Geological timescale and the flood.

quote:

---

Because there is no radical change? The physical conditions and laws of the Universe do not show any abrupt change. Why would we believe there was a radical change when there is no evidence of it? The evidence that suggests there was no radical change is because there is no evidence to suggest there was a radical change. Assume this senario is true: a tract of sand with no wind. There are no prints in it. Do you believe that a animal walked across it or that no animals walked across it? As there is no evidence (prints) that a animal walked across, we can assume no animal walked across.

---

Why would we believe that this state was in effect, when there is no evidence of it? No tracks exist that address the state of this universe, and it's laws in the far past. It is all just assumed. I assume that the spiritual component added to the physical one results, and resulted in a very different arrangement, atomically, and fundamentally, which affected everything. As mentioned, the separation of waters from the land, in creation week, no great heat was then produced. That is different.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.

quote:

---

Why would the laws of physics change?

---

They didn't. They would have only come to exist as we were in this universe state. When that was is only assumed!

quote:

---

What? Are you talking about? You don't even make any sense. You're now saying that life was put on the Earth AFTER the flood. Why did Noah even have to bother building it if God restocked the planet?

---

No, I was referring to creation week.Gen 1: 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.Likewise, after the flood, another big event, a rapid separation of the continents, that also did not produce the heat to kill all life. That tells me that the state was still not the present state, at that time. Same with the flood, and the waters above the earth, etc. That could not be in this present state.
My point is that there is no reason to really assume it was this state, and certainly no evidence.

quote:

---

Why would we believe that this state was in effect, when there is no evidence of it?

---

Do you understand basic chemistry? How can you say there was no evidence?

quote:

---

No tracks exist that address the state of this universe, and it's laws in the far past.

---

Explain light, stars, gravity and radioactivity away then.

quote:

---

s mentioned, the separation of waters from the land, in creation week, no great heat was then produced. That is different.

---

So magic. Got it. Goddiddit. You have no evidence, GoddiditYou still haven't explained anything about why plates would stop and start much less their corresponding heat or that you even understand the theory of plate tectonics.Why would there be no heat?I can see why many posters don't bother with you...

quote:

---

Do you understand basic chemistry? How can you say there was no evidence?

---

Easy, until you can demonstrate otherwise. I don't know what about chemistry you think suggests anything of the sort?

quote:

---

Explain light, stars, gravity and radioactivity away then.

---

No need to, we have them here in this state universe, and know a lot about them. Why? How would that apply to some different state??

quote:

---

So magic. Got it. Goddiddit. You have no evidence, Goddidit

---

To our cavemanish level science, it would be very much magic. So?? No more magic than your universe in a little soup speck, or such. We need to separate fantasy from what we actually know, and that does not include the state of the future or past.Edited by simple, : No reason given.

You will not be able to carry on as you have done in the past. Making up nonsensical gibberish will mean you will be removed from all the Science Forums.It is up to you to post much more carefully.

OK, I will be careful not to vary from the nonsensical gibberish that the forum, especially you are limited to, - that there was and will be only this natural. No problem. You have lost the ability to pretend it is science, so I care not.Welcome to your utterly baseless religion, and enjoy the mod privilege of being able to pretend you could back it up. -Long as no one can post anything else.Cheers.Edited by simple, : No reason given.Edited by simple, : No reason given.

Looking for natural explanations for natural phenomena is common sense, because they're the only type that have ever proved to be useful and true. A superstitious culture may have believed that infectious diseases were caused by evil spirits, but finding out that microorganisms and viruses cause them was a great step towards dealing with them, for example.If you have an objection to methodological naturalism, why don't you start a thread listing all the non-natural explanations for natural phenomena that have been useful to humanity? This list could serve as a basis for your arguments against the view that nature is natural.We look for natural explanations of geological phenomena, but this thread gives you and other creationists the opportunity to explain the rocks in detail according to the young earth and flood view.Just implying vaguely that it's all magic doesn't achieve this. Either there's such a thing as coherent creation science, or there isn't. Let's have some of it. I'll try not to laugh. Honest.

Check out Creation Museum Age of the Earth is False (Simple and RAZD)(Simple and RAZD)[/color](Simple and RAZD)[/color]< !--UE--> for a simple sample of coherence.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

Either there's such a thing as coherent creation science, or there isn't. Let's have some of it. I'll try not to laugh. Honest.

---

After 'discussing' and I use discussing in the most liberal of ways possible, I'm voting there isn't anything remotely similar to a coherent creation science. The admin's post backs me up here.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

That was a thread that I agreed to participate in, despite unbalanced mods, under the condition, when it got shut down, it would be finished at a neutral site. I went, and opened a thread there, but funny thing you never showed up.
I was posturing for the final thrusts there, and was robbed, so had to win by default.

You are right, my ideas are not creation science. No need to run to a mod for that, I could have told you. Creation science is a loser, really, I prefer to win.

It doesn't give me the chance, don't be fooled. Some mods like Ned do not let me express my well founded opinions, that agree with actual science and evidence.
That is because it had to involve more than this present nature. That is something they can't argue against, or provide science against, so the only recourse is to stop me from speaking. I offer Ned's latest threats as evidence.

It has been suggested to you that you create a thread to discuss this "other nature" and how you can know anything about it. Start the thread and keep it out of this one.When you have foundations for your opinions: post them! If you don't show the foundations you will lose the privilege of posting junk opinions.There are not threats to stop you from expressing opinions. You are just not allowed unsupported opinions in the science threads. You are never stopped from suppling foundations; in fact you are required to.It's just that you seem to be unable to support your opinions and don't want to go to the trouble of explaining how this other way of knowing that you espouse works.You are going to run out of chances again soon. Use them carefully.

You are flattering yourself. Your opinions are not founded at all let alone well-founded. This is not a opinion but fact.well-founded: Based on sound judgment, reasoning, or evidence; adequately substantiatedA great example is in this thread in Message 7 you provided a far reaching speculative opinion devoid of reasoning, evidence or sound judgment. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

What? I refer you to this postWhere you argument against it was pure gibberish and did not provide any reasoning as to why your 'model' and I use that term loosely, has any credibility.All you did was given bible passages and did not even address the basic issues of geology!Well founded...in what?

I already have foundations for my opinions, but there are not the natural only foundations that you assume extend to infinity and beyond for no apparent reason.
Those are the foundations that you mean, yet you lack for your own assumptions.Science of the present nature, cannot extend to infinity and beyond, and it is there that the creation debate really lies.When I touch on a topic, it is with this in mind, so to be limited by only the natural is to miss the heart and soul and crux of the real debate.If the debate were here and now, concerning things that were demonstrably physical only, that would be different. If we were discussing present rates of continental separation, decay, light speed, how present laws now work, etc. But what the creation debate is actually doing is going way beyond this known, observed state, and into what is believed to be applicable in the future, or past. That is NOT science, or known.You act as if I do not accept this known nature, and that I must prove some other nature in the past, when you can't prove this one was there. A double standard.Therefore, in the science areas, under your rules, I cannot speak, let's not pretend otherwise.You insist on assuming and believing without proof this present natural can fly to infinity and beyond. The basis, and foundation of YOUR claims needs to be solidly supported.Since that can't happen, I don't see where you get off saying that everyone else must do it?? Especially when you limit your criteria to things that are physical, and present nature. They failed you, and are not what I claim existed, to limit all conversation to that is to be religiously narrowminded.