Confirmed: growth rate was different in past around time of flood!

[dad]

What test can I perform that will determine for me whether any particular poster is a troll?

One test I perform is to see if posts contain anything besides anti God attitude.

My prediction for his answer to you: he won't give one. Everything that could lead to an agreement about the world (and thus an objective agreement that he is wrong) has to be avoided.

Your beliefs are not everything actually. In fact they are less than nothing.

Evos are under the influence.

 

[Father Heathen]

Not if she was in heaven.

Uh, oh...

 

[Shad]

The thread is not about how science cannot cover the flood. What, you thought that because sillyscience was to weak to be able to cover the flood that you could deny it?

You included Flood and used "before" in your OP. Try again.

 

[blü 2]

What test can we perform on nature to see if it was the same?

No no no. You're fixated on one corner of the scientific method that you find it convenient to disapprove of, and accepting the scientific method wherever it suits you, like modern medicine. But that's not the issue here.

Now please tell me: what test can I use to determine whether any particular text is authentically from God or not.

And there's no shame in not knowing - I don't know, and I don't know anyone who does - so if you don't know either, just say so.

 

[viole]

In real time that is closer to 4500 years. The reasons old ages are assigned by faith is because isotope ratios were assumed to have been created in our present nature! (any other reasons would also be same state in the past derived and faith based in entirety)

That article mentioned things which happened 70 millions years ago. Pretty clearly.
Do you believe them?

Or are you making a point based on research that assumes premises that undermine your point? Like creationists usually do, lol?

Ciao

- viole

 

[dad]

Uh, oh...

I understand why someone using a title 'father heathen' might be concerned about relatives being in heaven or not.
Think about it, if there is a heaven, then anyone there would know there was a creator.

 

[dad]

You included Flood and used "before" in your OP. I am not in denial, and not here to cater to last thursdayists.Try again.

Of course I will mention a recorded or historical event whenever I like. If science was able to confirm or deny it, then we might be concerned about what they think.
No evidence opposes the flood. No evidence supports a same nature in the past.

 

[dad]

No no no. You're fixated on one corner of the scientific method that you find it convenient to disapprove of, and accepting the scientific method wherever it suits you, like modern medicine. But that's not the issue here.

It is the issue if you use that 'one corner' of science as the absolute exclusive foundation of so called science models on origins.

Now please tell me: what test can I use to determine whether any particular text is authentically from God or not.

Off topic. The time honored and proven manifestations and proofs of God and Scripture are beyond dispute. What is being discussed here is your religious slant and bias used to sully evidences and fabricate dark imaginary models of the past and where we came from etc.
In this thread, it was pointed out that science claims (not me) that there was some fast growth about '70 million' imaginary years ago. (which happens to be about the time of the flood in actual time-4500 years)

And there's no shame in not knowing - I don't know, and I don't know anyone who does - so if you don't know either, just say so.

The shame is in the endless science claims of knowing.Just look at the article here and see the inferences they make and rattle off as facts based on the growth rate of the shell creature!

 

[dad]

That article mentioned things which happened 70 millions years ago. Pretty clearly.
Do you believe them?

No. Of course not. That was not the focus of what I was looking at. It was the fast growth. You see for many years now when I read any science article and dates are mentioned, i translate it into actual time. So, for example if it said 4 and a half billion, or 14 billion, I would immediately translate that to 6000 years. If it said 65or 70 million years I read about 4500. The error curve for their baseless dream dates grows exponentially wrong the further we get from the time of the nature change. By the time we get to the aprox time of the nature change it is only a little off. (they calibrate dates based on same nature in the past such as tree ring assumptions etc)
Then as we are well into the time when out nature started to exist the dates become very accurate! So if something is dated at 1000 BC, I would not generally have any issue with that at all. The radioactivity has existed that long. The isotope relationship has been one of parent daughter that long..etc.

Or are you making a point based on research that assumes premises that undermine your point? Like creationists usually do, lol?

Ciao

- viole

Nothing based on knowledge or fact opposes
my beliefs. The issue is the beliefs inserted into the picture and sprayed all over evidence and incorporated into models and claims and included as 'science'.

The dark ages are starting to wane!

 

[Father Heathen]

I understand why someone using a title 'father heathen' might be concerned about relatives being in heaven or not.
Think about it, if there is a heaven, then anyone there would know there was a creator.

The theory of evolution and the concept of god aren't mutually exclusive. Biblical literalism isn't a prerequisite for belief in god. God doesn't have to be an oafish cartoon character at odds with science. Such an being would not be bound by how you've chosen to perceive and portray them.

