The Laws of the Universe

[Nathan Poe]

Boolean standards would emerge?

Real ones, not the self-serving excerment you try to pass off as "boolean standards."

 

[Tiberius]

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...

I love it when you guys trot out an unverifiable book as "proof" or "evidence" and think we'll accept it.

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

You too.

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.

I'll accept them when you can show me how to objectively verify them.

And I have given you plenty of evidence to support a same state past. Your refusal to look at it doesn't invalidate it.

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

You are sadly misinformed about how science works.

Just because you constantly try to interpret thingsd to fit what you have already decided is true doesn't mean everyone does. Not all are so limited.

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

Again with your vagueness! You never say HOW any of these things is evidence for a different state past! You're all talk, no substance.

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

You think speed doesn't leave any indication? Then try driving a car into a wall at 50 mph instead of at one foot a second. See how different it is then.

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

What was it Lisa simpson said in the episode where they went to Australia? "I know those words, but that sign makes no sense."

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.

I take it that you can't then.

So you can't name anyone who gets valid results from what you say is the truth, and yet there is enough support for what you consider a lie that companies spend billions on it and still get useful results?

What does this tell you?

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.

You wanna support this? or is it more fluff and hot air?

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

Here is how radio carbon dating is verified with a completely differnt dating mechanism. This establishes that carbon dating is accurate. Carbon dating can then be used to verify other techniques, which can be used to verify yet others.

Here's another source describing how dating mechanisms are checked.

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..

And yet, as I said before, scientists using the same past state idea get results so useful that many companies spend billions on research based on this idea, and yet you cannot name a single scientist who gets valid results using the different past state idea.

Explanations that are consistent with evidence.

Glad to see you have at least a little sense, AV.

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

Oh, and I thought we were going so well...

Do you not realise that science is the formation of theories based on observable evidence?

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

In other words, you keep your eyes closed and walk around telling yourself that the world is a certain way instead of opening your eyes and seeing once and for all what the world is like.

Discussing evidence with someone that presents none is useless!

Something I know all to well, Dad. You present no evidence at all.

 

[dad]

I love it when you guys trot out an unverifiable book as "proof" or "evidence" and think we'll accept it.

It is verified. It sets the calendar of man, and affected the leading nations on earth all through history. It is tested, and the miracles observed and repeated.

But you better concentrate on proving the foundation belief of science here.

And I have given you plenty of evidence to support a same state past. Your refusal to look at it doesn't invalidate it.

Lie. Nothing was given that first did not assume one.

Again with your vagueness! You never say HOW any of these things is evidence for a different state past! You're all talk, no substance.

OK let's look at separation of continents. That is evidence that fits a DSP. The animals on the ark could not get around earth unless it was joined!

You think speed doesn't leave any indication? Then try driving a car into a wall at 50 mph instead of at one foot a second. See how different it is then.

Mountain building and uplift are indications.

So you can't name anyone who gets valid results from what you say is the truth, and yet there is enough support for what you consider a lie that companies spend billions on it and still get useful results?

No, I can't name anyone that gets any results from anything same state past...anywhere, anytime. Neither can you! Embarrassed? The results of changed lives and happy hearts and gifts of the spirit, and etc etc etc etc are quite useful.

What does this tell you?

You wanna support this? or is it more fluff and hot air?

Yes. Look at dating. They need to collaborate carbon 'dates' with things like tree rings etc. All assuming that trees grew in this state..slowly.

Here is how radio carbon dating is verified with a completely differnt dating mechanism. This establishes that carbon dating is accurate. Carbon dating can then be used to verify other techniques, which can be used to verify yet others.

Ha!!! There you go! Trees that grow in weeks do not produce yearly rings. You assume same state growth! First prove the present state existed, or it is rubbish.

Same with Isochron dating...same state as can be.

And yet, as I said before, scientists using the same past state idea get results so useful that many companies spend billions on research based on this idea,

False. They get it based on patterns laid down. The dates and ages are fantasy.

Something I know all to well, Dad. You present no evidence at all.

I present YOU! You and other posters are evidence that no proof exists for a same state past.

The bible is so over proved it isn't worth arguing about any more than last week.

 

[Tiberius]

It is verified. It sets the calendar of man, and affected the leading nations on earth all through history. It is tested, and the miracles observed and repeated.

Please give specific examples.

But you better concentrate on proving the foundation belief of science here.

The foundation of science is that it provides us with things we can use every single day. Such as that computer you are looking at right now.

Lie. Nothing was given that first did not assume one.

Plenty was given that would not work if the past state was different.

OK let's look at separation of continents. That is evidence that fits a DSP. The animals on the ark could not get around earth unless it was joined!

I accept that all the continents were joined at that they have moved over time.

