the changing speed of light. dad, this thread is for you

dad · Mar 19, 2008

Nitron said:
dad,

If you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you. So far you have made three claims- a) that the supernatural exists b) that it is separated from the physical c) that it was not always that way. Provide evidence.

The supernatural is more the nature in our sacred records, and experience. The fact that your modern nature only based models assumes it is all that matters, and demands that to be accepted as all there ever was as well, unless proved otherwise is, means nothing. The observations of man, over time support a supernatural in such a big way, the evidence is written into the fabric of all records man has, time immemorial. Against that kind of overwhelming evidence, your mental conjugations, being anchored firmly only to a present state of existence, leave you utterly unable to intelligently project your infidel ideologies beyond your comically limited range of actual knowledge and ability!

In speaking about how it was, you are not in a position to judge, or question the record we do have. As for the separated from the physical bit, I offer the factual evidence that no one can seem to detect the spirits, with our instruments. Since they are part of man's experiences, especially in the past, the only solidly based conclusion one could reach, is that they are not together with man, in this present state we live. That is what the records indicate. That is what science indicates, in it's abilities. However fashionable you may think it to be to remain in obstinate denial, in the face of all this, it is not a supportable position, in light of the realities, and observations of the broadest possible spectrum of mankind!

dad · Mar 19, 2008

NailsII said:
But as that is all we have evidence for, how can there be any suggestion that something else happened with different physical laws?

We do not have evidence for it, outside of the present, if you notice. It is not physical laws I look for in the new heavens, or in the far past. It would be laws that reflect the spiritual and physical nature of the day, if that is what there is. Since the future is clearly spiritual also, according to the bible, that leaves the past. The past of the bible had angels marrying earth girls, and God walking in the garden, and men walking with God, etc etc. It is not like that now. Apparently something changed. How can there be any suggestion that nothing else happened with different, more than just physical laws? The answer, as far as science goes, is a resounding, clear, and unequivocal 'we don't know'!

What part of science do you consider to be imagined?

The part that only exists in the imagination, in an imagined past state, that is not really science at all. It is called science falsely.

But men did not evolve from plants.
I could give you a biology 101 if you so desire, but I have the feeling you wouldn't be interested....

Well, technically, the claim has one imaginary branch spawning both, so I guess you could call it either way.

Would it be more proper, in your opinion to say you evolved from a slime mold?

Which is why I wouldn't get a research grant; I lack the neccesary qualifications to carry out such an analysis.

Join the rest of mankind, in that lack. At least as far as using just science goes.

So God invented science, but failed to pass on any of its wisdom in his revelations to mankind. In fact, He positively quashed science with talk of demons, expelling those with skin diseases instead of treating them..... need I continue?

If He had passed on too much, too soon, man would have blown us all up long ago.

dad · Mar 19, 2008

NailsII said:
Basic fact - there are around 1,800,000 different species on this planet that we know of. As I don't think you accept that speciation can occur, then that means that there could well have been many more than that number at the time of Adam and Eve (judging by the masssive amount of fossilised evidence that has been uncovered).

Not at all. Many species came from the one kind on the ark. For example, it seems safe to say there were not thirty five or so species of tigers on the ark. Therefore, we need not look to Adam's day as a time of greater speciation, far as I can tell at all.

So, regardless of dates (because you don't accept radio-isotope dating to be accurate), is it logical to assume that Adam named them all?

Very. In fact, I believe that all the animals lived in Eden itself! Eden's creatures, at least. I don't think he had to name all the creeping things, say, perhaps, like trilobites. Apparently they were some of the things created to exist on a more planet wide scale.

[bible]Genesis 2:20[/bible]Matchbox calculation: at 10 seconds per species, it would have taken Adam over 200 days if he carried out this task non-stop, 24/7 (which is unlikely, as he would have obeyed the sabbath). So without allowing for rest, sleep or having to find these creatues, does this seem logical to you?

As pointed out, there were just the one kind, and species came from that. In fact, it might even have been a little less than what we might assume were kinds. For example, is a tiger a kind, or is the cat family a kind?

Ok, so crawl on your belly it is. What about the water snake (Helicops, Liophis, Nerodia or Xenochrophis)? Or Chrysopelea, the flying snake? Non of which eat dust, I might add.

"The Northern Water Snake, Nerodia sipedon, is a large, well-known snake in the Colubridae family that is native to North America. They are active during the day and at night. They are most often seen basking on rocks, stumps, or brush."
wiki
Seems to me there could be some dust on rocks, and stumps. It also occurs to me that adapting to the water may have been something that came after Eden.

a good response. I am open to the possibility that modern snakes are descended from a previous reptile, but not in 6,000 years. That's not possible (unless they reproduced on a daily basis, perhaps).

You assume present evolving as the norm. I assume hyper evolution ability, and a different life process, by and large way back when. One example is the long lifespans referred to in the bible, and other documents of antiquity.

I can't get over the irony though of your assertion that humans couldn't have evolved from apes, but other creatures could have evolved in less than six thousand years.....

The problem is that you seem to omit the great cause, and start of any and all evolving, the creation, and created kinds.

But it is still God who does all the killing, man comes a poor second best in the body count.

He hasn't killed me yet, or anyone I ever met, or heard of. I think you can relax. In fact, He has risen people from the dead, and plans to do so en mass soon.

[bible]Exodus 20:14[/bible]
[bible]Genesis 16:1-4[/bible]
As the were not married, I'd call that adultery.

You would, but man's present laws are partly influenced, I think by the ten commandments. They were not given in Genesis, if you notice, and don't apply at all.

I was raised as a church-going Christian so I do have a little biblical knowledge.
Just because I don't agree with the existance of a god doesn't mean i will ignore the wisdom the books contain.
That would be like never reading Lord of the Rings because I don't believe in wizards or hobbits....

If Jesus was not really raised from the dead, or other events given as truth in that book, I would think that the wisdom would be drowned in dangerous madness.

Words of wisdom sir, but I thin kthe reason the story was added later is because it never actually happened.

Well, you may think that the bible is out of control, and miss the fact that we had the records, and the bible is merely a compiling of them. If trustworthy Christians needed to add a record that was not on a previous compilation, I can believe there was a good reason.

they don't because they don't exist.
And the burdern of proof lies with you on this one.

Man is known to be inspired, so the mechanisms of how the spiritual interact with the mind, and inner being of man, are not all that important. Since the quantum level seems to interact, possibly, with the past, and future, it is safe to assume a connection there, until science grows up enough to say yeah or nay.

I have no qualms with the laws of physics being variable and subject to change.
But it is an extraordinary claim, and as we all know they require extraordinary evidence.....

Not in the out of present state context. There, no extraordinary ability on man's part exists to look at any evidence! Therefore, you can not require what you cannot deal in, or with. Your little law is a fishbowl law, and only applicable in the realm of your limitations.

Pre-big bang and during early inflation the 'state' would have been completely different, as would the laws of physics. Potentially, at least.

Would have, based on your dreams, imagination, speculation, guesses, beliefs, hunches, assumptions, etc. But in precisely what way, you seem to have no clue.

This is obvious by use of the word 'physics' meaning to describe the physical world, if I have understood this correctly then pre-big bang there would have been no physical universe, only a point of immense energy.

Right, the laws of physics would not apply, but that is meaningless, as they don't apply in fairy tales anyhow.

But it is a possibility you might want to consider.
While absence of evidence is shaky evidence of absence, it does nonetheless proclude the possibility.

A possibility, based on a hunch does not grow into a probability that overrules the bible, save in the minds of some men, that deal only in part of reality.

Which evolved into non-created kinds? If that is possible, why not common descent? If we were created, why did God choose to employ descent with modification, which gives the illusion of common descent and evolution by natural selection?

Why would He make creatures able to adapt to a hostile, uninhabitable planet He put them on, and knew man would mess up? Perhaps He wanted them to survive?

I think you have been mis-informed.
vaccines very rarely kill anyone (but it may happen, it is a possibility). Failure to vaccinate 80% of the population is giving grounds for a mass of needless suffering and potentially death on a large scale.

This example seems to belie the point.
"Alarmed public-health officials decided that action must be taken to head off another major pandemic, and they urged that every person in the U.S. be vaccinated for the disease. President Gerald Ford was confronted with a potential swine flu pandemic. The vaccination program was plagued by delays and public relations problems, but about 24% of the population was vaccinated by the time the program was cancelled. [9] An immunopathological reaction to the vaccine in some people is believed to have caused about 500 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome resulting in death from severe pulmonary complications for 25 people. More people died from the vaccine than died from the swine flu itself."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swine_flu
And then there are these sorts of stories we hear of.
"[FONT=arial, helvetica] A study by doctors at the Royal Free Hospital in London has suggested that a common childhood vaccine may be linked with autism and cause an intestinal disorder."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/60510.stm

Doesn't make me want to rush out and line up for a shot.
(You may have heard of the nurse that was yelling out loudly, in a hospital entrance area, 'Polio, measles, bird flu,' etc etc. When asked why she was yelling so, she replied, "I just like to call the shots")
[/FONT]

Trust in evidence is a better way of looking at it, dedicated imperical research, but if you have a better cure for HIV (and I did say cure, we all know there are many ways to prevent it) then please share it with us. Prayer is ineffective, although I can't for sure whether your previous assertion that you can pray for non-infection may be useful. Bu I doubt it somehow.

If you can prevent it, wouldn't that be something to look at?

And refusing a proven treatment or vaccine for your child is irresponcible and down-right dangerous - and certainly not doing your best.

Says you. Sometimes it is many years before man learns he was screwing up.

If my religion asked me to risk my child's life, I would simply turn my back on that religion (easy for me to say i know) but if God wants to judge me on looking after my child, then so be it. i believe Jesus preached about the virtues of looking after one's family.

If the medical religion asked me to risk the life of a child, by trusting them blindly, I would turn my back on them.

Of course doctors make mistakes; to err is human after all. But to ignore sound medical advice is foolhardy, especially if it puts the life of your own children at risk.
Just because death is inevitable is no reason to hasten its effects!!!

I have no intention of ignoring sound medical advice, if I ever find any.

I don't understand how you can be so dismissive of the evidence.

I don't understand how you can pretend there is evidence the universe was in old sparky.

What garden?
Where is it?
Missouri?

