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.

[dad]

[Replying to post 13 by dad]

Then why post anything for debate in the Science and Religion section of this website if all you are going to do is claim that the science part is all wrong and the religion part is all right? "

I want to give you a chance to support the foundation and premise of the models of science about the past, which is the same nature in the past they claim. Start anytime. If you can't then you lose the debate.

[dad]

[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]

The divide-by-12 explanation is only one possible explanation.e.

False. It is absurd to claim that someone who lived 35 months begat a son. Really. You grasp at any straw to avoid the obvious...God meant what He said.

[dad]

[Replying to post 12 by dad]

God doesn't change, but He can and did change earth a lot. The changes that happened were in the lifetime of Noah and some others. They came out fine. The universe did not explode nor their eyes explode in their heads. Canard.

You have nothing on which to base your claim that God did anything. Nothing. Demonstrate even one verifiable attribute of this God of yours. You will find that there isn't one. All of God's attributes have been assigned by humans based on what they think a god should be like, not on what has been observed.

It has been known for at least two centuries that the great flood did not happen and could not have happened. Sadly, faith has a way of blinding people to reality.

The flood did happen and whatever you thought was evidence against it I could dash to smithereens in a New York minute.

As for your rant against God, forget about it. You pick whatever god. or not that you like. That will not help you support the same nature you need in the past.

[dad]

[Replying to post 12 by dad]

It is what makes the properties of matter...nature...that changed probably. Matter just reflects the laws and forces in place.

Well, there you have it. An in depth explanation of how and why the properties of matter changed. Somehow the knowledge, work, and intelligence of those qualified in the relevant fields of science should warrant more credibility than someone trying to retrofit the observed universe into their ancient book of fables.

There is no one alive today with any knowledge of the laws in the far past. Nice try.

[dad]

[Replying to post 13 by dad]

The whole conception of the universe and stars that science has is wrong!

I hope you will be kind enough to summarise those errors for us. It is very easy to wave your hands and make sweeping assertions, but quite another thing to actually be able to substantiate them.

(I will understand your reluctance to do so if you are still waiting for your Nobel prize nomination to be considered.)

The error in cosmology is that they assume that the whole of the universe is like the area of the solar system in the realities of space and time.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 25 by dad]

The error in cosmology is that they assume that the whole of the universe is like the area of the solar system in the realities of space and time.

All observations support it and none contradict it. Do you have anything other than wild assertions?

The error in theology is that they assume that a god exists and then try to find ways to confirm it. No success so far. As for Christianity, it is just 2000 years of making it up as they go along.

[Divine Insight]

The divide-by-12 explanation is only one possible explanation.e.

False. It is absurd to claim that someone who lived 35 months begat a son. Really. You grasp at any straw to avoid the obvious...God meant what He said.

Everything in the Bible is absurd. It's a collection of clearly false self-contradictory stories. That's how you can tell it's a scam. You don't even need to appeal to science at all. But in your case, you seem to think that science has to be wrong in order for the Bible to be true. If that's the case, then you even have far greater reasons to see that the Bible is obviously false. Science cannot possibly be wrong. Just look around at how well technology works. Science is clearly true. To pretend that it isn't is futile.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 12 by dad]

God doesn't change, but He can and did change earth a lot. The changes that happened were in the lifetime of Noah and some others. They came out fine. The universe did not explode nor their eyes explode in their heads. Canard.

You have nothing on which to base your claim that God did anything. Nothing. Demonstrate even one verifiable attribute of this God of yours. You will find that there isn't one. All of God's attributes have been assigned by humans based on what they think a god should be like, not on what has been observed.

It has been known for at least two centuries that the great flood did not happen and could not have happened. Sadly, faith has a way of blinding people to reality.

The flood did happen and whatever you thought was evidence against it I could dash to smithereens in a New York minute.

As for your rant against God, forget about it. You pick whatever god. or not that you like. That will not help you support the same nature you need in the past.

Please smash the existence of chalk beds as an argument against the supposed world wide flood. I look forward to your reply.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 25 by dad]

No no and noooo. What is done is a hypothesis. For example a scientist might hypothesize a certain behavior for a star nebula or super nova to exhibit. They make a prediction based on this hypothesis. Then they wait and observe to see an event measure the event and see if it matches the hypothesis. If it does they were more right than wrong if it doesn't they rework the hypothesis.


Albert Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't based on measurements in our solar system but measurements on a universal scale using telescopes. We have been able for a long time to make observations outside our solar system and we are continually refining these observations and measurements.

Before you rant about what is and isn't known in science it would behoove me to point out to you that a little cursory research may be in order so as to understand what you are talking about.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 12 by dad]

It is what makes the properties of matter...nature...that changed probably. Matter just reflects the laws and forces in place.

Well, there you have it. An in depth explanation of how and why the properties of matter changed. Somehow the knowledge, work, and intelligence of those qualified in the relevant fields of science should warrant more credibility than someone trying to retrofit the observed universe into their ancient book of fables.

There is no one alive today with any knowledge of the laws in the far past. Nice try.

There doesn't have to be. Radiometric dating is all you need to know that the physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics of the universe have been constant.

Cultists like to claim that the rates of radioactive decay have varied over time. The problem with that claim is that either slower or faster rates of decay doesn't actually help them. Why?

Radioactive decay rates are based on some of the values of the four fundamental forces of the universe, particularly the strong and weak nuclear forces. In order for radioactive decay rates to be different, those forces have to be different. Now let's ignore for the time being that there isn't one shred of evidence that has ever been found that shows any of the fundamental forces can vary nor any mechanism that could make the entire universe change it's laws. Let's take a practical look at it.

If decay rates could vary, that means that things could have been more OR less radioactive. Let's say there is a 50/50 chance in either direction (more or less radioactivity). It doesn't help creationist arguments if decay rates were slower (meaning the strong nuclear force was even bigger), because that means that everything is even OLDER than we currently calculate. Obviously that makes the cultist's claim of a young Earth even more absurd. It also makes the Earth a frozen rock, because more nuclear force means less radiation, which means less heat from the Sun.

If the strong force were weaker, and radiation rates were higher, that means the planet would bake from the increased radiation from the Sun. The radiation from the Earth would also be more intense, and I think we all know what radiation does to living things. It surely doesn't let them live for a 1000 years. If radiation rates were faster than shorter lived radioactive elements like Carbon 14 wouldn't last nearly as long. We shouldn't find things that date to 20,000 years ago if radioactive decay rates were higher in the past, yet we do.

Either way, your claim makes no sense.

And since radioactive decay is a non-linear regression (it graphs as a curve), any deviation in decay rates over time means that the dozens of isotopes that are used to date things wouldn't line up over time periods. In reality they always do. Whether it's 100,000 years or a million years or 100 million years, samples with multiple isotopes in them always date tot he same time. If the fundamental forces of nature had varied in the past, this wouldn't be possible.

There simply is no feasible reason to think that nature has been different in the past than it is today, daddy-o.