Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's called "Last Thursdayism." The entire universe and its contents including fake evidence of age, fake history and our own fake memories complete was created last Thursday (or whatever date you like, even 4004 BC). And you can never prove otherwise because it's unfalsifiable.
As all properly composed theological propositions ought to be.
In order to compute the distance to a star, we begin with the distance across the earth's orbit, take two measurements and triangulate. Then, using this number, we calibrate ancient light. But just suppose both are wrong. If space bends outside our solar system, we could be fooled in the triangulation, as we are when observing something under water. Speed of light, and/or time, could be different farther out as well, and all such measurements could be wrong. [I know flat earth theorists argue the same way about the location of the magnetic poles. but we can reach the poles and prove them wrong. We cannot reach the end of the galaxy.]
I do not completely understand the mechanics of decay, but I would assume that decay could affect the bending of time, and give us false information in the same way.
My point is another theory can be raised.
OK in your view he had no belly button. Did Adam have hair . . . yet? After all, when he was first created, it had no time to grow. Was he sporting a crew cut the first few weeks?
The ancients were just as sure the sun went around the earth.One can suppose all kinds of things but that is just an exercise of the imagination. There are too many consistencies in the measurements to grant such wholesale departures from reality as we know it.
But if you want to teach it in public schools, you're going to have to. And how can you be so sure that your particular flavor of creationism will end up being the one chosen?
Evolution is a theory
1. We would not do this in any other field. It is specifically taught against in statistics when doing regression studies. We have data to prove physical forces only for under 500 years, yet we assume they are correct for millions of years ago.
2. If the studies of the speed of light since we know they have been done (about 500 years) are correlated with the year they were made, the probability that the speed is decreasing is greater than the probability that earlier studies are in error. Most modern unified field theories believe that a significant change in one such constant reflects a significant change in all.
3. I doubt we on the event horizon of a black hole, although I cannot rule it out. I simply quoted this as a well-known exception to the rule that fundamental physical quantities remain constant.
1. We would not do this in any other field. It is specifically taught against in statistics when doing regression studies. We have data to prove physical forces only for under 500 years, yet we assume they are correct for millions of years ago.
2. If the studies of the speed of light since we know they have been done (about 500 years) are correlated with the year they were made, the probability that the speed is decreasing is greater than the probability that earlier studies are in error. Most modern unified field theories believe that a significant change in one such constant reflects a significant change in all.
3. I doubt we on the event horizon of a black hole, although I cannot rule it out. I simply quoted this as a well-known exception to the rule that fundamental physical quantities remain constant.
The ancients were just as sure the sun went around the earth.
Oklo
The geologic record assume the same rate of geological change as now.
I know that truth is truth whether or not it is believed
I just did tell you what a scientific theory is , maybe you can do better ?
Most all from a one time event from at the onset of the flood...
And that is what science is about--investigating the apparent natural world. If creationists want to teach their kiddies that the apparent natural world is a fake before they toddle off to science class, so be it. At least, it is marginally better than telling them that science is a demonic lie.My point is, the "fake" history can be evaluated exactly as if it were real.
No, it is not.Your view is he appeared as if he had grown.
1. As I hear it, years are getting a little longer. But the Romans thought that gravity was heaven pushing us away.We have known for more than 2000 years that there are 365 days in a year and 29½ days in a month; this indicates that the force of gravity has been constant for at least 2000 years.
Is this what you would have taught in science classes?
Theories are never ending. The Mayan Bible talks about tremendous amounts of hot rock falling from the sky during the flood. I have a suggestion that gopher is a technological term (from Fasold and consistent with the story of Enmerkar and the Lords of Arattu) for concrete impregnated with metal filings, thus creating shielding from the magnetism, but not, of course the heat. So let's suggest that 1. the heat was part of a magnetic storm, and the ark was lucky enough to be in the eye of said storm (as opposed to a thousand other arks with guys in them with other names that did in fact die in the flood). 2. The large amount of water cooled things off.It's quite ironic that you mention this because the RATE group came to the conclusion that there was at least 500,000,000 years worth of radioactive decay in the geological record and their efforts to explain it away are a perfect example of why Creationism is where science goes to die.
-----------------------------
RATE The Heat Problem
The RATE group estimates that the heating would have been equal to that produced by about a half billion years of decay at today’s rates. But, it would have been generated over the period of only one year of the Genesis Flood. The heat would have melted the crustal rocks many times over unless there was some mechanism for simultaneously removing it quickly. How did the earth survive such a massive dose of heat without vaporizing the oceans and melting the rocks? How did Noah and his family survive such an environment on the Ark?
A primary piece of Biblical evidence that heat was not a problem is the fact that Noah and his family made it through the year of the Genesis Flood without being cooked! Sometimes we forget the obvious. Or, we choose to ignore the statements of Scripture which can guide our technical considerations. From the simple fact that Noah, his family, and the animals survived and left the Ark at the end of the Genesis Flood we can infer at least one of several possibilities:
• no accelerated decay occurred;
• no large amount of heat was generated by the accelerated decay; and
• God supernaturally protected Noah and his entourage by rapidly removing the large amount of heat that was produced by some unknown mechanism
Not too fake then, is it?My point is, the "fake" history can be evaluated exactly as if it were real.
There are many suppositions required in the first for the theory to work. Any supposition might be changed, and then other options might occur.Direct observation is not the only method of observation and measurement. We have numerous examples of observations today that show that the constants we observe now were the same in the past. Two examples I can think of are the Oklo natural nuclear reactor in Gabon and Supernova 1987A.
The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor
SN1987A and the Age of the Universe
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?