The Problem of a Different Past

[dad]

IIRC you claimed it Oklo was intended to heat water for Eve's bath or some such nonsense, LOL.
F.B.

In other words, it was a special purpose of some kind, rather than a universal thing.

 

[dad]

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

The appearance of age is a same past focus problem, yes.

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.

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.

It was proven beyond any doubt that either God created a world intended to deliberately deceive us or you are wrong.

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.

... explaining why the earth looks the way it does.

It not only does that better, but it explains the past and future as well.

The fact that you can't see how badly you lost is simply more evidence that you are totally incapable of rational thought.

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.

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

[/quote]
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.

 

[dad]

Nope, sorry dad there are no "believers" in the same past that I could find on this board.

Do you think the past was in the same state, and the future will be? Come on now, fess up?

Just rational people who have
a) got themselves an education rather than spout off from a position of profound ignorance

Thank you.

b) actually went out and studied some aspect of this universe and logically went where the evidence led them.

Hey, why are you being so nice all of a sudden here? Thanks again.

You have missed a golden opportunity to actually learn something about this world. Your loss, it's a pity.

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.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Insanity.

You have just described your fantasy perfectly.

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 totally failed to explain anything except in your own delusions. Do I need to bring back the threads to show how totally you failed.

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.

You were demolished but you are still too deluded to see it.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

In other words, it was a special purpose of some kind, rather than a universal thing.

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

 

[dad]

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 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.
When we have an atomic reaction there, it will not mean decay and death as you envision it must be, if you claim the present state will still exist. We will explore the true mysteries of the universe, and atoms etc then.
Neither the future nor the past are the PO sepulchres you vehemently insist them to be!
That should be good news. Be happy. The Christmas Kid fixed all that for us.

 

[trivista]

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?

 

[Biologist]

No decay in heaven. That is pretty well known.

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.

 

[Biologist]

Does that mean that dad's arguments are evolving?

Nope they are specializing and loosing information. And any attempt to gain information through mutation is proving to be fatal.

 

[dad]

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.

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!

 

[dad]

Nope they are specializing and loosing information. And any attempt to gain information through mutation is proving to be fatal.

The rumors of my death have been greatly exagerated. Relax.

 

[The Lady Kate]

No decay universally. It succeeds. Wildly. No decay in heaven. That is pretty well known.

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but... dad, how do you define "decay"?

 

[dad]

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.
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.

 

[nvxplorer]

The problem of a different past is quite basic. We're missing the mark by arguing these details, which in the scope of a different past, are irrelevant.

If the universe operated under different laws at one time, it would in fact, be an entirely different universe. Such a universe would present an alternate reality. We are products of, and function in, the reality we know as the present universe. It's not only fruitless to speculate on how an alternate reality might operate, but any attempt at connecting such a past with the present cannot be done. If Adam and Eve lived in such an alternate reality, we could not call them people. They would be beings, but people are a result of, and exist in the reality we know today.

This idea is fodder for fairy tales, science fiction and fantasy writers, nothing else. It's not only incomprehensible, but discussing a universe that doesn't exist, from our reality-trapped minds, is illogical. Our logic applies to this universe.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Well, probably several ways. When thinking of heaven, and the future, I think of it as a different state of matter.

So, you define "decay" as change?

Like the sun, which will not be the same. If it were the same, it would 'burn out' eventually.

No... decay is staying the same?

Another part of decay might be corruption.

So...the sun is corrupt?

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.

That would be change from one state to another... that'll never happen in heaven?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

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'.

 

[shernren]

This reminds me of how Galileo's opponents insisted that sunspots could not possibly exist since the sun was a celestial object and celestial objects cannot have imperfections like sunspots, notwithstanding Galileo having observed said sunspots.

 

[moogoob]

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.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

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?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, RedAndy

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?

Prior to the Fall, there was no death of man or animals. In addition, the Second Law of Thermodynamics didn't exist.

But today, we march to a different set of drums --- and yes --- they work just fine --- (if you consider approaching maximum entropy "just fine").

In Eternity Future, we'll go back to the way it was before the Fall --- (with a couple of exceptions).