The Laws of the Universe

[sandwiches]

You have answered your own question.

Answer: Because you can't verify it with science.

As I'm fond of saying: When sciene can do this ...

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

... then we can talk.

I don't care about science. I care about what is true. How can we verify that his claims are true?

 

[dad]

Passing gas is something that still occurs today. Therefore, we can verify that passing gas is something that is real and is fairly common. Can we verify your claim in the same way?

Not in exactly the same way. Not all things are measured by what the average man does in the sacred record.

 

[sandwiches]

Not in exactly the same way. Not all things are measured by what the average man does in the sacred record.

I'm open to alternate verification methods. How would we go about doing this then?

 

[dad]

We'll have to take that to mean that you're blathering because you don't know the first thing about deductive reasoning.

Like I should ask a Poe!

Deduction -- taking a general premise that is considered to be true, and applying it to a specific scenario.

Nonsense. What is considered to be true is often rubbish.

• All human beings pass gas
• Caesar was a human being
• Therefore, Caesar passed gas.

Your turn, dad -- did Peter walk on water?

Yes. Why?

All miracles are beyond the natural
Peter experienced a miracle
Therefore Peter walked on water.

That's easy.

Chances are if Peter or the apostles read those "sacred" records, they'd be very puzzled at some of the nonsense that people claimed they did.

Baseless and anti scriptural claim.

I find it ironic that you would decry anything as a "cult."

Get over it.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, I think that was is respect to comments on the sacred records we had passed down. So, you would not have the wherewithal to verify them. For example Peter walking on water.

You do not have the ability to verify them.

However, if you have verified them, please describe the method you used.

The creation debate is not inside the field of the present.

Your premise is the same as your conclusion. Doesn't that embarrass you?

Thanks.

Note carefully what I said. What you have been told is God's word, which is different to God's actual word.

Just because you have been told it is doesn't mean it actually is.

No, you have posted nothing that supports that claim. Decay dating depends on how decay works now, and that it worked that way in the unknown past.

No, you wave it away with a lack of understanding. It does support my claim. You just don't bother looking at it properly.

That you do not know. Therefore until you do know, we may assume the movement was fast.

You assume I do not know and you use that to conclude that i do not know.

Once again your premise is the same as your conclusion.

By reality you mean the present state. That is part of reality.

And what was created in the past bears the marks of the reality that existed back then. And what we find fits best with a past that operated the same way as our present.

None are proven correct, so they need no more disproving than the tooth fairy.

They are proven correct. Your ignorance doesn't affect reality.

It only works where there is decay, in other words in this state. You cannot merely assume a present state with it's decay existed and was responsible for all the materials and isotopes that exist.

You say that decay has been going on for only the last few thousand years, and before that there was no decay. And yet we have many samples of rocks that show the decay of millions of years.

How can a rock show decay of millions of years if the process has been operating for only a few thousand?

Science isn't up to the task. The record stands.

I'm sorry, did you miss the part where I said your proof must be provable?

Proof doesn't consist of saying, "Well I don't think it is true."

By your posts, how could one tell?

By looking at reality.

Yes. I am. Until they are proven, and not merely physical only state imagination that is used to explain effects we see in a present state way!

Are you kidding? You're trotting out the old "You can't prove it isn't, so you have to accept that it is!" horse? That horse should have been sent to the glue factory ages ago.

Then test a black hole?

Determine the mass of an object, and look at how it orbits another object. By the first object's speed, we can calculate the mass of the second object and determine the escape velocity of the second object. If the escape velocity of the second object is greater than the speed of light, then the second object is a black hole.

The same state past is exactly that.

No, I'm afraid it is quite testable. The cross checking mechanism of radio dating relies on it to produce sensible results. After all, if radioactive decay wasn't operating in the past, the different decay rates wouldn't match up, would they? And if they didn't match up, different dating techniques would produce different results. And yet the different techniques match very well. this could not happen unless the process had been operating for many millions of years.

Woah! Decay dates are meaningless. Get right over that one. Your point then is that modern rocks formed in volcanoes are 'identical' to ones formed pre flood...right? So, show us the sample! Show us a rock formed since modern science has existed, and one from the Cambrian, or some such....

Volcanic eruption in Hawaii that occurred in 1984. The Hawaiian volcanos are shield volcanos. The lava solidifies to form basalt.

