Real time or evo time?

[dad]

Only in The HI Theory, In reality, science doesn't really address "creation."

I know, but it claims it does, lying little scoundrel that it is.

examples

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140812-how-was-the-universe-created

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/universe.html

So this is hand waving insanity..

 

[AirPo]

I know, but it claims it does, lying little scoundrel that it is.

examples

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140812-how-was-the-universe-created

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/universe.html

So this is hand waving insanity..

That's what the HI Theory is all about.

 

[Kylie]

Misrepresentation is not cool.

How is it misrepresentation? Were you not saying that you were (for some reason) not required to provide verification?

 

[Kylie]

No. But I suggest that more people would read them and get something out of them if they were pregnant with content.

I'll tell you what. You do it first.

Only by faith, and that doesn't count on a science forum.

No, not by faith. With well reasoned argument. Your refusal to look at those arguments does not mean they don't exist.

You are incapable of producing any at all for your pagan dream state past.

Have done. Once again, your inability to understand the evidence I and others provide does not invalidate that evidence.

Misuse of the word reality does not help your empty posts.

And since the next thing I said was that you would "tell me that I'm not allowed to use the word reality, or that reality is your thing, or something like that" means that I was right.

Although some part of me suspects that you did that just to humour me...

No science or rationality supports that anti God anti creation anti Creator, anti Christ dream state you preach.

Tell you what, let's play a game.

Let's pretend that the Bible doesn't exist. Let's say that somehow all copies of it were lost hundreds of years ago, and there's no one alive today who even knows about it.

What do you have that would convince you of a different state past if you didn't have the Bible?

 

[SelfSim]

Misuse of the word reality does not help your empty posts.

And since the next thing I said was that you would "tell me that I'm not allowed to use the word reality, or that reality is your thing, or something like that" means that I was right.

Interestingly, whenever we see someone, ('KTS' in this instance), invoking a notion of "reality" in the process of doing scientific thinking, they can be observed to be using the notion in a way that demonstrably depends on their mind and this would also be done very differently by a very different mind (ie: 'dad').
Science only demonstrably deals in a version of reality that is mind dependent, and it only needs that concept of reality, to perform its function.

Interestingly, the notion that science accesses some kind of mind-independent type of reality, can actually be a barrier to scientific progress. (This has happened many times in the history of science). The widespread idea that science uses a notion of mind-independent reality is actually not so, because the notion actually has no objective basis. (Otherwise, please cite the objective test, conducted totally independently from the influence of any mind, whose outcome conclusively demonstrates a mind independent reality).

Note that the clarifying point needed to be made here, is that there is no claim that reality is "only in the mind", or that mind-dependent reality "is what reality actually is", instead, the point is that the word "reality" means different things in different contexts, and in science, it only means how our minds make sense of objective perceptions.

Tell you what, let's play a game.

Let's pretend that the Bible doesn't exist. Let's say that somehow all copies of it were lost hundreds of years ago, and there's no one alive today who even knows about it.

What do you have that would convince you of a different state past if you didn't have the Bible?

Thought experiments are fine in science when the constraints already have an established objective basis. However, when they rely on there being a reality independent from minds, (I think you refer to it as 'Physical Reality'?), in the absence of any objective test for it, implies that one has stepped beyond the scientific method.

Of course having said all that, substituting a book written by other minds, and somehow claiming that as being 'the true mind independent reality', when minds clearly authored it in the first place, is nonsensical. If it is claimed that something independent from the authors' minds motivated it, then this only represents the different way the claimant's mind has invoked their own reality, (albeit in the same mind dependent way, however).

 

[SelfSim]

Imaginary time used by science (we can call it evo time here) is based on a belief that physics always existed as we know it basically.

No .. no beliefs .. only hypothesis, objective testing, results and evidence.

In real time I suspect the flood was around 4500 years ago. IN evo time probably about 70 million years ago at the aprox time of the KT boundry.

.. All realities created by your mind .. that's all. (The underlined term is the evidence supporting that your mind was involved in what you wrote).