It is no where. Long Gone. Where is Granny Bacteria??

because it is fun, and magic had a little inspiration for all of us.
Especially as children, magic is so cool.
It's a shame that the bubble bursts as we get older and most of us begin to trust physical observations and notice patterns in the natural world and laws (or theories in the case of gravity) which just don't seem to be breakable - until you see the magician on stage....

Well, I would think that many people also realize that there is something to the supernatural. Any story needs a germ of truth, even, say a spy story.

NailsII · Mar 19, 2008

dad said:
The observations of man, over time support a supernatural in such a big way, the evidence is written into the fabric of all records man has, time immemorial. Against that kind of overwhelming evidence, your mental conjugations, being anchored firmly only to a present state of existence, leave you utterly unable to intelligently project your infidel ideologies beyond your comically limited range of actual knowledge and ability!

DNA evidence gives us a big window into an even bigger past, as does fossil evidence (we are talking around 300 million years plus here).
I know you will just dismiss the fossil evidence out of hand, so I will point out few facts from our DNA.
Humans have genes for full body hair, as with the majority of mammals. indeed, it is common for unborn babies to develop a full coat which is shed before birth. Some are born thusly, and remain so for all their lives.
We have the remnants of a gene no longer used to synthesise Vitamin C, suggesting that our environment (or at least our diet) has changed considerably in the past. Add to this the overall genetic homology we share with primates (including ERV's, which is compelling evidence on its own) and you are starting to build a picture of common ancestry.
As for 'micro-evolution', recent findings suggest that key immune system genes vary between isolated populations of humans as Darwin's theory predicts. source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7270562.stm

It is easy to see how such changes could be beneficial, and indeed give one such population a key survival advantage over the other. This is descent with modification, and the logical conclusion of this is speciation - given sufficient time.

It then becomes apparant that the key difference between our worldiews is time; you imagine there never has been that much ( circa 6,000years) and I accept the evidence that there has been plenty (circa 14.5 billion years). It is easy to see why we disagree on anything that equates to time.

dad · Mar 19, 2008

NailsII said:
DNA evidence gives us a big window into an even bigger past, as does fossil evidence (we are talking around 300 million years plus here).

No, we aren't, really. If you look at how the dates are arrived at, a present state is assumed to have also been in place, and life processes, evolving ability, and rates, etc.

I know you will just dismiss the fossil evidence out of hand, so I will point out few facts from our DNA.

I have not the slightest problem with any fossil evidence. It weighs in on my side.

Humans have genes for full body hair, as with the majority of mammals. indeed, it is common for unborn babies to develop a full coat which is shed before birth. Some are born thusly, and remain so for all their lives.
We have the remnants of a gene no longer used to synthesise Vitamin C, suggesting that our environment (or at least our diet) has changed considerably in the past.

Bingo! I don't doubt that this world has changed. The evidence mounts! The bible does indicate a specific time when our diet changed a lot as well.

Add to this the overall genetic homology we share with primates (including ERV's, which is compelling evidence on its own) and you are starting to build a picture of common ancestry.

No, you are starting to look at how ervs used to be transferred, rather than just how they are now. Again, the different state past.

As for 'micro-evolution', recent findings suggest that key immune system genes vary between isolated populations of humans as Darwin's theory predicts. source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7270562.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7270562.stm
Right, and I would expect that the evolving and adapting that went on, in large measure after the flood, and the split, was responsible. So?

It is easy to see how such changes could be beneficial, and indeed give one such population a key survival advantage over the other.

It is easy, sometimes to read into evidence our beliefs, and world views, and presuppositions, I suppose. If I glanced at that article right, the gist was that some populations were less susceptibility to infections. I could envision a possibility there that that could be the result of some sins. That seems to make more sense than assuming the one race or population happened to evolve beneficially, to me, knowing history, and sinful man.

This is descent with modification, and the logical conclusion of this is speciation - given sufficient time.

I have no problem with evolution, or adapting. The only problem I have is your imagination, that dreams such evolving started somewhere other than Eden, and creation!

It then becomes apparant that the key difference between our worldiews is time;

True, I am not an old ager. The chief culprit in all old age constructs is that they require the present to be the key to the past, -just because.

Therefore all evidence is shared, and agreed on, by and large, only your myth is separated out from science. The education system ought to reflect your abject, dismal failure to be able to include the anti God, falsely so called science same state past based myth, as a bona fide part of knowledge, or science in any way, shape, or form whatsoever.

NailsII · Mar 20, 2008

dad said:
So Abraham, who was involved in the first war, to rescue Lot, who was taken captive, is a bad guy? He likely killed some people winning
the battle? How about David?

I did say murder in general. To kill is not always to murder; war is a regretable part of human existance but you cannot call a great warrior a murderer. I
wonder what your thoughts are on Moses, and his order to slaughter women and children and to enslave the virgin females. If God gave this order, it isn't
recorded - and we all know what the punishment for disobeying God is.
Think of the Milgram experiment here, ordinary people will do nasty things under orders from authority - and God has the ultimate authority, no?

dad said:
If God has a natural rejection system, who are we to question it? If someone overdoes it, or otherwise causes a miscarriage, who are we
to cast stones? If someone has a child hacked out of the womb, that is another matter.

So the 'morning after pill' is OK then as it mimics the natural system?
If this is ok, then vaccines must be too because they mimic the natural systems.....
"Hacked out of the womb" - this is a very emotive subject for you, isn't it?

dad said:
I seem to recall hearing that spoken of. I can't think of it off hand. I believe that they must reach the age of decision. That is the
name of the game.

I would appreciate a reference on that, if not biblical then from some authoritive Christian source.
It is an area I think is very unclear; I thought that the literal teaching was only those who repented and eccepted Jesus etc.

dad said:
Well, it is central enough to be used as representative of the inner man.

Only in an emotive and poetic setting. understanding that love is only a chemical change in your body is a big step in understanding what makes life tick.

dad said:
If people are opposed to wicked laws, then I think we ought to blame the ones responsible for

And also blame thise opposed, as you are doing?

dad said:
One could debate the best means of ending a killer's life.

It wasn't the means i wanted to debate, only the process. Taking of a
human life is a grave sin, even a convicted felon i believe.
quote=dad;44810561]I am not the judge of right and wrong. Being past feeling, however, might not be a great sign.[/quote]
Not past feeling, I just don't really have an opinion on the subject.
While I am not especially pro-abortion (I do agree it is horifically mis-used) I also believe the woman has a right to be able to make the choice.
So I'm a fence sitter really.
quote=dad;44810561]The measure of a child's life is not at what point modern pagans can sustain the child, without the help of the mother.[/quote]
Why does it have to be a pagan's decision?
The while point of mentioning such a barrier is quite simple. If a pregnant woman was knocked down and died, a 10-week gestation baby will surely die.
At 25 weeks the situation is totally different.
i appreciate this is a simplification, and fails to take into account whether the mother could be kept alive artificially until a suitable age etc. but I
hope you get the point.

dad said:
I looked it up and found this.
"Definition Immanuel = "God with us" or "with us is God"
symbolic and prophetic name of the Messiah, the Christ, prophesying that He would be born of a virgin and would be 'God with us'
"
http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=06005

Thank you. "Christus" is an obvious title, but why then was he called Jesus (at Gabriel's comand)?

dad said:
Name them. I do not believe you. Not at all.

But I know you are familiar with the evidence, you should be after posting in the
crevo section for so long.
Fossil evidence, twin nested hieracy, ERVs and other genetic homologies, shared biochemical pathways, vestigal organs to name but a few.

dad said:
You might as well ask why He made the earth look dark to a blind man. I can say, it doesn't look that way to me at all.

But then you are talking about perception rather then facts.
Light still behaves the same way, whether you can see it or not.

dad said:
It works fine, and you do not have any for the pond. So??

Denial of truth is no way to convince others and a poor way to convince yourself.

dad said:
Indirect. The multitudes of sick and lame were brought to Jesus, and He healed them ALL! Are you seriously suggesting that there were
none, in any of the thousands and ten thousands brought to Him, that lost a limb?? Lepers were healed, and I think you know that some of them might be
missing a limb?
" "He hides his son and scolds doctors for spreading rumours. They are afraid that if they admit it, the whole family will be affected because the entire
village will cut them off. Now, the son has lost one arm and one leg," Yang said."
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=117&art_id=qw1158139440409B243

So that's a maybe, and only dating back to biblical times. Funny that.

dad said:
Nice doesn't mean good.

Maybe that was the point.

dad said:
Maybe he has no relation to the truth, and doesn't much care? Maybe his book is not evidence, but vague insinuations, accusations,
associations, machinations, instigations, allegations, lamentations, and fabrications?

Maybe. But i think he has a point, whether I agree with his style or not.

dad said:
Well, if it is a good thing to not have hundreds of people, it is a great thing to not have millions of people, and a fantastically
wonderful thing to not have any people! Don't blame me, it wasn't my idea.

So, because man is sinful we should kill all the sinners?

dad said:
I hear that they are rare.

Maybe, maybe not. They are the ones who have so much to lose, and so much to gain also.
In their shoes I wouldn't risk it. Pascal's wager really does apply if you have nothing to lose.

dad said:
Maths can't count Him out, why should you?

Because I have the free will to do so.
bUt i guess deep down, I just never felt as comfortable with my faith as you appear to be - I guess I'm just not a 'spiritual' person.

dad said:
If I turn my car on, I need not run all the way to where I drive, under the hood, keeping it running. God's universe is self running,
unless He wants to adjust something. That includes this temporary physical universe. It was meant to operate.

Logical, but again you have no evidence that the laws of physics have ever changed- you are just assuming that to fit in with your pre-conceived ideas based
loosly on scripture.

dad said:
That is ridiculous. Need I remind you there were a few idiots then as well?

maybe not idiots, think of Atlas.
in the absence of a rational explaination, humans are very capable of convincing themselves that ridiculous ones must be true.
Example, I recently listened to a radio program on my way to work after a mini-quake in the UK (5.2). One caller thought it was a poltergeist - and how that
is a rational explaination I will never know. It's only six years since the last quake in this country.

dad said:
Yes.

And would he live to tell the tale?

dad said:
Well, some people seem to want to be the Shepherd's Crook.

As there is a lot of money in it, I'm not suprised so many try.

dad said:
Well, I googled some quotes. He does have some things somewhat right. But he seems intertwined in the US so much, it is hard to separate
the Christian beliefs from the patriot beliefs
"1) "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead
and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability.
We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the
job and then get it over with." –Pat Robertson, calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez"

Not very Christian of him really.

dad said:
Personally, I recommend that Christians do not talk of some pagan murdering nation as "we".

