[_ Old Earth _] Fast cooling magma

[dad]

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

Show me some science or evidence if you claim I am wrong, that does prove me wrong? If you can't do that, that is my evidence.

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?

It is about how the merged world worked, as best as I can tell from the bible. That, and the evidence, such as how we see massive amounts of magma, that did cool. The reason it worked differently is that the universe was in a different state, I maintain. That seems to be what the bible is talking about, as well as in the future. Now, if you claim that the past was the same, you need to back up that claim. If it is a bible claim, use the bible. If you claim it is a science claim, give us science. You can't. God was right all along.

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

I say science agrees with me, not oppose me and offered to show how if any raised any science they thought did oppose me. I have talked to many, and never yet seen a thing of that sort.

Another great spot for a source.

If you claim that various experiments and such do oppose me, where are they? I say none do. None of any you ever heard of or can name. ALL.

Prove this claim. ie cite

I said you could not prove a past that was the same as the present. Physical only. If you could, you would do so, you can't, that is my proof. You are living proof.

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 never made a claim that science evidenced what I say. You do claim that. Yet that is false. I base my claim on the bible. And, as I say, I have not yet seen any evidence or science that was any problem. Look at Gen 1, we see waters being seperated on a planetary scale from the land. This would produce heat today that would kill any life created a few days later, no? This means we are talking a different past.

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?

Rewriting creation?
I don't do that at all. I believe in the six day creation of the bible by God. No need to rewrite that.

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.

No, if there was no decay, where would studying decay come in???? If you claim I misinterpret, show the proper interpretation. Also, if light and matter were fundamentally different, why would I study how fast it moves now?

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.

I think it is likely he would not want his concept applied against God and the bible. Falsely, I might add, since as I showed, the temporary state we are now in is the simplest answer by a long shot.

 

[moniker]

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

Show me some science or evidence if you claim I am wrong, that does prove me wrong? If you can't do that, that is my evidence.

The burden of proof lies on you, you are the author of this thread and the one who made a claim about the past existing in a different state. You are the one who has to support that claim with proof.

[quote:69d79]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?

It is about how the merged world worked, as best as I can tell from the bible. That, and the evidence, such as how we see massive amounts of magma, that did cool.[/quote:69d79]

cite?

The reason it worked differently is that the universe was in a different state, I maintain. That seems to be what the bible is talking about, as well as in the future.

cite?

Now, if you claim that the past was the same, you need to back up that claim. If it is a bible claim, use the bible. If you claim it is a science claim, give us science. You can't. God was right all along.

The burden of proof does not lie on me to disprove your claim when you have given no evidence to support it. My absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Particularly when I have repeatedly claimed I am not going to spend my time searching geological articles to disprove your claim when you cannot be bothered to do the same in order to support it.

[quote:69d79]
This would be another good spot for one of those sources you cite.

I say science agrees with me, not oppose me and offered to show how if any raised any science they thought did oppose me. I have talked to many, and never yet seen a thing of that sort.[/quote:69d79]

Then show how it can withstand any scientific claim thrown against it, and cite your sources.

[quote:69d79]Another great spot for a source.

If you claim that various experiments and such do oppose me, where are they? I say none do. None of any you ever heard of or can name. ALL.[/quote:69d79]

The burden of proof lies on the accuser which is you, the author of this thread.

[quote:69d79]Prove this claim. ie cite

I said you could not prove a past that was the same as the present. Physical only. If you could, you would do so, you can't, that is my proof. You are living proof.[/quote:69d79]

I can't because I'm an architecture student, not a geologist or similiarly trained in this subject, and do not wish to waste my time on researching this subject for you. Regardless the burden of proof does not lie on me to falsify your claim it lies on you to prove your claim.

[quote:69d79]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 never made a claim that science evidenced what I say.[/quote:69d79]

Then what does; outside of your interpretation of the bible?

You do claim that. Yet that is false. I base my claim on the bible. And, as I say, I have not yet seen any evidence or science that was any problem.

And where did you look? Cite your sources.

Look at Gen 1, we see waters being seperated on a planetary scale from the land. This would produce heat today that would kill any life created a few days later, no? This means we are talking a different past.

