[_ Old Earth _] any christians here believe in astronomy?

[dad]

...

So. Tree rings. Do you know what they are? They demonstrate periods of growth. If a tree grows quickly, then slowly, then quickly again, you will see a ring. Since trees grow more in the warm periods of the year than the cool periods of the year, and because they do this repeatably, it's pretty easy to determine the number of growing seasons that have occured - simply count the rings.

Now, you propose that the trees had to grow really, really fast after the flood. If that had happened, we would've seen one really big ring as the tree grew like gangbusters for a few days.

Same old mistake. You assume a present world as it is back then, and for things to work as they now do. In a world that included the spiritual, and the former light, and all, why would you say tree rings worked as they now do? That is absolutely a shot in the dark! You have no idea how things worked then. Why would a tree ring then represent a year and it's weather conditions when it may have grown in a week?! Maybe whether it was a wet day, or some such, if that even had much bearing then, since, with the former light, we cannot say it was even photosynthesis, can we? You see, forget the Po present, and it's rules, unless they apply, and they did not, unless you can demonstrate that they did! Can you? This is what you are up against, not just reciting fairy tales of a fantasy past and how it golly gee, must've worked like things now do.

[quote:6c025]Basically, what we would see is no ring structure in the middle of the tree.

Only if it was a PO growth, not in reality, this you just try to apply because it now has to work that way. If you could prove the past was PO as well, why, then, (and only then) would you have a point. This won't happen, and you don't have one, save in the present!

Since we see a ring structure clear through to the center, it's apparent that the growth of the tree coincided with periods of warm and cool - that is, annual growth periods.

As explained, annual had not a thing to do with it then! Even weather has yet to be demonstrated, and wouldn't matter much anyhow, either way, as relates to time.

In a tree with 4767 rings, that means 4767 growing seasons, which means 4767 years.

No, it means nothing of the kind. How you should phrase your beliefs is something like this. " IF we could prove it was a physical only past, like the present, THEN, and only then would it mean that the rings were annual. As it is, all we can say is that rings were left as the tree grew, which, in the portion growing pre split, may have been very fast."

(There was actually a tree that was in excess of 5000 years, but it died back in the 60's.) Now, nothing you've said - even if one is to swallow your PO business - can account for this. The tree must have existed post-flood,

No, pre split, not flood. In the century, or few weeks therein of it, after the flood in the still merged world, it could have grown. Subtract the know present growth rates down to the time of the split, approx 4400 years ago, and the rest was grown in a merged world, (unless there are normal physical reasons that tree rings would be affected so there is no need to go back that far in real time)

so it can't have somehow existed in your alternate universe where physics doesn't apply.

We are in the temporary 'alternate' universe, the physical only one, then it was simply the original, complete, natural (in the true sense) one.

It would have been "PO". Your hyper-evolution and super-speedy growth rates can't have happened, because the tree cores would've left signs of it by way of super-thick rings in the center.

Again, this assumption applied not to the growth of that time at all. That is simply a mental exercise in what it would have been like if it were PO.

What we see here is a very accurate calender that goes back close to 5000 years, and is in explainable in very basic terms that you won't be able to distort.

AS just explained, it is nothing even resembling that!

So, please go on. Tell me how this is all some scientific conspiracy, and how your theory perfectly accounts for it.

[/quote:6c025]
Hey, poor PO science does the best it can, but has distinct limitations, and boundaries, beyond which it simply cannot go. Like a box, there are measurable limits. The mistake of many has been to try to assume their way out of the box into the future or past where the PO can't go, and dream up a universe as they think it, therefore must have been!

 

[ArtGuy]

No, pre split, not flood. In the century, or few weeks therein of it, after the flood in the still merged world, it could have grown. Subtract the know present growth rates down to the time of the split, approx 4400 years ago, and the rest was grown in a merged world, (unless there are normal physical reasons that tree rings would be affected so there is no need to go back that far in real time)

...

Could you please present me with the scripture that explains how a division of the spiritual and physical world occured 100 years after the flood?

And if you bring up the fact that "Peleg" means divided, you lose.

Genesis 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

...

Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

The "division" mentioned alongside Peleg's name is a pretty clear reference to the "division" mentioned previously. And that division is explicitly stated to be a division of the Gentiles, not the division of the spiritual and physical realms. If you interpret anything more into that, you're just making things up without evidence. Given that this has been the sole bit of scriptural evidence you've presented to support your claims, I think you may want to reconsider your stance. Or, you know, start making up a more convincing story.

 

[dad]

...And if you bring up the fact that "Peleg" means divided, you lose.

Genesis 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

This verse you bring up really does not affect the split.

