Real time or evo time?

[TLK Valentine]

I doubt it.

Ezekiel 28:13a Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;

How do we reconcile that with the previous verse?

Ezekiel 28:12 "Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "You had the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty."

Did God forget who he was addressing?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do we reconcile that with the previous verse?

Ezekiel 28:12 "Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "You had the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty."

Did God forget who he was addressing?

Note this passage also ...

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

That means that Lucifer shouted for joy when God created the earth.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Note this passage also ...

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

That means that Lucifer shouted for joy when God created the earth.

Morning stars? Is there more than one Lucifer?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

When Lucifer and one third of the angels rebelled, there was a cosmic battle that occurred, in which a lot of God's creation was ruined.

The universe bears these marks.

What else could they be?

Even your precious science says they are meteor strikes and whatnot -- and I agree.

Well, it's certainly high on my list of aesthetic objects in the universe, but in actuality the moon, the Grand Canyon, and other astronomical and geological phenomena attest to God's awful judgment on the universality of sin.

Or they just attest to the titanic forces involved in the very creation of things as they are. Planets, after all, accreted from the primordial space cloud of debris. That means the last stages looked like meteors all crashing down on the newly formed bodies such as the earth and the moon.

 

[dad]

You're saying that there was no such thing as "science" 4500 years ago, and that the past has been in the exact same state only since that point?

How long did you think science existed?? Even if we go back as far as Neuton, that isn't very far. If we go back to Babylon, they had wise men, astrologers and sorcerers.

 

[dad]

I'm kind of curious as to why you think the moon had ANYTHING to do with Lucifer and his angels, or why you consider the mountains and craters of the moon as the result of angelic struggles.

Also, why do you think the moon isn't pristine right now? (that is, aside from human littering and exploring)

I think Avi may be correct. I, however allow for the possibility that a subsequent change in nature around the time of the flood (shortly after) may have been responsible for all of some of this damage.

One piece of possible evidence scriptually for this, is that a day is not 365 days but 360! That seems to indicate a shake up or change in the relatively recent past?

 

[dad]

Or they just attest to the titanic forces involved in the very creation of things as they are. Planets, after all, accreted from the primordial space cloud of debris. That means the last stages looked like meteors all crashing down on the newly formed bodies such as the earth and the moon.

Yet God was very pleased and saw that it all was good...you think pock marks all over are good?

 

[dad]

20 September 2016 dad: A lie that science does not know what time is.
Time

Funny you should say that..

http://phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html

"
They begin by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency, speed, etc. In other words, what experimentally exists are the motion of an object and the tick of a clock, and we compare the object’s motion to the tick of a clock to measure the object’s frequency, speed, etc. By itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence."
This view doesn’t mean that time does not exist, but that time has more to do with space than with the idea of an absolute time. So while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space. In other words, as they say, the universe is “timeless.”


So they struggle with the idea of time, and sometimes they put their conception of time into numbers, etc. They sure don't know!

 

[dad]

20 September 2016 dad: A lie that science does not know what time is in the far universe because as has been pointed out before stars in the far universe act like stars in the near universe.

We see them all here! How would you expect them to appear to us here? If there was some sort of connection with the stars from creation itself, what do you think you would see here? If there was no time part of the way twixt here and a star, what do you think we would SEE??

If the rate of time changes (dad shows no sign of knowing what the change is!) then speed changes.

No!

Speed is something we think of in our space time, and it basically means rate of movement through space that takes so much time. That all assumes time exists, as it does here. What would happen to space if no time were in it? Would it shrink of expand to reflect that time change? Would there still be the same space without time with it or in it so to speak? Man has no idea. Man look at space and time here in the fishbowl and assumes it is just the way it is everywhere.

So, if we take a base line measurement here IN time and spacetime as we know it (and all parallax measurements use base lines that are here) we are basically taking a slice of time with space here! What if there were no time in space? What would that do to space and distances? Would there be less space if there were less time in it? If so, what would that do to the math fr parallax??! So many possibilities, and so much you do not know. Knowing this, when we hear grand pronouncements from science about distances and times in the great creation of God we call the universe, it becomes screamingly insane and foolish godless blather.

That means that the speed of light, c, changes. c is involved in the physics of stars via E=mc^2 which determines how much energy fusion releases in stars to balance the pressure of gravity. Change c too much and stars cannot form .

Not in any way is that remotely close to even a shadow of the truth. You envision changing C in the fishbowl! No. You assume energy is the same in deep space, so I ask, how would we here know that? You realize that there are spiritual realities in the further areas of the creation, and expanse? (don't try to deny it, science could not even begin to do so!) You simply cannot carry over earth based (fishbowl) realities, time and space and laws into the areas they do not apply. If some things do apply there, to what extent we do not know, and what else also applies that science cannot see and knows nothing about we do not know. How would a spiritual element affect mass? What would spiritual and physical (together) 'mass' look like to us here? Answer if you know. (then we'll get into some harder stuff!)

