The Laws of the Universe

[dad]

You also can't deny that I just turned into a squirrel. You didn't see, so you can't say it didn't happen!

Maybe we shoulld reset Christmas and the year 2011 to when you turned into a nut eater?

See what's happening? This logic you are using leads to believing things that cannot be verified. You have no way of knowing whether it is really the truth or not, whether it actually happened.

All that is happening is that you really don't know.

Firstly, empirical proof is for suckers? Yeah, looking at REALITY to find out how REALITY works is a really dumb idea. *Sighs and shakes head*

Show us the reality of whether Peter walked on water? You don't know. Thought anyone was fooled??

Secondly, how do you know that nobody back then didn't say "Hey, that never happened!" I mean, have you looked at every piece of evidence? And given that the people who put the Bible together in the first place wanted to make their religion look good, do you really think that they would have included anything that showed that they were wrong?

People died in the millions for a real reason. Records were sacred and kept in a real way. Cut the Last Thursdayism here.

I understand it somewhat. Certainly not to the degree that some scientists have, but i understand the general principles. And yet when I have explained it to you, you just respond with "Fraid not!" I'm not going to waste my time. You have no desire to actually learn. You are not open to the possibility that you are wrong. All you care about is throwing your ideas out there without providing any evidence to show that they are true and ignoring anything anyone says different.

Then leave it there. Let lurkers see what you offered and judge. It was squat.

And if they have only been decaying for a few thousand years, why do they shopw several million years of decay?

Show us how they do?

That's true. So if I can't trust what you say if you have been shown to be mistaken, then I certainly can't trust the Bible if it is shown to be wrong about something, can I?

Details...show the bible to be wrong and we'll talk. Till then, cork er.

When did I say the universe was speck sized?

You don't need to. Science does. You must agree. Or disagree with science.

Once again, creationists assume the very thing that they want to prove.

The thing you think needs proof you mean. Focus on the claims of science here.

That "brush" is weilded by reality. I've learnt that you don't give much credence to reality.

No, you have retreated to that false safe mental place.

Just a shame for you that you've tried to knock down something that has the sturdiest of foundations.

Like?

Then again I will ask why rocks show decay of several million years when you say they have only had a few thousand years to decay.

They don't. Daughter material was likely here at the onset of the decay state.

 

[sandwiches]

Right, it can't. Not in a way that is based in evidence and knowledge. Exclude yourself from that all you like. I doubt it surprises anyone here. And if you do have proof Peter never walked on water let us see it now. Simple.

Prove he did it.

 

[Tiberius]

All that is happening is that you really don't know.

And yet your logic is still flawed.

Show us the reality of whether Peter walked on water? You don't know. Thought anyone was fooled??

Why should we believe it when it is impossible in reality and the only source we have for it is an old book?

People died in the millions for a real reason. Records were sacred and kept in a real way. Cut the Last Thursdayism here.

What Last thrusdayism? I'm just saying that the people who put the Bible together had an agenda.

Then leave it there. Let lurkers see what you offered and judge. It was squat.

How would you know what it was? You've demonstrasted that you don't even understand it. You are not in a position to judge.

Show us how they do?

You mean you don't know how radio dating techniques work? Glad you finally admit it.

Details...show the bible to be wrong and we'll talk. Till then, cork er.

I'm sure there are plenty of threads here about that. I'm not going to discuss it here for two reasons. One: it will be off topic. Two: You'll just iognore it anyway.

You don't need to. Science does. You must agree. Or disagree with science.

Show me a valid scientific resource that says the universe is presently speck sized.

The thing you think needs proof you mean. Focus on the claims of science here.

Are you assuming that the world was created only a few thousand years ago? Where do you learn that from? The Bible or reality? If you only had reality and didn't have the Bible, would you reach the same conclusions?

No, you have retreated to that false safe mental place.

You make me laugh. Reality is a false safe place? Lol indeed.

Like?

Evolution, physics and many others in your time, I'm sure.

They don't. Daughter material was likely here at the onset of the decay state.

What evidence do you have to support this idea?

Oh wait, you don't think you need to post any actual evidence, do you? You've never posted it before, why should you start now?

 

[dad]

Prove he did it.

No need, the point is that science, and you can't say! Stick to what you know.

 

[dad]

And yet your logic is still flawed.

Says you.

Why should we believe it when it is impossible in reality and the only source we have for it is an old book?

It is quite possible in reality. Recorded and observed even. What you mean is that you want to limit all reality to the present state laws.

What Last thrusdayism? I'm just saying that the people who put the Bible together had an agenda.

How would you know? What qualifies you to accuse?



How would you know what it was? You've demonstrasted that you don't even understand it. You are not in a position to judge.

You mean you don't know how radio dating techniques work? Glad you finally admit it.

Well, the same way anyone that reads would know what you offered here.

