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

[Shad]

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

Wrong. Science address events that are billions of years in the past. A few thousand years are nothing in comparison. Try again. Look up what geology is.

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

There is no evidence of a global flood.

Yawn

Evidence for a Flood | Science | Smithsonian Magazine
Biblical-Type Floods Are Real, and They're Absolutely Enormous

Read or finish high school.

 

[blü 2]

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.

I said first up that the understanding that nature was the same in the past is derived from empiricism and induction. I added that it's falsifiable but so far unfalsified; and should it in future be falsified then due effort will be put into amending it.

And I added that this approach appears to suit you with things like medicine, but you want to single it out as a problem for one particular corner of cosmology. Isn't the term for that, "special pleading"?

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

I can begin by pointing out that if such an event happened at all, there are vastly more credible explanations; starting with, he was never clinically dead at all. I can add that extraordinary claims require extraordinary demonstration, but that here the evidence is of abysmal quality: of the six accounts of the resurrection in the NT, none is by an eyewitness, none is closer than twenty years in time to the purported event (Paul), and the main one (Mark) is 45 years after the purported event; none is by an independent witness; and that each of the six accounts contradicts the other five in major ways.

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

Are you saying that Jesus was God? If so, why did each of the five versions of Jesus in the NT (in Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) expressly state that he was not God?

A ghost or angel is supernatural.

So is a magician, that is, anyone who can alter reality independently of the rules of reality, just by wishing. Harry Potter can do that, with the help of a wand. God can do it by saying eg Let there be light. But magic isn't found in reality, of course, only in SFX.

So what do you do, hide your head in the sand and call all men liars that have encounters the spiritual?

If the 'spiritual' is real then it exists in nature and you can show it to me. That's what 'real' means. If it's imaginary, you can't ─ you can only urge me to imagine it for myself, or else to take your word for it. I think most are drawing on experiences that are the products of mentation; when they bring back the photos we can argue further then.

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.

They told you what the evidence said, and to what conclusions the evidence in its present form points to. But you want Mt Everest to be under water at the time civilizations were flourishing along the Nile and the Indus and in Mesopotamia; and the evidence is overwhelming that nothing of the kind happened.

Strawman and bogus premise and argument. Who says that much water was needed?

I do.

Genesis 7:17 The flood continued forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters.19 And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered;20 the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.​

So the top of Mt Everest is 15 cubits ─ say 25 feet ─ under water. The mean distance from the center of the earth to sea level is 3956 miles, close enough, Mt Everest is presently 29,029 ft = 5.5 miles close enough. How much water must be added to the water presently on the earth to drown Mt Everest 25 feet under? Do the sum: the answer is 1.1 billion cubic miles of water close enough.

Where's that water now?

And where's the geological flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor and dated to a single date in the last ten thousand years?

And where's the genetic bottleneck in the genes of every species of land animal, each bottleneck dating to the same year, and that year being in the last ten thousand years?

Like the water, they aren't there. Nor is anything even remotely resembling them.

 

[gnostic]

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

But it is YOU, dad. You are the one ignoring all geological evidence, all data that verified and confirmed that the Cretaceous period, where layer of unusual large number of iridium were found at the end of this period, dated 65 million years ago, NOT 4500 YEARS AGO.

Higher concentration of iridium are normally found on large meteors, large enough for impact to cause global climate change by throwing large numbers of dust in the air, with similar results of massive volcanic eruptions

The layer around 4300 to 4500, showed no indication of iridium among cities that exist around these time, and no evidence to support there was even a global flood.

As to the end Cretaceous period, 65 million years ago, no presence of any humans, no cities, and no global flood.

You have utterly ignorant (eg scientific illiterate and history illiterate) and dishonest (eg creationists) to say 65 million years = 4500 years.

 

[McBell]

Nor I in why you like to say the word so much and can't post anything sane or relevant.

Sane and relevant.
Two words your posts strongly indicate you have no idea the meaning of.

 

[dad]

Wrong. Science address events that are billions of years in the past. A few thousand years are nothing in comparison. Try again. Look up what geology is.

Wrong. That is why you cannot support the belief based dates. Try again.

There is no evidence of a global flood.

None that you can or would accept or comprehend. There is no evidence that there was no flood.