Do you consider the US to be a pagan nation, even though roughly 50% believ that the Genesis story is literally correct?

dad said:
Face it, this world is rife with them, and getting rifer, apparently, as we near the grand finale.

But demons - think about how silly it sounds.
Even as an analogy it is very poor.
As for the end, I'll wager we end a long time before the planet does.

dad said:
OK, some people have less of a ship to steer than others, I suppose.

I don't find it prudent to make a decision and stick to it, there are times when it is only logical to assess the situation and alter your decision if
necessary. And I assure you that also counts with evidence and my scientific foundations. If they really are proved to be wrong, I will backpedal without
hesitation.

dad said:
I don't understand why some people are warmongers, and feel that God wants them to mass murder people. I can't find that in the bible
anywhere, or in the life of Jesus, or the apostles.

The word 'war' appears 205 times in the bible, so it is discussed quite a lot - especially in the
OT and Revelations. 'Moses' by the way appears 795 times.
[bible]Exodus 15:3[/bible]
[bible]Numbers 31:1-2[/bible]
The book of numbers is particularly bloody.
But you are quite right, Jesus was very different.

dad said:
I think it became apparent to me long ago, when I saw some clip of holy men blessing opposing armies. Each priest, or minister, whatever
they were, saying, basically, 'God is on your side'!! Ridiculous.

Absolutely. But, if you know your history, Christianity only became popular (and
legal) after a certain Emporer put his faith in God for the sake of victory in battle.

NailsII · Mar 20, 2008

dad said:
We do not have evidence for it, outside of the present, if you notice. It is not physical laws I look for in the new heavens, or in the far past. It would be laws that reflect the spiritual and physical nature of the day, if that is what there is. Since the future is clearly spiritual also, according to the bible, that leaves the past. The past of the bible had angels marrying earth girls, and God walking in the garden, and men walking with God, etc etc. It is not like that now. Apparently something changed. How can there be any suggestion that nothing else happened with different, more than just physical laws? The answer, as far as science goes, is a resounding, clear, and unequivocal 'we don't know'!

Angels marrying men? I don't remember that. Do we have 'vestigal wings' in our DNA somewhere then?
But again, you are basing an awful lot on a supposition which has no supporting evidence.

dad said:
The part that only exists in the imagination, in an imagined past state, that is not really science at all. It is called science falsely.

But if it follows the same methids, principles, standards and levels of investigation, how can it be wrong?

dad said:
Well, technically, the claim has one imaginary branch spawning both, so I guess you could call it either way.

i don't think so.

dad said:
Would it be more proper, in your opinion to say you evolved from a slime mold?

No.

dad said:
Join the rest of mankind, in that lack. At least as far as using just science goes.

I have my limitations, but I don't think that science is one of them - I consider it a strength, and a great source of strength.

dad said:
If He had passed on too much, too soon, man would have blown us all up long ago.

But a little medical knowledge would have been nice.

NailsII · Mar 20, 2008

dad said:
Not at all. Many species came from the one kind on the ark. For example, it seems safe to say there were not thirty five or so species of tigers on the ark. Therefore, we need not look to Adam's day as a time of greater speciation, far as I can tell at all.

The ark is a logical falacy. Too many animals, not enough food, poor genetic diversity, made by a farmer (?) I could go on, but the greatest part of the story is what Moses did when he got on dry land - he got drunk.
Hyper evolution, of course. Perfect for those who don't believe in Darweinian evolution, so you invent something even more improbable....

dad said:
Very. In fact, I believe that all the animals lived in Eden itself! Eden's creatures, at least. I don't think he had to name all the creeping things, say, perhaps, like trilobites. Apparently they were some of the things created to exist on a more planet wide scale.

did trilobites creep?
Not for very long, they were dead before the universe was created......

dad said:
As pointed out, there were just the one kind, and species came from that. In fact, it might even have been a little less than what we might assume were kinds. For example, is a tiger a kind, or is the cat family a kind?

Good point. Maybe it only took 50 days none stop then.

dad said:
Seems to me there could be some dust on rocks, and stumps. It also occurs to me that adapting to the water may have been something that came after Eden.

But they don't eat it, your point is mute.
Swimming snakes don't crawl on their bellies either.

dad said:
You assume present evolving as the norm. I assume hyper evolution ability, and a different life process, by and large way back when. One example is the long lifespans referred to in the bible, and other documents of antiquity.

What other documents of antiquity?
I consider the life spans to be vastly exaggerated by chinese whispers, and not suprising in a time when most people were lucky to hit 40.

dad said:
The problem is that you seem to omit the great cause, and start of any and all evolving, the creation, and created kinds.

No, I appreciate that we are just one of many animals struggling to survice on a small piece of rock hurtling through a vast universe.

dad said:
He hasn't killed me yet, or anyone I ever met, or heard of. I think you can relax. In fact, He has risen people from the dead, and plans to do so en mass soon.

So how many people did God kill or have killed in the bible?

dad said:
You would, but man's present laws are partly influenced, I think by the ten commandments. They were not given in Genesis, if you notice, and don't apply at all.

Other way round. The Egyptians had declarations read on their funerals ('book of the dead') that were suspiciously sililar to the famous ten big ones - I have not killed, praise (insert random deity), I have not stolen etc.
notable absentees are worshipping false idols and having other gods before him, but you get the picture.
These outdate the bible by a good few hundred years, and I will be happy to provide a source if you so require.
You are perfectly correct about the timeline, but that does raise a few eyebrows for me. Why was it only wrong after the Jews had left Egypt, why not before?

dad said:
If Jesus was not really raised from the dead, or other events given as truth in that book, I would think that the wisdom would be drowned in dangerous madness.

It is. Look around and see just how dangerous the biblically inspired madness has become.

dad said:
Well, you may think that the bible is out of control, and miss the fact that we had the records, and the bible is merely a compiling of them. If trustworthy Christians needed to add a record that was not on a previous compilation, I can believe there was a good reason.

But it's not an accurate compilation. The NT was particlaurly edited and concised, and any other gospels were erased from history.

dad said:
Man is known to be inspired, so the mechanisms of how the spiritual interact with the mind, and inner being of man, are not all that important. Since the quantum level seems to interact, possibly, with the past, and future, it is safe to assume a connection there, until science grows up enough to say yeah or nay.

The best connection is surely that man will invent reasons for what he cannot determine the causes of.
as for science growing up, I am quite comfortable with only being 99% sure. We don't know everything, after all.

dad said:
Not in the out of present state context. There, no extraordinary ability on man's part exists to look at any evidence! Therefore, you can not require what you cannot deal in, or with. Your little law is a fishbowl law, and only applicable in the realm of your limitations.

Again, show us how there could be a different state and what the consequences are to the universe of these changes.

dad said:
Would have, based on your dreams, imagination, speculation, guesses, beliefs, hunches, assumptions, etc. But in precisely what way, you seem to have no clue.

No you are quite correct - i don't really have a clue.

dad said:
Right, the laws of physics would not apply, but that is meaningless, as they don't apply in fairy tales anyhow.

Like walking on water, raising from the dead, feeding 4,000 and 5,000 people with bugger all.....

dad said:
A possibility, based on a hunch does not grow into a probability that overrules the bible, save in the minds of some men, that deal only in part of reality.

But you dismiss the possibility that the bible may, in places, be a little economical with the truth and fanciful with the poetic imagination.

dad said:
Why would He make creatures able to adapt to a hostile, uninhabitable planet He put them on, and knew man would mess up? Perhaps He wanted them to survive?

more importantly, why did he create hostile creatures specifically to kill others?

dad said:
This example seems to belie the point.

The swine flu is a bad case i will freely admit. It shows that without proper testing and retesting, medicine can be dangerous.
A recent drug trial in the UK have again highlighted this.
The study you referred to from RFH was by one doctor, since discredited. He looked for a link, and found a dubious one with a pitiful sample size.
All further research in this area (and i know of one study that looked at over 100,000 children who were vaccinated with MMR and showed no increase in the rate of autism) has not supported Dr. Meadows conclusions, so it is safe to assume he was wrong.
And the media panic created was very wrong.

dad said:
If you can prevent it, wouldn't that be something to look at?

Only if it worked.

dad said:
Says you. Sometimes it is many years before man learns he was screwing up.

then read the trials and write-ups, learn the method and make an informed judgement.
Such decisions should not be taken lightly.

dad said:
If the medical religion asked me to risk the life of a child, by trusting them blindly, I would turn my back on them.

Again, read and learn. Don't trust blindly. you have an intelligent mind, so investigate.
Not that mediceine is a religion, but of all scientists I think more doctors are religious than you would find in other non-clinical fields.

dad said:
I have no intention of ignoring sound medical advice, if I ever find any.

Glad to hear it. I'm sure you've heard much advice, and will hear more as you grow older.

dad said:
I don't understand how you can pretend there is evidence the universe was in old sparky.

Until a better explaination comes along, its the best we've got.

dad said:
It is no where. Long Gone. Where is Granny Bacteria??

Extinct, or evolved beyond all recognition most likely.

dad said:
Well, I would think that many people also realize that there is something to the supernatural. Any story needs a germ of truth, even, say a spy story.

As I have prevously pointed out, if there is no better explaination then even the most wild fantasy can appear the only logical choice. Historically that is what people have done, and they are still with us.
I'm sure this is how you would discount the pagans, greeks, romans and egyptians based on their beliefs.
Interesting to note how the greeks, the greatest minds of their time were so pre-occupied with pleasing and worshipping their gods. We took their system of justice and scientific enquiry, but rejected their deities. i wonder how life would be if we hadn't.

dad · Mar 21, 2008

NailsII said:
I did say murder in general. To kill is not always to murder; war is a regretable part of human existance but you cannot call a great warrior a murderer.

Sure I can. The reason it is part of our existence is because man has a sinful nature.

I wonder what your thoughts are on Moses, and his order to slaughter women and children and to enslave the virgin females. If God gave this order, it isn't
recorded - and we all know what the punishment for disobeying God is.

The practice of that day was to take slaves. Mankind had a rough history, it was no game. Sometimes I wonder why some feel God's people should have been a bunch of namby pamby sissies, while everyone else, like their enemies, was a fierce lot. These days, some also seem to think Christians are supposed to be goody goody 2 shoes. Tow the line, get in line, walk the line, no spine, no wine, cheap dine, turn the cheek a million time types. When, best I can tell, the Christians today are merely the saved depraved.

