dad2

That is what I surmise, but remember, not things dated 2300 BC by science. The methods of dating whether tree rings or radioactivity all cease to be accurate even before we reach that time. For example, if trees used to grow, in some cases, for example, in weeks to maturity then all rings they contained would not be rings on a yearly cycle. Therefore if a tree already had, say, 1400 rings when nature changed, and it died, say, 400 years after a change in natural forces and laws, it would have died with 1800 rings. Yet the tree was only about 401 years old. Etc In other words, across the board, the principle that the present is the key to the past would be invalid. That is my guess, yes. OK No problem. The chain is real, but would not have been a decay chain before there was decay as we know it! Better to just say a pattern or chain that became one engaged in radioactive decay in this present nature. No! There was also a chain and reactions and changes happening in the former nature. What it was and how it worked we could not know now. All we know is how it now works. So there was the initial creation and that resulted is stuff with a certain ratio of isotopes etc. Then there was the time of Adam before the fall. Heaven knows what that was like and how reactions happened. Then there was the world after the fall, and presumably up too around the time of Peleg (when the earth was divided). There were reactions and things happening in that nature as well. Then along comes the current nature God set up. We could not say that at that moment, all the isotopes and ratios that existed were 'created' to have exact ratios they then had. The issue is not the ratios but the relationship each isotope THEN had to each other in the former nature. That is unknown. All that is known is the relationship they now have in accordance with the current forces and laws acting upon them. It did not all start at the nature change. There already was rocks, and isotopes in some sort of interaction and balance with each other according to the forces that then existed! The question becomes, do we know what laws and forces existed then? The answer is no. Yes there is a perfect reason. As explained reactions were still going on based on the forces acting upon the materials at that time. ALL your methods make the same mistake. There is no weird differences in ratios expected. The difference is in the meaning of the ratios and what they were doing THEN. We don't know, but they were doing something! Therefore all that changed is what they were doing. You still read all ratios as if they represent the present nature. You forget creation, the pre fall world, and the different nature of the pre flood and shortly post flood world. Totally false. The only thing that makes them look old to people is the belief that the presentnaturedunnit. That would be the delusion Satan went to great lengths to try to make it all look old. Don't blame God, we should have believed Him all along. No. Why could argon not have been a part of the former processes? You assume that because it now is formed a certain way, that must be how it got there. Who says that K-40 was not involved with argon in the former nature? How would we know what used to produce what? We assume that because something is NOW produced a certain way False. They do not look that way at all to me. Only by adopting the 'all things continue as they were' belief would they look that way to you. The trickster part comes in with the belief you accepted in how you look at creation. I consider that you look at it in a religious way, and therefore you can't really learn or come to a knowledge of the truth. There was no scar. Trying to portray a little white spot Adam got from kneeling to hug Eve as a scar would be the deception. Trying to say he was created with it. Likewise, trying to say that materials produced by another process (as a result of other forces acting on them) were produced by decay would be the deception. God never told us that radioactive decay chains existed pre flood! He told us He created it all. Reading patterns as if He did not is the deception and lie. You cannot chart anything in the universe that involves time unless time out there existed as we know it here! You neither observed anything for millions of years, nor anything out of the area of the solar system. The furthest probe is less than a light day away. What you could say, is something like. 'we see a little light out there we call a star, that takes so many years as measured by our time and space here to move in space out there' Ha No no no. It only looks to man in his tiny fishbowl looking out that things take so much time to move in deep space. That is projecting once again, our realities onto the unknown. It does not look out it looks wondrous. The only way it could look old is IF we adopted the belief set that deluded so called science uses. Yes, an event happened. How far away it was is not known. (man uses earth time and space as if it represents the universe) You cannot claim light traveled millions of years out there. Even parallax measuring is useless. That involves time as well. WE take one line of the three based on this solar system area. (for example how far the earth moves in six months around the sun) then we use that as a line and add two other lines as if they all equate in time and space! The absolute most I could grant you as known is less than a light day away! Those are your firm limits. Even that is being generous, because of the anomalies the Voyageur encountered but I will grant it to you for the sake of argument for now.

