[_ Old Earth _] Gen 1 Defies Physics Laws

[DD_8630]

Absolute nonsense. The scientific consensus is that the physical laws have remained unchanged.

Not based on evidence,

Actually, all the evidence in the world suggests a uniformitarian universe: we have never observed a change in the physical laws, so it is irrational to assume otherwise. And in any case, we stick to the simpler of the two options: static laws over fluid laws, unless evidenced otherwise.

and they have no idea when the present state of the universe came to be anyhow!

About 12-13 billion years ago, give or take.

They simply use present based assumptions to imagine.

Naturally. If we assumed otherwise, we wouldn't be able to get anywhere.

Indeed, if they did change in some arbitrary way, what are the odds that this change is such that, to the Post-Split universe, no change has occurs?

The post split universe only knows the post split universe. If the whole thing was left in this state, then NO CHANCE is involved.

You miss my point. When we look at the world around us, there is no change in historical relics indicating some change in the physical laws. We look at ice cores, and see that the orientation of iron fragments point to a different pole every few hundred thousand years, and we deduce from this (and other things) that the magnetic field of the Earth oscillates every few hundred thousand years. There is no change since the formation of the Earth that suggests a change in the physical laws.

The very fact that we can explain pretty much everything from the first few plank seconds up to the present day using just one set of physical laws also kinda impinges on your hypothesis.

Either you are advocating a greater improbability than the null hypothesis, or contend that there is a / ar) sufficiently powerful intelligence(s) actively trying to decieve us fleshy humans. Which is it?

Neither.

Then explain this most improbable of coincidences.

But you seem to believe in higher intelligence from your avatar, no?

I believe in deities, but I am undecided on whether they are of a 'higher' intelligence than myself, or anyone else.

Isn't that an occult star, with two sides pointed down?

Correct. It is the pentacle, a sign of my Wiccan faith.

dad, we stand by the null hypothesis: nothingness is by default more probable than somethingness, static is by default more probable than dynamic, linearity is by default more probable than non-linearity. It is up to the opposition to demonstrate that evidence exists which changes these probabilities.

You base probabilities on current laws, state of our universe. Therefore it is meaningless beyond those limits.

I base them on nothing of our universe. The null hypothesis is a logic principle, and as such is not affected by any change in the physical laws.

However, all you can do is highlight the remote possibility of some arbitrary change in the laws of physics at some arbitrary point in time that just so happens to fit your preconception about how the universe should have been before said point.

No, not in any way is that close to being right. I do not see any change in physics. Physics are laws of the present state of the physical universe we live in. The eternal state, or created state includes the spiritual and physical together, and not mere physical laws.

We disagree on terminology:
The laws of a particular system are the laws that describe the mechanics of that system.
The physical laws describe 'everything' (in your cosmology, the 'eternal state'), and it is the goal of Physics to discover these laws.

But if you are calling the 'physical laws' the laws that govern our post-split universe, then no, they haven't changed (under your cosmology, at least). Nevertheless, the 'S&P' universe experianced a change in the physical laws insofar as the universes after the split have different laws than the universe before.

In any case, my point stands: you can do nothing more than highlight this most improbable of events. You have given us no reason to even consider it.

Also, you have yet to explain what you mean by the 'physical' and 'spiritual' universes, and how such a split can possibly occur, or indeed why you think such a split occured.

Hello again, dad

You seem to have talked to me before? The only witch I remember was over at christian forums. (I forget the name he posted under at the moment)

Wiccan_Child? That would be me.

You can offer no justification for this assertion beyond your culture's religious beliefs that have been passed down verbatim to you.

Since science has no justification of claiming a same state universe,

1) It is the null hypothesis. In the absence of rationale to the contrary, logic dictates we assume static laws.
2) The universe looks exactly like a universe that was never once part of some 'physical + spiritual' state. There is thus far no reason to assume the otherwise.

Whatever you may think of the bible, it represents ancient records.

It is a set of documents dating to the Bronze-age, yes, but I daresay only the placenames are correct (we know Egypt existed, for instance, but there is no evidence supporting the existance of Eden).

It is claimed, that go all the way back to the actual creation.

The keyword there being 'claimed'. There is no evidence corroborating the Biblical account of Creation, the Flood, etc.

Records that were sacred to His called out people and incredibly well preserved.

No more so than the Vedic texts, which predate the Jewish Torah.

A far cry better than nothing, such as science has.

Science has empiracle data to support it. It looks at the universe, and sees no evidence that the current universe was once part of some ill-defined 'spiritual + physical' universe, or that this ill-defined 'spiritual' universe even exists.

 

[dad]

Actually, all the evidence in the world suggests a uniformitarian universe:

Actually, no, not at all is that remotely true, in fact it is grossly in error. Show us one piece of real evidence that does as you claim. Just one will do, no need to toss up a bunch of smoke.

we have never observed a change in the physical laws,

True, and laws have never changed through most of recorded history, so that is what we expect. The evidence mounts.

so it is irrational to assume otherwise. And in any case, we stick to the simpler of the two options: static laws over fluid laws, unless evidenced otherwise.

No, it is no less rational or more rational to assume a same past or different past, since science has no idea.

About 12-13 billion years ago, give or take.

No, that is based on setting the clocks to this temporary universe, and meaningless in the extreme to time in the far past unless we had a universe that was the same. You have no clue about that.

Naturally. If we assumed otherwise, we wouldn't be able to get anywhere.

You still can't get out of the fishbowl, save in your head.

You miss my point. When we look at the world around us, there is no change in historical relics indicating some change in the physical laws.

What relics precisely do you expect some change in? A jazz horn from the 30ies?

We look at ice cores, and see that the orientation of iron fragments point to a different pole every few hundred thousand years, and we deduce from this (and other things) that the magnetic field of the Earth oscillates every few hundred thousand years.

Well, we can look at things from a few hundred or thousand years ago, and know it was this observed universe. So??? That has what to do with the far past???

There is no change since the formation of the Earth that suggests a change in the physical laws.

Like you know. Get serious, that is absurd.

The very fact that we can explain pretty much everything from the first few plank seconds up to the present day using just one set of physical laws also kinda impinges on your hypothesis.

Not at all, any more than the tooth fairy steals my car. You have a dream world, based only on the present state.

Then explain this most improbable of coincidences.

I'd say your logic course was so called logic. That was easy.

But you seem to believe in higher intelligence from your avatar, no?

I believe in deities, but I am undecided on whether they are of a 'higher' intelligence than myself, or anyone else.

Correct. It is the pentacle, a sign of my Wiccan faith.

I thought so.

I base them on nothing of our universe. The null hypothesis is a logic principle, and as such is not affected by any change in the physical laws.

Null, and dull, and bull. So?

We disagree on terminology:
The laws of a particular system are the laws that describe the mechanics of that system.
The physical laws describe 'everything' (in your cosmology, the 'eternal state'), and it is the goal of Physics to discover these laws.

Well, that system, that was the created system, you only assume was our present sytem. Why dance around it?

But if you are calling the 'physical laws' the laws that govern our post-split universe, then no, they haven't changed (under your cosmology, at least). Nevertheless, the 'S&P' universe experianced a change in the physical laws insofar as the universes after the split have different laws than the universe before.

In any case, my point stands: you can do nothing more than highlight this most improbable of events. You have given us no reason to even consider it.

Also, you have yet to explain what you mean by the 'physical' and 'spiritual' universes, and how such a split can possibly occur, or indeed why you think such a split occured.

Wiccan_Child? That would be me.

Right, I remembered a little after I posted.

1) It is the null hypothesis. In the absence of rationale to the contrary, logic dictates we assume static laws.

Nonsense. That is null and void if the universe was different. You can assume whatever you want, don't call it science! You can call it your PO type of so called logic all you like! It is not proven, or provable, or observed, or tested, and is simply a silly little over dressed religious notion that this what the bible describes as temporary universe, is the be all end all! -Or "static" as you put it! Balderdash. Prove it.

2) The universe looks exactly like a universe that was never once part of some 'physical + spiritual' state. There is thus far no reason to assume the otherwise.

It also looks precisely like one that was!!!! Work on that.

It is a set of documents dating to the Bronze-age, yes, but I daresay only the placenames are correct (we know Egypt existed, for instance, but there is no evidence supporting the existance of Eden).

