[_ Old Earth _] Fast cooling magma

[Guest]

You call it imagery, but it is very real. There is a new heaven and earth. There is fire from heaven that comes at the end of the millenium, to destroy the rbels who follow the devil, who is released from the bottomless pit to see if they would listen to him after all that heaven. It burns the surface of the earth, and this is right before the new heaven and earth are revealed. Jesus went up, and that is where heaven is. Not below. That is why the tower of babel was built, not a tunnel dug. No, we cannot see it, as we are in a seperate state of existance at the moment, but one day we will.

Tower of Babel is YET ANOTHER case of people thinking the earth is flat and that Heaven was within their reach "beyond the star/blue sky veil". Actually, the whole story reads like a child's story. Are we really supposed to believe that God was anything but amused at the obviously unachievable goal of men "reaching Heaven" with a tower of mud and stone? . . . .And that God was so upset at this attempt that He decided to confuse their language as their "punishment"? . . . . . As if they would have acheived their goal. :roll:

The invisible things since the creation of the world can be seen by faith. Like Paul said through a glass, darkly. But one day, face to face. But remember that these things that are not visible to our eyes were things since the creation. That includes the past, and the merged state if there was one.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

This is NOT a matter of faith. :-?

No it is true, they are as far away as our present light takes to rravel in billions of years, theoretically. The thing is it was not our light that was here. Adam saw the light of far stars. Our light is temporary universe, physical only universe light. It's speed has nothing to do with real time.
It was not our light that was here, so it was not an increase in it's speed. Our light is what came to exist in the seperated PO state of the universe that we live in now, that is temporary. The deception is claiming, without proof, that theis state will always be, and always was! That is not God doing that. That is some spirit that tried to make God sound dead, or like a liar.

What in the world are you talking about here????? What does "not our light" or "exist in the seperate PO state" have anything to do with the fact that light travels at a certain MINIMALLY variant, nearly constant rate of speed, and if a star is millions of light years away from our planet, the light it releases MUST take millions of years to get here? What were these lights that Adam saw, which were NOT the light from our celestial neighbors?

No offense, but you have some wild thoughts. :o [/i]

 

[dad]

Tower of Babel is YET ANOTHER case of people thinking the earth is flat and that Heaven was within their reach "beyond the star/blue sky veil".

So you say, or have been taught, but that is pure opinion. Opinion based on the present observations there is no spiritual layer up there now. So we say it was some fable and dream up reasons why they dreamed up the fable. It likely was real, very real. Modern flat earth silliness some try to say men used to universally believe in is nonsense.
[quote:75200]
Actually, the whole story reads like a child's story.

God made it that way so we could understand it, for us, His children.

Are we really supposed to believe that God was anything but amused at the obviously unachievable goal of men "reaching Heaven" with a tower of mud and stone?

Yes, I would say so. Just as we are more than amused at the 1500 miles high and wide and long golden city that is the HQ of the Almighty that is coming here to land on earth.

. . . .And that God was so upset at this attempt that He decided to confuse their language as their "punishment"? . . . . . As if they would have acheived their goal. :roll:

I don't remember Him being upset in the bible? He took action, as needed. I suspect this was part of a wider range of actions already in the works that came down right at the right moment. The great event prophesied by the mouth of the Almighty Himself that something big was coming down for man in 120 years. If I am correct, this was the great split, or seperation of the spiritual from the physical. One known symptom of the spiritual being added to physical man is that we can understand all tongues! As we saw ehwn the Holy Spirit was come down on some early apostles and thousand all heard them in their own tongues. The reverse of this, then, if we take away the spiritual element, would be that we do not understand every tonge! This is precisely what we see at Babel!

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

This is NOT a matter of faith. :-?

Yes, and so? We see things invisible by faith.

