The Laws of the Universe

[dad]

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

It is best to start with some evidence. Something that doesn't exist for our state in the far past. Explanations are not based on evidence, but in so called science they merely use evidence as a convenient dump for their godless biased world view. The evidence itself is consistent with a different state!

 

[dad]

..I tell you there was no split in our reality,...

Our reality is here and now. The reality of science is here and now. The reality of God is forever, and covers the past and future.

 

[dad]

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

False. The thing they use is the patterns of deposits, and layers, etc. None of which has a thing to do with a same state past.

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.

None that science can check. Bottom line is that they work with and in the present state. How it got here has nothing to do with a same state in the past, and nothing we use depends on that.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Our reality is here and now. The reality of science is here and now. The reality of God is forever, and covers the past and future.

Maybe in your reality, why do you assume that the same laws and assumptions apply where I am?

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

It is best to start with some evidence.

Evidence is meaningless in a discussion with someone who cannot answer my previous question which, I noticed, you failed to answer. Here it is again: Which are more reliable - explanations that are consistent with evidence or explanations that are contradicted by evidence? Thanks.




Lurker

 

[dad]

Maybe in your reality, why do you assume that the same laws and assumptions apply where I am?

I don't. I assume they apply in man's part of the universe. Where are you from?

 

[dad]

.. Which are more reliable - explanations that are consistent with evidence or explanations that are contradicted by evidence? Thanks.

No evidence contradicts a different state past. Noo evidence supports a same state past. If you think you have something consistent with evidence that a different state past does not also have with the same evidence...let's see it now. Otherwise you are alluding to things that don't matter or apply.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Please show me a Bible verse that describes how the animals acted before the fall.

And in any case, where you there?

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.

Except that the Enterprise went past that barrier three times. Where No Man Has Gone Before, By any other Name and Is There In Truth No Beauty.

And the barrier was detectable to the enterprise's sensors, and they never said that there was nothing else beyond that barrier.

Your analogy fails.

It is best to start with some evidence. Something that doesn't exist for our state in the far past. Explanations are not based on evidence, but in so called science they merely use evidence as a convenient dump for their godless biased world view. The evidence itself is consistent with a different state!

First of all, what do you knkow about evidence. Since the beginning of this thread I have been asking you to provide evidence to support your position, and you've fluctuated between ignoring me, saying there is no evidence, and presenting vague claims as evidence, such as "History".

Now you say that explanations are not based on evidence, despite the fact that any scientific theory which explains something must fit in with evidence or it is discarded.

And now you say that the evidence supports a different state in the far past again. So I challenge you once and for all: Provide specific evidence of something in the past which can not exist in the state the universe is in now.

False. The thing they use is the patterns of deposits, and layers, etc. None of which has a thing to do with a same state past.

And how do they determine which layers and deposits are likely to be where? By using a geological model of the earth that treats the earth as billions of years old.

How do you think coal formed if the world is only a few thousand years old?

In any case, I challenge you to name one geologist who gets valid results who bases his research on a few thousand year old Earth.

None that science can check. Bottom line is that they work with and in the present state. How it got here has nothing to do with a same state in the past, and nothing we use depends on that.

See, here we go again. In the very post you are quoting, I told you how science has built in mechanisms for checking its results. And here you are ignoring them. Do you read selectively? I always knew it was typical for creationists to ignore things that they don't like, but you take it to a whole new level.

No evidence contradicts a different state past. Noo evidence supports a same state past. If you think you have something consistent with evidence that a different state past does not also have with the same evidence...let's see it now. Otherwise you are alluding to things that don't matter or apply.

As I have mentioned countless times, radio dating assumes a same past state and gets valid results. It would not produce valid results if the past was different.

 

[dad]

Please show me a Bible verse that describes how the animals acted before the fall.

The future is the key to the past. Horses fly in the bible future! Lions and wolves eat grass! That is different. Man talked to the creatures in the past...that is different...

Except that the Enterprise went past that barrier three times. Where No Man Has Gone Before, By any other Name and Is There In Truth No Beauty.

Hmm Even the Voyager started to send back gibberish when it got too far from earth


"
NASA may have to bust out an Enigma Machine to figure out what’s going on with the Voyager 2 probe, the second most distant human-made object in space.
Yesterday mission managers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena announced that the craft recently started sending back science data in a format no one on Earth can decode."
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic....aking_in_code/

First of all, what do you knkow about evidence. Since the beginning of this thread I have been asking you to provide evidence to support your position, and you've fluctuated between ignoring me, saying there is no evidence, and presenting vague claims as evidence, such as "History".

I know you have no evidence for a same state past. I know that you don't seem to regard history of the pre flood records of the bible in high regards as the evidence they are.

Hey, since you got none, don't knock what we do have.