There is no way to know if man and most animals would heave been even able to fossilize in the former nature.

The knowledge produced by science is obtained via objective testing. The essential terms involved in those tests (ie: 'animals', 'fossilised', 'former nature', from your words above), are always operationally defined. This means that all those terms are themselves, able to be tested. The meanings derived from objective testing can be shown to be dependent on minds. Because different minds think differently, the meanings they come up with can vary. Meanings, (or interpretations), of objective testing/results, are debated, and usually achieve some consensus amongst scientifically thinking minds.

The assertion in what you wrote above, is not a scientific assertion .. which is fine .. its just not an example of scientific thinking.

Science uses beliefs on top of assumptions on top of godless beliefs to set dates and model the past. They are wrong.

Science makes use of operational definitions. Assumptions, if/when made, are also subject to operational testability.
Beliefs play no role in science, (especially when they aren't testable).
That you say science is 'wrong' is just part of the Mind Dependent Reality you created in your OP. The test for demonstrating this, is that it takes a mind to interpret something as being 'wrong'.

 

[dad]

How is it misrepresentation? Were you not saying that you were (for some reason) not required to provide verification?

Rather than go in silly circles, just post some clear representation.

 

[dad]

I'll tell you what. You do it first.

Done. My posts have shown a clear position with incredible details of why science is wrong, and God right.

No, not by faith. With well reasoned argument. Your refusal to look at those arguments does not mean they don't exist.

Don't flatter yourself. I looked, I laughed I flushed.

And since the next thing I said was that you would "tell me that I'm not allowed to use the word reality, or that reality is your thing, or something like that" means that I was right.

Lose the word. It doesn't become you.

Although some part of me suspects that you did that just to humour me...

Does that part post?

Tell you what, let's play a game.

Let's pretend that the Bible doesn't exist. Let's say that somehow all copies of it were lost hundreds of years ago, and there's no one alive today who even knows about it.

That is not a game, it is a sick denial. If there is a God and creator, He would have HAD to leave some communication with us.

What do you have that would convince you of a different state past if you didn't have the Bible?

Since science cannot tell us about any any state at all, we would need to remember it is eliminated from the peanut gallery.

 

[dad]

No .. no beliefs .. only hypothesis, objective testing, results and evidence.

Tests for time in deep space? Really? Show us!

.. All realities created by your mind .. that's all. (The underlined term is the evidence supporting that your mind was involved in what you wrote).
The knowledge produced by science is obtained via objective testing.

False, not when it comes to what it cannot test!

The essential terms involved in those tests (ie: 'animals', 'fossilised', 'former nature', from your words above), are always operationally defined.

?? The former laws and forces are not 'fossils'!

This means that all those terms are themselves, able to be tested.

It actually just means you have not yet a clue as to what the gist of the arguments here are.

The meanings derived from objective testing can be shown to be dependent on minds. Because different minds think differently, the meanings they come up with can vary. Meanings, (or interpretations), of objective testing/results, are debated, and usually achieve some consensus amongst scientifically thinking minds.

Vague and fluffy nonsense.

The assertion in what you wrote above, is not a scientific assertion .. which is fine .. its just not an example of scientific thinking.

Your opinion is of limited import.

Science makes use of operational definitions. Assumptions, if/when made, are also subject to operational testability.
Beliefs play no role in science, (especially when they aren't testable).

Either admit science only believes a certain set of laws and forces existed, or else get down and show how they know rather than believe. This is your quest. No matter how hopeless.

That you say science is 'wrong' is just part of the Mind Dependent Reality you created in your OP.

"It"? Put some meat on dem bones.

The test for demonstrating this, is that it takes a mind to interpret something as being 'wrong'.

Also a physic, apparently, to tell what you are talking about exactly!

 

[SelfSim]

Tests for time in deep space? Really? Show us!

A mind requires a sense of time in order to account for its own memory capability. If you don't agree, then try and explain memory without making references to time.

Science uses an operational definition of time, (and is therefore measurable), which makes the concept useful.

You seem to think time is dependent on location in science (eg: 'deep space').
It is not.
What it does depend on, is the presence of a (human) mind to perceive it.