Think of the Milgram experiment here, ordinary people will do nasty things under orders from authority - and God has the ultimate authority, no?

It is a nast world, and nasty things are the order of the day. If nasty is called for, then God has to use nasty as best He knows how, till He can dispose of it. Don't blame Him.

So the 'morning after pill' is OK then as it mimics the natural system?
If this is ok, then vaccines must be too because they mimic the natural systems.....

Not sure if I have time to elucidate all the right and wrong on earth, according to my opinion of God's word, in this thread.

"Hacked out of the womb" - this is a very emotive subject for you, isn't it?

I never liked bullies.

I would appreciate a reference on that, if not biblical then from some authoritive Christian source.
It is an area I think is very unclear; I thought that the literal teaching was only those who repented and eccepted Jesus etc.

Well, this site touches on it
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/infantsa.htm

Only in an emotive and poetic setting. understanding that love is only a chemical change in your body is a big step in understanding what makes life tick.

Guess that animals also have chemical changes of the same sort. Even people that were clinically dead talk of love, while not in the body. I think you need to dig a little deeper.

And also blame thise opposed, as you are doing?
It wasn't the means i wanted to debate, only the process. Taking of a
human life is a grave sin, even a convicted felon i believe.

No, murderers ought to be killed. Governments that let them run around killing again are in abrogation of their duty.

Not past feeling, I just don't really have an opinion on the subject.
While I am not especially pro-abortion (I do agree it is horifically mis-used) I also believe the woman has a right to be able to make the choice.
So I'm a fence sitter really.

Here are a few survivors. I wonder about the 42 + million a year that don't make it.

Why does it have to be a pagan's decision?
The while point of mentioning such a barrier is quite simple. If a pregnant woman was knocked down and died, a 10-week gestation baby will surely die.

How many believers in the bible, and Jesus can you list, that work, killing babies?

At 25 weeks the situation is totally different.
i appreciate this is a simplification, and fails to take into account whether the mother could be kept alive artificially until a suitable age etc. but I
hope you get the point.

Accidents happen. If someone ran around running over pregnant women by the score, that is another matter.

Thank you. "Christus" is an obvious title, but why then was he called Jesus (at Gabriel's comand)?
But I know you are familiar with the evidence, you should be after posting in the
crevo section for so long.
Fossil evidence, twin nested hieracy, ERVs and other genetic homologies, shared biochemical pathways, vestigal organs to name but a few.

Nested heirachy is an artificial construct. ERVs could have been transmitted other ways in a different past. And vestigial organs, if they are that indeed in every case, are merely evidence of evolving. That started in Eden.
As for other names of Christ, they are great. Like Wonderful. God with us in prophesy could only refer to the Messiah, and that is what He is called, Messiah, or God with us.

But then you are talking about perception rather then facts.
Light still behaves the same way, whether you can see it or not.

Not in heaven, or in the different past, whether you see it or not.

Denial of truth is no way to convince others and a poor way to convince yourself.

Then why not change tactics?

Maybe. But i think he has a point, whether I agree with his style or not.
So, because man is sinful we should kill all the sinners?

No, but I don't need to take their word over saints either.

Maybe, maybe not. They are the ones who have so much to lose, and so much to gain also.
In their shoes I wouldn't risk it. Pascal's wager really does apply if you have nothing to lose.

Because people seem to have a mind of their own, and that applies all the way through.

Because I have the free will to do so.
bUt i guess deep down, I just never felt as comfortable with my faith as you appear to be - I guess I'm just not a 'spiritual' person.

Maybe you never had much real bible. Faith comes from the word, not from luck.

Logical, but again you have no evidence that the laws of physics have ever changed- you are just assuming that to fit in with your pre-conceived ideas based
loosly on scripture.

Not as loosely as you might suspect. But, again, it is not a change in the laws, but a universe change, that entails different laws.

maybe not idiots, think of Atlas.

-dad shrugs ???

in the absence of a rational explaination, humans are very capable of convincing themselves that ridiculous ones must be true.

I think the evidence is loud and clear on that one.

Example, I recently listened to a radio program on my way to work after a mini-quake in the UK (5.2). One caller thought it was a poltergeist - and how that
is a rational explaination I will never know. It's only six years since the last quake in this country.

I could believe a ghost shook land, before I could believe a thousand time a trillion billion suns fit in a little spark.

Not very Christian of him really.

That is what I would have thought. But apparently some depraved saved think it is fine to whack people they don't much like.

Do you consider the US to be a pagan nation, even though roughly 50% believ that the Genesis story is literally correct?

Correct.

But demons - think about how silly it sounds.
Even as an analogy it is very poor.

Personal incredulity.

As for the end, I'll wager we end a long time before the planet does.

No, man won't have his wicked little way. Relax.

I don't find it prudent to make a decision and stick to it, there are times when it is only logical to assess the situation and alter your decision if
necessary. And I assure you that also counts with evidence and my scientific foundations. If they really are proved to be wrong, I will backpedal without
hesitation.

A young oak tree that bends in the wind, will one day grow to be able to withstand it. A ship that is blown about, might find that can be a dangerous affair.

The word 'war' appears 205 times in the bible, so it is discussed quite a lot - especially in the
OT and Revelations. 'Moses' by the way appears 795 times.
[bible]Exodus 15:3[/bible]
[bible]Numbers 31:1-2[/bible]
The book of numbers is particularly bloody.

That is where we came from, a past that was less than pretty.

But you are quite right, Jesus was very different.
Absolutely. But, if you know your history, Christianity only became popular (and
legal) after a certain Emporer put his faith in God for the sake of victory in battle.

Well, he looked to the right place, God seems to let depraved man prosper when he does his little wicked thing according to His wonderful purpose, toward the salvation of mankind.

dad · Mar 21, 2008

NailsII said:
The ark is a logical falacy. Too many animals, not enough food,

If trees could grow in a week, think how fast grass could grow.

poor genetic diversity, made by a farmer (?)

Genetics was not an issue, and God designed the ark Personally.

I could go on, but the greatest part of the story is what Moses did when he got on dry land - he got drunk.

Noah got tanked, yes. I can't blame him. So?

Hyper evolution, of course. Perfect for those who don't believe in Darweinian evolution, so you invent something even more improbable....

Improbable by today's standards, and those standards are not able to be taken to the past by anyone.

did trilobites creep?

I don't know, but why not??

Not for very long, they were dead before the universe was created......

If you mean the cambrian creatures, no, they were only made in creation week. Best I can tell, they were made to live on the planet at large. It did need to get habitable, you know. The way some of those critters look, seem like they could dig, and chew, and move better than garden worms.

Good point. Maybe it only took 50 days none stop then.
But they don't eat it, your point is mute.
Swimming snakes don't crawl on their bellies either.

So, what, they fly to the rocks?

"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]And dust shall thou eat all the days of thy life;
meaning not that particular serpent, and as long as that should live, but all of the same kind, as long as there were any in the world, even to the end of it: it is probable, that when the serpent moved in a more erect posture, it lived on herbs and plants as other creatures; but when it was obliged to go upon its belly or breast, it licked up the dust of the earth, and which it could not well avoid in eating whatsoever food it did; and some serpents are said to live upon it."
http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=3&verse=14

[/FONT]

What other documents of antiquity?
I consider the life spans to be vastly exaggerated by chinese whispers, and not suprising in a time when most people were lucky to hit 40.

Sumer, and I think Egyptian?

Other way round. The Egyptians had declarations read on their funerals ('book of the dead') that were suspiciously sililar to the famous ten big ones - I have not killed, praise (insert random deity), I have not stolen etc.
notable absentees are worshipping false idols and having other gods before him, but you get the picture.

They had the sense to know some things were wrong. So?? Remember, angels married women about this time. In fact, the Egyptians claim a god, or watcher built the great pyramid.

These outdate the bible by a good few hundred years, and I will be happy to provide a source if you so require.

Doesn't matter, they don't out date us, or God.

You are perfectly correct about the timeline, but that does raise a few eyebrows for me. Why was it only wrong after the Jews had left Egypt, why not before?

Well, I think that after the split, the genes started to degrade, so to speak, and reproducing needed to be not done with brothers and sisters, any more. But, since He was gathering up a depraved people, He also needed to give them some ideal to strive for. An ideal, by the way, no one on earth ever kept!!! That is why they needed Jesus.

But it's not an accurate compilation. The NT was particlaurly edited and concised, and any other gospels were erased from history.

The men choosing which bits of our record to include were inspired. As were any that added a few bits, that were worthy, that were missed.

The best connection is surely that man will invent reasons for what he cannot determine the causes of.
as for science growing up, I am quite comfortable with only being 99% sure. We don't know everything, after all.

Try .00000000060000300200721% of everything. (I omitted 200 zeros, for the sake of brevity)

Again, show us how there could be a different state and what the consequences are to the universe of these changes.
No you are quite correct - i don't really have a clue.

Look at the new heavens, and the consequences there. The future is the key, I believe, to the past. Not the present.

Like walking on water, raising from the dead, feeding 4,000 and 5,000 people with bugger all.....
But you dismiss the possibility that the bible may, in places, be a little economical with the truth and fanciful with the poetic imagination.

Right, it only seems that way, to the people limited by the physical laws and realities that are the norm. The spiritual is not the norm, so when it is added, all bets are off. Anything wonderful can happen.

more importantly, why did he create hostile creatures specifically to kill others?

Because they needed to to survive in the new reality. I believe, when the created state returns, the new heavens, that lions will eat straw again, and nothing will hurt, or destroy, as the bible clearly says.

The swine flu is a bad case i will freely admit. It shows that without proper testing and retesting, medicine can be dangerous.
A recent drug trial in the UK have again highlighted this.
The study you referred to from RFH was by one doctor, since discredited. He looked for a link, and found a dubious one with a pitiful sample size.
All further research in this area (and i know of one study that looked at over 100,000 children who were vaccinated with MMR and showed no increase in the rate of autism) has not supported Dr. Meadows conclusions, so it is safe to assume he was wrong.
And the media panic created was very wrong.
Only if it worked.

