- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
In other words, it was a special purpose of some kind, rather than a universal thing.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In other words, it was a special purpose of some kind, rather than a universal thing.IIRC you claimed it Oklo was intended to heat water for Eve's bath or some such nonsense, LOL.
F.B.
The appearance of age is a same past focus problem, yes.All you could do was repeat over and over that impossible and sometimes contradictroy things could have somehow happened to make the earth look exactly as if it were far older
Insanity. The past and future nature are different, no need for pixies to fly around intervening with them to make them conform to the present.the only "different past" that could explain the data is one in which a supernatural being constantly intervenes to manipulate nature to give the false impression of great age.
All that was demonstrated was your insistance on being deceived by baseless beliefs that the present is the key to the future and the past.It was proven beyond any doubt that either God created a world intended to deliberately deceive us or you are wrong.
It not only does that better, but it explains the past and future as well.... explaining why the earth looks the way it does.
No, the other way round, your inability to seperate your belief driven views from evidence leaves you locked out, and using the wrong key to the past.The fact that you can't see how badly you lost is simply more evidence that you are totally incapable of rational thought.
[/quote]I see no need to waste further time agruing with you after showing that all your arguments are absurd nonsense that don't even begin to explain the data.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Do you think the past was in the same state, and the future will be? Come on now, fess up?Nope, sorry dad there are no "believers" in the same past that I could find on this board.
Thank you.Just rational people who have
a) got themselves an education rather than spout off from a position of profound ignorance
Hey, why are you being so nice all of a sudden here? Thanks again.b) actually went out and studied some aspect of this universe and logically went where the evidence led them.
I am eager to learn that the past was a certain state, and look forward to the hard science you undoubably have to show us how clear, and solid the case is for the same past.You have missed a golden opportunity to actually learn something about this world. Your loss, it's a pity.
You have just described your fantasy perfectly.Insanity.
You totally failed to explain anything except in your own delusions. Do I need to bring back the threads to show how totally you failed.The past and future nature are different, no need for pixies to fly around intervening with them to make them conform to the present.
All that was demonstrated was your insistance on being deceived by baseless beliefs that the present is the key to the future and the past.
It not only does that better, but it explains the past and future as well.
You were demolished but you are still too deluded to see it.No, the other way round, your inability to seperate your belief driven views from evidence leaves you locked out, and using the wrong key to the past.
Good. No sense pretending you didn't have your clock cleaned, and stomped on, and ground into powder, and blown away in the winds of time.
First you said there was NO decay. Then when overwhelming evidence of decay was presented it became decay for some "special purpose", just another desperate morphing of your failed fantasy, one of many examples of how your fantasy fails no matter how you morph it. You lost long ago. Get over it.In other words, it was a special purpose of some kind, rather than a universal thing.
No decay universally. It succeeds. Wildly. No decay in heaven. That is pretty well known. You simply want to relegate us to death, and the present ways. Come on, Frumy, get out of the box of the coffin here. Your whole trip is fast exposed as we take it to the future, where your empty attempts to imprison that glorious future with the present physical only bars are exposed as truly truly baseless.First you said there was NO decay. Then when overwhelming evidence of decay was presented it became decay for some "special purpose", just another desperate morphing of your failed fantasy, one of many examples of how your fantasy fails no matter how you morph it. You lost long ago. Get over it.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Does that mean that dad's arguments are evolving?First you said there was NO decay. Then when overwhelming evidence of decay was presented it became decay for some "special purpose", just another desperate morphing of your failed fantasy, one of many examples of how your fantasy fails no matter how you morph it. You lost long ago. Get over it.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
No decay on Mount Olympus either. That's also pretty well known, I have a book that says it's true to back it up.No decay in heaven. That is pretty well known.
Nope they are specializing and loosing information. And any attempt to gain information through mutation is proving to be fatal.Does that mean that dad's arguments are evolving?
Does some curiculum now need a tweak, then? Guess you have proof there will be decay in the future, then. You and Buzz Lightyear really get around!No decay on Mount Olympus either. That's also pretty well known, I have a book that says it's true to back it up.
The rumors of my death have been greatly exagerated. Relax.Nope they are specializing and loosing information. And any attempt to gain information through mutation is proving to be fatal.
No decay universally. It succeeds. Wildly. No decay in heaven. That is pretty well known.
Well, probably several ways. When thinking of heaven, and the future, I think of it as a different state of matter. Like the sun, which will not be the same. If it were the same, it would 'burn out' eventually. Another part of decay might be corruption.I'm probably going to regret asking this, but... dad, how do you define "decay"?
Well, probably several ways. When thinking of heaven, and the future, I think of it as a different state of matter.
Like the sun, which will not be the same. If it were the same, it would 'burn out' eventually.
Another part of decay might be corruption.
I figure our bodies will decay or corupt away.
Radioactive decay also, that really kind of defines the state of the physical universe we are in.
You use your sociological definitions of decay as synonyms with the scientific definitions of decay. This is as flawed as equating the laymans 'nothing' with the scientists 'nothing' with the philosophers 'nothing'.Well, probably several ways. When thinking of heaven, and the future, I think of it as a different state of matter. Like the sun, which will not be the same. If it were the same, it would 'burn out' eventually. Another part of decay might be corruption.
Lu 12:33 - Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth. Even gold would eventually 'perish'
That perisheth. Not that gold perishes by the process of being tried in the fire, for this is not the fact, and the connexion does not demand this interpretation. The idea is, that gold, however valuable it is, is a perishable thing. It is not an enduring, imperishable, indestructible thing, like religion. It may not perish in the fire, but it will in some way, for it will not endure for ever.
http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=1pe&chapter=1&verse=7#1Pe1_7
I figure our bodies will decay or corupt away. Radioactive decay also, that really kind of defines the state of the physical universe we are in.
The standard definitions pretty well cover it.
de·cay(d -k )
v. de·cayed, de·cay·ing, de·cays
v.intr. 1. Biology To break down into component parts; rot.
2. Physics To disintegrate or diminish by radioactive decay.
3. Electronics To decrease gradually in magnitude. Used of voltage or current.
4. Aerospace To decrease in orbit. Used of an artificial satellite.
5. To fall into ruin: a civilization that had begun to decay.
6. Pathology To decline in health or vigor; waste away.
7. To decline from a state of normality, excellence, or prosperity; deteriorate.
I have another question, for moogoob: why can dad not resort to Biblical Literalism? I can think of rational reasons for this limitations (indeed, I place them in most of my questions), but what are yours?This question goes out to dad: Is there any reason, without resorting to taking the Christian Bible as literal, for assuming the past would be fundamentally different in physical laws than the present is?
I'm interested in your answer.
My question is: why do we need such an explanation? Maybe I'm missing something here, but to me the "different past" hypothesis just isn't parsimonious. Why do we need to invoke different physical laws for the past, when the ones we have currently work just fine - providing, of course, that we accept the evidence for an old Earth as it is?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?