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.
Did you now? Thanks for sharing.I thought I would never find something to match this parody:
Did they measure gravity in 3000 BC? No. Gee, guess you have no point.Present, and from what we can tell, the future also. In physics everyone measured gravity to be 9.8m/s^2 and in general/organic/ and biochemistry everything worked as predicted.
Tell us what you expect. Maybe the bible can come in and correct you!Every other religion has "real" predictions too. When the bible can tell me what to expect from a gringard reaction then you can tell me it's making real predictions.
Really? Who'd a thunk?Being accurate is better than being dead wrong while claiming to be absolutely perfect.
Hey, you are a lightweight. Eat right, then come back, to p with the big boys.My scale says I weigh 117 lbs but, it doesn't mean I weigh 117.000000000.... continued to infinity. However it's better than someone guessing I weigh 135.000000.... continued to infinity and calling there guess absolute and using the absolute quality to gain credit.
Now, this time in english, say what??Which is what you are doing, calling your guess absolute and then using it's finality as proof that it's right. Weither you or right or wrong doesn't matter to you, you wouldn't care either way. You aren't getting a degree in Science or even trying to futher yourself by learning a few basic concepts. To you even reality is wrong when it comes to telling you about itself.
Can you show us where Adam could live forever today? How about even a thousand years? Can a flood happen with water from above, without too much heat to fry all men from the sheer physics?? These, and many other things tell us that the past of the bible was as different as the future of the bible.Just for my own satisfaction, could dad (or anybody else) point me to a Bible passage in which a different past is mentioned?
I'm trying to work out whether it's actually Biblically supported or if it's just Creationist ad hockery.
But you have spoken frequently of a "split" when the old, "different" universe became the modern universe with its modern "physical only" laws. Surely an event as big as this would be documented in the Bible? Only I can't seem to find it.Can you show us where Adam could live forever today? How about even a thousand years? Can a flood happen with water from above, without too much heat to fry all men from the sheer physics?? These, and many other things tell us that the past of the bible was as different as the future of the bible.
These, and many other things tell us that the past of the bible was as different as the future of the bible.
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.A "different future" is described but the "different past" you describe is purely your imagination.
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 of this and even so, like all of your blather it actually explains nothing.
Blah blah.Saying no problem and actually explaining something are different things. It is the later that you have totally failed to do.
OK, so we'll record the response as 'no inteligent response'. Fine.It couldn't make sense. It is just another example of your total absurdity. The earth was less densely packed. LOL. The fun thing about debating with is that your never fail to top an absurdity with something even more absurd.
Fails in a PO sense, cause it don't happen now. The state of matter allowed it then.Which still completely fails to explain how water somehow percolating through the earth could bring pure salt to the surface and deposit it.
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????Each given set of rocks has sets of different daughter elements that date the rocks in agreement with each other. This makes NO SENSE if there was no radioactive decay before your mythical split.
At least I have it.From me "We have evidence that physical laws have been consistent and we have discussed it. You have no evidence that they were different. None. You have it backwards as usual bizarro dad. "
Perhaps. Perhaps not.Perhaps you are not impressed because you are too ignorant of science to understand the evidence or perhaps you are just too lost in your delusions to see how thoroughly your nonsense has been refuted.
Says who? Sounds more like in split.How can we know anything about something that only exists in your delusions?
Even in your fantasy the light from Supernova 1987A is post-split and PO so how does in get on your info superhighway? This is the clearest example yet of how desperately your morph your myth to try to fit each new fact presented that falsifies it.
OK, fine, be bloody but unbowed.Why should I consider surrender when you have lost so badly?
Your assumption is just as baseless as mine. Do not pretend otherwise. -wiccanchildWhat others?
When Frumy said thisOnly if you must accept the bible as literally true. At least you admit you have to stretch an awful lot of reality to make a literal bible work.
Of course this should tell you something but it hasn't yet. Just think about it for a while...
The great dividing was in the days of Peleg.But you have spoken frequently of a "split" when the old, "different" universe became the modern universe with its modern "physical only" laws. Surely an event as big as this would be documented in the Bible? Only I can't seem to find it.
I cannot admit what I have always freely stated.Take notes, Frumy, see, admitting things isn't so hard.
Yes, that is the point. We can only experiance this 'known universe'.All known observations were in the known present universe,
What's to focus on? I am reading the ramblings of a child who seems to have no grasp of independant thought, conventional definitions and the application thereof, or even basic logic.try to focus here.
Correction:That is a funny bit of uncoherant babble.