Nice claim, now back it up with more than your understanding of the bible. Provide evidence and proof that this is indeed what occurred and cite that.

[quote:69d79]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?

Rewriting creation?
I don't do that at all. I believe in the six day creation of the bible by God. No need to rewrite that.[/quote:69d79]

You said that the fundamental laws of the universe were different back then. That relativity was changed, the properties of matter were altered. Yes, you are claiming that all of creation was re-written.

[quote:69d79]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.

No, if there was no decay, where would studying decay come in???? If you claim I misinterpret, show the proper interpretation. Also, if light and matter were fundamentally different, why would I study how fast it moves now?[/quote:69d79]

I cannot because I don't have the hubris to claim dominion over God's thoughts and acts. I could give you my interpretation of the bible, but that is all. Oh and the reason I put carbon decay in there was because I was quoting your list verbatim. Mind commenting on the principle of the question?

[quote:69d79]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.

I think it is likely he would not want his concept applied against God and the bible. Falsely, I might add, since as I showed, the temporary state we are now in is the simplest answer by a long shot.[/quote:69d79]

It is not being applied against God and the Bible it is being applied against you and your interpretation of His word. Nice sidestep though.

 

[dad]

The burden of proof lies on you, you are the author of this thread and the one who made a claim about the past existing in a different state. You are the one who has to support that claim with proof.

My claim was that the bible indicates that the past was different, where magma cooled, for example slowly. I also claim that your claim of a past the same as the present is baseless, and not a science claim at all. That I can back up. The bible is easy, if you want to stir it up on that area. And you glaring inability to prove to us this past that was the same upon which all old age claims rest is evidence as we speak you have a bogus claim.




[quote:3ca6e]cite?

You never heard of lots of cooled molten rock? Soeone fill him in. Look at the decca flats in India, and all kinds of places in the world we see even mountains made largely of magma. Feel it if you like, it is cool. (most places)

cite?

One example of a different future is this heavens will pass away. How different is that!? If we look to the past, ans example would be living for a thousand years almost. Or even forever as Adam would have. Could we do that now? Would the present earth even last forever to live on? No. Now you do come citing.

The burden of proof does not lie on me to disprove your claim when you have given no evidence to support it.

It lies on you if you claim a past that was the same as a science claim. Quit squirming, you can't do it!!! So stop basing claims on ot. I do not rest on a mere present science claim, but on God's own word for it.

My absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Let me guess, it is presence of evidence we just can't see cause a pink unicorn ate it? It does not exist, that is all that matters!

Particularly when I have repeatedly claimed I am not going to spend my time searching geological articles to disprove your claim when you cannot be bothered to do the same in order to support it.

I told you no articles in the worls will help you there. Geology simply assumes the present is the key to the past. Nothing more. No science for it. No need to search, it just ain't there.

Then show how it can withstand any scientific claim thrown against it, and cite your sources.

Better still, throw some science against it if you can!!!! You can't, and what is worse is you are in denial it seems!

I can't because I'm an architecture student, not a geologist or similiarly trained in this subject, and do not wish to waste my time on researching this subject for you. Regardless the burden of proof does not lie on me to falsify your claim it lies on you to prove your claim.

My claim is a bible claim. Get off this geology stuff. They got nothing. Where you waste your time is beliving the old agers has something. I kid you not.

Then what does; outside of your interpretation of the bible?

What does evidence the same past? Not science. So, rather than the nothing old agers have I use the something God gave us to go where science cannot. Out of the limits of the fishbowl.

And where did you look? Cite your sources.

I looked at cosmology, geology, and physics, and many other areas of science that people who have spent untold years studying, told me about. This over a period of some years. I have talked to many scientists, and experts in various fields. None can begin to evidence the past as the same as now, rateher than how the bible seems to have a different one.

Nice claim, now back it up with more than your understanding of the bible. Provide evidence and proof that this is indeed what occurred and cite that.

Science can't do that. But it does speak of a time when there was a big continent, and it seperated.

You said that the fundamental laws of the universe were different back then. That relativity was changed, the properties of matter were altered. Yes, you are claiming that all of creation was re-written.

