The Problem of a Different Past

[Contracelsus]

I need a gibberish to english translator for your material.

You're too proud of your ignorance!

Hey, you can talk about any pipsqueak in the fame department you like.

And you won't know many of them. If you can find a comic book about 'em you'll know 'em.

Einstein's ideas are mickey mouse compared to the full reality of the true state of creation. No one was talking about how PO time and length 'dilates', so we don't need to have fomulas for that. Try to focus.

Just as I supposed, you have no idea. You don't understand the first foreign thing about any of the stuff you throw around. Thumbs up. Now why don't you go learn something and THEN go talk.

We don't back up things from the merged eternal state, with present physical processes, do we? Think before you type, do us all a favor.

I just wanted to find out if you even understood the CURRENT physical state before I tried to figure out what you were talking about with this Pre-Split stuff. Seems you don't.

Hey, guy, anytime you want to talk turkey here, present some evidence, and we can look at it.

Dad, I've already seen how little you know.

I am not here to try and inmpress you,

You couldn't if you tried.

You've pulled up random snippets of science articles that indicate you don't know the first thing about what they say. You've pulled up stuff about Chlorine atoms as if it made a point.

When someone brings up something you don't know, you insult it and call it unworthy of your time.

be nice, and civilized, and give it your best shot. Or maybe you have already. Ha.

Dad, remove the beam in your own eye before looking for the mote in mine.

Well, we might look at adding the spiritual to water, and coming up with the best wine you could think of. Jesus turned the water into wine, and got a great reaction. He even did it in a PO envrioment. Imagine what we can do in heaven! Any tough questions??

You honestly don't even understand the first thing about even SIMPLE chemistry do you? Yet you talk about it. You link to abstracts about the Haber Synthesis process, yet you are just a mule with books tied to your back.

Just parrotting stuff without knowledge does NOT make you smart, Dad. PRetty pictures of Einstein are just that...pretty pictures. Just like your version of Christianity it is a hollow potemkin village of blind faith without thought.

(There's another name to google, and further a whole concept. Look under 18th century Russian history)

I doubt it. Ever hear of Google? Any child can look up anyone that sounds interesting in a New York minute. So far, nothing you say is interesting, though. Work on that.

Dad, I've pulled up so many quotes from famous churchmen that you declared meaningless or otherwise unknown to you and unimportant it is highly unlikely you could stand up to the science stuff I could pull out.

Your fierce ignorant pride will be the thing God holds you responsible for.

You sound obsessed. If you know something, say it, otherwise, why go on in some sort of sissyfit?

Sissyfit? Do you want to re-check the spelling of that like a MAN or do you want a Mod to do it for you?

Doesn't do a thing for me. Not even sure what the looney tune was getting at there. But thanks for the effort.

I think anyone who can read can read the meaning.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Knowing something, and stopping it from happening are two different things.

If He knew then He couldn't have intended for Adam to eat from the tree of life. You are now saying you were wrong about that. Thanks for admiting it.

He set it up so it could have gone either way, all depending on our choice.

If it could have gone either way then how did He know which way it would go? You're say He was not omnipotent here.

Limiting Himself to our free will does not mean He is weak. It simply means there are rules that He has set up, and He doesn't override them wily nily.

So He did know what would happen and He didn't intended for Adam to eat from the tree of life. Thanks for admiting you were wrong about that.

Angels were referred to as the sons of God, yes

So all angels were male. So much for all those pictures of female angels.

I know you do, but that is all you do, assume. I don't assume the bible is a lie for no apparent, real, reason.

So really think that people 4,400 years ago could have built a tower that could have actually reached into heaven. One thing about you is you never run out of examples illustrating just how strange your beliefs are. Does this mean that anyone who climbed any reasonable size mountain could have gotten to heaven. If if was close enough to reach with tower built on a plain it should have been easy to reach from a mountain. Maybe Buddha really did go up to heaven to teach his mother.

That is you, in total ignorance, second guessing what went on. In reality, you have no idea. You also have nothing you can say about God walking and chatting with man, angels marrying earth girls, or the spiritual level being near the sky level at the time. All you can do, is look how it now works.

So you really think angels married earth girls. Did they have offspring? What are angel genetics like? What sort of reproductive organs do they have? Again I ask who was the mother of the misbegotten sons of God?

