The Problem of a Different Past

[Contracelsus]

Then, with science, we know the continents seperated as well, where else can we place that but pre split, where the heat won't kill all men? And the flood canopy, rings, partial canopy, or whatever it was, same story, impossible in today's post split world. Same with getting water off the planet after the flood, and some things like this.
.

Sounds just like November 1841!

 

[dad]

Dad, this simply is not true. We have no idea who wrote much of it,

Speak for yourself, we know. You may not.

As for the New Testament, well the earliest manuscript we have is a fragment of Galatians which is dated to the SECOND CENTURY AD.

Doesn't matter at all, the records were in circulation and the authors apparently known before it became official. We, the christians knew well what was what.

If you want to count this as firm evidence for a scientific discussion of any sort, you clearly are even less aware of what counts as science than I am, which is pretty weak.

The bible is the bible, not part of modern pitiful, Po science. That is news?

Are you really Jesse Jackson? You're alarming alacrity of alliterative accusations astounds me!

You'll get over it, I'm sure.

Even the most brilliant philosophers had the humility to learn. Your argument is a good one, but you have to take it all the way. I can't do that for you. Only _you_ can commit to your own argument.

Patronizing nonsense. I don't question real science, facts, or evidence, and don't begin to deny the past.

Your constant claim of "distant" past as somehow different from "somewhat less than distant" past is fascinating.

Really now.

.. do try googling St. Anselm, he really is important in the christian faith. I know you won't or can't but I bet he could teach you something too!

 

[Valkhorn]

Just a shot in the dark, but have you once considered the possibility that you are wrong, dad?

 

[dad]

Just a shot in the dark, but have you once considered the possibility that you are wrong, dad?

I don't consider the possibility that God is wrong. So, do you have a better explanation, in keeping with all the facts and evidence we do have, as well as the bible??

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Well, the different future alone rules out so much of so called science, the rest is a pushover! Adam was to live forever, that is different. Period.

Adam was to live forever when God created him? Where exactly does it say that?

You are no evidence jockey, as we can see. You have nothing on offer for the same past myth. You therefore have no evidence against the waters coming up, as the bible says. So, ......?

There is no evidence for the amount of water you need coming up through the earth.

Blah blah.

In other words you still can't actually explain anything.

OK, so we'll record the response as 'no inteligent response'. Fine.

I gave an intellegent response. Anyone with any intellegence at all can see that the claim that the earth was "less densely packed" is totally absurd. What more need I say?

FB: Which still completely fails to explain how water somehow percolating through the earth could bring pure salt to the surface and deposit it.

Dad:
Fails in a PO sense, cause it don't happen now. The state of matter allowed it then.

Fails in any sense. We'll get to this below.

The daughter elements do not date anything. Their presence indicates that the now daughter material was here already. Different rocks had different amounts of different things. What did you expect, some uniform spread of sameness in all rocks of the same materials????

It is totally lllogical to expect that different sets of daughter material, normally produced by radioactive decay would be present in exactly the right ratios to give very consistent dates for each set of rocks in a world with no radioactive decay. The odds against this are phenomonal unless God deliberately manipulated each set of isotopes to give the false appearance of consistent ages. From your consistent failure to acknowledge the magnitude of this problem for your different past with no decay myth I can only conclude that you are either deliberately ignoring it or are totally incapable of logical thought.

At least I have it.

You have delusions. Nothing more.

I have already given links to threads showing how your myth totally failed to explain the data from Lake Suigetsu and the Green River Varves and the absurdity of your claims about SN 1987A have been revealed here so let's look at you absurd claim that waters coming up from the earth brought the salt to account for massive salt deposits. We can use the salt deposits in the Michigan Basin as an example. The Michigan Basin contains sedimentary rock overlaying the Precambrian Basment Rocks that ranges from 4,000 feet at the edges to about 16,000 feet in the center.

The main salt deposits vary in thickness from 400 feet to up to 1,600 feet and range from 800 to 6,800 feet below the surface. The estimated total amount of salt in the whole formation is 30,000 trillion tons. The concentration of salt in a saturated solution is about 30% so it would take about at least 100,000 cubic kilometers of water to hold this much salt.

In the dad-hoc scenario there are about 1,600 years between creation and the flood and during this time most of the geologic column is deposited preflood. This means that after the Cambrian, Ordovician and Silurian rocks are deposited, the salt must be deposited above them by water precolating through them. How 150,000 cubic kilometer of salty water precolate through all those rocks and then deposit the salt above them? Where does all that salty water come from? You might think that some evidence of the 30,000 trillion tons of salt that God created under the ground and the 100,000 cubic kilometers of water needed to bring the salt to the surface would be found somewhere? Where is it? You might think that at least quite a bit of the 30,000 trillion tons of salt that was being carried through the Cambrian, Ordovician and Silurian rocks would have been left behind but it doesn't seem to show up in wells drilled in the area. The Silurian limestones act as traps for gas because they are such hard pure limestone. How did 100,000 cubic km of salty water penetrate through them?

Let the myth morphing begin.

 

[Contracelsus]

Speak for yourself, we know. You may not.

You've already indicated you aren't very interested in the history of the Christian Faith. Why would you now claim you know anything about the source of the Bible? Why would I believe your claims?

Doesn't matter at all, the records were in circulation and the authors apparently known before it became official. We, the christians knew well what was what.

Which versions of the various manuscripts are you talking about? The ones that support a Docetists or an Adoptionist reading? The antiadoptionists? The versions without the Johanine Comma? I'm curious how much you know from the variants available throughout history.

