Real time or evo time?

[lesliedellow]

19 light hours or some such?

Hey, chalk this up. For the first time in the history of the world, Dad has got something right. 18.9 light hours if you want to be more accurate.

 

[dad]

Hey, chalk this up. For the first time in the history of the world, Dad has got something right. 18.9 light hours if you want to be more accurate.

That then is the extent of how far man has 'been'. Less than ONE light speed day away in the universe! Perhaps a good slogan for the probes might be..

'exploring where no man has gone before, almost to the fringes of the fishbowl'!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why, no one else can read the bible?

According to you, no one else is allowed to quote Him.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I would not be surprised if it did not or if it did. Can you rule it out for us?

you don't know, because you don't know where your fishbowl needs to be.

I'm easy. After all how far it is away from us now..19 light hours or some such? Hey, I could be generous and allow a whole light day without raising an eyebrow for the time and space zone of man!

Your generosity is irrelevant.

Why?

Radio waves function outside of our time and space, then? Is that your belief?

 

[dad]

According to you, no one else is allowed to quote Him.

If you want to quote bible start anytime.

 

[dad]

you don't know, because you don't know where your fishbowl needs to be.

You don't know because you don't know your limits. Man has not been further than the moon! His probes less than a light day. Man is small. Science is smaller.

Radio waves function outside of our time and space, then? Is that your belief?

How would I know, have we been there? If anything did anything beyond our time and space, seems to me it would not require the same amount of time to do whatever it does though! But we here...where time is the way we know it...would see it IN time!

 

[TLK Valentine]

How would I know, have we been there? If anything did anything beyond our time and space, seems to me it would not require the same amount of time to do whatever it does though! But we here...where time is the way we know it...would see it IN time!

You're saying that people IN time and space can see things which are NOT in time and space?

What, then, is the difference?

 

[dad]

You're saying that people IN time and space can see things which are NOT in time and space?

What, then, is the difference?

No. I am saying that whatever we do see, will be in time here. How else could it be if there IS time here?

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. I am saying that whatever we do see, will be in time here. How else could it be if there IS time here?

But if it's coming from somewhere else, then that other location must necessarily be in the same time we are, or else how would we be able to see or hear it?

 

[dad]

But if it's coming from somewhere else, then that other location must necessarily be in the same time we are, or else how would we be able to see or hear it?

That makes no sense. We see and hear everything here in our area in the space and time we exist IN. (whether times existed exactly the same somewhere else is not important to how the info or light must behave where time exists.

 

[lesliedellow]

That makes no sense. We see and hear everything here in our area in the space and time we exist IN. (whether times existed exactly the same somewhere else is not important to how the info or light must behave where time exists.

Light is an electromagnetic wave. That means it has a frequency. Frequency is defined as cycles per second.

Therefore No time = no frequency = No electromagnetic wave = No light.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We see and hear everything here in our area in the space and time we exist IN. (whether times existed exactly the same somewhere else is not important to how the info or light must behave where time exists.

Exactly! Anything we can see or hear must be in the same space and time as we are, correct?

 

[Kylie]

God did that, since the dawn of time.

No. You can't start out by assuming the same thing you wish to prove.

Try again.

 

[Kylie]

How atoms behave does not mean rocks look radically different does it? Support that claim.

If atoms behave differently, the way they join together will be different - and that's if they join together at all. Different ways of atoms joining together will result in different shaped rocks (that's why some places have hexagonal rocks, like the Giant's Causeway - because of the way the atoms join together), or rocks of different densities or different hardness which will weather differently.

And yet we never see this.

The bible record shows that lifespan change. It also tells us about plants growing fast before this time. It also talks of spirits living with en before this time. It talks of a different climate system, to where we had water from below rather than rain.

It also claims snakes could talk.

Lots of old books make all sorts of amazing claims. Doesn't mean that the claims are true.

Noah seemed to be amazed at the rainbow, as if no one saw one before.

So in the DSP, light interacted with water differently so that it didn't refract light prior to this point?

(Besides, haven't you said that the change occured AFTER the flood, not at the same time? Like several years after at least?)

You would need to show how different forces acting on atoms in a rock would result in some new look for the rock.

Well, you just claimed that different forces acting on light and water will produce a new look - namely, rainbows. So let's just say the same thing happened to rocks.

You can't just claim stuff.

That's rich coming from someone who has never provided a shred of evidence for any of the stuff you've just claimed.

Now I would agree there was likely a different consistency to rock in the past, but you would need to prove any claims of radically different appearance for rock.

Then you are agreeing with me.