"5. the isles of the Gentiles--a phrase by which the Hebrews described all countries which were accessible by sea (Isa 11:11; 20:6; Jer 25:22). Such in relation to them were the countries of Europe, the peninsula of Lesser Asia, and the region lying on the east of the Euxine. Accordingly, it was in these quarters the early descendants of Japheth had their settlements."
http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/view. ... e=5#Ge10_5
So, was Japheth evil, or more of a gentile than others?
"

Verse 5. Isles of the Gentiles
EUROPE, of which this is allowed to be a general epithet. Calmet supposes that it comprehends all those countries to which the Hebrews were obliged to go by sea, such as Spain, Gaul, Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor.

Every one after his tongue
This refers to the time posterior to the confusion of tongues and dispersion from Babel. " http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view. ... e=5#Ge10_5
So, basically this simply refers to the time after Babel, and where some dispersed to.
No one disputes the obvious fact, also mentioned here.
Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

There are a few main veins of interpretation of what the division in the days of Peleg mean. The dispersal of men is part of it, and in one interpretation, all it means.
Other ideas have been a dividing of the continents, which is a bonifide idea as well.
"Though some are of opinion that a physical division, and not a political one, is what is intended here, viz., a separation of continents and islands from the main land; the earthy parts having been united into one great continent previously to the days of Peleg."
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view. ... 25#Ge10_25
"This is one of the very interesting lines in the chapter; and, of course, men are not agreed on what is meant by it. The usual explanation of it is as a reference to the division about to be related in the next chapter, the confusion of tongues. Other interpretations, of which there are many, include:
a reference to Noah's formally dividing the earth among his sons, an event traditionally assigned to a period more than a hundred years after the flood, and
a reference to widespread landslips on the surface of the earth that divided and separated the continents. All such speculations are without foundation in proved events."
http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view. ... 25#Ge10_25
So don't tell me yours is the only way!!

When it comes to the days of Peleg, and the division there, we do not know the extent of what it means, now do we? You cannot limit it to the simple dispersal of people we know happened, as it says in the verse 5 you gave.

Before the ominous warning by the mouth of the Almighty Himself, that man had 120 years left, then something big would happen, we see the sons of god with women.
Again, some use an unspiritual interpretation here, but many believe it was angels and women. This tells of a very different world, where spirits and men were not separate as they now are!
"c. It is more accurate to see the sons of God as either demons (angels in rebellion against God) or uniquely demon-possessed men, and the daughters of men as human women.

i. The phrase sons of God clearly refers to angelic creatures when it is used the three other times in the Old Testament (Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7). The translators of the Septuagint translated sons of God as "angels." They clearly thought it referred to angelic beings, not the line of Seth."
http://www.studylight.org/com/guz/view. ... se=2#Ge6_2

So, let's not make out like there is not more than one interpretation. I believe the sons of God were spiritual beings.
So, the very next verse here is the warning
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

The clock was ticking, and we see that If it ran out at the split, this works perfectly! Noah still had many years to build that ark, something like up to 18 years or so, although I suspect is took less. After the 120 years were up, men, then were separated temporarily from the spiritual, leaving us in the PO, which explains the mysteries of starlight, flood water, canopies, etc etc etc. The mistake men have made is assuming it was as the present then!

 

[ArtGuy]

When it comes to the days of Peleg, and the division there, we do not know the extent of what it means, now do we? You cannot limit it to the simple dispersal of people we know happened, as it says in the verse 5 you gave.

Do you see what all of those interpretations have in common? The separation of people from each other, whether it be simply moving apart, or the splitting of the continents, or some other physical means. Regardless, it has to do with separating people from one another, which appears to be agreed on by everyone. Nowhere is there any reason to believe it refers to something other than a means of separating men from other men. Nowhere is there evidence that it means God decided to change the laws of physics.

Before the ominous warning by the mouth of the Almighty Himself, that man had 120 years left, then something big would happen, we see the sons of god with women.
Again, some use an unspiritual interpretation here, but many believe it was angels and women. This tells of a very different world, where spirits and men were not separate as they now are!

You don't see it as a pretty big leap to go from angels frolicking on the Earth to a complete shift in the fabric of reality that changes the laws of physics? You just seem to cavalierly make that transition, and then assert that of course it's true. I mean, do you see how perhaps intelligent people might have difficulty buying this unsupported theory based on such stretched reasoning?

So, the very next verse here is the warning
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Yes. God says, "I'm going to say goodbye to you suckers in 120 years. I'm going to kill every last beast on this rock with a flood." He says these things within, like, 3 passages of one another. Then we see a detailed account of God wiping everything out with a flood. Then, several chapters later, the Bible talks about a divide that every last scholar on the planet seems to think refers to somehow separating people from one another.

Yet clearly the 120 years refers not to the flood that immediately follows the declaration, but rather the divide mentioned 4 chapters later. And clearly this divide isn't of the sort that every learned person on the planet says, it's a mystical divide which changes the speed of light, the growth rate of plants, and other things.