I'm sure there are plenty of threads here about that. I'm not going to discuss it here for two reasons. One: it will be off topic. Two: You'll just iognore it anyway.

Then cork er. No slurs against God's word needed here, obviously you can't back it up.

Show me a valid scientific resource that says the universe is presently speck sized.

Big bang is credible to most men of science. They claim it was a singularity, and so small it would be invisible even to the naked eye! They do not claim that it is that way now, ever heard of the fable of expansion?..It got real big..

Are you assuming that the world was created only a few thousand years ago?

Of course.

Where do you learn that from? The Bible or reality?

Where can one get that from? Science doesn't know.

If you only had reality and didn't have the Bible, would you reach the same conclusions?

If I was ignorant that the spiritual was a player and component in the future and past, I likely would see no further than the fishbowl, of course. Chilling thought.

Hey I am tossing you evos a rope here, grab it for dear life.

You make me laugh. Reality is a false safe place? Lol indeed.

No, the thing is the safe place you retreat to is only a small part of reality. That is somewhat funny.

Evolution, physics and many others in your time, I'm sure.

Evolution is a created trait, and physics is fine, the fishbowl needs rules too.

What evidence do you have to support this idea?

There is no evidence against it, and it fits.

Oh wait, you don't think you need to post any actual evidence, do you? You've never posted it before, why should you start now?

You provide evidence that daughter material was NOT here when this state started, and I will be all over it like a pig on slop.

 

[sandwiches]

No need, the point is that science, and you can't say! Stick to what you know.

So, you can't prove it. Got it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No need, the point is that science, and you can't say! Stick to what you know.

And what do you know, dad? Anything useful?

 

[dad]

So, you can't prove it. Got it.

No need to prove last Thursday. No need to prove the observation that Peter walked on water. If you had the ability to prove or disprove it, we could talk. Until then, no use pretending. You don't. Ask a lurker.

 

[dad]

And what do you know, dad? Anything useful?

I know what you post...nothing useful. Ask a lurker. Or read you last post.

 

[Nostromo]

Yeah Nathan, why don't you ask that large group of dad supporters who just sort of hang around cheering him on, but don't want to give away their presence.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Ask a lurker.

This lurker's answer: Your desire to be wrong about is astoundingly comprehensive.




Lurker

 

[dad]

This lurker's answer: Your desire to be wrong about is astoundingly comprehensive.




Lurker

Guess you are a poster, really. Ask a lurker!

If you claim Nat Poe posted substantive replies in the thread, point them out! Your cheerleading is futile.

 

[dad]

Yeah Nathan, why don't you ask that large group of dad supporters who just sort of hang around cheering him on, but don't want to give away their presence.

Hey you can point out where nat did more than bluster, and actually detailed a case on topic in the thread? Ra ra ra.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Guess you are a poster, really. Ask a lurker!

If you claim Nat Poe posted substantive replies in the thread, point them out! Your cheerleading is futile.

Is there anything of substance to reply to?

You see, dad -- your mistake, as usual, is to think that you have something worth saying, and demanding that other people treat you as if you do.

It's a common enough mistake, and a cause for much amusement throughout the forums -- as well as, I suspect, a good portion of your real life.

Now run along and play.

 

[sandwiches]

No need to prove last Thursday. No need to prove the observation that Peter walked on water. If you had the ability to prove or disprove it, we could talk. Until then, no use pretending. You don't. Ask a lurker.

Long winded way of saying you can't back up anything you're saying.

 

[Tiberius]

Says you.

And reality.

It is quite possible in reality. Recorded and observed even. What you mean is that you want to limit all reality to the present state laws.

Recorded in reality? Fine. Give me a single source that is testable.

How would you know? What qualifies you to accuse?

I thought it was general knowledge. You do know about the meetings that were held to decide which books would be included in the Bible and which weren't, don't you?

How would you know what it was? You've demonstrasted that you don't even understand it. You are not in a position to judge.

Funny, I can say the same thing to you.

Then cork er. No slurs against God's word needed here, obviously you can't back it up.

I'm sorry, but which part of what I said is a slur against God's word? The bit where I say it would be off topic, or the bit where I say you would ignore it?

Big bang is credible to most men of science. They claim it was a singularity, and so small it would be invisible even to the naked eye! They do not claim that it is that way now, ever heard of the fable of expansion?..It got real big..

I said presently speck sized.

Where can one get that from? Science doesn't know.

So your only source for the young age of the universe is something that can't be impartially tested, yes?

If I was ignorant that the spiritual was a player and component in the future and past, I likely would see no further than the fishbowl, of course. Chilling thought.

But the only way you can see the spiritual is something that you can never know for certain is the truth.

Hey I am tossing you evos a rope here, grab it for dear life.

Thankls for your charity. But we don't need it. We have a solid foundation to stand on.

No, the thing is the safe place you retreat to is only a small part of reality. That is somewhat funny.

