Where gravity and forces come from..!

[dad]

Nope. The document purporting to be God's word is provably wrong.

But feel free to try again: the Vedas are a good read.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard that one... Go ahead and prove the bible wrong then.

 

[dad]

o..

censored

 

[dad]

Y...

censored

 

[dad]

u..

zapped

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

If I had a nickel for every time I heard that one... Go ahead and prove the bible wrong then.

The great flood didn't happen: no geological record.

The earth is at least 4.5 billion years old: Biblical genealogies are nonsense.

Etc.

Open pretty much any science textbook and you'll find facts that refute the Bible.

You're not very good at this, are you?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

zapped

Are you always this childish?

 

[dad]

Are you always this childish?

Still waiting for you to do what you insinuate you could do. If someone talked filth to you would you reply? That is not childishness, it is manliness.

 

[dad]

The great flood didn't happen: no geological record.

Yes it did. The KT or some layer may be close to the time. You looked on the surface.

The earth is at least 4.5 billion years old: Biblical genealogies are nonsense.

That is nonsense.

Open pretty much any science textbook and you'll find facts that refute the Bible.

Open any Mickey mouse comic, and it refutes you...so?

You're not very good at this, are you?

Yes, actually, in all humility I am darn good at this. Better flee while the fleeing is good.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Yes it did. The KT or some layer may be close to the time. You looked on the surface.

False. There is no evidence whatsoever of a single inundation layer. The K/T boundary (more properly known as the K-Pg boundary) is a single, thin layer in the strata. It shows no signs of being laid down by a single global inundation. In any event, the K-Pg layer is around 65.5 Ma - a bit too old to be a consequence of the flood.

You really aren't very good at this, are you?

That is nonsense.

Ussher's computations are reasonably close to the actual "Biblical date" of Adam - which works out to be some six orders of magnitude lower than the real number.

You really aren't very good at this, are you?

Open any Mickey mouse comic, and it refutes you...so?

No Mickey mouse comic says anything about the age of the earth or the geological record, so you are making a false statement.

You really aren't very good at this, are you?

Yes, actually, in all humility I am darn good at this. Better flee while the fleeing is good.

You might consider looking up the meaning of "humility" and "good". They don't mean what you think they mean.



"The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one."

 

[dad]

False. There is no evidence whatsoever of a single inundation layer.

Undisturbed layer, I think you may mean....so?

The K/T boundary (more properly known as the K-Pg boundary) is a single, thin layer in the strata. It shows no signs of being laid down by a single global inundation. In any event, the K-Pg layer is around 65.5 Ma - a bit too old to be a consequence of the flood.

Meaningless. Dream dates are of no value here. They are present state assumed extrapolations backward. Nothing more. The state in the past was likely not our present state.

You really aren't very good at this, are you?

Well, who needs to be good?

Ussher's computations are reasonably close to the actual "Biblical date" of Adam - which works out to be some six orders of magnitude lower than the real number.

No. It is close.

No Mickey mouse comic says anything about the age of the earth or the geological record, so you are making a false statement.

Questions?

You might consider looking up the meaning of "humility" and "good". They don't mean what you think they mean.

No. If you think you are hot debating stuff, start anytime.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Undisturbed layer, I think you may mean....so?

No, inundation. Perhaps you should begin this discussion by purchasing a good dictionary. It will help.

Meaningless. Dream dates are of no value here.

I am not offering dream dates. I am pointing out that radiometric dating contradicts you.

They are present state assumed extrapolations backward.

Actually, they're not.

Nothing more.

Apparently you don't know anything about physics or geology?

The state in the past was likely not our present state.

Of course it wasn't.

Well, who needs to be good?

You do, if you're going to try to beat me. You're failing pretty miserably so far.

No. It is close.

False. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it correct. Check the radiometric dates. You'll see that you're wrong.

Questions?

None. But thank you for proving me right.

No. If you think you are hot debating stuff, start anytime.

We've already started. You're not very good at this, are you?

 

[dad]

No, inundation. Perhaps you should begin this discussion by purchasing a good dictionary.

If the layers were disturbed after the fact, what evidence of inundation would you like?

I am not offering dream dates. I am pointing out that radiometric dating contradicts you. Actually, they're not.Apparently you don't know anything about physics or geology?Of course it wasn't.