This is your position, right? Have I got this straight?

The clock was ticking, and we see that If it ran out at the split, this works perfectly! Noah still had many years to build that ark, something like up to 18 years or so, although I suspect is took less. After the 120 years were up, men, then were separated temporarily from the spiritual, leaving us in the PO, which explains the mysteries of starlight, flood water, canopies, etc etc etc. The mistake men have made is assuming it was as the present then!

8 people using primitive technology couldn't have built a boat that big in only 18 years, even if they had perfect blueprints and divine guidance. Compare that endeavor to building immense constructs nowadays - it can take a fleet of hundreds a decade to make something that size.

 

[dad]

When it comes to the days of Peleg, and the division there, we do not know the extent of what it means, now do we? You cannot limit it to the simple dispersal of people we know happened, as it says in the verse 5 you gave.

Do you see what all of those interpretations have in common? The separation of people from each other, whether it be simply moving apart, or the splitting of the continents, or some other physical means. Regardless, it has to do with separating people from one another,

But not only that, more importantly, separating people from the spiritual!!!! Which also makes it possible for the continents to separate quickly, and all these other things!! In the PO world, I can't see how these things could really have happened, but they did happen. Those who read the bible in a PO light always come up with non spiritual explanations for things, it seems! "Oh, the garden wasn't a real place, and the years weren't really years, and the flood wasn't really a flood, and sons of God were really sons of men, and miracles really are explained away some other way, and this doesn't mean this, and that doesn't mean that, until all there is left, is the covers of the bile, and, hec, might as well chuck those too!

[quote:8d9f4]which appears to be agreed on by everyone. Nowhere is there any reason to believe it refers to something other than a means of separating men from other men. Nowhere is there evidence that it means God decided to change the laws of physics.

I don't see spirits marrying women and having giants as children, do you? I don't see God making me a fur coat, or walking and talking with men like then, do you? I don't see trees growing in days, or many other things now, yes things were obviously different then!! No question. Why get so hung up on the paltry, temporary was governing the soon to pass away forever physical only universe?!! They don't apply in heaven, forget em, unless we are talking about the present!

You don't see it as a pretty big leap to go from angels frolicking on the Earth to a complete shift in the fabric of reality that changes the laws of physics?

No, the spiritual being separated was something that was big, had lots of warning (129 years) and affected the PO universe, in that it didn't exist as such before. God is important, He created everything, and told us exactly how He did it, and pretty close to when as well! Only clinging to a temporary present PO keeps us from the promised land of what really happened and will happen. No reason to do that can be shown, thank God, and doing so is just an act of PO faith and assumption that cannot be evidenced!!!!

You just seem to cavalierly make that transition, and then assert that of course it's true. I mean, do you see how perhaps intelligent people might have difficulty buying this unsupported theory based on such stretched reasoning?

No, the other way round! God is a spirit, and the spirit world is real as we see from the bible, and human experience! It also explains why this heaven and earth will pass away, and why, and clears that up, to something wonderful as well. It affects all aspects of the origins debate.

Yes. God says, "I'm going to say goodbye to you suckers in 120 years. I'm going to kill every last beast on this rock with a flood." He says these things within, like, 3 passages of one another.

The flood was to do that, yes, as we well know. But no mention of the flood in the warning if you notice, that was till the split, and why He gave a specific flood warning as well in that chapter!

Then we see a detailed account of God wiping everything out with a flood. Then, several chapters later, the Bible talks about a divide that every last scholar on the planet seems to think refers to somehow separating people from one another.

The timeframe puts it bang on, and it explains how the past was as the bible says, as opposed to the 'bible is a pack of fables' types!!! There was the mysterious warning, another warning for the flood, and there was the split, or dividing. It does fit perfectly.

Yet clearly the 120 years refers not to the flood that immediately follows the declaration, but rather the divide mentioned 4 chapters later. And clearly this divide isn't of the sort that every learned person on the planet says, it's a mystical divide which changes the speed of light, the growth rate of plants, and other things.

The flood fell in the 120 years and was very important.
The warning was sandwiched between the sons of God marring, then the warning, then, the babies they had, then later the flood warning.

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

It doesn't say here that even the sex was wrong that I can see, it just indicates that a separation is needed. The mysterious warning is given, with how much time men have till it happens.
Now, later on, we also see why men need to be destroyed from the face of the earth, nothing to do with sex, or marrying, etc!

"11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. "

So, this is where we see that a flood is coming, and we get that warning. You can't lump them in as some single thing, no, not at all!

8 people using primitive technology couldn't have built a boat that big in only 18 years, even if they had perfect blueprints and divine guidance.

Why do you seem so determined to make the bible seem silly? Of course Noah could do it. Also, we have no reason to assume that he did not have plenty of helpers he hired, possibly hundreds. Why do you make such claims?