But unlike you, I do not think that they raced away at a great speed. Anyway, that provides you with a problem. if there was state 1 which was in effect in the past and then state 2 which we have now, then during which state was the rapid movement of the continents? If it was during state 1, then they would have been travelling very fast for a long time, which does not match the world we see at present. if it was during state 2 (the state we are in now), then why are they not moving fast now?

The only solution is that you have a third state. And to satisfy the requirements of matching what we see in nature, we could say that in this middle state, time was moving faster. So that allows for the rapid movement of the continents. it would also allow for the radio active decay in rocks to appear to be much greater. How does that sound to you?

Mountain building and uplift are indications.

Yeah, and the fact that the rocks are bent and curved indicates that it was a slow movement. Try this experiment. Take a piece of clay and bend it slowly. it will bend and curve just like the rocks we see in nature.

Now, try bending the clay fast. it will break and snap.

See what this means? To bend without breaking, the movemtn must be slow. A fast movement will break and snap. If we see rocks that are bent, it MUST have been caused by a slow movement. it is IMPOSSIBLE for bent rocks to result from a fast movement.

No, I can't name anyone that gets any results from anything same state past...anywhere, anytime.

I was asking you to name someone who gets valid results from a DIFFERENT state past. Please read what I actually right. When you misread, you only make yourself look silly.

Neither can you! Embarrassed?

Such as Tanya Atwater, who studies fault lines, or J Harlen Bretz, or (proving my point nicely) George V. Chilingar, whose study is used by petroleum companies to find new deposits (his techniques found one of the largest oil fields in Iran).

The results of changed lives and happy hearts and gifts of the spirit, and etc etc etc etc are quite useful.

I won't deny that religion can make people happy. But so can a good sitcom. Religion can give meaning to life, but so can lots of other things. And the validity of a thing is not determined by how good it makes you feel. After all, any number of religious beliefs that you personally think are wrong have also changed lives and made happy hearts, but you still think that they are wrong.

What does this tell you?

It tells me that your method of verify things to be true is really hopeless.

Yes. Look at dating. They need to collaborate carbon 'dates' with things like tree rings etc. All assuming that trees grew in this state..slowly.

You got any evidence to suggest that they didn't? (I feel like I;ve asked this a million times before, but if I had, surely you would have actually SUPPORTED your position...)

Ha!!! There you go! Trees that grow in weeks do not produce yearly rings. You assume same state growth! First prove the present state existed, or it is rubbish.

Dang! The fatal flaw! because scientists looking at the inside of a tree have no way of telling what kind of tree it is! Oh wait, yes they do! It's a little known technique called "Looking at the tree to see what kind of tree it is before you take the core sample".

Same with Isochron dating...same state as can be.

Here. Read THIS. Once you have read it, please point out which specific parts of that you think are incorrect.

Remember that word - SPECIFIC.

False. They get it based on patterns laid down. The dates and ages are fantasy.

Then why do they work? You have consistantly FAILED to answer that!

I present YOU! You and other posters are evidence that no proof exists for a same state past.

Lol, this is your silliest argument yet! How exactly do I prove that the past was in a different state?

The bible is so over proved it isn't worth arguing about any more than last week.

Only among those that already believe it. believers don't need much convincing. I, on the other hand, would appreciate something testable OUTSIDE of the Bible!

 

[dad]

Please give specific examples.

The life and death and resurrection of Christ.

The foundation of science is that it provides us with things we can use every single day. Such as that computer you are looking at right now.

Nonsense. It never provided you with a wife. It never provided Adam with anything, or Noah, or Abraham, or Peter. Science twiddles around in the fishbowl of this state, making womd, and polluting the earth, etc. Yes it also does some good things. But all it does it does right here. Nowhere else.

Plenty was given that would not work if the past state was different.

Not true. Not in any way is that even remotely close to a third cousin of the truth.

I accept that all the continents were joined at that they have moved over time.

Me too.

But unlike you, I do not think that they raced away at a great speed.

What matters is what science knows. The speed is not known, except at this present state time.

Anyway, that provides you with a problem. if there was state 1 which was in effect in the past and then state 2 which we have now, then during which state was the rapid movement of the continents? If it was during state 1, then they would have been travelling very fast for a long time, which does not match the world we see at present. if it was during state 2 (the state we are in now), then why are they not moving fast now?

Simple. As our gravity and laws came to be, they would have stopped, or slowed, or started to reverse, or whatever. The residual little movements today therefore need to be scrutinized. For example a small movement in one direction need not necessarily mean that it always moved in that direction.

The only solution is that you have a third state. And to satisfy the requirements of matching what we see in nature, we could say that in this middle state, time was moving faster. So that allows for the rapid movement of the continents. it would also allow for the radio active decay in rocks to appear to be much greater. How does that sound to you?

No. The reasons you imagine it is needed are not clear. We do not need radioactive decay to appear greater. If there was no decay, but the daughter material was here already, no need would exist to make it appear any way. But I guess at least you are thinking.

