Genesis Account of Creation: Firmament

[sooda]

Prove it was the same? History and Scripture seem to indicate great difference. Either you know or not. Be honest.



The issue is not what nature in the far universe is like. You are actually in no position to tell us how far any star is out there. Science cannot say what time itself is like in far space. Therefore you cannot claim any great times are involved in things moving there. Period. I have to tell you this?

Jesus confirmed Scripture. That'll do er.
I care about neither their research if it is based only on beliefs, or yours.

Jesus taught what he knew.

 

[sooda]

One need know know what nature used to be like to know it was different. Unless was is so science deadened in the head and heart, they lose all ability to look rationally at things.

The laws of nature haven't changed.

 

[ecco]

Religion is what you believe in. (Christian) Religion is a compilation of stories that were written by and for the relatively ignorant and superstitious people of 3500 years ago. Some of that same core audience still exists today.

No, nothing remotely similar to that.

It is really sad that you do not know the origins and history of the stories you are so dependent on.

 

[ecco]

One need know know what nature used to be like to know it was different. Unless was is so science deadened in the head and heart, they lose all ability to look rationally at things.

It is irrational to think that the laws of nature suddenly changed within the past 3500 years.
It is irrational to think that the continents zipped across the oceans to their present locations within the past 3500 years.
It is irrational to believe the entire earth was flooded and dried up 3500 years ago without leaving any trace whatsoever.

 

[dad]

Jesus taught what he knew.

God knows it all. He is God.

 

[dad]

The laws of nature haven't changed.

No? So prove it. Then we can all dismiss any possibility that it did as false.

 

[sooda]

No? So prove it. Then we can all dismiss any possibility that it did as false.

Gary C. Gibson - Essays etc.: Unchanging Laws of Physics
https://garycgibson.blogspot.com/2019/09/unchanging-laws-of-physics.html
The reason for the assumption that the laws of physics haven’t changed since the start of the Universe is based on observations of the Universe together with the body of physics knowledge theory development and how that correlates with observations. One need distinguish between the laws of physics that exist in nature and human ideas about ...

 

[sooda]

1. Seat Belts: The Laws of Physics Have Not Changed… - STN Media
   Seat Belts: The Laws of Physics Have Not Changed… - STN Medialaws-of-physics-have-not-changed
   While many things have changed since then, such as the heavier weight of today’s school buses and higher roadway speeds of other motorists, we also must remember that the laws of physics have not changed since Sir Isaac Newton first explained …
   
   
2. Have all laws of physics never changed since the Big Bang ...
   https://www.quora.com/Have-all-laws-of-physics...
   The obvious answer is no, the laws of physics don't change. However, what we usually consider to be the laws of physics- rules governing thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, matter state changes, atomic structure, etc. have not always behaved the way t...
   

 

[dad]

It is irrational to think that the laws of nature suddenly changed within the past 3500 years.

Since history and Scripture seem to indicate it did, and science does not know either way, tell us how you know this?

It is irrational to think that the continents zipped across the oceans to their present locations within the past 3500 years.

We know they moved. When and how fast is purely a matter of belief!

It is irrational to believe the entire earth was flooded and dried up 3500 years ago without leaving any trace whatsoever.

False. It is irrational to pretend windows of heaven did not open and pour the water down at one time as Scripture records, and, for all we know, possibly even suck some water away later!! Stick to what you know.

 

[dad]

Gary C. Gibson - Essays etc.: Unchanging Laws of Physics
https://garycgibson.blogspot.com/2019/09/unchanging-laws-of-physics.html
The reason for the assumption that the laws of physics haven’t changed since the start of the Universe is based on observations of the Universe together with the body of physics knowledge theory development and how that correlates with observations. One need distinguish between the laws of physics that exist in nature and human ideas about ...

The first link is about school bus seat belts. The second link was not working.
Thanks for redefining the word 'lame'!

 

[sooda]

The first link is about school bus seat belts. The second link was not working.
Thanks for redefining the word 'lame'!

The laws of physics haven't changed.

Gary C. Gibson - Essays etc.: Unchanging Laws of Physics

 

[sooda]

God knows it all. He is God.

Maybe Jesus did know supernaturally, but he taught what he knew (or what people believed and understood anyway)

The stories are morality tales, foundational myths borrowed from earlier civilizations.They answer where did I come from and where did the world come from. Myths were normal for bronze age people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No? So prove it. Then we can all dismiss any possibility that it did as false.

What makes you think that you could understand that proof?

 

[dad]

What makes you think that you could understand that proof?

What makes you think you could post it?

 

[dad]

Maybe Jesus did know supernaturally, but he taught what he knew (or what people believed and understood anyway)

Truth be told He explained that in His word are many treasure, both new ones, and old yet to be discovered. An unbeliever's idea of what He said therefore, really is of extreme little significance, since they miss not just the forest, for the trees, or the country that forest is located in, or even what planet the trees are on. They miss what galaxy they are in!

 

[dad]

The laws of physics haven't changed.

Gary C. Gibson - Essays etc.: Unchanging Laws of Physics

The laws of physics haven't changed.