No, it isn't even a small challenge, let's face it, if there really was a different universe, having some light get here faster in the seperation process is nothing.

So it was just a big coincindence that SN1987A happened right after the split so its light could somehow get here faster in the "seperation process". We can all see that this is just a desperate and failed attempt to overcome this obvious falsification of your myth.

I can't see how you missed it, I covered that. The ratios of material were there. The process was sort of 'inverted' so the materials, in the ratio they were in started doing a new job of existing in the PO state, and decaying.

I didn't "miss it", I just realize that it is total nonsense. The process was "sort of inverted". What the heck does that mean? What job were these tiny amounts of radioisotopes meant to do, fool us into the thinking that the rocks were of a certain age because they are all in just the right ratio to give consistent ages in different sets of rocks? This make no sense at all.

Scientific data has nothing to do with it, since there is no science for a same past or future!

Some of the scientific data showing consistency of physical laws have been discussed. You have been unable to refute them. What may happen in the future is irrelevant.

Believing in a real spiritual in the future, and past is so established, and well known, it is absurd to stick our head in the sand and try to ignore it.

It is well established that your split/merge fantasy is absurd and that you stick your head in the sand to ignore all of the data that falsify it.

 

[Contracelsus]

Sorry you missed it. Why am I not surprised?

Here ya go dad:

Take a quick look at the periodic table (it's the one with all the elements on it. They use it in Chemistry).

Note the ATOMIC MASS of Cl. It is 35.453. Do you know how they got that number? I doubt you do, so here you go:

It is a frequency-weighted average of the atomic masses of the naturally occuring Cl isotopes. 75.77% of all Chlorine atoms have a mass of about 35. While 24.23% have a mass of about 37 amu.

So if you want to shout about how the world was different pre-split and you think there are all these funky bizarro-isotopes of Cl floating around with wildly different neutron contents, then SHOW US THE DATA. It doesn't exist.

I am willing to bet that any given piece of SYLVITE or HALITE or even the occasional Cl-bearing amphibole you pick up with have about 76% of it's Cl as 35amu isotope and the rest as 37amu. With a few small deviations for stable isotope fractionation.

As for stable isotope fractionation, that's whole other area I can teach you about. It explains how the non-radioactive isotopes were fractionated by natural processes in the past EXACTLY AS THEY ARE TODAY. Like the relative change in 16-O on either side of a mountain range due to a "rainshadow" effect. Or Sulfur fractionation by biologica processes just like we see in various pyrites in coal and just like we see TODAY.

Note, I didn't have to even break a sweat to pull that stuff up, because I bothered to PAY ATTENTION WHEN SOMEONE WAS TEACHING ME. AND I didn't have to resort to goofy different-past hypotheses as you do.

Hey all I look for is a point in your posts, and I can't find one anyhere.

Because you are willfully avoiding the points:

1. You don't understand science
2. You don't even know the history of your own claimed faith.

Give us a chemistry point that proves a same past, then, cut the drun roll here. We wait ever so patiently.

Done and done. Now TELL ME HOW IT'S WRONG. You don't even understand the first foreign thing about simple chemistry, and your grasp of philosoph is abysmal (especially David Hume's Empiricism which you seem intent on mucking up for yourself without understanding it...go ahead look up DAVID HUME on Wikipedia or wherever it is you get your info from, you don't know who he is anyway)

Maybe one day I can attain to memorizing noboby history, and disrespecting the bible

Believe me Dad, the only person disrespecting the Bible is the one disrespecting all the people who put so much of their lives into understanding it and presenting us with a faith we can hold onto. Good job.

, and having a perpetual obsessive sissyfit. Meanwhile, I do what I can, thank you very much.

Sissyfit again. Great.

Yeah, I know, you really could present a scary science case, but, for some strange reason, it never comes. A pattern has developed there. Been going on long???

Well, I've thrown down the gauntlet on a topic you yourself brought up. Discuss Cl isotopes and why we don't see any of the goofy bizarro-isotopes with spiritons you like to blather about.

OK then, I'll meet you and God out behind the barn at sundown. Now, can we have some science here, or what??

Dad, you wouldn't know "science" if it were somewhere in the Bible, let alone if someone required you to do anything more than Google something once in a while.

Face it:

1. You need to learn science
2. You need to learn the history of your own faith.
3. It galls you that at least one person here knows both better and with more alacrity.