Yeah, and the fact that the rocks are bent and curved indicates that it was a slow movement. Try this experiment. Take a piece of clay and bend it slowly. it will bend and curve just like the rocks we see in nature.

On the contrary. The fact is I don't see any rocks bending out of shape like that now, do you? That supports a different state in place when it happened! The consistency of rock likely was different. How else would water come up from the deep earth? How else would it not heat up as much as it now would in a continental move?

Now, try bending the clay fast. it will break and snap.

Exactly. Now being the key word.

I was asking you to name someone who gets valid results from a DIFFERENT state past. Please read what I actually right. When you misread, you only make yourself look silly.

I get results. I see the error of the baseless and biased claims of so called science. That is a bonus. I get results in explaining long life spans of recorded history from a DSP. Also in the different thermo dynamics, light, plant rate of growth, spirits living on earth with men, etc etc etc. It makes the records fit and make sense.

Such as Tanya Atwater, who studies fault lines, or J Harlen Bretz, or (proving my point nicely) George V. Chilingar, whose study is used by petroleum companies to find new deposits (his techniques found one of the largest oil fields in Iran).

What about them? There are fault lines...so? Tell us the basis of the technique, and it will become apparent that a same state past has nothing to do with it.

You got any evidence to suggest that they didn't? (I feel like I;ve asked this a million times before, but if I had, surely you would have actually SUPPORTED your position...)

Yes. Noah sent out a bird...no trees. A week later...a leaf from a growing tree. In Eden...God planted a garden. That week, man and beast ate the fruit of trees.

There is no evidence from science that they grew slow! Is there!!? So stop assuming what there is no evidence for.

Dang! The fatal flaw! because scientists looking at the inside of a tree have no way of telling what kind of tree it is! Oh wait, yes they do! It's a little known technique called "Looking at the tree to see what kind of tree it is before you take the core sample".

Show us rings from any tree here that are beyond 4500!!?? I dare you. I dare anyone. Supposedly there are some from the California pines, but try to get an actual pic and see what happens!

So why is it that the approx number corresponds to the time of the split? Your point about what kind of tree it may be doesn't matter. Show us any tree from beyond 4500 years with the rings.

Of course since trees grew in weeks, that wouldn't matter. But I find it curious that no one can show us the actual rings.

Here. Read THIS. Once you have read it, please point out which specific parts of that you think are incorrect.

Remember that word - SPECIFIC.

That's easy! The FIRST thing they put out is a formula.

They claim and assume that now is equal to then!!!! Same state religion!

Thanks for that.

Then why do they work? You have consistantly FAILED to answer that!

Show us one thing that works that depends on a same state past. You have constantly FAILED to do so.

Lol, this is your silliest argument yet! How exactly do I prove that the past was in a different state?

Good question. How do you prove it was any state??

Only among those that already believe it. believers don't need much convincing. I, on the other hand, would appreciate something testable OUTSIDE of the Bible!

You can't test a same state future. You can't test a same state past. Don't ask anyone else to use your failed science to test stuff. It ain't up to the job.

 

[Tiberius]

The life and death and resurrection of Christ.

Please provide a source other than the Bible that shows that this happened.

Nonsense. It never provided you with a wife. It never provided Adam with anything, or Noah, or Abraham, or Peter. Science twiddles around in the fishbowl of this state, making womd, and polluting the earth, etc. Yes it also does some good things. But all it does it does right here. Nowhere else.

LOL. You think science must be able to provide everyone with a spouse or it is useless?

Science provides cures for diseases, communication across the world, the technology to help fix environmental problems and tools for finding out what the world is really like.

But if you're sour just because you can't get a Stepford wife...

Not true. Not in any way is that even remotely close to a third cousin of the truth.

Your inability to understand it does not mean it is not factual. It just means that you don't understand.

Me too.

Glad we agree on something.

What matters is what science knows. The speed is not known, except at this present state time.

The speed is known. We can see the speed that they are moving at now. And when we look at evidence from the past, what we find is exactly what we'd expect to see if it had been happening that way for a long time.

Simple. As our gravity and laws came to be, they would have stopped, or slowed, or started to reverse, or whatever. The residual little movements today therefore need to be scrutinized. For example a small movement in one direction need not necessarily mean that it always moved in that direction.

And yet you can't explain why they did this, you can not point to any evidence that they did this, and you cannot explain why the evidence we have says that they did NOT do this.

You have a hypothetical situation that has no evidence to support it and that does not agree with reality.

No. The reasons you imagine it is needed are not clear. We do not need radioactive decay to appear greater. If there was no decay, but the daughter material was here already, no need would exist to make it appear any way. But I guess at least you are thinking.

lol, I love this. I propose a wild fantasy that you find somewhat appealing and you consider it a good sign not on any merit the idea actually has, but on whether or not the conclusions agree with your own.

