The Laws of the Universe

[sandwiches]

All your reason for deep space claims involve distance which involves our space and laws. That means it is way out of your depth.

So you can't back up your word. Thanks for playing. Now take your little ideas and go sit back at the kiddie table.

 

[Jazer]

Good thing the Bible's description of heaven isn't real, then.

How about physics description of parallel universe, is that real?

 

[Jazer]

We have reasons (aka evidence) to believe that the laws of the universe apply everywhere and anytime.

If they always apply then why do we have quantam physics?

 

[sandwiches]

If they always apply then why do we have quantam physics?

So, quantum physics aren't part of the laws of physics now?

 

[dad]

So you can't back up your word. Thanks for playing. Now take your little ideas and go sit back at the kiddie table.

Can't cope with science being exposed eh. That's OK. Feel free to blather on about nothing.

 

[dad]

How about physics description of parallel universe, is that real?

In their head it may be..

 

[Tiberius]

Better you be clear. Others may read this that know not what bit that you refer to as "it"..I read your posts, and still would like you to be honest and clear.

The way you phrased it sure seems like you just forgot.

In any case, the IT refers to the idea that the past was the same as the present, in that the laws of the universe that apply today applied millions of years ago. Working with such an assumption explains everything we see, and it does not say that we should be seeing things that don't exist in reality. In short, the idea that the past was the same as the present matches perfectly with reality. You have not provided a single shred of evidence to support your claim.

The part you think science deals in or can.

Do you actually know what specific means? It means "in detail." Please provide details about which exact parts of history indicate that the laws of the past were different to the laws of the present. These details must - MUST - be checkable!

Then what is 'it' that is science you are talking about specifically? Think about 'it'. It might come to you.

What in the world are you going on about?

After milk and apple pie? Yes, that would be nice, whatever you are jabbering about this time.

The idea of investigating reality to find out about reality is unfamiliar to you? I don't doubt it, as it seems you have never tried it.

Not sure, what is 'that'?? You really have some contraction curve balls here. Impressive.

Like I said, the "THAT" which I refered to was investigating reality to find out about reality.

Is this some new creationist technique? Play dumb and hope the other person gives up or forgets what they were talking about?

 

[mzungu]

Then I say your limits are clear, and standards are exposed.

YouTube - ‪daffy duck‬‏

 

[dad]

....then I say....

That helps your defeated same state past claims??

 

[dad]

The way you phrased it sure seems like you just forgot.

In any case, the IT refers to the idea that the past was the same as the present, in that the laws of the universe that apply today applied millions of years ago. Working with such an assumption explains everything we see, and it does not say that we should be seeing things that don't exist in reality. In short, the idea that the past was the same as the present matches perfectly with reality. You have not provided a single shred of evidence to support your claim.

Utter rubbish. It doesn't match history or the bible. You have no proof for it. The tooth fairy might explain all the same things...in other words you have no clue.

Do you actually know what specific means? It means "in detail." Please provide details about which exact parts of history indicate that the laws of the past were different to the laws of the present. These details must - MUST - be checkable!

The long life spans and the spirits. Spirits do not live or rule in the world of men directly. Check it out. What Obama is a spook?? Harper is a ghost? Sarkozy is a gnome?

The idea of investigating reality to find out about reality is unfamiliar to you?

Example?

Like I said, the "THAT" which I refered to was investigating reality to find out about reality.

What reality? Says who? When? Where? You think that tossing out another contraction helps you? Watch out people, he use the word "that"!

Is this some new creationist technique? Play dumb and hope the other person gives up or forgets what they were talking about?

What sort of person? One that actually knew what they were talking about and could focus?

 

[mzungu]

That helps your defeated same state past claims??

This is an example of the same creo physics used to prove "Same State Past":
YouTube - ‪Daffy Duck - Stupor Duck‬‏

 

[dad]

This is an example of the same creo physics used to prove "Same State Past":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWzROoxS2b4&feature=related

What YEC in their right mind would want to prove a same state past fable?

 

[mzungu]

What YEC in their right mind would want to prove a same state past fable?

YOU?

 

[dad]

YOU?

That's crazy, neither the Bible nor I think the past was the same. That would be science. Thanks for that. Good luck.

 

[sandwiches]

Can't cope with science being exposed eh. That's OK. Feel free to blather on about nothing.

I'll leave that up to you. That seems to be your specialty.

 

[dad]

I'll leave that up to you. That seems to be your specialty.

Actually some people make an honest effort and contribute thoughtful arguments, and try to scrape up evidence. You seem to have gone the Poe way.

 

[sandwiches]

Actually some people make an honest effort and contribute thoughtful arguments, and try to scrape up evidence. You seem to have gone the Poe way.

Well, I can only try for so long before I give into the impulse to respond in kind.

 

[dad]

Well, I can only try for so long before I give into the impulse to respond in kind.

In Poe kind. If you had the goods, you wouldn't have had to resort to that.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In Poe kind. If you had the goods, you wouldn't have had to resort to that.

Reort to what, dad -- calling blather blather?

 

[sandwiches]

Reort to what, dad -- calling blather blather?

Pretty much that, yea.