What in the world are you talking about here????? What does "not our light" or "exist in the seperate PO state" have anything to do with the fact that light travels at a certain MINIMALLY variant, nearly constant rate of speed,

Everything to do with it! Because the light you speak of is our present light. I am saying in the future, and the past that was not the light they had. It travelled so fast it got here in hours or days from far stars.

and if a star is millions of light years away from our planet, the light it releases MUST take millions of years to get here? What were these lights that Adam saw, which were NOT the light from our celestial neighbors?

The stars gave light that was the kind of light that then existed in the spiritual and physical universe. After the seperation process was done, we were left here in this state, this physical only universe, this soon to pass away temporary universe.

No offense, but you have some wild thoughts. :o

[/quote:75200] Thank you, the bible is a wild book, and God is wild as well.

 

[moniker]

Modern flat earth silliness some try to say men used to universally believe in is nonsense.

Actually it is supported Biblically.

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

From the highest point on the Earth, or even beyond it, you would only be able to see half the world thanks to its curvature. If it was flat then the ends would appear to curve up, as though we existed in a large bowl, from any high vantage point due to our vision.

Thank you, the bible is a wild book, and God is wild as well.

I find it rather telling that you believe you have a perfect understanding of scripture and God's intent. The sheer hubris of it is rather interesting.

 

[dad]

Actually it is supported Biblically.

Not really. I am happy to inform you. That is a misconception.

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

From the highest point on the Earth, or even beyond it, you would only be able to see half the world thanks to its curvature. If it was flat then the ends would appear to curve up, as though we existed in a large bowl, from any high vantage point due to our vision.

What is flat here is only your understanding of what is really being said. The kingdoms that Jesus was shown were all the kindoms of earth, today's, Rome, Etc. You cannot see the past even from Everest! Where can we do that? In the great mountain of the Lord's house, that golden 1500 mile high city, some call heaven! That is where time is not an issue. Trying to use that for a flat earth is a sad little joke.

Thank you, the bible is a wild book, and God is wild as well.

I find it rather telling that you believe you have a perfect understanding of scripture and God's intent. The sheer hubris of it is rather interesting.

I never said in any way I had some perfect anything. You claiming I did is quite telling!

 

[moniker]

Actually it is supported Biblically.

Not really. I am happy to inform you. That is a misconception.

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

From the highest point on the Earth, or even beyond it, you would only be able to see half the world thanks to its curvature. If it was flat then the ends would appear to curve up, as though we existed in a large bowl, from any high vantage point due to our vision.

What is flat here is only your understanding of what is really being said.

I'm sorry, let me read your interpretation then since it is apparently the correct one.

The kingdoms that Jesus was shown were all the kindoms of earth, today's, Rome, Etc. You cannot see the past even from Everest! Where can we do that? In the great mountain of the Lord's house, that golden 1500 mile high city, some call heaven! That is where time is not an issue. Trying to use that for a flat earth is a sad little joke.

So he was able to see all of time and space from heaven, where the devil took him, as opposed to looking down from a big hill and seeing various lands? You interpret the temptation scripture as symbollic of what happened. Why do you not take it as literally as you do Genesis?

[quote:b78a1]Thank you, the bible is a wild book, and God is wild as well.

I find it rather telling that you believe you have a perfect understanding of scripture and God's intent. The sheer hubris of it is rather interesting.

I never said in any way I had some perfect anything. You claiming I did is quite telling![/quote:b78a1]

Your only evidence, only anything to support this speculation is your understanding of early parts of the bible. Unless they are inerrant you really don't have a leg to stand on without doing some actual research and test this supposition of yours. You also seem to point out when others are 'wrong' about some ambiguous scripture or even pointed passages as their explanations don't work with your interpretation of the bible.

 

[dad]

I'm sorry, let me read your interpretation then since it is apparently the correct one.

The kingdoms that Jesus was shown were all the kindoms of earth, today's, Rome, Etc. You cannot see the past even from Everest! Where can we do that? In the great mountain of the Lord's house, that golden 1500 mile high city, some call heaven! That is where time is not an issue. Trying to use that for a flat earth is a sad little joke.

