noah's ark

Originally posted by @proper-knob
Ah yes, the old Himalayas were formed after the flood debacle. YEC insanity at its best.

As i recall it you believe that Africa and South America separated post flood as well.

Don't know possible

Originally posted by @proper-knob
If the laws of nature work as they do now here in the present, why won't they have done the same a million years ago or a million years from now?

Besides the we don't know that they would or did, the more time removed the chance of other unknown variables could come into play.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
What makes you say that?

Indian spirituality. Old as hell

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
Indian spirituality. Old as hell

That maybe but that is not a reason, which is what I asked for.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Besides the we don't know that they would or did, the more time removed the chance of other unknown variables could come into play.

Are you saying there may have been a time in the earths history when plunging to the ground from a great height wouldn't have resulted in death because the laws of gravity were different?

Originally posted by @proper-knob
Are you saying there may have been a time in the earths history when plunging to the ground from a great height wouldn't have resulted in death because the laws of gravity were different?

No, I'm saying the longer something is out of sight, out of mind, out of reach, things can
occur we know nothing about that can alter whatever it is we are looking at, that we may
not take into account, allowing us to error thinking we know all we need to know.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
No, I'm saying the longer something is out of sight, out of mind, out of reach, things can
occur we know nothing about that can alter whatever it is we are looking at, that we may
not take into account, allowing us to error thinking we know all we need to know.

Can you provide and example of how that may occur please.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
Can you provide and example of how that may occur please.

I've worked in R&D with microprocessors for nearly 20 years, trust me, if you lose track
of what it is your studying, monitoring, validating, you don't know what your looking at.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I've worked in R&D with microprocessors for nearly 20 years, trust me, if you lose track
of what it is your studying, monitoring, validating, you don't know what your looking at.

We may have crossed wires somewhere. You claimed earlier in the thread that 'scientific facts are not reality', i gave the example of falling off a 25 storey building and splattering onto the floor below is a reality based on the consequences of the law of gravity. The law of gravity doesn't change, if you fall from a 25 storey height 1 million years ago or tomorrow the end result will be the same. A nasty mess. Granted, our understanding of that law will become refined over time but the law consequences of the law doesn't change.

The same applies to the origin of life on our planet, all the evidence and i mean all the evidence points to all life on this planet sharing a common ancestor. How life evolved and the mechanisms involved are still being refined. That all life has a common ancestor is as indisputable as you trying falling from a 25 storey height and not splattering below.

Originally posted by @proper-knob
We may have crossed wires somewhere. You claimed earlier in the thread that 'scientific facts are not reality', i gave the example of falling off a 25 storey building and splattering onto the floor below is a reality based on the consequences of the law of gravity. The law of gravity doesn't change, if you fall from a 25 storey height 1 million years ag ...[text shortened]... stor is as indisputable as you trying falling from a 25 storey height and not splattering below.

No, all the evidence does not support that. You have a great deal of faith to suggest otherwise! Men have made leaps of faith, bending over backwards in connecting the dots to make that sound reasonable. They make their stories fit what they want to see keeping the narrative alive and well.

If you stopped accepting it blindly and really looked at it all critically I doubt you repeat what you just said. For everything to fall into place from the microscopic to the cosmic the number of ducks having to be in a row is beyond numbers. It all had to be just right with nothing amiss or lacking, even having to much of something required could ruin the process.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Men have made leaps of faith, bending over backwards in connecting the dots to make that sound reasonable. They make their stories fit what they want to see keeping the narrative alive and well.

Isn't this what you do?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
No, all the evidence does not support that. You have a great deal of faith to suggest otherwise! Men have made leaps of faith, bending over backwards in connecting the dots to make that sound reasonable. They make their stories fit what they want to see keeping the narrative alive and well.

If you stopped accepting it blindly and really looked at it all ...[text shortened]... with nothing amiss or lacking, even having to much of something required could ruin the process.

No, all the evidence does not support that.

Could you start by highlighting a couple of snippets of evidence to support this claim of yours. In your view what evidence doesn't support the narrative that all life shares a common ancestor?

Originally posted by @proper-knob
[b]No, all the evidence does not support that.

Could you start by highlighting a couple of snippets of evidence to support this claim of yours. In your view what evidence doesn't support the narrative that all life shares a common ancestor?[/b]

I owe you more, info that is not an off the top of my head question.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Water and the height of land were what in the days of the flood? There doesn't have to be more water a landscape change would be all it would take, flatten it out its covered.

So you think the Himalayas and the Alps and the Andes and the Pyrenees and the Rockies and the Sierra Nevada shot up to their present heights after the flood? Within recorded history. More than a thousand feet per year, several feet every day!, assuming it has been about 4,000 years since the flood. You'd think someone must have noticed such astonishing growth of mountain ranges. Yet no such stupendous growth is recorded for the ranges mentioned.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Besides the we don't know that they would or did, the more time removed the chance of other unknown variables could come into play.

You mean like the laws of physics did not apply 100,000 years ago, or what?