You'll get over it, I'm sure.

www.m-w.com

Patronizing nonsense. I don't question real science, facts, or evidence, and don't begin to deny the past.

Sorry, but I'm not patronizing you. I actually think your stance is a philosophically interesting one. But you don't seem to value it, you just swing it around like so much weight.

If I were to patronize you you'd not know it anyway.

(IMG "Who Cares?")

Are you saying you don't care about St. Anselm? So now Origen is a big zero and a whiner and you don't care about Anselm.

You must not like Christianity very much. I wish you'd be less dismissive about the important aspects of the faith that is so important to so many on this board.

 

[dad]

Adam was to live forever when God created him? Where exactly does it say that?

Genesis 3:22-24 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. We lost the right to the tree of life. We will gain it again.
Re 22:14 - Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

There is no evidence for the amount of water you need coming up through the earth.

The pre split matter and earth was different.

I gave an intellegent response. Anyone with any intellegence at all can see that the claim that the earth was "less densely packed" is totally absurd. What more need I say?

It was less dense.

It is totally lllogical to expect that different sets of daughter material, normally produced by radioactive decay would be present in exactly the right ratios to give very consistent dates for each set of rocks in a world with no radioactive decay.

No, it is what we precisely would expect. The daughter elements were there in another process, in the varying amounts, and simply became part of the new make up of mass post split.

The odds against this are phenomonal unless God deliberately manipulated each set of isotopes to give the false appearance of consistent ages. From your consistent failure to acknowledge the magnitude of this problem for your different past with no decay myth I can only conclude that you are either deliberately ignoring it or are totally incapable of logical thought.

Obviously you simply never comprehended the idea. Hopefully I clued you in now.

We can use the salt deposits in the Michigan Basin as an example. The Michigan Basin contains sedimentary rock overlaying the Precambrian Basment Rocks that ranges from 4,000 feet at the edges to about 16,000 feet in the center.


The main salt deposits vary in thickness from 400 feet to up to 1,600 feet and range from 800 to 6,800 feet below the surface. The estimated total amount of salt in the whole formation is 30,000 trillion tons. The concentration of salt in a saturated solution is about 30% so it would take about at least 100,000 cubic kilometers of water to hold this much salt.

In the dad-hoc scenario there are about 1,600 years between creation and the flood and during this time most of the geologic column is deposited preflood. This means that after the Cambrian, Ordovician and Silurian rocks are deposited, the salt must be deposited above them by water precolating through them. How 150,000 cubic kilometer of salty water precolate through all those rocks and then deposit the salt above them? Where does all that salty water come from?

"..there was a sea in the Michigan Basin. At that time, North America was in the tropical zone. Land plants and animals did not yet exist, but the Michigan Sea was full of life. There were trilobites, crinoids (animals which look like plants), shellfish and corals. On the bottom of the Michigan Sea, layers of sediment started to accumulate. The sedimentary material varied according to the changing times and conditions. One source of sediment was rivers which flowed into the sea, carrying sand and clay from nearby mountains. Another source of sediment was biological.."

http://www4.vc-net.ne.jp/~klivo/gen/geology.htm
So, if there was a sea, we would assume that it was an area a lot of water came up, since that was where water came from then!!! Now, add to that, as above, many rivers washing things there as well!

You might think that some evidence of the 30,000 trillion tons of salt that God created under the ground and the 100,000 cubic kilometers of water needed to bring the salt to the surface would be found somewhere?

How much water is needed now, and was needed then really, you don't know.
Now, I don't know if the rapid continental move affected that area, we might add that factor in.
"Through continental drift the land gradually migrated northwards. Some salt beds were buried, others exposed and dissolved away." (talking of Britain)
http://www.lionsaltworkstrust.co.uk/history_heritage_salt_making.asp

Keep in mind also that the fabric of the universe, and atomic level differences can really come into play here.
"ionic bond

Electrostatic attraction between oppositely charged ions in a chemical compound. Such a bond forms when one or more electrons are transferred from one neutral atom (typically a metal, which becomes a cation) to another (typically a nonmetallic element or group, which becomes an anion). The two types of ion are held together by electrostatic forces in a solid that does not comprise neutral molecules as such; rather, each ion has neighbours of the opposite charge in an ordered overall crystalline structure. When, for example, crystals of common salt (sodium chloride, NaCl) are dissolved in water, they dissociate (see dissociation) into two kinds of ions in equal numbers, sodium cations (Na+) and chloride anions (Cl&#8722. "
http://www.answers.com/topic/ionic-bond
So we need to look at the possibilty that the pre split world had some reactions we are not familiar with in nature today! If we bring up a little of that metal, and a little of this element, and a smidgion of another compound, and we have a different electron charge here, and maybe a not so neutral atom over there, why, we could end up with some salt.

See? The different universe is just far too much for you to agrue with, based on pitiful present PO assumptions, and workings.

Let the myth morphing begin.

Consider it done.

 

[dad]

You've already indicated you aren't very interested in the history of the Christian Faith. Why would you now claim you know anything about the source of the Bible? Why would I believe your claims?

Because I am talking not about a human source.

Which versions of the various manuscripts are you talking about? The ones that support a Docetists or an Adoptionist reading? The antiadoptionists? The versions without the Johanine Comma? I'm curious how much you know from the variants available throughout history.

How much did the inspired martyrs, and early Christians need to know, when a writing was passed around, and they were told it was Matthew, or Paul, or etc? Sounds like you simply prefer doubts, and taking someome else's word for it. Well, we believe God, and trust the early fouders, and martyrs. Thank you very much.

