The different nature in the past allows literal Genesis

[dad]

Science today is based on the nature and laws of today. If the nature was not the same, then things like people living 1000 years could be natural in the former nature. The question is does science know it was this same nature that existed or not? The anser is no. It only assumed it was.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 646 by dad]

Noah was several hundred years old at the time of the flood, and lived centuries more after. Not sure what your problem is. Being old does make the earth older!

You missed the point completely, as usual. I said nothing about people living to impossible ages making the earth older. The point was that in your OP you suggested that a "different nature" in the past could explain people living to nearly 1000 years, then you admit that your linked graphic shows that time (or intervals of time) have not changed since "creation" in 4004 BC and you agree with that. So what aspect of a former nature was in place that allowed people to live to 900+ years if there has been no change in time or time intervals since 4004 BC and "creation"?

In post 338 you said this:

"I suspect the flood was about 70,000,000 imaginary science years ago."

What is an "imaginary science year"? We've established, and you agreed, that there has been no change in time or time intervals since "creation", so the supposed flood happened around 4500 BC on your time scale (or your mountain21 friends, where you apparently got this whole idea of "different nature in the past"), as well as the same time scale science and everyone else uses. So your statement above about 70.000.000 years makes no sense at all, and is inconsistent with your acceptance of no time or time interval changes since 4004 BC.

It was not meant to explain any age difference.

Again ... you missed the point. Whether a year is 360 days or 365.25 days doesn't explain anything with humans living to 900+ years. That is impossible due to biology and has never happened since humans evolved from our great ape ancestors. A 5.25 day difference in a year doesn't help your arguments.

That is the 64 dollar question! Ha. If science knew that it would get somewhere.

A question certainly worth $64 rather than $64K! Science doesn't guess on things like this. It collects data from measurements and observation, and attempts to explain and predict things based on prior established natural laws and facts. Since there is zero evidence that natural laws were somehow different in the past, science would make no attempt to explain such a thing (and now you're simply admitting that you have no idea, which has been obvious all along but now you outright admit it ... you have no evidence for your claims and can only guess at what might have been different).

Why do you think we have to know HOW God tweaked creation. and will tweak it back again one day? Science doesn't so much as realize it was different or not. Talk about kindergarten.

I don't think any such thing, and never implied it (missing the point yet again). It is you who have made the claim of a "different nature" in the past in your OP, and suggested it would allow people to live for 900 years and more. There is no evidence for this "different nature in the past", so science ignores such a silly idea. And you obviously cannot justify it either ... so there is no point continuing any more discussion about it here. If you could produce some evidence to suggest it was worthy of scientific pursuit, then I'm sure science would certainly be interested in having a look. But since you can't, and now admit that your entire hypothesis of a different nature in the past is the $64 question that you could only guess at an explanation for, I think we're done. You've simply failed to convince anyone of the plausibility of your hypothesis, or to support it in any way with evidence.

[dad]

You missed the point completely, as usual. I said nothing about people living to impossible ages making the earth older. The point was that in your OP you suggested that a "different nature" in the past could explain people living to nearly 1000 years, then you admit that your linked graphic shows that time (or intervals of time) have not changed since "creation" in 4004 BC and you agree with that. So what aspect of a former nature was in place that allowed people to live to 900+ years if there has been no change in time or time intervals since 4004 BC and "creation"?

No changes in time on earth are involved, or needed. Unless you now claim that things like gravity, the strong nuclear force and other forces operate on some time basis??

In post 338 you said this:

"I suspect the flood was about 70,000,000 imaginary science years ago."

That is a year science claims of course. Anything with millions or billions of years is totally cooked up, religious nonsense. The way they arrive at that imaginary time is by assuming radioactive decay (this nature) EXISTED FOR ALL TIME!

In their imaginary timescales, the flood was likely somewhere around 65-70 million years ago. In actual real time it was only about 4500 years ago. Their same state past based dating goes wildly wildly wrong very very fast as we near the time when this state started.

Let's say this nature began, for example, 4267 years ago. Dates that are gotten by radioactive decay would be wrong probably, for even dates that are several hundred years BEFORE that. Why? Because they use collaborating evidences such as coral growth, or tree rings etc. A tree that was full grown on the day of the nature change may have been fully grown, but only took a month to grow. Science would look at the rings of that tree as if the rings were grown slowly, seasonally, as now.

Again ... you missed the point. Whether a year is 360 days or 365.25 days doesn't explain anything with humans living to 900+ years.

No, you missed the point it is not supposed to!

That is impossible due to biology and has never happened since humans evolved from our great ape ancestors. A 5.25 day difference in a year doesn't help your arguments.

Prove we evolved from ape ancestors. You claimed it. No one asked what is possible today. Today life processes operate under OUR laws. Atoms and molecules and cells must do what they do here and now. That does not tell us how the cells and atoms used to behave and act in the former nature! All you do is assume it was the same, that is religion, not science.

