?? You think towns would come through intact? What if a town was pre flood, and got washed away? What if it then got a continent sliding on top of it and was miles under? You do not know what to look for or where to look.

And all we hear from you is "could" and "Maybe" and "I guess..."

Must be hard being so wishy washy.

So when science 'suggests' that is fine. When anyone else points to the fact man doesn't know, you call it wishy washy. No. It is honesty. I grow tired of the tall tales of science so called being offered up as something known. Then you turn around and try to mock the honest folks who know that science doesn't really know as we should know what you pretended to know. No wonder God allowed me to bust them!

Yeah, that's not what I meant. Describe HOW God speaking made it so. All you are doing is saying, "It was magic." Absolutely meaningless.

Don't pretend we have the science or knowledge to know how interwoven the Spirit of God is with the Universe and all things, and how He can affect changes in the way He set it up!! God's ways are higher than science's ways. and His knowledge higher than man's.

lol, it would amazing if you even came close to understanding science. You're nowhere near beating it.

They can't yet comprehend they are beaten!! Talk about behind the eight ball!

The absence of features that form in water, for a start.

?? You claim there is no sediment or sedimentary rock anywhere near the KT!!!?? This is getting funny.

How could water erosion have happened under present state laws so rapidly?

Simply being post flood does NOT mean THIS state!!! It could have been, say 75 years after the flood or whatever?! Checkmate.

From all angles you be hooped.

 

[dad]

So are agreed on this. We both understand that you consider the iridium layer at the KT boundary as being caused by the flood.

Subject to evidence, it is an educated guess. It is not absolute certainty. It is a talking point, and the idea has so far held up to various evidences and scrutiny. For example, the giant fountain of the deep conduit remains in the Yucatan. (?) If the 'crater' was a remnant of a fount of the deep, that would fit.

And how can this happen under present state laws? Can you give an example of deposits such as we see in the upper grand canyon forming rapidly in the present state?

See previous comment regarding how post flood does not mean this state! Walt Brown apparently explained it as a post flood glacial lake that was suddenly released, and he used normal present state physics. How hard could it be to tweak his ideas using the former state and a similar scenario of a giant lake released?!
The way I see it, these creationists have lost, or been stalemated at the least, is because they all use this state!!! With the former one, it is victory, victory victory!! You'd think they would get tired of losing?

The trouble is that none of these can explain how rocks formed in the present state can have millions of years of radioactive decay.

There is no millions of years. Name one rock as an example of a rock with millions of years of decay formed in this state!!!?? Let's see what you got. At least you have been thinking.

 

[Kunjax]

Do you consider God, Scripture and history evidence?

That depends, do have any evidence that shows those do be accurate sources of information?

 

[dad]

That depends, do have any evidence that shows those do be accurate sources of information?

Evidence that God accepts and I accept and the apostles and prophets accepted? Or evidence that you chose to omit from a little evidence puddle that contains other beliefs only?

I'll take that as a no.


That leaves you in a place of not knowing what state existed and accepting a present state in the past that cannot be evidenced or proven. You are welcome to your beliefs. Do not try to foist them on anyone in this thread as anything else, or I'll be all over it.

Dismissed.

 

[Kunjax]

Evidence that God accepts and I accept and the apostles and prophets accepted? Or evidence that you chose to omit from a little evidence puddle that contains other beliefs only?

How do you know God accepts it? Or the prophets? Has he told you personally? Or do you think you read it in the bible? If the latter is true, how do you know you have the correct interpretation?

 

[dad]

How do you know God accepts it? Or the prophets? Has he told you personally? Or do you think you read it in the bible? If the latter is true, how do you know you have the correct interpretation?

Jesus said so. Should we take your word over His and theirs? Concentrate on the same state past you claim. Since you can't prove it, but seek diversions such as playing 'doubt God and His word insanely for no apparent reason' I suggest you lose it.

Anything else?

 

[Kunjax]

Jesus said so. Should we take your word over His and theirs? Concentrate on the same state past you claim. Since you can't prove it, but seek diversions such as playing 'doubt God and His word insanely for no apparent reason' I suggest you lose it.

My knowledge of scripture isn't so good. Maybe you can tell me where he said the past operated under different physical laws.

