The Problem of a Different Past

[dad]

I am not missing anything. If God is omnipotent He would have known what would happen.

And, if He gave man free will, He would not stop it, so?

So you are saying the God is not omnipotent.

He is a God of His word. If He says free will, bet the farm on it. Don't expect Him to act like a politcian.

Then He knew what would happen and you are wrong that He intended a different outcome.

He prefered we obey. He made it so we had the choice, it was left up to us.

This blather is meaningless. If He is omnipotent He knew the outcome and He couldn't have intended a different outcome.

He didn't make us a robots intended to do things. He would have preferred we obey. He takes no pleasure in our wrong choices, and all the suffering they havve caused.

Spiritual or not the idea that people could have built a tower that actually allowed them access to heaven is just plain silly.

Only if there was no heaven, or spiritual level nearby at the time. Of course it would be silly now. Now is now, and then was then. You need to learn the difference between now and then!

So the mountains mentioned is Genesis 7:20 weren't actually mountains?

There were mountains, of course. Were they HIGH mountains? Look at the new heavens, and earth, the mountains will (again) be made low.

So Heaven was only a few hundred miles wide and hovered just a few hundred feet above the plain of Shinar. Right. You certainly have some strange ideas.

Heaven, or New Jerusalem now is a known size, absolutely. How big the accomodation for spirits was then, who knows? I would not expect it covered the planet.

So God had sex with regular girls and produced these misbegotten sons.

I think angels are created beings. It was they that married the erath girls.

But wait if God had sex with regular girls to produce his sons weren't they begotten sons? I thought He had only one begotten son.

Right, Jesus, who was born of a woman, and God was the Father.

If it was a split event the decay of Cobalt 60 should not have occured.

Why not? How long did the process last? If the star was PO first, why would it not have normal PO decay?

So you think Adam saw light from all the stars during creation week. Why?

I don't know if we needed to see all of them, but certainly a sky full. They were made for us, that is why they shine. We are the reason for it all here. Not insignificant animals, on a meaningless blue speck.

All this twisting around doesn't help the fact that for SN 1987A to show radioactive decay your myth needs it to be post split and for the light to get here in less than 168,000 years you myth needs it to be pre split.

All that needs to have happened in the scenario I used is for the SN to have been first affected by the process. Then, that information relayed on it's way to earth, before the process was finished. Even if we assume that it wasn't random, and some stars were first affected, we could look at something like matter itself, and mass, being first affected, and space and light taking a bit longer, or something like that.

Your desperate attempts to have it both ways are amusing but don't really work.

A different universe really covers it, if there was one. That really is all we need to determine, not every detail of how it would work, since all we know is this state.

In other words you have absolutely know way to explain why so many different isotopes with different rates of decay exist in rocks in just the right ratios to give consistent radiometric dates.

No, it is all explained totally. The isotopes had no rates of decay, and existed. The ratios of the former process, 'inverted', now exist in a decay process. That is the short answer.

Wrong, your interpretation of the Bible could not be true, but then you are in big trouble because we have seen tno matter how you twist your myth it doesn't actually explain the data.

In your dreams.

What? You still don't have any idea of what the science presented to you actually means do you.

Yes, it means you assume it was always so, and always will be.

The data can be accounted for quite nicely by the constancy of physical laws and can't be accounted for by your ever changing myth no matter how you morph it as we have clearly seen again on this thread.

Totally accounted for in a superior way. Your same past myth is shown to be baseless, and nothing at all more than an assumption of a same past you could not begin to prove.

 

[Contracelsus]

He didn't make us a robots intended to do things. He would have preferred we obey. He takes no pleasure in our wrong choices, and all the suffering they havve caused.

No the suffering you cause is only a pleasure to you. God certainly doesn't like to see a perfectly good human brain go to waste.

There were mountains, of course. Were they HIGH mountains? Look at the new heavens, and earth, the mountains will (again) be made low.

Wow, a place without mountains sounds pretty damn dull! Sorry to hear you think heaven is going to be just over-eating and necrophilia with Marilyn Monroe.

I think angels are created beings. It was they that married the erath girls.

That's because earth girls are easy.

Right, Jesus, who was born of a woman, and God was the Father.

ZEUS! I thought you weren't a pagan!

A different universe really covers it, if there was one. That really is all we need to determine, not every detail of how it would work, since all we know is this state.

