Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
65 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 64 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,278 Year: 4,390/6,534 Month: 604/900 Week: 128/182 Day: 8/27 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
ringo
Member
Posts: 19530
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1756 of 2370 (878814)
07-05-2020 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1754 by dad
07-05-2020 2:40 AM


Re: Just as the fact that there is no "Bible™" ...
dad writes:

If I offered support for a different nature in the past it would not be using science since science does not know either way.


Well, you just admitted that you don't know. You're pretty arrogant to assume that nobody else knows either.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1754 by dad, posted 07-05-2020 2:40 AM dad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1761 by dad, posted 07-05-2020 12:49 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19530
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 1757 of 2370 (878815)
07-05-2020 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1753 by dad
07-05-2020 2:39 AM


Re: the world that then was
dad writes:

If you claim that belief in a same nature in the past is falsifiable, then show us how.


I did. All you have to do is present some evidence that nature changed.

And then, of course, you'd have to propose some explaination for HOW it changed - i.e. how God did it. But that goes against your belief system, doesn't it? Your belief system inherently precludes science.

dad writes:

ringo writes:

The models are observed to be valid - i.e. they're confirmed by the evidence


No. They are not. They rest only on beliefs.

Denial is not an argument. Say something worthwhile.

dad writes:

Looking at a dead tree does not tell us how fast it used to grow.


It may not tell YOU anything. It does tell "us".

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1753 by dad, posted 07-05-2020 2:39 AM dad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1764 by dad, posted 07-05-2020 12:57 PM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15951
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1758 of 2370 (878819)
07-05-2020 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1753 by dad
07-05-2020 2:39 AM


Re: the world that then was
dad writes:

Looking at a dead tree does not tell us how fast it used to grow.


By that logic, if it takes the light from stars 7-100 light years to arrive at earth and that we essentially look back through the portals of time when we view the stars--even through powerful telescopes, then we could for all intents and purposes simply see the past universe and the actual universe may have long since ceased to exist. What do you think about that?

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.”- Francis A. Schaeffer

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killosophy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1753 by dad, posted 07-05-2020 2:39 AM dad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1760 by JonF, posted 07-05-2020 11:19 AM Phat has seen this message
 Message 1767 by dad, posted 07-05-2020 1:02 PM Phat has taken no action

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 424
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 1759 of 2370 (878823)
07-05-2020 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1727 by dad
07-03-2020 11:11 PM


Re: Just as the fact that there is no "Bible™" ...
You declare events long ago fiction based on..?
The revealed fact that the world was created last Thursday. There was no "long ago". The Timelessly Immediate One created us all last week with our so called "memories" already in place.

Disprove it or repent!

Edited by Capt Stormfield, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1727 by dad, posted 07-03-2020 11:11 PM dad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1766 by dad, posted 07-05-2020 12:59 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1760 of 2370 (878824)
07-05-2020 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1758 by Phat
07-05-2020 10:03 AM


Re: the world that then was
Nitpick: you mean years. Light-years are a measure of distance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1758 by Phat, posted 07-05-2020 10:03 AM Phat has seen this message

  
dad
Member (Idle past 575 days)
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1761 of 2370 (878829)
07-05-2020 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1756 by ringo
07-05-2020 9:00 AM


Re: Just as the fact that there is no "Bible™" ...
I admitted we do not know USING SCIENCE, either way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1756 by ringo, posted 07-05-2020 9:00 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1763 by ringo, posted 07-05-2020 12:53 PM dad has replied

  
dad
Member (Idle past 575 days)
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1762 of 2370 (878830)
07-05-2020 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1755 by JonF
07-05-2020 8:26 AM


Re: We don't ASSUME the past was the same
No one can prove nature was different or the same using science, and you don't seem to accept proofs outside of science.

Check.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1755 by JonF, posted 07-05-2020 8:26 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1784 by JonF, posted 07-06-2020 10:37 AM dad has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19530
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1763 of 2370 (878831)
07-05-2020 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1761 by dad
07-05-2020 12:49 PM


Re: Just as the fact that there is no "Bible™" ...
dad writes:

I admitted we do not know USING SCIENCE, either way.


And I pointed out that you're extremely arrogant to include everybody else in your ignorance.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1761 by dad, posted 07-05-2020 12:49 PM dad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1765 by dad, posted 07-05-2020 12:58 PM ringo has replied

  
dad
Member (Idle past 575 days)
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1764 of 2370 (878832)
07-05-2020 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1757 by ringo
07-05-2020 9:20 AM


Re: the world that then was
quote:
All you have to do is present some evidence that nature changed.
Unless you can prove it was the same there is no need. We believe what we choose. The claim that nature was the same is not falsifiable. (able to be proved to be false). Science cannot prove it false or true!

quote:
you'd have to propose some explaination for HOW it changed
Since science doesn't know either was no one needs to or can show how some unknown nature in the past changed. All that is needed is to realize science only believes and does not know.

