Tools far pre date man, evolution theory kicked in face

[TLK Valentine]

Your belief that the past was the same, ---period. Nothing else. That's all she wrote.

Same as what?

 

[dad]

And you just ignore everything else? Like the medium the balls are moving through?

NO. The medium of the past described in the bible was not the medium of today. That I do not ignore.

There are billions of possible ways it COULD have been, but out of all of those ways, it just happened that the way it ACTUALLY WAS is the one entirely consistent with millions of years of radioactive decay.

There is only ONE way it was and could have been. That would be like God created it and/or tweaked creation. That left us what we have now. The pattern cannot be interpreted via present nature workings.

And would you care to explain why creation means any ratios different to what we see are impossible?

We were left with what was here from creation. How would any thing else be possible, save in the lost minds of the freaked out evos?

 

[TLK Valentine]

NO. The medium of the past described in the bible was not the medium of today. That I do not ignore.

What is the medium of today?

There is only ONE way it was and could have been. That would be like God created it and/or tweaked creation. That left us what we have now. The pattern cannot be interpreted via present nature workings.

How is it now?

We were left with waht was here from creation. How would any thing else be possible, save in the lost minds of the freaked out evos?

You don't know?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...You assume the past was consistent with the present! You rely on that.
...
Bingo! You admit you use present nature laws to model the past. You can't do that unless you prove there was the same forces and laws then.

The way it works is that we observe how things behave today and make predictions about what we might expect to see if they behaved the same way in the past. We then look at things of well known historical age (e.g. trees up to 5,000 years old) and check if our predictions are reliable. If so, we make predictions of what we'd expect to see for something much older, and then select something we think is around that age and see if our predictions hold good. By cross-checking with a number of different dating indicators, e.g. tree rings, radioactive isotope decay (various), stratigraphic, thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, optically stimulated luminescence, archeo-magnetic, corrosion, obsidian hydration, amino acids, rehydroxylation, etc., we can estimate the precision and range of each dating method, and use the temporal range overlap to date things within a well-defined range of error.

If the forces and laws were significantly different in the past (within the range of our dating methods), we would not see the consistency between our predictions and our observations that we do.

The system was not 'formed' (God formed it)...

God formed it but it wasn't formed?

The assumptions you impose on isotopes are religion!

As explained above, we have a lot more than isotopes, and many ways to cross-check dating methods - all based on and dependent on observation rather than belief without evidence (faith) or belief in the supernatural. So no, it's not religion.

Earth is older. Some stuff might be from earth and returning, so you may get a little confused, but I digress.

Earth is older than what? if you mean that really old bits of Earth might have been blasted into space and then returned back to the surface to fool our dating systems, events like that have actually happened - we have found ancient material (rock) from Earth and from the moon and Mars - but we know about it because it's found out of context, e.g. near or on the surface among much younger material. Crustal recycling due to plate tectonics limits how far back we can date rocks we find to around 4.4 billion years.

You hammer things into your belief system in other words so it fits in your mind. There is no substance or reality to any such claim..just laughable beliefs cleverly arranged so as to dazzle the unsuspecting and uninformed.

No, not really. It's all based on observation and many scientists competing over many years to find the best model to fit those observations - then cross-checking them in as many ways as they can. Each new piece of evidence is checked and, if necessary, the models are adjusted. As I said before, the further back you go, the wider the error bars, so the more likely a new piece of evidence will adjust the models for that era, but the error bars are reducing.

You try to fit things into your little wrong principle. I mean you claim things about matter and at the same time claim you cannot see some 95% of it! That is a large hole in your belief system.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here - dark matter? 'dark matter' says we don't know what it is yet, but it behaves as if it has mass and hardly interacts. It's probably a bunch of particles, but it could be gravity behaving unexpectedly at cosmological distances. Yes, there's a large hole in our knowledge, one of many holes - but that's why we do science; if there were no more holes, if we knew everything, science would be at an end.

God said Adam would return to dust...not to a fossilized state! If man and beasts in general did not leave remains in the former nature then you are grossly misrepresenting the fossil record!

Only a really tiny percentage of things that die become fossils, so the vast majority of men and beasts throughout history will have returned to 'dust' without becoming fossils.

To admit you don't know. basically is healthy.

Perhaps you could spread that word among your fellow believers

 

[Kylie]

NO. The medium of the past described in the bible was not the medium of today. That I do not ignore.

When you can demonstrate it, then I will accept it. All you have ever been able to do is claim that it's in the Bible.

There is only ONE way it was and could have been. That would be like God created it and/or tweaked creation. That left us what we have now. The pattern cannot be interpreted via present nature workings.

