Science IS religion

[dad]

You are bearing false witness again. We had a long exchange in which you totally ignored both evidence and logic regarding dating methods and I didn't have to scroll back far to find other people providing you links. The evidence for evolution is not a secret, it's really easy to find and to claim it doesn't exist at all is, quite apart from being obviously false as anybody can check, to accuse most of the world's specialists in multiple disciplines, may of whom are Christians, of being liars.

NO LINK then, what a joke.

The evidence for evolution is a meaningless phrase. Yes we have evidence for some evolving in the present age, no we do not have evidences that man descended from animals or that all life exists only because of the ability to evolve!

And once again you've ignored my request that you provide even the slightest hint of a morsel of evidence to support your claims. It is blatant hypocrisy to endlessly demand evidence from others, then ignore it, and refuse to provide evidence for your own claims.

The nature in the past cannot be supported by science either way. Not sure why you both ignore that while asking for evidence, as well as ignore history and the bible records which are evidence.
By science you cannot know either way.

Unless you stop the denial of history and Scripture, you cannot know any way at all!

So we get the inevitable empty blather, and false accusations from you, rather than substance. I recognize that to be a symptom of 'soreloserism'.

 

[Polymath257]

NO LINK then, what a joke.

The evidence for evolution is a meaningless phrase. Yes we have evidence for some evolving in the present age, no we do not have evidences that man descended from animals or that all life exists only because of the ability to evolve!

Of course we do. You just claim the evidence is overwhelmed by changes in the physical laws. But Last Thursdayism cuts both ways.

The nature in the past cannot be supported by science either way. Not sure why you both ignore that while asking for evidence, as well as ignore history and the bible records which are evidence.

And why are those evidence? it is possible that the laws of physics have changed enough that the book itself has changed. If you are saying that the laws of physics could change to the extent that radioactive decay and other dating methods are false by factors of a million, then why would you assume that the texts we get are reliable at all?

By science you cannot know either way.

Unless you stop the denial of history and Scripture, you cannot know any way at all!

Unless you stop the denial that the laws of physics were the same in the past, then you cannot know any way at all!

 

[dad]

Of course we do.

No. You have no evidence for TOE, just misconstrued belief tainted inbred explanations.

And why are those evidence?

Because some of us are sane and reasonable and do not cast away all records of humanity wholesale for no reason, of course.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. You have no evidence for TOE, just misconstrued belief tainted inbred explanations.




Because some of us are sane and reasonable and do not cast away all records of humanity wholesale for no reason, of course.

There is only one person casting things away with no reason at all in this thread and his sanity is very questionable.

 

[gnostic]

You were not there when Balam's animal saw the angel. You have no science to offer on the matter.

First, you don’t understand science, nor how it work.

Science don’t do supernatural.

And science don’t do fictional stories, which is what fables and allegories are in Genesis 3 & Numbers 22.

Science only do falsifiable explanations, eg hypotheses or theories, meaning explanations that can be tested and verified via observations, eg finding and examining evidences and test results of repeatable experiments.

The evidences or experiments -

1. will (A) either refute the hypothesis/theory,
2. or will (B) verify/validate the hypothesis/theory.

There are no evidences to find in either Genesis 3 or Numbers 22.

Neither stories are falsifiable, therefore it is pointless trying to finding evidences for science to examine.

So, you are right, science has “nothing to offer” here...but not for the reasons why you think science cannot do; science cannot “test” or “observe” to unfalsifiable of fabricated stories.

Second, you really don’t see that you have made a complete fool of yourself, when you wrote this:

You were not there when Balam's animal saw the angel. You have no science to offer on the matter. No knowledge. No witnesses. Nothing. Only a totally uninformed opinion.

Numbers 22 isn’t history. In fact, none of the books from Genesis to Deuteronomy, which have traditionally ascribed Moses, as author, there are no original sources of these 5 books in the Late Bronze Age, eg c 1550 - 1050 BCE.

There are no stone or clay tablets, no leather or hide parchments, no papyrus scrolls, that exist and survive in the Late Bronze Age.

The oldest surviving texts of the any biblical stories, are only found in 7th and later, so basically from possibly King Josiah reign to the construction of the “Second Temple”.

There is silver amulet found in the caveat Ketef Hinnom, which archaeologists has named the “Silver Scroll”. This amulet was found with other objects in the cave that served as a tomb, has been dated to around the time of King Josiah’s reign to before Jerusalem has fallen to the Neo-Babylonian army, so roughly between 640 and 587 BCE.