That is because it was not in this state universe. There is no evidence it didn't either. Egypt did exist, yes. It likely was post flood. They had to use picture words to communicate just as we would expect not that long after Babel. Dates are set by the PO clock, so are meaningless until a PO past is evidenced.

The keyword there being 'claimed'. There is no evidence corroborating the Biblical account of Creation, the Flood, etc.

If I am right, what present state evidence would you expect? The evidence mounts! As I read the evidence, I see a fossil record, that agrees with a different past, and Eden as the starting point for most life! I see past rapid evolution as evidence. I see the abject ignorance of cosmology in declaring most of our universe invisible stuff, just to try and explain in a PO way what we do see, as evidence!!! Everywhere in every field I look, like history, I see evidence! You offer a myth so beastly, that it has men as beasts! A creation alternative so absurd, that it stuffs the whole universe in a small soup, at one time smaller than a hair tip on your toe!

No more so than the Vedic texts, which predate the Jewish Torah.

I read how the Jewish scribes took extreme measures to make sure the record was accurate. Look it up.

Science has empiracle data to support it.

Only actual science in the present, for the present, and of the present state has that, your myth has nothing of the sort.

It looks at the universe, and sees no evidence that the current universe was once part of some ill-defined 'spiritual + physical' universe, or that this ill-defined 'spiritual' universe even exists.

It sees only what it's little eyes can see, and that is the fishbowl! It can't speak of anything else, because that is too high for it!

 

[DD_8630]

Actually, all the evidence in the world suggests a uniformitarian universe:

Actually, no, not at all is that remotely true, in fact it is grossly in error. Show us one piece of real evidence that does as you claim.

The correlation of independant dating methods: you can date something using a variety of methods, and get the same age. For example, the age of the Earth can be assessed using Uranium-Lead (useful because there are two checks: U235->Pb207 & U238->Pb206), Potassium-Argon, and Rubidium-Strontium radiometric dating.

Why is this evidence for uniformitarianism? Because if it were false, then dating something will either yeild a 'young' age, or wildly different 'old' ages (where 'old' is 'pre-split era').

we have never observed a change in the physical laws,

True, and laws have never changed through most of recorded history, so that is what we expect. The evidence mounts.

Of course the evidence mounts: you claim the laws are able to change, I claim they are not. When we look at the evidence, what do we see? A total absence of evidence of any change in the laws. It mounts, but not in your favour.

so it is irrational to assume otherwise. And in any case, we stick to the simpler of the two options: static laws over fluid laws, unless evidenced otherwise.

No, it is no less rational or more rational to assume a same past or different past, since science has no idea.

Nope. Science sticks with the null hypothesis until the evidence tells it otherwise. Static laws are more likely to be the reality than fluid laws, until evidence has been presented to the contrary. Where, then, is your evidence?

About 12-13 billion years ago, give or take.

No, that is based on setting the clocks to this temporary universe, and meaningless in the extreme to time in the far past unless we had a universe that was the same.

Hmm, no. By testing the ages of things using a variety of independant techniques, we can ascertain when this 'split' occured: it will be when the techniques suddenly yield wildly different results from each other. Guess what? This is ever observed.

You have no clue about that.

By presupposing your opponents ignorance, you merely show your own. Did you really think this was a helpful comment to make?

Naturally. If we assumed otherwise, we wouldn't be able to get anywhere.

You still can't get out of the fishbowl, save in your head.

You miss my point. When we look at the world around us, there is no change in historical relics indicating some change in the physical laws.

What relics precisely do you expect some change in? A jazz horn from the 30ies?

Meteorites, moons, planets, stars, even the universe itself. Old things, y'know?

We look at ice cores, and see that the orientation of iron fragments point to a different pole every few hundred thousand years, and we deduce from this (and other things) that the magnetic field of the Earth oscillates every few hundred thousand years.

Well, we can look at things from a few hundred or thousand years ago, and know it was this observed universe. So??? That has what to do with the far past???

The point is that there is no point in time before which our dating methods suddenly stop working, which is what we would expect if there was a change.

There is no change since the formation of the Earth that suggests a change in the physical laws.

Like you know.

The onus is on you to present evidence for your claim. I am simply sticking with the null hypothesis.

The very fact that we can explain pretty much everything from the first few plank seconds up to the present day using just one set of physical laws also kinda impinges on your hypothesis.

Not at all, any more than the tooth fairy steals my car. You have a dream world, based only on the present state.

This is no way refutes my point. Try again.

Then explain this most improbable of coincidences.

I'd say your logic course was so called logic. That was easy.

Not really: the sentence made no sense.

But you seem to believe in higher intelligence from your avatar, no?

I believe in deities, but I am undecided on whether they are of a 'higher' intelligence than myself, or anyone else.

[quote:32ed8]Correct. It is the pentacle, a sign of my Wiccan faith.

I thought so.[/quote:32ed8]
Right. Moving on then.

I base them on nothing of our universe. The null hypothesis is a logic principle, and as such is not affected by any change in the physical laws.

Null, and dull, and bull.

Ah, what a rigourous rebuttle. Care to justify this allegation?

So?

I'm explaining why, logically, we make the uniformitarian assumption and not your arbitrary 'split' hypothesis. Keep up, dad.

We disagree on terminology:
The laws of a particular system are the laws that describe the mechanics of that system.
The physical laws describe 'everything' (in your cosmology, the 'eternal state'), and it is the goal of Physics to discover these laws.

Well, that system, that was the created system, you only assume was our present sytem.

Indeed. And if that assumption was false, methods for dating the oldest of things would yield wildly different results. Guess what? They don't. The evidence mounts.

Why dance around it?

Because you have given us no evidence not to. Thus, we stick to the null hypothesis. Keep up.

But if you are calling the 'physical laws' the laws that govern our post-split universe, then no, they haven't changed (under your cosmology, at least). Nevertheless, the 'S&P' universe experianced a change in the physical laws insofar as the universes after the split have different laws than the universe before.

In any case, my point stands: you can do nothing more than highlight this most improbable of events. You have given us no reason to even consider it.

Also, you have yet to explain what you mean by the 'physical' and 'spiritual' universes, and how such a split can possibly occur, or indeed why you think such a split occured.

You kinda skipped these parts. I'd like you to answer them, please.

Wiccan_Child? That would be me.

Right, I remembered a little after I posted.
[quote:32ed8]
1) It is the null hypothesis. In the absence of rationale to the contrary, logic dictates we assume static laws.

Nonsense. That is null and void if the universe was different. You can assume whatever you want, don't call it science! You can call it your PO type of so called logic all you like! It is not proven, or provable, or observed, or tested, and is simply a silly little over dressed religious notion that this what the bible describes as temporary universe, is the be all end all! -Or "static" as you put it! Balderdash. Prove it.[/quote:32ed8]
I don't need to. Everything works perfectly under the uniformitarian assumption, which is exactly what we'd expect if it were true (and not what we'd expect if it were false). It is up to you to justify your bizarre 'split' hypothesis.

2) The universe looks exactly like a universe that was never once part of some 'physical + spiritual' state. There is thus far no reason to assume the otherwise.

It also looks precisely like one that was!!!! Work on that.

Oh really? Show me evidence of this 'split' then.

It is a set of documents dating to the Bronze-age, yes, but I daresay only the placenames are correct (we know Egypt existed, for instance, but there is no evidence supporting the existance of Eden).

That is because it was not in this state universe.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence for it.

There is no evidence it didn't either.

What an absurd argument. There is no evidence for the chocolate teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter. Do you therefore believe in the teapot, too?

Egypt did exist, yes. It likely was post flood.

Since Egyptian civilisation goes back as far as 5000BCE, that would place the Flood at less than 5000BCE, yes? Already you mar the standard YEC timeline. Tut tut.
Tell me, when do you believe the Flood to have occured, and why?

They had to use picture words to communicate just as we would expect not that long after Babel.

Unlike the Mesopotamian phonetic writing system in the 4th millenium BCE. Babel, as everything else in your cosmology, runs contrary to the evidence.

Dates are set by the PO clock, so are meaningless until a PO past is evidenced.

The results garnered under the assumption evidences the assumption. Keep up.

