Different state past

[SkyWriting]

Ah yes, this "independent time" for which you have produced absolutely no evidence whatsoever! With such a strong argument based on nothing at all, how can we ever hope to defeat your non-existent facts?

The "Independent time" is that which God controls and is accepted by faith alone.

When Jesus turned water into wine "time" came from somewhere.
When Jesus healed the sick "time" for healing came from somewhere.
This "time" is evident is nearly every miracle in the scriptures
and accepting that it exists is by faith alone.

You can only "win" through faith.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

[dad]

The "Independent time" is that which God controls and is accepted by faith alone.

When Jesus turned water into wine "time" came from somewhere.
When Jesus healed the sick "time" for healing came from somewhere.
This "time" is evident is nearly every miracle in the scriptures
and accepting that it exists is by faith alone.

You can only "win" through faith.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Yes thanks.

There is also the fact that days existed before the sun and stars, and usual movements that time is now measured here with.

 

[dad]

I'm still getting acclimated here so I have some questions:

You said that Science is on trial here. In what way? What is its crime?

In the way that so called science has claimed all sorts of stuff about the past that is contrary to the bible. So we are looking to see if the basis is valid for those claims.

Also, you wrote of "time dilation". I probably understand relativity theory to the degree to which a non-physicist can reach some level of understanding of it. But I'm having difficulty understanding what *you* mean by time dilation, as you seem to apply it in ways which differ from the usual meaning.

Well, I think I used it as an example, in response to a question about how life could go on, and things continue to exist if basic forces or laws changed. In the example of the 2 observers one in a plane and one on earth, they experienced different time. Even the atomic clocks were different.

I don't understand your claim. There are plenty of "cross-confirmation" procedures which have demonstrated an amazing continuity, right back to a relatively short time after the Big Bang. I've not kept up on that field but I thought that the measurements affirm that reality to within a few hundred thousand years of the Big Bang. There appears to be some scientists on this forum so perhaps a physicist could comment on that. The speed of light, c, has been confirmed constant almost to the very beginning.

False. Maybe we can wait for someone to attempt to salvage your claims here.

And the only people I've known who insist on challenging this are those who are fixated on trying to hold up a young earth cosmology. So in other words, people like Barry Satterfield are not starting with the data and reaching a conclusion that the speed of light has slowed over time.

That is one idea. Not mine.

Instead, he knew that his Young Earth Creationism posed all sorts of problems in the light of mountains of evidence to the contrary, so he worked hard to come up with a convoluted scheme under which he claimed to confirm it scientifically. But all he managed to do was propose a system where the problems multiplied. It was as if he had no idea that c is involved in thousands of important formulas, even at the level of basic cell metabolism. Thus, if the speed of light was much faster, in order to support a 6,000 year old earth, the earth itself would have burned to a crisp and digesting a sandwich would cause one to melt.

I share no such problems.

So I don't think I understand what you are saying.

No. You are right. Maybe in awhile you might.

I can understand, perhaps, a statement saying that you don't find the evidence for a steady state past convincing. But to claim that there is *NO EVIDENCE in the minutest* is silly.

No. It is fact. None. Name anything?

For example, even The Flat-Earth Theory has evidence for it. You can't say that there is/was *NO EVIDENCE* for a flat earth. If there was *ZERO EVIDENCE* for it, then nobody would have ever affirmed that theory. What evidence is there for a flat earth? One could cite something like, "If one carefully measures an interval of just one mile on the surface of the earth, a surveyor would measure a drop of only about 8 inches from "flatness". That is very close to being flat!

I don't think the world is flat, no matter what you drop on it.

Are you saying that there are multiple creations, each with its own set of laws and physical constants?

No. I suggest that this world and heavens will change and we will see new ones. This state then is temporary according to the bible. From all I see in Genesis I have to conclude that the state was also different on earth long ago.

Regardless of your answer to the above question, if you believe those laws and constants get changed somewhere along the timeline, the burden of proof would be on you for that.

Who says they existed at all? Proof? Whatever changed would have left them as we know them.

And if you truly believe there is merit to your claims (and you have actual scientific reasons and not just theological or philosophical ones), I would suggest that you submit them to a peer-reviewed journal. Such a radical proposition, if you could successfully sustain it, would certainly bring you fame and fortune. Or at least tenure.