 

[ReverendDG]

Knowing something, and stopping it from happening are two different things. He set it up so it could have gone either way, all depending on our choice. Limiting Himself to our free will does not mean He is weak. It simply means there are rules that He has set up, and He doesn't override them wily nily.
Of course theres a huge difference between knowing that a choice that a person makes will kill them horribly and know what someone will do if they are told not to do something via being told if you do this you will die but they really will live nearly a thousand years and father the human race.. or can you differate the two things dad?
Angels were referred to as the sons of God, yes.
Yes they were the historical remains of the pagan background of the hebrews, before they got stamped out by yahwehism after the exile


I know you do, but that is all you do, assume. I don't assume the bible is a lie for no apparent, real, reason.
i don't consider the bible a lie, i consider genesis through kings to be myths that the jews believed in, but have been found to be historical myths.
you just seem to consider anything that isn't 100% true a 100% lie, which is purely wrong


That is you, in total ignorance, second guessing what went on. In reality, you have no idea. You also have nothing you can say about God walking and chatting with man, angels marrying earth girls, or the spiritual level being near the sky level at the time. All you can do, is look how it now works.
yes because theres a really good reason to believe all that stuff right? you have some logic to back up why the myths in the bible should be taken as fact over evidence that they arn't fact? like you know something outside the bible?

No, it isn't even a small challenge, let's face it, if there really was a different universe, having some light get here faster in the seperation process is nothing.
the light is irrelevent you havn't shown that its logical to assume the laws were different, whats next you are going to claim that 1+1 doesn't equal 2? because you claiming we don't know if laws were constent back then is pretty much the same as saying we can't know if 1+1=2, this is assumed in maths, its an axiom, like the axiom that stuff has worked constently the same in the past present and future, because no one has shown it doesn't work that way

The problem is Dad, if we don't accept the laws were constent, why accept that what we see now is anymore fact than anything else, then science becomes irrelevent, there has to be some sort of foundation to something, your argument degenerates into the argument that we shouldn't trust anything our senses tell us and how do we even know we even exist as humans or are we even alive? there must be something to start from, science starts from "phsycics have always worked this way" it helps that we can see it does and has

I can't see how you missed it, I covered that. The ratios of material were there. The process was sort of 'inverted' so the materials, in the ratio they were in started doing a new job of existing in the PO state, and decaying.
where all i saw was a bunch of ad hoc straw grabbing and gibberish


No more than saying they wern't just because you believe a same past myth.
so do you think fire worked different back then too, that oxygen didn't explode on contact with a spark? i mean come on theres no evidence that they worked differently, we can go back and see things oxidize and being that we are a product of this universe were the laws show the effect on us, with fossils and landmarks as well
Yes, like the past, solely based on the present state, and, like the past, nothing but assumed. Nothing.
yes and so what? theres no reason to assume it was different unless shown otherwise, unless you need it to work that way to make a story fit that doesn't

That has to do with the present, and recent past, and near future, that is real science, and not what we are talking about.
its all science, well ecept what you are claiming, thats just nonsense

Scientific data has nothing to do with it, since there is no science for a same past or future!
sure there is, unless you make up an undetectable barrier that you can't show in anyway, but claim is there but have nothing to show for it
Believing in a real spiritual in the future, and past is so established, and well known, it is absurd to stick our head in the sand and try to ignore it.
first show the spiritual exists in an objective sense, namely give me some evidence other than your word that it does exist. thats not evidence of anything


You know, I should have tried to remember the discussion better. That has to do with taking it from the atmosphere, not, as I was thinking, the other way round. Ha. My bad.
best to have a clue about the subject i guess

Probably split effects. Even possibly the redshifting.
why should anyone accept a "split"? you have shown no evidence there ever was one, the verse about peleg isn't even about the earth its about the dividing of the people on the earth after babel, the jewish people even say so

All these things are like little foretastes of the real deal. I liked tha part in one of those movies, where Gandalf the white came to rescue the almost defeated armies, at daybreak, dressed in white, on a white horse, riding down the steep hill, like as if from the sky.

that is if he even existed and theres no evidence that he did outside of the book of the religion that worships him, not exactly what i call evidence

 

[dad]

If He knew then He couldn't have intended for Adam to eat from the tree of life.

What are you missing here, He intended for us to have actual free will. By it's very nature, that means we really could chose either way.

