The Laws of the Universe

[Delphiki]

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.

Maybe his different state hypothesis is true, and he just lives in it, while the rest of us experience a much more coherent reality.

.... nah. lol

 

[Tiberius]

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

Then why don't you go and see for yourself. maybe take a course in geology or something.

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.

No test for the past? Funny, I thought radiometric dating did quite well at that. Which you are yet to show why it is false. All you have done is claim it, with some excuse about the laws being different back then - a claim which you constant;ly refuse to back up.

And I am not trying to wave away your sacred relics and records. I fully admit that they exist. What I am doing is asking for verification of those records.

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

I'm sorry. from now on I will assume that any religious person is the utmost pillar of morality, a paragon of virtue and incapable of doing any wrong.

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

You've made it quite clear that there is a great deal about science that you don't understand, and that lack of understanding is due to the fact that you have a rigidly held worldview and you automatically discount anything which contradicts that worldview.

The part I responded to.

Yeah, and the part you responded to was me saying, "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."

Which part of that is a slur against God? I said that there are plenty of threads about inconsistancies in the Bible. Is that a slur against God? I said I wouldn't discuss it in this thread for two reasons. Is that a slur against God? The first reason I gave was that discussion about it in this thread would be off topic. Was that a slur against God? The second reason was that you would ignore any argument i put forth. Is that a slur against God?

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

We can test the age of rocks using several different dating techniques. If the laws were different in the past, the different dating techniques would all give different answers due to different decay rates in the different materials. But they don't. When we actually do the tests, the ages given are in agreement. but then, I've already explained it to you. And you, as usual, ignore anything that disagrees with you.

Knowing involves more than the eye of man.

Very well. Can you give me a single objective truth about the world that you can demonstrate to be objectively true that has not been found with the use of science?

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

Are hymns bad things now?

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

So if gut feelings are right, why do different people have gut feelings that lead them apart? Why have I had a gut feeling which I was absolutely convinced was right, yet it turned out to be wrong?

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.

So there is some fiction, except that it is actually seen in the real world?

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.

Nah, I don't think it is the ultimate. But it would give you recognition by the scientific community that your ideas are right.

They are right, aren't they?

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

And yet it is the most widely used tool in our investigation of the real world, it has given us all sorts of advances (including the computer you are using) and it has never been shown to be false, despite the ease you say such proof could be offered.

Gee, why is that?

Of course. It is HERE NOW!

So we have material A. it decays to material B, which decays to material C. Material B only comes from the decay of material A. So we can compare the amounts of each, and we have a way to check the amounts to ensure there is no contamination, because we know that material B can only come from A.

Anyway, if all the results you say are incorrect come from contamination, isn't amazing that all the rocks from a single layer, say the K/T boundary, have been contaminated in exactly the same way and by exactly the same amount in order to give the same incorrect date?

How could all these rocks, from all around the world, be contaminated in the same way? What global action could affect all these rocks the same way? I can't think of one. Can you?

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

And you do not know that the far past was a different state! Double check and mate!

 

[dad]

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.

A different state future is not part of our present reality, nor a DSP. The issue is not that science doesn't yet know about the big change, but that they never bothered to look.

The only way utterly godless conclusions can constantly be arrived at, is by missing it entirely! That is really what science has been all about and the spiritual inspiration for it I would deduce.

Someone somewhere, or something has tried to keep you away from God, and spared no expense. Start to question what you thought they knew.

 

[dad]

Then why don't you go and see for yourself. maybe take a course in geology or something.

Geology is institutionalized same state belief.

No test for the past? Funny, I thought radiometric dating did quite well at that.

Nope. Unless the state of the past was first KNOWN, that has NO meaning to deep time. It has only been assumed.

And I am not trying to wave away your sacred relics and records. I fully admit that they exist. What I am doing is asking for verification of those records.

They were verified every step of the way. Unlike same state science which is unfalsifiable.