Sorry, but I'm not patronizing you. I actually think your stance is a philosophically interesting one. But you don't seem to value it, you just swing it around like so much weight.

My stance is nothing like you have claimed. Swing that around.

If I were to patronize you you'd not know it anyway.

You seem to think you are the sharpest knife in the drawer. You can go on thinking that for now.

Are you saying you don't care about St. Anselm? So now Origen is a big zero and a whiner and you don't care about Anselm.

If there is something notable about them, fill us in. Meanwhile I never heard of them, and no, couldn't much care. I have heard of Mother Teresa.
Now theres a saint of some note. Even a little fame.

You must not like Christianity very much. I wish you'd be less dismissive about the important aspects of the faith that is so important to so many on this board.

Hey, present something interesting, and maybe someone might care.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Genesis 3:22-24 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

So God didn't want him to take of the tree of life and live forever, so he wasn't intended to live forever.

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. We lost the right to the tree of life. We will gain it again.

Note that it doesn't ever say that Adam had a right to the tree of life.

Re 22:14 - Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

What does this have to do with the past.

The pre split matter and earth was different

It was less dense.

So now you have morphed your myth to include a "less dense earth".

No, it is what we precisely would expect. The daughter elements were there in another process, in the varying amounts, and simply became part of the new make up of mass post split.

Which just happened to cause them all to end up in ratios that completely agree and give ages far in excess of what your myth allows. Right. This is so absurd that it is amazing that even you can't see how ridiculous it is.

Obviously you simply never comprehended the idea. Hopefully I clued you in now.

There is no logical idea to comprehend. Your dad-hoc babble about some mysterious non decay process that caused them to all end in varying amounts that happen to give concordant radiometric dates is just totally and absolutely absurd.

"..there was a sea in the Michigan Basin. At that time, North America was in the tropical zone. Land plants and animals did not yet exist, but the Michigan Sea was full of life. There were trilobites, crinoids (animals which look like plants), shellfish and corals.

On the bottom of the Michigan Sea, layers of sediment started to accumulate. The sedimentary material varied according to the changing times and conditions. One source of sediment was rivers which flowed into the sea, carrying sand and clay from nearby mountains. Another source of sediment was biological.."

http://www4.vc-net.ne.jp/~klivo/gen/geology.htm
So, if there was a sea, we would assume that it was an area a lot of water came up, since that was where water came from then!!! Now, add to that, as above, many rivers washing things there as well!

The water didn't "come up" it flowed in.

How much water is needed now, and was needed then really, you don't know.

We know that a lot of water would be needed to carry that amount of salt and that having it come up through the precambrian basement rocks and the Silurian Limestones is, like all of your other nonsense, totally absurd.

Now, I don't know if the rapid continental move affected that area, we might add that factor in.

Rapid continental movement is also a myth but even so it won't help you to get 30,000 trillion tons of salt deposited in uniform layers that look just like evaporites that form today.

"Through continental drift the land gradually migrated northwards. Some salt beds were buried, others exposed and dissolved away." (talking of Britain)
http://www.lionsaltworkstrust.co.uk/history_heritage_salt_making.asp

The site says "Rock salt was laid down about 250 million years ago when Britain was a shallow inland sea, surrounded by desert", This does nothing to help your myth. The salt was already there and deposited slowly by normal means before the beds were affected by continental drift.

Keep in mind also that the fabric of the universe, and atomic level differences can really come into play here.
"ionic bond

Electrostatic attraction between oppositely charged ions in a chemical compound. Such a bond forms when one or more electrons are transferred from one neutral atom (typically a metal, which becomes a cation) to another (typically a nonmetallic element or group, which becomes an anion). The two types of ion are held together by electrostatic forces in a solid that does not comprise neutral molecules as such; rather, each ion has neighbours of the opposite charge in an ordered overall crystalline structure. When, for example, crystals of common salt (sodium chloride, NaCl) are dissolved in water, they dissociate (see dissociation) into two kinds of ions in equal numbers, sodium cations (Na+) and chloride anions (Cl&#8722. "
http://www.answers.com/topic/ionic-bond
So we need to look at the possibilty that the pre split world had some reactions we are not familiar with in nature today! If we bring up a little of that metal, and a little of this element, and a smidgion of another compound, and we have a different electron charge here, and maybe a not so neutral atom over there, why, we could end up with some salt.

So you are back to saying that thousands of trillons of tons of salt could have formed through chemical reaction. Would you like me to look up the post where even you said that was absurd. I remember it and I think I can eventually find it Mr. Myth Morpher. Perhaps you can explain how meteor dust got distributed in salt formations in just the right amounts to make them appear to have formed at a rate of 0.01 to 0.4 centimeters a year by evaporation but I doubt it.

See? The different universe is just far too much for you to agrue with, based on pitiful present PO assumptions, and workings.

See, even your different universe fails to actually explain the data no matter how desperately you twist it.

Consider it done.

You have indeed morphed your myth again though I should have said let the myth morphing continue since you have been constantly morphing your myth for over 8,000 posts now and it still fails over and over. Since you have now failed on Varves, Radiometric dating, salt deposits and Supernova 1987A maybe we will next go back to supervolcanoes and impact craters where you also failed miserably.
F.B.

 

[Contracelsus]

How much did the inspired martyrs, and early Christians need to know, when a writing was passed around, and they were told it was Matthew, or Paul, or etc? Sounds like you simply prefer doubts, and taking someome else's word for it. Well, we believe God, and trust the early fouders, and martyrs. Thank you very much.