Yawn

Evidence for a Flood | Science | Smithsonian Magazine
Biblical-Type Floods Are Real, and They're Absolutely Enormous

Read or finish high school.

Perhaps there is some point in your link that you would like to post and defend. Until you do it remains spam.

 

[dad]

I said first up that the understanding that nature was the same in the past is derived from empiricism and induction. I added that it's falsifiable but so far unfalsified; and should it in future be falsified then due effort will be put into amending it.

Whatever you think you derive it from it is a belief! Unsupportable.

And I added that this approach appears to suit you with things like medicine, but you want to single it out as a problem for one particular corner of cosmology. Isn't the term for that, "special pleading"?

No medicine or anything else relates to the same state past.

I can begin by pointing out that if such an event happened at all, there are vastly more credible explanations; starting with, he was never clinically dead at all. I can add that extraordinary claims require extraordinary demonstration, but that here the evidence is of abysmal quality: of the six accounts of the resurrection in the NT, none is by an eyewitness, none is closer than twenty years in time to the purported event (Paul), and the main one (Mark) is 45 years after the purported event; none is by an independent witness; and that each of the six accounts contradicts the other five in major ways.

In other words you doubt without any reason whatsoever. This unreasonable doubt extends without limits to all history, scripture, spiritual, and all things not in your little belief choice box. John was an eyewitness by the way, and he wrote several books.

Are you saying that Jesus was God?

Yes.

If so, why did each of the five versions of Jesus in the NT (in Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) expressly state that he was not God?

Verses? Ha. You must be kidding.

If the 'spiritual' is real then it exists in nature and you can show it to me.

The nature God put man in at the moment is physical.How would you expect to find the spiritual in that, any more than you could find a rabbit in a dollar bill?

That's what 'real' means.

Thanks for admitting your severely limited opinion of what reality consists of.

They told you what the evidence said, and to what conclusions the evidence in its present form points to. But you want Mt Everest to be under water at the time civilizations were flourishing along the Nile and the Indus and in Mesopotamia; and the evidence is overwhelming that nothing of the kind happened.

There was no mount Everest at the time of the flood. This is news?

Where's that water now?

There were no high mountains as we have today.
As for where water went after the flood you might as well ask where it came from. You see it came largely from a conduit in the sky called windows of heaven. That brought water to earth from beyond where the stars are! Now if much of the water also returned that way (via the strong winds talked about in genesis that dried the waters) then we would not expect to be able to find it here!

And where's the geological flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor and dated to a single date in the last ten thousand years?

Possibly the KT layer.

And where's the genetic bottleneck in the genes of every species of land animal, each bottleneck dating to the same year, and that year being in the last ten thousand years?

Modern genetics did not exist as such in the former nature. The atoms and cells and etc all worked according to the different nature of the day!

 

[McBell]

Modern genetics did not exist as such in the former nature. The atoms and cells and etc all worked according to the different nature of the day!

As you are so fond of saying:

Prove It​

 

[dad]

But it is YOU, dad. You are the one ignoring all geological evidence, all data that verified and confirmed that the Cretaceous period, where layer of unusual large number of iridium were found at the end of this period, dated 65 million years ago, NOT 4500 YEARS AGO.

There is no geologic evidence to ignore that says the earth is old. ONLY your beliefs superimposed and welded and painted onto evidences says that.

Higher concentration of iridium are normally found on large meteors, large enough for impact to cause global climate change by throwing large numbers of dust in the air, with similar results of massive volcanic eruptions

So what? It also is found science says deep in the earth and in space. That is precisely where the flood waters came from.

The layer around 4300 to 4500, showed no indication of iridium among cities that exist around these time, and no evidence to support there was even a global flood.

Yes, the KT is about 4500 years old. Your dates are religious and wrong and absolutely unsupportable.

As to the end Cretaceous period, 65 million years ago, no presence of any humans, no cities, and no global flood.

Man could not leave remains in the former nature so we would not have joined the fossil record early on. That does not mean we were not here. The remains of structures that pre dated the flood would largely have been destroyed, either in the world of water in that flood year, or later in the rapid continent movements and uplifts etc. Even if there were some remains of some city with no human remains at all anywhere that was from the former nature, you would misdiagnose it!

 

[dad]

As you are so fond of saying:

Prove It​

No need. Unless science can demonstrate it was the same we have no need to believe it was. Since there is no real usable DNA from before the KT layer era anyhow, you are hooped either way!