Creation usually invokes a picture of God creating in creation week to me. Hence the term creationist. If you claim that this universe will not pass away prove it. Or if you say it was the same, physical only decaying state it now is in, show us why. Otherwise don't claim it.
See, science cannot do that, for you, for me.

I cannot because I don't have the hubris to claim dominion over God's thoughts and acts. I could give you my interpretation of the bible, but that is all. Oh and the reason I put carbon decay in there was because I was quoting your list verbatim. Mind commenting on the principle of the question?

[/quote:3ca6e]
OK, there will be science in heaven. It will not be about this passed away (by then) universe, or it's extinct laws.

 

[Slevin]

My claim was that the bible indicates that the past was different, where magma cooled, for example slowly. I also claim that your claim of a past the same as the present is baseless, and not a science claim at all. That I can back up. The bible is easy, if you want to stir it up on that area. And you glaring inability to prove to us this past that was the same upon which all old age claims rest is evidence as we speak you have a bogus claim.

Dad's claim:

1. The bible indicates the past was different.
2. The claim that the past is the same as the present is baseless.

My questions:

1. What passages indicate this?
2. How is it baseless? How is it not science?
3. At what point are you asserting that science dictates everything in the past was the same? 10 billion years ago? 13.7 billion years ago?
4. What do you mean by everything?

 

[dad]

Dad's claim:

1. The bible indicates the past was different.
2. The claim that the past is the same as the present is baseless.

My questions:

1. What passages indicate this?

Many do. Living near a thousand years, for example, is different. Adam could have lived forever that is different. Water above the earth also. Fountains of the deep as well. Planting trees that grew in days as God did planting the garden for another. Seperating on a planetary level, the waters from the land without the heat that now would be produced, for another thing. It is a big topic.

2. How is it baseless? How is it not science?

If it is, show us how the past was physical only?

3. At what point are you asserting that science dictates everything in the past was the same?

4400 years ago when the seperation of the spiritual from the physical happened. Beyond that it was not the same. Science assumes it was. It assumes there was decay. It assumes that matter was in more or less the same state. But no science can prove it.

4. What do you mean by everything?

Everything in the future or past will be different like light, no decay, the state of matter, etc.

 

[moniker]

2. How is it baseless? How is it not science?

If it is, show us how the past was physical only?

Again, the burden of proof lies on you to prove your claim, not on others to disprove it. I don't see how this is so difficult to understand. You have to prove that the past was not the same as the present in such fundamental ways, everyone else does not have to prove that it was the same (at least not until you provide some form of evidence to support your claim); otherwise you are committing a logical fallacy.

 

[Slevin]

Many do. Living near a thousand years, for example, is different. Adam could have lived forever that is different. Water above the earth also. Fountains of the deep as well. Planting trees that grew in days as God did planting the garden for another. Seperating on a planetary level, the waters from the land without the heat that now would be produced, for another thing. It is a big topic.

How is that different? How do you know it's impossible now for us to live for a thousand years? Where does the bible indicate that there was water above the earth? Fountains of the deep, do you know what those are? Separating on a planetary level? Where is that indicated in the Bible?

God is god, he doesn't have to plant trees that grow in a few days.

[quote:4a88b]2. How is it baseless? How is it not science?

If it is, show us how the past was physical only?

I'm not claiming it isn't baseless or that it is science. I'm asking you why you think it is baseless and not science.

4400 years ago when the seperation of the spiritual from the physical happened. Beyond that it was not the same. Science assumes it was. It assumes there was decay. It assumes that matter was in more or less the same state. But no science can prove it.

Where did you get the number 4400 from?

Everything in the future or past will be different like light, no decay, the state of matter, etc.

[/quote:4a88b]

What do you mean by everything? How do you know this? Where's your evidence, biblical or otherwise?

 

[Barbarian]

Can you explain how all the laws of physics having to be changed is a simpler explanation than Genesis being a metaphorical work designed by God to communicate certain basic, philosophical truths?

Because admitting it would require YE creationists to accept God's word as it is. And that woul mean a drastic revision of their beliefs.

Compared to the pain that would involve, inventing an unscriptural revision of the entire universe would be inconsequential.

 

[dad]

Again, the burden of proof lies on you to prove your claim, not on others to disprove it. I don't see how this is so difficult to understand.

Apparently, you do. The scientific proof is needed for the scientific claim, got that so far? Now, old agers base all things on the present, assuming the past is like that. I ask you to support that so called scientific claim you make. And that you must do, unless you no longer claim it.

I deduce from the bible as well as looking at the evidence that the past and future must be different for the bible to be true. All I need to do is see if my bible claim also fits the evidence we have. It does! Therefore my bible case is supported, and I bore the burden of the claim, which is not a science claim. Yours is, and your burden is to prove your so called science case!!!

[quote:556ad]You have to prove that the past was not the same as the present in such fundamental ways, ..

[/quote:556ad]
Since my claim is biblical, I do support it with the bible. It also fits the evidence as well as old age offerings.

 

[dad]

How is that different? How do you know it's impossible now for us to live for a thousand years?

Just look around, and see the numbers! It is elementary. Average lifespans now are well known. I assure you, not 9 centuries and change. This is news?

[quote:2885d]Where does the bible indicate that there was water above the earth?

Ge 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Ge 7:11 - In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Fountains of the deep, do you know what those are?

Were, you mean, they came up in the flood. They were waters under the earth.

Separating on a planetary level? Where is that indicated in the Bible?

In other words, planet earth had massive seperation of water from land.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Look at the evidence, we know there was a big supercontinent in the past. No joke, this.

God is god, he doesn't have to plant trees that grow in a few days.

But He planted the garden of Eden. That we know. Man and beast were created days after the plants, and we were vegetarians, just connect the dots here.

I'm not claiming it isn't baseless or that it is science. I'm asking you why you think it is baseless and not science.

Because I have given many many real educated people, and scientists and geologists, etc. - ample opportunity to try to show any evidence the past was physical only as the present, in decay, etc. and they fell flat as a flounder. Every angle was shown to be baseless, from cosmological claims, to geology. If you doubt it, try and show us here how the past and future will be the same.

Where did you get the number 4400 from?

100 years or so after the flood, in the days of Peleg, when the earth was divided!

What do you mean by everything? How do you know this? Where's your evidence, biblical or otherwise?

[/quote:2885d]
The sun, and stars will last forever in the new earth, as will we. This means they will not be in the present physical only state.

 

[dad]

Because admitting it would require YE creationists to accept God's word as it is. And that woul mean a drastic revision of their beliefs.

There is nothing to admit, your claim that the past was the same is baseless! I kid you not. If you doubt it, then prove it. You really can't. All this time the bible and God were right as right can be!

[quote:ec31d]Compared to the pain that would involve, inventing an unscriptural revision of the entire universe would be inconsequential.

[/quote:ec31d]
There will be no pain or death in the new heavens the bible says are coming, as these temporary ones pass away forever! Fishbowl wisemen are no longer very impressive at all!!!!

 

[Slevin]

Just look around, and see the numbers! It is elementary. Average lifespans now are well known. I assure you, not 9 centuries and change. This is news?

So? That doesn't mean it's impossible for us to currently live 1000 years. Telling me to just look around and see the numbers isn't proving anything.

Ge 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Ge 7:11 - In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Yea, so that's a sky with clouds. Guess what clouds are? Rain! Guess what the firmament is? The sky!

Were, you mean, they came up in the flood. They were waters under the earth.

You mean underground springs? Those still exist today, dad....how is that amazing?

In other words, planet earth had massive seperation of water from land.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Look at the evidence, we know there was a big supercontinent in the past. No joke, this.

You're talking about God making the oceans and seas....those still exist today, and they are gathered together in one place! Look at a map...where does the sea break up anywhere? The continents are just gigantic islands.

How do we know there was a big supercontinent in the past? What evidence?

But He planted the garden of Eden. That we know. Man and beast were created days after the plants, and we were vegetarians, just connect the dots here.

So? He planted a garden. We were created days after plants, we were vegetarians....how does this support your claim?

Because I have given many many real educated people, and scientists and geologists, etc. - ample opportunity to try to show any evidence the past was physical only as the present, in decay, etc.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Science has only ever dealt with the physical aspects of the universe. Are you denying that the spiritual exists now? Are you saying that nothing spiritual can exist in this universe? How is that biblical at all? Where is your biblical evidence that there was a merged world and now a split world?

and they fell flat as a flounder. Every angle was shown to be baseless, from cosmological claims, to geology. If you doubt it, try and show us here how the past and future will be the same.

The past is never the same as the present, that's why we call it the past...you're making no sense. Science only makes predictions regarding future events, it doesn't claim anything as proven or fact.

100 years or so after the flood, in the days of Peleg, when the earth was divided!

What are you talking about? What scripture is this?

The sun, and stars will last forever in the new earth, as will we. This means they will not be in the present physical only state.

How do you know they will not be in the present physical only state? How do you know that they aren't partly spiritual now? Are you saying God doesn't make stars and planets and the universe?

 

[Barbarian]

There is nothing to admit, your claim that the past was the same is baseless!

So far, all the evidence verifies that the same fundamental laws have always been the same.

I kid you not. If you doubt it, then prove it.

Prove there aren't orange leprechauns hiding in your attic. All that matters to science is that the evidence supports the theory. And it does.

All this time the bible and God were right as right can be!

True. You just aren't very happy about it.

Barbarian on why YE was invented:
Compared to the pain that would involve, inventing an unscriptural revision of the entire universe would be inconsequential.

There will be no pain or death in the new heavens the bible says are coming, as these temporary ones pass away forever!

True. But it doesn't change reality.

Fishbowl wisemen are no longer very impressive at all!!!!

YEs are very reluctant to look outside their fishbowl. Because the way the universe manifest's God's glory is a little scary for them.

 

[dad]

[quote="Slevin"
So? That doesn't mean it's impossible for us to currently live 1000 years. Telling me to just look around and see the numbers isn't proving anything.

What is impossible is not important, here. What was normal, in the earth, is.

Yea, so that's a sky with clouds. Guess what clouds are? Rain! Guess what the firmament is? The sky!

No, that is you saying it was like the present. Where are the clouds in Eden? Where does it say the waters above the firmament were in clouds? Ridiculous.

You mean underground springs? Those still exist today, dad....how is that amazing?

No, more like underground seas, how is that not amazing?

You're talking about God making the oceans and seas....those still exist today, and they are gathered together in one place! Look at a map...where does the sea break up anywhere? The continents are just gigantic islands.

But they were together. Surely you know that much? Therefore, at creation, the land that was seperated had to be that supercontinent.

How do we know there was a big supercontinent in the past? What evidence?

That is science, there are fossils and all kinds of evidence that show the continents were together. You kidding?

So? He planted a garden. We were created days after plants, we were vegetarians....how does this support your claim?

We ate fruit from trees that were planted a couple days before we ate it. Thats how.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Science has only ever dealt with the physical aspects of the universe. Are you denying that the spiritual exists now? Are you saying that nothing spiritual can exist in this universe? How is that biblical at all? Where is your biblical evidence that there was a merged world and now a split world?

The spiritual exists, of course, but is seperate at the moment. That is why science cannot detect it. This physical only temporary universe is all pitiful science can deal with. Angels are all around us. But the spirit world is seperate, so we can't see them unless they wish to be seen.

The past is never the same as the present, that's why we call it the past...you're making no sense. Science only makes predictions regarding future events, it doesn't claim anything as proven or fact.

The past was spiritual and physical, with no decay, and a different light, perhaps no gravity as we know it, and much more. That is the kind of doifferences we are talking here. Science looking at decaying rocks, and assuming it always did and will decay is assuming it was the same.


What are you talking about? What scripture is this?

Ge 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided;

Now it is a bit of a mystery, the full meaning of this. There are a few main interpretaions. But they all are a part of the split, dividing tonges, and continents, etc.

How do you know they will not be in the present physical only state? How do you know that they aren't partly spiritual now?

Look at supernovae. We know things like the sun would burn out over time the way they are now. That is not eternal. The new heavens eternal state is different.

Are you saying God doesn't make stars and planets and the universe

No, I am saying the future, and original state of the universe was different than we see now. The state of matter, light, and everything. What we have now is a part of the picture. The physical only, temporary part. WE can't even see that earth is the center of the universe in this state!

 

[dad]

So far, all the evidence verifies that the same fundamental laws have always been the same.

[quote:666bc]I kid you not. If you doubt it, then prove it.

Great. Now kindly show us the evidence for your claim.

Prove there aren't orange leprechauns hiding in your attic. All that matters to science is that the evidence supports the theory. And it does.

There might as well be, as a past that was as you also claim. The proof is the same. Zip.

True. You just aren't very happy about it.

I am happy the bible was right.

True. But it doesn't change reality.

The reality of the present is not changed by a different reality of the future and past, no. This I thought would have been obvious, you say it like it is a revelation.

YEs are very reluctant to look outside their fishbowl. Because the way the universe manifest's God's glory is a little scary for them.

[/quote:666bc]
Don't worry about it! Science can't look outside the temporary universe we live in. No worries there.

 

[Barbarian]

So far, all the evidence verifies that the same fundamental laws have always been the same.

Attributed to Barbarian:
I kid you not. If you doubt it, then prove it.
(actuallyi Dad wrote this, and apparently forgot)

Great. Now kindly show us the evidence for your claim.

Sure. We can look at starlight from very ancient and distant stars. The light tells us what was going on in tnose stars billions of years ago. Same things going on now.

We can look at the fossils of ancient creatures and see that they lived by the same processes that go on now, and that they physical forces were then the same.

A lot more like that. we have evidence for the constancy of universal laws, but not a shred of evidence for them changing.

Barbarian chuckles:
Prove there aren't orange leprechauns hiding in your attic. All that matters to science is that the evidence supports the theory. And it does.

[quote:6f9de]There might as well be, as a past that was as you also claim. The proof is the same. Zip.

See above. You've been misled.

All this time the bible and God were right as right can be!

Barbarian chuckles:
True. You just aren't very happy about it.

I am happy the bible was right.

You aren't even willing to accept what it says.

Barbarian observes:
YEs are very reluctant to look outside their fishbowl. Because the way the universe manifest's God's glory is a little scary for them.

Don't worry about it! Science can't look outside the temporary universe we live in.

[/quote:6f9de]

True. But you could, if you wouild accept His creation as it is.

 

[dad]

So far, all the evidence verifies that the same fundamental laws have always been the same.

Attributed to Barbarian:
I kid you not. If you doubt it, then prove it.
(actuallyi Dad wrote this, and apparently forgot)

Great. Now kindly show us the evidence for your claim.

Right, show us if there is any.

Sure. We can look at starlight from very ancient and distant stars. The light tells us what was going on in tnose stars billions of years ago. Same things going on now.

Utterly false! The assumption they are old is absolute, pure, uncut belief. They are far away, yes, and the present light would take billions of years to get here from there now, yes. That means NOTHING. It was not this present light, or even this present state of the universe.
The former light got here in days or even hours, or such. Adam saw the stars.
Now, if you think you have an ace up your sleeve, ready to pull out, about how stars, and supernovae decaying and reacting just like our sun, etc, forget about it. That shows nothing, except that, as I say, the whole universe is now in the PO temporary state. Why wouldn't it behave like it?
The simple problem to overcome in that line of reasoning is to get the light here, that is slow, and PO, faster than it cam travel. That is easy!!!! We simply have between there and here space and light that is still merged, so the PO explosion or event gets whiked along the merged light superhighway well on it's way to earth -before the seperation process was complete. Then it was also left, like the rest of the universe, as our PO universe light.

We can look at the fossils of ancient creatures and see that they lived by the same processes that go on now, and that they physical forces were then the same.

Of course we ate, and died, and lived, etc. But what about the fossil do you claim shows us light was the same? Or gravity? Or lifespans, or the rate of evolution? Or that the rocks it crawled on were in decay as they now are? Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.??? NOTHING! That's what!

A lot more like that. we have evidence for the constancy of universal laws, but not a shred of evidence for them changing.

Great, then show us, I wait ever so patiently. I can tell you, however, you do not, and never will have any such evidence!

You aren't even willing to accept what it says.

??? What are you claiming the bible says I don't accept now? Try putting some meat on the plate, rather than serving it up empty.

True. But you could, if you wouild accept His creation as it is.

I think by this, you mean I should accept this temporary heavens that will pass away as being 'the creation'??? You must be kidding. WE are a part of it, yes, but there is a spiritual as well, and when they are together everything is different. WE don't die, and the universe does not decay, etc.

 

[Barbarian]

Right, show us if there is any.

Barbarian observes:
Sure. We can look at starlight from very ancient and distant stars. The light tells us what was going on in tnose stars billions of years ago. Same things going on now.

Utterly false!

Demonstrably true. We can tell what elements are forming, the processes going on in the stars, and many other things. Would you like to learn how we know?

The assumption they are old is absolute, pure, uncut belief.

Nope. Someone's abused your trust on that one. You see, the radiation from the stars gives us spectral lines that can show us what they are made of. The spectrum of electromagnetic radiation also tells us much of what goes on inside a star. And since the light from distant stars shows us how they were millions of years ago, we can compare them to closer stars, the radiation of which is closer to our time. And the laws involved are the same. So we know, by the evidence. I am always surprised that YEs have so little regard for faith as to make it an insult.

They are far away, yes, and the present light would take billions of years to get here from there now, yes. That means NOTHING. It was not this present light, or even this present state of the universe.

I know you want us to believe that. But you have no evidence whatever for it. Nor is it scriptural. You invented it to make the Bible more acceptable to you.

The former light got here in days or even hours, or such. Adam saw the stars.

Same problem. It's purely an invention of your imagination, contrary to Scripture and the evidence.

Now, if you think you have an ace up your sleeve, ready to pull out, about how stars, and supernovae decaying and reacting just like our sun, etc, forget about it. That shows nothing, except that, as I say, the whole universe is now in the PO temporary state.

If so, it's been there since the beginning. The evidence very clearly shows this is true.

The simple problem to overcome in that line of reasoning is to get the light here, that is slow, and PO, faster than it cam travel. That is easy!!!! We simply have between there and here space and light that is still merged, so the PO explosion or event gets whiked along the merged light superhighway well on it's way to earth -before the seperation process was complete. Then it was also left, like the rest of the universe, as our PO universe light.

When you can pull unscriptural miracles out of thin air, anything is possible. But when you confine yourself to what the Bible says, and what the evidence is, your new doctrine falls apart.

Barbarian observes:
We can look at the fossils of ancient creatures and see that they lived by the same processes that go on now, and that they physical forces were then the same.

Of course we ate, and died, and lived, etc. But what about the fossil do you claim shows us light was the same?

Trilobites. The lenses of their eyes are properly curved so as to use light as it is and always has been. If light was different, the lenses would be different. Would you like to learn why?

Or gravity?

Structural and gait analysis of dinosaurs. The relationship beteen speed and gait in a walking animal is determined by Froud numbers, which essentially treats the leg as a pendulum, which is dependent only on lenght and gravity. And the tracks of the dinosaurs show gravity was indeed as it is today.

Or lifespans,

Lifespans are not physical laws.

or the rate of evolution?

There is not a single rate of evolution. It depends on the fitness of the organism, and the degree of selective pressure.

Or that the rocks it crawled on were in decay as they now are?

Measurable by radioisotope dating. Recently, it was used to test the date for the erupted matieral that buried Pompeii, and it worked, so we know it's accurate.

NOTHING! That's what!

What youi don't know can hurt you, and just did.

Barbarian observes:
A lot more like that. we have evidence for the constancy of universal laws, but not a shred of evidence for them changing.

Great, then show us, I wait ever so patiently. I can tell you, however, you do not, and never will have any such evidence!

I understand your denial. But even you must surely see now that it's pointless.

Barbarian on Scripture:
You aren't even willing to accept what it says.

??? What are you claiming the bible says I don't accept now?

For one thing, you felt it necessary to invent all the unscriptural nonsense to make the Bible acceptable to you.

Barbarian observes:
But you could, if you wouild accept His creation as it is.

I think by this, you mean I should accept this temporary heavens that will pass away as being 'the creation'???

I think you should stop making up and inserting your own ideas into scripture.

 

[dad]

Demonstrably true. We can tell what elements are forming, the processes going on in the stars, and many other things. Would you like to learn how we know?

You missed what I was saying. I know all that. As I said, the whole universe now is physical only. That is expected. Maybe you ought to go back and reread what you think you are responding to here.

Nope. Someone's abused your trust on that one. You see, the radiation from the stars gives us spectral lines that can show us what they are made of. The spectrum of electromagnetic radiation also tells us much of what goes on inside a star. And since the light from distant stars shows us how they were millions of years ago, we can compare them to closer stars, the radiation of which is closer to our time. And the laws involved are the same. So we know, by the evidence. I am always surprised that YEs have so little regard for faith as to make it an insult.

No, you missed the point, and are way off there. Again, I know all that. What you do not know is that it was different in the past and will be again in the future. As I tried to explain, the split process that seperated the physical from the spiritual may have had some areas that were split before others. The still merged light brought towards earth the already ( now PO) light from supernova, or stars so as that it got well on it's way here before it was also split, leaving it also PO. This means that the information that was relayed in the still merged light, was from an explosion, or star that already was seperated, and in the PO state.

I know you want us to believe that. But you have no evidence whatever for it. Nor is it scriptural.

There is every bit as much evidence for this as for the different past as the same past. As for scripture, rather than make silly empty comments, if anything is unscriptural, show us how. You are wrong.

You invented it to make the Bible more acceptable to you.

No, the bible was already acceptable, and I simply read what it said the future will be like, and the past was like. Then I looked at the real evidence we do have. Not pld age past wet dreams.

If so, it's been there since the beginning. The evidence very clearly shows this is true.

Not a speck, not a shred does that. As I demonstrate with anything you bring up!

When you can pull unscriptural miracles out of thin air, anything is possible.

I point out the natural state of the past, which is no miracle, except in the sense that He is the creator. It only seems a miracle to you, whose imagination of the past has it as the present.

But when you confine yourself to what the Bible says, and what the evidence is, your new doctrine falls apart.

No, because that is basically what I do. Of that, these ideas are born, not killed.

Barbarian observes:
We can look at the fossils of ancient creatures and see that they lived by the same processes that go on now, and that they physical forces were then the same.

Only in your head!!!! At least if we are talking more than 4400 years or so ago. If you claim otherwise, show us an example here and now.

Trilobites. The lenses of their eyes are properly curved so as to use light as it is and always has been. If light was different, the lenses would be different. Would you like to learn why?

Yes. What about the curvature of the trilobite eye says that light was exactly the same? You are funny.

Structural and gait analysis of dinosaurs. The relationship beteen speed and gait in a walking animal is determined by Froud numbers, which essentially treats the leg as a pendulum, which is dependent only on lenght and gravity. And the tracks of the dinosaurs show gravity was indeed as it is today.

I disagree. I say there are many assumptions involved there. Like usual, it is present based thought. Let's face it, the rules of scaling there are based on things present.

Lifespans are not physical laws.

So what? They are something different in the past that was a result of different laws!

There is not a single rate of evolution. It depends on the fitness of the organism, and the degree of selective pressure.

This is misleading. ALL evolution now is more or less at a snails pace compared to what I am talking about. Just as the continental spread is at a snail's pace.

Measurable by radioisotope dating. Recently, it was used to test the date for the erupted matieral that buried Pompeii, and it worked, so we know it's accurate.

When was POmpeii? Of course it is pretty accurate up to a point. But totally absolutely, completely erroneous after that. See, I say there was no decay past that time of the split.

I understand your denial. But even you must surely see now that it's pointless.

Hopefully, you now are beginning to realize the unthinkable is upon you. You are wrong on all fronts, and the old age house is built on the sands, not the rock.

For one thing, you felt it necessary to invent all the unscriptural nonsense to make the Bible acceptable to you.

Again, you are saying nothing here. Seems to be a habit with you. If you can't give a ferinstance, don't make the false claims.

I think you should stop making up and inserting your own ideas into scripture.

Like,..... where is that again? Why would I let you fabalize the truth of the bible? Your ideas seem to consist of claiming the bible is tripe. What we have there is an inversion of the truth!

 

[Nooj]

Got any non-biblical evidence for this split?