Let me rephrase from Dad-Speak:

"We don't know what it was like but it certainly musta been like _I_ say because I'm Dad and I work hard to make Christianity look as silly as possible! Selah!"

Alternately:

"I'm completely out of my depth here and I'm just spewing words on the keyboard!"

No, it is all explained totally. The isotopes had no rates of decay, and existed. The ratios of the former process, 'inverted', now exist in a decay process. That is the short answer.

Uh, but you don't technically understand half-lives today let alone in your far distant Pre-Split world. You don't understand first order kinetics.

Totally accounted for in a superior way. Your same past myth is shown to be baseless, and nothing at all more than an assumption of a same past you could not begin to prove.

But Dad, you've already proven you don't even understand your own philosophical argument, let alone modern science or even your own faith's history! All you know is:

1. Childrens' Golden Book of Bible Stories
2. Science Fiction
3. Racially insensitive jokes

That's not a good combination to come to the science debate with.

 

[Contracelsus]

I'll usually ignore spelling mistakes since I make quite a few myself but that was too good to pass up, like the time JohnR7 said the ark landed on Arafat.

I'm all about that myself. I find my own typos pretty abysmal. But it is fun to needle Dud occasionally.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

And, if He gave man free will, He would not stop it, so?


He is a God of His word. If He says free will, bet the farm on it. Don't expect Him to act like a politcian.


He prefered we obey. He made it so we had the choice, it was left up to us.


He didn't make us a robots intended to do things. He would have preferred we obey. He takes no pleasure in our wrong choices, and all the suffering they havve caused.

All this blather is still meaningless. If God knew that Adam would disobey He couldn't have intended that Adam would obey, so either you are wrong or God is not omnipotent.

Only if there was no heaven, or spiritual level nearby at the time. Of course it would be silly now. Now is now, and then was then. You need to learn the difference between now and then!

No, you need to learn the difference between fantasy and reality.

There were mountains, of course. Were they HIGH mountains? Look at the new heavens, and earth, the mountains will (again) be made low.

Were they higher than a tower could be built on a plain. I would think so but it is not really relevant since the whole idea of anyone actually gaining access to heaven by building a tower is just plain silly.

I think angels are created beings. It was they that married the erath girls.

That's not what you said in your last post. So now you say the sons of God in Genesis were motherless. Weren't these the bad guys you think led God to repent his creation and flood the earth? Why did God create such trouble makers? You'd think an omnipotent God could have done a better job.

Why not? How long did the process last? If the star was PO first, why would it not have normal PO decay?

Of course it was PO, everything is and was PO and since it was PO and had PO decay the light took 168,000 years to get here.

I don't know if we needed to see all of them, but certainly a sky full. They were made for us, that is why they shine. We are the reason for it all here. Not insignificant animals, on a meaningless blue speck.

So all 10^21 stars in the universe are shinning just for us, even those whose light we need powerful telescopes to see. I think your problem is one of ego. You just can't accept that the earth really is a pretty small speck in the universe as a whole.

All that needs to have happened in the scenario I used is for the SN to have been first affected by the process. Then, that information relayed on it's way to earth, before the process was finished. Even if we assume that it wasn't random, and some stars were first affected, we could look at something like matter itself, and mass, being first affected, and space and light taking a bit longer, or something like that.

Something like complete dad-hoc nonsense.

A different universe really covers it, if there was one. That really is all we need to determine, not every detail of how it would work, since all we know is this state.

The different universe you have created in your mind doesn't cover it.

No, it is all explained totally. The isotopes had no rates of decay, and existed. The ratios of the former process, 'inverted', now exist in a decay process. That is the short answer.

The short answer is that you don't have clue as to how to explain away this falsification of your myth.

Totally accounted for in a superior way. Your same past myth is shown to be baseless, and nothing at all more than an assumption of a same past you could not begin to prove.

Your myth has failed on this and other threads. You are too deluded to see it but the rest of us can.

 

[dad]

You won't find a piece of halite anywhere on earth that has your proposed bizarro chlorine atoms.

I certainly would hope not, whatever that is. Why would you expect to find some little patch of the different universe state in this one? Bizzare. Should I look for an angel in the crack of a rock as well??

So you are busted in terms of proof for anything. I can however, dig up just about any piece of halite and it will look like a normal chlorine atom make up.