 

[dad]

Sane and relevant.
Two words your posts strongly indicate you have no idea the meaning of.

I know you are but what am I?

 

[McBell]

No need. Unless science can demonstrate it was the same we have no need to believe it was. Since there is no real usable DNA from before the KT layer era anyhow, you are hooped either way!

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

[McBell]

I know you are but what am I?

My honest answer is against pretty much every forum rule.
Lucky you.

 

[blü 2]

Whatever you think you derive it from it is a belief! Unsupportable.

I don't understand. How do you define "belief" here?

No medicine or anything else relates to the same state past.

Of course it does. There's only one history.

In other words you doubt without any reason whatsoever.

No reason? I gave you a set of reasons that will still be there when you've finished not looking at them ─ the boundless improbability of the claim, the availability of alternative explanations if the phenomenon occurred, the absurdly poor quality of the evidence in favor.


But I accept your unstated plea that you don't want to have to consider those rationally.

Verses? Ha. You must be kidding.

No, not verses, versions. Paul says Jesus is not God. Mark's Jesus says he [Mark's Jesus] is not God. Matthew's Jesus says he's not God. Luke's Jesus says he's not God. John's Jesus says he's not God.

So if you think Jesus is God, on what basis do you think that? Because every version of Jesus is a liar?

The nature God put man in at the moment is physical.How would you expect to find the spiritual in that,

What do you mean, 'spiritual'? What test will tell me whether something's 'spiritual' or not (liquor jokes aside).

any more than you could find a rabbit in a dollar bill?

A rabbi in a dollar bill? No, I haven't seen that.

Thanks for admitting your severely limited opinion of what reality consists of.

What do you say reality consists of? Or don't you know?

There was no mount Everest at the time of the flood. This is news?

You just made that up. No way can you show that's an accurate statement about reality.

There were no high mountains as we have today.

You just made that up too. Even Genesis specifically refers to the 'high mountains'.

As for where water went after the flood you might as well ask where it came from.

In the cosmology of the bible, it came from above the flat, immovably fixed, earth, and went away by falling over the edges to the waters below the earth mentioned in Genesis. But the earth isn't flat, isn't fixed, isn't immovable.

You see it came largely from a conduit in the sky called windows of heaven.

You just made that up too. Neither the bible, nor history, nor science offers the slightest support for your claim.

Modern genetics did not exist as such in the former nature. The atoms and cells and etc all worked according to the different nature of the day!

There you go again, just making stuff up.

Do you life in a gingerbread house, perhaps? With fairies at the bottom of the garden?

 

[dad]

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Your ignorance cannot be dealt with unless you were willing.

 

[dad]

I don't understand. How do you define "belief" here?

Simple. Your belief used in 'science' models of the past is a belief that nature was the same in the past. That is nothing more than a belief.

Of course it does. There's only one history.

History includes spirits. It includes men living for centuries. You reject this. I do not. Why the denial?

No reason? I gave you a set of reasons that will still be there when you've finished not looking at them ─ the boundless improbability of the claim, the availability of alternative explanations if the phenomenon occurred, the absurdly poor quality of the evidence in favor.

Nothing is improbable about the different nature in the past that is a matter of record. Your religion is not the only explanation, get over it. Really. There is no evidence for a same state past therefore, obviously, no model using that premise is evidence based.

No, not verses, versions. Paul says Jesus is not God. Mark's Jesus says he [Mark's Jesus] is not God. Matthew's Jesus says he's not God. Luke's Jesus says he's not God. John's Jesus says he's not God.

I must have missed that, chapter and verse?

So if you think Jesus is God, on what basis do you think that?

For starters He had power over death. He also created all things. That'll do er.

Because every version of Jesus is a liar?

No. Not sure what delusions dance in your head like sugar plum ferries.

What do you mean, 'spiritual'? What test will tell me whether something's 'spiritual' or not (liquor jokes aside).

Well, if you talk to someone and then can put your hand through his face I would suspect that they were not physical.

 

[dad]

My honest answer is against pretty much every forum rule.
Lucky you.

No. Lucky you.

 

[blü 2]

Simple. Your belief used in 'science' models of the past is a belief that nature was the same in the past. That is nothing more than a belief.