The Silver Scroll contained inscriptions found in the passage from Numbers 6, the Priestly Blessings (verses 6:24-26):

[May] Adonai bless you, and guard you
[May] Adonai make His face shine unto you, and be gracious to you
[May] Adonai lift up His face unto you, and give to you peace

There are no earlier texts older than this evidence (Silver Scroll).

Since there are no older biblical writings found from 1550 to 650 BCE, one would assume that the biblical stories were known until the 7th century BCE.

So based on what we know about Josiah’s reign, he had commissioned reform that his people (from kingdom of Judah) to only worship the one god, hence he began having priests and scribes to create a national stories with national heroes (from Adam to King Solomon) of the Jews “history”, except that this isn’t history.

Moses is a myth, because there were no man to write the events that occurred from Genesis to Deuteronomy.

So, you are right, there are “No knowledge. No witnesses. Nothing.” There are no original composition of the book of Numbers in the Late Bronze Age. No one wrote this book in the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium BCE, therefore, “No witnesses”.

If there are “No witnesses”, then how can there be “history”?

But history isn’t really about being eyewitnesses’ accounts, but what written sources can be verified.

So for the exodus to occur as narrated in Exodus, eg God speaking through the burning bush, the plagues that hit Egypt, the liberation of Israelites from slavery, their trek to Sinai receiving the 10 Commandments, the 40 years in wilderness, before the narrative in Joshua of invasion in Canaan.

Well, even if we left out all the events of miracles, and just focused on events such as the liberation from slavery, their movements in wilderness, and the eventual invasion of Canaan, then -

1. you have no original texts that were contemporary to these events, you have no independent sources to these narratives from Egypt about keeping hundreds of thousands of slaves and their mass liberation,
2. and none (meaning no independent records) from ancient Canaan about Israelites invading their land,
3. and lastly you have no physical evidences of a large population living in Sinai Peninsula and in Edom and Moab.

If Sinai was indeed wilderness at that time, there wouldn’t be enough food and water, as the censuses in Numbers indicated (only fighting men were counted).

Yes, I know about the manna story, but that’s like stories for children.

Take for instance, before Moses was born, the Egyptian king enslaved the Israelites, and having them build Pithom and Rameses, which Egyptians would have called it Pi-Atum and Pi-Rameses.

There are records that these 2 cities were built during the reign of Ramesses II (reign 1279 - 1213 BCE), the 3rd king from the 19th dynasty (1292 - 1189 BCE). And Pi-Ramesses means the “House of Ramesses”), hence this city was named after Ramesses II.

Pi-Ramesses or the biblical Rameses, has been identified to be either Tell el-Dab'a or Qantir, both showed evidences that they were dated to 19th dynasty or around 1250 BCE.

My point here about when Pi-Ramesses was built, it was built a couple of centuries AFTER Jericho had became deserted around 1570 BCE.

But in Exodus and in Joshua, Jericho occurred some 120 years AFTER Moses’ birth, which is the exact opposite to archaeology of Pi-Ramesses and Jericho.

Should I believe in the books of Exodus and Joshua or should I believe the archaeology of Jericho and Pi-Ramesses. I think the later.

Pi-Ramesses lost its importance in the next dynasty, and much of the stones were shipped, to build Tanis in the 21st dynasty, and Pi-Ramesses has become nothing more than some villages by the 5th century BCE.

Anyway, you clearly don’t understand how history work.

 

[dad]

First, you don’t understand science, nor how it work.

Science don’t do supernatural.

And science don’t do fictional stories, which is what fables and allegories are in Genesis 3 & Numbers 22.

Origin sciences is fictional stories, like the BB and first lifeform etc. They also are in no position to rank historical records as fiction...or non fiction!

Science only do falsifiable explanations, eg hypotheses or theories, meaning explanations that can be tested and verified via observations,

The same nature in the past cannot be tested or observed. Gong!

There are no evidences to find in either Genesis 3 or Numbers 22.

Not for science to find, it can't find it's way out of a paper bag.
It is foolish to even look to science for such things.

Numbers 22 isn’t history.

Prove it.

The oldest surviving texts of the any biblical stories, are only found in 7th and later, so basically from possibly King Josiah reign to the construction of the “Second Temple”.

A written record was not needed in earlier times. That does not mean there was no record!

Since there are no older biblical writings found from 1550 to 650 BCE, one would assume that the biblical stories were known until the 7th century BCE.

False, as Israel was around and had the records.

Moses is a myth, because there were no man to write the events that occurred from Genesis to Deuteronomy.