You are now saying you were wrong about that. Thanks for admiting it.

I know you are increasingly desperate for any little glimmer of being right, but I can't give it to you here.

If it could have gone either way then how did He know which way it would go?

Easy, God is not limited by time. That is the same reason that the prophesies of the bible are so true, and astounding. He simply already saw it happen, not like there is some chance He could be wrong! It is as good as done. Bank on it.

You're say He was not omnipotent here. So He did know what would happen and He didn't intended for Adam to eat from the tree of life. Thanks for admiting you were wrong about that.

Being omnipotent does not mean we lobotomize man's free will, and turn him into a robot, or mindless obedient zomby.
Perhaps that is why we are allowed to learn the hard way, and He hasn't eneded it all, because we made such a suffering mess of it. Even why there is a hell and will be a hell for many ages in the afterlife. (In fact the lessons, or rememberance of it, or smoke, will rise forever)
Because rather than divest man of free will, He let's us learn lessons for ourselves, even the hard way if we insist.
I think I may have a bit of evidence that we still get better, and learn things in the afterlife. The greatest man on earth at the time of Jesus (not counting Jesus, who was God as well) was John the Baptist, Jesus said. Yet, of all the maybe billions who had already died, and gone to heaven, every single one there was 'greater than he'! Seems to me we have two options there. Either they arrived there already greater, (which is ridiculous) or they got greater after they arrived!

So all angels were male. So much for all those pictures of female angels.

Actually I don't think so. But the ones that married our girls would have been.

So really think that people 4,400 years ago could have built a tower that could have actually reached into heaven.

If the spiritual was not then seperate as now, it would make sense. The bible was true all along.

One thing about you is you never run out of examples illustrating just how strange your beliefs are. Does this mean that anyone who climbed any reasonable size mountain could have gotten to heaven.

A lot of the mountain building, I would think came at the rapid continental seperation. So I am not really sure there were any, or many real high mountains. Also, we don't know that the spiritual level was uniform, or planet wide. Why would it be?? Look at heaven, or New Jerusalem, it is only 1500 miles wide! There are clues to any puzzle.

If if was close enough to reach with tower built on a plain it should have been easy to reach from a mountain. Maybe Buddha really did go up to heaven to teach his mother.

Well, a mountain is a good place to get alone with God, like Moses did. Not because there is a spiritual level at that height in this state, but because it is quiet, away from the maddening crowds, and God might have a chance to have a man listen.

So you really think angels married earth girls. Did they have offspring?

Of course, they were giants.

What are angel genetics like? What sort of reproductive organs do they have? Again I ask who was the mother of the misbegotten sons of God?

Just regular girls. You seem to think that sex is foreign to heaven?

So it was just a big coincindence that SN1987A happened right after the split so its light could somehow get here faster in the "seperation process". We can all see that this is just a desperate and failed attempt to overcome this obvious falsification of your myth.

Well, would it really be coincidence, or a result of the state change? A lot of changes happened in mass, or matter. When the decay, and radioactive reactions came to be as the physical universe came to be, a lot changed, one would suspect. That is why the sun is now burning out, and the stars. Normally, in the merged state, they are forever, of course.
But when the whole universe is different, light, and space, and etc, and the former norm was light getting here fast, it is no surprise that SN light got here moderately fast. One reason I think there is a possibility it is an in split event, is because it still took a coon's age to get here. It didn't arrive till 1987. In the past, light from far stars arrived for Adam to see in creation week. It didn't take many centuries, or billions of years.
However it happened, a different universe, if there was one, covers it. I think even you would admit that. Your point seems to be disbelief there could have been one, or maybe even that there also will be one in the future.

I didn't "miss it", I just realize that it is total nonsense. The process was "sort of inverted". What the heck does that mean? What job were these tiny amounts of radioisotopes meant to do, fool us into the thinking that the rocks were of a certain age because they are all in just the right ratio to give consistent ages in different sets of rocks? This make no sense at all.

Well, invert means this.

1. To turn inside out or upside down:
2. To reverse the position, order, or condition of:

So, if we had a process that kind of built up, and restored, or somehow worked toward the result of eternal matter, that is quite a reversed condition, I would say.

Some of the scientific data showing consistency of physical laws have been discussed. You have been unable to refute them. What may happen in the future is irrelevant.