I'm sorry. from now on I will assume that any religious person is the utmost pillar of morality, a paragon of virtue and incapable of doing any wrong.

The cross checks for the keeping of scripture precluded any one man messing it up. The bible is all about man being sinners, not paragons of imaginary holiness. God is about being able to work with that, and get His word out anyhow.

You've made it quite clear that there is a great deal about science that you don't understand, and that lack of understanding is due to the fact that you have a rigidly held worldview and you automatically discount anything which contradicts that worldview.

False. Name one example you think I do not understand, and let's see who doesn't get it.

Yeah, and the part you responded to was me saying, "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."

Which part of that is a slur against God?

I said that there are plenty of threads about inconsistancies in the Bible.

Is that a slur against God? I said I wouldn't discuss it in this thread for two reasons. Is that a slur against God? The first reason I gave was that discussion about it in this thread would be off topic. Was that a slur against God? The second reason was that you would ignore any argument i put forth. Is that a slur against God?

You want to pretend you have inconsistencies about God? Yet you can't mention them? And you think that is not a slur??

We can test the age of rocks using several different dating techniques. If the laws were different in the past, the different dating techniques would all give different answers due to different decay rates in the different materials. But they don't. When we actually do the tests, the ages given are in agreement. but then, I've already explained it to you. And you, as usual, ignore anything that disagrees with you.

Nonsense. ALL techniques assume a same state past. That is NOT proven, or known in any way.

Very well. Can you give me a single objective truth about the world that you can demonstrate to be objectively true that has not been found with the use of science?

Motherhood, and apple pie.

Are hymns bad things now?

The ode to evos doesn't seem like a godly hymn.

So if gut feelings are right, why do different people have gut feelings that lead them apart? Why have I had a gut feeling which I was absolutely convinced was right, yet it turned out to be wrong?

Maybe you place too much value on touchy feely things?

Nah, I don't think it is the ultimate. But it would give you recognition by the scientific community that your ideas are right.

Hmm, that might be like asking a high priest of the occult to award me with a broom. I doubt it. Of course I would take the cash..

And yet it is the most widely used tool in our investigation of the real world, it has given us all sorts of advances (including the computer you are using) and it has never been shown to be false, despite the ease you say such proof could be offered.

Real science is used for good and bad in the modern world. NO so called science of the same state past is used anywhere, but to offend faith in God.

So we have material A. it decays to material B, which decays to material C. Material B only comes from the decay of material A. So we can compare the amounts of each, and we have a way to check the amounts to ensure there is no contamination, because we know that material B can only come from A.

You need to know how much of each was there at the start. Otherwise there can be no real math. You don't. You just look at a daughter doing a waltz, and assume that she was always there dancing that way.

Anyway, if all the results you say are incorrect come from contamination, isn't amazing that all the rocks from a single layer, say the K/T boundary, have been contaminated in exactly the same way and by exactly the same amount in order to give the same incorrect date?

No. Not amazing in any way. There are no dates, first of all, get rid of that notion. That leaves 'contamination'. The iridium comes from space and/or the deep insides of earth! So did the flood water....

And you do not know that the far past was a different state! Double check and mate!

I don't claim science knows, I merely pointed out it does not. What we know we know from the records of God. Otherwise, you know not, and, hopefully at least now you know that you know not.

 

[Ar Cosc]

A different state future is not part of our present reality, nor a DSP. The issue is not that science doesn't yet know about the big change, but that they never bothered to look.

You're assuming that all of us exist in the same reality as you do, the reality is that we don't live in the same reality as you do, and the issue is that you've never bothered to consider this. If only you'd think outside the box, dad.

The only way utterly godless conclusions can constantly be arrived at, is by missing it entirely! That is really what science has been all about and the spiritual inspiration for it I would deduce.

Someone somewhere, or something has tried to keep you away from God, and spared no expense. Start to question what you thought they knew.