God was there. He wrote the ten commandments in stone. Moses is also attributed to writing several books. Jesus mentioned Mo also, and in fact Moses came to visit Him on a mountain one day when witnesses were there. Your ideas are pipe dreams.

So, you are right, there are “No knowledge. No witnesses. Nothing.”

For science...no.

For Scripture...yes.

1. you have no original texts that were contemporary to these events, you have no independent sources to these narratives from Egypt about keeping hundreds of thousands of slaves and their mass liberation,

The freed slaves were witnesses, the losers who got their butts handed to them by God covered it up.

1. and none (meaning no independent records) from ancient Canaan about Israelites invading their land,

" Yet the Canaanites left no surviving written records, leaving researchers to piece together their history from secondhand sources."

Ancient DNA reveals fate of the mysterious Canaanites

So if there are no records of being invaded, add that to no records of...anything at all!!!!! Ha.

1. and lastly you have no physical evidences of a large population living in Sinai Peninsula and in Edom and Moab.

God cleaned up after them. Like the manna, it vanished each day. Probably so did waste! God was right there, and He is somewhat of a clean Freak apparently.

If Sinai was indeed wilderness at that time, there wouldn’t be enough food and water, as the censuses in Numbers indicated (only fighting men were counted).

God provided.

Yes, I know about the manna story, but that’s like stories for children.

There are records that these 2 cities were built during the reign of Ramesses II (reign 1279 - 1213 BCE), the 3rd king from the 19th dynasty (1292 - 1189 BCE). And Pi-Ramesses means the “House of Ramesses”), hence this city was named after Ramesses II.

Pi-Ramesses or the biblical Rameses, has been identified to be either Tell el-Dab'a or Qantir, both showed evidences that they were dated to 19th dynasty or around 1250 BCE.

Nah...I think the jury is out on exactly who was the Pharaoh.

But in Exodus and in Joshua, Jericho occurred some 120 years AFTER Moses’ birth, which is the exact opposite to archaeology of Pi-Ramesses and Jericho.

Chapter and verse that says Jericho was before the exodus!!? Ha.

 

[gnostic]

Nah...I think the jury is out on exactly who was the Pharaoh.

Yes, the books from Genesis to Exodus never mention any pharaoh by name, and that really posed problem AGAINST the validity of these books.

All you have done, dad, is shoot yourself in the foot. Exodus isn't a historical narrative. You have only given me more ammunition that Moses was never a real person.

The name to a specific king is only implied in the name of the city Rameses (Pi-Ramesses) in Exodus 1:11 & 12:37.

Apart from Ramesses II's grandfather (Ramesses I), who founded the 19th dynasty in 1292 BCE, there were no other king with the name "Ramesses" before the 19th dynasty.

The name Ramesses mean "born of Ra", and Ra being the sun god, hence it would imply "son of Ra".

In the 18th dynasty, Thutmose and Amenhotep were more common names for pharaohs, so none of these kings would name a city "Pi-Ramesses".

But you are right, there the Exodus mention no Egyptian kings by names. In the story of Abraham visiting Egypt, again no name were given to the pharaoh.

By not giving us any name, it would only make the Bible less plausible as a history book.

But don't worry, dad, I have not considered Genesis and Exodus to be history books for almost 20 years.

 

[gnostic]

Chapter and verse that says Jericho was before the exodus!!? Ha.

That's not what I said.

So to answer your question:

No, history and archaeology say Jericho occur before the construction of Pi-Ramesses.

But according to Exodus and Joshua, it is the other way around - Jericho after building Rameses.

 

[dad]

Yes, the books from Genesis to Exodus never mention any pharaoh by name, and that really posed problem AGAINST the validity of these books.

All you have done, dad, is shoot yourself in the foot. Exodus isn't a historical narrative. You have only given me more ammunition that Moses was never a real person.

The name to a specific king is only implied in the name of the city Rameses (Pi-Ramesses) in Exodus 1:11 & 12:37.

Apart from Ramesses II's grandfather (Ramesses I), who founded the 19th dynasty in 1292 BCE, there were no other king with the name "Ramesses" before the 19th dynasty.

The name Ramesses mean "born of Ra", and Ra being the sun god, hence it would imply "son of Ra".

In the 18th dynasty, Thutmose and Amenhotep were more common names for pharaohs, so none of these kings would name a city "Pi-Ramesses".

But you are right, there the Exodus mention no Egyptian kings by names. In the story of Abraham visiting Egypt, again no name were given to the pharaoh.