Ha. I have no peers in the same state belief crowd.

I think the world's scientists would disagree with you. But again, why not publish it and see if it holds water?

They may step up and see how they fare anytime. I find them narrow of focus, and unable to pry themselves from their fundamental beliefs and assumptions anyhow. They can't help you.

Who judged or scored this competition? Or are you simply declaring yourself the winner by your own authority??

If you mean undefeated, believers are undefeated, because we have the victory over this world. IN my case, I also have views about creation and the past which remain undefeated intellectually.

Yes, I'll agree to that. I've listened to some of Barak Obama's speeches. Time slows to an excruciating slow speed.

Maybe he might perk up if discussing homosexuality or killing babies.

 

[dad]

re: dad's posts denying various principles of physics including same state past


I would not normally ask about someone's educational background and credentials on a forum of this sort (seeing how it is geared to the general public) but considering how your claims *and confidence* are so, well, how should I word this,*bombastic*, I'll go ahead and ask:

What is your background in terms of fields of study? One would need considerable training in astrophysics, at the very least, in order to expect an assumption of credibility on the part of your readers, if you are claiming that you've successfully overridden the scientific community on these matters.

I came, I saw that He conquered, I looked, I saw that science was fatally flawed, I piped in...I did a little conquering too.

I'm not asking you to post your entire C.V. But it would definitely help readers to *contextualize* your bold claims if we knew just a little of the depth and breadth of your scientific training. Can we assume at least a Master's level of background in some area of physics or other relevant field?

Master's degree is a great way to look at it So called science is a great degree of running away from the Master.

I also ask because it at least appears that you are unfamiliar with some rather significant issues that would bear upon your claims, I'd like to know if you've adequately addressed them at some point in your published scholarship *or* you are simply posturing.

Blah blah...unfamiliar with.....specifically....let's see what you got.

 

[Elendur]

MostlyLurking, thanks for dropping in, always nice to see someone new.
Hope you'll have some fun!

 

[Elendur]

They may step up and see how they fare anytime. I find them narrow of focus, and unable to pry themselves from their fundamental beliefs and assumptions anyhow. They can't help you.

Yes because it's the scientists who are fundamentalists and heavily based on assumptions...

I ask again, can you present any evidence for DSP? (It seems you missed my last post)

 

[MostlyLurking]

There is also the fact that days existed before the sun and stars, and usual movements that time is now measured here with.

Fact? As the saying goes: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But not to their own facts. To presume it a "fact" is to deny a very old debate, one which is obviously not resolved to everyone's satisfaction today.

Obviously, it depends upon which definition of YOM you are using. And if you presume a 24hour day, that's a strange unit of time to talk about "before the sun."

Even various of the early church fathers recognized the inconsistencies within the Genesis 1 text if one assumes that YOM in Genesis 1 was referring to 24 hour days. Not only does "the evening and morning" speak against the 24-hour day for YOM, for multiple reasons, they recognized various other clues against that definition of YOM in multiple passages of Genesis 1 & 2.

Indeed, the kinds of days YOU are talking about (24hour days) are not mentioned until verse 14: "To divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." So it is saying that those earth-based units of time had no meaning of time-keeping purposes until that point. (Yes, I do understand why you WANT days to exist prior: in order to support your particular interpretations and traditions. But the Biblical text disagrees with you.)

In any case, the first references to the sun and stars is within Genesis 1:1 where both "the heavens and the earth" already exist. It makes no sense to presume a "heavens" existing without those things which compromise the heavens: the stars (of which the sun is just one.) Of course, the heavens is the opposite of ERETZ in Hebrew cosmology. It includes everything that is above.

By definition, time would begin when matter and energy began. But to apply the definition before those celestial bodies which underlie that definition and measurement is rather farfetched, and thereby recognized by Biblical scholars today as well as those church fathers of the early centuries and many theologians in the centuries leading up to the present.

 

[Davian]

The "Independent time" is that which God controls and is accepted by faith alone.

When Jesus turned water into wine "time" came from somewhere.
When Jesus healed the sick "time" for healing came from somewhere.
This "time" is evident is nearly every miracle in the scriptures
and accepting that it exists is by faith alone.

You can only "win" through faith.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

So that is not actually winning, you are just asserting that it is a "win"?

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes thanks.