Compare that endeavor to building immense constructs nowadays - it can take a fleet of hundreds a decade to make something that size.

[/quote:8d9f4]

Why do you just say things with no support?
"By 1944, the average time to build a ship was 42 days. In all, 2,751 Liberties were built between 1941 and 1945, making them the largest class of ships built worldwide."

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/le ... facts1.htm

So if they could build 2751 big ships in four years when motivated, why couldn't Noah, also motivated by God Personally, build one in say, 6 years?

 

[ArtGuy]

I don't see spirits marrying women and having giants as children, do you? I don't see God making me a fur coat, or walking and talking with men like then, do you? I don't see trees growing in days, or many other things now, yes things were obviously different then!! No question. Why get so hung up on the paltry, temporary was governing the soon to pass away forever physical only universe?!! They don't apply in heaven, forget em, unless we are talking about the present!

I see Moses, and God speaking to him through a burning bush, and handing down the ten commandments. I see Moses performing all manner of miracles. I see Sodom and Gommorah being hammered by divine wrath. I see all sorts of instances of God forcing interaction between the spiritual and the physical. I see the birth of Jesus, I see Jesus performing miracles, and I see frequent interaction between humans and angels. This all seems pretty darned spiritual to me, and in direct conflict with your claim that the spiritual world was cut off from us after the flood.

The flood was to do that, yes, as we well know. But no mention of the flood in the warning if you notice, that was till the split, and why He gave a specific flood warning as well in that chapter!

He mentions the flood three sentences later. How obvious do you need it to be?

So, this is where we see that a flood is coming, and we get that warning. You can't lump them in as some single thing, no, not at all!

What you mean is that you can't lump them together and have your theory make a lick of sense, which is why you're so desperate to deny the painfully obvious.

Why do you seem so determined to make the bible seem silly? Of course Noah could do it. Also, we have no reason to assume that he did not have plenty of helpers he hired, possibly hundreds. Why do you make such claims?

You're the one making the Bible seem silly. I'm trying to root it in some semblance of logic by illsutrating how fallacious your argument is, and how completely unsupported by both science and scripture it is. Oh, wait, sorry, I used the S-word. Science is a no-no, and we must completely ignore what our senses tell us.

[quote:7129f]Compare that endeavor to building immense constructs nowadays - it can take a fleet of hundreds a decade to make something that size.

Why do you just say things with no support?
"By 1944, the average time to build a ship was 42 days. In all, 2,751 Liberties were built between 1941 and 1945, making them the largest class of ships built worldwide."[/quote:7129f]

It takes 42 days for a crew of hundreds to make a ship much smaller than the ark using modern technology and specially constructed factories. Surely you're not trying to compare this to 8 unskilled people using primitive tools to make a much larger ship that can support tens of thousands of creatures for a year?

 

[dad]

...
I see Moses, and God speaking to him through a burning bush, and handing down the ten commandments. I see Moses performing all manner of miracles. I see Sodom and Gommorah being hammered by divine wrath. I see all sorts of instances of God forcing interaction between the spiritual and the physical.

True, as it is locally applied, it affects the physical as always. But these things do not mean the universe was all merged agin, by any means! It simply means that the spirit world intervenes at leisure here. Light still took a long time to get here after the split, when these miracles were done, and decay still happened in the world. People's lifespans were shorter, and plants grew as they do now, more or less. Nothing you say affects the split.

I see the birth of Jesus, I see Jesus performing miracles, and I see frequent interaction between humans and angels. This all seems pretty darned spiritual to me, and in direct conflict with your claim that the spiritual world was cut off from us after the flood.

No in the least, as I have said before. There are miracles, and local interventions of the spiritual and always have been, since the split. Notice Jesus got His eternal resurrected body, that was not just physical, but spiritual as well!

He mentions the flood three sentences later. How obvious do you need it to be?

So what? He mentions the world being made, but it takes several sentences for us to see either man, or the sun in Gen 1!! The destruction of man was for the sins listed, like violence. The split warning was something that needed to be done, to limit men, for some reason. Being in the same chapter is no crime, when they happened after all within a century or so of each other!

What you mean is that you can't lump them together and have your theory make a lick of sense, which is why you're so desperate to deny the painfully obvious.

You can't bully boy your pitiful PO pet interpretations to make the bible silly, and the flood impossible, etc, sorry. Mine is a very bonifide interpretation, and makes it all true, rather than the fables you try to sell, while at the same time peddling old ageism, and Granny and the speck, no?

You're the one making the Bible seem silly. I'm trying to root it in some semblance of logic by illsutrating how fallacious your argument is, and how completely unsupported by both science and scripture it is.