By not giving us any name, it would only make the Bible less plausible as a history book.

But don't worry, dad, I have not considered Genesis and Exodus to be history books for almost 20 years.

More anti bible drivel, instead of defending the origin sciences basis for models of the past.

By the way Gen 47:11 mentions Rameses many centuries before the Exodus. Haha

 

[dad]

That's not what I said.

So to answer your question:

No, history and archaeology say Jericho occur before the construction of Pi-Ramesses.

But according to Exodus and Joshua, it is the other way around - Jericho after building Rameses.

Gen 47:11 haha

 

[gnostic]

Gen 47:11

Land of Rameses? If that mean Ramesses, then that would put Jacob living in the time of 19th dynasty.

As I have stated the 19th dynasty started from 1292 and ended in 1189 BCE.

The first king by this name - Ramesses I (1292 - 1290 BCE) was the founder of this 19th dynasty. His reign was very short, and he was succeeded by Seti (1290 - 1279 BCE), who was succeeded by Ramesses II (1279 - 1213 BCE).

You do realise it still make Genesis ridiculous, because if Jacob existed in the 19th dynasty, then Jacob and Moses occurred after the abandonment of Jericho (c 1570 BCE)?

 

[dad]

Land of Rameses? If that mean Ramesses, then that would put Jacob living in the time of 19th dynasty.

Since it was before the guy later called a similar name, that clears it up.

As I have stated the 19th dynasty started from 1292 and ended in 1189 BCE.

Excellent. A dating claim! Let's see the way you get the dates.

Prepare for the inevitable.

 

[gnostic]

Since it was before the guy later called a similar name, that clears it up.

dad, you are really embarrassing yourself without even knowing it.

If there were some "other guy" with the name Ramesses and not those pharaohs of the 19th dynasty, please tell us who it might be.

And you keep forgetting that Genesis and Exodus were composed in the mid-1st millennium BCE, not at any time of the 2nd millennium BCE, so they (the authors) were bound to get Egyptian history wrong.

Take for example, Genesis mentioning the city of Ur been in the land of the Chaldeans.

But in the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE, Babylon and all the lands to south, including Ur and Uruk (Erech) were occupied by the Amorites. The 1st dynasty of Babylon was actually Amorite dynasty, not Akkadian dynasty. This dynasty coincided with what archaeologists referred to as the Old Babylonian period.

Later, around 1530 BCE, the Kassites conquered all of Babylonia, as well as Babylon and Ur. This dynasty ended around 1150 BCE. This period was known as Middle Babylonian period.

There were no Chaldeans living in Babylonia, until the 1st millennium BCE, probably invaded southern Babylonia in the 9th or 8th century BCE. These Chaldeans later conquered Babylon, and was the 3rd dynasty of Babylon. The Chaldeans were known as the Neo-Babylonians, hence it was known as the Neo-Babylonian period.

Get your fact straight, because you have made so many bloody mistakes, and so did the authors of Genesis. There were no Chaldeans in Old Babylonian period.

 

[dad]

dad, you are really embarrassing yourself without even knowing it.

If there were some "other guy" with the name Ramesses and not those pharaohs of the 19th dynasty, please tell us who it might be.

And you keep forgetting that Genesis and Exodus were composed in the mid-1st millennium BCE, not at any time of the 2nd millennium BCE, so they (the authors) were bound to get Egyptian history wrong.

Take for example, Genesis mentioning the city of Ur been in the land of the Chaldeans.

But in the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE, Babylon and all the lands to south, including Ur and Uruk (Erech) were occupied by the Amorites. The 1st dynasty of Babylon was actually Amorite dynasty, not Akkadian dynasty. This dynasty coincided with what archaeologists referred to as the Old Babylonian period.

Later, around 1530 BCE, the Kassites conquered all of Babylonia, as well as Babylon and Ur. This dynasty ended around 1150 BCE. This period was known as Middle Babylonian period.

There were no Chaldeans living in Babylonia, until the 1st millennium BCE, probably invaded southern Babylonia in the 9th or 8th century BCE. These Chaldeans later conquered Babylon, and was the 3rd dynasty of Babylon. The Chaldeans were known as the Neo-Babylonians, hence it was known as the Neo-Babylonian period.

Get your fact straight, because you have made so many bloody mistakes, and so did the authors of Genesis. There were no Chaldeans in Old Babylonian period.

Nonsense. The storehouse city was not even spelled the same.


11 And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded

If a president's daughter was named Chelsea, does that mean the cities in the UK, Australia, Canada, and the US were named after her?? Ha.