The present state could not carry on, or the bible could not be true, any more than other afterlife beliefs. The past could not have been the same either. In both cases, it is the present you use as a ruler to mentally measure them. The consistancy of the physical universe in the far past has not been discussed, only assumptions of what it must have been like if it were the same.

It is well established that your split/merge fantasy is absurd and that you stick your head in the sand to ignore all of the data that falsify it.

It is well established that your same past myth fantasy is absurd and that you stick your head in the sand to ignore that there is no data that falsify it.

 

[Contracelsus]

Dad, when presented with actual knowledge of Chlorine isotopes and even the minerals that contain Cl atoms, can't bother to muster a response yet? And he was the one who brough 'em up! Dodge and deflect.




Now pony up some response here. Where are the mystery bizarro-chlorines? I bet apart from the minerals I named you can't name any minerals that contain chlorine, let alone discuss the chemistry or even isotopic composition of Cl.

 

[dad]

that is if he even existed and theres no evidence that he did outside of the book of the religion that worships him, not exactly what i call evidence

That is a lot more than the zero evidence science can muster that there is not a God!

Of course theres a huge difference between knowing that a choice that a person makes will kill them horribly and know what someone will do if they are told not to do something via being told if you do this you will die but they really will live nearly a thousand years and father the human race.. or can you differate the two things dad?

They started to die the moment they ate the fruit. The pre split world was such, that it then took longer for the process to complete. Simple.

Yes they were the historical remains of the pagan background of the hebrews, before they got stamped out by yahwehism after the exile

Thank you for you pagan perspective. But, there is nothing Pagan about God continuing to help man after the garden, and a nearby spirit realm. Neither about God Personally warning man there was 120 years left, and somthing big would happen, as well as warn us a flood was coming. Strange how you could say such things.

i don't consider the bible a lie, i consider genesis through kings to be myths that the jews believed in, but have been found to be historical myths.
you just seem to consider anything that isn't 100% true a 100% lie, which is purely wrong

Well, you can consider whatever you like. Consider this also, Jesus spoke of the same things, and they are no fable.

yes because theres a really good reason to believe all that stuff right? you have some logic to back up why the myths in the bible should be taken as fact over evidence that they arn't fact? like you know something outside the bible?

Don't worry about the bible. Concentrate on the inability of science to address the state of the future and past. Then, find some belief you do like, if any that covers it. Be happy.

the light is irrelevent you havn't shown that its logical to assume the laws were different, whats next you are going to claim that 1+1 doesn't equal 2? because you claiming we don't know if laws were constent back then is pretty much the same as saying we can't know if 1+1=2, this is assumed in maths, its an axiom, like the axiom that stuff has worked constently the same in the past present and future, because no one has shown it doesn't work that way

Light is very relevant to a lot of things in nature, such as plants growth. Don't be silly. We can assume whatever we want, the point is, that is all you do!

The problem is Dad, if we don't accept the laws were constent, why accept that what we see now is anymore fact than anything else, then science becomes irrelevent, there has to be some sort of foundation to something, your argument degenerates into the argument that we shouldn't trust anything our senses tell us and how do we even know we even exist as humans or are we even alive? there must be something to start from, science starts from "phsycics have always worked this way" it helps that we can see it does and has

What we see now is fact. But is is a fact for the present, not eternity. Stick to the facts we know. Science is great in the present fishbowl. Can be quite handy.

so do you think fire worked different back then too, that oxygen didn't explode on contact with a spark? i mean come on theres no evidence that they worked differently, we can go back and see things oxidize and being that we are a product of this universe were the laws show the effect on us, with fossils and landmarks as well

No. There was an atmosphere, and reactions. Many things were the same, or close.

yes and so what? theres no reason to assume it was different unless shown otherwise, unless you need it to work that way to make a story fit that doesn't

Or to assume it was the same unless shown otherwise. And the bible does seem to show otherwise, and science is mum about it.

sure there is, unless you make up an undetectable barrier that you can't show in anyway, but claim is there but have nothing to show for it

The differences in the past were stark. The barrier betwixt there and here is clear. Not to science, of course, which is a creature of this fishbowl.

first show the spiritual exists in an objective sense, namely give me some evidence other than your word that it does exist. thats not evidence of anything

Science doesn't deal in that, it can't. Most men on earth have always known about the spiritual. It isn't an object, spirits, however, so if you want objects, and objective, you need to stick to the material, physical. Like science is limited to.