Nonsense. All humans are born with instincts that are based on the assumption that the physical laws aren't going to up and change on them. It does not take 'years to learn'. I'd wager that it is your assumption that takes years to grasp (if 'goddidit' is indeed grasping a concept)It is complicated as ***, that's why it takes a life time almost to learn, and even then, most of what they learn is no longer valid with the changes!
Good. Now, tell me why we should discount the conclusion drawn from this?After the flood, you mean, or, more specifically after the split. I agree.
Why? The assumption is that the physical laws are immutable. Why is this impossible?Try stuffing the universe in a magic hat for us, forget a microscopic speck. Even if you do that, I will believe.
Nonsense. It is but one religion among many, with no redeeming features or particularily unique ideologies. It is in no way 'proven'.Not lately, it is too well proven.
You forget:Intuition now, is how far you have fallen back in a desperate attempt to paint the same past myth as somewhat scientific! Amazing.
Indeed. Under my moral code, I am magnificently better than your god and/or the god of the Bible. However, we are not talking about me, we are talking about an assumption.Well, you certainly have berated our beliefs, and the bible, and God, etc, as if you were better. Don't you remember somewhere, saying, for example, that you were better than God??
It is neither. It is an assumption based on human experiance. It is not a faith statement. It makes no mention of theology, so it is unreligious.It is belief based, but no a belief in God.
No, I am merely criticising your statements. You said: [The 'same past' assumption'] is an impossible ... myth based on pure assumption.Now you are getting silly.
I just pray to whatever god is listening that you have the same definition of 'assumption' as me; lord knows you have radical definitions of 'spiritual', 'physical', 'science', 'scientific', and 'evidence'.The same past is assumed.
The 'same past' assumption may conflict with your personal theology, but it most certainly does not reject all theologies.Although one could probably list some assumptions like that there was no creator in there somewhere.
I'm sorry? That is the best retort you can come up with? I simply stated the definition of 'scientifically valid':In your dreams.
You have no witnesses, let alone billions! Show me one other person who assumes that the physical laws are mutable and/or have been changed. Show me your billions.I don't reject the supposed ancestors of yours. I simply pointed out that my billions of actual, intelligent, real people witnesses were better than your army of worms and other organisms as witnesses!
You heard it here first, folks. Dad, along with his god, trump logic, reason, and de dicto necessary truths. Go back to kindergarten.It's wrong. God interacts and angels, and the departed believers. They are seperate from the physical world at the moment. I kid you not.
OK, so you define the spiritual as 'non-physical'. What, then, do you define as 'physical'?No, it has to do with the non physical. I have to tell you this???
And neither do you. Jeez.Either way you shake it, you have no proof and admit it.
Logical probability. Occam's Razor posits that we assume the more probable of two otherwise identicle theories.What else counts??
No.Guess you missed it. Whooosh.
Nonsense, it is exactly my point. All we have are observations under unchanging physical laws. The only reason you assume the past operated under some different physical laws is because it is the onoly way to keep your Bible from being disproved. The Bible cannot be literally true under our current physical laws, so you simply reject them.How many recorded observations are there from before the split?? None. That negates your point.
Quite.No, we are the forever crowd, that is set free from the box of death.
Way to reject your own sacred text there, dad. All of the Old Testament was written by/for your god's people. Should we reject it then, since it's not for us?Fair enough, In Israel, God's people, in the old testament,
Not the point. The Bible explicitly states that practicing homosexuals should be killed. It does not say, 'Oh, this only applies to the Israeli Jew, and is negated once Emmanuel is born'.Did they gallop all over creation killing pagan sodomites as well?? No.
Why not? Are you saying that the Bible negates itself?Does that old stuff apply after Jesus? No.
And how do you know that? Also, if it wasn't the flood that changed the laws of physics, then what did?Nope. It was about a 100 years after that in the days of Peleg, when the earth was divided. You are close, though.
We cannot have a reasonable discussion about anything in your 'different past' scenario, so I'll stop here.It did.
No, I meant, why a flood? Why not just pop all the bad and naughty men out of existance?He resorted to a flood, because man was so bad, they had to be stopped. That was a good thing. He also saved the men and animals, so we could start all over.
Show me one common assumption that is unscientific (not the 'same past' assumption; it goes without saying, but I wouldn't put it past you to use it).It can be, and often is.
You have, once again, missed the point. Oh well.Ok, thanks.
Your assumption is just as baseless as mine. Do not pretend otherwise.
--you
If you refuse to answer my questions, I refuse to answer yours.Tell me why you have no science to support a same past?
Same past guessing the past isn't science. The fact remains that the different past and future are much simpler. Much much. Very much.
4400 years, and the bible supports it at 100 years after the flood. The earth was divided, or split in the days of Peleg, the same time as Babel. What support do you have?