Nah, you may trust the early martyrs (based on Acts which was likely written by the author of Luke which was written after the first century), but you don't really care much about the founders of the faith after that. The Christian faith is really quite interesting and should be learned.

When you are ready to learn about Christianity there are a number of sources of information available to you. I think you will enjoy it.

My stance is nothing like you have claimed. Swing that around.

Well, then your stance is philosophically and logically bankrupt. You have no leg to stand on. And you seemed to be so on-track when I started reading your stuff. I really liked the argument of the unknowable past. But I can see you've thought it through as much as you've bothered with the history of Christianity.

You seem to think you are the sharpest knife in the drawer. You can go on thinking that for now.

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Just sharper than the spoon.

If there is something notable about them, fill us in. Meanwhile I never heard of them, and no, couldn't much care. I have heard of Mother Teresa.

So you've heard of Mother Teresa but not St. Anselm? Anselm had a very astonishing proof for the existence of God. One of the great thinkers of the early church. In fact, again, as in the case of Origen, there would likely have not been any Mother Teresas or even the church as we know it today without folks like Anselm.

Bravo. Have you ever heard about a parable about a man building his house on sand? Remember that the early church fathers were the ones who provided us with the faith we have today. If you want to p*** on them, go ahead, you won't wash away the foundation, but you will make the faith look foolish if that is how it is to be defended. Thanks. Good work.

(I'm going to gague your level of actual interest in Christianity as "TV Christian". Mother Teresa was shown on TV a lot, but you actually have to care about the faith to have picked up information about Anselm and Origen.)

Now theres a saint of some note. Even a little fame.

Here's a prediction for you: In about 400 years people who care for the integrity of the faith will still know Anselm but about as many will know about Mother Teresa, as currently know about St. Christina of Liege (The Astonishing) or St. Martin of Tours, or St. Simeon Stylites...but I'm sure you've never heard of them either.

Hey, present something interesting, and maybe someone might care.

Christians care about Anselm.

 

[dad]

So God didn't want him to take of the tree of life and live forever, so he wasn't intended to live forever.

He intended for us to eat it, one assumes, that is why it was there. What He would have really preferred was that we did not listen to the old boy, and eat the tree of kogae.

Note that it doesn't ever say that Adam had a right to the tree of life.
What does this have to do with the past.

He does now, in heaven, where we know the tree grows, and always will.

So now you have morphed your myth to include a "less dense earth".

If we had sky high water covering the planet, that could press it down somewhat. If gravity were mainly near the surface, or some such force in the past, then the lower earth may be less packed down, one would guess. Unless one had some evidence to suggest otherwise, in which case, one assumes it would be looked at.

Which just happened to cause them all to end up in ratios that completely agree and give ages far in excess of what your myth allows. Right. This is so absurd that it is amazing that even you can't see how ridiculous it is.

The former process involved the same rock, or materials, but worked toward a different end, in conjuntion with the spiritual components no longer part of this PO universe. Therefore, one expects that the now daughter material in the various amounts was here in another capacity, where present in nature. If it is not present, since there was no time to dacay away, it was never a part of that particular rock, one would think.

There is no logical idea to comprehend. Your dad-hoc babble about some mysterious non decay process that caused them to all end in varying amounts that happen to give concordant radiometric dates is just totally and absolutely absurd.

It is different than the present universe processes, down to the very fabric, yes, that is the point.

The water didn't "come up" it flowed in.

Both.

We know that a lot of water would be needed to carry that amount of salt and that having it come up through the precambrian basement rocks and the Silurian Limestones is, like all of your other nonsense, totally absurd.

A lot could come up then, and perhaps salt could be formed by some reaction as well from things there, and/or coming up. Piece of cake.

Rapid continental movement is also a myth but even so it won't help you to get 30,000 trillion tons of salt deposited in uniform layers that look just like evaporites that form today.

Naturally things form a certain way today, and you assume they always did. Rapid continental movement was a breeze pre split. No deathly heat to worry about. Funny thing about the no decaying rocks, and matter, it also dealt with heat very differently.

The site says "Rock salt was laid down about 250 million years ago when Britain was a shallow inland sea, surrounded by desert", This does nothing to help your myth.

We can overlook the dating totally, I always do in every site, or article, as it is baseless. The thinngs that led them to say it was a sea, and etc, however, seem to be somewhat based in some fact.

The salt was already there and deposited slowly by normal means before the beds were affected by continental drift.

Since the seperation was likely about the time of the split, all that says, is that the salt was there at the split. Is this a surprise? Maybe to someone who assume they flood put it all there. Not to me.

So you are back to saying that thousands of trillons of tons of salt could have formed through chemical reaction. Would you like me to look up the post where even you said that was absurd. I remember it and I think I can eventually find it Mr. Myth Morpher.

Well, a fresh look is always nice. Seems like all the ingredients could have been readily available, so we do have to look at it. But, at this stage, who really knows?

Perhaps you can explain how meteor dust got distributed in salt formations in just the right amounts to make them appear to have formed at a rate of 0.01 to 0.4 centimeters a year by evaporation but I doubt it.

See, even your different universe fails to actually explain the data no matter how desperately you twist it.

(your link)
"And this rate is as I noted, consistent with what we find coming in from space:

"Abundances of magnetic spherules in 26 Silurian and Permian salt samples are very similar to abundances in recent collections from the atmosphere"
Since some things deep in the earth also are similar, I think the jury is out there. But I am confident that the different past can easily explain magnetic spherules.

