The Laws of the Universe

[Juvenal]

If the physical evidence supported a different set of physical laws in the past, one that supported this peculiarly modern interpretation of Genesis, I somehow doubt that the evidence would be rejected by many of our more faithful correspondents.

The real reason for rejecting the evidence that the universe has been running pretty much the same way for the past billions of years is that they don't like the answer.

Not an especially compelling, or appealing argument.

As ever, Jesse

 

[dad]

If the physical evidence supported a different set of physical laws in the past, one that supported this peculiarly modern interpretation of Genesis, I somehow doubt that the evidence would be rejected by many of our more faithful correspondents.

The real reason for rejecting the evidence that the universe has been running pretty much the same way for the past billions of years is that they don't like the answer.

Not an especially compelling, or appealing argument.

As ever, Jesse

If the different than physical only state of the past were different, then looking for present state physical evidence is foolish incarnate.

 

[dad]

What's the topic of the thread about, Dad? What have you been going on with the whole time?

I'll make it very clear...

Is there anything we can learn from the real world that indicates that the laws of the universe operated differently in the past?

We can learn that evolution was fast, and stsrted not at the pond, but at creation. We can learn that stars may not be what the physical only sooth sayers claim they are. We can learn that the KT layer might be the flood layer, and that mountain building is real, but recent. We can learn that some creatures did not fossilize, or they would be in the record.....there are many many things we can learn.

..All by learning so called science actually doesn't know what it is talking about after all, and God does.

 

[dad]

Not really. When I was a Christian, I knew the universe had the same laws but God could do as he pleased. No need for a different set of universal laws.

Look where that got you.

 

[Tiberius]

Not that I know of -- there are some things that you'll just have to get from the Documentation.

And if the documentation of your car said it contained a hyperdrive engine, but when you looked it only had a crummy old internal combustion engine, which would you consider mistaken? The documentation or the car itself?

 

[Tiberius]

We can learn that evolution was fast, and stsrted not at the pond, but at creation.

And what evidence from reality tells us that?

We can learn that stars may not be what the physical only sooth sayers claim they are.

And what evidence from reality tells us that?

We can learn that the KT layer might be the flood layer, and that mountain building is real, but recent.

And what evidence from reality tells us that?

We can learn that some creatures did not fossilize, or they would be in the record

And what evidence from reality tells us that?

.....there are many many things we can learn.

I'm sorry, but without evidence it is just wishful thinking.

All by learning so called science actually doesn't know what it is talking about after all, and God does.

And let me guess... You know that science doesn't know what it is talking about because it disagree with what you have already decided is true?

 

[Ar Cosc]

Dad, if there had been a split, you would think God would have made it clearer in the bible. You know, so more than one person in the world believes what you do!

 

[Nathan Poe]

If the different than physical only state of the past were different, then looking for present state physical evidence is foolish incarnate.

And if it's not, then you're the fool.

As usual, you choose the answer which glorifies yourself for no reason other than it glorifies yourself.

 

[Hespera]

And if the documentation of your car said it contained a hyperdrive engine, but when you looked it only had a crummy old internal combustion engine, which would you consider mistaken? The documentation or the car itself?

depends on whether the writer was inspired.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dad, if there had been a split, you would think God would have made it clearer in the bible.

LOL -- like that would make a difference?

When the Bible says such things as, "And the evening and the morning were the first day," and you guys argue it's not saying a 24-hour period?

 

[Nathan Poe]

LOL -- like that would make a difference?

Something is always better than nothing, AV.

When the Bible says such things as, "And the evening and the morning were the first day," and you guys argue it's not saying a 24-hour period?

When the Bible contradicts reality, reality wins. Allegory is the only thing keeping the Bible from being discarded -- one would think you'd be grateful for the help.

 

[sandwiches]

Look where that got you.

To rational thinking, indeed. The truth shall set you free!

 

[sandwiches]

depends on whether the writer was inspired.

Actually, it depends on whether you think your answer will let you live forever.

 

[Hespera]

Actually, it depends on whether you think your answer will let you live forever.

what an awful quiz show

 

[dad]

To rational thinking, indeed. The truth shall set you free!

Does that include free from heaven?

 

[dad]

Dad, if there had been a split, you would think God would have made it clearer in the bible. You know, so more than one person in the world believes what you do!

Thanks. Copyright people, take notice....

 

[dad]

And what evidence from reality tells us that?



And what evidence from reality tells us that?



And what evidence from reality tells us that?



And what evidence from reality tells us that?



I'm sorry, but without evidence it is just wishful thinking.

It is about how we look at evidence. Science has looked at it assuming one key unlocks all. There is another key that works better. Expand your horizons.

And let me guess... You know that science doesn't know what it is talking about because it disagree with what you have already decided is true?

No. It only builds models on what it considers true....the present. That is why it does not know what it speaks of.

 

[sandwiches]

Does that include free from heaven?

Free of oppressive religious thinking. Make no mistake that if a Heaven exists, it'll be free of the superstitions and immorality of human religion.

 

[sandwiches]

It is about how we look at evidence. Science has looked at it assuming one key unlocks all. There is another key that works better. Expand your horizons.

Which key are we using, which key should we use, and why?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Does that include free from heaven?

What heaven, dad?