Oh, and you were asked to show how dates you claimed were attained. Get to it.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

There is no need to then go and 'cut off the deer's head' because it is already dead!

So you don't have to make any attempt whatsoever to prove your claim because you have already won. I see.

Science cannot show the existence or non existence of the flood. Period. Either claim is one based on faith.

Absolutely, it can.

• Science has determined many bottlenecks in the histories of many species, including in cheetahs and humans. All of them are older than 6000 years. If the flood myth were true, we would see genetic bottlnecks of all species each arriving at the same date range.
• What did the carnivores eat after they got off the ark? If they ate the deer, the deer would go extinct because there were only 2 of them. If they didn't eat the deer, they themselves would go extinct. See the problem here?
• The ark could have collapsed under its own weight as the largest wooden ship built was smaller than the ark, and with modern tools and technology, required metal bracing and bilge pumps to keep it afloat.
• The radical changes in temperature and salinity would have obliterated most of aquatic life.

This is just a few points that destroy the idea of a worldwide flood.

Face it man.

It isn't true.

The long life spans recorded in Sumer (despite any inaccuracy of pagan records) do tell us that people lived very much longer.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the claims are true. Documentation was scare back then and much was handed down by tradition and faulty human memory. They aren't believable.

The prevalence of spirits is such that it is an intricate part of ancient history.

No. The prevalence in the belief of spirits is an intricate part of human history. Their belief didn't make the claim true. Really, really believing something isn't the same as knowing something.

 

[ratiocinator]

NO LINK then, what a joke.

Do you have memory problems?
Radiometric Dating

The evidence for evolution is a meaningless phrase.

No, it isn't - more false witness.

Yes we have evidence for some evolving in the present age, no we do not have evidences that man descended from animals or that all life exists only because of the ability to evolve!

We have plenty of evidence that humans evolved from other animal - not least from genetics, which, incidentally, doesn't involve any need to know exactly how long ago it happened.

The nature in the past cannot be supported by science either way.

Yet again, the self-consistency of the evidence means that either nature was the same or it's been made to look the same (and your god is a liar).

Not sure why you both ignore that while asking for evidence, as well as ignore history and the bible records which are evidence.

The bible is evidence? That's funny. It's an inconsistent, often self-contradictory, disjointed book of myths. Where is any real evidence for what you believe?

Stop with the double standards and empty bluster and put up some evidence of your own!

So we get the inevitable empty blather, and false accusations from you, rather than substance.

Pot-kettle-black.

I recognize that to be a symptom of 'soreloserism'.

What is this but empty blather?

 

[dad]

Do you have memory problems?
Radiometric Dating

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html Thanks for the religious twaddle spam link. Nowthen, from early in your link we see this admission..

"the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements-"

This means that the decay we now see happening is used to assign ages from the deep past to ratios. You do understand this?? Lurkers, in common language, this means that the current processes of decay going on now in this nature, are believed to represent what happened in the past and that the past nature was the same.

Assigning ages based on the present forces and laws does not mean the laws and forces in the past was the same! That means that you proceed as if they were and simply believe it.

No, it isn't - more false witness.

Easy to test. Post evidence for man descending from animals!

We have plenty of evidence that humans evolved from other animal - not least from genetics, which, incidentally, doesn't involve any need to know exactly how long ago it happened.

Name any genetics evidence that is not based on the belief genetics in the past worked exactly as now in THIS present nature? Ha. Same old belief system applied to all things.

Yet again, the self-consistency of the evidence means that either nature was the same or it's been made to look the same (and your god is a liar).

Circular. The ONLY consistency is in your head and belief system. 'Oh, look, we used 2 different same state past belief based methods, and sure enough, the fantasy dates that cannot be proven seem to meet in an imaginary deep past'!!!

The bible is evidence? That's funny. It's an inconsistent, often self-contradictory, disjointed book of myths. Where is any real evidence for what you believe?

In the confused minds of people who reject God, maybe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the religious twaddle spam link. Nowthen, from early in your link we see this admission..

"the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements-"

This means that the decay we now see happening is used to assign ages from the deep past to ratios. You do understand this?? Lurkers, in common language, this means that the current processes of decay going on now in this nature, are believed to represent what happened in the past and that the past nature was the same.

Assigning ages based on the present forces and laws does not mean the laws and forces in the past was the same! That means that you proceed as if they were and simply believe it.

Easy to test. Post evidence for man descending from animals!