.... maybe we will next go back to supervolcanoes and impact craters where you also failed miserably.
F.B.

[/QUOTE]
Ash distributed widely isn't a problem.

 

[dad]

Nah, you may trust the early martyrs (based on Acts which was likely written by the author of Luke which was written after the first century), but you don't really care much about the founders of the faith after that. The Christian faith is really quite interesting and should be learned.

Hey, if God inspired it, I don't much care if it was written by Peter, Paul, or Mary. The early Christians had a pretty good handle on things.

When you are ready to learn about Christianity there are a number of sources of information available to you. I think you will enjoy it.

I prefer to learn from men of faith, not doubters.

Well, then your stance is philosophically and logically bankrupt. You have no leg to stand on. And you seemed to be so on-track when I started reading your stuff. I really liked the argument of the unknowable past. But I can see you've thought it through as much as you've bothered with the history of Christianity.

Right, you'll get over it.

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Just sharper than the spoon.

Hey, that is pretty sharp.

So you've heard of Mother Teresa but not St. Anselm? Anselm had a very astonishing proof for the existence of God. One of the great thinkers of the early church. In fact, again, as in the case of Origen, there would likely have not been any Mother Teresas or even the church as we know it today without folks like Anselm.

Funny you keep talking about relative unknowns, and never bring up a thing of importance that they did, or said.

Bravo. Have you ever heard about a parable about a man building his house on sand? Remember that the early church fathers were the ones who provided us with the faith we have today. If you want to p*** on them, go ahead, you won't wash away the foundation, but you will make the faith look foolish if that is how it is to be defended. Thanks. Good work.

No problem, one tends to drink a bit in the holidays.

(I'm going to gague your level of actual interest in Christianity as "TV Christian". Mother Teresa was shown on TV a lot, but you actually have to care about the faith to have picked up information about Anselm and Origen.)

Did you like Mother T?

Here's a prediction for you: In about 400 years people who care for the integrity of the faith will still know Anselm but about as many will know about Mother Teresa, as currently know about St. Christina of Liege (The Astonishing) or St. Martin of Tours, or St. Simeon Stylites...but I'm sure you've never heard of them either.

No, you really have the nobody list down pat it seems. I have heard of Martin Luther. Jesus. Paul. The apostles. Mary and Joseph. St Steven. Philip, and a few others, they are quite famous, and in the bible, even, many of them.

Christians care about Anselm.

[/QUOTE]
Some do, some don't. So what?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

He intended for us to eat it, one assumes, that is why it was there.

One assumes? Here you are making another baseless assumption.

What He would have really preferred was that we did not listen to the old boy, and eat the tree of kogae.

According to your myth there would be no us if Adam hadn't got kicked out of the Garden and BTW how do the "intentions" of an omnipotent being go so wrong?

If we had sky high water covering the planet, that could press it down somewhat. If gravity were mainly near the surface, or some such force in the past, then the lower earth may be less packed down, one would guess. Unless one had some evidence to suggest otherwise, in which case, one assumes it would be looked at.

What? Sky high water? From where? And how did this sky-high water press anything down if there was no gravity? Or have you forgotten that part of your myth? Or wait, it wasn't gravity but something like gravity or what was it?? You are just twisting helplessly in the wind here dad.

The former process involved the same rock, or materials, but worked toward a different end, in conjuntion with the spiritual components no longer part of this PO universe. Therefore, one expects that the now daughter material in the various amounts was here in another capacity, where present in nature. If it is not present, since there was no time to dacay away, it was never a part of that particular rock, one would think.

This dad-hoc babble in no way explains concordant radiometric dates from different isotope methods.

It is different than the present universe processes, down to the very fabric, yes, that is the point.

You have not in any way explained how consistent radiometric dates from different methods could arise iwthout radioactive decay even with a different fabric of the universe.

Both.

The water that brought the salt into the basin in question flowed in and evaporated to leave the salt behind it didn't come up through the earth carrying the salt.

A lot could come up then, and perhaps salt could be formed by some reaction as well from things there, and/or coming up. Piece of cake.

Complete nonsense of course.

Naturally things form a certain way today, and you assume they always did. Rapid continental movement was a breeze pre split. No deathly heat to worry about. Funny thing about the no decaying rocks, and matter, it also dealt with heat very differently.

Yes I remember this discussion. First you said there was no heat, then you invoked the heat from the moving continents to explain volcanic eruptions. You just keep morphing your myth around.

We can overlook the dating totally, I always do in every site, or article, as it is baseless. The thinngs that led them to say it was a sea, and etc, however, seem to be somewhat based in some fact.

Except that you have totally failed to show why it is baseless, since you are completely unable to explain concordant radiometric dates. But if the data on the site YOU linked are baseless why did you try to invoke them in your desperate attempts to justify your myth?

Since the seperation was likely about the time of the split, all that says, is that the salt was there at the split. Is this a surprise? Maybe to someone who assume they flood put it all there. Not to me.

The salt was there when the continents moved so you can't use the continental movement to explain the presence of the salt. You have failed again.

Well, a fresh look is always nice. Seems like all the ingredients could have been readily available, so we do have to look at it. But, at this stage, who really knows?

We know that all you have come up with is nonsense that doesn't even begin to explain salt deposits. Not even close.

(your link)
"And this rate is as I noted, consistent with what we find coming in from space:

"Abundances of magnetic spherules in 26 Silurian and Permian salt samples are very similar to abundances in recent collections from the atmosphere"
Since some things deep in the earth also are similar, I think the jury is out there. But I am confident that the different past can easily explain magnetic spherules.