Radiometric is dream dates. It assumes that present decay existed in the far past.

You do, if you're going to try to beat me. You're failing pretty miserably so far.

It isn't about beating you. It is about what is known.

False. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it correct. Check the radiometric dates. You'll see that you're wrong.

No such thing, beyond when our present state existed. Any idea how long that has been?

None. But thank you for proving me right.

Telling fables to kids is what I am talkin bout.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

If the layers were disturbed after the fact, what evidence of inundation would you like?

So you admit you didn't know what "inundation" meant? Given the fact that 6k years of disturbance can't disturb the entire layer, obviously a massive sedimentary layer would be the first thing to look for, with an extensive fossil content of all known animal species freely intermingled.

Radiometric is dream dates. It assumes that present decay existed in the far past.

We have done the tests; there is no known method of significantly varying decay rates. And we have no evidence that decay rates have changed, and good evidence that decay rates could not have changed significantly enough to account for a 6k year old earth without pretty much vaporizing the crust.

It isn't about beating you. It is about what is known.

I know the science; you apparently don't. And you're the one with "unbeaten" in his sig - apparently winning means something to you.

No such thing, beyond when our present state existed.

Try again. That didn't make any sense.

Any idea how long that has been?

Since the BB, about 13.5 billion years. Since earth condensation, about 4.5 billion.

Telling fables to kids is what I am talkin bout.

I'm glad you like to tell fables to innocent little children, but it has nothing to do with this conversation.

You're really not very good at this, are you? Do you actually have any grounding in any of the science involved?

 

[Delphiki]

Do you actually have any grounding in any of the science involved?

It's kinda difficult for people who cover their ears and go "LALALALALALALALA!!! I win." during science class.

 

[Nabobalis]

What will they tell me? That you actually do know the basics? No. Cosmology is story telling. Nothing more...loosely based on how things on earth work, and superimposing that far away in their imagination.

Once again you must show us the evidence that it’s changed in the past.

I doubt it. If I did, so would they!

Worth a shot if you’re that interested.

Well, that cinches it then. Why didn't you say so earlier? Impressive letters. Meaningless, but impressive.

I did about twice. Once again you seem to only read what you want to see.

Well,
"A free quark is not observed because by the time the separation is on an observable scale, the energy is far above the pair production energy for quark-antiquark pairs. For the U and D quarks the masses are 10s of MeV so pair production would occur for distances much less than a Fermi. You would expect a lot of mesons (quark-antiquark pairs) in very high energy collision experiments and that is what is observed."

Have you seen free quarks, or detected them in some way? Also, what does it matter? Generally quarks are in the form of a hadron..no? Have you some explanation why, or not?

I just answered the question you asked explaining why you don't see any free quarks and you've justed asked once again why we have never seen free quarks?

Quarks are always in hadrons, by definition a hadron is a composite particle that is made up of quarks and is held together by the strong force.

Ah...OK. So God arranged it that way...so?

So? You want me to explain your own point for you?

Hey they just found that there might be a fourth flavour of neutrino. What would I care if there are 6, or 8?? Point?

4th flavour of neutrino? Can I have a link? The point is that you brought up the flavours as some sort of problem to you and I wanted you to tell me why but now you just said that you don't care.

Of course. Unlike science, that just looks at how things now work, and dreams it will always be so, till a big bad black hole eats the universe, or some such lunacy, the bible is evidenced many ways. And observers from the future have reported what it actually is like.

"observers from the future have reported what it actually is like."
You know time travellers who have told you the future?

Also the bible is not evidenced in anyway. Not scientifically at least.

Well, how would we know if that also deals in the core of the star? Or just the outer layers? In other words, although hydrogen exists in some form, there may be a lot of other things too, that we can't detect. If stars are associated with the spiritual, that is a virtual certainty. So all you have is what amounts to a belief that the stars are pure physical material, in a state that is like ours on earth, regarding laws, and forces!

Do you even have any evidence that stars are spiritual and are not made of purely physical material?

Well, so? You mean made in our earth nature of the present. Like how?

It was even in the article you quoted, via cosmic rays that hit the earth.

Well, OK. That is a big gap in knowledge.

I agree but I don't fill that gap with whatever I please.