So he was able to see all of time and space from heaven, where the devil took him, as opposed to looking down from a big hill and seeing various lands? You interpret the temptation scripture as symbollic of what happened. Why do you not take it as literally as you do Genesis?

Where did I say I never thought the devil took Jesus bodily to the high place? Where do I say I think it was some sort of hallucanation or dream? No, it was real. The devil took Him and showed Him all the kingdoms of this world that the devil ruled. Jesus was offered them.

Your only evidence, only anything to support this speculation is your understanding of early parts of the bible.

No. It is the whole bible right down to the last chapters, where it talks of the new heavens. Also, it is the evidence. Science cannot tag the future or past as being the same as now. Therefore it maight as well be as I say, as far also as science is concerned.

Unless they are inerrant you really don't have a leg to stand on without doing some actual research and test this supposition of yours.

As explained I have the whole bible, as well as science. You however have nothing at all. No science, no bible, if you want to claim the future and past were the same.

You also seem to point out when others are 'wrong' about some ambiguous scripture or even pointed passages as their explanations don't work with your interpretation of the bible.

If I say something is wrong, it is not without reason.

 

[Guest]

As explained I have the whole bible, as well as science. You however have nothing at all. No science, no bible, if you want to claim the future and past were the same.

Uh, . . . . you have science on your side??? :-? :o Do give the evidence for all you have stated, please.


By the way, . . . (this is for everyone on this thread). . . .does the "New Jerusalem's" shape remind anyone else of a Borg cube ship? :

 

[dad]

Uh, . . . . you have science on your side??? :-? :o Do give the evidence for all you have stated, please.

It is simple, no evidence exists to say the future or past wa as the present. No science can oppose me! Also, I agree with all evidence, so I work with actual science. You name it.

By the way, . . . (this is for everyone on this thread). . . .does the "New Jerusalem's" shape remind anyone else of a Borg cube ship? :

Some think it is cube shaped. I agree with those, however that feel it is mountain or pyramid shaped.

 

[Guest]

Uh, . . . . you have science on your side??? :-? :o Do give the evidence for all you have stated, please.

It is simple, no evidence exists to say the future or past wa as the present. No science can oppose me! Also, I agree with all evidence, so I work with actual science. You name it.

No, you have to show me what the EVIDENCE that science has shown that what YOU say is true (which is obviously impossible). I'm just amazed that you made the claim (apparently) that science is with YOU on this subject. :-?

 

[LittleNipper]

Uh, . . . . you have science on your side??? :-? :o Do give the evidence for all you have stated, please.

It is simple, no evidence exists to say the future or past wa as the present. No science can oppose me! Also, I agree with all evidence, so I work with actual science. You name it.

No, you have to show me what the EVIDENCE that science has shown that what YOU say is true (which is obviously impossible). I'm just amazed that you made the claim (apparently) that science is with YOU on this subject. :-?

True science is based on what is. True science is not based on assumptions. If that is the case, then what we see around us is what we see around us, now..... To project this either forward or backwards is not true science but conjecture. Some conjecture has been proven over time and some conjecture is convienient for the prevailing thoughts of the day. Evolution is just such conjecture.

 

[dad]

No, you have to show me what the EVIDENCE that science has shown that what YOU say is true (which is obviously impossible).

Only if my claim, like yours is claimed to be science based! It isn't. I admit science is limited. If you don't you absolutely need to back up your claims. That should not be hard to do if they were solid!

I'm just amazed that you made the claim (apparently) that science is with YOU on this subject. :-?

I have never seen any evidence or science that is against what I say, but what I see is in agreement. We could look at any aspect we want, fossil evidence, light, gravity, you name it.

 

[dad]

True science is based on what is.

And applies to what is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If they want to claim the future will be just like this present, they need to prove it, not just open their mouth and say it! I have said science applies to this temporary present. Their dilemma is showing it always did and always will apply if they invoke old ages that require it.