Perhaps this would be true in your reality, the one that had the split. In our reality, these things are simply not true.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

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

You already did. I answered.

If you claim Nat Poe posted substantive replies in the thread, point them out!

Substantive replies to what? You haven't presented a substantive premise to reply to.




Lurker

 

[dewaddict84]

Then why don't you go and see for yourself. maybe take a course in geology or something.

Tiberius, why would you do something so awful. Think of the poor geology professor!

 

[dad]

You're assuming that all of us exist in the same reality as you do, the reality is that we don't live in the same reality as you do, and the issue is that you've never bothered to consider this. If only you'd think outside the box, dad.



Perhaps this would be true in your reality, the one that had the split. In our reality, these things are simply not true.

The laws and forces science knows are not a reality that is assumed. Extending them to the future and frying out the universe is another story.

 

[dad]

You already did. I answered.

You are not a lurker. Just in name. You post plenty. Be honest.

Substantive replies to what? You haven't presented a substantive premise to reply to.

Work on that.

 

[Tiberius]

Geology is institutionalized same state belief.

Which produces results. That's why so many companies (such as oil companies) use it.

I mean, if it was wrong, it wouldn't produce accurate results, would it? and if it didn't produce accurate results, do you think big companies would spend billions of dollars on it?

Nope. Unless the state of the past was first KNOWN, that has NO meaning to deep time. It has only been assumed.

And yet it doesn't produce nonsensical results. Why is that?

They were verified every step of the way. Unlike same state science which is unfalsifiable.

It is easy to falsify theories that are based on incorrect assumptions. They produce meaningless results and/or results that do not match with what we find in reality. As far as I know, none of these apply to geology or evolution.

The cross checks for the keeping of scripture precluded any one man messing it up. The bible is all about man being sinners, not paragons of imaginary holiness. God is about being able to work with that, and get His word out anyhow.

Science has a similar cross checking mechanism. So if it is as wrong as you say, why has this fault not been found?

False. Name one example you think I do not understand, and let's see who doesn't get it.

Radio dating techniques. You do not get that.

You want to pretend you have inconsistencies about God? Yet you can't mention them? And you think that is not a slur??

A slur against God? No. How is it a slur to avoid mentioning them? if I keep to myself my opinion, is that a slur?

besides, like I said, it would take this thread off topic.

if you really want to discuss these inconsistancies, feel free to create a thread about it. Send me a PM with a link and I promise I will discuss them quite happily there.

Nonsense. ALL techniques assume a same state past. That is NOT proven, or known in any way.

yes it has been proven. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it is unproven.

Motherhood, and apple pie.

DNA testing can determine which woman is the mother of which child genetically, and direct empiurical observation can determine which woman gives birth to which child.

And the contents of a pie can be analysed to determine if it is an apple pie or another variety.

The ode to evos doesn't seem like a godly hymn.

maybe not, but we can verify that it applies to the real world.

Maybe you place too much value on touchy feely things?

Since you place such great importance on things that can only be felt in your heart, I would say that it is you, not me, who places the greater emphasis on emotional appeals.

I place greater authority in that which can be observed, measured and independantly verified.

Hmm, that might be like asking a high priest of the occult to award me with a broom. I doubt it. Of course I would take the cash..

Ah, so you have no interest in actually promting the truth?

Real science is used for good and bad in the modern world. NO so called science of the same state past is used anywhere, but to offend faith in God.

Science that uses the present as a model for the past is used everywhere. You cannot deny it just because it offends your sensibilities. Reality has no obligation to avoid offending you. if you want to disprove it, you must do more than say that you don't like what it says. You must present evidence - something you seem unable to do.

You need to know how much of each was there at the start. Otherwise there can be no real math. You don't. You just look at a daughter doing a waltz, and assume that she was always there dancing that way.

have you forgotten what I said just a moment ago about the self-checking mechanisms present in the scientific technique?