THIS article describes basalt ash that is dated to about 16,000 years ago.

I don't know. I deduce from the bible. In the days of Peleg, the earth was split...

Of course, until you can empirically verify the inerrancy of the Bible regarding this claim, you can't say it is proven...

How is it that modern decay is not mentioned in the bible?? gasp..

because the Bible was written by people thousands of years ago who had no idea about radioactive decay. see? Easy!

I have subjected it to all evidence ever presented to me from science.

Competent testing disagrees with you.

Well, there are plenty of clues. There was also a 120 year warning. Then there was the realities of the present state that came to be after the split..very different than what was before.

Could you please present specific evidence for each of these claims?

Yes. The creator is a spirit, and He certainly affected creation.

Assuming your conclusion.

Nope. Very different.

And that only goes to prove that you haven't even bothered to look and understand what is there.

Thermodynamics for example. The water and land on the planet was separated...moved, and no great heat was produced or retained.

So each atom was separated from all others and then put back together?

Many witnesses recorded stuff. The stuff was preserved. Evidential stuff.

Then you will have no problem whatsoever providing a non-biblical source that describes the plagues that struck Egypt that was written at the time.

God verified it for you and put it in Writing.

So you have been told.

It is silly asking for verification of the sacred records.

If a man opens his mouth to ask a question, he may look like a fool for a moment. But if he keeps his mouth shut and never asks, he will remain ignorant, and he will be a fool for life.

You have answered your own question.

Answer: Because you can't verify it with science.

You can't verify my claim that I just turned into a squirrel with science. Therefore you accept it on faith! Hooray! You believe that I can turn into a squirrel because it can't be tested by science!

Nonsense. What is considered to be true is often rubbish.

Quite right. So we must rely on something more than the opinion of the masses to determine the truth of something.

I propose investigation of reality. By using many investigations, any error in one will be discovered so it can be removed.

So tell me, Dad, what investigations of reality produce any evidence for your claims?

 

[super animator]

I'm not saying we should reject dad's claims. I am asking why we should accept them.

I'm pretty much sure that we can verify dad's clams.
*checks*
Well it appears that his claims are pretty much false.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Like I should ask a Poe!

You're certainly too proud to ask anyone.

Nonsense. What is considered to be true is often rubbish.

Exactly -- that's why whenever you go on about what you consider "truth," you're blathering.

Yes. Why?

Not why -- how.

All miracles are beyond the natural
Peter experienced a miracle
Therefore Peter walked on water.

That's easy.

You don't even try to be coherent anymore, do you?

Baseless and anti scriptural claim.

But true, nevertheless.

 

[dad]

I'm pretty much sure that we can verify dad's clams.
*checks*
Well it appears that his claims are pretty much false.

Hope you said hi to Adam and Noah for us...and visited the furthest star. Thanks Buzz. Your verification was needed.

 

[dad]

You're certainly too proud to ask anyone.



Exactly -- that's why whenever you go on about what you consider "truth," you're blathering.



Not why -- how.



You don't even try to be coherent anymore, do you?



But true, nevertheless.

Sorry, can't really respond to childish posts as much any more.

 

[dad]

You do not have the ability to verify them.

I see that they have the seal of the Almighty, so that does it for me. I have no reason to question good men with real good records all under the auspices of a good God. Good grief.

Your premise is the same as your conclusion. Doesn't that embarrass you?

No the creation debate and God and time are the premise. This present regime of laws is not observed to have been in place. That leaves it outside.

Note carefully what I said. What you have been told is God's word, which is different to God's actual word.

Say....who?? And how would they know??

Just because you have been told it is doesn't mean it actually is.

Yes it does. I looked at the prophesy. That clenches the deal somethin fierce.

No, you wave it away with a lack of understanding. It does support my claim. You just don't bother looking at it properly.

If there was something I failed to understand you could point it out. You can't. You don't. That speaks volumes about your position. I on the wonderful winning other hand, do point out that science cannot prove that this state existed in the days of the fathers.

You assume I do not know and you use that to conclude that i do not know.

I read what you post. It contains nothing that suggests you know. Don't blame me.

And what was created in the past bears the marks of the reality that existed back then. And what we find fits best with a past that operated the same way as our present.