Unless some random 'fact' is relative to the discussion why harp on it, and bring it up??

You brought it up in the first place. You wondered why they bothered adding facts to a Wikipedia article.

Doesn't change what?
Wait for science to get evidence? Well, they ought to wait till then before telling creation stories.

We have evidence and that evidence has lead us to the current theories and conclusions. We then wait to get more evidence to then move on.

I can say that the last line applies to you more so than me.

No, I can take God's word for it, thanks. If you claim otherwise, you prove it. You can't. Welcome to your beliefs. We all have our own.

God's word is not evidence. You can have your belief and I'll stick with reality.

 

[Delphiki]

You have to realize that their mentality is that looking at words in a really old religious book is actually considered more solid evidence than actually looking directly at something like archeological or geological samples. It makes no sense and I'm not sure if there's even a way around such stupidity.

 

[dad]

So you admit you didn't know what "inundation" meant? Given the fact that 6k years of disturbance can't disturb the entire layer, obviously a massive sedimentary layer would be the first thing to look for, with an extensive fossil content of all known animal species freely intermingled.

No. You assume that all known animals were there on the ark. There is a little thing called hyper evolution. You see, in the former state, it appears that evolving happened very fast. Also, your 6000 years of disturbance shows a wrong preconception. It seems that a state change, that is a change in forces and laws occurred after the flood, likely in the days of Peleg, when the earth was 'divided'. That is somewhere, likely about a century and change after the flood year. Mountain building, and rapid continental separation, and ice age, and other events may well have occurred around this time. The disturbance that matters, therefore is not the 6000 years, but that few months, or weeks, or days, or hours when this change came down.

We have done the tests; there is no known method of significantly varying decay rates.

Ho hum.. Have you tested whether there was any decay at all yet? You assume a decay state existed, and is responsible for all we see. No. I highly doubt that, and it cannot be proven.

I know the science; you apparently don't. And you're the one with "unbeaten" in his sig - apparently winning means something to you.

You know squat about the science that applies in the future. You need a present state for your science to apply. Can you therefore prove a present state existed in the far past? No. So I guess you don't know all you thought you knew.

Try again. That didn't make any sense.

Right, if you had grasped the concept, you would not be talking old school strawmen physical only science here. OK. So, our present state is governed by our present laws and forces. Can you prove that these were in place and even existed pre flood? No. That has merely been assumed. You do not even know what gravity or the weak and strong nuclear forces or time or etc ARE!!! How could you then, possibly apply them to the far future or past!!!!!??

Since the BB, about 13.5 billion years. Since earth condensation, about 4.5 billion.

There was no fantasy universe stuffed in a little hot soup. That is a fable. Nothing can support that, but religion. The belief system that our present earth rules have existed and applied always, and even before creation!

I'm glad you like to tell fables to innocent little children, but it has nothing to do with this conversation.

Referring to Mickey Mouse telling stories to kids was no accident, that is what modern education IS.

You're really not very good at this, are you? Do you actually have any grounding in any of the science involved?

Getting that sinking feeling yet? Don't fear it. After you realize that all you thought you knew is out the window, there is hope to start afresh, and get it right this time.

That's what its all about.

 

[dad]

You have to realize that their mentality is that looking at words in a really old religious book is actually considered more solid evidence than actually looking directly at something like archeological or geological samples. It makes no sense and I'm not sure if there's even a way around such stupidity.

Yes, you are beat. But let's be honest here, the issue is how you have been looking at them ol dead bones and stuff. You have been looking at em as if they were always in this present state and laws. That is belief. Nothing more.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, you are beat. But let's be honest here, the issue is how you have been looking at them ol dead bones and stuff. You have been looking at em as if they were always in this present state and laws. That is belief. Nothing more.

So prove it wrong, already.

 

[Delphiki]

Yes, you are beat. But let's be honest here, the issue is how you have been looking at them ol dead bones and stuff. You have been looking at em as if they were always in this present state and laws. That is belief. Nothing more.

Additionally, as we can all see, there's probably no way around the stupidity in thinking that a book could be wrong is far less likely than the universe just having different laws of physics, chemistry, and electromagnetism a few thousand years ago.

Show me this evidence that the laws of nature were different at any time in the past.