So where did they come from? Was the rate of space dust reaching the earth thousands of time higher in your distant past?
How does it happen that everything we look at is consistent with accumulation of the geologic column over eons and you consistently have to twist your myth around and come up with more and more outrageous ad-hoc scenarios to try to fit it into the short time frame you allow? There is a simple explanation of course. You are completely wrong.

Ash distributed widely isn't a problem.

Supervolcanoes produce huge amounts of ash and can significantly lower global temperatures. The site I linked lists 10 of them and it doesn't even list the huge ashfalls that occured during the Ordovician. How do cram these massive volcanic events and associated ashfalls into your young earth time frame without anyone even noticing them.

 

[Contracelsus]

I prefer to learn from men of faith, not doubters.

So you will bother to learn from Anselm and Aquinas and the others??? That's great!

Right, you'll get over it.

No you seem to miss the point. I want you to learn about Christianity. It is a deep and thoughtful, rich faith. It has been home to some of the great thinkers of western civilization. I hope you join!

Funny you keep talking about relative unknowns, and never bring up a thing of importance that they did, or said.

Actually Dad two important things here:

1. I did bring up many things they said, I don't have to tell you everything they did.

2. They are only "relative unknowns" to non-Christians.

Did you like Mother T?

I certainly appear to like the Christian faith more than you do. I certainly have taken the time to learn more about it than you did.

No, you really have the nobody list down pat it seems.

Ya know, I used to think the story about Balaam's talking ass was just a fable, then I saw it for myself.

I have heard of Martin Luther. Jesus. Paul. The apostles. Mary and Joseph. St Steven. Philip, and a few others, they are quite famous, and in the bible, even, many of them.

Count me surpised you can list Martin Luther! You've already indicated you dislike for the Christian faith so many times already by calling other church fathers zeros and whiners and unknowns.

Some do, some don't. So what?

Yeah, but those who don't don't seem so very proud of their ignorance all the while crowing their christianity.

 

[dad]

One assumes? Here you are making another baseless assumption.

He said we may eat of all the trees of the garden, remember. Or do I need to look it up for you? The one exception of course was not the tree of life. I don't do baseless. Give it a try sometime, it feels good.

According to your myth there would be no us if Adam hadn't got kicked out of the Garden and BTW how do the "intentions" of an omnipotent being go so wrong?

His intention was not to have robots, but make us with real free will. He would prefer we make the right choice, like any Parent. But He allowed us the real choice. I think that is one of the big reasons that the devil hates mankind so much.

What? Sky high water? From where? And how did this sky-high water press anything down if there was no gravity?

No gravity as we know it. But I think sky high water might press things down somewhat, because there obviously was some forces in place to keep us on the ground. I wonder if it was mainly near the surface. Besides, we know the rains fell, so there had to be some gravity like forces of some kind.

Or have you forgotten that part of your myth? Or wait, it wasn't gravity but something like gravity or what was it?? You are just twisting helplessly in the wind here dad.

Not at all, gravity as we know it was not here. How much gravity there was, if it was the same force, we don't know.

This dad-hoc babble in no way explains concordant radiometric dates from different isotope methods.

You're wrong. As I explained already.

You have not in any way explained how consistent radiometric dates from different methods could arise iwthout radioactive decay even with a different fabric of the universe.

Maybe you still didn't catch it. But nothing is not wonderfully explained.

The water that brought the salt into the basin in question flowed in and evaporated to leave the salt behind it didn't come up through the earth carrying the salt.

It may have done some evaporating, and it likely flowed in as well, but you have nothing to say that it, or the ingredients for a reaction didn't come up. Why pretend?

Yes I remember this discussion. First you said there was no heat, then you invoked the heat from the moving continents to explain volcanic eruptions. You just keep morphing your myth around.

Hear what you want. There was heat, but not the deathly heat there would be in a present state world. Maybe you really are ignorant, and can't comprehend what I say, and are not just twisting things in a dishonest fashion. I should give you the benefit of the doubt.

Except that you have totally failed to show why it is baseless, since you are completely unable to explain concordant radiometric dates.

The dates are non existant. You simply look at amounts of material. Then, assume the present decay was always in place. The amounts were there in another process. The great sum of things that have no daughter material, you simply declare "missing". Your fabrications are all Po assumption based and unsupportable.

But if the data on the site YOU linked are baseless why did you try to invoke them in your desperate attempts to justify your myth?

All dating on evey site is baseless. But some data is good, that doesn't have anything to do with the dates.

The salt was there when the continents moved so you can't use the continental movement to explain the presence of the salt. You have failed again.

Ah, glad to see you are purposely misrepresenting what I say. Look back, and try to behave.

We know that all you have come up with is nonsense that doesn't even begin to explain salt deposits. Not even close.

You say things over, as if they had some basis in reality by their repetition. Strange. The different past reactions, and state, and waters coming up cover the situation entirely.

So where did they come from? Was the rate of space dust reaching the earth thousands of time higher in your distant past?

Before we go there, can you evidence that it must be space dust? The guy claimed a similarity in your link. But offered no proof. What precisely is found, and what precisely makes it exclusively from space?? Not that it is a problem either way, but you can't just go hopping around on assumptive lily pads.

How does it happen that everything we look at is consistent with accumulation of the geologic column over eons and you consistently have to twist your myth around and come up with more and more outrageous ad-hoc scenarios to try to fit it into the short time frame you allow? There is a simple explanation of course. You are completely wrong.