No, it is no less supported by science than old ageism, and is just beliefs of the past you cling to. By your PO dreams, you make the word of God to no effect! You try to make it out to be fables, and that is not true, that is just your interpretation attempts, and PO past beliefs that cannot be supported! Nothing else at all.

Oh, wait, sorry, I used the S-word. Science is a no-no, and we must completely ignore what our senses tell us.

Science does not tell us the past was physical only as you claim, so nothing to ignore there! Science is fine in it's place, which is the present, PO. Nowhere else.

It takes 42 days for a crew of hundreds to make a ship much smaller than the ark using modern technology and specially constructed factories. Surely you're not trying to compare this to 8 unskilled people using primitive tools to make a much larger ship that can support tens of thousands of creatures for a year?

Actually they are fairly close in size. Liberty -441.6 feet long, just under a 57 foot beam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Ship
The ark, 450 feet long (8.4 foot difference!), and 75 feet wide. http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/arksize.html
Who says they were unskilled? How do we know what Noah's sons did for a living? They may have been metal workers for all we know. They did have that then you know. I have guessed that the process of casting metal was referred to as the 'gopher wood' process. So, they may have slapped it together pretty quick. Why would you assume they did it all by themselves? There was a whole world of people to use to help do the deed. God is not chinsy, He could make sure Noah could afford the help he needed. God was directing the operation, don't you think He could be as good a designer and foreman as some of these who work today?
4 years, and 2751 ships, 8 feet shorter than the ark. About 687 ships a year. Approx 1.8 ships per DAY all about the same size as the ark

 

[Khristeeanos]

It takes 42 days for a crew of hundreds to make a ship much smaller than the ark using modern technology and specially constructed factories. Surely you're not trying to compare this to 8 unskilled people using primitive tools to make a much larger ship that can support tens of thousands of creatures for a year?

ArtGuy, you must know about Stonehenge, the great Pyramids and many other structures that ancient man built!

We can't figure out how people today could build these structures, let alone how they did back then.

Those people were not unskilled and most certaily did not have primitive tools.

 

[ArtGuy]

True, as it is locally applied, it affects the physical as always. But these things do not mean the universe was all merged agin, by any means! It simply means that the spirit world intervenes at leisure here. Light still took a long time to get here after the split, when these miracles were done, and decay still happened in the world. People's lifespans were shorter, and plants grew as they do now, more or less. Nothing you say affects the split.

So... you admit that the same manner of miracles and instances of spirituality that happened before the alleged split can be seen to happen after it, as well. The Bible makes no profound, categorical changes in the way things happened before and after. Doesn't that serve as evidence that there was no spiritual split at all? The spiritual world was no more cut off after than before, based on the events that happen in the Bible. We see angels before and after, miracles before and after, man communicating with God before and after, and Jesus - the grand high poobah of all spiritual connections - comes down to Earth after.

[quote:8be79]
He mentions the flood three sentences later. How obvious do you need it to be?

So what? He mentions the world being made, but it takes several sentences for us to see either man, or the sun in Gen 1!![/quote:8be79]

And by your logic, it's reasonable to argue that the creation of the universe had nothing to do with the events that are described in Genesis 2. When the Bible mentions that all this took place during the Creation? Yeah, see, he was referring to a different Creation. The part about making Adam, that was on a different planet, and so it took place much later. And you can't prove me wrong, either, because the Bible never states, "Hey, there was no other planet I created in a different part of the universe."

You can't bully boy your pitiful PO pet interpretations to make the bible silly, and the flood impossible, etc, sorry. Mine is a very bonifide interpretation, and makes it all true, rather than the fables you try to sell, while at the same time peddling old ageism, and Granny and the speck, no?

Do you understand the difference between "true" and "non-falsifiable"? If so, could you provide me with some potential means of falsification for your theories? If you don't know what that means, I'll happily explain it to you.

Science does not tell us the past was physical only as you claim, so nothing to ignore there! Science is fine in it's place, which is the present, PO. Nowhere else.

What you mean is that science is fine to the extent that it doesn't disagree with you. You can be honest with me, it's okay.

Who says they were unskilled? How do we know what Noah's sons did for a living? They may have been metal workers for all we know. They did have that then you know. I have guessed that the process of casting metal was referred to as the 'gopher wood' process. So, they may have slapped it together pretty quick. Why would you assume they did it all by themselves? There was a whole world of people to use to help do the deed. God is not chinsy, He could make sure Noah could afford the help he needed. God was directing the operation, don't you think He could be as good a designer and foreman as some of these who work today?

So you're saying that Noah had a fleet of hundreds of men, all of them skilled ship builders, they had access to modern-equivalent construction factories and methods, and that the ark was actually made of metal. This is your contention?

Tell me, do you ever wish that you could just relax and accept the Bible for what it is, rather than fabricating random interpretations to support the ideas that you make up?