So then God deliberately set up the universe with ratios exactly the way they'd be if there had been millions of years of decay - even though there had not been millions of years of decay.

In other words, God made a world such that the investigation of that world leads to the wrong result.

This is deception, isn't it? Sure seems that way to me.

We were left with waht was here from creation. How would any thing else be possible, save in the lost minds of the freaked out evos?

You are apparently still incapable of understanding what a hypothetical situation is...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So then God deliberately set up the universe with ratios exactly the way they'd be if there had been millions of years of decay - even though there had not been millions of years of decay.

In other words, God made a world such that the investigation of that world leads to the wrong result.

This is deception, isn't it? Sure seems that way to me.

Wouldn't a more reasonable interpretation (from a religious viewpoint) be that all that work and detail in God's creation was put there so we could explore it to learn the wonderful reality of his creation; that the myths and stories of 2,000 years ago were for a pre-scientific humanity, that the truth for modern humanity is to be found all around us?

I would find the idea that the universe was created with all this extraordinary quantity of hidden details, all telling such a coherent and consistent story - and yet we should ignore it or deny its reality, relevance, or importance, to be absurd, if it really is God's work. As you say, it's way over the top for a test of faith, to the point of deliberate time-wasting deception...

 

[Colter]

It is better to approach the Bible through faith in God rather than faith in God through the Bible. The Bible was written and rewritten by men, very human men. Religion has it's own pride to deal with, we don't handle change or reformation very well.

 

[Kylie]

It is better to approach the Bible through faith in God rather than faith in God through the Bible. The Bible was written and rewritten by men, very human men. Religion has it's own pride to deal with, we don't handle change or reformation very well.

But doesn't this mean that you couldn't know anything about your God? After all, the only thing pointing you towards Christianity is the Bible. If you can't trust the Bible because it was written by fallible men, then at best your could be a deist or a theist, but not a Christian. In order to be a Christian, you would have to have some way of determining which parts of the Bible are accurate. Have you got such a mechanism?

 

[Heissonear]

The way it works is that we observe how things behave today and make predictions about what we might expect to see if they behaved the same way in the past. We then look at things of well known historical age (e.g. trees up to 5,000 years old) and check if our predictions are reliable. If so, we make predictions of what we'd expect to see for something much older, and then select something we think is around that age and see if our predictions hold good. By cross-checking with a number of different dating indicators, e.g. tree rings, radioactive isotope decay (various), stratigraphic, thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, optically stimulated luminescence, archeo-magnetic, corrosion, obsidian hydration, amino acids, rehydroxylation, etc., we can estimate the precision and range of each dating method, and use the temporal range overlap to date things within a well-defined range of error.

If the forces and laws were significantly different in the past (within the range of our dating methods), we would not see the consistency between our predictions and our observations that we do.

God formed it but it wasn't formed?


As explained above, we have a lot more than isotopes, and many ways to cross-check dating methods - all based on and dependent on observation rather than belief without evidence (faith) or belief in the supernatural. So no, it's not religion.


Earth is older than what? if you mean that really old bits of Earth might have been blasted into space and then returned back to the surface to fool our dating systems, events like that have actually happened - we have found ancient material (rock) from Earth and from the moon and Mars - but we know about it because it's found out of context, e.g. near or on the surface among much younger material. Crustal recycling due to plate tectonics limits how far back we can date rocks we find to around 4.4 billion years.


No, not really. It's all based on observation and many scientists competing over many years to find the best model to fit those observations - then cross-checking them in as many ways as they can. Each new piece of evidence is checked and, if necessary, the models are adjusted. As I said before, the further back you go, the wider the error bars, so the more likely a new piece of evidence will adjust the models for that era, but the error bars are reducing.


I'm not sure what you're talking about here - dark matter? 'dark matter' says we don't know what it is yet, but it behaves as if it has mass and hardly interacts. It's probably a bunch of particles, but it could be gravity behaving unexpectedly at cosmological distances. Yes, there's a large hole in our knowledge, one of many holes - but that's why we do science; if there were no more holes, if we knew everything, science would be at an end.


Only a really tiny percentage of things that die become fossils, so the vast majority of men and beasts throughout history will have returned to 'dust' without becoming fossils.


Perhaps you could spread that word among your fellow believers

Hi x

It appears a little tiny bit of education and knowledge of this physical realm has allowed some people to clearly recognize the things of God: the when, where, what, and why of what He has done and is still doing in His Creation.

No, such display of wealth of knowledge is beggarly. Are you not empty handed in what you possess about Him in our midst, of Him listening and knowing everything we say and do each moment, always in His Presence? Are you ignorant of these facts of life each moment? How can this be?