Name any genetics evidence that is not based on the belief genetics in the past worked exactly as now in THIS present nature? Ha. Same old belief system applied to all things.

Circular. The ONLY consistency is in your head and belief system. 'Oh, look, we used 2 different same state past belief based methods, and sure enough, the fantasy dates that cannot be proven seem to meet in an imaginary deep past'!!!

In the confused minds of people who reject God, maybe.

dad, when you reject the science that you do not understand without any valid reasons you immediately lose the debate. Even the looniest of creationists know that. That is why on at least one site run by Christians that you love to post on had to create a "dad rule".

 

[dad]

So you don't have to make any attempt whatsoever to prove your claim because you have already won. I see.

Unless science knows and can prove or highly support that time itself is the same (and space) in the distant universe, then, yes, all distances and the cosmo standard model is dead in the water.

Absolutely, it can.

• Science has determined many bottlenecks in the histories of many species, including in cheetahs and humans. All of them are older than 6000 years. If the flood myth were true, we would see genetic bottlnecks of all species each arriving at the same date range.

False. If this nature did not exist then the way DNA functions could not be presumed to be the same. The so called bottlenecks they imagine would only exist if this nature always existed! Circular. Once again we see this fanatical use of the same belief.

• 
  

  [*]What did the carnivores eat after they got off the ark? If they ate the deer, the deer would go extinct because there were only 2 of them. If they didn't eat the deer, they themselves would go extinct. See the problem here?

• 
  Easy!! Many of the created original kind animals were not meat eaters. The flood was something like 110 years or whatever before the nature change so there was still the fast evolving going on for over a century! The plants and trees in that former world/nature grew at incredible speed. Trees could grow in weeks for example according to the bible. There was a world full of food for all! Now if some of the animals were meat eaters, remember that there was still fish aplenty! There also was still animals dying. No problem whatsoever!

• The ark could have collapsed under its own weight as the largest wooden ship built was smaller than the ark, and with modern tools and technology, required metal bracing and bilge pumps to keep it afloat.

  Ridiculous.

The design (which we do not have full details at all) was from the creator of the universe! There also was metal bracing avail of course!! Metal working was here from right after the garden of Eden!! In all ways you are wrong.

• The radical changes in temperature and salinity would have obliterated most of aquatic life.

Much of the salt could have come from below the earth, and some people feel that the flood waters were more fresh that salt water!? But in the former nature evolving was lightning fast, so fish could adapt very fast as needed regardless! In all ways you fail.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the claims are true. Documentation was scare back then and much was handed down by tradition and faulty human memory. They aren't believable.

God was responsible for Scripture, not men. Very believable!

No. The prevalence in the belief of spirits is an intricate part of human history. Their belief didn't make the claim true. Really, really believing something isn't the same as knowing something.

The conspiracy theory that men of all nations made up similar lies about the simple realities of life is not credible! Obviously you are trying to find any reason to justify your inability to so much as detect spirits. Not only that, but if nature was different, and allowed spirit beings cohabitation on earth, and this was no longer true in our modern world/nature, you have no way of knowing!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unless science knows and can prove or highly support that time itself is the same (and space) in the distant universe, then, yes, all distances and the cosmo standard model is dead in the water.



False. If this nature did not exist then the way DNA functions could not be presumed to be the same. The so called bottlenecks they imagine would only exist if this nature always existed! Circular. Once again we see this fanatical use of the same belief.

• 
  Easy!! Many of the created original kind animals were not meat eaters. The flood was something like 110 years or whatever before the nature change so there was still the fast evolving going on for over a century! The plants and trees in that former world/nature grew at incredible speed. Trees could grow in weeks for example according to the bible. There was a world full of food for all! Now if some of the animals were meat eaters, remember that there was still fish aplenty! There also was still animals dying. No problem whatsoever!
• Ridiculous.

The design (which we do not have full details at all) was from the creator of the universe! There also was metal bracing avail of course!! Metal working was here from right after the garden of Eden!! In all ways you are wrong.

Much of the salt could have come from below the earth, and some people feel that the flood waters were more fresh that salt water!? But in the former nature evolving was lightning fast, so fish could adapt very fast as needed regardless! In all ways you fail.


God was responsible for Scripture, not men. Very believable!
The conspiracy theory that men of all nations made up similar lies about the simple realities of life is not credible! Obviously you are trying to find any reason to justify your inability to so much as detect spirits. Not only that, but if nature was different, and allowed spirit beings cohabitation on earth, and this was no longer true in our modern world/nature, you have no way of knowing!

See my prior post.