I ask again ─ what definition of 'belief' are you using? What exactly do you intend to denote when you say 'belief'?

History includes spirits. It includes men living for centuries. You reject this. I do not. Why the denial?

Because you still haven't shown me those videos of God, or brought [him] into the lab for a checkup.

Nothing is improbable about the different nature in the past that is a matter of record.

For example?

Your religion is not the only explanation, get over it. Really. There is no evidence for a same state past therefore, obviously, no model using that premise is evidence based.

You speak from ignorance, I fear. There have been many examinations of questions such as 'was the speed of light the same as in the past?' In other words, it's not as if the question hasn't been addressed. If you want to argue then you need to make yourself familiar with the evidence, and then put a reasoned argument as to why the present best conclusion doesn't follow from that evidence. But you won't do that, because you're defending magic, aren't you?

I must have missed that, chapter and verse?

It is truly said, Christians never read their own book.

Paul: 1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Philiippians 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Mark: 12:29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; [...] 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he;
Matthew: 20:23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.
Luke:19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”
John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”
John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “[...] go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”
(and there's more, but that will give you the idea).

For starters He had power over death.

So did Gandalf. That's how he became Gandalf the White, you'll recall.

He also created all things. That'll do er.

Only in stories. Oh, and in those stories, Paul says Jesus created all things, although he wasn't God (1 Corinthian 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist) and so does John (John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.)

Well, if you talk to someone and then can put your hand through his face I would suspect that they were not physical.

In such cases the first thing is to rule out all the medical possibilities, and that could take some time.

 

[Shad]

Wrong. That is why you cannot support the belief based dates. Try again.

Bias to reality more like it. Try again. Ironic considering your only source is the Bible. Ironic that you dismiss one source about growth and dates in your OP then reject a similar system when it is not in your favour. Typical dishonest creationism.

None that you can or would accept or comprehend. There is no evidence that there was no flood.

Deflection and dodge as you can not produce such scientific evidence. After all this is basic HS stuff you should have learned about a long time ago.

Perhaps there is some point in your link that you would like to post and defend. Until you do it remains spam.

I provided sources you requests. If you have an issue with one of those sources point said issue out. I stand by my sources. Providing what you asked is not spam. Stop whining that I did something you could have done yourself with little effort but wont due to your religion.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Thanks. I am aware of that. He and I have debated these things before. What he does, to keep his literalist view of the bible alive, is to deny the principle of uniformitarianism. He's a sort of c.19th catastrophist, basically.

My purpose in these threads is just to point out how one can in fact get a lot of disparate things to mesh quite nicely if uniformitarianism holds, enabling you to make the testable predictions that are the hallmark of science. If you opt for catastrophism, you are very limited in what you can say about the evidence of the past and you can't make predictions at all, i.e. you can't do science.

Ironically, the example he has picked is perfect for showing this. Physics, in the form of the principle of conservation of angular momentum, predicts that the Earth should have rotated on its axis faster in the past than it does today, because the drag due to the tides will transfer angular momentum to the moon. And now we have, from palaeontology - a totally unrelated branch of science - corroboration of precisely this prediction!

I could not have picked a better illustration of the predictive power of science, based on uniformitarianism, if I had chosen one myself.

 

[dad]

Bias to reality more like it. Try again. Ironic considering your only source is the Bible. Ironic that you dismiss one source about growth and dates in your OP then reject a similar system when it is not in your favour. Typical dishonest creationism.

Speaking of honesty, can you quote the OP article where it 'rejects' a different nature in the past or even addresses the issue? Instead it rambles on about imaginary years and etc with zero support for anything other than the fast growth rate. Since that happens to be the topic of the thread, and there was support offered for that one claim of fast growth, we could not say that the insinuations and belief based implications based on that one item were sourced in any way.

Deflection and dodge as you can not produce such scientific evidence.

There is no evidence for anything in the study except fast growth. The rest is belief based speculation. But do feel free to support the other things mentioned if you dare. Bring it.

I provided sources you requests. If you have an issue with one of those sources point said issue out. I stand by my sources. Providing what you asked is not spam. Stop whining that I did something you could have done yourself with little effort but wont due to your religion.

I addressed you sources accordingly. Now if you think that you were unfairly treated then post relevant quotes from your source and they will be dealt with. Ha