Trying to sillify the different past doesn't work. We know the state of the pastfor many many centuries. We know lifespans, and growth rates, and light, and etc etc. You can't wish all these things, including history away.
The great dividing was in the days of Peleg.
I'm sorry, dad. You appear to have misunderstood me. Let me rephrase my request:The great dividing was in the days of Peleg.
It isn't a big mystery. If something is really unsupported you cab bet it it not good science.I am guessing you, like me and many others, don't really know what counts as science anyway.
The past is knowable. The far past is not knowable by PO science. The last several thousand years are....You have the clear stance of the unknowable past. A fine, honorable, empiricism. But you don't really understand your own argument so you don't adhere to it in a form that is internally consistent. You want the cake and to eat it too.
They have none actually, they only assumed they did. Zero.You either have to provide the scientists here (and this is clearly not me and you) with evidence for why they should:
1. throw away all the obvious data they have for a same-past going back millions of years
God wrote it by proxy, it is of very well known origin. In fact, probably more well known than any other book on earth.2. throw away a parsimonious explanation in favor of a more convoluted explanation supported only by the Bible (which itself is of unknown origin)
Good, dig a little deeper, and see what the dates are based on.Sillifying the "Different Past" is the last thing I am doing, I am merely pointing out that it is equally supportable. We have evidence going back more than 4400BC of things being the same as today. If I recall there are even some Sumerian or other societies with records going back more than that!
Science supports neither a same or different past, sorry that is news to you. Remain ignorant of the future and past, or look elsewhere, I guess, is the best advice I can give to help you there.So what I have done here is to point out that the strict empiricism you insist on dosing the scientists telling them their assumptions are as unsupported as yours is that your assumptions also must suffer when put to the similar test.
Not about a same past they can't, any more than you can, get over it.hey! Why am I doing this? You aren't going to change your stance and the scientists can throw data at you all day!
Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided;Too bad it wasn't mentioned.
See above.I'm sorry, dad. You appear to have misunderstood me. Let me rephrase my request:
You have repeatedly asserted that you have Biblical evidence for the "split" that separates the past from the "physical-only" present. Can you give me a Bible quote that refers to this split?
Great, you admit that you freely state it is baseless.I cannot admit what I have always freely stated.
Right, it is our temporary prison. Spirits from beyond here can visit, though, believe it or not. Didn't you say you met 'the horned one'?? If so, would not that be a spirit?Yes, that is the point. We can only experiance this 'known universe'.
The evidence also supports a different past, and you don't own probable.Correction:
2) It is a logical assumption because it is the most probable, thanks to it's supporting evidence, its parsimony, etc.
Really, so now you cook up a new universal law. All humans assume a constant PO. Roght. get serious. No one who ever believed in an afterlife, or should I say few, would think that afterlife was just the same body, and world as here. Nice try.Nonsense. All humans are born with instincts that are based on the assumption that the physical laws aren't going to up and change on them. It does not take 'years to learn'. I'd wager that it is your assumption that takes years to grasp (if 'goddidit' is indeed grasping a concept)
I don't really discount things from after the split. Persay, do you?Good. Now, tell me why we should discount the conclusion drawn from this?
It is opinion, and as you freely state, baseless!Why? The assumption is that the physical laws are immutable. Why is this impossible?
To those on the inside, in the loop, in the know, it is in the bag.Nonsense. It is but one religion among many, with no redeeming features or particularily unique ideologies. It is in no way 'proven'.
You forget, either way you shake it, the same past is still a baseless assumption.You forget:
Counter-intuitiveness does not constitute counter evidence, but intuitiveness does constitute supporting evidence.
Well, look at the bolded words, that appears self righteous holier than God, to me. Maybe I am missing something.Indeed. Under my moral code, I am magnificently better than your god and/or the god of the Bible. However, we are not talking about me, we are talking about an assumption.
Tell me how the assumption is sanctimonious.
Believing anything baseless is a statement of faith. If you can't peove it, all there is left is to believe it.It is neither. It is an assumption based on human experiance. It is not a faith statement. It makes no mention of theology, so it is unreligious.
"Mythology, mythography, or folkloristics. In these academic fields, a myth (mythos) is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form. The active beings in myths are generally gods and heroes. Myths often are said to take place before recorded history begins. "
"A myth, in popular use, is something that is widely believed but false"
"Something that is mythic is thought to contain story elements similar to mythology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth
a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" Leon Wolff.
It is also applied to religion, of course. But, if the shoe fits. Wear it.Did you even read your own definitions? The last one is simply a etymological tautology, the second requires it to be false (something you have not yet demonstrated, or indeed demonstrable), and it does not a 'sacred story' detailing the origin(s) of the world and/or the creatures therein.