best to have a clue about the subject i guess

The subject in a side note was how lightning changed something. I remembered another thread, where I clipped an article. The idea was not that I am an expert in lighning, but that in creation week, in a different state world, there could have been reations set in place as part of how God created things like water, or air on the planet. I don't think you will find anyone on earth that really knows a lot about that. Do you?

why should anyone accept a "split"? you have shown no evidence there ever was one, the verse about peleg isn't even about the earth its about the dividing of the people on the earth after babel, the jewish people even say so

The dividing in the days of Peleg has been a bit of a mystery, actually, with a few different opinions on what it may mean. Like a dividing of the continents, as well as the obvious dividing of languages. I simply realize it also likely refers to the split, the greatest dividing of all, that caused all the rest.
The adding of the spirit factor in Acts is known to result in people all understanding the same tongue. It is reasonable to assume that the seperation of the spiritual would result in the inverse effect, of the not understanding of each other! Also, the sons of god marrying women no longer went on, the spiritual level is not where we could build a tower to it, and the lifespans on a graph are about right for some big changes at that time. Plants no longer grow fast as then, and there are a whole host of reasons to consider that a lot of things are different now.
Then there was the warning from the Almighty, 120 years before the split, a few chapters back. Coincedence??

 

[dad]

Dad, when presented with actual knowledge of Chlorine isotopes and even the minerals that contain Cl atoms, can't bother to muster a response yet? And he was the one who brough 'em up! Dodge and deflect.




Now pony up some response here. Where are the mystery bizarro-chlorines? I bet apart from the minerals I named you can't name any minerals that contain chlorine, let alone discuss the chemistry or even isotopic composition of Cl.

Speaking of 'interesting' that is why I haven't yet looked at your post! I thought I'd save the usually least interesting for last. Don't get too excited. You will be dealt with.

 

[RedAndy]

No. There was an atmosphere, and reactions. Many things were the same, or close.

Does it not strike you as remarkably convenient that the only things that changed during your "split" are those that we now use to interpret the universe as being billions of years old?

 

[Valkhorn]

Now, can we have some science here, or what??

Weren't you the one who admitted some time ago that you never took any accredited classes in geology or biology?

In fact I have never heard any valid science from you to begin with.

 

[dad]

Weren't you the one who admitted some time ago that you never took any accredited classes in geology or biology?

In fact I have never heard any valid science from you to begin with.

I don't remember admitting that.

Nowthen, can you show us some valid PO science for the same past, and the new heavens? See, the point is, that science is applicable to this present only (and near past and future).

The creation happened a long time ago, and the debate about that consists in the far past, and what may have went on then. No one is raising, or questioning real science we do have here and now.

 

[Contracelsus]

Weren't you the one who admitted some time ago that you never took any accredited classes in geology or biology?

In fact I have never heard any valid science from you to begin with.

He accused me of never bringing up any science so I took a concept he blathered about (Cl isotopes) and addressed it clearly and in a scientific manner, now he can't muster a response.

He clearly doesn't know anything about real science (even POST-split) so he can't comment when a bigger man comes into the argument. He runs away into his little "sissyfits" as he calls them.

 

[Contracelsus]

Nowthen, can you show us some valid PO science for the same past, and the new heavens?

Address the comments related to your original chlorine atom stuff.

No one is raising, or questioning real science we do have here and now.

Face it, dad, you're outta your league here.

I know more about science and more about this history of the Christian faith and more about philosophy and logic than you and it hurts to see that. And I don't even need a faked-up Einstein avatar to prove I've got the muscle.

Now respond with some science like a REAL man or get back in the crib.

 

[dad]

Here ya go dad:

Take a quick look at the periodic table (it's the one with all the elements on it. They use it in Chemistry).

Note the ATOMIC MASS of Cl. It is 35.453. Do you know how they got that number? I doubt you do, so here you go:

It is a frequency-weighted average of the atomic masses of the naturally occuring Cl isotopes. 75.77% of all Chlorine atoms have a mass of about 35. While 24.23% have a mass of about 37 amu.

So if you want to shout about how the world was different pre-split and you think there are all these funky bizarro-isotopes of Cl floating around with wildly different neutron contents, then SHOW US THE DATA. It doesn't exist.