Example?? I think you merely look at the marks through the eyes of faith.

They are proven correct.

Name one of whatever you are talking about that is proved correct and explain how!

You say that decay has been going on for only the last few thousand years, and before that there was no decay. And yet we have many samples of rocks that show the decay of millions of years.

Let's see one.

How can a rock show decay of millions of years if the process has been operating for only a few thousand?

It doesn't. Having materials in the rock that are now in a daughter parent relationship does not mean the materials were in that relationship before.

I'm sorry, did you miss the part where I said your proof must be provable?

By what? You want to wave off all records and have no science that can go to the future or past, and no proof, so what are you asking for??

Are you kidding? You're trotting out the old "You can't prove it isn't, so you have to accept that it is!" horse? That horse should have been sent to the glue factory ages ago.

No. I am presenting the glaring fact that unless your claims that underlie your 'science' are solidly evidenced and falsifiable, then they are meaningless.

Determine the mass of an object, and look at how it orbits another object. By the first object's speed, we can calculate the mass of the second object and determine the escape velocity of the second object. If the escape velocity of the second object is greater than the speed of light, then the second object is a black hole.

No. You can't deduce speeds. First you need to know size and distance!

No, I'm afraid it is quite testable. The cross checking mechanism of radio dating relies on it to produce sensible results. After all, if radioactive decay wasn't operating in the past, the different decay rates wouldn't match up, would they?

They don't. Ever heard of collaboration? They need to look around for something else. If we see 2 things in a rock that they 'date' hundreds of millions of years apart, they have a comrt or some imaginary series of same state events waft it in and morph!!!


Shortened ...your post was too long

 

[AV1611VET]

I see that they have the seal of the Almighty, so that does it for me. I have no reason to question good men with real good records all under the auspices of a good God. Good grief.

Good point --

 

[Nathan Poe]

Good point --

Very convenient as well, considering both you and dad consider yourselves to be almighty.

 

[AV1611VET]

Very convenient as well, considering both you and dad consider yourselves to be almighty.

Now, now, Nathan.

You reject our divinity and substitute your own -- right?

That means you're looking at us, but seeing yourself; and apparently you don't like what you see!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Now, now, Nathan.

You reject our divinity and substitute your own -- right?

That means you're looking at us, but seeing yourself; and apparently you don't like what you see!

You do enjoy retreating into your little fantasy worlds when reality doesn't suit you, don't you? It's a wonder (and a shame) you ever come out at all.

 

[dad]

I'm open to alternate verification methods. How would we go about doing this then?

Probably a good first step is to stop doubting God and His men for no reason. With an open mind we mightlook at things like prophesy. If someone says, 'sometime in the future a man will come and save mankind' -- we could doubt.

If someone says a man born of a virgin will come in 388000 and some odd days, enter Jerusalem on a donkey, be killed and rise again from the dead, have His hands and feet pierced, be betrayed by a friend for 30 pieces of silver that will get cast to the potter's field, the temple and city would be destroyed after He was killed, and named His birthplace, and the country He would have to live in for awhile.. etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc-----we would recognize the fingerprints of God. Since The Father spoke from Heaven a few times saying things about His only beloved son in whom He was well pleased, we could add the voice prints.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Probably a good first step is to stop doubting God and His men for no reason.

About about doubting it all for good reasons?

 

[dad]

Volcanic eruption in Hawaii that occurred in 1984. The Hawaiian volcanos are shield volcanos. The lava solidifies to form basalt.

So is this surprising in some way??? A volcano solidifies..??

THIS article describes basalt ash that is dated to about 16,000 years ago.

No, it uses faith based so called dates.

because the Bible was written by people thousands of years ago who had no idea about radioactive decay. see? Easy!

God knew.

Competent testing disagrees with you.

One cannot test the state of the past, all you do is assign daughter materials same state past jobs in your head.

So each atom was separated from all others and then put back together?

In moving the continents presumably after the flood, again we see land masses and water movement on a planetary scale. Yet no killing heat. No idea why that invokes thoughts of atoms doing gymnastics and disappearing acts....

Then you will have no problem whatsoever providing a non-biblical source that describes the plagues that struck Egypt that was written at the time.

The bible is the source that matters. The humiliated pagan demon worshiping Egyptians had just had the tar knocked out of them six ways from Sunday. If they didn't order a record purge I would be surprised.