There is also the fact that days existed before the sun and stars, and usual movements that time is now measured here with.

That's what God tells us. The bulk of what God says makes perfect sense.
In fact God's description of man's pride and the resulting fall and it's effect
on Creation is evident all around us.

Things have indeed changed. My view is that "time" didn't even start
until the fall of man. We could call it our"falling out" with God.

 

[MostlyLurking]

MostlyLurking wrote:
What is your background in terms of fields of study? One would need considerable training in astrophysics, at the very least, in order to expect an assumption of credibility on the part of your readers, if you are claiming that you've successfully overridden the scientific community on these matters.
​

I came, I saw that He conquered, I looked, I saw that science was fatally flawed, I piped in...I did a little conquering too.

Master's degree is a great way to look at it So called science is a great degree of running away from the Master.
Blah blah...

OK. I get the picture. (And the "blah blah" helped to drive your point home.)

I'm just surprised that someone who considers God the creator of all would denigrate the study of that creation. But then again, perhaps not.

Moving on..............

 

[MostlyLurking]

MostlyLurking, thanks for dropping in, always nice to see someone new.
Hope you'll have some fun!

Thank you. So far, this place seems a lot like a Ripley's Believe It Or Not!

How many of these postings are from people who are just fooling us as Poes? Of course, if you could answer that, Poe's Law wouldn't exist. Nevertheless it is fun to try to figure out which is which.

 

[MostlyLurking]

My view is that "time" didn't even start
until the fall of man.

Interesting. What Genesis 1 says about time doesn't matter to you. That's a new one that I hadn't seen before.

 

[MostlyLurking]

You cannot produce evidence for your DSP idea. You cannot explain why radiometric dating works if your DSP is correct. You cannot answer any questions about a DSP.

I'm waiting for dad to explain:

1) Why not only do the 50+ radiometric dating methods so beautifully reinforce one another, but so do countless dating methods based upon entirely different kinds of phenomena, such as dendrochronology and ice cores.

2) Why has speed of light, c, checked out consistently from relatively shortly after the Big Bang to today AND the distances check out when compared with standard parallax methods?

3) Why do the K/Ar dating results for the volcanic rocks on the Hawaiian Islands chain (as one samples them according to their relative positions along the movement of the Pacific Plate) correlate perfectly with the positions of those islands which one would expect from the 3 inches per year movement of that plate?

4) Wait...........I was going to list an entire series of questions of that sort. But I doubt that dad will get past #1. So why should I bother with any more?

I assume dad abhors Uniformitarianism. So perhaps he can explain to us why the uniformitarian methods mentioned above work so well. (Does dad actually answer questions? Or just declare himself the winner and "undefeated"?)

In fact, seeing how you keep cutting him off at the knees, and seeing how he has lost all "standing" here, perhaps we should also consider him "de-feeted".

You [dad] cannot answer any questions about a DSP.

You are defeated.

Defeat decisively, it appears. Therefore, I have commemorated that event with my first signature below.

 

[Tiberius]

Thanks, Mostly Lurking!

Those are some good questions, and I'll remove my signature if dad can give a sensible answer to even one of them.

 

[dad]

Yes because it's the scientists who are fundamentalists and heavily based on assumptions...

I ask again, can you present any evidence for DSP? (It seems you missed my last post)

hey are all same state past fundies. And since they have no proof of a same state past, their fables are now dead. End of story.

 

[dad]

Fact? As the saying goes: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But not to their own facts. To presume it a "fact" is to deny a very old debate, one which is obviously not resolved to everyone's satisfaction today.

Forget opinions, it is a Bible fact.

Obviously, it depends upon which definition of YOM you are using. And if you presume a 24hour day, that's a strange unit of time to talk about "before the sun."

No. Morning and evening can't be anything else. God idiot proofed it.

Even various of the early church fathers recognized the inconsistencies within the Genesis 1 text if one assumes that YOM in Genesis 1 was referring to 24 hour days. Not only does "the evening and morning" speak against the 24-hour day for YOM, for multiple reasons, they recognized various other clues against that definition of YOM in multiple passages of Genesis 1 & 2.

Then they were wrong. So? I give so called church fathers about as much credence as toilet graffiti. Paul never thought that. Nor Peter, nor John...etc. Maybe you mean Catholic church?