No. That is probably true as well. I am talking about after the fall. The days of Adam and Noah etc. Right on up till after the flood of Noah and to the time or Peleg and Babel. As explained above I see no reason to think that our nature existed at all as we know it until about the time of Babel, when a big change happened. It affected men's minds and therefore language. It affected lifespans drastically and suddenly. It affected laws such as thermodynamics and how much heat gets produced by moving whole continents fast. It affected basically everything. There obviously was still some processes and laws at work on the same materials that existed. But what that process was exactly and how it worked and precisely what forces caused it, we don't know. All we know is how it NOW works. Therefore, unless someone proved there also was some radioactive decay back then, why would I assume there was? Yes we do. If there was foe example (using silly numbers for easy understanding) a ratio of isotopes in a rock of 200 parent and 100 daughter isotopes when the change happened, then after the nature was changed there would still be that ratio. The thing is that it would not have been BECAUSE of radioactive decay. Then, after the nature was different, more daughter isotopes were added to the total because there now was radioactive decay. So, let's say there are now 107 daughter isotopes in the total. That would mean 7 of those daughter isotopes WERE produced by radioactive decay in this present nature! So the total might look like say, 200 parent isotopes and 107 daughter isotopes. Looking at this you would assume that all daughter isotopes were produced by radioactive decay because they ARE NOW being produced that way. That also means that all dating methods based on that assumption are ridiculously wrong. Exactly and it is THAT assumption I challenge. (since as in the example I gave, the vast majority of isotopes in the ratio got there by other means or were there when radioactive decay started) As explained above, some of the isotopes would be because of the decay that has existed since things changed. So it is not really an age or apparent age. It is a misunderstanding.

That doesn't matter! How matter 'forms' is not the question. How matter formed would be more relevant. You simply assume it was always the same. What was the charge like in Noah's day? The nuclear strong force...etc? We don't know. We use how it now is to base it all on, including dates. Who cares what an atom "HAS"? Or what forces exist to act on it NOW? It matters not at all what 'a nucleus IS' What matters is proving that nucleus' worked the same way in the nature of the far past. Under TODAY'S laws a nucleus could not exist if such and such changed. Irrelevant to the different nature of the past How forces ARE does not matter at all. How forces WERE matters. The idea is not to change OUR present nature and laws. The idea is that God changed the nature that WAS into what we now have. We are the change. It is like saying 'man could not live a thousand years in this nature. So what? Man DID live nearly 1000 years (and will again in the future) in the past nature! Why would a nucleus existing in a different nature under different forces be unstable?? You are talking about a sudden change WITHIN OUR nature. It was NOT our nature that would have changed. Since radioactive decay is a feature of THIS present nature, why imagine a CHANGE IN radioactive decay?? I know, you can't imagine a different nature where there was no radioactive decay as we know it. There were still changes happening, but probably not because of radioactive decay. Since we look at things decaying now and making certain isotopes we imagine all such isotopes and ratios came to exist only as a result of radioactive decay. What if radioactivity came to exist, as we know it, after the nature changed? As explained nothing was unstable. A so called decay chain was not a decay chain before decay existed! You look at how the chain NOW works and operates and exists. In some cases, for example, we had both the (what we now consider) parent isotopes AND the (what we now consider) daughter isotopes existing together already in some other relationship than present state decay. You see that NOW, daughter isotopes are produced from parent isotopes and leap to the conclusion all the isotopes came to exist that way! No. Only those daughter isotopes that were produced in this nature were produced that way. When you have a bunch of daughter and parent isotopes now in a ration, you assume all daughter isotopes were produced by radioactive decay (because they are now being made that away) Very short sighted. So why would God change nature? For the sake of mankind I would guess, largely. Why did He change things at Babel affecting men's minds/language? For our sake, Why would He have changed nature so that men lived 1/10 of what they once did? For our sake of course. Imagine Hitler if he lived 950 years! Why would God change how laws like thermodynamics work? For our sake! If, for example He wanted Pangaea to separate fast, and not produce killing heat from friction etc! He wanted man separate. But we can surmise that the nature change happened around the same time, because we know a lot of heat was produced. So, if for example, the nature changed just before the rapid separation of lands was complete, we then would get a lot of heat even at the tail end. (like the ring of fire etc) It does not matter what radioactivity does since it is a feature of THIS present nature. No. No one has been down there. All models are based on indirect evidence such as interpreting sound waves. There are other interpretations! For example if laws in the core were not the same as here, then what we thought had to be a hot liquid could be a cool liquid etc etc etc How they now work does not matter to the past. Or the future I might add! I suspect that God will change laws again in the final few years of the world before He returns. There are a few reasons from the bible to suspect this, but that is another thread. There is no alteration in today's nature! If there was a different nature in the past, then whatever changed would not have been OUR laws. The universe will cease to exist one day. It is made for man. There were no stars and sun when the earth first was created. Man has not been even one lousy light day away yet. We see all light from the universe HERE. We interpret based on nature and laws here. We can't even say what the laws are in the distant universe. We can't say how distant any star is! ALL distances are faith based. I kid you not. Therefore all sizes of things in far space and a lot of other basics are not known after all. Why will He dissolve the heavens one day but we will live on? Why will he make new heavens and a new earth for us? I already mentions some changes in the life of mankind that God seemed to want to make. Shorter lives, moving continents for us to get around and separate from a one world situation. Changed languages. Also a greater degree of separation of spiritual from physical. Angels used to marry women and have kids for example. That does not happen today. Things are different. Looking at the future, if I am correct that He will change it again, one reason might be to stop man from blowing up the world! (if nuclear physics no longer works then nukes won't work either!) That is because present nature and laws DID NOT PRODUCE THE WORLD! Of course using temporal current laws cannot explain creation or the past or the future! A different future and past does explain it.

