[_ Old Earth _] Continental split? Peleg's english name?

[Khristeeanos]

Are you suggesting that God has never had His hand upon the world in any way?

No, i believe that miracles do take place.

[quote:3e0e8]
The global, world wide flood that lasted over a year is proof of God's hand upon the earth.

First off, nothing is ever proven. Even if a flood had taken place, it could have been another God or completely natural.

However, there is strong evidence that this flood never happened in first instance.[/quote:3e0e8]

We have an eye witness account and a written record.

Sort of like what you had at your birth - an eye witness account (you mother, doctors, etc) and a written record (birth certificate).

That is enough proof to stand in a court, right?

 

[dad]

Why don't you just say "Goddidit"? That's just as good as claiming that back then natural constants were different, of which there is no indication.

Why don't you just say God didn't do it? That's just as good as claiming that back then natural constants were the same, of which there is no indication. None at all. If you think you have some evidence or proof that the universe was as today, physical only, and not as the new heavens will be, give it to us and settle the issue, -pretty simple.
I have come to the conclusion that it must have been different, from all the bible descriptions, much like the future. The bible was right after all, we live in a temporary universe, the real natural one was here, and will again be here. All our assumption have been based on the temporal one, and not a thing science can say about it. As a matter of fact, it better fits the evidence. This is big news.

 

[jwu]

If you think you have some evidence or proof that the universe was as today, physical only, and not as the new heavens will be, give it to us and settle the issue, -pretty simple.

What would such evidence look like? Please provide specific examples.

 

[dad]

If you think you have some evidence or proof that the universe was as today, physical only, and not as the new heavens will be, give it to us and settle the issue, -pretty simple.


What would such evidence look like? Please provide specific examples.

I don't think there is evidence it was the same, that's the point.
If we look at decay, we see it does decay, at a certain rate, and we see things like daughter material that is produced by decay. But, if there was no decay pre flood, but some other process involving the spiritual component as well, that udsed the daughter material in that process, that explains the daughter material. Then, the change happens, the process becomes one of decay, and the now 'daughter' material is asssumed to have come from the decay, because that is the way it is NOW produced. In actual fact here, the daughter material was already here at the start of the decay process. So it was NOT produced by long ages of decaying. In this case, radioactive decay is NOT evidence the process USED to be the same, just how it now works.
Light, also, pre split would have been in a spiritual and physical universe, and able to get here from far away almost right away. The split happens, we are left with our physical, temporary universe light coming in still, but as is -slow as molasses.
We see evolution happen now in very slow rates, and assume any adapting that went on was also such. In the different than physical only present universe, adapting happened very very fast.

What you need is to be able to say, hey, look at this..........exhibit Y this means that it HAD to be a physical only universe in the past, because, ......blah blah blah. But there is NOTHING that says that, because the past WAS different as the future will be.

 

[jwu]

I don't think there is evidence it was the same, that's the point.

Ah, don't sidestep the issue. What would that evidence look like?
I think you cannot give that explaination because what you are talking about is unfalsifiable, and just a fancy way of saying "Godditit". One could use the same line of reasoning to argue that back then when there still was that myterious spiritual component all animals consisted of mousse au chocolat.

 

[dad]

I don't think there is evidence it was the same, that's the point.

Ah, don't sidestep the issue. What would that evidence look like?
I think you cannot give that explaination because what you are talking about is unfalsifiable, and just a fancy way of saying "Godditit". One could use the same line of reasoning to argue that back then when there still was that myterious spiritual component all animals consisted of mousse au chocolat.

What would evidence look like that God did not create the world? It wouldn't be here, that would do it.
But with our mere science, as far as the laws of physics go, all you have to do is demonstrate that they applied as is in the far past, and will in the future. Not because we ASSUME they will, but because you have emphirical evidence.

We KNOW there was gravity in Eden, because.......
We KNOW the light was the same light, not spiritual also light in a spiritual also universe, because......
WE know that genetics worked the same because, ......
We know that there was then radioactive decay universally (not just in a few locales for some reason) because .......????? Etc. You claim it, you support it, don't just try to assume the bible away, and the differences we see in the future and past.

 

[jwu]

What would evidence look like that God did not create the world? It wouldn't be here, that would do it.

That's not what i asked for - it's not about God creating the world, but about that change from spiritual to physical. These are seperate questions and do not correlate.

 

[dad]

What would evidence look like that God did not create the world? It wouldn't be here, that would do it.

That's not what i asked for - it's not about God creating the world, but about that change from spiritual to physical. These are seperate questions and do not correlate.

Oh. Well, they do corelate, inasmuch that if the future is more than physical only, which it has to be, a change is needed from all we know. If there was no change the universe, sun, earth, and us, for example we could not last forever as we will. Likewise, in the past we see many similarities, such as the tree of life, both in heaven, and in the garden, etc. Again, for the bible to be true, and the flood, garden, etc, the past basically had to be different as well! Now, if you are talking what scientific evidence, that is another story.

You have no evidence to say it was the same, and physical only, that should tell you something right there!!! Like that you CANNOT claim it was using science, period. Our present science is physical based, and cannot tell us of a change one way ot the other.

Science can't say one way or the other.

 

[jwu]

That's all nice, but not relevant. It's very telling that you sidestep the issue all the time.