The knowledge produced by science is obtained via objective testing.

False, not when it comes to what it cannot test!

The objective knowledge gathered by science has already passed science's tests. If something is not testable in principle, it cannot result in objective knowledge. That is just how science works.

?? The former laws and forces are not 'fossils'!

Correct.
Present-day empirical 'laws and forces', produce predictions. Those predictions are testable. After the predictions have been tested, and found to be consistent with what those empirically stated 'laws and forces' produced, the minds that performed said tests, make sense of this by saying that those 'laws and forces' exist(ed) before, during, and after the tests.
... 'Twas those minds which created the reality where those things exist(ed) (because that's what they mean when they use the term, 'reality').

It actually just means you have not yet a clue as to what the gist of the arguments here are.

I just presented an example of how reality is created by minds following the scientific process. I think I've demonstrated that I have a 'clue', (or two), about how science is so sure about what you are clearly not.

Vague and fluffy nonsense.

You don't agree that minds assign words their meaning? Have you ever perused a good dictionary?
Do the words in the Bible have any meaning at all, without the words in it, first being assigned meanings by human minds?

The assertion in what you wrote above, is not a scientific assertion .. which is fine .. its just not an example of scientific thinking.

Your opinion is of limited import.

Agreed. But what I said was not opinion.
You said:

There is no way to know if man and most animals would heave been even able to fossilize in the former nature.

And I just described a scientific process, (above), for how science creates the objective reality which assures the existence of a 'former nature'.

Either admit science only believes a certain set of laws and forces existed, or else get down and show how they know rather than believe. This is your quest. No matter how hopeless.

Done (above) .. all without beliefs .. just done with hypothesis/theory/laws, predictions, tests, results and minds to come up with the meaning.

Also a physic, apparently, to tell what you are talking about exactly!

No psychic .. Just a thinking mind. Try it on! Its pregnant with content!

 

[dad]

A mind requires a sense of time in order to account for its own memory capability. If you don't agree, then try and explain memory without making references to time.

Your problem is that the memory of man does not dictate what time is or is not i the far universe. Don't retreat inside your head.

Science uses an operational definition of time, (and is therefore measurable), which makes the concept useful.

Post this definition.

You seem to think time is dependent on location in science (eg: 'deep space').
It is not.

Says who?

What it does depend on, is the presence of a (human) mind to perceive it.

The universe is in your head?? Get a grip.

The objective knowledge gathered by science has already passed science's tests. If something is not testable in principle, it cannot result in objective knowledge. That is just how science works.

Science and it's limits are not the be all end all measure of what is true. The tests of science need to be looked at, not alluded to.

Correct.
Present-day empirical 'laws and forces', produce predictions. Those predictions are testable.

Example?

After the predictions have been tested, and found to be consistent with what those empirically stated 'laws and forces' produced, the minds that performed said tests, make sense of this by saying that those 'laws and forces' exist(ed) before, during, and after the tests.

Circular. In other words you explain all things only BY earth laws and time and space and forces.

... 'Twas those minds which created the reality where those things exist(ed) (because that's what they mean when they use the term, 'reality').

They were wrong.

I just presented an example of how reality is created by minds following the scientific process. I think I've demonstrated that I have a 'clue', (or two), about how science is so sure about what you are clearly not.

Gong!

You don't agree that minds assign words their meaning? Have you ever perused a good dictionary?
Do the words in the Bible have any meaning at all, without the words in it, first being assigned meanings by human minds?

Let's start by having your posts have meaning.

Agreed. But what I said was not opinion.
You said:And I just described a scientific process, (above), for how science creates the objective reality which assures the existence of a 'former nature'.

No, you blathered. Give the specific example or science, do not pretend you did so.

No psychic .. Just a thinking mind. Try it on! Its pregnant with content!

Without the life and word of God they are stillborn ideas. D.O.A.

 

[SelfSim]

Your problem is that the memory of man does not dictate what time is or is not i the far universe.