A question certainly worth $64 rather than $64K! Science doesn't guess on things like this.

Well, since it has no clue either way we would hope it zips it's little lips.

It collects data from measurements and observation, and attempts to explain and predict things based on prior established natural laws and facts.

It only does so in this nature. That means it has no data on the former state. It has ONE thing only and that is a blind belief it was the same nature for NO reason.

Since there is zero evidence that natural laws were somehow different in the past,

Or the same, that is your problem! They don't have a clue either way.

I don't think any such thing, and never implied it (missing the point yet again). It is you who have made the claim of a "different nature"

Science doesn't know, and the record of the nature in the past is different than today. The default is different. You need a reason to claim it was the same! You must admit science doesn't know.

in the past in your OP, and suggested it would allow people to live for 900 years and more.

YOU suggest the bible lifespans are wrong. You suggest this because you claim nature was the same. I have no reason to question the recorded lifespans. Nor does science!

There is no evidence for this "different nature in the past",

The bible is evidence. Science has no evidence for a same state past. You may chose to deny and disallow evidence from the bible, but that just shows us about you and your beliefs and choices.

You don't get to wave away the record of people's lives in the bible just because you have some weird belief in a same nature in the past.
[/quote]

[dianaiad]

..... You don't get to wave away the record of people's lives in the bible just because you have some weird belief in a same nature in the past.

Moderator Warning


You have been told several times that in this sub forum, the bible is NOT considered authoritative, and that you must provide empirical evidence for scientific claims.

In addition to reading the forum rules, please read the guidelines for the 'Science and religion" forum.

This subforum is designed to foster debate on issues which intersect science and religion. While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 648 by dad]

Anything with millions or billions of years is totally cooked up, religious nonsense.

OK ... I'm done wasting time on this never-ending stream of drivel. Good luck with your science bashing mission.

[dad]

[Replying to post 648 by dad]

Anything with millions or billions of years is totally cooked up, religious nonsense.

OK ... I'm done wasting time on this never-ending stream of drivel. Good luck with your science bashing mission.

No problem, you helped show that science is not authoritative. Certainly in no position to question the proven authority of the bible. (not on this forum of course where the bible is not allowed to be considered, but the beliefs of science are sacred). But that is OK, cause all that is needed is to show science doesn't know, and to expose it as belief based.

[Wyvern]

No changes in time on earth are involved, or needed. Unless you now claim that things like gravity, the strong nuclear force and other forces operate on some time basis??

Actually according to your claim to be true there would need to be changes on the Earth. You claim people used to live to be hundreds of years old, we know that such is an impossibility with the current conditions on Earth. Since this is the science subforum be specific as to what the different conditions were on the Earth to allow for such extreme lifespans.

"I suspect the flood was about 70,000,000 imaginary science years ago."

That is a year science claims of course. Anything with millions or billions of years is totally cooked up, religious nonsense. The way they arrive at that imaginary time is by assuming radioactive decay (this nature) EXISTED FOR ALL TIME![/quote]Please explain why you think radioactive decay has not existed for all time. Also of course provide the scientific evidence which led you to this conclusion.

In their imaginary timescales, the flood was likely somewhere around 65-70 million years ago. In actual real time it was only about 4500 years ago. Their same state past based dating goes wildly wildly wrong very very fast as we near the time when this state started.

Please show any evidence from any science website that makes a claim that the biblical flood happened at all.

Let's say this nature began, for example, 4267 years ago. Dates that are gotten by radioactive decay would be wrong probably, for even dates that are several hundred years BEFORE that. Why? Because they use collaborating evidences such as coral growth, or tree rings etc. A tree that was full grown on the day of the nature change may have been fully grown, but only took a month to grow. Science would look at the rings of that tree as if the rings were grown slowly, seasonally, as now.

Please provide the evidence you have for a tree growing to full size within a month. Are you trying to say that in this imaginary past of yours a month was a year? If so then your claim of people living to be a thousand years is not such an amazing claim and turns your argument into a simple one where you call months years.

Today life processes operate under OUR laws. Atoms and molecules and cells must do what they do here and now. That does not tell us how the cells and atoms used to behave and act in the former nature! All you do is assume it was the same, that is religion, not science.

What different nature? You have already claimed that nothing has changed since creation. Are you saying there was something here before god created everything?

Please provide any scientific evidence you have to show that conditions were different in the distant past. Without any evidence to lead one to think conditions were different at some point it is rational to assume nothing has changed.

Since there is zero evidence that natural laws were somehow different in the past,

Or the same, that is your problem! They don't have a clue either way.

Exactly, without evidence either way why do you jump to the conclusion things were different?

Science doesn't know, and the record of the nature in the past is different than today. The default is different. You need a reason to claim it was the same! You must admit science doesn't know.