In other words, your position is unfalsifyable and could just as much be used to explain that a few thousand years ago it used to rain strawberries.

 

[dad]

That's all nice, but not relevant. It's very telling that you sidestep the issue all the time.

In other words, your position is unfalsifyable and could just as much be used to explain that a few thousand years ago it used to rain strawberries.

As far as science can determine, yes, of course, but remember, it does not know. As for strawberries they would leave a trace.
I am not sidestepping, science cannot tell us the past was physical only, or the future, as REQUIRED to support old age claims. Neither can it tell us it was not. That is nice!
It means that science has not a thing to say about the flood, or creation, or the bible history, if that future and history was in a merged universe.

 

[jwu]

As for strawberries they would leave a trace.

And a global flood wouldn't?

It means that science has not a thing to say about the flood, or creation, or the bible history, if that future and history was in a merged universe.

As i said, that's just a fancy way of saying "Goddidit" then. The principle is the same.

 

[dad]

As for strawberries they would leave a trace.

And a global flood wouldn't?

The traces are here. A lot of things were covered with water at one time. What more do you want?

[quote:e4dee] It means that science has not a thing to say about the flood, or creation, or the bible history, if that future and history was in a merged universe.

As i said, that's just a fancy way of saying "Goddidit" then. The principle is the same.[/quote:e4dee][/quote]

Saying He didn't do it, and there will never be or never was more than the physical with no proof whatsoever means nothing.

 

[jwu]

Explainations for the things which indicate that this wasn't due to a single flood event but many individual smaller events and/or slow sedimentation.

We see evidence of floodings and ancient oceans, but not of "The Flood".

E.g. these:

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/Jr_Morrison_vert-1.jpg

Animal burrows in Jurassic strata...dug when supposedly the world was underwater.

Saying He didn't do it, and there will never be or never was more than the physical with no proof whatsoever means nothing.

It means just as much as saying that there never was a metaphysical vanilla pudding component to the world with no proof whatsoever. One can make up all kinds of wacky things and then demand others to prove a negative...

 

[dad]

Explainations for the things which indicate that this wasn't due to a single flood event but many individual smaller events and/or slow sedimentation.

We see evidence of floodings and ancient oceans, but not of "The Flood".


Animal burrows in Jurassic strata...dug when supposedly the world was underwater.

No, not the way I see it. Most of the geologic column was PRE FLOOD. so burrows are great! I claim the whole geo column as a young earth phenomena! See, with things like rapid plant growth (trees in days, etc) and water coming up from the subteranean, layers were deposited very quickly.

It means just as much as saying that there never was a metaphysical vanilla pudding component to the world with no proof whatsoever. One can make up all kinds of wacky things and then demand others to prove a negative...

You might as well claim there was pudding here as claim the past and future are the same!!! You can't prove either, as the fishbowl of science deals with the physical present only (up to about 4400 years ago)
Do not claim things you have no proof whatsoever for. Stick to science, not wild dreams.

 

[jwu]

No, not the way I see it. Most of the geologic column was PRE FLOOD. so burrows are great! I claim the whole geo column as a young earth phenomena! See, with things like rapid plant growth (trees in days, etc) and water coming up from the subteranean, layers were deposited very quickly.

Well, i guess you need to slug that out with e.g. Charlie then, who disagrees about that and considers only archean rocks to be pre-flood if i recall correctly.

Do not claim things you have no proof whatsoever for. Stick to science, not wild dreams.

Exactly my point...everyone can make up wacky unfalsifyable things.

 

[dad]

No, not the way I see it. Most of the geologic column was PRE FLOOD. so burrows are great! I claim the whole geo column as a young earth phenomena! See, with things like rapid plant growth (trees in days, etc) and water coming up from the subteranean, layers were deposited very quickly.

Well, i guess you need to slug that out with e.g. Charlie then, who disagrees about that and considers only archean rocks to be pre-flood if i recall correctly.

No need, I don't think, I used to consider the same thing more or less. Pretty well standard creation science ideas. Now, with the split, the different past explains everything, and is also in line with actual science, i.e. the geo column, cosmology, etc.

[quote3866] Do not claim things you have no proof whatsoever for. Stick to science, not wild dreams.

Exactly my point...everyone can make up wacky unfalsifyable things.[/quote3866][/quote]
Good, so until you can prove the past was the same, don't teach that it was in schools.

 

[jwu]

Good, so until you can prove the past was the same, don't teach that it was in schools.

And how could one "prove" that?

 

[dad]

Good, so until you can prove the past was the same, don't teach that it was in schools.

And how could one "prove" that?

[/quote]
How can one solidly evidence or prove anything? It is up to those making claims of things to do that. Personally, I don't think you can, cause, as I said, it seems the bible indicates there will be and were major differences. Since science can't speak to the issue, I look elsewhere, to the bible.
The spiritual is not just a known factor, but an almost universally well known quantity, in one form or another! The bible uses that known factor, explaining all, not just the fishbowl of the present that science has the ability to operate in!

It is not science that takes us out of the fishbowl, if you limit yourself strictly to science, you must remain in the bowl.

 

[jwu]

Then what's wrong with science sticking to its own business?

 

[dad]

Then what's wrong with science sticking to its own business?

That's what millions want it to start doing. That business in in the recent past, and present. Not in telling us the past was the same, which it can not support, yet it is required for all old ages and all evolution of the old age variety.