Take notes, Frumy, see, admitting things isn't so hard.
1) All known observations have operated with the same physical laws. This is observed supporting evidence for immutable physical laws.
All known observations were in the known present universe, try to focus here.
2) It is a logical assumption because it is the most probable, thanks it it's support, its parsimony, etc.
That is a funny bit of uncoherant babble.
3) It is parsimonious because it invokes zero entites. Indeed, invoking no entities is as parsimonious as you can get.
It is complicated as ***, that's why it takes a life time almost to learn, and even then, most of what they learn is no longer valid with the changes!
4) All human experiance has operated under the same physical laws. This is direct supporting evidence of the assumption.
After the flood, you mean, or, more specifically after the split. I agree.
1) How is it illogical?
2) How on Earth is it impossible?
Try stuffing the universe in a magic hat for us, forget a microscopic speck. Even if you do that, I will believe.
4) The assumption apparently runs counter to your a priori assumed theology. However, this does nothing to it's validity. Have you ever stopped to consider that your theology may be false, or somehow inaccurate?
Not lately, it is too well proven. But I understand new Christians, or young ones might grapple a bit with that kind of stuff.
5) Pretentious? Sanctimonious? It is an assumption based on all human intuition and experiance!
Intuition now, is how far you have fallen back in a desperate attempt to paint the same past myth as somewhat scientific! Amazing.
How on Earth is it holier-than-thou? It is you who claim to have some special connection to your deity which catagorically rejects the 'same past' 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??
6) How is it religious and ungodly?
It is belief based, but no a belief in God.
7) It is not a myth. You are now pulling words out of your anal cavity.
"
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
The shoe fits. Wear it.
8) Pray tell, what assumption is the 'same past' assumption based on?
Now you are getting silly. The same past is assumed. Although one could probably list some assumptions like that there was no creator in there somewhere.
No. It is scientifically valid, since it passes the scientific method.
In your dreams.
Again, you reject something without ever explaining why. That an organism reacts in the same way to the same stimulus directly implies that said organism thinks that said stimulus has the same source! I.e., it assumes things are the same.
Tell me, why do you reject the flatworms? Are they somehow beneath you (no pun intended)?
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 misapply the terms 'spiritual' and 'physical'. Something is part of our physical universe if it can interact with us and/or the physical universe. This is a definition.
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.
Spirituality is a human term for all things concerning theology, magick, what happens after death, etc, and some aspects conciousness and existentialism. So, by definition, spirituality is part of the physical universe if it exists.
No, it has to do with the non physical. I have to tell you this???
Correct. However, as I stated in (1), the fact that I have no proof is in no way disproof. (2) is just an extenstion of (1).
Either way you shake it, you have no proof and admit it. What else counts??
OK, so that is your claim; that the current physical laws will be somehow changed, such that the new physical laws will allow transparent gold etc.
True.
OK, I await your correction.
Guess you missed it. Whooosh.
Allow me to clarify: all recorded observations. I assumed you knew this, since the alternative negates the whole point.
How many recorded observations are there from before the split?? None. That negates your point.
You know nothing of the sort. You are as limited by your 'PO box' as we are.
No, we are the forever crowd, that is set free from the box of death.
Leviticus 20:13:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Fair enough, In Israel, God's people, in the old testament, they would not put up with that sort of thing. Did they gallop all over creation killing pagan sodomites as well?? No. Does that old stuff apply after Jesus? No.
No. You asserted that the flood was the point at which the physical laws were altered. Thus, the flood affected the universe.
Nope. It was about a 100 years after that in the days of Peleg, when the earth was divided. You are close, though.
No. The Biblical flood did not occur.
It did.
My point is that a god with such qualities would not resort to a flood. Indeed, such a god would have no need to create anything, let alone for the very human reason of glorifying itself.
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.
Tell me, why do you find it so hard to accept that an assumption can be scientific?
It can be, and often is. Not the same past myth.
You can enlarge and embolden the text all you like, and you can make as many appeals to ridicule as you want, but this does nothing to change the scientific validity of my assumption.
Ok, thanks.
Your assumption is just as baseless as mine. Do not pretend otherwise.
--you
Ah, so this is the crux of your argument, at long last! You think that baseless => unscientific. Tell me, why do you think this?
Tell me why you have no science to support a same past?