On the contrary. The fact is I don't see any rocks bending out of shape like that now, do you? That supports a different state in place when it happened! The consistency of rock likely was different. How else would water come up from the deep earth? How else would it not heat up as much as it now would in a continental move?

You don't see rocks bending like that now because it takes millions of years for it to happen.

Anyway, if the structure of rock was diferent back then, how do you explain that the crystals we see in ancient rocks are the same as what we'd expect if our crazy ideas about an ancient world are true?

Exactly. Now being the key word.

As usual, you misread what I am trying to say.

I get results.

I'd ask for specific examples of valid results you get from denying a same state past, but we both know you won't provide any.

I see the error of the baseless and biased claims of so called science. That is a bonus. I get results in explaining long life spans of recorded history from a DSP. Also in the different thermo dynamics, light, plant rate of growth, spirits living on earth with men, etc etc etc. It makes the records fit and make sense.

all of which are not based on evidence but on the fact that you are trying to fit your interpretation of reality into a book that you have already decided MUST be true.

What about them? There are fault lines...so? Tell us the basis of the technique, and it will become apparent that a same state past has nothing to do with it.

As I have already stated countless times, if the past state was different, the models used in geology (and a wealth of other fields too) would not give results that matched with reality.

You have failed time and time again to address this point. it would seem that it has defeated you.

Yes. Noah sent out a bird...no trees. A week later...a leaf from a growing tree. In Eden...God planted a garden. That week, man and beast ate the fruit of trees.

Again, you start with your conclusion that the Bible is true. And then you try to fit reality into that. You have your priorities the wrong way around...

There is no evidence from science that they grew slow! Is there!!? So stop assuming what there is no evidence for.

The fact that they grow slow now, combined with the fact that there's no evidence of any mechanism that could change the rate of growth combined with the fact that there's no evidence that their rate of growth was ever different doesn't count?

Oh, you have evidence? Then let's see it. Or is it just more of your unsupported ideas?

Show us rings from any tree here that are beyond 4500!!?? I dare you. I dare anyone. Supposedly there are some from the California pines, but try to get an actual pic and see what happens!

So why is it that the approx number corresponds to the time of the split? Your point about what kind of tree it may be doesn't matter. Show us any tree from beyond 4500 years with the rings.

Of course since trees grew in weeks, that wouldn't matter. But I find it curious that no one can show us the actual rings.

You missed the point entirely. I was claiming that they can use this technique to verify the accuracy of radio carbon dating on samples that old. You know, it goes something like:

SCIENTIST: Radio crabon dating shows that the tree is 4000 years old. We double checked this by examining the tree growth rings, and the ages match. Thus, we can be sure that radio crabon dating is giving us an accurate result. So we know that it will also give us accurate results when we use radio carbon dating on older materials.

That's easy! The FIRST thing they put out is a formula.

They claim and assume that now is equal to then!!!! Same state religion!

Thanks for that.

You got any evidence to say that such a claim is unjustified?

Of course not. All you have is an unsupported hypothesis.

Show us one thing that works that depends on a same state past. You have constantly FAILED to do so.

I keep mentioning radio dating, and you keep dismissing it without a good reason why. Until you do, you'll keep getting it.

Good question. How do you prove it was any state??

You seem unable to grasp my meaning here. I was asking the mechanism by which my existence demonstrates the existance of a different state in the past.

Of course, you aren't going to explain this in any meaningful way, are you?

You can't test a same state future. You can't test a same state past. Don't ask anyone else to use your failed science to test stuff. It ain't up to the job.

If it can't be tested, how has it been falsified? LOL, you are defeated by yourself!

 

[dad]

Please provide a source other than the Bible that shows that this happened.

The observers collected their testimony together, which is the record. You seem to want to look anywhere but where the evidence actually is.

LOL. You think science must be able to provide everyone with a spouse or it is useless?

You said it gave us everything...

Science provides cures for diseases, communication across the world, the technology to help fix environmental problems and tools for finding out what the world is really like.

It breaks more than it fixes.

Your inability to understand it does not mean it is not factual. It just means that you don't understand.

Your idea that science is not understood is not supported here. Show us an example...

The speed is known. We can see the speed that they are moving at now.

That is why I said 'except in this present state time'. That doesn't help claims of great ages.

And when we look at evidence from the past, what we find is exactly what we'd expect to see if it had been happening that way for a long time.

Example?

And yet you can't explain why they did this, you can not point to any evidence that they did this, and you cannot explain why the evidence we have says that they did NOT do this.

Well, maybe yes maybe no. Depends on the example. You talk in sweeping generalities.

You have a hypothetical situation that has no evidence to support it and that does not agree with reality.

Exactly what realty specifically??? You are wrong. It agrees.

lol, I love this. I propose a wild fantasy that you find somewhat appealing and you consider it a good sign not on any merit the idea actually has, but on whether or not the conclusions agree with your own.

No. Unlike science I don't make stuff up. I look at the evidences and records we do have. Your story failed the litmus test.