If a man opens his mouth to ask a question, he may look like a fool for a moment. But if he keeps his mouth shut and never asks, he will remain ignorant, and he will be a fool for life.

Then ask. Hope it will help.

You can't verify my claim that I just turned into a squirrel with science. Therefore you accept it on faith! Hooray! You believe that I can turn into a squirrel because it can't be tested by science!

Let's be clear here. The claims of science must have basis. There is NO basis for a same state past. None. Not one shred of proof.

I propose investigation of reality. By using many investigations, any error in one will be discovered so it can be removed.

Sounds good, just do not think you are investigating the future or past state Sherlock. You ain't.

So tell me, Dad, what investigations of reality produce any evidence for your claims?

All....biblical and physical evidence points that way, and a different state past fits the bill.

 

[Tiberius]

I see that they have the seal of the Almighty, so that does it for me. I have no reason to question good men with real good records all under the auspices of a good God. Good grief.

Yeah, coz religious leaders have never distorted things to make their position look more favourable, have they?

No the creation debate and God and time are the premise. This present regime of laws is not observed to have been in place. That leaves it outside.

So you dismiss it in order to show that you are justified in dismissing it.

Say....who?? And how would they know??

IO think you misunderstood what I am saying.

Yes it does. I looked at the prophesy. That clenches the deal somethin fierce.

But you were told about the prophecies too. And likewise, you have no way of testing them.

If there was something I failed to understand you could point it out. You can't. You don't. That speaks volumes about your position. I on the wonderful winning other hand, do point out that science cannot prove that this state existed in the days of the fathers.

You don't understand the whole thing.

Oh, and I've pointed out how readio dating does work countless times because you don't understand it. You just refuse to listen.

I read what you post. It contains nothing that suggests you know. Don't blame me.

You don't see it because you are convinced you are right. it blinds you to actual evidence.

Example?? I think you merely look at the marks through the eyes of faith.

The fact that radio dating techniques provide different methods of dating the same rocks, and they give results that agree with each other. If the premise that radio dating is built on was flawed, then the results from different methods would not agree.

How many times have I told you this? Are you going to remember it this time?

Name one of whatever you are talking about that is proved correct and explain how!

The fact that radio dating techniques provide different methods of dating the same rocks, and they give results that agree with each other. If the premise that radio dating is built on was flawed, then the results from different methods would not agree.

Let's see one.

Oldest dated rocks.

The fact that this information is readily available on Wikipedia indicates to me that you simply are not interested in finding out. You are just interested in repeating your claims over and over, with your mind closed to other points of view. And any point of view that you don't agree with, you dismiss as lacking support, even though the evidence supporting it is there for you to see if you actually cared.

So you aren't here to discuss. You are here to repeat a flawed argument over and over. In short, you are a troll.

It doesn't. Having materials in the rock that are now in a daughter parent relationship does not mean the materials were in that relationship before.

For this to be true, it would mean that the parent/daughter ratios of different materials are, by an amazing coincidence, in the proper ratios to appear as if the rocks containing them had been decaying for millions of years. Wow, what are the odds of that happening? Out of all the possible ratios, why do they randomly have ratios that appear exactly the way they would if they were non random?

By what? You want to wave off all records and have no science that can go to the future or past, and no proof, so what are you asking for??

This is nonsense. My claims are based on evidence. You have no justification in saying I am trying top do away with it.

No. I am presenting the glaring fact that unless your claims that underlie your 'science' are solidly evidenced and falsifiable, then they are meaningless.

it is easy to falsify radio dating. Show me a sample of rock that yields an age of 1 million years when a particular technique is used, and an age of 5 billion years when a different technique is used.

Once you do that, I will admit defeat.

No. You can't deduce speeds. First you need to know size and distance!

Redshift.

They don't. Ever heard of collaboration? They need to look around for something else. If we see 2 things in a rock that they 'date' hundreds of millions of years apart, they have a comrt or some imaginary series of same state events waft it in and morph!!!

You want to show me an example of this?

So is this surprising in some way??? A volcano solidifies..??

I was posting that to answer your request that I show you a rock formed recently that is identical to rocks formed long ago. This satisfies your request.