No. Not amazing in any way. There are no dates, first of all, get rid of that notion. That leaves 'contamination'. The iridium comes from space and/or the deep insides of earth! So did the flood water....

As far as I know, the iridium present at the K/T boundary has never been used in radiodating techniques. it provides a useful marker, but is not used in the dating process itself.

I fully agree that the iridium present came from space (investigation has shown that it is a rather rare mineral on earth, but common in asteroids).

And as for the flood water... can you provide any evidence for this that is not taken from the Bible?

I don't claim science knows, I merely pointed out it does not. What we know we know from the records of God. Otherwise, you know not, and, hopefully at least now you know that you know not.

How have you verified these records of God?

I am fully aware that science can not provide all the answers at present. However, I do believe that science is the best tool we have for finding out about the world. This is due (in part) to the self checking and verifying nature of science - something which the Bible lacks.

 

[Ar Cosc]

The laws and forces science knows are not a reality that is assumed. Extending them to the future and frying out the universe is another story.

They are a reality where all of the rest of us exist. Why do you keep extending the laws and truths of the split universe in which you exist to our non-split universe? You are just thinking inside the box when you assume that the people at the other end of the internet connection exist in a same-state reality as you.

 

[AV1611VET]

They are a reality where all of the rest of us exist. Why do you keep extending the laws and truths of the split universe in which you exist to our non-split universe? You are just thinking inside the box when you assume that the people at the other end of the internet connection exist in a same-state reality as you.

When one compares the universe before the Fall, to the universe after the Fall, it is not hard to see that they are operating in two different states of existence.

Even the animals act differently.

 

[Ar Cosc]

When one compares the universe before the Fall, to the universe after the Fall, it is not hard to see that they are operating in two different states of existence.

Even the animals act differently.

Perhaps in your reality, but again, you're assuming the the people you're talking to exist in the same reality as yourself. It's this same-statism which is ridiculous, it is anti-science, and anti-religion. Of course in your different state existence, there was a split, but in our reality, there was no such split. Why are you and dad so entrenched in your irrational view that your world, history, and physical laws can be extrapolated to everywhere else that the internet reaches?

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course in your different state existence, there was a split, but in our reality, there was no such split.

You think there was no split, but the fact is, your myopic instruments cannot see past the Fall from here to Adam & Eve; and so you simply assume it didn't happen.

It's like that barrier at the edge of the galaxy in Star Trek, only worse.

It would be like someone saying, "We can't see what's beyond that barrier, and we don't need to because there's nothing there."

In other words, you guys can't see the barrier, let alone what was on the other side of it.

 

[Ar Cosc]

You think there was no split, but the fact is, your myopic instruments cannot see past the Fall from here to Adam & Eve; and so you simply assume it didn't happen.

It's like that barrier at the edge of the galaxy in Star Trek, only worse.

It would be like someone saying, "We can't see what's beyond that barrier, and we don't need to because there's nothing there."

In other words, you guys can't see the barrier, let alone what was on the other side of it.

Why do you keep assuming we live in the same universe as you? What possible proof could you have of this? I tell you there was no split in our reality, and you go off on some complete non-sequitur about scientific instruments!

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you keep assuming we live in the same universe as you?

What kind of question is that?

Just how many universes are there?

 

[Ar Cosc]

What kind of question is that?

Just how many universes are there?

I'm not arrogant enough to assume that I can know that. How about you work it out with your myopic religion?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not arrogant enough to assume that I can know that.

Then let me do it for you.

Your question assumes at least two universes, does it not?

How about you work it out with your myopic religion?

Sure -- one.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Then let me do it for you.

Your question assumes at least two universes, does it not?

Of course there are at least two, one with a split, and one without. There could be many more.

Sure -- one.

What makes you think this, apart from your ridiculous same-state preconceptions?

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Work on that.

Please do. Here's a good place to start: Which are more reliable - explanations that are consistent with evidence or explanations that are contradicted by evidence?




Lurker