 

[dad]

...
So... you admit that the same manner of miracles and instances of spirituality that happened before the alleged split can be seen to happen after it, as well.

Why would not the spiritual, when joined with the physical in the past, be active? We know this. The split simply seperated ths two, but the spiritual can and does visit and act in the world of men, within certain rules. No one said the spiritual world died, it is just split from men!

[quote:e111f]The Bible makes no profound, categorical changes in the way things happened before and after.

Not true, if we look closely. Is a flood possible now? Would getting rid of much of the waters be possible if they could now come down? Could Noah sens a bird out, and a week or two later see evidence of a grown tree, in the form of a fresh twig, today, after a year of earth under water? Could people then disembark today from an ark, and repopulate the earth with 4 girls only, and have all the animals hyper evolute into so many many species now? Could man listen and talk to animals now, and eat no flesh, as before the flood? Can we live forever here, in this physical only world, and physical body, or even a mere 980 years? Could all men speak the same tongue, and the continents split apart without too much heat now? Could we find no decay now, or a light other than the sun? Etc. There are real differences, face it.

And by your logic, it's reasonable to argue that the creation of the universe had nothing to do with the events that are described in Genesis 2.

Gen 1 was the creation, and order. Chap 2 was a flashback, and zooming in on some details that already happened.

When the Bible mentions that all this took place during the Creation?

Creation week was when the complete universe was made. Just because He had to make a temporary seperation for man doesn't change a thing, as it will again be merged.

Yeah, see, he was referring to a different Creation. The part about making Adam, that was on a different planet, and so it took place much later. And you can't prove me wrong, either, because the Bible never states, "Hey, there was no other planet I created in a different part of the universe."

There were no stars or sun when Adam was made, check, and mate!

Do you understand the difference between "true" and "non-falsifiable"? If so, could you provide me with some potential means of falsification for your theories? If you don't know what that means, I'll happily explain it to you.

Easy, all we need is man to progress from the present cavemanish PO science. Meanwhile, he will have to stick to the physical and the present!!!!!

What you mean is that science is fine to the extent that it doesn't disagree with you. You can be honest with me, it's okay.

Science can't go to the future or past, stop insinuating it can! Be honest, admit it tries to do so by assumption, and belief ONLY!!

So you're saying that Noah had a fleet of hundreds of men, all of them skilled ship builders, they had access to modern-equivalent construction factories and methods, and that the ark was actually made of metal. This is your contention?

I don't know how many were needed, but many were skilled as we know, even in metal workings. If they were near a good iron source, why, they could have cast up some molds out of sand and wood so fast it would make your head spin!!! (Gopher wood process) Then, with no gravity as we know it today, moving the stuff may have been child's play! Other forces were in place that served to make everything stay put. But I suspect that big things may not have "weighed" much more than men then, who knows?

Tell me, do you ever wish that you could just relax and accept the Bible for what it is, rather than fabricating random interpretations to support the ideas that you make up?

[/quote:e111f]
I do!!! Why don't you stop trying to weld and fabricate it into the pitiful physical only future and past you claim without any proof at all!!?

 

[ArtGuy]

Not true, if we look closely. Is a flood possible now? Would getting rid of much of the waters be possible if they could now come down? Could Noah sens a bird out, and a week or two later see evidence of a grown tree, in the form of a fresh twig, today, after a year of earth under water? Could people then disembark today from an ark, and repopulate the earth with 4 girls only, and have all the animals hyper evolute into so many many species now? Could man listen and talk to animals now, and eat no flesh, as before the flood? Can we live forever here, in this physical only world, and physical body, or even a mere 980 years? Could all men speak the same tongue, and the continents split apart without too much heat now? Could we find no decay now, or a light other than the sun? Etc. There are real differences, face it.

Would it be possible for God to rain fire from the heavens, turn the waters red with blood, and kill hundreds of firstborn children with merely a thought? Sure. Can you explain how these miracles are categorically different from the flood?

[quote:0696d]Do you understand the difference between "true" and "non-falsifiable"? If so, could you provide me with some potential means of falsification for your theories? If you don't know what that means, I'll happily explain it to you.

Easy, all we need is man to progress from the present cavemanish PO science. Meanwhile, he will have to stick to the physical and the present!!!!![/quote:0696d]

I will take that as a resounding "no", so allow me to explain it to you.

A theory is considered to be a sound theory if it's falsifiable. "Falsifiable" means that there is some theoretical means of proving it wrong. For example, I could claim that there is a giant bear behind you. This would be a sound theory because you can prove it false simply by turning around and looking behind you. If you turn around and see a bear, the theory is shown to be true. If you turn around and see no bear, then the theory is shown to be false. This makes it a good and useful theory - there are tests you can perform, and evidence you can acquire, to show the theory either true or false.