Time is defined in science as being one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in both the International System of Units and the International System of Quantities. Last time I looked, both of these were invented by human minds (who were defining reality so they could make sense of what they perceive).

Post this definition.

'Please'?
.. Ok .. Wiki's will do:

An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is highly useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life.

Note the words: "one says, observing, etc" .. I'd say those words demonstrate clearly that a human mind is calling the shots on the meaning of time in science, no?

You seem to think time is dependent on location in science (eg: 'deep space').
It is not.

Says who?

See the Wiki definition just quoted .. nothing about location in it.

The universe is in your head?? Get a grip.

From post #605:

Note that the clarifying point needed to be made here, is that there is no claim that reality is "only in the mind", or that mind-dependent reality "is what reality actually is", instead, the point is that the word "reality" means different things in different contexts, and in science, it only means how our minds make sense of objective perceptions.

(My underlines) .. I'm 'gripped' .. are you?

Science and it's limits are not the be all end all measure of what is true. The tests of science need to be looked at, not alluded to.

I don't think I have a problem with any of that. But good luck in trying to stop humans from 'alluding'!

Correct.
Present-day empirical 'laws and forces', produce predictions. Those predictions are testable.

Example?

Newton's first law of motion: Where the net force on an object is zero, the velocity will be constant.

After the predictions have been tested, and found to be consistent with what those empirically stated 'laws and forces' produced, the minds that performed said tests, make sense of this by saying that those 'laws and forces' exist(ed) before, during, and after the tests.

Circular. In other words you explain all things only BY earth laws and time and space and forces.

You seem to have a problem with accepting the generalisation of Physical Laws to include universality by induction. Newton's law of universal gravitation is a good example of how the inductive process was used to lead to the development of an hypothesis, a prediction, testing, results, subsequent verification (of the prediction), and the ultimate acceptance of it, into scientific objective reality, as being a universal law.

... 'Twas those minds which created the reality where those things exist(ed) (because that's what they mean when they use the term, 'reality').

They were wrong.

Truth by mere assertion is not at all becoming .. I give evidence for what I say .. do you?

And I just described a scientific process, (above), for how science creates the objective reality which assures the existence of a 'former nature'.

Give the specific example or science, do not pretend you did so.

You said:

There is no way to know if man and most animals would heave been even able to fossilize in the former nature.

And I said:

Present-day empirical 'laws and forces', produce predictions. Those predictions are testable. After the predictions have been tested, and found to be consistent with what those empirically stated 'laws and forces' produced, the minds that performed said tests, make sense of this by saying that those 'laws and forces' exist(ed) before, during, and after the tests.
... 'Twas those minds which created the reality where those things exist(ed) (because that's what they mean when they use the term, 'reality').

The specific example of Netwon's law of universal gravitation is a good example of how science went about it in exactly the way I mentioned above.
There's your example, and there's your science!

Without the life and word of God they are stillborn ideas. D.O.A.

Which is just another example of your mind dependent reality (with a lot of opinion injected for flair). But just not science.

 

[AirPo]

Rather than go in silly circles, just post some clear representation.

But silly circles is what The HI Theory is all about. After 10 years we are still at the first law, "It's easy to make things up."

 

[dad]

But silly circles is what The HI Theory is all about. After 10 years we are still at the first law, "It's easy to make things up."

Try God's word instead. It is tried and true and tested. The creation tales from demented so called science is made up.

 

[dad]

Time is defined in science as being one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in both the International System of Units and the International System of Quantities. Last time I looked, both of these were invented by human minds (who were defining reality so they could make sense of what they perceive).'Please'?

Nonsense. Time is not a physical quality. It is more like the fishbowl where the physical qualities swim in.

.. Ok .. Wiki's will do:Note the words: "one says, observing, etc" .. I'd say those words demonstrate clearly that a human mind is calling the shots on the meaning of time in science, no?

No. Small minds strive to shove time in a box.

I don't think I have a problem with any of that. But good luck in trying to stop humans from 'alluding'!
Newton's first law of motion: Where the net force on an object is zero, the velocity will be constant.
You seem to have a problem with accepting the generalisation of Physical Laws to include universality by induction.