Why would one possess so little but claim to have arrived?

 

[Colter]

But doesn't this mean that you couldn't know anything about your God? After all, the only thing pointing you towards Christianity is the Bible. If you can't trust the Bible because it was written by fallible men, then at best your could be a deist or a theist, but not a Christian. In order to be a Christian, you would have to have some way of determining which parts of the Bible are accurate. Have you got such a mechanism?

Good point. It seems that living spiritual truth will bear witness to itself when considered by a sincere heart. But then there is the complicating issue of man writing about reveled spiritual truths, great and small as pinched through the understanding of his finite mind, colored by the ignorance and limitations of the age in which the various authors or religious writings live. [That would be the mechanism. Kylie I'm going to guess that your truth detector is what tells you things in the Bible account sound horribly wrong].

To me the Bible book collection presents conflicting information about the character of God. Growing up in a relatively moderate church I just took what I perceived to be true and left the rest that was sketchy or flat out obviously wrong. I had a spiritual awakening at 22 years of age and began my search in earnest then.

I'm a Christ-ian because I am a disciple of Jesus, I believe in him and his teaching (to the extent that they were accurately preserved in the scripture records------> and much better in the Urantia Book).

Most of the early converts to the Christian movement were Jewish. Those men and women understood Jesus through the lens of their old religion, Judaism. As is often the case with revelation, the revelation of Jesus was contaminated by old ways of thinking as well as the Pagan ways of those who adopted Paul's version in the West.

Religion establishes it's institutional authority in "scripture" that they deem to be the word of God. So they want the story in a tidy package. In the post enlightenment we are unraveling that package.

 

[Heissonear]

After all, the only thing pointing you towards Christianity is the Bible.

Have you not apprehended the Holy Spirit in our midst? Unless one is born again they cannot see nor understand the Kingdom of God in our midst.

The Holy Spirit has not dissappeared because of some people's unbelief.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Have you not apprehended the Holy Spirit in our midst? Unless one is born again they cannot see nor understand the Kingdom of God in our midst.

The Holy Spirit has not dissappeared because of some people's unbelief.

Nor has it appeared because of belief.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hi x

It appears a little tiny bit of education and knowledge of this physical realm has allowed some people to clearly recognize the things of God: the when, where, what, and why of what He has done and is still doing in His Creation.

No, such display of wealth of knowledge is beggarly. Are you not empty handed in what you possess about Him in our midst, of Him listening and knowing everything we say and do each moment, always in His Presence? Are you ignorant of these facts of life each moment? How can this be?

Why would one possess so little but claim to have arrived?

Who's 'x'?

Why the B-movie biblical-epic language stereotype?

Who's claimed to have arrived?

 

[dad]

What is the medium of today?



How is it now?



You don't know?

Resorting to spam and blather is less than interesting. Your wish that people reject Jesus as creator and accept some self made state that hatched in an unproven same state past is simply worthless.

 

[Loudmouth]

Have you not apprehended the Holy Spirit in our midst? Unless one is born again they cannot see nor understand the Kingdom of God in our midst.

The Holy Spirit has not dissappeared because of some people's unbelief.

You have to believe before you can believe?

Your circular argument is nearing a singularity.

 

[dad]

When you can demonstrate it, then I will accept it. All you have ever been able to do is claim that it's in the Bible.

When you can demonstrate a same state past we can believe it.

So then God deliberately set up the universe with ratios exactly the way they'd be if there had been millions of years of decay - even though there had not been millions of years of decay.

No. He created it the way it was and only folks looking at the present nature, with decay would get conned into such a bizarre and unScriptural notion.

In other words, God made a world such that the investigation of that world leads to the wrong result.

If one so called investigates in disbelief, naturally the conclusions would be whacked out and wrong.

You are apparently still incapable of understanding what a hypothetical situation is...

Perhaps you should frame any hypothetical concepts within the context of reason and logic.

 

[dad]

It is better to approach the Bible through faith in God rather than faith in God through the Bible. The Bible was written and rewritten by men, very human men. Religion has it's own pride to deal with, we don't handle change or reformation very well.

Jesus does not agree. He says every word is from God.

 

[Loudmouth]

Jesus does not agree. He says every word is from God.

The gospels were not written by Jesus.

 

[Colter]

Jesus does not agree. He says every word is from God.

Jesus never said anything about the books written about him after he left nor did he claim the OT scripture was written by God obviously.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Resorting to spam and blather is less than interesting. Your wish that people reject Jesus as creator and accept some self made state that hatched in an unproven same state past is simply worthless.

Same state as what?