You don't see rocks bending like that now because it takes millions of years for it to happen.

Easy to say. That is just a same state attempt at explaining what happened in a different state.

Anyway, if the structure of rock was diferent back then, how do you explain that the crystals we see in ancient rocks are the same as what we'd expect if our crazy ideas about an ancient world are true?

Example?

I'd ask for specific examples of valid results you get from denying a same state past, but we both know you won't provide any.

No need to deny a same state past any more than the tooth fairy. I just point out that neither get results in reality.

all of which are not based on evidence but on the fact that you are trying to fit your interpretation of reality into a book that you have already decided MUST be true.

No. First I saw the evidence for it. Then I could not deny the power of the evidence. Then, I decided that it was worth including in the evidence.

As I have already stated countless times, if the past state was different, the models used in geology (and a wealth of other fields too) would not give results that matched with reality.

Nonsense. The patterns of deposition are real. That is what they use, no? Nothing to do whatsoever with a present state in the past.

The fact that they grow slow now, combined with the fact that there's no evidence of any mechanism that could change the rate of growth combined with the fact that there's no evidence that their rate of growth was ever different doesn't count?

No. Not at all. It only counts now.

You missed the point entirely. I was claiming that they can use this technique to verify the accuracy of radio carbon dating on samples that old. You know, it goes something like:

SCIENTIST: Radio crabon dating shows that the tree is 4000 years old. We double checked this by examining the tree growth rings, and the ages match. Thus, we can be sure that radio crabon dating is giving us an accurate result. So we know that it will also give us accurate results when we use radio carbon dating on older materials.

Or maybe like this

So called scientist: 'we can't get a reasonable age from decay dating, so we need to look to other things that assume a same state past first, then perform an imagination collaboration'

You got any evidence to say that such a claim is unjustified?

Yes. It needs to be justified by doing more than writing it down. To make the past equal the present, we need proof, evidence. You have given none, they have given none, and none exists.

I keep mentioning radio dating, and you keep dismissing it without a good reason why. Until you do, you'll keep getting it.

Mention Santa too if you like. It can't help you. The decay we see in this present state cannot be a measure of where all things came from, like daughter materials, unless we know that the state was the same. We do not. An amount of what is now a daughter material alone is nothing more than that...an amount. How it got here is not known. How it now is produced is of no import.

You seem unable to grasp my meaning here. I was asking the mechanism by which my existence demonstrates the existance of a different state in the past.

You were born in this state. How would your existence demo some other state??

If it can't be tested, how has it been falsified? LOL, you are defeated by yourself!

Correction the principle of falsification is supposed to apply in science. The premise for all models is the present state and laws, which cannot be tested in the past. That defeats you, not me. I do not pretend I can test the future and past, and make so called science claims about them, as the frauds of science do.

I merely observe that the records of God and man indicate a different nature. That doesn't mean pathetic science can test it either.

 

[Tiberius]

The observers collected their testimony together, which is the record. You seem to want to look anywhere but where the evidence actually is.

Actually, I want to be sure that this "Evidence" is accurate before I accept it as true. Don't you think that is a wise thing to do?

You said it gave us everything...

What nonsense is this? I said it gives us things that we use every day! I never said it gives us everything!

Goodness gracious... Do you often read things that aren't there?

It breaks more than it fixes.

In your opinion.

Your idea that science is not understood is not supported here. Show us an example...

I meant that it is not understood by you. Your inability to understand that radio dating would give nonsensical results if the decay rates had ever been anything different is proof of that.

That is why I said 'except in this present state time'. That doesn't help claims of great ages.

We think about what we would see if the speed of the continents was faster, and we come up with some things that we would see if that was true. And yet when we look we find no evidence to support the idea that the continents ever moved much faster than they are today.

We also think about what we would see if the speed of the continents had always been much the same as it is today, and we come up with things we would see if this were true. And we find those things in reality.

So we find exactly what we expect to see if the continents had been moving slowly for a long time, but we find none of the things we should see if the continents had been moving quickly for a short time.

Why do you not get this?

Example?

The aforementioned radio dating techniques and the fact that they don't give nonsense results.

Well, maybe yes maybe no. Depends on the example. You talk in sweeping generalities.

i have given specific examples and you never explain them.

And you accuse me of speaking in generalities when you are the one who, when asked for a specific example of what supports a different past state, replied "History"?

Exactly what realty specifically??? You are wrong. It agrees.

Which reality? Um, the one we live in? How many realities do you think there are?

No. Unlike science I don't make stuff up. I look at the evidences and records we do have. Your story failed the litmus test.

If you think that silly little thing I made up was an attempt at science, you not only have a poor estimation of me but you are woefully ignorant about how science works.

Science does not make stuff up. it formulates hypotheses based on data and then attempts to disprove those hypotheses. The ones that aren't disproven are the ones that stick.