You seem to think that some ferry snuck in and changed some aspect of a chlorine isotope. The change was universal, and across the board.

I am willing to bet that any given piece of SYLVITE or HALITE or even the occasional Cl-bearing amphibole you pick up with have about 76% of it's Cl as 35amu isotope and the rest as 37amu. With a few small deviations for stable isotope fractionation.

So, the present universe state existing in halite is some surprise to you?? Strange.

As for stable isotope fractionation, that's whole other area I can teach you about. It explains how the non-radioactive isotopes were fractionated by natural processes in the past EXACTLY AS THEY ARE TODAY.

"During isotopic fractionation, heavy and light isotopes partition differently between two compounds or phases. Isotope fractionation occurs because the bond energy of each isotope is slightly different, with heavier isotopes having stronger bonds and slower reaction rates. The difference in bonding energy and reaction rates are proportional to the mass difference between isotopes. Thus, light elements are more likely to exhibit isotopic fractionation than heavy isotopes. For example, the relatively light 12C and 13C isotopes have an 8% mass difference and undergo stable isotope fractionation. In contrast, the heavy isotopes 87Sr and 86Sr have a 1.1% mass difference and do not exhibit detectable mass fractionation. Isotopes especially susceptible to fractionation are of the elements that are among the most abundant on earth: H, C, N, O, and S"
http://www.sahra.arizona.edu/programs/isotopes/types/stable.html

My goodness, you do have an attitude. Perhaps some adjustment may be in order?
Anyhew, what we apparently have, is how the arrangement was left, as it was in the physical only state. Your point, being, you assume that state was always there, but the always, I would think actually began at the split. It is only the always of the PO state.
Any more questions? Back to the drwing board now, and try to come up with a bit of a stumper if you can this time.

Like the relative change in 16-O on either side of a mountain range due to a "rainshadow" effect. Or Sulfur fractionation by biologica processes just like we see in various pyrites in coal and just like we see TODAY.

TODAY is a good word. See if you can pick out something from that, perhaps a little reflection might be needed, but I do think it can happen.

Note, I didn't have to even break a sweat to pull that stuff up, because I bothered to PAY ATTENTION WHEN SOMEONE WAS TEACHING ME. AND I didn't have to resort to goofy different-past hypotheses as you do.

Right, do they have a refund policy by any chance??

Because you are willfully avoiding the points:

1. You don't understand science
2. You don't even know the history of your own claimed faith.

The science we need to understand is what applied then, and the faith you speak of I want nothing to do with. OK?

Done and done. Now TELL ME HOW IT'S WRONG.

Done!

You don't even understand the first foreign thing about simple chemistry, and your grasp of philosoph is abysmal (especially David Hume's Empiricism which you seem intent on mucking up for yourself without understanding it...go ahead look up DAVID HUME on Wikipedia or wherever it is you get your info from, you don't know who he is anyway)

I thought I told you to present a point, not a hero??

Believe me Dad, the only person disrespecting the Bible is the one disrespecting all the people who put so much of their lives into understanding it and presenting us with a faith we can hold onto. Good job.

Right, so you believe the bible??

Dad, you wouldn't know "science" if it were somewhere in the Bible, let alone if someone required you to do anything more than Google something once in a while.

If that were true, it would still be more than enough to deal with anything you could come up with, I suspect.

Face it:

1. You need to learn science
2. You need to learn the history of your own faith.
3. It galls you that at least one person here knows both better and with more alacrity.

Don't you wish.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

What are you missing here, He intended for us to have actual free will. By it's very nature, that means we really could chose either way.

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

I know you are increasingly desperate for any little glimmer of being right, but I can't give it to you here.

So you are saying the God is not omnipotent.

Easy, God is not limited by time. That is the same reason that the prophesies of the bible are so true, and astounding. He simply already saw it happen, not like there is some chance He could be wrong! It is as good as done. Bank on it.

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

Being omnipotent does not mean we lobotomize man's free will, and turn him into a robot, or mindless obedient zomby.
Perhaps that is why we are allowed to learn the hard way, and He hasn't eneded it all, because we made such a suffering mess of it. Even why there is a hell and will be a hell for many ages in the afterlife. (In fact the lessons, or rememberance of it, or smoke, will rise forever)
Because rather than divest man of free will, He let's us learn lessons for ourselves, even the hard way if we insist.
I think I may have a bit of evidence that we still get better, and learn things in the afterlife. The greatest man on earth at the time of Jesus (not counting Jesus, who was God as well) was John the Baptist, Jesus said. Yet, of all the maybe billions who had already died, and gone to heaven, every single one there was 'greater than he'! Seems to me we have two options there. Either they arrived there already greater, (which is ridiculous) or they got greater after they arrived!