Another example is the Type 1a supernova have light curves with the same average duration adjusted for time dilation for their host galaxy velocity.

The duration is HERE! The time is here. It takes time here. What if your adjustments simply were nonsense and skewed?

Alternately ignore SR and the change in the rate time is not the enormous amount dad wants: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1 (just short of 11 billion light years away).

False notion about what I am suggesting we ask. I am suggesting that time does exist here in the solar system (or whatever is the area of man) Therefore, HERE, it would have to take so much time! (regardless of whether some or any time of any amount was involved outside the fishbowl).

This is the error that some young earth creationists make with a bad attempt at "science" with time was faster in the past so that they can squeeze the at least 4.6 billon years age of the Earth into 6000 years (or 10,000 years depending on the variety of YEC). Or explain how we see light travelling at c from stars over 6000 light years away (more than 6000 years old). This has been refuted by other creationists such as Russell Humphreys whose ideas have in turn been challenged by other creationists.
See Creationist cosmologies

Again, a strawman. That is not what I suggested at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or they just attest to the titanic forces involved in the very creation of things as they are.

You mean the formation of things as they are?

I get suspicious when evolutionists use Biblical terminology.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You mean the formation of things as they are?

I get suspicious when evolutionists use Biblical terminology.

NOW HEAR THIS: The word "creation" has been declared a Biblical word and can no longer be used in a scientific context!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You mean the formation of things as they are?

I get suspicious when evolutionists use Biblical terminology.

I am a Christian and I believe God created all things and used what we call the "laws of nature" as part of that creative process. In fact, I believe God devising appropriate "laws of nature" is one of His finest creative acts.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am a Christian and I believe God created all things and used what we call the "laws of nature" as part of that creative process. In fact, I believe God devising appropriate "laws of nature" is one of His finest creative acts.

And you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And you're entitled to your opinion.

What part of

I believe God created all things and used what we call the "laws of nature" as part of that creative process. In fact, I believe God devising appropriate "laws of nature" is one of His finest creative acts."

do you disagree with?

 

[AV1611VET]

What part of

I believe God created all things and used what we call the "laws of nature" as part of that creative process. In fact, I believe God devising appropriate "laws of nature" is one of His finest creative acts."

do you disagree with?

"Creative process."

God didn't create the universe through a series of processes.

He created the universe through a series of completed fiats.

 

[TLK Valentine]

"Creative process."

God didn't create the universe through a series of processes.

He created the universe through a series of completed fiats.

In your opinion.

 

[dad]

For everyone else: This is part of dad's delusion that the distances to stars can never be measured because he does not want them to able be measured.

False. Why would I care it distances are further or closer? It makes no difference to me. The only issue is whether time is involved in those distances.

However in the real world astronomers are always testing and improving the cosmic distance ladder, e.g. by collecting data on about a billion stars, etc. in the Milky Way using Gaia

All using the belief system to model data with, so theirs really is a measure of faith. (when it comes to space or time outside of the fishbowl of the realm of man.

One thing that is not in the Wikipedia article is that astronomers expect that the Gaia data could show that the cosmic distance ladder is slightly wrong.

One definition of insanity is to make the same mistakes over and over. They fit the bill, using the same mistaken, godless belief system.

GAIA Satellite To Find Out If We're Wrong About Dark Energy And The Expanding Universe
This is that the CMB gives a value for the Hubble constant of about 67 km/s/Mpc with relatively small uncertainty while plotting redshift versus distance gives a value of about 74 km/s/Mpc with a large uncertainty.

Parallax measurements deal with tiny angles and thus large errors and contribute a large part of that uncertainty. Better measurements from Gaia are likely to resolve the two values.

Your link didn't work for my computer. However, if you want to claim that assuming time exists out there and space as we know it, then do so. Otherwise, it is a shuffle game of circular reasoning, using the same underlying beliefs on different data!
Hoo ha

 

[dad]

So real life astronomers are regularly and systematically refining, making more and more accurate, the measurements that Dad says they can't even make.

Correct' the real life star gazers and astrologers and wise men have no map of creation after all. Even their map of the fishbowl is suspect!

 

[TLK Valentine]

No idea, but you would need to honestly post on topic here to be of any interest.

I've been asking the same honest question for page after page, which you seem to be evading.

Here it is again:

Do you know with certainty whether or not the Moon is in the same state (time and space) now as it was the last time men were there?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Correct' the real life star gazers and astrologers and wise men have no map of creation after all. Even their map of the fishbowl is suspect!

Skeptical noises without substance don't impeded real science.