And the funnier thing is that the other part that you see cannot be shown to be part of reality at all. Unless you count gut feelings. I suppose that's why so many people have such wildly different ideas about religion and spirituality. There's no way to verify it.

Evolution is a created trait, and physics is fine, the fishbowl needs rules too.

Evolution is based on observation of the real world.

If you can find some empirically testable evidence to support your position, show it. (But you've failed to do that, despite all the times I have asked)

There is no evidence against it, and it fits.

Really? Wow, you;d better write a paper and go and win yourself a Nobel prize!

Honestly, if the flaws in the scientific explanation were so gaping that someone like you could fiond them, do you really think they wouldn't have already been exposed? And yet every single criticism leveled against science and evolution has been shown to be flawed.

You provide evidence that daughter material was NOT here when this state started, and I will be all over it like a pig on slop.

In many cases, the dauther material also decays. Thus we can be cpmp[are the amount of first, second and third generation decay products. And if they fit the model of decay that we have, we can be sure that we have an accurate determination of how long ago the parent material was formed.

 

[dad]

Is there anything of substance to reply to?

You see, dad -- your mistake, as usual, is to think that you have something worth saying, and demanding that other people treat you as if you do.

It's a common enough mistake, and a cause for much amusement throughout the forums -- as well as, I suspect, a good portion of your real life.

Now run along and play.

Knowing that the records indicate different laws at work in the far past is of great worth. Knowing that you cannot talk details when confronted with a need to prove that the assumptions of science are valid is of worth.

Being able to discuss details regarding the basis for the foundational beliefs of so called science is something I have done, and prefer to do. You just spam almost all the time.

Read your posts...they are empty and void almost all the time.

 

[dad]

Long winded way of saying you can't back up anything you're saying.

Science can't back up anything about Jesus and Peter walking on water. It is not I that can't back stuff up here. The events were recorded six ways from Sunday. That is backup. You have nothing but baseless doubts that CANNOT be backed up.

 

[dad]

And reality.

Reality as to which logic is flawed or not needs more than your stated opinion to be valid or invalid.

Recorded in reality? Fine. Give me a single source that is testable.

You like to pretend science can test all reality. No. That is NO measure of future or past reality, precisely because they cannot test it! The tests for sacred records were that they were known to be observed and recorded by real and reliable people. False prophets were killed by law. It is Last Thursdayism to wave away sacred records for no reason. That is what came down through history, long before so called science was around.

I thought it was general knowledge. You do know about the meetings that were held to decide which books would be included in the Bible and which weren't, don't you?

What about them?? And what about them did you think gave you a right to accuse??

Funny, I can say the same thing to you.

But then you would be asked to give an example of something I don't understand.

I'm sorry, but which part of what I said is a slur against God's word? The bit where I say it would be off topic, or the bit where I say you would ignore it?

The part I responded to.

I said presently speck sized.

Well obviously no one claims that. That would be as insane as claiming it was speck sized in the past, but we would all see how insane it was!

So your only source for the young age of the universe is something that can't be impartially tested, yes?

Let's see you impartially test the same state past!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????/

But the only way you can see the spiritual is something that you can never know for certain is the truth.

Knowing involves more than the eye of man.

Thankls for your charity. But we don't need it. We have a solid foundation to stand on.

Sounds like the makings of the first so called science hymn!

And the funnier thing is that the other part that you see cannot be shown to be part of reality at all. Unless you count gut feelings. I suppose that's why so many people have such wildly different ideas about religion and spirituality. There's no way to verify it.

Touchy feely stuff aside, science doesn't know, that is what matters.

Evolution is based on observation of the real world.

Being no more than a created trait, it can get in line with all the other created traits observed...so?? If you allude to the pond of Darwin, or some such nonsense, of course that is 100% fable.

Really? Wow, you;d better write a paper and go and win yourself a Nobel prize!

Funny how you guys think that is the ultimate...what do they pay for that cracker jack prize these days? 1/4 mil? Whoopee do.

Honestly, if the flaws in the scientific explanation were so gaping that someone like you could fiond them, do you really think they wouldn't have already been exposed? And yet every single criticism leveled against science and evolution has been shown to be flawed.

You are dreaming, it implodes almost without help! And the same state past assumptions are not supported so need not be attacked.

In many cases, the dauther material also decays.

Of course. It is HERE NOW!

Thus we can be cpmp[are the amount of first, second and third generation decay products. And if they fit the model of decay that we have, we can be sure that we have an accurate determination of how long ago the parent material was formed.

In NO WAY can that be done UNLESS the far past ALSO was this state. That you DO NOT KNOW! Check mate.

 

[Ar Cosc]

I think the true lesson to take from all of this is that Dad is living in a separate reality from the rest of us. In his reality there was a split, but in ours, there wasn't. We should feel sorry for him really, for his inability to think outside the box, and see that his split reality doesn't extend to all reality.