Easy to say. That is just a same state attempt at explaining what happened in a different state.

Of course, you have no evidence that there was a differnt past state.

And you've created your own little self-fulfilling fantasy, because no matter what evidence is presented you can wave it away by claiming what you claim here. You have no way to actually see if your idea is correct. You have no way to test whether it actually applies to reality. It is unfalsifiable, and it is not science.

Example?

Igneous rocks that date to millions of years old are the same as igneous rocks that are formed by present day eruptions.

No need to deny a same state past any more than the tooth fairy. I just point out that neither get results in reality.

So you are saying that your idea is just as useless as science?

Gee, considering all the accurate results that have resulted in the "baseless assumption" that the past was much the same as the present, it seems that science has quite a bit going for it.

or perhaps you can think of another reason why something that is so wrong gets the right answer?

No. First I saw the evidence for it. Then I could not deny the power of the evidence. Then, I decided that it was worth including in the evidence.

And this first evidence is the Bible?

So why do you place a book above God's actual creation?

Nonsense. The patterns of deposition are real. That is what they use, no? Nothing to do whatsoever with a present state in the past.

Since when was I talking only about deposits being laid down? I'm talking about ALL of the geological ideas, including radio dating.

No. Not at all. It only counts now.

Why is there no evidence that trees once grew slower? Why is there no evidence for any mechanism that could change the state from what it was to what it is now?

Or maybe like this

So called scientist: 'we can't get a reasonable age from decay dating, so we need to look to other things that assume a same state past first, then perform an imagination collaboration'

If that was the case, why does radio dating give results that match up with tree rings? I mean, if it was so far off, wouldn't we need to skew the data after it had been gathered? And yet, the dates match. This is not possible if the past state had been different.

Yes. It needs to be justified by doing more than writing it down. To make the past equal the present, we need proof, evidence. You have given none, they have given none, and none exists.

This is rich coming from someone who uses words that were just written down as his source of evidence.

And I have given plenty. it's now time for YOU to provide some!

Mention Santa too if you like. It can't help you. The decay we see in this present state cannot be a measure of where all things came from, like daughter materials, unless we know that the state was the same. We do not. An amount of what is now a daughter material alone is nothing more than that...an amount. How it got here is not known. How it now is produced is of no import.

So we have clearly observed processes, and yet you discount them? Do you have a reason for this?

You are going around in circles here.

You don't count modern processes, so there's no evidence that the past state was the same.
Because there's no evidence that the past state was the same, you don't count modern processes.

Do you ever get dizzy going around in circles like this?

You were born in this state. How would your existence demo some other state??

I have no idea. YOU are the one claiming that my existence demonstrates a different state in the past.

Correction the principle of falsification is supposed to apply in science. The premise for all models is the present state and laws, which cannot be tested in the past. That defeats you, not me. I do not pretend I can test the future and past, and make so called science claims about them, as the frauds of science do.

So what you have isn't the study of reality. it's fantasy. Final something we can agree on.

I merely observe that the records of God and man indicate a different nature. That doesn't mean pathetic science can test it either.

So one must be wrong.

And if science is so pathetic, how do you explain the knowledge it has given us of the universe?

 

[Tiberius]

Now, a few questions for you Dad...

1. How long ago did the present state start?
2. How long was the different past state in effect before the present state took over?
3. What caused the change from one state to the other?
4. Where there other states before the different past state, or just the two?
5. In the different past state, were some laws of nature operating differently, or were they simply suspended (as if they didn't exist)?
6. Which laws were they?
7. if some laws of nature were different or weren't in operation, shouldn't there be some evidence we can find today of really old rocks showing things that are impossible according to current understanding?
8. If the laws were different in the past, how were they different? for example, if Einstein's theory of matter/energy equivilance (e=mc^2) was different, how was it different? Was it perhaps e=mc^3?

 

[dad]

Actually, I want to be sure that this "Evidence" is accurate before I accept it as true. Don't you think that is a wise thing to do?

Only if you have the wherewithal.

What nonsense is this? I said it gives us things that we use every day! I never said it gives us everything!

We don't use the garden or the flood everyday, and that is really the sort of thing the debate is about.

In your opinion.

Since my opinion is aligned with God's word to man, take notice.

I meant that it is not understood by you. Your inability to understand that radio dating would give nonsensical results if the decay rates had ever been anything different is proof of that.

Proof, yes. Of your own inability however. Guess you will take a while to get up to speed...I am relatively patient.

We think about what we would see if the speed of the continents was faster, and we come up with some things that we would see if that was true. And yet when we look we find no evidence to support the idea that the continents ever moved much faster than they are today.

You mean you think about present state things regarding speed, and come up with present state limits. No such limits actually existed.

We also think about what we would see if the speed of the continents had always been much the same as it is today, and we come up with things we would see if this were true. And we find those things in reality.