quote:
you'd have to propose some explaination for HOW it changed
Showing a one liner that has no content or specifics to be false is not denial.

quote:
...It does tell "us".
How does a dead tree tell you how fast it used to grow 4600 years ago exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1757 by ringo, posted 07-05-2020 9:20 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1768 by ringo, posted 07-05-2020 1:22 PM dad has replied

  
dad
Member (Idle past 575 days)
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1765 of 2370 (878833)
07-05-2020 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1763 by ringo
07-05-2020 12:53 PM


Re: Just as the fact that there is no "Bible™" ...
It is arrogant of you to pretend science knows when being shown unable to demonstrate it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1763 by ringo, posted 07-05-2020 12:53 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1773 by ringo, posted 07-05-2020 7:36 PM dad has replied

  
dad
Member (Idle past 575 days)
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1766 of 2370 (878834)
07-05-2020 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1759 by Capt Stormfield
07-05-2020 11:18 AM


Re: Just as the fact that there is no "Bible™" ...
Not a scientific basis, sorry. Maybe keep playing in the sand or whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1759 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-05-2020 11:18 AM Capt Stormfield has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1771 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-05-2020 7:28 PM dad has replied

  
dad
Member (Idle past 575 days)
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1767 of 2370 (878835)
07-05-2020 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1758 by Phat
07-05-2020 10:03 AM


Re: the world that then was
You switch from tree rings to deep space. You seem to be all over the map here. OK, so light is seen here in the area of the solar system only. We do not go out into the universe and see it at source, you realize this much?

Now, we also do not know what time is like out there at all. We do not see time or space. So what time is involved in anything happening out there is absolutely unknown.

You with me so far?

Edited by dad, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1758 by Phat, posted 07-05-2020 10:03 AM Phat has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19530
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1768 of 2370 (878836)
07-05-2020 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1764 by dad
07-05-2020 12:57 PM


Re: the world that then was
dad writes:

ringo writes:

All you have to do is present some evidence that nature changed.


Unless you can prove it was the same there is no need. We believe what we choose.

Now that is a really silly thing to say. Unless we can show that it didn't change, you will assume that it did? So tomorrow you'll come to EvC assuming that it has changed to the website for Major League baseball?

dad writes:

The claim that nature was the same is not falsifiable. (able to be proved to be false).


You're just repeating yourself. You might as well be squawking like a chicken.

dad writes:

How does a dead tree tell you how fast it used to grow 4600 years ago exactly?


The pattern of the rings - e.g. wide narrow narrow wide extra-wide, etc. - can be compared from tree to tree. The same pattern over a number of years indicates the same time period. Thus, the time periods can be detected even when the lifespans of the individual trees overlap - and a timeline can be established that is much longer than the lifetime of one tree.

It's all in RAZD's many, many threads. For God's sake, do some honest research.


"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1764 by dad, posted 07-05-2020 12:57 PM dad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1769 by dad, posted 07-05-2020 2:30 PM ringo has replied

  
dad
Member (Idle past 575 days)
Posts: 337
Joined: 05-29-2020


Message 1769 of 2370 (878839)
07-05-2020 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1768 by ringo
07-05-2020 1:22 PM


Re: the world that then was
quote:
Now that is a really silly thing to say. Unless we can show that it didn't change, you will assume that it did?

Unless you know and can prove that the nature you use in all models of the past was as you claim, I have no reason to assume it was. None at all. In fact, Scripture and even ancient history to some extent records that it was not the same. So I do not consider it a question, we already have the record. When you claim otherwise I naturally demand real evidence.

quote:
So tomorrow you'll come to EvC assuming that it has changed to the website for Major League baseball?
I think that nature follows certain forces and laws and as long as that nature exists, we can expect those laws to be valid.

However, I also happen to know that one day soon that nature will change again! So I will not be the one hiding under rocks wishing to die when predicted changes occur. ( I hope).

quote:
The pattern of the rings - e.g. wide narrow narrow wide extra-wide, etc. - can be compared from tree to tree.

Let's see a close up of tree rings over 5000 deep? Let's look at that pattern for that time. We wait.

If you pass that bar, we will then ask the question 'have you any reasons that fast growing trees in the different past nature would not have a similar pattern, though the rings represent parts of a month or week or day rather than seasons'?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1768 by ringo, posted 07-05-2020 1:22 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1772 by ringo, posted 07-05-2020 7:33 PM dad has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6647
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1770 of 2370 (878841)
07-05-2020 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1718 by dad
07-03-2020 5:12 PM


Re: Just as the fact that there is no "Bible™" ...
In the case of the evolution of life, the main belief is in a same nature in the past.

Why do you say this is a belief and not a reality?


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1718 by dad, posted 07-03-2020 5:12 PM dad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1777 by dad, posted 07-05-2020 8:25 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022