Indeed, the kinds of days YOU are talking about (24hour days) are not mentioned until verse 14: "To divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." So it is saying that those earth-based units of time had no meaning of time-keeping purposes until that point. (Yes, I do understand why you WANT days to exist prior: in order to support your particular interpretations and traditions. But the Biblical text disagrees with you.)

False. Morning and evening are there for each day. Check it out.

In any case, the first references to the sun and stars is within Genesis 1:1 where both "the heavens and the earth" already exist.

Not true. No stars or sun existed or were mentioned, That is in your bean.

It makes no sense to presume a "heavens" existing without those things which compromise the heavens: the stars (of which the sun is just one.) Of course, the heavens is the opposite of ERETZ in Hebrew cosmology. It includes everything that is above.

Utter rubbish. It makes sense to believe God and what He said rather than injecting imaginary stars into the firmament before they were even made.

By definition, time would begin when matter and energy began.

Your definition is WRONG!!! That is the point here. You refer to fishbowl time.

But to apply the definition before those celestial bodies which underlie that definition and measurement is rather farfetched,

Insane claim. The fact is that days and mornings and evenings are all laid out clearly. What you deem believable or far fetched is neither here no there.

and thereby recognized by Biblical scholars today as well as those church fathers of the early centuries and many theologians in the centuries leading up to the present.

Now, rather than mindless repetition here, about so called (unspecified) church fathers, get on topic.

 

[dad]

Things have indeed changed. My view is that "time" didn't even start
until the fall of man. We could call it our"falling out" with God.

So why was stuff done on the first days before man was even here? Was that all in some timeless limbo? Was AGod wrong to say it was days consisting of mornings and evenings?

 

[dad]

Thanks, Mostly Lurking!

Those are some good questions, and I'll remove my signature if dad can give a sensible answer to even one of them.

Hey you can put 'I killed Jesse James' in your sig if you like. All it is is advertising for the guy you pretend to knock off.

 

[dad]

I'm waiting for dad to explain:

1) Why not only do the 50+ radiometric dating methods so beautifully reinforce one another, but so do countless dating methods based upon entirely different kinds of phenomena, such as dendrochronology and ice cores.

How many are used on the rock sample I gave here? Yet you do not address it. Tree rings!!? If trees grew in weeks then they can't help you. Your methods are all, yes ALL present state based.

2) Why has speed of light, c, checked out consistently from relatively shortly after the Big Bang to today AND the distances check out when compared with standard parallax methods?

It hasn't. Try to prve that silliness. Really. Bring it.

3) Why do the K/Ar dating results for the volcanic rocks on the Hawaiian Islands chain (as one samples them according to their relative positions along the movement of the Pacific Plate) correlate perfectly with the positions of those islands which one would expect from the 3 inches per year movement of that plate?

Source? For how long? What else do they correlate with! How about 3 inches for 4400 years and many miles in a short time before that!!! Your math needs serious back up. You will not be able to win that point. But do try-- hey, go ahead, make my day.

4) Wait...........I was going to list an entire series of questions of that sort. But I doubt that dad will get past #1. So why should I bother with any more?

Wow a strong number 4 here.

I assume dad abhors Uniformitarianism. So perhaps he can explain to us why the uniformitarian methods mentioned above work so well. (Does dad actually answer questions? Or just declare himself the winner and "undefeated"?)

We shall see if you have the wherewithal to show the basis for your long dead and defeated misconceptions. Ho hum. How can we tell you are new??

In fact, seeing how you keep cutting him off at the knees, and seeing how he has lost all "standing" here, perhaps we should also consider him "de-feeted".

Excellent, no actual sense of humor either. This likely won't take long

Defeat decisively, it appears. Therefore, I have commemorated that event with my first signature below.

So you are kinda like in the shadow of a poster that obsesses over defeating an opponent that he has not even been able to stand up a round in the ring with. OK. Welcome to the wannabe club.

 

[Tiberius]

Hey you can put 'I killed Jesse James' in your sig if you like. All it is is advertising for the guy you pretend to knock off.

Whinge about it all you want, dad. Go right ahead.

Doesn't change the fact that you have NEVER explained why radiometric dating can predict the ratio of parent to daughter to granddaughter material so accurately if it is wrong.

And until you explain that, you are defeated. End of story.