True science is not based on assumptions. If that is the case, then what we see around us is what we see around us, now..... To project this either forward or backwards is not true science but conjecture.

Absolutely.

Some conjecture has been proven over time and some conjecture is convienient for the prevailing thoughts of the day. Evolution is just such conjecture.

But is it? Why in the different pre flood past, could not have God's creations have had fantastic adaptive powers? Where evolution leaves sciece, is where it goes beyond the original creations in the garden 6000 years ago, and tries to cook up a first lifeform and all that baseless clap.

 

[Guest]

We could look at any aspect we want, fossil evidence, light, gravity, you name it.

Please do. I'm excited to see what scientific evidence you have for each of these that goes along with your thinking. :fadein:

 

[dad]

We could look at any aspect we want, fossil evidence, light, gravity, you name it.

Please do. I'm excited to see what scientific evidence you have for each of these that goes along with your thinking. :fadein:

That's fine, but I said YOU name it. What science do you think is some challenge, or problem for a young earth bible believing creatio believing person?

 

[Guest]

We could look at any aspect we want, fossil evidence, light, gravity, you name it.

Please do. I'm excited to see what scientific evidence you have for each of these that goes along with your thinking. :fadein:

That's fine, but I said YOU name it. What science do you think is some challenge, or problem for a young earth bible believing creatio believing person?

What science knows today is that the Speed of Light has been constant and unchanging. Since there are stars that are millions (even billions) of light years from our planet, then the light they produce must also obey the laws of phyiscs, thus taking millions (or even billions) of years to reach our planet.

 

[moniker]

Uh, . . . . you have science on your side??? :-? :o Do give the evidence for all you have stated, please.

It is simple, no evidence exists to say the future or past wa as the present. No science can oppose me! Also, I agree with all evidence, so I work with actual science. You name it.

See, you have it backwards again. You don't make a claim, determine it is unfalsifiable and then declare that science supports you since it doesn't disagree with you (these are more claims that you haven't proven by the by). That's not how it works. First you get evidence that supports your claim and build from there with various experiments and such. If that wasn't the case then, again, everything my mind could conceive would be considered fact since it isn't proven to be fiction. The standards are higher than that.

Also, you don't have Occam's razor on your side as the simplest assumption to make is that things have not changed in such a fundamental way as you claim. If you truly believe that this is not the case then prove it. Cite your research to support your stance.

 

[dad]

"
Please do. I'm excited to see what scientific evidence you have for each of these that goes along with your thinking. :fadein:

That's fine, but I said YOU name it. What science do you think is some challenge, or problem for a young earth bible believing creation believing person?

What science knows today is that the Speed of Light has been constant and unchanging. [/quote]

Yes, I agree, --since that light came to be, and that was at the split about 4400 years ago. Before that the light in the different universe was different light!

Since there are stars that are millions (even billions) of light years from our planet, then the light they produce must also obey the laws of phyiscs, thus taking millions (or even billions) of years to reach our planet.

The former light in the merged universe got here in hours or days, not the billions of years our present light takes. Thus, all you time estimates are utterly false. Now, if you can show us the past was the same, and therefore the light, why, you might have a case. Too bad you can't and don't.

 

[dad]

See, you have it backwards again. You don't make a claim, determine it is unfalsifiable and then declare that science supports you since it doesn't disagree with you (these are more claims that you haven't proven by the by).

The science that is falsifiable and observable and tested does not in any way conflict with me. You have it backwards, and upside down, and inversed! Your so called science claims DEPEND on a past that is as the present, and you cannot support that! I make no science claims that depend on the past being either way. By the by.

That's not how it works. First you get evidence that supports your claim and build from there with various experiments and such.

Thank you, my point, exactly, where a claim is said to be a science claim, as yours is, not mine. I simply note that all science we DO have agrees with a different past and future, therefore, the bible and a young earth! No various experiments and such oppose me. They do give the lie to your old age arguements, however, cause you have none to support the same past! Check, and mate.