Cursed be man that trustest in man, that maketh flesh his arm.
If, and when I need to trust God, via the medical system, fine. I hope I die first, but I can see how it has helped many, and I would be thankful, at the time, I assume. Meanwhile, I take it with a huge grain of salt, and avoid it as best I can. If everyone did as I do, the medical social systems in some countries would be laughing all the way to the ban.

Not that mediceine is a religion, but of all scientists I think more doctors are religious than you would find in other non-clinical fields.

And, as I said, most men seem to find themselves looking that direction sooner or later. God bless the honest ones.

Until a better explaination comes along, its the best we've got.

Speak for yourself. Stuffing the universe itself literally into a hot soup speck is mischievous madness, far as I am concerned.

Extinct, or evolved beyond all recognition most likely.
As I have prevously pointed out, if there is no better explaination then even the most wild fantasy can appear the only logical choice. Historically that is what people have done, and they are still with us.
I'm sure this is how you would discount the pagans, greeks, romans and egyptians based on their beliefs.
Interesting to note how the greeks, the greatest minds of their time were so pre-occupied with pleasing and worshipping their gods. We took their system of justice and scientific enquiry, but rejected their deities. i wonder how life would be if we hadn't.

I would suspect that Christians had a lot to do with rejecting their demons. The bit about rejecting God, and all things spiritual, seems to be more a result of the departing from the faith, all faith.

Mumbo · Mar 21, 2008

a month since my last post, and i finally have both the time and the willpower to reply again!

dad said:
Say what?

the video assumes that the core-to-ring speed is not the same as the supernova-to-Earth speed

dad said:
Now, no need to get silly. How would a temporary one time change in the created state universe be really thought of as 'multiple'?

whatever you prefer. either way you end up being correct, provided you use your imagination.

Well, as I said, the speed of light from any star in the universe we can observe, to the earth is no problem at all. If the light was different, and universe, and it used to get here fast as you please. Not really even an issue.

well no, it moves as fast as you please. any observation that we make can be explained by the speed of light changing in just the right places, it's just that such a thing wouldn't be very likely.

So far, it seems posters here are not of a level, to where they seem to know much about it.

to be fair, it's pretty far away

Simple quaetions like how can we know the dimensions of the rings, were met with nothing more than 'light takes 8 months to light them up, they must be .8 ly away.

i'm gonna go ahead and edit this portion so that it makes a bit more sense.

Simple questions like how can we know the dimensions of the rings, were met with nothing more than "light takes 8 months to light them up, they must be 2/3 ly away from the core.

much better.

the reason why I said that, dad, is because it's true; no matter what the speed of light is at any given moment, the core and the ring are two thirds of a lightyear away. as long as we know this, it doesn't particularly matter what the exact dimensions are.

for this not to be true, a bubble of past state would have to be placed about the core and ring in such a manner that it would disguise the true distance between the two, and yet be completely undetectable. can we at least agree on ruling out strategic divine intervention, please?

Then. I asked how we can know that the light moves at known light speed?? No reply yet, of any consequence.

Click to expand...

you mean, that it moves at present light speed? you haven't gotten a reply of consequence because that point is entirely inconsequential. for what has to be the millionth time, the video already assumes it.

Then, such a basic question as do we know for sure that the core lights up each time first, 8 months earlier, or something, so we can determine that the light originated at the core, as presumed. See, we do need to look at what we actually know.

Click to expand...

i remember addressing this, and I recall coming to the conclusion that the concept that the light doesn't originate at the core is unreasonable. it's not impossible, but it's too unlikely to be worth considering.

Now, mind you, I could not foresee any possible outcome of how it works, that would be any challenge at all to a changed universe state. But I see no need to gloss over the ignorance of man, in arriving at any good conclusion.

Click to expand...

what you mean to say is that you need to re-state all of your previous explanations for the sake of confusion.

That scenario requires that the event be present state, as I assumed it to be. However, you folks now are going to have to establish that.

Click to expand...

i was only trying to provide a scenario wherein you could conceivably be correct. if you don't want to accept it, that's fine.

Well, that implies by what reasoning?? I agree one would naturally think that, but, since it is out beyond man's realm at the moment, it is best that you demonstrate you know what you are claiming here. Can you provide the support for that claim, for the last 21 years??

Click to expand...

i can't prove a thing, all I can do is explain what the evidence suggests. right now, it's suggesting that the core is lighting up the ring. if you provide me with a tangible alternative explanation then I can go about disproving it, but until then I'm inclined to stick to common sense.

In addition, can you cross check the assumed light speed, if it is proven that the light always emanates from the core, -to the ring?

Click to expand...

why do I need to?

Well, then you should have no problem producing the basics here, if you knew your stuff. I mean, remember, there is a missing neutron star and black hole in that core, it was claimed, as well. Something obviously is wrong in their understanding.

Click to expand...

scientists don't know a thing -> scientists don't know anything

as always, you are the pinnacle of reason

Depends on the evidence. If we can show it is always the core that light up the rings, and the light can be followed from there to the outer rings, fine. If not, we would have to review the evidence. If, for example we wanted to look at a time reversal scenario, if all else failed, we might envision that creation rings preceded the creation of the star. If we were watching it in reverse, why, I suppose the rings would not be expected to be lit from a star that was not there yet! But, as I say, I prefer to look at actual evidence.

Click to expand...

your explanation of an imaginary scenario is intriguing, but still unrelated to the issue at hand

Well, sounds like you are grasping at straws there. Either you know, or you do not know. If not simply admit it. Why make stuff up??

Click to expand...

so we're in agreement that the concept is ridiculous? wonderful!

Can you explain? What speed is assumed, and why, if they don't know??

Click to expand...

they assume a faster speed of light in the past, which slows exponentially to today's speed. however, to the credit of your latest idea, they failed to take a universe pockmarked with past states into account.

If the universe and light changed at all, you could not know by present state science, regardless of who is right or wrong. If it changed in a way that leaves God's word true as true can be, why, then He was right all along.

Click to expand...

exactly. moving on

As for those that imagine stellar evolution, that is a lie. A fairy tales based on a snippet of PO information, of the last several decades of PO science observations.

Click to expand...

not a fair accusation, unless you suppose all stars to be stuck in the past state.
(you don't)

What we actually have is different stars left in this state, reacting accordingly. (Unless man's assumption of a homogeneous deep space is wrong)

Click to expand...

reacting accordingly to what

The laws of physics need to be here to bend, firstly. In a different state, they aren't. Assuming so is not based on proof.

Click to expand...

well, the assumption is based upon lack of proof to the contrary, which is sort of the same thing

Oh. OK. So you are not saying things from science, and neither is the video? Strange. I hadn't realized it was presented here as a fairy tale.

Click to expand...

you misunderstand; i'm just quibbling over semantics. for instance, stellar evolution is a scientific theory. my compounded ideas do not constitute a scientific theory. the upshot of this is that if you win an argument about stellar evolution against some wingnut over the internet, that doesn't mean you've disproven stellar evolution.

There is evidence. You interpret it differently. Evidence such as ancient life process differences, such as long life spans.

Click to expand...

your evidence is based upon an assumption: that the Bible is unerringly true.

So far, your claims about the sn rings are pretty empty.

Click to expand...

it's funny that you think you're qualified to lecture someone over empty claims

You haven't dared try to defend a same state past, so no need to try to assault such claims.

Click to expand...

sorry, it just sort of came up

Perspective is a good thing. Sounds like you need some help anyhow, with someone that thinks they know their stuff on this.

Click to expand...

that was an empty threat on my part. this is an internet argument after all, so i don't really feel compelled to seek help from the experts.

NailsII · Mar 21, 2008

dad said:
No, we aren't, really. If you look at how the dates are arrived at, a present state is assumed to have also been in place, and life processes, evolving ability, and rates, etc.

So, in the past the speed of light was different, the reproductive and growth rates of animals was different, presumably their yield of energy from food was higher, radio-isotope decay rates were faster etc etc.
i wonder what effect this would have had on the observable universe? i can't help thinking that it would have fundamental ramifications for all that we see - I think I will read up a little on this one and get back to you.

dad said:
I have not the slightest problem with any fossil evidence. It weighs in on my side.

But the fossil evidence clearly shows some fish becoming amphibians, some amphibians becoming more reptile-like and then more mammal like. Primate fossils show a very small but sequencial change from ape-like creature to human like creature.
And even using the 'debatable' evidence from radio-isotopes, the fossils still line up as we would expect if they had evolved in accordance with Darwinian models.
So how exactly does it vindicate creationism?

dad said:
Bingo! I don't doubt that this world has changed. The evidence mounts! The bible does indicate a specific time when our diet changed a lot as well.

So why would humans need full body hair, a coxyyx, an appendix, fingernails, s-shaped spines, an erethra that is way too long, over-active adrenal glands, and pheremones. That is way beyond a change in environment and diet, that is transition from fish through to primate - leaving the tell-tale vestigals in place.
There is a lot more to evolution than redundant genes.

dad said:
No, you are starting to look at how ervs used to be transferred, rather than just how they are now. Again, the different state past.

Along with chromosome 2 (fused primate chromosome), humans share ERVs. These two alone are compelling pieces of evidence of common descent. It doesn't matter how you change the laws of physics, there is no other rational explaination as to how we share 95-98% of our DNA with other primates.
Unless you can re-write science and show how a virus can infect a human and an chimp and insert almost identical DNA in an identical place thousands of times in under six thosand years.

dad said:
Right, and I would expect that the evolving and adapting that went on, in large measure after the flood, and the split, was responsible. So?

the time you allow for is insufficient unless humans reproduce several times a day. And there is no evidence of this happening.In fact, biblical accounts show the rate of human reproduction to be much reduced in the past.

dad said:
It is easy, sometimes to read into evidence our beliefs, and world views, and presuppositions, I suppose. If I glanced at that article right, the gist was that some populations were less susceptibility to infections. I could envision a possibility there that that could be the result of some sins. That seems to make more sense than assuming the one race or population happened to evolve beneficially, to me, knowing history, and sinful man.

If you can provide a model that shows how sins can effect the immune system, I would be very happy to have a look at it.
What it actually shows is that isolated populations face different selection pressures and so adapt differently.
This has only been highlighted as these barriers are now gone, and each member of the isolated populations are facing the same pressures. Some have had thousands of years to adapt, the others are struggling because they havn't.
The implicaitons in medicine are huge and shows that differing genotypes can significantly effect the success of course of treatment.

dad said:
I have no problem with evolution, or adapting. The only problem I have is your imagination, that dreams such evolving started somewhere other than Eden, and creation!