All I need to prove is that things are as they are. How hard is that? You have a problem on your PO hands, however. A big one. You have to prove that the past was the same, as you claim, and as you claim is science. I kid you not. Some of us grow a little tired of you making false claims of science. Isn't it time you come clean here?

WHAT??? You post someone else's stuff about isotopic fractionation and you seem to think it disproves anything I wrote?

Don't get jealous. Yes, I posted someone else's stuff. Get over it, why do you sound so obsessive???? The link I posted simply talks about the term you mentioned. Without your religious bias, it is fairly obvious, reading that, it simply talks about the present state of things.

(Sorry to do this to you dad, but I haven't been wholly honest...I am a research chemist with a PhD. I've actually had classes on stable isotope fractionation, which is more than you can say. So don't go grabbing something you googled and act like it means anything.)

-busted-

OK, so are you claiming that the article was no good? Or are you claiming that the processes went on the same pre split, or....?

Dad, there is NO EVIDENCE for any other sorts of Chlorine atoms EVER. NOWHERE. We are stuck with the evidence we are stuck with. At least I can FIND evidence that salt crystals formed millions of years ago are exactly the same isotopically as those I can precipitate from seawater today. But YOU CAN'T find any other bizarro-chlorines.

You rattle off assumptions as if they mean something just because you believe them! Show me any crystal that is millions of years old!! Show us why they claim the age. I will show you a same past based assumption. There is no such thing as old age. Get used to it. You were taught wrong wrong wrong.

Dad, have you ever heard of CARBONATE ROCKS? They have Oxygen in them. We can compare the oxygen in them and know that it will be shifted one way or the other dependent upon the occurence of a mountain range nearby! The same alllllll the way back into the earliest carbonates.

Meaningless. We know there was an atmosphere. Who thinks there was no O? What is the mountain range nearby, and when did it actually get formed!?

have you heard of COAL? It has PYRITE in it. It has sulfur that has had its isotopic composition shifted a LOOOOOONG time in the past...just like biological materials that deal with sulfur-reduction do TODAY.

Isotope composition can change in the present. Where it has changed in the past, we might look closely at where, and when, and how we know, and what we actually know.

The distant past is the SAME as the present!

No, not at all. Not when the distance is beyond 4400 years. It might seem that way to you, who assume it was the same.

 

[dad]

I'm all about that myself. I find my own typos pretty abysmal. But it is fun to needle Dud occasionally.

Funny, that. Here is your first post on this forum, what were you here for?

Hi, new to CF and new to the debate, but I've heard some folks here on CF talk about a "Different Past" and a "same past" that might explain why the world looks like it was older because the physical laws were different back in Biblical times.

Can anyone point me in a direction about this? Someone was saying that since you can't know the past then you can't prove it?

Ha. Yeah, funny things do happen.

 

[Contracelsus]

Funny, that. Here is your first post on this forum, what were you here for?

Hi, new to CF and new to the debate, but I've heard some folks here on CF talk about a "Different Past" and a "same past" that might explain why the world looks like it was older because the physical laws were different back in Biblical times.

Can anyone point me in a direction about this? Someone was saying that since you can't know the past then you can't prove it?

Ha. Yeah, funny things do happen.

Believe it or not Dud, I actually respect the philosophical stance of EMPIRICISM. I thought maybe you could have built something from your argument. Then I realized you didn't even understand your own argument.

What do you think I'm here for? Are you accusing me of something?

I am here now to figure out how much you understand. But that's become a pretty meager harvest.

 

[dad]

No the suffering you cause is only a pleasure to you. God certainly doesn't like to see a perfectly good human brain go to waste.

I don't want to stoop to that level, to reply.

Wow, a place without mountains sounds pretty damn dull! Sorry to hear you think heaven is going to be just over-eating and necrophilia with Marilyn Monroe.

My, the wolf is out of the woods now, how nice.

That's because earth girls are easy.

Well, some did decide to marry angels when they were available. So? Do you think there is something wrong with sex, and children??

ZEUS! I thought you weren't a pagan!

What that has to do with Jesus being born of a woman, and God is the Father, I don't know.

Let me rephrase from Dad-Speak:

"We don't know what it was like but it certainly musta been like _I_ say because I'm Dad and I work hard to make Christianity look as silly as possible! Selah!"