Now consider the idea that there is an invisible, non-corporeal bear behind you. If you turn around and don't see it, well, that's because it's invisible. You can feel around and try to touch it, but it's non-corporeal, so that won't work, either. In fact, there's no possible means of testing for the existence of this bear. It is a non-falsifiable theory, because there is no way to prove it false. It may very well be true - but since it's impossible to gather evidence that could show it to be false, it's a bad theory.

Your theory? What you're promoting? That is a non-falsifiable theory. Whether it's true or not, it's impossible to determine. And every time I propose something that could potentially show it be false, your theory morphs to account for this, to the point where we now have a metal ark being made by hundreds of skilled workers in a modern-day shipyard where gravity doesn't exist. It is all technically possible, but you make sure that it's non-falsifiable. I'm sure you will interpret "non-falsifiable" as some whining malarky about how your theory is clearly true and I'm grasping at straws, but just on the off chance that you're interested in actual debate, I will ask you again:

Can you come up with some sort of test for falsifiability for your theory? Some test that could theoretically be performed to determine whether your theory is correct or not.

Science can't go to the future or past, stop insinuating it can! Be honest, admit it tries to do so by assumption, and belief ONLY!!

When a criminal forensic scientist performs a test to determine the time of death of a subject, isn't this an example of science addressing the past?

When we use radiometric decay to determine the age of something that's 200 years old, isn't this also such an example?

How about when science correctly predicts something that will happen next week, or next year? Does that not count as science looking to the future?

In your zeal to dismiss scientific evidence, you seem to have simultaneously dismissed just about all of science, since science is all about prediction of the future and explanation of the past. Are you saying that science, then, is useless?

I don't know how many were needed, but many were skilled as we know, even in metal workings. If they were near a good iron source, why, they could have cast up some molds out of sand and wood so fast it would make your head spin!!! (Gopher wood process) Then, with no gravity as we know it today, moving the stuff may have been child's play! Other forces were in place that served to make everything stay put. But I suspect that big things may not have "weighed" much more than men then, who knows?

I'd ask for some evidence that "gopher wood" really means "metal", but I wouldn't want to task with you creating another tale. I will simply accept your theory that Noah had a fleet of hundreds with knowledge of modern metal-working practices, that the ship was built of metal, and that Noah also had a ship factory at his disposal. If you're seeking validation, you can treat this as a victory, or something.

 

[dad]

...
Would it be possible for God to rain fire from the heavens, turn the waters red with blood, and kill hundreds of firstborn children with merely a thought? Sure. Can you explain how these miracles are categorically different from the flood?

Explaining anything God does would require the spiritual, so what does it matter to you?


[quote:8c6bf]A theory is considered to be a sound theory if it's falsifiable. "Falsifiable" means that there is some theoretical means of proving it wrong.

I gave that to you already, you need to be able to detect the spiritual, and be familiar with it's properties. Then you would see if things were right or not, now you are limited to the ways of the box. Falsification is a box concept, and can't come out of those limits. God is a spirit and can't be falsified, He can be proved, using spiritual laws. Since all you got is the PO to work with, all you can do is stick to the present, and PO to try and falsify as your meager abilities allow!

For example, I could claim that there is a giant bear behind you. This would be a sound theory because you can prove it false simply by turning around and looking behind you. If you turn around and see a bear, the theory is shown to be true. If you turn around and see no bear, then the theory is shown to be false. This makes it a good and useful theory - there are tests you can perform, and evidence you can acquire, to show the theory either true or false.

Right, PO tests. If I said there was an angel behind where you sit, 5000 years ago, how you going to test that? You must stay in your little limits and the past and future and spiritual world are beyond these, so don't be silly and try to apply your weak falcification and testing abilities to those!

Now consider the idea that there is an invisible, non-corporeal bear behind you. If you turn around and don't see it, well, that's because it's invisible. You can feel around and try to touch it, but it's non-corporeal, so that won't work, either. In fact, there's no possible means of testing for the existence of this bear. It is a non-falsifiable theory, because there is no way to prove it false. It may very well be true - but since it's impossible to gather evidence that could show it to be false, it's a bad theory.

It would be beyond the physical abilities of men to see, or prove it was a false claim, that is all. I would ask, first of all, who cares? Next, I would ask if this phantom is in the book, in God's bible? Otherwise, forget about it. Stick to what you do know.

Your theory? What you're promoting? That is a non-falsifiable theory. Whether it's true or not, it's impossible to determine.

By you and science, yes, as to the merged past. But it is also the very same in claiming it was PO forever, cause you can't test that either, so stop claiming it was. Stick to the falsifiable, the testable, the natural, the present.

And every time I propose something that could potentially show it be false, your theory morphs to account for this, to the point where we now have a metal ark being made by hundreds of skilled workers in a modern-day shipyard where gravity doesn't exist.