OK tks

No. He was talking to Jewish believers. He ALSO was talking to you and me. He was talking especially to people who would be alive in the end and see those signs. He said other sheep have I (besides you as well, that are to come) The gospel being preached in all the world is one of the signs. You cannot limit the end time to Israel alone or Jews alone by any stretch of the imagination. The Jews are a focal point of the very end and prophesy. But the whole world is involved and believers that are not Jewish are involved. God came for the world! He loved the world, so He came and died for us. Jews included. Not Jews only! It also refers to leaders of Israel as children of Satan! Jesus was not calling all people dogs! He was illustrating that He was sent first to the house of Israel. Yet He still had mercy, even before the time came to reach all the world on the outsider!

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Looking at a commentary I saw this "VI. And to anoint the Most Holy, קדש קדשים kodesh kodashim, "the Holy of holies." משיח mashach, to anoint, (from which comes משיח mashiach, the Messiah, the anointed one,) signifies in general, to consecrate or appoint to some special office. Here it means the consecration or appointment of our blessed Lord, the Holy One of Israel, to be the Prophet, Priest, and King of mankind." https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/acc/daniel-9.html#verse-24 In context, then, if this is correct, it would mean the time at the end when Jesus returns and is the ruler of the world. While He is king now of all who believe, He then will be king of all the earth. The holy city in the verse it seems refers to the holy city of the Jews, Jerusalem, from which Jesus will rule the world.

He was talking about the end (as He was asked to address the issue and times). Also to people who would be alive at that end time. You can't hide that fact with a fig tree, or obscure interpretation of some meaning read into a tree. The point of the tree was simple. When we see buds or leaves, we know that the summer is near. When we see the signs START then we know that the end is also near. Probably the greatest sign is the abomination of desolation that will be set up in the holy place in the end. Right now it looks like the stage is being set and is set to a large extent for many of these things to happen. That is why I can't see a lot of time available for a whole new major kingdom to be set up still.

Luke 21:31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. The whole context is the time coming when all will be fulfilled. The end of the world 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Where He stated things about the end. The Jews of that day were not in the end of the world.

No, He was also talking to those who would see the end. In fact, especially to us. It also was not talking about Jews. It was talking about us who believe in Jesus. (including Jews). These days most folks call such people Christians. It doesn't matter what they were called then. The context is when the END comes.

The point was that it was claimed that another empire would arise. Looking at Israel and the degenerate nature of governments and schools and etc in the world today, it seems unlikely that another major power like Greece or Medo Persia or Babylon would rise before the Rapture and events to come in the tribulation. It is true we don't know when exactly. We can say the signs Jesus mentioned have begun though, I think. Not all of them, obviously. People trying to be saviors of the planet, false Christs, rising persecution. Christians being hated of all men. (for opposing the gender confusion attack on children, abortion,sodom lifestyles, etc etc) Luke 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. Yes it says clearly that the events mentioned covered the time from Daniel till the very end. "Seventy ‘sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place. The events coming do not require you to do anything. Once the things Jesus told us about start to happen, the rest will follow in a fairly short time. In a broad sense, knowing the end of things from prophesy, we know the world will have a global government. We know commerce will center on an identifying mark embedded inside of people. We know Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies. We know believers will be killed worldwide. etc. It is obvious that the stage is being set today.

The problem with that is that once the clock starts ticking there is no time for some new empire or kingdom to rise. When you see some things start to happen, Jesus said, you know it is all coming down fast. (that was a paraphrase)

No matter what continent men lived on they would have known about the flood. Once continents moved with the animals and people on them, there still were stories and legends of the great flood. There is also some similarities in pyramids.

Occam's razor says that people living on rapidly moving continents is the simplest answer.