Great.No, I am merely criticising your statements. You said: [The 'same past' assumption'] is an impossible ... myth based on pure assumption.
It is a first-degree assumption, a fundamentally supported but intrinsically unprovable premise.
I'll just assume I do for now.I just pray to whatever god is listening that you have the same definition of 'assumption' as me; lord knows you have radical definitions of 'spiritual', 'physical', 'science', 'scientific', and 'evidence'.
No, some myths have things in common. So?The 'same past' assumption may conflict with your personal theology, but it most certainly does not reject all theologies.
In your dreams, the same past passes nothing.I'm sorry? That is the best retort you can come up with? I simply stated the definition of 'scientifically valid':
It is scientifically valid, since it passes the scientific method.
Billions through all history believed in the spiritual.You have no witnesses, let alone billions! Show me one other person who assumes that the physical laws are mutable and/or have been changed. Show me your billions.
Hey, He is the Great De Dicto King.You heard it here first, folks. Dad, along with his god, trump logic, reason, and de dicto necessary truths. Go back to kindergarten.
In a simple way, things you can touch. Ghosts you cannot touch. We could get more complicated, but hopefully that gets the idea across.OK, so you define the spiritual as 'non-physical'. What, then, do you define as 'physical'?
I forgot, I think you called that the highest law in the universe. Well, first we define probable, and stuffing the universe in a dust speck is not that.Logical probability. Occam's Razor posits that we assume the more probable of two otherwise identicle theories.
The bible is a case, a great case. Nothing you can say about it. You can disagree, but it is still a case.No.
I said:
No such thing. The Bible is a religious set of documents of questionable validity. It is is not a 'case', great or otherwise.
You said:
Let me straighten you out there, despite your inabilty to realize it is a case, and the best case on earth. That is the case.
Where, exactly, have you straightened me out? Or, perhaps your idea of correction is to simply state your claim again and again?
Well, not only the bible, but most men realize there is more than the material, or physical. Why would I even think about limiting all knowledge to the PO?? I don't want to end up in that little box.Nonsense, it is exactly my point. All we have are observations under unchanging physical laws. The only reason you assume the past operated under some different physical laws is because it is the onoly way to keep your Bible from being disproved. The Bible cannot be literally true under our current physical laws, so you simply reject them.
I like a lot of it, but don't look to the old laws and traditions, and etc. Of course not.Way to reject your own sacred text there, dad. All of the Old Testament was written by/for your god's people. Should we reject it then, since it's not for us?
In the land of His people, at that time, they were to be killed. That should give us some idea of how bad the creator knows it is for mankind.Not the point. The Bible explicitly states that practicing homosexuals should be killed. It does not say, 'Oh, this only applies to the Israeli Jew, and is negated once Emmanuel is born'.
God did. It wasn't some happenstance. Man needed to be limited, in things like lifespan.And how do you know that? Also, if it wasn't the flood that changed the laws of physics, then what did?
Maybe they had infected the animals as well.No, I meant, why a flood? Why not just pop all the bad and naughty men out of existance?
Why don't you start by demostrating how things that are baseless are solid science??You think that baseless => unscientific. Why?
Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided;
"to divide, split
http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=06385
- (Niphal) to be split, be divided
- (Piel)
- to split, cleave
- to divide
The past is knowable. The far past is not knowable by PO science. The last several thousand years are.
God wrote it by proxy, it is of very well known origin. In fact, probably more well known than any other book on earth.
The bible account is simple enough for a child to understand. Your complicated, constantly changing, creation challenging, clever, contrived, convoluted, contrary, collection of crafty claims can't convince me.
Science supports neither a same or different past, sorry that is news to you. Remain ignorant of the future and past, or look elsewhere, I guess, is the best advice I can give to help you there.
Not about a same past they can't, any more than you can, get over it.
And you think this refers to your Physical/Spiritual "split" because...?
It seems that something which so fundamentally and phenomonally changed the nature of the universe deserves more than a single verse, vaguely mentioning it in passing... were the Bible authors poor writers?
Because a lot of things happened around that time. The languages were divided, and that is a symptom of a lack of the spiritual. In Acts, when the spirit was added, all men in a crowd understood in their own tongue. Also, the tower of Babel, they apparently was being built up to the spiritual level, so it must have been close at hand. After this it is seperate. Then there was the 120 year dire warning straight from the mouth of the Almighty that something big was going to happen. That was 120 years before this time as well.And you think this refers to your Physical/Spiritual "split" because...?
It seems that something which so fundamentally and phenomonally changed the nature of the universe deserves more than a single verse, vaguely mentioning it in passing... were the Bible authors poor writers?
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?