I never said it had to be a massive change, did I? You were the one who said that, in post 872.

All I said was that the rocks would have had to be different, because if the laws were different, we would not have the laws we have today - such as the laws that govern how atoms behave.

Noah was different in many ways, perhaps.

Different how? We his bones not made from calcium? Did his digestive system operate differently? Were his internal organs rearranged?

But I really doubt his wife didn't recognize him!

Why would a person suited for DSP laws of nature look the same as a person suited for present state laws?

You seem to be saying the rocks would look different, not just have the atoms in them behave different.

How can a two rocks look and behave the same if the atoms inside them operate according to different laws?

After all the rocks would have been here and formed already and had the ratios of isotpes in them already at the time of the nature change.

Okay, let's say I agree with you, and the rocks formed in the DSP had different ratios in them.

Why would those different ratios formed in the DSP match exactly what we'd expect to see if there was no DSP and they had simply aged many millions of years? What caused them to have that exact ratio instead of one of the other infinite number of ratios they could have had?

 

[dad]

No. You can't start out by assuming the same thing you wish to prove.

Try again.

I didn't start out wishing to 'prove' the bible or God actually. He hunted me down, and shone the light on me for some reason.

 

[dad]

If atoms behave differently, the way they join together will be different - and that's if they join together at all.

To claim this you would have to know what difference we are talking about. You don't. Your whole basis is how things work now. The things that MAKE atoms join together, repel, or anything else are determined by forces and laws.

Different ways of atoms joining together will result in different shaped rocks (that's why some places have hexagonal rocks, like the Giant's Causeway - because of the way the atoms join together), or rocks of different densities or different hardness which will weather differently.

And yet we never see this.

In this present nature, atoms share electrons and do stuff a certain way. This is all we see now. If they shared differently in the past you would have no way of knowing now.

"
There are two basic kinds of bonds - covalent and ionic.

Covalent bonds happen when two atoms share electrons - kind of like 2 atoms holding hands. When at least 2 atoms get together by sharing electrons, they form a molecule.

​

Ionic bonds happen when one atom gives at least one electron to another atom. Awwww, isn't that nice?!

Picture this: Two atoms sit next to each other. One atom needs an electron, and the other atom has an extra electron. Perfect! Once the electron gets handed over, the atoms are no longer atoms - they're ions, and they each have a charge - one plus (+ positive) and one minus (- negative).

Remember that each atom started with enough (-) electrons to match each (+) proton in its nucleus. The atom that gets an extra electron ends up with a (-) charge and is called an anion (sounds like ann-eye-on). The atom that gives away an electron ends up with a (+) charge and is called a cation (sounds like cat-eye-on).

Now, those (+) and (-) charges have a strong attraction to each other - they sit next to each other and refuse to move. And guess what? That's an ionic bond! - the strong attraction between ions with opposite charges. Table salt is a good example of a common ionic compound. (Table salt is also called sodium chloride.) Click here for even more info.See a 3-D model of the ions here.

http://www.pslc.ws/macrog/kidsmac/atom_str.htm



http://www.pslc.ws/macrog/kidsmac/images/nacltoon.gif

I mean what if the little girl atom in the pic was more loving in the former nature and shared a few electrons, or less loving and shared none..or etc etc etc? You can't look just at the happily married atom couple now and say they always were married.

 

[TLK Valentine]

dad:

If you can see and hear something, doesn't that mean that something is in the same time and space as you are?

Wouldn't it be impossible to perceive it otherwise?

 

[dad]

dad:

If you can see and hear something, doesn't that mean that something is in the same time and space as you are?

Wouldn't it be impossible to perceive it otherwise?

No. What we see is always and only here. Here where time as we know it exists. Now let's say for example that there was less time far away, say that a million years of time here equaled about i second of time there. In both cases we have time, but we could not standardize it across the universe. Since we can't see time, how would you know?!

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. What we see is always and only here.

So when you see a skyscraper a mile away, that skyscraper isn't actually a mile away, it's "here," as in, where you are?

When you travel in an airplane, you might see sights that are hundreds of miles away -- except you're saying they're not -- they're "here," as in... what? In the plane with you?

Look up in the sky and see the Moon... is the Moon actually 238,900 miles away, or is it "here," almost close enough to reach up and grab?

In short, doesn't your claim that "what we see is always and only here" completely negate the entire concept of distance?

You do know what "distance" is, don't you, dad?

 

[Kylie]

I didn't start out wishing to 'prove' the bible or God actually. He hunted me down, and shone the light on me for some reason.

And yet, it doesn't stop you from doing it now.