Now you say that explanations are not based on evidence, despite the fact that any scientific theory which explains something must fit in with evidence or it is discarded.

False. It must fit in with the present state! The evidence is colored and tainted by that belief and bias.

And now you say that the evidence supports a different state in the far past again. So I challenge you once and for all: Provide specific evidence of something in the past which can not exist in the state the universe is in now.

All evidence. Name anything. Continental drift? The fossil record? etc etc

And how do they determine which layers and deposits are likely to be where? By using a geological model of the earth that treats the earth as billions of years old.

A sequence of events determined the deposits. How fast the events happened is not known.

How do you think coal formed if the world is only a few thousand years old?

Easy. Coal did what coal does in the state it did it when it did what it done.

In any case, I challenge you to name one geologist who gets valid results who bases his research on a few thousand year old Earth.

Name one witch doctor that gets his bone tossing info from flipping a coin? They have certain ideas that they imbed into their fantasies. The thing that matters is not the fantasy ideas, but the facts on the ground.

See, here we go again. In the very post you are quoting, I told you how science has built in mechanisms for checking its results. And here you are ignoring them. Do you read selectively? I always knew it was typical for creationists to ignore things that they don't like, but you take it to a whole new level.

They use the same state check and balance system. It actually checks nothing. All that they care about is that it meet up in the magic puff balls of their pipe dreams.

As I have mentioned countless times, radio dating assumes a same past state and gets valid results.

Show us here and now one valid result!!! Country? Date? ...

It would not produce valid results if the past was different.

It doesn't. What gets results is looking at the patterns of history and creation, and the changes that earth endured. All because of sin..

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

No evidence contradicts a different state past.

Curiously, this is not at all the question I've asked. Why is this so hard? Which is more reliable - explanations that are consistent with evidence or explanations which are contradicted by evidence?

Presenting evidence is useless in a discussion with someone who cannot/will not answer the above question. Thanks.




Lurker

 

[AV1611VET]

Which are more reliable - explanations that are consistent with evidence or explanations that are contradicted by evidence?

Explanations that are consistent with evidence.

That's one of the reasons science can take a hike.

We walk by faith, not by sight; meaning we keep on keeping on, even when scientific evidence says otherwise.

 

[Cabal]

Explanations that are consistent with evidence.

That's one of the reasons science can take a hike.

Explanations that are not exclusively consistent with evidence, rather, which is why science is still in the game (not that it needs the say-so of a mere creationist to stay in it, of course). There being no empirical evidence of creation ex nihilo is just as much evidence for it not happening at all.

 

[dad]

Explanations that are consistent with evidence.

That's one of the reasons science can take a hike.

We walk by faith, not by sight; meaning we keep on keeping on, even when scientific evidence says otherwise.

Good one.

 

[sandwiches]

Explanations that are consistent with evidence.

That's one of the reasons science can take a hike.

We walk by faith, not by sight; meaning we keep on keeping on, even when scientific evidence says otherwise.

Except this isn't true, now is it, AV? You walk by your preconceptions and interpretations of the Bible.

 

[dad]

[...frequent poster..not a lurker]

Curiously, this is not at all the question I've asked. Why is this so hard? Which is more reliable - explanations that are consistent with evidence or explanations which are contradicted by evidence?

Presenting evidence is useless in a discussion with someone who cannot/will not answer the above question. Thanks.

As long as the evidence used includes well...real evidence, then of course things must be consistent with it. Looking at the evidence from the bible, and the evidence from science together yields the best consistency, and eliminates the need to wave away part of the evidence.

Discussing evidence with someone that presents none is useless! Why pretend you got somethin, but golly darn, you just can't post it because someone never answered a vague loaded questionn just the way you wanted? Boo hoo.

 

[AV1611VET]

You walk by your preconceptions and interpretations of the Bible.

Aren't you glad?

Otherwise, if I walked by someone of you guys' interpretations, I just might be out hunting witches, trying heretics, or marching off to liberate Jerusalem, eh?

 

[sandwiches]

Aren't you glad?

Otherwise, if I walked by someone of you guys' interpretations, I just might be out hunting witches, trying heretics, or marching off to liberate Jerusalem, eh?

I see a lot of lip flapping but don't don't pretend it's faith you "walk by." You require and demand evidence as much as any of us. However, you stop at the Bible, whereas we demand evidence of a much higher standard.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Explanations that are consistent with evidence.

That's one of the reasons science can take a hike.

We walk by faith, not by sight; meaning we keep on keeping on, even when scientific evidence says otherwise.

Now just imagine what would happen if you actually tried to apply such drivel to every aspect of your life?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now just imagine what would happen if you actually tried to apply such drivel to every aspect of your life?

Boolean standards would emerge?

 

[sandwiches]

Boolean standards would emerge?

AKA, free pass for the Bible to have contradictions, faulty logic, immorality, and have false statements.