That you so...at the expense of all other things...like common sense, God, the bible, Noah, the limits of man's knowledge, etc. But alas you only do it in your head.

So we find exactly what we expect to see if the continents had been moving slowly for a long time, but we find none of the things we should see if the continents had been moving quickly for a short time.

No. In whhat way would that be true...(details)

The aforementioned radio dating techniques and the fact that they don't give nonsense results.

Yes they do as aforementioned.

i have given specific examples and you never explain them.

Refresh my memory here...name one example?

And you accuse me of speaking in generalities when you are the one who, when asked for a specific example of what supports a different past state, replied "History"?

History of long life spans, and spirits among men. Egypt and Sumer.

Which reality? Um, the one we live in? How many realities do you think there are?

When? Where?

If you think that silly little thing I made up was an attempt at science, you not only have a poor estimation of me but you are woefully ignorant about how science works.

The silly little things you make up all appear somewhat alike to me. Whether some shout out science inside your own head or not.

Science does not make stuff up. it formulates hypotheses based on data and then attempts to disprove those hypotheses. The ones that aren't disproven are the ones that stick.

False. It makes stuff up. The universe as a teensy soup speck for example. Black holes for example. Same state past for example. Need more??

Of course, you have no evidence that there was a differnt past state.

Yes. The bible. You have none at all for a same state past.

And you've created your own little self-fulfilling fantasy, because no matter what evidence is presented you can wave it away by claiming what you claim here.

No need to wave away religious rot.

You have no way to actually see if your idea is correct. You have no way to test whether it actually applies to reality. It is unfalsifiable, and it is not science.

Correction...those that wallow in the dead end limits of so called science have no way. I have a way...God and His word.

Igneous rocks that date to millions of years old are the same as igneous rocks that are formed by present day eruptions.

Example? Show me one the same...


shortened to keep things readable...

 

[dad]

Now, a few questions for you Dad...

1. How long ago did the present state start?

About a century and change after the flood.

1. How long was the different past state in effect before the present state took over?

Same time. What some 17, or 1600 years roughly as I recall.

1. What caused the change from one state to the other?

God

1. Where there other states before the different past state, or just the two?

I don't know. I assume that the original created state remained despite the fall to some extent, till the big change after the flood.

1. In the different past state, were some laws of nature operating differently, or were they simply suspended (as if they didn't exist)?

Since the spiritual was included in the created state, this physical only state does not represent the laws and forces that govern both...just what governs the physical only

1. if some laws of nature were different or weren't in operation, shouldn't there be some evidence we can find today of really old rocks showing things that are impossible according to current understanding?

No

1. If the laws were different in the past, how were they different? for example, if Einstein's theory of matter/energy equivilance (e=mc^2) was different, how was it different? Was it perhaps e=mc^3?

No, his theory concerns just this state and is relative only to it.

 

[Tiberius]

Only if you have the wherewithal.

According to Dictionary.com, wherewithal mean the means by which to do something.

Unfortunately, you haven't specified what is being done, so your response makes no sense.

We don't use the garden or the flood everyday, and that is really the sort of thing the debate is about.

Moving the goalposts.

Since my opinion is aligned with God's word to man, take notice.

Your opinion is aligned with what you have been told is God's word to man...

Proof, yes. Of your own inability however. Guess you will take a while to get up to speed...I am relatively patient.

Since when does ignorance of something make you more skilled in it. You are ignorant of how radio dating works. That doesn't mean everyone else is wrong.

You mean you think about present state things regarding speed, and come up with present state limits. No such limits actually existed.

And your proof of this is...?

That you so...at the expense of all other things...like common sense, God, the bible, Noah, the limits of man's knowledge, etc. But alas you only do it in your head.

No, we find those things in reality. People have tested other people's discoveries and found the conclusion drawn to be accurate representations of reality.

No. In whhat way would that be true...(details)

You provide details of your ideas first. I've been waiting several months for some specific evidence.

Yes they do as aforementioned.

I challenge you to provide evidence of radio dating providing consistantly nonsensical results that are proven to be nonsensical.

Refresh my memory here...name one example?

radio dating. You have never once explained properly why it doesn't work. All you do is make a bunch of vague statements.

History of long life spans, and spirits among men. Egypt and Sumer.

Please prove to me that people once had long lifespans (proof must be testable). Please prove to me that spirits once moved among men (again, proof must be testable).

When? Where?

Are you for real?

The silly little things you make up all appear somewhat alike to me. Whether some shout out science inside your own head or not.

If you can't tell the difference between evidence from reality and a little nonsense thing I made up, I'm afraid I can't give you any help...

False. It makes stuff up. The universe as a teensy soup speck for example. Black holes for example. Same state past for example. Need more??

You are saying that black holes don't exist? LOL don't make me laugh.

Yes. The bible. You have none at all for a same state past.

If it ain't testable, it's not a valid source of evidence. Try again.