 

[dad]

The theory of evolution and the concept of god aren't mutually exclusive.

Yes they are. Either man shares relatives with flatworms or God formed us from the earth and Personally gave us life in His image, and then took a woman from a bone in man via an operation. Never the twain shall meet.

Biblical literalism isn't a prerequisite for belief in god.

That depends on what god you are talking about. The Living One True God of Scripture told us how it happened. It has to do with belief or disbelief not literalism.

God doesn't have to be an oafish cartoon character at odds with science.

That is not the way He is revealed in the bible.

He is not a lying, inept deceptive dead god that sat on the sidelines while creation happened some opposite way He claimed!

Such an being would not be bound by how you've chosen to perceive and portray them.

He is bound by what He said, and is not the liar that evos think.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes they are. Either man shares relatives with flatworms or God formed us from the earth and Personally gave us life in His image, and then took a woman from a bone in man via an operation. Never the twain shall meet.

Completely arbitrary and nonsensical. Into the it goes.

That depends on what god you are talking about. The Living One True God of Scripture told us how it happened. It has to do with belief or disbelief not literalism.

You worship a book written by man; that's idolatry.

That is not the way He is revealed in the bible.

No, he is portrayed as being very oafish and cartoonish in the bible.

He is not a lying, inept deceptive dead god that sat on the sidelines while creation happened some opposite way He claimed!
He is bound by what He said, and is not the liar that evos think.

You really think some ancient, primitive savages actually spoke on behalf of some supreme cosmic being?

 

[dad]

Completely arbitrary and nonsensical. Into the it goes.

If you are ot aware that TOE claims man shares relatives with the creatures mentioned, cut the feigned indignation and admit ignorance. Be honest.

You worship a book written by man; that's idolatry.

Honoring His word is actually commanded.

No, he is portrayed as being very oafish and cartoonish in the bible.

Your opinion on Scripture is of no bearing here.

You really think some ancient, primitive savages actually spoke on behalf of some supreme cosmic being?

Do you really think the badmouthing from ignorant God haters has any place in a discussion of scientific evidence?

 

[blü 2]

It is the issue if you use that 'one corner' of science as the absolute exclusive foundation of so called science models on origins.

If you think the conclusions of science are wrongly derived from the evidence, all you have to do is point to the error in deriving the conclusion.

But you haven't done this. You've offered only sweeping dismissive generalities.

And now you've said that

"The time honored and proven manifestations and proofs of God and Scripture are beyond dispute."​

Unfortunately for that argument there are no proven manifestations and proofs of God and Scripture, so there's nothing to be 'beyond dispute' ─ and (apart from the fact that there are no absolute statements) nothing is 'beyond dispute' anyway when it comes to making accurate statements about reality.

Consider: there isn't even a definition of a real God such that if we found a real suspect we could tell whether it was God or not.

That is wholly consistent with the observation that God exists (and gods exist) only as concepts with no objective counterpart, and as things imagined, in individual brains, isn't it? Otherwise, how do you account for the absence of such a definition?

(And please don't use words like 'supernatural', 'spiritual', 'immaterial' and so on without setting out the test that will distinguish something that's 'supernatural', 'spiritual', 'immaterial' or the like, from something that's imaginary.)

In this thread, it was pointed out that science claims (not me) that there was some fast growth about '70 million' imaginary years ago. (which happens to be about the time of the flood in actual time-4500 years).

What science actually said is, Look at this piece of examinable evidence ─ it has qualities consistent with conclusion X, and nothing appears to contradict conclusion X, so we offer conclusion X as the explanation.

But as for Noah's flood, that happened only in fiction. Had it been real at any time when humans had ark-building technology, the evidence for it ─ geological and biological (not to mention the absence of that extra 1.113 bn cubic miles of water necessary to cover Mt Everest 20 feet deep) ─ would have been inescapable, overwhelmingly ubiquitous and consistent. Instead there's absolutely nothing.

And as for 4,500 years ago, the civilizations of Sumer, Egypt and the Indus valley flourished steadily and consistently on both sides of that date unsubmerged. The evidence is there for you to examine, of course.

 

[dad]

If you think the conclusions of science are wrongly derived from the evidence, all you have to do is point to the error in deriving the conclusion.

I have pointed out that the models and claims are based on the belief in a same nature in the past. That is the error.

So I have done this, and you have not shown us that nature was the same. Face it.

