TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,322
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
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.
Your belief that the past was the same, ---period. Nothing else. That's all she wrote.
NO. The medium of the past described in the bible was not the medium of today. That I do not ignore.And you just ignore everything else? Like the medium the balls are moving through?
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.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.
And would you care to explain why creation means any ratios different to what we see are impossible?
NO. The medium of the past described in the bible was not the medium of today. That I do not ignore.
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.
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?
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....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.
God formed it but it wasn't formed?The system was not 'formed' (God formed it)...
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.The assumptions you impose on isotopes are 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.Earth is older. Some stuff might be from earth and returning, so you may get a little confused, but I digress.
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 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.
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.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.
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.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!
Perhaps you could spread that word among your fellow believersTo admit you don't know. basically is healthy.
NO. The medium of the past described in the bible was not the medium of today. That I do not ignore.
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.
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?
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?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.
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.
Hi xThe 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
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?
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.
Who's 'x'?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?
What is the medium of today?
How is it now?
You don't know?
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.
When you can demonstrate a same state past we can believe it.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.
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.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.
If one so called investigates in disbelief, naturally the conclusions would be whacked out and wrong.In other words, God made a world such that the investigation of that world leads to the wrong result.
Perhaps you should frame any hypothetical concepts within the context of reason and logic.You are apparently still incapable of understanding what a hypothetical situation is...
Jesus does not agree. He says every word is from God.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.
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.
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?