But of course, since it doesn't support your position, you dismiss it.

No, it uses faith based so called dates.

No it doesn't.

God knew.

And yet he didn't include it anywhere.

One cannot test the state of the past, all you do is assign daughter materials same state past jobs in your head.

Yes you can. Just because YOU don't understand how it can be verified, doesn't mean it is impossible to do so.

In moving the continents presumably after the flood, again we see land masses and water movement on a planetary scale. Yet no killing heat. No idea why that invokes thoughts of atoms doing gymnastics and disappearing acts....

As usual, you are assuming the verify thing you wish to prove. That isn't a valid way of finding the truth.

The bible is the source that matters. The humiliated pagan demon worshiping Egyptians had just had the tar knocked out of them six ways from Sunday. If they didn't order a record purge I would be surprised.

Geez, you grab on to any outrageous claim, doncha?

Then ask. Hope it will help.

Maybe you should ask too.

Let's be clear here. The claims of science must have basis. There is NO basis for a same state past. None. Not one shred of proof.

I've explained to you countless times that there is a heapload of evidence. Just because you close your eyes and refuse to look at it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just means you prefer to remain blind.

Sounds good, just do not think you are investigating the future or past state Sherlock. You ain't.

Your claim that the past state was different is thus also testable. Please propose a method that we can use to test it. Show me something - ANYTHING - which can only exist if the past state was different. Then we can go and look to see if that thing is really there in the real world. How does that sound, cupcake?

All....biblical and physical evidence points that way, and a different state past fits the bill.

Biblical evidence? Unfortunately, we have no way to verify it (see above when you agreed that investigastion of the real world is a good way to go). So that leaves just physical evidence. And as I just asked you, show me something that could only exist if the past state was different.

 

[dad]

Yeah, coz religious leaders have never distorted things to make their position look more favourable, have they?

Science...religion..banking...show biz...you name it. Men are men.

But you were told about the prophecies too. And likewise, you have no way of testing them.

Yes I do. The main kingdoms were all foretold. Jesus' life is well recorded, and we know He fulfilled the hundreds of prophesies.

Oh, and I've pointed out how readio dating does work countless times because you don't understand it. You just refuse to listen.

Obviously you do not understand it.

The fact that radio dating techniques provide different methods of dating the same rocks, and they give results that agree with each other. If the premise that radio dating is built on was flawed, then the results from different methods would not agree.

Different ways of looking at the ratios with a same state belief means nothing.

For this to be true, it would mean that the parent/daughter ratios of different materials are, by an amazing coincidence, in the proper ratios to appear as if the rocks containing them had been decaying for millions of years.

Nope. You merely need a state change that leaves the existing materials in a decay relationship.

it is easy to falsify radio dating. Show me a sample of rock that yields an age of 1 million years when a particular technique is used, and an age of 5 billion years when a different technique is used.

That is not falsifying anything but one sample. I am talking about the same state past. That can't be falsified. Using the same state past belief to color how you view a rock is not falsifying anything.

Redshift.

That assumes a same state far away universe, nothing more.

You want to show me an example of this?

" "The carbon in the graphite is not as old as the rock. That can only ring a bell and require us to ask if we need to reconsider earlier studies."

Nearly 4,000-million years old samples from Greenland have been used to develop the dominant time line regarding the emergence of the earliest biosphere. The recent findings suggest the biosphere may have emerged millions of years later, a hypothesis that now demands a rigorous study, said Papineau.

"It could be that researchers in the field need to go back to Greenland to restudy these rocks and determine if the the carbonaceous materials are in fact as old as the metamorphosed rock itself," Papineau said.

As the planet evolved, rock and other matter was subjected to a range of temperatures that leave telltale signatures scientists can now study. The team's examination found that the rock samples were subjected to high-grade metamorphism. Yet the crystalline structure of the graphite present in the samples was not, leading scientists to conclude the matter infiltrated the rock at a later stage in time, though the exact timing is not clear at this point. "

The Archaeology News Network: Young graphite in old rocks challenges the earliest signs of life

 

[sandwiches]

I see that they have the seal of the Almighty, so that does it for me. I have no reason to question good men with real good records all under the auspices of a good God. Good grief.

How do you know they are good men to trust their writings? How do you know they are good records? How do you know they were all "under the auspices of a good God?"