Actually YOU are making the claim so the burden is on YOU to provide evidence for your claims.

The bible is evidence. Science has no evidence for a same state past. You may chose to deny and disallow evidence from the bible, but that just shows us about you and your beliefs and choices.

Yes your bias is well known but you need to understand that the bible is no more authoritative than any of the other hundreds of holy books that exist.

You don't get to wave away the record of people's lives in the bible just because you have some weird belief in a same nature in the past.

Strange that you think the idea that the past conditions are the same as they are now is weird.

[dad]

Actually according to your claim to be true there would need to be changes on the Earth. You claim people used to live to be hundreds of years old, we know that such is an impossibility with the current conditions on Earth. Since this is the science subforum be specific as to what the different conditions were on the Earth to allow for such extreme lifespans.

Since this is a science forum, you need to prove that the present nature existed then, IF you want to claim the limits existed.

Please explain why you think radioactive decay has not existed for all time.

Please explain why you think radioactive decay has existed for all time? Also of course provide the scientific evidence which led you to this conclusion.

Since you will not be able to do that, we can believe anything at all.

Please show any evidence from any science website that makes a claim that the biblical flood happened at all.

Well, as far as science goes, they have no idea. So no one is going to use science here or anywhere on earth to say there was or was not the recorded flood in Noah's day.

You are welcome to restrict your beliefs to the limits of what science can deal with and assume and believe in. That will leave you ignorant of course. Long as you do not claim knowledge or science, that is fine, be as ignorant as you desire to be. I want truth and knowledge.

Please provide the evidence you have for a tree growing to full size within a month.

Please provide the evidence you have for a tree growing to full size in the time of Noah at present rates!!??

Are you trying to say that in this imaginary past of yours a month was a year?

No. No. No. A day was a day. Now if the earth was a little closer to the sun or whatever, then there may have been a small difference in a year, as far as orbits and etc. We don't know.

If so then your claim of people living to be a thousand years is not such an amazing claim and turns your argument into a simple one where you call months years.

No, they are recorded to live real years. It is amazing, and would require something different in nature I deduce.

What different nature?

What same nature??

You have already claimed that nothing has changed since creation.

No. Plenty is different according to the bible.

Are you saying there was something here before god created everything?

No. Nothing. But as far as science goes, they have no idea whatsoever either way. Please provide any scientific evidence you have to show that conditions were the same in the distant past. Without any evidence to lead one to think conditions were the same at some point it is rational to assume something has changed. That is, unless one wishes to wave off history and Scripture records for no reason.

Exactly, without evidence either way why do you jump to the conclusion things were different?

You cannot, by science conclude either! So, you admit not knowing, or you look outside of the box. No other option.

Actually YOU are making the claim

Actually my claim is that science doesn't know, so they cannot claim any particular nature existed. If they do (as they do) the burden is on their shoulders. I simply admit believing God's word. They believe something else, but have pretended it was more than a belief.

Yes your bias is well known

Beliefs mean bias, and science illustrates that well. Their beliefs are as biased as ever bias could be.

but you need to understand that the bible is no more authoritative than any of the other hundreds of holy books that exist.

In your mind, but so what? I am not here asking whether God is real or His word is true. You believe whatever you like, and erect a statue god to a cockroach if you wish, or whatever. Do not call it science though.

Strange that you think the idea that the past conditions are the same as they are now is weird.

What you or I think is of no great value in determining the far past. So what do you KNOW? Ha[/quote]

[Wyvern]

Thank you for your reply dad and thank you for confirming that you have no intention of debating. In one post you have demonstrated that all you are doing is being evasive and are merely trying to shift the burden of proof. You made the claim and as such the burden is yours to provide the proof of your claims. No one has to prove your claims are wrong until you actually make an evidenced argument in your favor, something which you have yet to do. In effect all you have done is make a fantastic claim and then told everyone to prove you wrong.

[dad]

Thank you for your reply dad and thank you for confirming that you have no intention of debating. In one post you have demonstrated that all you are doing is being evasive and are merely trying to shift the burden of proof. You made the claim and as such the burden is yours to provide the proof of your claims. No one has to prove your claims are wrong until you actually make an evidenced argument in your favor, something which you have yet to do. In effect all you have done is make a fantastic claim and then told everyone to prove you wrong.

And thank you for showing that you do not comprehend that science makes claims and models based on beliefs and that you are unable to defend or discuss them. They DO have to support their claims and basis for models. Until they do, we can lean toward the historic default position on creation if we like.

Not sure like you talk like you are some little judge, when you have not even contributed anything but self righteous smug ignorant babble?

[Neatras]

Until they do, we can lean toward the historic default position on creation if we like.

Worthless assertion. You've once again asserted without providing evidence. And once again, you'll act as if this is the rational position to take. Substantiate your argument.

"Science is fake, therefore my religion is right," is an argument chock full of holes. So find a better argument.