Ha. No wonder you missed what was going on all this time! Since it is beyond the ability of science to test, what can we do? We can look beyond men, to God's word. We can determine gravity as it is likely will not exist in the new heavens. We can see it may have been the same pre split. WE can see men then worked with metal, and were expert in it! The only thing that doesn't fit is your PO past, and old age assumptions!

Can you come up with some sort of test for falsifiability for your theory? Some test that could theoretically be performed to determine whether your theory is correct or not.

Can you test for evidence of a past spiritual component to matter? You either need to frop it, call it unknown, or look beyond the box to the bible to see if it coulld be. Man cannot help you there, he is handicapped, and limited to the PO, and nothing but the PO. Not only that, but he can't even evidence when the split was, and that the past was PO or not!!!

When a criminal forensic scientist performs a test to determine the time of death of a subject, isn't this an example of science addressing the past?

No, not when the present is defined as I have said before, from the split to the merge! They don't go there, not even close. When we look for clues to a dead man in the present, our assumptions are valid, not in the future or far past.

When we use radiometric decay to determine the age of something that's 200 years old, isn't this also such an example?

Decay only applies to the present, as I defined it the 200 years is in the present.

How about when science correctly predicts something that will happen next week, or next year? Does that not count as science looking to the future?

Same thing, their predictions are only good in the present.

In your zeal to dismiss scientific evidence,

I dismiss nothing at all. I like evidence. Assumptions that cannot be proven or supported of a PO past are not evidence.

you seem to have simultaneously dismissed just about all of science, since science is all about prediction of the future and explanation of the past. Are you saying that science, then, is useless?

No, we can do a lot in the present. Build bridges, computers, sattelites, etc. It is great in it's place. Except when it builds WOMD, etc. Not all knowledge even PO knowledge we do have is good!

I'd ask for some evidence that "gopher wood" really means "metal", but I wouldn't want to task with you creating another tale.

They don't know what it means, it has been a mystery. What is the trait we think of when we think of a gopher? Diffing tunnels, and the dirt, or sand it ejects, as a result. If a casting process using sand, over wood to make a mold was common then, this would be a good description. It also fits.

I will simply accept your theory that Noah had a fleet of hundreds with knowledge of modern metal-working practices, that the ship was built of metal, and that Noah also had a ship factory at his disposal.

[/quote:8c6bf]

Fine, who knows?

 

[ArtGuy]

I gave that to you already, you need to be able to detect the spiritual, and be familiar with it's properties. Then you would see if things were right or not, now you are limited to the ways of the box. Falsification is a box concept, and can't come out of those limits. God is a spirit and can't be falsified, He can be proved, using spiritual laws. Since all you got is the PO to work with, all you can do is stick to the present, and PO to try and falsify as your meager abilities allow!

...

Okay, that doesn't even parse as english.

They don't know what it means, it has been a mystery. What is the trait we think of when we think of a gopher? Diffing tunnels, and the dirt, or sand it ejects, as a result. If a casting process using sand, over wood to make a mold was common then, this would be a good description. It also fits.

Good point. I submit that the boat was actually built of real-live gophers. Who can say? Since we can't know for sure, that means all theories are equally plausible.

Though I do wonder why the Bible would call it wood instead of metal. It's not like they didn't have the word for metal, or anything. And it would have made a lot more sense to call it metal if that's what it was, rather than calling it wood. But then, apparently God was out to make the most obtuse and impenetrable book possible.

I'm done here. Your anti-logic has deftly defeated my logic. Well met, good sir. Well met.

 

[dad]

...
Okay, that doesn't even parse as english.

To falsify physical things is one thing, but you can't do it to spiritual things. This leaves two choices, admit that the past was merged, or prove it was PO. Or, I suppose you could just say you have no idea, if you were honest.


[quote:a2167]Good point. I submit that the boat was actually built of real-live gophers. Who can say? Since we can't know for sure, that means all theories are equally plausible.

Sand casting with sand and wood for molds is a likely possiblity. Murdering millions of rodents is absurd. You need to learn the difference. Seems as long as you think you can make the bible sound silly, you don't much care!

Though I do wonder why the Bible would call it wood instead of metal.

As I say, they didn't know, and still don't what it meant, so they stuck it in as it was, 'gopher wood'. I made a case for what it could be.

It's not like they didn't have the word for metal, or anything. And it would have made a lot more sense to call it metal if that's what it was, rather than calling it wood. But then, apparently God was out to make the most obtuse and impenetrable book possible.

[/quote:a2167]
There you go again. We know they had metal, and you try to make out it is not a possibility that the word refered to a process involving wood, and metal. This could make the boat stronger as well. But I guess you'd rather have it weak, and unable to withstand a flood. We'll have to disagree.