And now you've said that

"The time honored and proven manifestations and proofs of God and Scripture are beyond dispute."​

Unfortunately for that argument there are no proven manifestations and proofs of God and Scripture, so there's nothing to be 'beyond dispute' ─ and (apart from the fact that there are no absolute statements) nothing is 'beyond dispute' anyway when it comes to making accurate statements about reality.

Tell us how you would dispute someone being healed or risen from the dead or having their lives changed etc etc? You can't.

Consider: there isn't even a definition of a real God such that if we found a real suspect we could tell whether it was God or not.

Yes there is, His name is Jesus. He is the definition and God revealed to man.

(And please don't use words like 'supernatural', 'spiritual', 'immaterial' and so on without setting out the test that will distinguish something that's 'supernatural', 'spiritual', 'immaterial' or the like, from something that's imaginary.)

A ghost or angel is supernatural. So what do you do, hide your head in the sand and call all men liars that have encounters the spiritual?

What science actually said is, Look at this piece of examinable evidence ─ it has qualities consistent with conclusion X, and nothing appears to contradict conclusion X, so we offer conclusion X as the explanation.

No. What this article did was build up on the claim that rapid growth existed and was measured. They tacked on other claims they dug out of their religious nether regions.

But as for Noah's flood, that happened only in fiction. Had it been real at any time when humans had ark-building technology, the evidence for it ─ geological and biological (not to mention the absence of that extra 1.113 bn cubic miles of water necessary to cover Mt Everest 20 feet deep) ─ would have been inescapable, overwhelmingly ubiquitous and consistent. Instead there's absolutely nothing.

Strawman and bogus premise and argument. Who says that much water was needed? No one. The mountains got shoved up later after that flood time. So don't pretend that water needed to cover modern mountains. Who says that the water would be on the planet any more either?? No. The water largely came from windows of heaven and likely a lot of water was taken off the world the same way!

And as for 4,500 years ago, the civilizations of Sumer, Egypt and the Indus valley flourished steadily and consistently on both sides of that date unsubmerged. The evidence is there for you to examine, of course.

Try and support the dates. I'm up for a laugh. Good luck with that.

 

[Shad]

Of course I will mention a recorded or historical event whenever I like.

Science rejects the Biblical flood as an event. Try again

 

[gnostic]

You have misunderstood the article. There is no surprise here about the growth rate of the mollusc, nor about the shorter length of day. It is common knowledge that the Earth is transferring angular momentum to the Moon, via the drag exerted by the tides. Anyone with 6th form knowledge of mechanics will understand that must be happening. (Conservation of angular momentum etc.)

The point of the article is that the daily growth "rings" allow the length of day during the Cretaceous, i.e. over 65 million years ago, to be accurately estimated - and it was half an hour shorter.

Just a reminder, exchemist.

dad is one of those few creationists who believed that Cretaceous actually dated to Genesis Noah and Flood. So 65 million years ago (Cretaceous) = about 4400 years ago (Genesis Flood).

dad’s scientific illiteracy and mathematical incompetency demonstrate his absurd logic of trying to make biological and geological time scales match with his twisted form of creationism.

 

[dad]

Science rejects the Biblical flood as an event. Try again

No it does not. Science is incapable of speaking about it.

If your claim were true you could post the supported scientific reason and exact evidence. Instead we see delusional vagueness.

 

[dad]

dad’s scientific illiteracy and mathematical incompetency demonstrate his absurd logic of trying to make biological and geological time scales match with his twisted form of creationism.

If you had scientific literacy we would see some true support for the foundational belief on which all science models of the deep past on earth are built on. Instead you pretend anyone who questions your proclamations of faith and pretended knowledge is incompetent.

Gong

 

[gnostic]

As I understand dad, he think all Egyptian, Sumerian-Akkadian and Indus civilisations all post-dated the Genesis Flood, when all archaeological evidence are contrary to his absurd claims.

As far as I know, both Egyptian and Sumerian cultures predated dynastic periods of both Bronze Age Egypt and Mesopotamia.

The artworks and pottery in 4th millennium BCE Chalcolithic Egypt showed progression of evolving “Egyptian” styles, that would flowered by the Old Kingdom period (3rd to 6th dynasties, early 27th century to late 20th century BCE).

And it was similar in Mesopotamia in the 4th millennium BCE, with Chalcolithic culture of proto-Sumerian Uruk (Erech in Genesis 10), Ur and Eridu, showing evolving styles in arts, pottery and architecture, that have visible traces in the later Bronze Age “Sumerian” culture n the 3rd millennium BCE.