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

If the spiritual was not then seperate as now, it would make sense. The bible was true all along.

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

A lot of the mountain building, I would think came at the rapid continental seperation. So I am not really sure there were any, or many real high mountains.

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

Also, we don't know that the spiritual level was uniform, or planet wide. Why would it be?? Look at heaven, or New Jerusalem, it is only 1500 miles wide! There are clues to any puzzle.

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.

FB: What are angel genetics like? What sort of reproductive organs do they have? Again I ask who was the mother of the misbegotten sons of God?

Just regular girls. You seem to think that sex is foreign to heaven?

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

Well, would it really be coincidence, or a result of the state change? A lot of changes happened in mass, or matter. When the decay, and radioactive reactions came to be as the physical universe came to be, a lot changed, one would suspect. That is why the sun is now burning out, and the stars. Normally, in the merged state, they are forever, of course.
But when the whole universe is different, light, and space, and etc, and the former norm was light getting here fast, it is no surprise that SN light got here moderately fast. One reason I think there is a possibility it is an in split event, is because it still took a coon's age to get here.

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

It didn't arrive till 1987. In the past, light from far stars arrived for Adam to see in creation week. It didn't take many centuries, or billions of years.

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

However it happened, a different universe, if there was one, covers it. I think even you would admit that. Your point seems to be disbelief there could have been one, or maybe even that there also will be one in the future.

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

Well, invert means this.

1. To turn inside out or upside down:
2. To reverse the position, order, or condition of:

So, if we had a process that kind of built up, and restored, or somehow worked toward the result of eternal matter, that is quite a reversed condition, I would say.

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.

The present state could not carry on, or the bible could not be true, any more than other afterlife beliefs

Whether or not the present state carries on has nothing to do with this discussion.

The past could not have been the same either.

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 both cases, it is the present you use as a ruler to mentally measure them. The consistancy of the physical universe in the far past has not been discussed, only assumptions of what it must have been like if it were the same.

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

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You seem to think that some ferry snuck in and changed some aspect of a chlorine isotope.

It's pretty hard for a ferry to sneak in anywhere.

 

[Contracelsus]

So, the present universe state existing in halite is some surprise to you?? Strange.

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

"During isotopic fractionation, heavy and light isotopes partition differently between two compounds or phases. Isotope fractionation occurs because the bond energy of each isotope is slightly different, with heavier isotopes having stronger bonds and slower reaction rates. The difference in bonding energy and reaction rates are proportional to the mass difference between isotopes. Thus, light elements are more likely to exhibit isotopic fractionation than heavy isotopes. For example, the relatively light 12C and 13C isotopes have an 8% mass difference and undergo stable isotope fractionation. In contrast, the heavy isotopes 87Sr and 86Sr have a 1.1% mass difference and do not exhibit detectable mass fractionation. Isotopes especially susceptible to fractionation are of the elements that are among the most abundant on earth: H, C, N, O, and S"
http://www.sahra.arizona.edu/programs/isotopes/types/stable.html

My goodness, you do have an attitude. Perhaps some adjustment may be in order?

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

(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-

Anyhew, what we apparently have, is how the arrangement was left, as it was in the physical only state. Your point, being, you assume that state was always there,

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.

TODAY is a good word. See if you can pick out something from that, perhaps a little reflection might be needed, but I do think it can happen.

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.

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.

The distant past is the SAME as the present!

-busted-

Dad you are a dud.

 

[Contracelsus]

It's pretty hard for a ferry to sneak in anywhere.

Frumy, isn't that a bit unfair? I mean Dad is lucky if he can google stuff to paste wholesale into his posts as if they meant something. Who woulda known about the dangers of homophones?

 

[dad]

It's pretty hard for a ferry to sneak in anywhere.

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...&prev=/images?q=ferry&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&sa=G

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Frumy, isn't that a bit unfair? I mean Dad is lucky if he can google stuff to paste wholesale into his posts as if they meant something. Who woulda known about the dangers of homophones?

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.