Alternately:

"I'm completely out of my depth here and I'm just spewing words on the keyboard!"

You don't know what it was like, or will be like. That may be why you do little else but talk like this.

Uh, but you don't technically understand half-lives today let alone in your far distant Pre-Split world. You don't understand first order kinetics.

I don't think you either understand the past, or what I understand. Maybe if you stick to explaining what you do believe, you would not waste our time so much. Didn't you have some big claim about pyrite or something, I thought you were going to really impress us?

But Dad, you've already proven you don't even understand your own philosophical argument, let alone modern science or even your own faith's history!

I think I would know what my own position was, apparently you don't. As for science, I do understand it's limits.

All you know is:

1. Childrens' Golden Book of Bible Stories
2. Science Fiction
3. Racially insensitive jokes

That's not a good combination to come to the science debate with.

Bible stories are good. As for racial talk, and sci fi, I don't usually do those. But your same past myth is sci fi, you know. Really. I wonder if they have a PHd for that?

 

[Contracelsus]

I certainly would hope not, whatever that is.

It's table salt, Dud. You can learn about it from the Golden Book of Earth Science. The mineralogy isn't in the Bible, sorry.

Why would you expect to find some little patch of the different universe state in this one? Bizzare. Should I look for an angel in the crack of a rock as well??

You made a positive statement that the past was different and you cannot back it up.

I make a positive statement that the past was the same, and I can provide more data to indicate that going back in time processes produced the same results as we see happening today.

Who wins? I may not win outright, but clearly you lose.

Ever heard of a statistical hypothesis test? I knew you hadn't.

Man, I am so far ahead of you it must make you ache.

All I need to prove is that things are as they are.

No, you are wrong here. Logically YOU have to prove things were different.

Don't get jealous. Yes, I posted someone else's stuff. Get over it, why do you sound so obsessive????

Because you didn't understand one word of the article you quoted.

The link I posted simply talks about the term you mentioned.

And you didn't understand a word of it.

Sad really.

 

[dad]

Believe it or not Dud, I actually respect the philosophical stance of EMPIRICISM.

Like I care?

I thought maybe you could have built something from your argument. Then I realized you didn't even understand your own argument.

I do, you don't, sorry to break it to you.

I am here now to figure out how much you understand. But that's become a pretty meager harvest.

Really? Interesting.Some are here for other reasons that stalking.

 

[Contracelsus]

As for racial talk, ..., I don't usually do those.

Are you fibbing here, Dad? Do you recall a post from January 1st, 2007? It is now mysteriously editted, but it had a charming Amos-and-Andy spin to it. A touching joke about an african-american GI from the Bronx as I recall. Complete with the most offensive of dialects. (I saved a copy for you in case you forgot)

In case you forgot, it was Post #30274308

But it's altered now. I suspect you got modded up the wazoo for trying to turn Christian Forums into a Christian Identity page.



Maybe if you are going to lie about it you need to lie to people who haven't been keeping track.

 

[dad]

Are you fibbing here, Dad? Do you recall a post from January 1st, 2007? It is now mysteriously editted, but it had a charming Amos-and-Andy spin to it. A touching joke about an african-american GI from the Bronx as I recall. Complete with the most offensive of dialects. (I saved a copy for you in case you forgot)

In case you forgot, it was Post #30274308

But it's altered now. I suspect you got modded up the wazoo for trying to turn Christian Forums into a Christian Identity page.



Maybe if you are going to lie about it you need to lie to people who haven't been keeping track.

I said I don't usually do racial or sci fi. That is true. So, you can save the politically correct stuff. The joke I told had a point that was nothing to do with race, any more than it had to do with the nazi. It had to do with the idea that the one soldier had his head cut off, but didn't realize it yet. Which was relevant to a point being discussed.
No need to cry in the PC pretzels here.

 

[Contracelsus]

I said I don't usually do racial or sci fi. That is true. So, you can save the politically correct stuff. The joke I told had a point that was nothing to do with race, any more than it had to do with the nazi. It had to do with the idea that the one soldier had his head cut off, but didn't realize it yet. Which was relevant to a point being discussed.
No need to cry in the PC pretzels here.

Yes, indeed.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Thread is closed due to excessive in thread violations - please remember the following particularly when posting :

[rule2.1] [rule2.8] complete forum rules can be found here : www.christianforums.com/rules