 

[Kylie]

Jerimiah prophesied Jerusalem would be destroyed and Israel taken captive for so long. Jesus propesied the temple would be destroyed completely. What is this hundred year nonsense? Examples?

Okay. How do you know that the prophecy was made BEFORE the events that are claimed to have fulfilled it?

For example, I can show you a piece of paper that says, "Kylie will pass her driver's test and get her Ls the first time she goes for them." Now, I can show you evidence that I did indeed pass the test my first time. I did it in April 1996, straight after my birthday. I was very eager to get my license.

Now, I can show you this piece of paper that says I got it on my first go. But how do you know that the prophecy on the piece of paper was written BEFORE I did it? Maybe I wrote it in September. Hardly a prophecy then, is it. Anyone can write down what they did earlier, claim that it was written before the event and then say it's a legitimate prophecy.

So prophecy doesn't count. Particularly when it is often vague.

So drop the prophecy thing, okay? I won't accept it as evidence.

That is a vague statement of faith! What they may take as a 'suggestion' for something, possibly I would take as a suggestion for another. You either know or know not.

You know nothing about science. It means that the evidence indicates something, but even if there is a 99% certainty, they won't say for sure. It does NOT mean it's a wild guess!

Seriously, what is up with creationists making a theory out as something a scientist comes up with after he's been drinking at the pub all night?

Why guess? Whether they used the different light in a different way, with whatever laws were in place is something we apparently don't know. You seem to be bent on assuming something. What do you know?

Do you think about what you say before you say it?

They had leaves IDENTICAL in structure to the leaves we have today. They are attached to plants that also have the same features as what we see today.

Are you really claiming that it's likely the whole thing worked completely differently?

Please.

That makes no sense. What all are you claiming they had? Some fungi on the roots?! Come on now, if you make a claim, do it for a reason.

We see this today, and we see how it works. When we see fossils that have the same structures, that shows that the fossils did the same thing.

How is this a complicated idea to grasp?

Well, in what way were they perfectly suited? Baby steps.

Cell structure, leaf shape, number of leaves, arrangement of leaves.

If you knew even the slightest thing about this, you'd know your arguments are ridiculous.

Yes. I do. Thank you. They dare not speak with authority, for they know so little.

Then you are wrong.

Don't pretend to be an expert on something you know nothing about.

Well, we can look right here in this present state. The pattern is that creation works together in many cases with whatever they have in that state to work with! Your question then is what did they have to work with in the former state. The answer is you do not know.

When we see fossils that have the same features as what we see today, then they logical conclusion is that the fossils worked in the same way as what we have today.

You are the one discarding logic.

?? You think towns would come through intact? What if a town was pre flood, and got washed away? What if it then got a continent sliding on top of it and was miles under? You do not know what to look for or where to look.

Jericho has evidence that it has been the site of human habitation for at least 12,000 years, from the 10th millenium BC. SOURCE 1 SOURCE 2

How long ago was the flood? Was it before the 10th millenium BC? I've never heard that. Most YECs claim the world is 6000 years old. And they claim the flood was about 4000 years ago. So Jericho comes from a time BEFORE the flood, but 6000 - 8000 years.

So if Jericho came from before the flood, when we date it, we should get dates OLDER than the KT boundary. After all, the flood caused the KT boundary, and Jericho is older than the flood. And yet, when we date ANYTHING from Jericho, we get dates that do not match with what we should get if it was before the KT boundary. A 10,000 - 12,000 year old town that was formed BEFORE the flood consistantly dates to younger than the KT boundary.

So we know that the KT boundary happened before Jericho, because Jericho is above the KT boundary, and the dating from Jericho is always much younger than the dating from the KT boundary.

We also know that Jericho must be OLDER than the flood, because it dates to 10,000 - 12,000 years old or so, and YECs claim that the flood happened about 4,000 years ago.

So we know that the order of events must have been KT boundary, Jericho founded, Flood. Therefore Jericho satisfies your demand for a town that comes from before the flood.

If Jericho came from before the flood, then it was founded in the different past state, and you can use this as a source to get real-world evidence that plants grew faster and people lived longer. So go do it!

Therefore, the KT boundary is older than the flood. You are beaten once again.