That might work for an apple on a tree.

However if a spiritual object moves through space, it has no such velocity.

Newton's law of universal gravitation is a good example of how the inductive process was used to lead to the development of an hypothesis, a prediction, testing, results, subsequent verification (of the prediction), and the ultimate acceptance of it, into scientific objective reality, as being a universal law.

More like an orchard law than universal actually.

Truth by mere assertion is not at all becoming .. I give evidence for what I say .. do you?

False...quoting some tidbit of a misconceived definition of time is not giving evidence. That is blather.

You said:And I said:The specific example of Netwon's law of universal gravitation is a good example of how science went about it in exactly the way I mentioned above.
There's your example, and there's your science!

Universal gravitation? Prove it? Show how gravity is the same on the far sides of the universe as here? Sure things go round each other...how far away those things are and how big, and why things go round them is another matter!

 

[SelfSim]

Nonsense. Time is not a physical quality. It is more like the fishbowl where the physical qualities swim in.

(The quote said time is one of the seven fundamental physical 'quantities' .. ie: not 'qualities').
Anyway, the fishbowl is just another of your mind dependent creations, (although I think I get the gist of what you're trying to say with it).

No. Small minds strive to shove time in a box.

How so?

That might work for an apple on a tree.

And lots of other places ..

However if a spiritual object moves through space, it has no such velocity.

If you say so. (Ie: in your mind dependent reality).

More like an orchard law than universal actually.

An orchard might look like a universe to a virus in the soil, eh?

False...quoting some tidbit of a misconceived definition of time is not giving evidence. That is blather.

No .. that is science.

Universal gravitation? Prove it?

I don't have to .. its a scientific Theory. No proof needed.

Show how gravity is the same on the far sides of the universe as here?

Well, Newtonian Gravitational predictions are verified by distant observations.

 

[AirPo]

Try God's word instead. It is tried and true and tested.

Wrong forum.

The creation tales from demented so called science is made up.

That's what I said. The HI Theory has been nothing but ten years of silly made up creation tales about demented so called science. It has been entertaining though.

 

[dad]

Wrong forum.

Not when science is shown not to know. Then we reach for whatever else is around that has credos.

That's what I said. The HI Theory has been nothing but ten years of silly made up creation tales about demented so called science. It has been entertaining though.

Science that deals with origins or claims to is a real thing, that should be dealt with as such, with spiritual violence and righteous indignation.

 

[dad]

(The quote said time is one of the seven fundamental physical 'quantities' .. ie: not 'qualities').

Tomato, tomatoe. Time is a not a physical anything.

Anyway, the fishbowl is just another of your mind dependent creations, (although I think I get the gist of what you're trying to say with it).

To refer to something in a way that pictures a truth is OK.

How so?

Because man does not know if there even is time as we thik of it in the far universe. When they include time in their formulas and math, and size and distance calculations...they are dreaming in technicolor. Doing so is blind faith only.

And lots of other places ..

That must be shown, not just spoken into being.

If you say so. (Ie: in your mind dependent reality).
An orchard might look like a universe to a virus in the soil, eh?

It probably doesn't concern itself with such high minded nonsense. Probably just does what it was made to do, in the place it finds itself, and has no interest in ungodly alternate creation schemes.

No .. that is science.

Baseless religious twaddle then. OK.

I don't have to .. its a scientific Theory. No proof needed. Well, Newtonian Gravitational predictions are verified by distant observations.

"Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using aforce that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.."

wiki

That is impossible to prove for the distant universe. Just because parts of an atom orbit, for example, does not mean gravity is involved.

Merely having gravity at work on physical bodies does not tell us how big or far away those bodies are! Nor does it tell us if there is anything else at work, that is unseen, and unknown. Etc.

 

[AirPo]

Not when science is shown not to know. Then we reach for whatever else is around that has credos.

But that hasn't happened.

Science that deals with origins or claims to is a real thing, that should be dealt with as such, with spiritual violence and righteous indignation.

Isn't that special.