No need to wave away religious rot.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you referring to your own beliefs here?

Correction...those that wallow in the dead end limits of so called science have no way. I have a way...God and His word.

Like I said, untestable.

Example? Show me one the same...

The constantly forming igneous rocks from any number of volcanic eruptions occuring in present times. They form rocks that are identical to rocks that radio dating shows have been around for millions of years.

or did this past state you speak of somehow create a world that looks just like a world that had formed if the laws of nature were the same as they are now? What a coincidence!

About a century and change after the flood.

How do you know?

And why is it that all these changes that you speak of, such as different decay rates, have absolutely no basis even in the Bible? Are you just making things up? *Gasp!*

Same time. What some 17, or 1600 years roughly as I recall.

Again, how have you tested this to make sure it is right?

God

What motivated him to do this? How did he do it? And how do you know? Does it say in the Bible, "And so it was that God changed the laws of the universe, so things operated differently to the way they had before..." Coz I completely missed that passage...

I don't know. I assume that the original created state remained despite the fall to some extent, till the big change after the flood.

At least we can agree on this. It's all nothing but assumptions on your part.

Since the spiritual was included in the created state, this physical only state does not represent the laws and forces that govern both...just what governs the physical only

So you are saying that the spiritual affected the physical?

Wow, isn't it amazing that the effect of the spiritual over a short period of time is exactly what we see today if it had been over a long period of time!

No

Why not?

No, his theory concerns just this state and is relative only to it.

That wasn't what I was asking.

HOW were the laws in the different past state different? Give specific examples!

With your skills at saying things without repsonding to the question at all, have you ever thought about going into politics?

 

[dad]

According to Dictionary.com, wherewithal mean the means by which to do something.

Unfortunately, you haven't specified what is being done, so your response makes no sense.

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.

Moving the goalposts.

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

Your opinion is aligned with what you have been told is God's word to man...

Thanks.

Since when does ignorance of something make you more skilled in it. You are ignorant of how radio dating works. That doesn't mean everyone else is wrong.

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.

And your proof of this is...?

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

No, we find those things in reality. People have tested other people's discoveries and found the conclusion drawn to be accurate representations of reality.

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

I challenge you to provide evidence of radio dating providing consistantly nonsensical results that are proven to be nonsensical.

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

radio dating. You have never once explained properly why it doesn't work. All you do is make a bunch of vague statements.

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.

Please prove to me that people once had long lifespans (proof must be testable). Please prove to me that spirits once moved among men (again, proof must be testable).

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

If you can't tell the difference between evidence from reality and a little nonsense thing I made up, I'm afraid I can't give you any help...

By your posts, how could one tell?

You are saying that black holes don't exist? LOL don't make me laugh.

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!

If it ain't testable, it's not a valid source of evidence. Try again.

Then test a black hole?

Like I said, untestable.

The same state past is exactly that.

The constantly forming igneous rocks from any number of volcanic eruptions occuring in present times. They form rocks that are identical to rocks that radio dating shows have been around for 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....

How do you know?

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

And why is it that all these changes that you speak of, such as different decay rates, have absolutely no basis even in the Bible? Are you just making things up? *Gasp!*

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

Again, how have you tested this to make sure it is right?

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

What motivated him to do this? How did he do it? And how do you know? Does it say in the Bible, "And so it was that God changed the laws of the universe, so things operated differently to the way they had before..." Coz I completely missed that passage...

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.

So you are saying that the spiritual affected the physical?

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

Wow, isn't it amazing that the effect of the spiritual over a short period of time is exactly what we see today if had been over a long period of time!

Nope. Very different.

HOW were the laws in the different past state different? Give specific examples!

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

 

[sandwiches]

So, you would not have the wherewithal to verify them.

Nor you to validate them.

 

[dad]

Nor you to validate them.

Then the best you can say is I do not know. The best I can say is that I have no evidence to doubt God, and every evidence to accept the truth that the martyrs shed their blood for.

 

[sandwiches]

Then the best you can say is I do not know. The best I can say is that I have no evidence to doubt God, and every evidence to accept the truth that the martyrs shed their blood for.

What evidence?

 

[Nathan Poe]

What evidence?

Martyrs' blood, of course -- in the magical split/merge world, anything that somebody allegedly died over must be the unquestionable truth.

 

[dad]

What evidence?

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

What science accepts as evidence is only what it can stuff in a physical bag. Anything from Last Thursday doesn't fit their bag, apparently, so please, cut the pretense of being some judge of actual facts and verified accounts beyond last week.

 

[sandwiches]

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

What science accepts as evidence is only what it can stuff in a physical bag. Anything from Last Thursday doesn't fit their bag, apparently, so please, cut the pretense of being some judge of actual facts and verified accounts beyond last week.

How can we verify what these supposed witnesses saw?

 

[AV1611VET]

How can we verify what these supposed witnesses saw?

God verified it for you and put it in Writing.