If that wasn't the case then, again, everything my mind could conceive would be considered fact since it isn't proven to be fiction. The standards are higher than that.

Your mind conceived (old agers minds, anyhow) of a same past, my standards reuire you to prove or support that claim, and you can't. Busted.

Also, you don't have Occam's razor on your side as the simplest assumption to make is that things have not changed in such a fundamental way as you claim.

Occam, the Christian monk agrees with me from heaven. How long does it take to learn the bible creation, and the split/merge concept? I would guess a 12 year old could learn them in a week. How long does it take to learn theoretical physics, cosmology, carbon dating, etc? And you want to ask which is the simpler idea? You really have to be kidding!

 

[moniker]

See, you have it backwards again. You don't make a claim, determine it is unfalsifiable and then declare that science supports you since it doesn't disagree with you (these are more claims that you haven't proven by the by).

The science that is falsifiable and observable and tested does not in any way conflict with me.

You keep saying this and then never cite evidence. Why is that?

I make no science claims that depend on the past being either way. By the by.

Then what is the original post about if you aren't making a claim? Did you just feel like sharing this revelation you dreamt up and leave it at that?

[quote:c009d]That's not how it works. First you get evidence that supports your claim and build from there with various experiments and such.

Thank you, my point, exactly, where a claim is said to be a science claim, as yours is, not mine. I simply note that all science we DO have agrees with a different past and future,[/quote:c009d]

This would be another good spot for one of those sources you cite.

No various experiments and such oppose me.

Another great spot for a source.

They do give the lie to your old age arguements, however, cause you have none to support the same past!

Prove this claim. ie cite

[quote:c009d]If that wasn't the case then, again, everything my mind could conceive would be considered fact since it isn't proven to be fiction. The standards are higher than that.

Your mind conceived (old agers minds, anyhow) of a same past, my standards reuire you to prove or support that claim, and you can't. Busted.[/quote:c009d]

See, I'm not the one who's making a claim in the birth of this thread. The burden of proof lies on you who is making the charge. I just keep reminding you of that. If it were the inverse and I was making the claim then I'd be the one referencing geological articles and so forth. You know, supporting my claim.

[quote:c009d]
Also, you don't have Occam's razor on your side as the simplest assumption to make is that things have not changed in such a fundamental way as you claim.

Occam, the Christian monk agrees with me from heaven. How long does it take to learn the bible creation, and the split/merge concept? I would guess a 12 year old could learn them in a week. How long does it take to learn theoretical physics, cosmology, carbon dating, etc? And you want to ask which is the simpler idea? You really have to be kidding![/quote:c009d]

So because the idea that 'god did it' is simplest to understand you consider Occam's Razor to cut your way? Even though 'god did it' involves the entire re-writing of creation from the ground up for no reason? That is a more simple explanation than you misinterpeting God's word? As well this is ignoring the fact that theoretical physics, cosmology, carbon decay, etc. would still exist in your fantastical past simply at different qualities that would need to be observed and discovered. Oh and simply because Occam was a monk doesn't mean he interprets the passages of the bible the same way that you do, fyi.

 

[Guest]

Yes, I agree, --since that light came to be, and that was at the split about 4400 years ago. Before that the light in the different universe was different light!


The former light in the merged universe got here in hours or days, not the billions of years our present light takes. Thus, all you time estimates are utterly false. Now, if you can show us the past was the same, and therefore the light, why, you might have a case. Too bad you can't and don't.

I thought you said that you had scientific evidence to back up YOUR side? This is just simple conjecture on your part because "it HAS to have been that way in order for the Young Universe to be true".

Fact is, it's a sloppy way to argue, . . . . to change "so called facts" about how it was different (and we're talking REDICULOUSLY different) in the past JUST to retain some biblical genealogy.

I'm no longer interested in your posts when they are filled with non-scientific figures/studies/analysis. Imagination isn't proof.

Been nice talking to you.