Gary C. Gibson - Essays etc.: Unchanging Laws of Physics

In case you were not able to comprehend your link, it cites billions of years based on a belief only. (that time is uniform in the universe)
It also mentions some strawman 'chained speed of light' which is a ridiculous notion if the only change happens once light enters our time area!

I didn't get past that, and unless you can deal with the defeat laid on your table on these issues, no one should read any further. They should post warning signs on such religious propaganda articles 'Danger: deadly mind fungi ahead'.

 

[sooda]

In case you were not able to comprehend your link, it cites billions of years based on a belief only. (that time is uniform in the universe)
It also mentions some strawman 'chained speed of light' which is a ridiculous notion if the only change happens once light enters our time area!

I didn't get past that, and unless you can deal with the defeat laid on your table on these issues, no one should read any further. They should post warning signs on such religious propaganda articles 'Danger: deadly mind fungi ahead'.

Defeat? Is this a contest?

Literalists drive people away from Christianity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What makes you think you could post it?

Because I understand the concept of evidence. You won't let yourself understand that concept which all but guarantees that you will not be able to understand anything posted for you.

So, since you won't let yourself understand why do you even bother asking for evidence?

 

[joelr]

Prove it was the same? History and Scripture seem to indicate great difference. Either you know or not. Be honest.

I did. First there is no reason to believe such a thing happened or is possible. The current laws of physics were the same laws that allowed the universe to be what it is.
Without carbon decay there can be no life, we had life then so we had carbon decay. I can't believe you think this absurd point you are making is actually of any value. I'm sure even believers are face palming at you idea that "nature was different" just a few thousand years ago and that a staple of particle physics (which account for all processes from the big bang on was suddenly "not working" recently?

There is noting I could say that would make you look as ridiculous as the point you are trying to make.

The issue is not what nature in the far universe is like. You are actually in no position to tell us how far any star is out there. Science cannot say what time itself is like in far space. Therefore you cannot claim any great times are involved in things moving there. Period. I have to tell you this?

We use parallax and brightness measurements to determine stars distance. Time and space are connected in a fabric we call spacetime. The properties are the same throughout the universe.
This idea makes predictions that we then observe to actually happen.
AGAIN...if you have a theory that time is different somewhere else, then put forth your evidence. Now you have TWO ridiculous ideas that I'm waiting for some evidence, some papers on? Anything?
Show what evidence you have to thing time could work different far away.



If you bother to study special relativity and physics you will learn that we see the same processes happening all around the universe which require the same laws of physics.
Galaxies far away are still undergoing the same processes, star formation, supernova, we see changes in star positions in very far away galaxies so we know things are happening in a similar manner to our own local star.
The microwave radiation background coming from all areas of the universe is exactly as bright as predicted if it were 13 billion years old. So the time of the universal background photons is flowing through the same time as we are.

Your idea is just a bad time-suck diversion. Please provide some line of evidence observed by some field that suggests time is different for different regions of space or stop embarrassing yourself.

Jesus confirmed Scripture. That'll do er.
I care about neither their research if it is based only on beliefs, or yours.

All science is based on multiple theories and observations. And it will change as any new evidence comes in.
I keep explaining this and ignoring it just makes you look like someone with their head buried in the mud.
See if I wanted to stoop to the crap level you're trying to debate at :
"I know but everything Jesus said was just a joke, he was kidding"
or "no that was really Satan, I just know", pointless stuff just to say something

The irony is EVERYTHING you believe is based on beliefs. You believe that Jesus was a real demi-god and that Yahweh was a real god. There are no facts to back that up, it's just a belief from believing a fictional story is real.
scholorship backs this up, which is why you have to pretend like they are all wrong because they know religion is just mythic writing. This isn't something you would ever be able to understand so I don't say this for your sake.
There is nothing going on here of value.

 

[joelr]

Fantasy.

No, it's current science. If you disagree please provide evidence, a link to some papers

You have no clue how far it came. Nor do you know what all is really out there, or how distant.

Yes we can measure distant objects in cosmology in many ways.

What you need to do IF you claim our nature existed is to prove it. Otherwise it remains belief. We all have beliefs.
See anything in there that proves it did??

Actually everything proves it did. Without the delicate balance of the physics laws things would not exist. If there were no carbon decay for example one result would be no life.
Did we have life? Yes, then we had radiocarbon decay. You keep asking for evidence and I'm giving it and you ignore it and ask again?
I couldn't make you look more silly than you are already providing? This is so easy?

Not for the far past!
Less than 3000 year, that is fine. You kidding?

Radiocarbon decay allows life to thrive, that would cover a billion years.

That depends if you are talking about the very early part of it or later. You see, Sumer likely started after the time of Babel. Babylon started maybe around seven years after the tower of Babel! Egypt probably around fifty four years after Babel. I suspect that the change in nature happened around the time of Babel, so these kingdoms would have had people living in them who remembered the former nature, and lived through the change.

HHA!!!!!!! Wait for it, .........."I SUSPECT" and "LIKELY" !! Ha, all this talk about "I don't believe stuff that's just belief....
Everything you just said is 100% belief. Your facts are complete beliefs. HAHAHAHAH