I would see all these as post flood. Since laws and forces of physics were likely not the same as today, there may have also been some way to lessen gravity! (making the moving of huge blocks easy) Having some force balancing or somewhat cancelling gravity would also facilitate huge land masses moving easier. Personally I believe that the planet itself was also somehow affected, resulting in a sudden change in the length of a year (used to be 360 days) On the issue of sediment and fossils, there were plenty of those before the flood as well. Perhaps some areas where water arose from the deep tended to ebb and flow water and would be mistaken by modern science as tidal activity from seas...etc. I agree. This explains similarities in architecture, customs etc. Not only normal dispersing, but the separation caused by continents moving apart. Yes The place Job lived and the time he lived may have been closer to the time of the flood than assumed. I have a way of dating it. We know men lived somewhere around 9 centuries and change before the flood. Going forward we see a huge change that is most notable and best explained on a graph happened around the time of Peleg and Babel. No one after Peleg lived more than something like 230 years or whatever it was. Excepting people born before Babel and Peleg. (Shem etc) Even with people like Shem, I think their lifespan was shorter than it would have been if no change happened in Peleg's day. Here is an illustration. If Noah lived 600 years before the flood and 450 years after that would be 950 years. That means only 350 after the flood. If Babel was something like 105 years after the flood, that would mean Noah only lived about 245 years after Babel. That was approx the average age in Peleg's time. If Shem was 98 or 99 years old in the flood year, that would mean he probably would have been about 103 or 104 years old when Babel happened . That would mean he lived about 500 years after Babel. We don't know when the earth was divided in Peleg's day. Let's assume for the sake of an example that it was 100 years after the time of Babel. Peleg would have been a little over a hundred years old. Shem would have been about 300 years old. (a hundred before the flood, a hundred years till Babel, and another hundred years after Babel) That would mean that Shem only would have lived after the dividing of the earth (I assume this was when a change in physics and nature happened) for about 300 years! That was above average. I assume that whatever change happened that caused men to live drastically shorter lifespans may have affected those born before the change, but not quite as much. So, to the dating method point now- anyone that lived around the same as Peleg was something like 2 or 300 years post flood. Then we have Abraham and others dropping to 175 years, so that would be many decades later. (Jewish tradition has Abraham meeting Noah while Abraham was a child) So, we can use the lifespan of Peleg as a base to date people. Moses, for example was centuries later and he lived only 120 years...etc. Job lived 140 years, so by this dating scheme, that was before Moses, and after Peleg, and after Abraham etc.

You were guessing. No one knows. My guess is that the Yucatan crater may be a left over from one of them. I wasn't thinking about or talking about water as a cause for the rapid plate separation. If physical laws were not the same and thermodynamics, etc we would have no worries about as much heat being caused by friction of fast moving plates or etc etc.

We know the next time the world is judged it will be by fire not water. That's why. If God did not tell Noah to build that ark and how and why and in what timeframe etc, it would have been foolishness to build a boat.

Yes we do, because God never told us to. I don't question the operation He conducted in the flood. He knew how to design a boat and etc. Your armchair second guessing God in a doubtful spirit means nothing.

That does not mean that they moved when waters came up in the flood. Yes water was under the surface before the flood. That has no connection to continents moving that we know about. You seem to be trying to use the water surfacing in the flood as the mechanism for rapid continental drift.

No. None were mentioned in the bible. You mean NOW IF continents moved then there would be earthquakes. Irrelevant. However the continents will all move again in the end and there will be earth shaking then. Again, not relevant to the present time. There used to be a lot that was not the same, such as water under the world etc etc. The laws of that time were different. So there was no problem for people on land masses that were wafting around. No great heat. No waves to kill all people, etc etc. In fact that explains how plants, animals and people got around to the various continents.

No God involved? He designed the ark. He brought the animals to it. He closed the door on the ark. He provided all that was needed.

Source? No one asked what animals 'do'. The issue is what happened long ago.

Why would moving continents kill people? If the rapid separation was after or at the time of Babel that doesn't apply. Great. If true, then we have them built after the flood. Since the separation of lands probably came anywhere from 105 years to say, about 335 years after the flood, again, a moot point. Why up to over 300 years after the flood? If Babel was build when Peleg was five years old, and Peleg was born some 105 years or whatever after the flood that means Babel was more than a century after the flood. It also means Peleg lived more than 200 years after this time.

Why would it have taken a whole month? Since we do not know how adapting used to occur, we can't know how long it would have taken. I personally assume that living creatures likely could have adapted. In other words if Ham went south to a warmer climate, perhaps his skin and other things could have adapted while he was alive still. If a bird needed to adjust their migration routes or diets etc why might that not have happened to them while still alive back then? We don't know the exact blend and nature of laws that existed then. It actually seems possible to me that many creatures sort of got 'frozen' or locked in to their instincts and migrations etc and that the world and nature probably changed. Yet they still had their 'old' instincts and etc. We see eels, for example migrate thousands of miles out to a place near where the continents were joined together today (Sargasso Sea) Why? It is almost like they have built in habitual instincts to go and breed there, despite it making no apparent sense in this present world and nature. That brings to mind a question. Could animals in the former nature have been in more direct and instant communication with God or nature or whatever so that they could adjust and adapt on the fly as needed? Looking at the future in the bible, (which I think is the actual key to the far past, rather than the present being the key) there is evidence supporting this concept. Frightening evidence. There is coming a time in the end when animals will all change their 'normal' behaviors (built in instincts) and attack mankind!

When people say God is a liar and did not really create, it makes the difference between belief and unbelief. Part of believing in Jesus is knowing He created all things and that He is God.