Not much of an imagination; yourvision is much friendlier and more appealing. It just isn't backed up by evidence.

dad said:
True, I am not an old ager. The chief culprit in all old age constructs is that they require the present to be the key to the past, -just because.

Or more correctly, they hold the evidence up to the light and it shapes our understanding.

dad said:
Therefore all evidence is shared, and agreed on, by and large, only your myth is separated out from science. The education system ought to reflect your abject, dismal failure to be able to include the anti God, falsely so called science same state past based myth, as a bona fide part of knowledge, or science in any way, shape, or form whatsoever.

I think you are ranting incoherently.

NailsII · Mar 21, 2008

dad said:
Sure I can. The reason it is part of our existence is because man has a sinful nature.

The struggle for survival....

dad said:
The practice of that day was to take slaves. Mankind had a rough history, it was no game. Sometimes I wonder why some feel God's people should have been a bunch of namby pamby sissies, while everyone else, like their enemies, was a fierce lot. These days, some also seem to think Christians are supposed to be goody goody 2 shoes. Tow the line, get in line, walk the line, no spine, no wine, cheap dine, turn the cheek a million time types. When, best I can tell, the Christians today are merely the saved depraved.

Slavery is wrong, full stop.
Mankind has had a rough history, I will grant you that. But so has virtually every creature on the planet.
My point here is not that i expect God's people to lay down to an aggressor, but they do no thave to slaughter everyone because one person in that town worships a different god.
The striking change is how often God changes his methods and teachings.

dad said:
It is a nast world, and nasty things are the order of the day. If nasty is called for, then God has to use nasty as best He knows how, till He can dispose of it. Don't blame Him.

Yahweh is the God of War.
He could have disposed of whatever he wanted to, He didn't have to resort to ordering genocide and infanticide.

dad said:
Not sure if I have time to elucidate all the right and wrong on earth, according to my opinion of God's word, in this thread.

Duck this one, and weave this one.
You should have been a lawyer.
But this particular line is going no-where anyway, so it matters little.

dad said:
I never liked bullies.

[BIBLE]Job 41:10[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Numbers 31:1-2[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Exodus 20:5-6[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]genesis 2:16-17[/BIBLE]
Sounds like a bully to me.....

dad said:
Well, this site touches on it
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/infantsa.htm

I will add this to my reading list and get back to you asap.

dad said:
No, murderers ought to be killed. Governments that let them run around killing again are in abrogation of their duty.

I agree in principle, but I reserve my hate for sex offenders. I think rapists should be executed, especially those who pray on the young and defensless.

dad said:
Here are a few survivors. I wonder about the 42 + million a year that don't make it.

Sounds like a lot, can I ask where you got the figure from?

dad said:
How many believers in the bible, and Jesus can you list, that work, killing babies?

Too many.

dad said:
Accidents happen. If someone ran around running over pregnant women by the score, that is another matter.

I was more concerned with the fate of the child.

dad said:
Nested heirachy is an artificial construct. ERVs could have been transmitted other ways in a different past. And vestigial organs, if they are that indeed in every case, are merely evidence of evolving. That started in Eden.

The twin nested hierachy is a recreation of what we see in nature, in fossills and in DNA evidence - supported by morpholgy in those who are alive today and do not appear in the fossil record.
Vestigals are evidence of evolution yes, so humans have evolved away from full body hair, ape-like gait and powerful arms. Our oxygen-hungry brains have limited us as well as advanced us.

dad said:
Not in heaven, or in the different past, whether you see it or not.

Evidence please.

dad said:
Then why not change tactics?

Because biblical truth is open to interpretation and translation. The bile is a book of faith, not a book of facts.

dad said:
No, but I don't need to take their word over saints either.

Are we not equal anymore then?
Just because history declares one morally just, doesn't mean they really are or cannot be held up to account of their actions.

dad said:
Maybe you never had much real bible. Faith comes from the word, not from luck.

Not in my case; my faith crumbled when I read more and studied hard. I needed answers and found none in scripture.

dad said:
Not as loosely as you might suspect. But, again, it is not a change in the laws, but a universe change, that entails different laws.

But ther emust be some evidence of such a fundamental change. Where is it?

dad said:
-dad shrugs ???

However, the more widely known Atlas is a figure from Greek mythology. He is the son of the Titan Iapetus and Clymene (or Asia), and brother of Prometheus. Atlas was punished by Zeus and made to bear the weight of the world on his back. One of Heracles's labours was to collect the apples of the Hesperides. Heracles went to Atlas and reasoned with him. Eventually, Atlas agreed to collect the apples, and Heracles was left to carry the weight. Atlas tried to leave Heracles there, but Heracles tricked him and Atlas was left to carry the heavens forever. In his epic Odyssey, Homer refers to this Atlas as "one who knows the depths of the whole sea, and keeps the tall pillars who hold heaven and earth asunder".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas#.22Atlas.22_etymology
Strange stories made up to dela with strange problems and gaps in the knowledge of mankind.

dad said:
I think the evidence is loud and clear on that one.

But the stories are still told every Sunday....

dad said:
I could believe a ghost shook land, before I could believe a thousand time a trillion billion suns fit in a little spark.

Really?
I am suprised.
I could not accept a ghost as real without some serious and hard evidence, The big bang theory I accept because there is no better explaination that actually fits the facts.

dad said:
Correct.

I'm confused. Are you using the title as an insult?

dad said:
Personal incredulity.

Based on evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that ghosts, gouls or demons have ever existed outside the imagination and literature.

dad said:
A young oak tree that bends in the wind, will one day grow to be able to withstand it. A ship that is blown about, might find that can be a dangerous affair.

But one who puts his trust in the evidence must be prepared to shift his weight as new findings come to light. I could be very wrong on many things, but at least I am willing to accept and learn.
That I really do see as a virtue.

dad said:
That is where we came from, a past that was less than pretty.

Or just a dirty pond?

dad said:
Well, he looked to the right place, God seems to let depraved man prosper when he does his little wicked thing according to His wonderful purpose, toward the salvation of mankind.

Yet again its the god of war who wins men's hearts.

NailsII · Mar 21, 2008

dad said:
If trees could grow in a week, think how fast grass could grow.

But that's the whole point - they couldn't.
You only state that based on an abstract interpretation.

dad said:
Genetics was not an issue, and God designed the ark Personally.

I wonder where he put the toilets, or was the rate of excretion different then as well?

dad said:
Noah got tanked, yes. I can't blame him. So?

Don't blame him either. Best part of the story, like i said.

dad said:
Improbable by today's standards, and those standards are not able to be taken to the past by anyone.

Logical falacy.

dad said:
I don't know, but why not??

No, they didn't.

dad said:
If you mean the cambrian creatures, no, they were only made in creation week. Best I can tell, they were made to live on the planet at large. It did need to get habitable, you know. The way some of those critters look, seem like they could dig, and chew, and move better than garden worms.

A week. Really.

dad said:
So, what, they fly to the rocks?

Still don't eat dust. Your point is mute.
It doesn't say 'injest a little dust as you go about your daily business', does it?

dad said:
"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]And dust shall thou eat all the days of thy life;[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]meaning not that particular serpent, and as long as that should live, but all of the same kind, as long as there were any in the world, even to the end of it: it is probable, that when the serpent moved in a more erect posture, it lived on herbs and plants as other creatures; but when it was obliged to go upon its belly or breast, it licked up the dust of the earth, and which it could not well avoid in eating whatsoever food it did; and some serpents are said to live upon it."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=3&verse=14.

[/FONT]
Dust mites eat dust, snakes don't. get over it.

dad said:
They had the sense to know some things were wrong. So?? Remember, angels married women about this time. In fact, the Egyptians claim a god, or watcher built the great pyramid.

So morals pre-date the bible, shock horror.
Guess most of the ten were a waste of stone stone then.
Egypt claimed many gods and each had their own story as fantastic as any other ancient myths.
As they are incompatable with Christian teachings, they are relegated to mythology.

dad said:
Doesn't matter, they don't out date us, or God.

So how can Egyptian history fit in with the bible? there simply is not enough time for that many generations and the accumulation of all that knowledge. The fact that they existed at all contradicts the biblical timeline.

dad said:
Well, I think that after the split, the genes started to degrade, so to speak, and reproducing needed to be not done with brothers and sisters, any more. But, since He was gathering up a depraved people, He also needed to give them some ideal to strive for. An ideal, by the way, no one on earth ever kept!!! That is why they needed Jesus.

An ideal so fantastic that Jesus changes the rules, moved the goal-posts and got everyone to play for overtime.
no wonder someone threw a flag on that play, more fouls than football training in a penatentiary.
Talking of incest, did Cain and Able really sleep with their mother? Or do you believe they had a sister?

dad said:
The men choosing which bits of our record to include were inspired. As were any that added a few bits, that were worthy, that were missed
.

Inspired by thir own self-interests and greed, I'd wager.

dad said:
Try .00000000060000300200721% of everything. (I omitted 200 zeros, for the sake of brevity).

Wow. And a number means everything, does it?
Looks like we're back to infinty again....

dad said:
Look at the new heavens, and the consequences there. The future is the key, I believe, to the past. Not the present.

Which means what exactly?

dad said:
Right, it only seems that way, to the people limited by the physical laws and realities that are the norm. The spiritual is not the norm, so when it is added, all bets are off. Anything wonderful can happen.

But not for the last couple of millenia.

dad said:
Because they needed to to survive in the new reality. I believe, when the created state returns, the new heavens, that lions will eat straw again, and nothing will hurt, or destroy, as the bible clearly says.

Lions eating Christian straw-men, more like.

dad said:
Cursed be man that trustest in man, that maketh flesh his arm.
If, and when I need to trust God, via the medical system, fine. I hope I die first, but I can see how it has helped many, and I would be thankful, at the time, I assume. Meanwhile, I take it with a huge grain of salt, and avoid it as best I can. If everyone did as I do, the medical social systems in some countries would be laughing all the way to the ban.

Shame I'll go with the evidence. Selectively of course, i enjoy a drink and a smoke - could do with losing a few pounds but hey what the hell.
By the way, excessive salt intake is linked with high blood pressure.....

dad said:
And, as I said, most men seem to find themselves looking that direction sooner or later. God bless the honest ones.

Honest becaus ethey agree with you?

dad said:
Speak for yourself. Stuffing the universe itself literally into a hot soup speck is mischievous madness, far as I am concerned.