The keyword there being 'claimed'. There is no evidence corroborating the Biblical account of Creation, the Flood, etc.

If I am right, what present state evidence would you expect?

I would expect evidence of a global Flood, for one thing. Oddly enough, there is none.

The evidence mounts!

You have presented no evidence. Try again.

As I read the evidence, I see a fossil record, that agrees with a different past,

Do explain this point. How does the fossil record agree with your split hypothesis?

and Eden as the starting point for most life!

Nonsense, it's clearly the Sasquatch.

I see past rapid evolution as evidence.

Since there is no evidence of some past rapid evolution (I challenge you to present some), your point is moot.

I see the abject ignorance of cosmology in declaring most of our universe invisible stuff, just to try and explain in a PO way what we do see, as evidence!!!

Dark matter has been shown to exist. Try again.

Everywhere in every field I look, like history, I see evidence!

Please, present all the evidence you have.

You offer a myth so beastly, that it has men as beasts!

So? Your personal beliefs don't affect the truth.

A creation alternative so absurd, that it stuffs the whole universe in a small soup, at one time smaller than a hair tip on your toe!

So? You need to change the very laws of nature to make your a priori worldview pheasable.

No more so than the Vedic texts, which predate the Jewish Torah.

I read how the Jewish scribes took extreme measures to make sure the record was accurate. Look it up.

How can I? You have given my nothing to look up. What is your source?

Science has empiracle data to support it.

Only actual science in the present, for the present, and of the present state has that, your myth has nothing of the sort.

Do you really mean to assume that nothing from the past exists in the present?

It looks at the universe, and sees no evidence that the current universe was once part of some ill-defined 'spiritual + physical' universe, or that this ill-defined 'spiritual' universe even exists.

It sees only what it's little eyes can see, and that is the fishbowl! It can't speak of anything else, because that is too high for it!

Not too high for you, though. Somehow, you've seen through the fishbowl! Did you see Great Cthulhu?

 

[dad]

The correlation of independant dating methods:

--..Are ALL correlated to the same past myth. So????

you can date something using a variety of methods, and get the same age.

Right, and the age is a young earth age! If you refer to how the same past myth ALSO can do that, well, they set the clock to the present, so naturally, all their clocks are set to PO nature time. So??

For example, the age of the Earth can be assessed using Uranium-Lead (useful because there are two checks: U235->Pb207 & U238->Pb206), Potassium-Argon, and Rubidium-Strontium radiometric dating.

Right. Thanks. In other words, the clock of present state decay is used to imagine a same state decay in the unknown past. So???

Why is this evidence for uniformitarianism? Because if it were false, then dating something will either yeild a 'young' age, or wildly different 'old' ages (where 'old' is 'pre-split era').

In no way is that close to anything but pagan darkness and myths. Reading the patterns of materials now in a state of decay, as if they always were is bound to yield similar silly imaginary dates. Think about it.

Of course the evidence mounts: you claim the laws are able to change, I claim they are not.

No. I claim that there will be, and were different laws. Focus.

When we look at the evidence, what do we see? A total absence of evidence of any change in the laws. It mounts, but not in your favour.

False. All physical only science can detect, in it's Mickey Mouse little PO way, is this very universe and laws we now have. Really. If they were different, that, by absolute nature, precludes PO science from the remote ability to have any clue at all.

Nope. Science sticks with the null hypothesis until the evidence tells it otherwise. Static laws are more likely to be the reality than fluid laws, until evidence has been presented to the contrary. Where, then, is your evidence?

So, in other words, what we see is what we get, and darn well, golly gee, must have gotten, because we are too limited to know any different. I see. Thanks for that. (Has it been that long, that you fail to realize you have lost long ago??)

Hmm, no. By testing the ages of things using a variety of independant techniques, we can ascertain when this 'split' occured: it will be when the techniques suddenly yield wildly different results from each other. Guess what? This is ever observed.

Guess what, all that is observed is right here in this temporary universe state. So, if Tweedly Dee, and Tweedley Dum each submit their limited present only observations, all they describe is the fishbowl of the present.

By presupposing your opponents ignorance, you merely show your own. Did you really think this was a helpful comment to make?

Since ignorance was all that was offered, why assume that you have something else up your sleeve?? I don't spook easy.

Meteorites, moons, planets, stars, even the universe itself. Old things, y'know?

How would you know if a different universe left changes, precisely?? Or do you look for PO in box, in fishbowl changes??

The point is that there is no point in time before which our dating methods suddenly stop working, which is what we would expect if there was a change.

Of course there is. That point is where this universe state did not exist. How would you know when that was??

The onus is on you to present evidence for your claim. I am simply sticking with the null hypothesis.

Null, smull. Your hypothesis is that there was a same past universe, but you ain't got no proof. How null is that?? It is as dull as it could get.

Ah, what a rigourous rebuttle. Care to justify this allegation?

The null is easy. You have no proof or evidence of the same past. The dull is evidenced, in that your myth is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. And the bull, is a general description for science claims, that are purest myth.

Indeed. And if that assumption was false, methods for dating the oldest of things would yield wildly different results. Guess what? They don't. The evidence mounts.

False/ Setting the clocks to a present state, ought to yield the clocks telling the time they were set to. get serious.

Because you have given us no evidence not to. Thus, we stick to the null hypothesis. Keep up.

Sticking to a so called hypothesis, that is based on nothing, is null indeed.

But if you are calling the 'physical laws' the laws that govern our post-split universe, then no, they haven't changed (under your cosmology, at least). Nevertheless, the 'S&P' universe experianced a change in the physical laws insofar as the universes after the split have different laws than the universe before.

In English now???

In any case, my point stands: you can do nothing more than highlight this most improbable of events. You have given us no reason to even consider it.

Probable depends on the universe we are in.

Also, you have yet to explain what you mean by the 'physical' and 'spiritual' universes, and how such a split can possibly occur, or indeed why you think such a split occured.

There is no reason to assume that this universe was the created state universe. No science. No bible. No nothing. So, once we establish that science knows not, we enter the realm of belief, and myth. I am not sure you are ready to go there.

You kinda skipped these parts. I'd like you to answer them, please.

Done.

I don't need to. Everything works perfectly under the uniformitarian assumption, which is exactly what we'd expect if it were true (and not what we'd expect if it were false). It is up to you to justify your bizarre 'split' hypothesis.

If all you want is how things work, then don't talk of how they will work, or did work! The PO past scenarios were tailor fitted to present state realities. That is why you think you expect it. If you set the clock to midnight, and check it an hour later, one expects to see the time be 1 O'clock.

Oh really? Show me evidence of this 'split' then.

Show me evidence of a same past. The evidence you likely want is in the realm of physical only science, and that, like Buzz Light Year, can't go there.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence for it.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence against it. How lame is science, considering all that??

What an absurd argument. There is no evidence for the chocolate teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter. Do you therefore believe in the teapot, too?

There is no evidence for your same past, do I believe in it??? Of course not, any more than your teapot.

Since Egyptian civilisation goes back as far as 5000BCE, that would place the Flood at less than 5000BCE, yes? Already you mar the standard YEC timeline. Tut tut.

Interesting claim. Now, back up the dates, and show us, if you dare, what they are based on. Really.

Tell me, when do you believe the Flood to have occured, and why?

4500 years ago, (more or less) because God said so.

Unlike the Mesopotamian phonetic writing system in the 4th millenium BCE. Babel, as everything else in your cosmology, runs contrary to the evidence.

I call you out to support the dates! Talk is cheap.

The results garnered under the assumption evidences the assumption. Keep up.

I will try, soon as you pony up the supposed evidences you claim.

I would expect evidence of a global Flood, for one thing. Oddly enough, there is none.

I disagree. If the flood was beforwe mountain building, and the separation of continents, and a lot of other things, you have no clue what sort of evidences to look for!

Do explain this point. How does the fossil record agree with your split hypothesis?

Created life was in Eden, save for some things, created for the earth at large. The migration from Eden resulted in the fossil record. The different past state allowed for rapid evolution, and deposition, and etc.

Since there is no evidence of some past rapid evolution (I challenge you to present some), your point is moot.

There is evidence, I think you would claim for evolving. You could not say how fast it was in a different universe state. Prove that it was the same, or yield to the evidences of evolution. I claim ALL evolution for God's past.

Dark matter has been shown to exist. Try again.

Then show us. Try again. Maybe Fedex us some.

Please, present all the evidence you have.

All evidences man ever saw. Take away your myth spin, and viola.

So? Your personal beliefs don't affect the truth.

But they are based on the truth. And, if you could tell us what the truth was, maybe we could determine if I could affect it or not.

So? You need to change the very laws of nature to make your a priori worldview pheasable.

No, I simply need to flush them. How hard is that, when no laws of a past universe are known??

How can I? You have given my nothing to look up. What is your source?

I looked up how the Jewish people kept the scripture accurate. Anyone can google that stuff. Elementary.

Do you really mean to assume that nothing from the past exists in the present?

I mean to assume that God knows what went down. Man still exists, and trees, and the earth, etc etc. Of course things exist from the past state. They exist as they can exist in this state! So????

Not too high for you, though. Somehow, you've seen through the fishbowl! Did you see Great Cthulhu?

I saw the baseless claims of science, and what it is actually founded on for the old age, anti God claims. Wisdom is not too high for His people. We have more than just the physical. More than the box.

 

[Guest]

Oh really? Show me evidence of this 'split' then.

Show me evidence of a same past. The evidence you likely want is in the realm of physical only science, and that, like Buzz Light Year, can't go there.

Dad, you are the father of ignorance! YOU need evidence of the "same past", you are the one that claims that 1 day during creation was in fact the same length as today! So if you think that the Earth was created in 6 literal, same-length-as-today days, then you are WRONG by your own account of a different past state. In the different past state each day may have been billions of years (supported by the scientific evidence), thus the Earth/Universe is not in fact 6k years old but billions of years old (supported by scientific evidence).

So you rely on "same past" to have creation in 6 days. I think you just proved how ignorant you are, yet you go around calling other people ignorant. Well, good luck in life , by the way 2+2 = 4, not -4 and 256 , you should take notes on that, it will help you get a job (metaphorically speaking)

 

[DD_8630]

The correlation of independant dating methods:

--..Are ALL correlated to the same past myth. So????

So they all give the same results. If the 'same past' assumption were false, they wouldn't give the same results. Since they do, this corroborates the assumption. I would have thought this were obvious.

you can date something using a variety of methods, and get the same age.

Right, and the age is a young earth age!

Only if 'young' means '4.55 billion years', since that is what these techniques independantly give the age of the Earth as.

If you refer to how the same past myth ALSO can do that, well, they set the clock to the present, so naturally, all their clocks are set to PO nature time. So??

You keep talking about clocks. What clocks are these?

For example, the age of the Earth can be assessed using Uranium-Lead (useful because there are two checks: U235->Pb207 & U238->Pb206), Potassium-Argon, and Rubidium-Strontium radiometric dating.

Right. Thanks. In other words, the clock of present state decay is used to imagine a same state decay in the unknown past. So???

One question mark is suffice, dad. Don't want you to seem nuts, now, do we?

We have already established that this is the assumption we are working under. By performing a variety of independant methods to test for the same variable (in this case, the age of old object (rock, meteor, star, etc)), we can test whether this assumption is true or not:
If the ages wildly differ, then there is something wrong with the theory behind our calculations (i.e., the assumption is refuted).
If the ages correlate, however, then this is evidence of the assumption: it is exactly what we would expect if the assumption were true.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. Correlating results are evidence of the 'same past' hypothesis because the former are predicted by the latter.

Why is this evidence for uniformitarianism? Because if it were false, then dating something will either yeild a 'young' age, or wildly different 'old' ages (where 'old' is 'pre-split era').

In no way is that close to anything but pagan darkness and myths.

What on Earth does this have to do with Pagan mythology? It would help our discussion if you stopped throwing such pointless metaphors into the mix. Stay clear, and we may actually get somewhere.

Reading the patterns of materials now in a state of decay, as if they always were is bound to yield similar silly imaginary dates. Think about it.

I fail to see the problem. We are testing whether the hypothesis is correct, yes? To do this, we must assume that it is correct, and then see if our subsequent predictions bear out. Lo and behold, they do: we get correlating results, which is what the hypothesis predicts.

Of course the evidence mounts: you claim the laws are able to change, I claim they are not.

No. I claim that there will be, and were different laws.

Which amounts to a change in the laws, which is what I said.

When we look at the evidence, what do we see? A total absence of evidence of any change in the laws. It mounts, but not in your favour.

False.

By all means, prove me wrong: I claim that there is a total absence of evidence for any change in the laws, and you claim that this is false. Show us, then, this evidence you implicitly claim exists.

All physical only science can detect, in it's Mickey Mouse little PO way, is this very universe and laws we now have.

Not necessarily. Presumably, relics from the pre-split era carried over into the post-split era, yes?

Really. If they were different, that, by absolute nature, precludes PO science from the remote ability to have any clue at all.

Say what?

Nope. Science sticks with the null hypothesis until the evidence tells it otherwise. Static laws are more likely to be the reality than fluid laws, until evidence has been presented to the contrary. Where, then, is your evidence?

So, in other words, what we see is what we get,

No. What we observe is what we observe, and we can only make probabalistic assessments of anything else (the past, for instance). No-one officially denies the possibility of your hypothesis being true, but the evidence tells us that this possibility is remote indeed: we have never observed the laws change, so why should we assume that there was a change in the past?

(Has it been that long, that you fail to realize you have lost long ago??)

Ah, the crème de la crème of the Creationist repertoire: presuming they have won the debate midway through their rebuttle. Classic.

Hmm, no. By testing the ages of things using a variety of independant techniques, we can ascertain when this 'split' occured: it will be when the techniques suddenly yield wildly different results from each other. Guess what? This is ever observed.

Guess what, all that is observed is right here in this temporary universe state.

Obviously. The point is that what we observe today is influenced by what we observed yesterday. It's causality 101. So if there was some split ~6000 years ago

So, if Tweedly Dee, and Tweedley Dum each submit their limited present only observations, all they describe is the fishbowl of the present.

Assuming they are competant scientists, they could also hypothesise about the history of the present (i.e., what went on before). If there was some split in the past (as you hypothesise), then odds are there would be some evidence of it in the future (an ice core sample with a distinct change in iron patterning at the ~6000 year old mark).

By presupposing your opponents ignorance, you merely show your own. Did you really think this was a helpful comment to make?

Since ignorance was all that was offered, why assume that you have something else up your sleeve??[/quote]
Since you only like to assume the improbable, I think you just answered your question.

Meteorites, moons, planets, stars, even the universe itself. Old things, y'know?

How would you know if a different universe left changes, precisely??

We would date them with a variety of methods. If there was some arbitrary change in the laws ~6000 years ago, then anything over ~6000 years old would throw off these techniques: we should see wildly different ages, because the mechanics that govern the techniques today are not the same as way back when.

Or do you look for PO in box, in fishbowl changes??

...what?

The point is that there is no point in time before which our dating methods suddenly stop working, which is what we would expect if there was a change.

Of course there is.

No, there isn't. Take a look at the evidence yourself. The variety of dating techniques all yield the same results for the age of the Earth. If there was a change in the laws ~6000 years ago, then anything older than that (the Earth, for instance) should not get such correlating results (for the same reason we don't use artic ice core methods on a meteor, for instance).

That point is where this universe state did not exist.

How would you know when that was??

By looking to see how old something can be for us to be able to reliably date it before our methods suddenly go scue-whiff.

The onus is on you to present evidence for your claim. I am simply sticking with the null hypothesis.

Null, smull. Your hypothesis is that there was a same past universe, but you ain't got no proof. How null is that?? It is as dull as it could get.

Cute. Do you even know what the null hypothesis means? Try not to use specious poetry this time. As a Briton, I'll have no truck with it .

Ah, what a rigourous rebuttle. Care to justify this allegation?

The null is easy. You have no proof or evidence of the same past.

First, yes I do: the correlating results from independant dating methods.
Second, this has nothing to do with the 'null' in 'null hypothesis'; your ignorance as to basic logic is showing, dad. We call it the 'null' hypothesis because it is the most basic and probable one before any complex analysis or evidence has been introducted. It may not necessarily be true, but a challenger must show that thier alternative is more probable than the null hypothesis, not the other way around.

The dull is evidenced, in that your myth is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Ah, it's just more of your delightful poetry. I thought as much.

And the bull, is a general description for science claims, that are purest myth.

Yes, what were scientists thinking, claiming that atoms exist. Next thing you know, they'll claim they can make machines capable of computation! You won't catch me on one of those.

Indeed. And if that assumption was false, methods for dating the oldest of things would yield wildly different results. Guess what? They don't. The evidence mounts.

False/ Setting the clocks to a present state, ought to yield the clocks telling the time they were set to. get serious.

What on Earth is this supposed to mean? We assume that the mechanics for each method is the same today as it was when the object formed. If this assumption were false, then the results wouldn't correlate. We don't 'set' anything.

Because you have given us no evidence not to. Thus, we stick to the null hypothesis. Keep up.

Sticking to a so called hypothesis, that is based on nothing, is null indeed.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You bandy these terms about, but you have never once used them correctly.

But if you are calling the 'physical laws' the laws that govern our post-split universe, then no, they haven't changed (under your cosmology, at least). Nevertheless, the 'S&P' universe experianced a change in the physical laws insofar as the universes after the split have different laws than the universe before.

In English now???

That was English. If you can't understand basic sentences, that may explain our difficulty.

In any case, my point stands: you can do nothing more than highlight this most improbable of events. You have given us no reason to even consider it.

Probable depends on the universe we are in.

No. Probability depends on how much information we have: the more information we have, the more probable one outcome becomes at the expense of the others.

Also, you have yet to explain what you mean by the 'physical' and 'spiritual' universes, and how such a split can possibly occur, or indeed why you think such a split occured.

There is no reason to assume that this universe was the created state universe.

Nor is there any reason to assume that this universe isn't the created state universe. The point is that, when faced with the two alternatives, logic points us in the direction of the more parsimonious assumption: that there was no such spliting of universes. Hence, we assume it.
If evidence or rhetoric were presented that refuted the 'no split' assumption, or bolstered the 'split' assumption, then we would have to rethink our position.

The fact of the matter is that you reject any evidence for or against either assumption. If we take this claim to be true, then, logically, you defeat your own argument: you should rationally assume that there was no split.

No science. No bible. No nothing. So, once we establish that science knows not, we enter the realm of belief, and myth. I am not sure you are ready to go there.

I am a solpisist. Try me.

I don't need to. Everything works perfectly under the uniformitarian assumption, which is exactly what we'd expect if it were true (and not what we'd expect if it were false). It is up to you to justify your bizarre 'split' hypothesis.

If all you want is how things work, then don't talk of how they will work, or did work! The PO past scenarios were tailor fitted to present state realities. That is why you think you expect it. If you set the clock to midnight, and check it an hour later, one expects to see the time be 1 O'clock.

And if it instead shows 2:15pm, we reject the assumption that all is well. Since this has never occured, why should we do any more than acknowledge your hypothesis as possible (albiet remotely improbable)?

Oh really? Show me evidence of this 'split' then.

Show me evidence of a same past.

No no, you said you had evidence of the split. I want to hear this.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence for it.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence against it. How lame is science, considering all that??
[quote:a8ff1]
What an absurd argument. There is no evidence for the chocolate teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter. Do you therefore believe in the teapot, too?

There is no evidence for your same past, do I believe in it??? Of course not, any more than your teapot.[/quote:a8ff1]
According to you, there is no evidence for either hypothesis. Why, then, do you take yours to be true?

Since Egyptian civilisation goes back as far as 5000BCE, that would place the Flood at less than 5000BCE, yes? Already you mar the standard YEC timeline. Tut tut.

Interesting claim. Now, back up the dates, and show us, if you dare, what they are based on.

Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. (Princeton: University Press, 1992), p. 6.

Really.

Ya rly.

Tell me, when do you believe the Flood to have occured, and why?

4500 years ago, (more or less) because God said so.

He did? Where?

The results garnered under the assumption evidences the assumption. Keep up.

I will try, soon as you pony up the supposed evidences you claim.

I have. Now it's your turn.

I would expect evidence of a global Flood, for one thing. Oddly enough, there is none.

I disagree. If the flood was beforwe mountain building, and the separation of continents, and a lot of other things, you have no clue what sort of evidences to look for!

A list of problems with the global flood:

Historical Aspects

Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time? Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.

How did the human population rebound so fast? Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc.

Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account? Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity. [Bailey, 1989, pp. 5-10; Isaak, 1997] For example, people survive on high land or trees in the myths about as often as on boats or rafts, and no other flood myth includes a covenant not to destroy all life again.

Why should we expect Genesis to be accurate? We know that other people's sacred stories change over time [Baaren, 1972] and that changes to the Genesis Flood story have occurred in later traditions [Ginzberg, 1909; Utley, 1961]. Is it not reasonable to assume that changes occurred between the story's origin and its being written down in its present form?

References

Baaren, Th. P., 1972. The flexibility of myth. Studies in the History of Religions, 22: 199-206. Reprinted in Dundes, A. (ed), 1984, Sacred Narrative, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Bailey, Lloyd R., 1989. Noah: the person and the story in history and tradition. University of South Carolina Press, SC.

Ginzberg, Louis, 1909. The Legends of the Jews, vol. 1, pp. 145-169, Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia. Reprinted as "Noah and the Flood in Jewish legend" in: Dundes, Alan (ed.), 1988. The Flood Myth, University of California Press, Berkeley and London, pp. 319-336.

Isaak, Mark, 1997. Flood stories from around the world. http://www.talkorigins.org/faq/flood-myths.html.

Utley, Francis Lee, 1961. Internationaler Kongress der Volkserzä in Kiel und Kopenhagen, pp. 446-463, Walter De Gruyter, Berlin. Reprinted as "The Devil in the Ark (AaTh 825)" in: Dundes, Alan (ed.), 1988. The Flood Myth, University of California Press, Berkeley and London, pp. 337-356.


From here . Simply put, the Flood didn't happen for literally hundreds of reasons.

Do explain this point. How does the fossil record agree with your split hypothesis?

Created life was in Eden, save for some things, created for the earth at large. The migration from Eden resulted in the fossil record.

The fossil record shows no such thing. It shows life emerging from the primordial oceans over billions of years, in full accordance with the theory of evolution. There is no 'Eden' in the fossil record. What are you talking about?

The different past state allowed for rapid evolution,

Surely rapid evolution is required after the Flood? After all, it's the only way to explain modern biological diversity without resorting to miracles.

and deposition, and etc.

Deposition?

Since there is no evidence of some past rapid evolution (I challenge you to present some), your point is moot.

there is evidence, I think you would claim for evolving.

I'm not sure what you mean. We know evolution occurs, yet there is no evidence for the formation of new taxa on such a rapid scale as you are suggesting (but they, you're not in the habit of listening to evidence).

You could not say how fast it was in a different universe state.

Naturally. However, unless I have misunderstood you, the split happen at or around the time of the Flood, and so those techniques you so deplore become valid: there is no evidence of rapid evolution.

Prove that it was the same,

I simply have to point out that it is the null hypothesis to make such an assumption, and the onus falls on you.

It is the null hypothesis to assume there is no chocolate teapot between Mars and Jupiter, even though the evidence favours neither its existance nor its nonexistance.

I claim ALL evolution for God's past.

That makes no sense.

Dark matter has been shown to exist. Try again.

Then show us. Try again. Maybe Fedex us some.

Unlike you, I can fulfill such requests:


A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter
Authors: Douglas Clowe (1), Marusa Bradac (2), Anthony H. Gonzalez (3), Maxim Markevitch (4), Scott W. Randall (4), Christine Jones (4), Dennis Zaritsky (1) ((1) Steward Observatory, Tucson, (2) KIPAC, Stanford, (3) Department of Astronomy, Gainesville, (4) CfA, Cambridge)
(Submitted on 19 Aug 2006)

Abstract: We present new weak lensing observations of 1E0657-558 (z=0.296), a unique cluster merger, that enable a direct detection of dark matter, independent of assumptions regarding the nature of the gravitational force law.

From here.

Please, present all the evidence you have.

All evidences man ever saw. Take away your myth spin, and viola.

Pathetic. If you cannot cite an actual piece of evidence, then at least have the decency to say so. Hand-waving and specious rhetoric have no place in a debate.

So? Your personal beliefs don't affect the truth.

But they are based on the truth.

They are based on things you believe to be true. You have thus far presented no justification for such a belief.

So? You need to change the very laws of nature to make your a priori worldview pheasable.

No, I simply need to flush them. How hard is that, when no laws of a past universe are known??

You posit a whole other set of laws. That is different to positing an absence of laws.

Do you really mean to assume that nothing from the past exists in the present?

I mean to assume that God knows what went down. Man still exists, and trees, and the earth, etc etc. Of course things exist from the past state. They exist as they can exist in this state! So????

Calm down! I was simply clearing things up.

Not too high for you, though. Somehow, you've seen through the fishbowl! Did you see Great Cthulhu?

I saw the baseless claims of science, and what it is actually founded on for the old age, anti God claims.

Pray tell, how did you 'see through the fishbowl'?

Wisdom is not too high for His people. We have more than just the physical. More than the box.

Like what?


P.S.: Merry Christmas!

 

[dad]

Dad, you are the father of ignorance! YOU need evidence of the "same past",

I do not claim one, that would be science. It needs. You need.

you are the one that claims that 1 day during creation was in fact the same length as today!

So if you think that the Earth was created in 6 literal, same-length-as-today days, then you are WRONG by your own account of a different past state. In the different past state each day may have been billions of years (supported by the scientific evidence), thus the Earth/Universe is not in fact 6k years old but billions of years old (supported by scientific evidence).

Apparently by your repetition of this already defeated point, you thought it had merit. No. As I pointed out, there are days in eternity, the future, and the past. We do not need a temporary universe to have a day.

So you rely on "same past" to have creation in 6 days.

No, a day, as pointed out is anything but a creature of this state universe exclusively.

 

[Guest]

Dad, you are the father of ignorance! YOU need evidence of the "same past",

I do not claim one, that would be science. It needs. You need.

Yes you do, because you claim that God created the Universe in 6 days of the SAME LENGTH AS TODAY => that means that it was the same past state: you assume that a day now is the same as a day at creation. Straw man!

you are the one that claims that 1 day during creation was in fact the same length as today!

So if you think that the Earth was created in 6 literal, same-length-as-today days, then you are WRONG by your own account of a different past state. In the different past state each day may have been billions of years (supported by the scientific evidence), thus the Earth/Universe is not in fact 6k years old but billions of years old (supported by scientific evidence).

Apparently by your repetition of this already defeated point, you thought it had merit. No. As I pointed out, there are days in eternity, the future, and the past. We do not need a temporary universe to have a day.

And we do not need to have a temporary universe to have light .
You can claim victory, and I agree, you have beat yourself with your own arguments. I don't think I have merit, I KNOW I have your contradictions pointed out. So let me point this out for you: there is light in eternity, the future and the past , ya like that?

So you rely on "same past" to have creation in 6 days.

No, a day, as pointed out is anything but a creature of this state universe exclusively.

So God did not create the Universe in 6 literal days of the same length as days in "this state universe exclusively"?

 

[dad]

So they all give the same results. If the 'same past' assumption were false, they wouldn't give the same results. Since they do, this corroborates the assumption. I would have thought this were obvious.

Not at all. Setting clocks to the same PO time has to render similar times.

Only if 'young' means '4.55 billion years', since that is what these techniques independantly give the age of the Earth as.

Independent of each other you mean, but all dependent on this universe and it's laws and state.

You keep talking about clocks. What clocks are these?

Things that tell us time. You think you tell past time by looking at the present universe.

One question mark is suffice, dad. Don't want you to seem nuts, now, do we?

So the mark of insanity is using more than one question mark?? Some of us have a better grip that that. That sounds more like superstition.

We have already established that this is the assumption we are working under. By performing a variety of independant methods to test for the same variable (in this case, the age of old object (rock, meteor, star, etc)), we can test whether this assumption is true or not:
If the ages wildly differ, then there is something wrong with the theory behind our calculations (i.e., the assumption is refuted).
If the ages correlate, however, then this is evidence of the assumption: it is exactly what we would expect if the assumption were true.

False, the ages have to correlate, as they all share the same assumption. Like if they all went for a walk in the rain, they all get wet.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. Correlating results are evidence of the 'same past' hypothesis because the former are predicted by the latter.

Only based on the former. That neuters the latter.

What on Earth does this have to do with Pagan mythology? It would help our discussion if you stopped throwing such pointless metaphors into the mix. Stay clear, and we may actually get somewhere.

The Godless same past Creator less past myth does have something with pagan mythology, God is not in the mix. Nor Jesus.

I fail to see the problem. We are testing whether the hypothesis is correct, yes? To do this, we must assume that it is correct, and then see if our subsequent predictions bear out. Lo and behold, they do: we get correlating results, which is what the hypothesis predicts.

That is circular reasoning. You start off assuming a same state past, then concoct all things accordingly, and interpret all things, then seem surprise you get results that were spawned from the myth, like heads on a dragon?

Which amounts to a change in the laws, which is what I said.

A change OF laws, and universe fundamentals, not a change IN our laws.

By all means, prove me wrong: I claim that there is a total absence of evidence for any change in the laws, and you claim that this is false. Show us, then, this evidence you implicitly claim exists.

No change IN the laws is to be looked for. That we would have evidence for.

Not necessarily. Presumably, relics from the pre-split era carried over into the post-split era, yes?

To find relics, one must know what they look for.

Say what?

That if the universe was different science, that is based on this natural universe only could have no clue.

No. What we observe is what we observe, and we can only make probabalistic assessments of anything else (the past, for instance).

It is also a problem assuming a certain state, then pretending your are not biased in the extreme.

No-one officially denies the possibility of your hypothesis being true, but the evidence tells us that this possibility is remote indeed: we have never observed the laws change, so why should we assume that there was a change in the past?

Because we, and science have not been around that long. So we cannot start assuming stuff out of our experience, and observations, and depth. No chance is involved.

Ah, the crème de la crème of the Creationist repertoire: presuming they have won the debate midway through their rebuttle. Classic.

I meant before you replied here at all, long ago. Much in the same way, say Lucifer was defeated already. But, don't worry about that, I guess you still think you have a chance. Let's see what you got.

Obviously. The point is that what we observe today is influenced by what we observed yesterday. It's causality 101. So if there was some split ~6000 years ago

But how would a different universe have influenced a temporary physical only one? That is a question, that physical only folks can't answer.

Assuming they are competant scientists, they could also hypothesise about the history of the present (i.e., what went on before). If there was some split in the past (as you hypothesise), then odds are there would be some evidence of it in the future (an ice core sample with a distinct change in iron patterning at the ~6000 year old mark).

How would you know where that mark is??? Say, if the ice age came about as a result of the spit, 4400 years ago?? Where do you think the 6000 year mark would be???? You simply assume that the present deposition reflects the clock of the past as well.

We would date them with a variety of methods.

But that is an error in logic! All your methods of natural science are based on present universe realities. So all you do is try to set the past clock to the present.

If there was some arbitrary change in the laws ~6000 years ago, then anything over ~6000 years old would throw off these techniques: we should see wildly different ages, because the mechanics that govern the techniques today are not the same as way back when.

Well, the question arises, WHAT is 6000 years old, and how would you know?? Again, it is circular reasoning, FIRST assuming the answer in the form of a same state past, then calculating from there.

No, there isn't. Take a look at the evidence yourself. The variety of dating techniques all yield the same results for the age of the Earth. If there was a change in the laws ~6000 years ago, then anything older than that (the Earth, for instance) should not get such correlating results (for the same reason we don't use artic ice core methods on a meteor, for instance).

I did, they all are myth based.

By looking to see how old something can be for us to be able to reliably date it before our methods suddenly go scue-whiff.

How do you look see how old something can be?

Cute. Do you even know what the null hypothesis means? Try not to use specious poetry this time. As a Briton, I'll have no truck with it .

I just refreshed my memory, and looked it up. What about it?? If you use a same past assumption, or a different past assumption, it is the same story.

First, yes I do: the correlating results from independant dating methods.

That is false, they are dependent on laws of the universe. They are dependent on this state universe.

Second, this has nothing to do with the 'null' in 'null hypothesis'; your ignorance as to basic logic is showing, dad. We call it the 'null' hypothesis because it is the most basic and probable one before any complex analysis or evidence has been introducted.

So what? What do you base 'probable' on? This universe and it's laws, and processes, and realities. NOTHING makes that probable in the far past or future at all!

It may not necessarily be true, but a challenger must show that thier alternative is more probable than the null hypothesis, not the other way around.

Why bandy about words, trying to wiggle out of supporting your so called science myth? There is NO probable dealing with the unknown. Only in your head.

Yes, what were scientists thinking, claiming that atoms exist. Next thing you know, they'll claim they can make machines capable of computation! You won't catch me on one of those.

Present atomic arrangements have nothing to do with the unknown state of the future, or past. Only in your head.

What on Earth is this supposed to mean? We assume that the mechanics for each method is the same today as it was when the object formed. If this assumption were false, then the results wouldn't correlate. We don't 'set' anything.

False. You take the mechanics of today, and try to assume that all we see got here in the same state universe. If a parent isotope now produces a daughter, you assume that all daughter material was put there that way. But the mechanics of how it GETS there mean nothing if the universe is not the same, -hence fundamental forces, laws, etc.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You bandy these terms about, but you have never once used them correctly.

Your same past universe state hypothesis model only works in this present state.

No. Probability depends on how much information we have: the more information we have, the more probable one outcome becomes at the expense of the others.

Since you have none on anything but the present universe your probability range is limited.

Nor is there any reason to assume that this universe isn't the created state universe.

There is lots of reasons, but not natural present state science reasons, naturally.

The point is that, when faced with the two alternatives, logic points us in the direction of the more parsimonious assumption: that there was no such spliting of universes. Hence, we assume it.

But that logic can't get you anywhere but the known present universe. If we look at the two concepts, the same past state is by far more complicated. The created universe, and new heavens coming, and different past, a child could grasp. The most parsimonious concept, when we put the whole package on the scales, is the created universe. You seem to be trying to strain at the nat of the event of changing man's universe, while swallowing the camels of what is required to have the universe the same.

The fact of the matter is that you reject any evidence for or against either assumption. If we take this claim to be true, then, logically, you defeat your own argument: you should rationally assume that there was no split.

There is no evidence for your same past. Or against the split, that moots your claim totally. I accept all evidence.

I am a solpisist. Try me.

Would that be spelled wrong?

Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that I know exists". Solipsism is an epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. (wiki)


That does sound like a typical fishbowl philosophy, I must admit.

And if it instead shows 2:15pm, we reject the assumption that all is well. Since this has never occured, why should we do any more than acknowledge your hypothesis as possible (albiet remotely improbable)?

If time is measured in this universe, and it changes, there is no 2:15 in our universe, that comes in the new one.

No no, you said you had evidence of the split. I want to hear this.

The different universe is a bible case. That is where it looks for evidences. There, the future and past are described as quite different. Your required PO past universe is a foundational premise of all science claims regarding the past, or future. That, you need to evidence.

According to you, there is no evidence for either hypothesis. Why, then, do you take yours to be true?

Because I believe in God, and the bible. I trust that He is neither dead, nor sick, nor a liar, nor incompetent. The bible clearly says that our heaven and earth will pass away, and be no more. It establishes clearly that we do live in a temporary universe. Most Christians on earth agree with that. Knowing that, why would I take some atheist's word for it, that the unknown created past, that the bible describes as very similar to the future new heavens, had to be like the temporary present state, that was not observed by man before recorded history? I could respect some honest scientist admitting they can and do not know. But I do not respect anti bible, universe in a soup speck, man as mere beast claims, based on a mythical universe state in the past.

Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. (Princeton: University Press, 1992), p. 6.

That does not back anything up. If you had a handle on the actual basis of the claims of dates, you might be able to summarize the so called reasoning. But I have found, it almost always boils down to same state dating by decay.

He did? Where?

He said the flood occurred in a few places. The dates were based on lifespans He gave of real people, and recorded history, and, things like that. The margin of possible error due to interpretaion is small.

I have. Now it's your turn.

You now claim you have present evidences of a same state past!!??? Try and be honest.

A list of problems with the global flood:

Historical Aspects

Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time?

Egypt, I would think, came after the flood. If you claim otherwise prove it.

Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14.

HA!! Bingo. Present state processes being used to set the clocks for the far past. No can do.

The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.

False, as far as I know. Your dates are wrong wrong wrong!!!

How did the human population rebound so fast? Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible?

Easy!!! Remember that that was precisely the time of the split. About a bit over a century after the flood! That means that the life processes were in effect. Hyper reproduction was possible. We do not even know how young a woman could then give birth, or how long the gestation period was!!!!? Do we?? We also had relatives that could have babies with no harm, as at the time of Eden. So, each gal could really put out.

Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc.

Sumer also was likely after the flood, your wrong wrong wrong dates confuse you.

Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account?

The memories faded as time passed, and the stories were diluted. Some may actuall be not even of the great flood, but local flood stories.

Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity. [Bailey, 1989, pp. 5-10; Isaak, 1997] For example, people survive on high land or trees in the myths about as often as on boats or rafts, and no other flood myth includes a covenant not to destroy all life again.

As above.

Why should we expect Genesis to be accurate? We know that other people's sacred stories change over time [Baaren, 1972] and that changes to the Genesis Flood story have occurred in later traditions [Ginzberg, 1909; Utley, 1961]. Is it not reasonable to assume that changes occurred between the story's origin and its being written down in its present form?

As above.

From here . Simply put, the Flood didn't happen for literally hundreds of reasons.

Balderdash. All reasons so far given were dashed in bits.

The fossil record shows no such thing. It shows life emerging from the primordial oceans over billions of years, in full accordance with the theory of evolution. There is no 'Eden' in the fossil record. What are you talking about?

Yes it does. Name any aspect of it, and let us look at what it says.

Surely rapid evolution is required after the Flood? After all, it's the only way to explain modern biological diversity without resorting to miracles.

Right. But it was so rapid, that it was NOT required that LONG after the flood! The split was over a century after the flood!!!

and deposition, and etc.

Deposition?[/quote] Yes. Things got deposited. Fossils, layers of soil, etc etc.

I'm not sure what you mean. We know evolution occurs, yet there is no evidence for the formation of new taxa on such a rapid scale as you are suggesting (but they, you're not in the habit of listening to evidence).

How would you know? Your idea of time in the past is demented.

Naturally. However, unless I have misunderstood you, the split happen at or around the time of the Flood, and so those techniques you so deplore become valid: there is no evidence of rapid evolution.

There is evidence of evolution, and how would you know how rapid it was or not???

It is the null hypothesis to assume there is no chocolate teapot between Mars and Jupiter, even though the evidence favours neither its existance nor its nonexistance.

We would see a teapot in our solar system spanning two planets. You are busted.

That makes no sense.

Yes it does. Evolution involved no great time, so all of it happened in God's timetable.

Unlike you, I can fulfill such requests:

No you can't. Show us the evidence, don't post a reading list of books, from PO nerds.

Abstract: We present new weak lensing observations of 1E0657-558 (z=0.296), a unique cluster merger, that enable a direct detection of dark matter, independent of assumptions regarding the nature of the gravitational force law.

Tell us about it.

"...An 8-sigma significance spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen."

Ha. In other words, just because gravity does not explain what we see, let's invent a universe of invisible boggy men!! That is such an inbred PO looking little fuzzy fable, it isn't funny.

They are based on things you believe to be true. You have thus far presented no justification for such a belief.

The truth need not be proved here, all that needs be done is for you to evidence your science tales.

You posit a whole other set of laws. That is different to positing an absence of laws.

True, there are laws that govern the spiritual, no chaos there.

Pray tell, how did you 'see through the fishbowl'?

I am stuck here in this universe as you are. All believers can get are glimpses of things to come, or that have come.

Like what?

Like things spiritual, that make us spiritually minded.

P.S.: Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas to you, and your family.

 

[dad]

Yes you do, because you claim that God created the Universe in 6 days of the SAME LENGTH AS TODAY => that means that it was the same past state: you assume that a day now is the same as a day at creation. Straw man!

You assume a day could not have existed before the universe was made, and that God did not know what a day was. You assume that anywhere a day is, has to be this same state universe. That is not based on knowledge. You are speaking from ignorance.

And we do not need to have a temporary universe to have light .
You can claim victory, and I agree, you have beat yourself with your own arguments. I don't think I have merit, I KNOW I have your contradictions pointed out. So let me point this out for you: there is light in eternity, the future and the past , ya like that?

So is that light the same as the temporary universe light?

 

[Guest]

Yes you do, because you claim that God created the Universe in 6 days of the SAME LENGTH AS TODAY => that means that it was the same past state: you assume that a day now is the same as a day at creation. Straw man!

You assume a day could not have existed before the universe was made, and that God did not know what a day was. You assume that anywhere a day is, has to be this same state universe. That is not based on knowledge. You are speaking from ignorance.

Here is the same thing said about light: You assume light could not have existed before the universe was made, and that God did not know what light was. You assume that anywhere a light is, has to be the same state universe. This is not based on knowledge. You are speaking from ignorance.

All I did was replace day with light, but you are going to claim that the above is now wrong , and all I'm doing is using your logic and evidence ;).

Here is what I would say: your comments are wrong by definition, if the Universe does not exist, then nothing exists (including the day), which is even supported by the Bible, since God called it a day after the Universe/Earth was already existing. So your comments are wrong by definition! If a day during creation is the same today as it is today, then light is the same speed today as it was then by YOUR logic and YOUR evidence .

Yet again, you read 2+2 and claim -4 and 256 .

And we do not need to have a temporary universe to have light .
You can claim victory, and I agree, you have beat yourself with your own arguments. I don't think I have merit, I KNOW I have your contradictions pointed out. So let me point this out for you: there is light in eternity, the future and the past , ya like that?

So is that light the same as the temporary universe light?

As much as day is the same as the temporary universe day

 

[dad]

Here is the same thing said about light: You assume light could not have existed before the universe was made, and that God did not know what light was.

False! I assume that if it was the same slow light, He would have known that, and not say it shone from far stars for us men in jig time. Something had to be different.

All I did was replace day with light, but you are going to claim that the above is now wrong , and all I'm doing is using your logic and evidence ;).

No, you can't replace apples with oranges. The claims need to weigh in with the department of weights and measures, the bible. Light from stars that got here in days, or even in a man's lifetime cannot do that. Neither can it weigh in with science.

Here is what I would say: your comments are wrong by definition, if the Universe does not exist, then nothing exists (including the day), which is even supported by the Bible, since God called it a day after the Universe/Earth was already existing.

That is based on ignorance again, how would you know what went on before the universe was here?? What was that gal in Prov 8 doing, with Him, daily, before the earth was, which is before the universe was? Do you really think there were no days, and that the Ancient of Days started ticking off the days 6000 years ago, only??

So your comments are wrong by definition! If a day during creation is the same today as it is today, then light is the same speed today as it was then by YOUR logic and YOUR evidence .

No. A day was close, but light speed could not have been the same. Not only it's speed, but it's nature, and the nature of the universe.

 

[DD_8630]

Because I believe in God, and the bible. I trust that He is neither dead, nor sick, nor a liar, nor incompetent. The bible clearly says that our heaven and earth will pass away, and be no more. It establishes clearly that we do live in a temporary universe. Most Christians on earth agree with that. Knowing that, why would I take some atheist's word for it, that the unknown created past, that the bible describes as very similar to the future new heavens, had to be like the temporary present state, that was not observed by man before recorded history? I could respect some honest scientist admitting they can and do not know. But I do not respect anti bible, universe in a soup speck, man as mere beast claims, based on a mythical universe state in the past.

Then this discussion is pointless.

 

[Guest]

Here is the same thing said about light: You assume light could not have existed before the universe was made, and that God did not know what light was.

False! I assume that if it was the same slow light, He would have known that, and not say it shone from far stars for us men in jig time. Something had to be different.

But he didn't say that, he said that the light was called day, and he created the sun and the stars after that was said... so are you calling God a liar?

All I did was replace day with light, but you are going to claim that the above is now wrong , and all I'm doing is using your logic and evidence ;).

No, you can't replace apples with oranges. The claims need to weigh in with the department of weights and measures, the bible. Light from stars that got here in days, or even in a man's lifetime cannot do that. Neither can it weigh in with science.

Not apples with oranges, he called the light day, thefore it's the same thing.

Here is what I would say: your comments are wrong by definition, if the Universe does not exist, then nothing exists (including the day), which is even supported by the Bible, since God called it a day after the Universe/Earth was already existing.

That is based on ignorance again, how would you know what went on before the universe was here?? What was that gal in Prov 8 doing, with Him, daily, before the earth was, which is before the universe was? Do you really think there were no days, and that the Ancient of Days started ticking off the days 6000 years ago, only??

It says that God called it day on DAY ONE, therefore there must have not been days before that, are you calling God a liar?

So your comments are wrong by definition! If a day during creation is the same today as it is today, then light is the same speed today as it was then by YOUR logic and YOUR evidence .

No. A day was close, but light speed could not have been the same. Not only it's speed, but it's nature, and the nature of the universe.

No. A light was close, but day lenght could not have been the same. Not only its length, but its nature, and the nature of the universe .

 

[dad]

Here is the same thing said about light: You assume light could not have existed before the universe was made, and that God did not know what light was. You assume that anywhere a light is, has to be the same state universe. This is not based on knowledge. You are speaking from ignorance.

No, light is also in heaven and the pre split past. Try and keep up. Inappropriate cut and pasting only goes so far.

All I did was replace day with light, but you are going to claim that the above is now wrong , and all I'm doing is using your logic and evidence ;).

The light it refers to was the light of that day. Our light is of this day. You cannot prove they were the same, and the bible indicates they could not be the same. You lose.

Here is what I would say: your comments are wrong by definition, if the Universe does not exist, then nothing exists (including the day), which is even supported by the Bible, since God called it a day after the Universe/Earth was already existing. So your comments are wrong by definition! If a day during creation is the same today as it is today, then light is the same speed today as it was then by YOUR logic and YOUR evidence .

The universe did exist. Our universe state did not.

 

[Guest]

The light it refers to was the light of that day. Our light is of this day. You cannot prove they were the same, and the bible indicates they could not be the same. You lose.

I can, because the day wasn't the same as it is today and the bible indicates that it could not be the same. YOU lose!

Here is what I would say: your comments are wrong by definition, if the Universe does not exist, then nothing exists (including the day), which is even supported by the Bible, since God called it a day after the Universe/Earth was already existing. So your comments are wrong by definition! If a day during creation is the same today as it is today, then light is the same speed today as it was then by YOUR logic and YOUR evidence .

The universe did exist. Our universe state did not.

But you said that it didn't, your question was regarding the day and you asked if the day existed when the universe didn't. So why would you assume that the universe didn't exist, when you know it does? What are you trying to do?

 

[dad]

Here is the same thing said about light: You assume light could not have existed before the universe was made, and that God did not know what light was.

Not really. How would I know if there was light before our one week job universe? But days we do know exist out of this temporary universe.

 

[Guest]

Here is the same thing said about light: You assume light could not have existed before the universe was made, and that God did not know what light was.

Not really. How would I know if there was light before our one week job universe? But days we do know exist out of this temporary universe.

For the same reason that days exist out of this temporary universe, we can have light exist out of the temporary universe.

 

[dad]

Because I believe in God, and the bible. I trust that He is neither dead, nor sick, nor a liar, nor incompetent. The bible clearly says that our heaven and earth will pass away, and be no more. It establishes clearly that we do live in a temporary universe. Most Christians on earth agree with that. Knowing that, why would I take some atheist's word for it, that the unknown created past, that the bible describes as very similar to the future new heavens, had to be like the temporary present state, that was not observed by man before recorded history? I could respect some honest scientist admitting they can and do not know. But I do not respect anti bible, universe in a soup speck, man as mere beast claims, based on a mythical universe state in the past.

Then this discussion is pointless.

If you thought we were simply supposed to take your word, against God's, sorry it took you so long to figure that out.

 

[dad]

For the same reason that days exist out of this temporary universe, we can have light exist out of the temporary universe.

So temporary universe light is not temporary? If the light can only exist in this state, then, unlike a day, it cannot exist outside the present.