The only way it was looked at is assuming the past was the same. Just like they assume the future will be. No real reason. So, the current knowledge of man all revolves around that premise. One big misunderstanding. Time for a fresh look.

Supervolcanoes produce huge amounts of ash and can significantly lower global temperatures. The site I linked lists 10 of them and it doesn't even list the huge ashfalls that occured during the Ordovician. How do cram these massive volcanic events and associated ashfalls into your young earth time frame without anyone even noticing them.

Easy.

 

[dad]

So you will bother to learn from Anselm and Aquinas and the others??? That's great!

What is it you think we need to learn? Or do you just want to try to sound educated?

No you seem to miss the point. I want you to learn about Christianity. It is a deep and thoughtful, rich faith. It has been home to some of the great thinkers of western civilization. I hope you join!

When you think think think, you're gonna sink sink sink, because you stink stink stink. The faith of Jesus generally doesn't need 'great thinkers'. Not all that much to think about, mostly just believe.

Actually Dad two important things here:

1. I did bring up many things they said, I don't have to tell you everything they did.

Well, how important could it be then, I certainly don't remember you saying anything of the slightest note.

2. They are only "relative unknowns" to non-Christians.

False.

I certainly appear to like the Christian faith more than you do. I certainly have taken the time to learn more about it than you did.

Great. Here's a little pat on the back for you.
There, I'm done, now go pat yourself.

Ya know, I used to think the story about Balaam's talking ass was just a fable, then I saw it for myself.

Great, your head was not far from one of those, I'm sure.

Count me surpised you can list Martin Luther! You've already indicated you dislike for the Christian faith so many times already by calling other church fathers zeros and whiners and unknowns.

Glad you are impressed. But, perhaps the flatteries can be put aside, and you can talk some evidence, or science, or something other than personal patronizing.

Yeah, but those who don't don't seem so very proud of their ignorance all the while crowing their christianity.

I am not the least bit ashamed of not giving a flying puck about those you decide to dredge up as heros.

 

[Contracelsus]

What is it you think we need to learn? Or do you just want to try to sound educated?

No Dad, I AM educated. I am not proclaiming my ignorance as virtue.

When you think think think, you're gonna sink sink sink, because you stink stink stink. The faith of Jesus generally doesn't need 'great thinkers'. Not all that much to think about, mostly just believe.

I'm sure Jesus is so happy with you telling people they stink stink stink.

Glad you are impressed. But, perhaps the flatteries can be put aside, and you can talk some evidence, or science, or something other than personal patronizing.

This is a serious question, Dad: Are you functionally illiterate? Did you even READ what I wrote? It wasn't a patronizing comment.

I am not the least bit ashamed of not giving a flying puck about those you decide to dredge up as heros.

Oh, you don't give a puck? That's great for a pucktread basswipe! Maybe you can cluck some flick while you call the church fathers zeros! Yay!


LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR FAITH!

 

[RN4CHRIST]

Please remember our rules and keep it civil, please.

Happy New Year
Debate Team
RN4CHRIST
Casey

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

He said we may eat of all the trees of the garden, remember. Or do I need to look it up for you? The one exception of course was not the tree of life. I don't do baseless. Give it a try sometime, it feels good.


His intention was not to have robots, but make us with real free will. He would prefer we make the right choice, like any Parent. But He allowed us the real choice. I think that is one of the big reasons that the devil hates mankind so much.

If he was omnipotent he would have known the future. If he knew the future he would have known that the apple would be eaten and that he would kick them out of the garden. So either he didn't know the future, meaning he was not omnipotent or he didn't intend Adam to eat of the tree of life. You can't have it both way. Maybe you should try logical thought sometime.

No gravity as we know it. But I think sky high water might press things down somewhat, because there obviously was some forces in place to keep us on the ground. I wonder if it was mainly near the surface. Besides, we know the rains fell, so there had to be some gravity like forces of some kind.

This is just more gibberish and doesn't actually explain anything as usual from you.

Not at all, gravity as we know it was not here. How much gravity there was, if it was the same force, we don't know.

We know that your no gravity before the flood fantasy is absurd. That is what we know.

You're wrong. As I explained already.

You didn't actually explain anything you just waved your hands around about some different process that somehow accounts for the data but you can't actually explain how. The only way would be if God deliberately manipulated isotope levels to give consistent but false dates. There you go making God out to be a liar yet again.

Maybe you still didn't catch it. But nothing is not wonderfully explained.

What I caught was that you are totally unable to explain the concordance of radiometric dates obtained using different sets of isotopes as well as many other things.

It may have done some evaporating, and it likely flowed in as well, but you have nothing to say that it, or the ingredients for a reaction didn't come up. Why pretend?

The ingredients for the reaction to produce NaCl are sodium a highly reactive metal that reacts with water to produce NaOH, and hydrogen gas and chlorine a toxic gas. Just how much of the 30,000 trillion tons of salt under Michigan do you think were produced by the reaction of those two elements? How about the thousands of trillions of tons of salt in other deposits around the world. How much was made by the reaction of a reactive and toxic metal with a toxic gas?

Hear what you want. There was heat, but not the deathly heat there would be in a present state world. Maybe you really are ignorant, and can't comprehend what I say, and are not just twisting things in a dishonest fashion. I should give you the benefit of the doubt.

No I read what you wrote, claiming there was no friction and no heat and then invoking the heat when you needed it. Would you like me to dig up the posts?

The dates are non existant. You simply look at amounts of material. Then, assume the present decay was always in place. The amounts were there in another process. The great sum of things that have no daughter material, you simply declare "missing". Your fabrications are all Po assumption based and unsupportable.

Again, explain how different radiometric methods using different isotope give concordant radiometric dates on different sets of rocks based on your other process or admit that you can't. This is just something you have made up imagining that it explains the data when it actually explains nothing.

All dating on evey site is baseless. But some data is good, that doesn't have anything to do with the dates.

Except that you have still been totally unable to explain concordant radiometric dates with your myth so I say the dating is based on science that you can't refute.

Ah, glad to see you are purposely misrepresenting what I say. Look back, and try to behave.

What you wrote was
"Now, I don't know if the rapid continental move affected that area, we might add that factor in. " and then linked to a web site discussing continental drift that occured after salt was deposited. You can't use something that happened after the salt was deposited to explain the deposits.

You say things over, as if they had some basis in reality by their repetition. Strange. The different past reactions, and state, and waters coming up cover the situation entirely.

You give non explanations over and over as if they actually explained something. They don't.

Before we go there, can you evidence that it must be space dust? The guy claimed a similarity in your link. But offered no proof. What precisely is found, and what precisely makes it exclusively from space?? Not that it is a problem either way, but you can't just go hopping around on assumptive lily pads.

They are not "proven" to be from space. They are indentified as have an origin from space because they are very similar to magnetic spherules that are known to fall from space and not similar to spherules in volcanic ash or from other possible terrestrial sources. The original paper that makes this identification is Mutch T.A. "Volcanic ashes compared to paleozoic salts contain extraterrestrial spherules, J. Geophys Res. 69, 4735 (1964).

The only way it was looked at is assuming the past was the same. Just like they assume the future will be. No real reason. So, the current knowledge of man all revolves around that premise. One big misunderstanding. Time for a fresh look.

They didn't look at it thinking that invisible pink unicorns pooped out the world's sedimentary layers either. There is no reason to make up bizarre fantasies that don't actually fit the data when we have a workable model that does.

Easy.

But you can't actually do it can you?

 

[dad]

If he was omnipotent he would have known the future. If he knew the future he would have known that the apple would be eaten and that he would kick them out of the garden. So either he didn't know the future, meaning he was not omnipotent or he didn't intend Adam to eat of the tree of life. You can't have it both way. Maybe you should try logical thought sometime.

So? What is so wrong about knowing?

We know that your no gravity before the flood fantasy is absurd. That is what we know.

No, otherwise you could prove it. That we know. Do you think it was gravity as we know it that held the angels down to the surface of the planet?? In fact, it is about time you started admitting all you don't know about the past. Especially in the light of all you can't prove, and assume.

You didn't actually explain anything you just waved your hands around about some different process that somehow accounts for the data but you can't actually explain how. The only way would be if God deliberately manipulated isotope levels to give consistent but false dates. There you go making God out to be a liar yet again.

No, look at an example.

There was about as much 206 Pb at the split when decay started. Because it is decaying now, they imagine that it all got there that way. The amount is not that important.

The ingredients for the reaction to produce NaCl are sodium a highly reactive metal that reacts with water to produce NaOH, and hydrogen gas and chlorine a toxic gas. Just how much of the 30,000 trillion tons of salt under Michigan do you think were produced by the reaction of those two elements?

None, under present conditions. You seem to forget that an atomic level change occurred, and that we can play with electrons, and charges, etc. That means that it's a whole new ballgame in the reaction department for sure.

How about the thousands of trillions of tons of salt in other deposits around the world. How much was made by the reaction of a reactive and toxic metal with a toxic gas?

You are talking how PO reactions occur, under the present universe fabric arrangement. You can't do that.

No I read what you wrote, claiming there was no friction and no heat and then invoking the heat when you needed it. Would you like me to dig up the posts?

No, that was probably when I was still looking for a PO explanation. Obviously there was heat.

What you wrote was
"Now, I don't know if the rapid continental move affected that area, we might add that factor in. " and then linked to a web site discussing continental drift that occured after salt was deposited. You can't use something that happened after the salt was deposited to explain the deposits.

Well, what I was looking at was a possible piling up, and affecting of some areas in a great continental movement. If that was when a lot of the mountain building went on, after all, some areas may have been affected. But we simply need to look at the individual case. This does not affect my position in any way, obviously, because the waters, and reactions, and etc that put a lot of that salt there were pre split. So, how would shoving a continent over affect the salt that was already there, that would be the concern there. Not whether the salt sprung up post split, don't be absurd.

They are not "proven" to be from space.

Hoo haw, thank you.

They are indentified as have an origin from space because they are very similar to magnetic spherules that are known to fall from space and not similar to spherules in volcanic ash or from other possible terrestrial sources.

Well, if they did come from below, how would they be similar now, since water and stuff doesn't come up anymore? Try to focus.

They didn't look at it thinking that invisible pink unicorns pooped out the world's sedimentary layers either. There is no reason to make up bizarre fantasies that don't actually fit the data when we have a workable model that does.

Right, they did as I said, and assumed the present natural. Nothing more. Just assumed. And where's that?
Now you are starting to remind me of an old boxer that comes out of retirement, when they are past the good years. I know you made a reasonable sparring partner in the past, but you really aren't up to the job any more. Your job was largely to illustrate that it had to be a universe change. Now that that is established, it is kind of futile trying to use the PO stuff where it can't apply. See, cause that's all you know.
Maybe the best course of action is to admit you just really don't know, and science can't tell us. Your same past myth really is busted.