Madness maybe, but it fits the evidence. The bible does not.

dad said:
I would suspect that Christians had a lot to do with rejecting their demons. The bit about rejecting God, and all things spiritual, seems to be more a result of the departing from the faith, all faith.

Faith departs, rationality advances.

dad · Mar 22, 2008

Mumbo said:
the video assumes that the core-to-ring speed is not the same as the supernova-to-Earth speed

So, in what degree, and how does that affect anything?

well no, it moves as fast as you please. any observation that we make can be explained by the speed of light changing in just the right places, it's just that such a thing wouldn't be very likely.

So, you think that the way to define likely, is to assume that light travels somewhere in time, at the same speed. Actually, you just said it was some different speed core to ring.

to be fair, it's pretty far away

True, but you will notice, a lot of claims are still made, I would have thought they would be balanced by knowledge.

i'm gonna go ahead and edit this portion so that it makes a bit more sense.
much better.

the reason why I said that, dad, is because it's true; no matter what the speed of light is at any given moment, the core and the ring are two thirds of a lightyear away.

To be fair, it is 3/4 of a year from earth perspective, present earth perspective. I don't think anyone even bothered to try and offer proof that the far universe has to be homogeneous.
Then, of course, even if we can demonstrate that it has to be, we still need to look at how the split affected things, and left it 'locked' in place as it is.

as long as we know this, it doesn't particularly matter what the exact dimensions are.

Well, it does, if you want to invoke trigonometry. Of course. You do need the third line in the triangle.

for this not to be true, a bubble of past state would have to be placed about the core and ring in such a manner that it would disguise the true distance between the two, and yet be completely undetectable. can we at least agree on ruling out strategic divine intervention, please?

Not really. Either the area is the same , as the rest of deep space, or not. If it is, there will be evidences in astronomy. In that case we, as mentioned, need to look at the way this state was left in place from the former state. In other words, you would need to look at it in a rather serious way. -establish whether it is homogeneous. -provide some info on observations of the light traveling from core to ring. -provide a same state past, where something like time distortions, from a state change would not be possible. Etc.

you mean, that it moves at present light speed? you haven't gotten a reply of consequence because that point is entirely inconsequential. for what has to be the millionth time, the video already assumes it.

I thought in your fist quote in this post you just said the video assume a different core to ring speed? make up your mind. Get your story straight. If it is assumed to be PO light speed, from core to ring, then what evidence do you have to back it up?

i remember addressing this, and I recall coming to the conclusion that the concept that the light doesn't originate at the core is unreasonable. it's not impossible, but it's too unlikely to be worth considering.

In other words you do not even so much as know that basic element in the equation! Amazing.

what you mean to say is that you need to re-state all of your previous explanations for the sake of confusion.

No I meant nothing of the sort. I meant that either way you shake it, is just is not a challenge for a different state universe in the past.

i was only trying to provide a scenario wherein you could conceivably be correct. if you don't want to accept it, that's fine.

Maybe stick to the facts, and we can work from there. Your scenarios are what need defending here.

i can't prove a thing, all I can do is explain what the evidence suggests. right now, it's suggesting that the core is lighting up the ring. if you provide me with a tangible alternative explanation then I can go about disproving it, but until then I'm inclined to stick to common sense.

Well, I think the first thing we saw was rings light up.
"February 24, 1987: Sk-69 202 transforms itself into SN1987A. About 1057 ultraviolet and x-ray photons stream out from the inferno. A small fraction of this energy hits the near ring system, causing it to glow. The gas in the hourglass is not terribly dense, nor is it thick, so it glows feebly. The rings, however, are denser, and the glow is more pronounced. 50,000 parsecs away, we see three rings glowing with almost no trace of the hourglass nebula itself."
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/SN1987A.html

why do I need to?

Because you might like to check your assumptions.

scientists don't know a thing -> scientists don't know anything

They do know some things. Be reasonable.

your explanation of an imaginary scenario is intriguing, but still unrelated to the issue at hand

Well, if the past state is imaginary, you can feel free to dazzle us with the facts of how it was a same state. Otherwise, mums the word, mumbo.

so we're in agreement that the concept is ridiculous? wonderful!

All depends, what concept?

they assume a faster speed of light in the past, which slows exponentially to today's speed. however, to the credit of your latest idea, they failed to take a universe pockmarked with past states into account.

The pockmarks in your little attempted parable would be the local effects of the universal universe change.

not a fair accusation, unless you suppose all stars to be stuck in the past state.
(you don't)
reacting accordingly to what

Well, I am waiting to see you prove the universe is homogeneous. If it is, the stars are in this state, as we assume. But that does not mean they were several thousand years ago! So, getting form a different state to this one, would have left the stars affected.
If you can't so much as even provide solid evidence of a same state universe far away, right now, then you really are in sad shape. Either way, I am laughing.

well, the assumption is based upon lack of proof to the contrary, which is sort of the same thing

Well, is basing stuff on lack of proof really the best way to support a claim??

you misunderstand; i'm just quibbling over semantics. for instance, stellar evolution is a scientific theory. my compounded ideas do not constitute a scientific theory. the upshot of this is that if you win an argument about stellar evolution against some wingnut over the internet, that doesn't mean you've disproven stellar evolution.

No need to prove what is not proven to begin with. It is not. And, think about it, if the answers were so cut and dry wouldn't some expert pipe in, as if he knew what he or she was talking about here?? Looks like they left you hang out to dry.

your evidence is based upon an assumption: that the Bible is unerringly true.

Well, if a prophet was to be believed for long range prophesies, they usually prophesied about local things first. The people would then know they were real. Otherwise, they would simply kill them, I think. So, it is no wonder we have thousands of fulfilled prophesies. That is a lot of reasons to believe. I would think that is better than making stuff up, or merely assuming stuff.

it's funny that you think you're qualified to lecture someone over empty claims
sorry, it just sort of came up

People making empty claims ought to be pointed out. I am happy to help.

that was an empty threat on my part. this is an internet argument after all, so i don't really feel compelled to seek help from the experts.

Right. makes me wonder why you take a position on the one side or the other, since you can't really defend it, and can't get the help you need.

dad · Mar 22, 2008

NailsII said:
NailsII said:

So, in the past the speed of light was different, the reproductive and growth rates of animals was different, presumably their yield of energy from food was higher, radio-isotope decay rates were faster etc etc.

Click to expand...

No, I am not aware that there was any radioactive decay at all. Neither was our light faster. The change was NOT IN our light! Our light is the result of the change in the other state universe. Life processes were very different, yes. As they will be again, in the future.

i wonder what effect this would have had on the observable universe? i can't help thinking that it would have fundamental ramifications for all that we see - I think I will read up a little on this one and get back to you.

Click to expand...

You will find that there are no star maps beyond the split! No records outside our records, of life on earth, that are reliable. We have the monopoly on the record, and we also have the future state records! Science ought to lick the dust from the soles of our feet, not we from it's.

But the fossil evidence clearly shows some fish becoming amphibians, some amphibians becoming more reptile-like and then more mammal like.

Click to expand...

Really, now?? I think you mean SOME creatures were like that, but, as Eden's creatures migrated out from Eden, that is to be expected in some cases.

Primate fossils show a very small but sequencial change from ape-like creature to human like creature.

Click to expand...

Well, there were a lot of different kinds of apes, so? For all I know, some of them might have resulted from wicked pre flood man. Naturally some similarities would be expected.

And even using the 'debatable' evidence from radio-isotopes, the fossils still line up as we would expect if they had evolved in accordance with Darwinian models.

Click to expand...

The old age models assign old ages across the board, as expected, you mean! Naturally, since they are all set to the PO assumed past clock.

So how exactly does it vindicate creationism?
So why would humans need full body hair, a coxyyx, an appendix, fingernails, s-shaped spines, an erethra that is way too long, over-active adrenal glands, and pheremones.

Click to expand...

Well, if an ice age came, we might need some extra hair. Other changes likely would reflect our changing world and universe state. If we could evolve and adapt real fast, this is par for the course.

That is way beyond a change in environment and diet, that is transition from fish through to primate - leaving the tell-tale vestigals in place.

Click to expand...

No problem. Rapid evolving was needed. It makes perfect sense to have creatures able to move over land and water. In fact, I would almost suspect, that such creatures would be out front in the migration.

There is a lot more to evolution than redundant genes.
Along with chromosome 2 (fused primate chromosome), humans share ERVs. These two alone are compelling pieces of evidence of common descent.

Click to expand...

No. You seem to lock into how ERVs are transmitted at the present time. No such limits exist, unless you prove a present state in the past. You can't.

It doesn't matter how you change the laws of physics, there is no other rational explaination as to how we share 95-98% of our DNA with other primates.

Click to expand...

Yes there is. It might be a bit long for this thread.

Unless you can re-write science and show how a virus can infect a human and an chimp and insert almost identical DNA in an identical place thousands of times in under six thosand years.

Click to expand...

That is nothing. I could see chimps being a result of sex with wicked man. Or, perhaps, that the viral ancestors transmitted by sex, and other ways. Possibly even in some less then malevolent way.

the time you allow for is insufficient unless humans reproduce several times a day.

Click to expand...

Not true. No great time was needed.

And there is no evidence of this happening.In fact, biblical accounts show the rate of human reproduction to be much reduced in the past.

Click to expand...

Really? How is that? I think someone threw one past you there.

If you can provide a model that shows how sins can effect the immune system, I would be very happy to have a look at it.

Click to expand...

Well, Cainan was cursed for what he did to Noah. Sounds like it had an effect. Cain also had some mark put on him, that is an effect. We don't know what kind. For all I know, maybe God made him real short. Like the hobbit men in Flores? The serpent was changed, and it seems right quick. Eve started to have problems in child birth as a result of sin. One king went down on all fours, and had hairs like eagle feathers, and ate grass of the field for seven years! I can't see how sin would not affect people. Especially in a time when there was a different life process.

What it actually shows is that isolated populations face different selection pressures and so adapt differently.
This has only been highlighted as these barriers are now gone, and each member of the isolated populations are facing the same pressures. Some have had thousands of years to adapt, the others are struggling because they havn't.

Click to expand...

It all takes a long time in this present state. No reflection on a past state.

The implicaitons in medicine are huge and shows that differing genotypes can significantly effect the success of course of treatment.

Click to expand...