So when science 'suggests' that is fine. When anyone else points to the fact man doesn't know, you call it wishy washy. No. It is honesty. I grow tired of the tall tales of science so called being offered up as something known. Then you turn around and try to mock the honest folks who know that science doesn't really know as we should know what you pretended to know. No wonder God allowed me to bust them!

And...

Don't pretend we have the science or knowledge to know how interwoven the Spirit of God is with the Universe and all things, and how He can affect changes in the way He set it up!! God's ways are higher than science's ways. and His knowledge higher than man's.

Yeah, you are using many words, but saying very little.

They can't yet comprehend they are beaten!! Talk about behind the eight ball!

Like science would be beaten by someone who doesn't even know how it works. Please.

?? You claim there is no sediment or sedimentary rock anywhere near the KT!!!?? This is getting funny.

In some places, yes. But what sedimentary rock we see is not consistant with what we'd find if the entire world had been covered by a global flood. It is consistant with what we'd find from sedimentary deposits laid down in rivers, etc.

Simply being post flood does NOT mean THIS state!!! It could have been, say 75 years after the flood or whatever?! Checkmate.

Rubbish. You want to explain how we got that much sedimentary deposit and then massive amounts of erosion in such a short time?

From all angles you be hooped.

lol, that's rich coming from someone who has only a self fulfilling delusion to support their claim.

 

[Kylie]

Subject to evidence, it is an educated guess. It is not absolute certainty. It is a talking point, and the idea has so far held up to various evidences and scrutiny. For example, the giant fountain of the deep conduit remains in the Yucatan. (?) If the 'crater' was a remnant of a fount of the deep, that would fit.

However, the Yucatan crater has features which are entirely consistent with an impact event and not with a bunch of water coming up from underground.

See previous comment regarding how post flood does not mean this state! Walt Brown apparently explained it as a post flood glacial lake that was suddenly released, and he used normal present state physics. How hard could it be to tweak his ideas using the former state and a similar scenario of a giant lake released?!

Got a source for this?

And are you talking about the Walt Brown who makes "mistaken claims about what others have written." SOURCE? Please, the man does not use valid research methods. He is no scientist. SOURCE

The way I see it, these creationists have lost, or been stalemated at the least, is because they all use this state!!! With the former one, it is victory, victory victory!! You'd think they would get tired of losing?

Please. All you;ve got is an idea which allows you to say, "Magic!" to explain away anything. When it starts giving you testable data, then you can come and play with the big kids. Until then, stay in the shallow end of the pool.

There is no millions of years. Name one rock as an example of a rock with millions of years of decay formed in this state!!!?? Let's see what you got. At least you have been thinking.

So, let's get this straight.

The KT boundary was caused by the flood. The KT boundary dates to about 65 milion years ago.

The state change was shortly after this time.

So if we can find a rock that dates to significantly younger than 65 million years, it must be from the present state. Here's an article about some scouts who broke a rock formation 20 million years old: Ancient Goblin Valley rock toppled by Boy Scout leaders | Daily Mail Online

Now, how old is this? By radiometric dating, it is 20 million years old. It MUST be present state, because if it was past state, then it would date to closer to 65 million years old, where the KT boundary is. However, this is less than a third the age of that. So it must be present state, and you can't use your DSP idea to explain away the fact that it dates to much older than it could be if you were right. Therefore, this rock formation proves beyond any doubt that you are wrong.

Or are you suggesting a rock that's not even a third as old as the state change was formed in the past state?

You are beaten yet again.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Think bigger. Verse??!! Get serious. The BOOKS that talk of the future and far past outline differences, not some verse.

I don't argue against the bible suggesting a different state future, I think it is blatantly obvious that it does, however, I don't attribute the differences between Genesis life and the life we observe to physics changes.

 

[dad]

My knowledge of scripture isn't so good. Maybe you can tell me where he said the past operated under different physical laws.

The past operated under physical laws? Strange claim. That might be hard to find in the bible, you apparently made it up.

I suspect that the future state and former state operated with more than just physical laws. The angels used to marry women and have babies here. Something apparently is different now. No? There are many instances of things that simply make no sense in our present nature both in the bible future and past.