The implications of the bible are a lot more staggering that that. People will rise up from being dead as a door nail. There will be no more sickness at all. Nor death. We will live forever and ever. There is coming a time when not one dead body will be ever in the earth, or any graveyards at all.

Not much of an imagination; yourvision is much friendlier and more appealing. It just isn't backed up by evidence.

Click to expand...

It is, every bit as much as yours! The same evolving takes place, the only question is the starting point.

Or more correctly, they hold the evidence up to the light and it shapes our understanding.

Click to expand...

Not till they filter it through the PO past myth first.

dad · Mar 22, 2008

NailsII said:
But that's the whole point - they couldn't.
You only state that based on an abstract interpretation.

No, based on level headed absolute deduction from what was said. What is abstract is your claim that the trees could not grow fast. Prove it.

I wonder where he put the toilets, or was the rate of excretion different then as well?

As a matter of fact, since it was after the flood that we started to eat meat, and likely a lot of creatures also started, and our life spans were still near a thousand years, I could see some real differences in excretions. I could also see that some bacteria might have been well suited to recycle waste in a way we never dream of today. I could also see God inducing a state of hibernation, or semi hibernation in many creatures. I could also see that God may have put in some sort of disposal system, that went out to the waters.

Don't blame him either. Best part of the story, like i said.

OK. I figure it didn't take the vines long to grow back then.

Logical falacy.

No, demonstrable fact. You cannot take the present state to the past.

A week. Really.

Yes, really.

Still don't eat dust. Your point is mute.

I do not think that the dust was something highly literal. More like an insult. You know, that serpent was real proud. But any creature right down on the ground, and rocks is bound to take in some dust. I mean, if it eats something, there may be some dust on it! Give it up.

So morals pre-date the bible, shock horror.
Guess most of the ten were a waste of stone stone then.

No, they were a lesson that we could not be good without God's help.

Egypt claimed many gods and each had their own story as fantastic as any other ancient myths.
As they are incompatable with Christian teachings, they are relegated to mythology.

I find them quite compatible. The Egyptians messed with some spirits. Many peoples did.

So how can Egyptian history fit in with the bible? there simply is not enough time for that many generations and the accumulation of all that knowledge. The fact that they existed at all contradicts the biblical timeline.

Ah, no, I see it as fitting just fine. The dates that man generally uses for early Egypt are wrong wrong wrong.

Talking of incest, did Cain and Able really sleep with their mother? Or do you believe they had a sister?

I don't know. But there were no rules I ever heard of against in family sex then.

Which means what exactly?

It means that the new heavens of the bible is similar to Eden. Man lives forever, the tree of life is there, different plant growth, etc etc. The key to understanding the past, is to look at the future state. Not to look at the temporary present state.

Lions eating Christian straw-men, more like.

No. The creatures will change again, and eat straw.

Shame I'll go with the evidence. Selectively of course, i enjoy a drink and a smoke - could do with losing a few pounds but hey what the hell.

So, your selection is not the be all end all for all men.

By the way, excessive salt intake is linked with high blood pressure.....

So is stress.

Honest becaus ethey agree with you?

No, honest, because they admit they do not know it all.

Madness maybe, but it fits the evidence. The bible does not.

Yes, it certainly does.

Faith departs, rationality advances.

No, faith remains. Men depart. Some even call that rational.

dad · Mar 22, 2008

NailsII said:
The struggle for survival....

Slavery is wrong, full stop.
Mankind has had a rough history, I will grant you that. But so has virtually every creature on the planet.

So? If slavery is wrong, tell the government to stop taxing people so much they slave for the government more than half the year.

My point here is not that i expect God's people to lay down to an aggressor, but they do no thave to slaughter everyone because one person in that town worships a different god.

No, but in the past, that was often what had to be done.

The striking change is how often God changes his methods and teachings.

That reflects what man is ready for. We are being brought along.

Yahweh is the God of War.
He could have disposed of whatever he wanted to, He didn't have to resort to ordering genocide and infanticide.

He is a God that has many facets. He never usually had to have His people get too rough. There was that time when He knew something we don't know now. Those that know His true nature, understand that there was a good reason for it.

[bible]Job 41:10[/bible]
[bible]Numbers 31:1-2[/bible]
[bible]Exodus 20:5-6[/bible]
[bible]genesis 2:16-17[/bible]
Sounds like a bully to me.....

You do not want to pick a fight with the Almighty, no.

I agree in principle, but I reserve my hate for sex offenders. I think rapists should be executed, especially those who pray on the young and defensless.

OK.

Sounds like a lot, can I ask where you got the figure from?

"According to the data of the World Health Organization (1990), there are at present between 40 and 60 million abortions commited each year worldwide."
http://perso.infonie.be/le.feu/ms/introdag/q2ag.htm
[FONT='Verdana',Arial,Helvetica]"NEW YORK (CWN) - The UN released a report on Wednesday that estimates that 45 million abortions are performed throughout the world every year. That figure means there is one abortion for every three live births."
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=57

[/FONT]

I was more concerned with the fate of the child.

That is nice. I figure maybe we ought to give the child the rights, and let them decide if the mom should live, when they reach the age of decision! 'You mom was going to snuff you, is it thumbs up, or thumbs down, kid?'

The twin nested hierachy is a recreation of what we see in nature, in fossills and in DNA evidence - supported by morpholgy in those who are alive today and do not appear in the fossil record.

" the term "nested hierarchy". This refers to the type of pattern that you get when you consider characteristics of a bunch of different species, and group the species together by how similar they are in the characteristics."
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr00.html
Similarities are to be expected, in any full spectrum creation, worth it's salt.

Vestigals are evidence of evolution yes, so humans have evolved away from full body hair, ape-like gait and powerful arms. Our oxygen-hungry brains have limited us as well as advanced us.

Maybe there was more oxygen before the flood. As for ape like gait, not sure which tree that fell out of.

Evidence please.

The evidence of the past and future states does not exist for your same state past and future. The bible is evidence it existed in history.

Because biblical truth is open to interpretation and translation. The bile is a book of faith, not a book of facts.

Says you. But you really have no idea.

Are we not equal anymore then?
Just because history declares one morally just, doesn't mean they really are or cannot be held up to account of their actions.

A true holding to account would deal in facts, not paganistic foaming at the mouth.

Not in my case; my faith crumbled when I read more and studied hard. I needed answers and found none in scripture.

So you believed man. OK.

But ther emust be some evidence of such a fundamental change. Where is it?

Why must there? We are the evidence. The bible is also evidence. Other than that, just pipe down, cause you certainly have none, and never will.

Strange stories made up to dela with strange problems and gaps in the knowledge of mankind.

There is some reality to some of the gods and spirits of the Greeks. In this case, it might be more of the pure BS variety.

Really?
I am suprised.
I could not accept a ghost as real without some serious and hard evidence, The big bang theory I accept because there is no better explaination that actually fits the facts.

Well, the really was in the comparison between the two choices, Not that I really think a ghost shook squat. The facts have nothing to do with the big bang. It is purely extrapolation, based on partial facts i.e. the present state.

I'm confused. Are you using the title as an insult?

I think that was about my not thinking the US is a Christian country. No, I do not. How someone like Obama could be popular should be proof of that. What gets me, is why he would have two horns as a lamb, when he speaks as a dragon.

Based on evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that ghosts, gouls or demons have ever existed outside the imagination and literature.

Well, some seem less than convinced.
"
An American woman who levitated, demonstrated paranormal psychic powers and spoke foreign languages unknown to her was clearly demon possessed, according to a board-certified psychiatrist and associate professor of clinical psychiatry at New York Medical College.
The unnamed woman, with a long history of involvement with Satanic groups, was observed by a team of priests, deacons, several lay assistants, psychiatrists, nuns, some of whom also had medical and psychiatric training, levitating six inches off the ground while objects flew off shelves in the same room, according to Dr. Richard E. Gallagher, who documented the case in the February issue of the New Oxford Review.
"Periodically, in our presence, Julia would go into a trance state of a recurring nature," writes Gallagher. "Mentally troubled individuals often 'dissociate,' but Julia's trances were accompanied by an unusual phenomenon: Out of her mouth would come various threats, taunts and scatological language, phrases like 'Leave her alone, you idiot,' 'She's ours,' 'Leave, you imbecile priest,' or just 'Leave.' The tone of this voice differed markedly from Julia's own, and it varied, sometimes sounding guttural and vaguely masculine, at other points high pitched. Most of her comments during these 'trances,' or at the subsequent exorcisms, displayed a marked contempt for anything religious or sacred."
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=219080&Disp=18&Trace=on

But one who puts his trust in the evidence must be prepared to shift his weight as new findings come to light. I could be very wrong on many things, but at least I am willing to accept and learn.
That I really do see as a virtue.

Yet again its the god of war who wins men's hearts.

Maybe some men's. Others prefer the God of Peace,and love.

Danyc · Mar 25, 2008

dad said:
Well, if the past state is imaginary, you can feel free to dazzle us with the facts of how it was a same state. Otherwise, mums the word, mumbo.

.
[SIZE=+1]Burden of Proof[/SIZE]

Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one that they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/sherm3.htm

FishFace · Mar 25, 2008

dad said:
Well, I think the first thing we saw was rings light up.
"February 24, 1987: Sk-69 202 transforms itself into SN1987A. About 1057 ultraviolet and x-ray photons stream out from the inferno. A small fraction of this energy hits the near ring system, causing it to glow. The gas in the hourglass is not terribly dense, nor is it thick, so it glows feebly. The rings, however, are denser, and the glow is more pronounced. 50,000 parsecs away, we see three rings glowing with almost no trace of the hourglass nebula itself."

The hourglass nebula has nothing to do with SN1987A - the HN is 8,000 light years away, and images of it were produced in 1995, not 1987.
First we see the core light up. Then the ring lights up. The ring is centred on the star. This set of associations leads us to conclude that the core causes the ring to light up.

You still haven't told us what speeds or distances we out to try to work out the correct distance to the supernova, and how long it took light to traverse the distance.
We've done the work, and we haven't even assumed a constant speed of light. If you're not happy, get up and put some effort in.

the changing speed of light. dad, this thread is for you

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Life-long student of biological science

Undefeated!

Life-long student of biological science

Life-long student of biological science

Life-long student of biological science

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Eekum bokum

Life-long student of biological science

Life-long student of biological science

Life-long student of biological science

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency