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 just meaningless. Time is what we measure the passage of events by, so there's no way to compare time now and time in the past. Whether one thinks it ran 'faster' or 'slower' (if it was possible to compare), the same number of events would occur in the same number of 'fast' years or 'slow' years.The latter one is definitely my main issue with the idea: how would you be able to tell that time in the past was not the same as the time we experience currently? How could you measure it? What, was a minute 200,000,000 years ago not sixty seconds or something?
It's the other way around - the stronger the gravity the slower time runs relative to less curved spacetime, so the passage of time would have been relatively longer than in flat spacetime. But the whole universe was hot and dense, so there was no 'flatter' spacetime for comparison. As previously mentioned, it's nonsensical to compare the rate of time passing in one era with another because time itself is the measure.Yes, I will give you that, in the 'immediate' after the Big Bang, then time would have been shorter because time and space would have been more condensed then it was. But to say that that would be the same in the last few million years is... bogus, put simply. Yes, there is time dilation and time gravitational dilation, but what you suggest is something on a whole together different and also very unscientific.
Cosmologists don't literally think that there was an infinitely small and dense point, but if there was it would very much not be nothing. But the singularity is simply where out physical model (General Relativity) breaks down, the equivalent of dividing by zero; it means we don't know what happens in that regime. We know that GR is incomplete and can't describe what happens there - we need a complete theory of quantum gravity.Wait a minute now, we're talking about singularity, essentially nothingness... right? Where's the nature in that?
It's the other way around - the stronger the gravity the slower time runs relative to less curved spacetime, so the passage of time would have been relatively longer than in flat spacetime. But the whole universe was hot and dense, so there was no 'flatter' spacetime for comparison. As previously mentioned, it's nonsensical to compare the rate of time passing in one era with another because time itself is the measure.
No, they didn't....Scientists reverse engineered back to nothingness, or nothing natural...
I use the Twins Paradox (accelerated twin is younger) or the clock observed falling into a black hole (appears to slow to a stop at the event horizon) to keep it the right way roundYou know, I felt that I was wrong on some part, but I wasn't really sure on what part I got wrong.
Reverse-engineered, extrapolated backwards. Oh, so the universe in an infinitely small space is not nothingness… care to explain that according to your rules of science, you know, with evidence.One thing physics has not done is "engineered us to nothingness", the big bang doesn't address time zero or where the initial substance of the universe came from, just how it developed from there.
Not recognizing God is the autoloss.Using god(s) in a science debate is an autoloss.
No, it's not understandable... your statement without understanding is meaningless.It's just meaningless. Time is what we measure the passage of events by, so there's no way to compare time now and time in the past. Whether one thinks it ran 'faster' or 'slower' (if it was possible to compare), the same number of events would occur in the same number of 'fast' years or 'slow' years.
Maybe you should re-evaluate your view on the whole thing then.You know, I felt that I was wrong on some part, but I wasn't really sure on what part I got wrong.
Not recognizing God is the autoloss.
Maybe you should re-evaluate your view on the whole thing then.
God(s) is not something for science, its theology.Not recognizing God is the autoloss.
Why are you arguing then?God(s) is not something for science, its theology.
The origin and initial state are not known.Reverse-engineered, extrapolated backwards. Oh, so the universe in an infinitely small space is not nothingness… care to explain that according to your rules of science, you know, with evidence.
Then please explain what you mean.No, it's not understandable... your statement without understanding is meaningless.
Because physical laws start breaking down. You guys should think about it from that angle, instead of automatically denying that God exists.The origin and initial state are not known.
God(s) has nothing to do with it.Because physical laws start breaking down. You guys should think about it from that angle, instead of automatically denying that God exists.
How does it not allow it?Then please explain what you mean.
Specifically how does the presence of any form of time-dilation allow the interpretation of evidence as supporting literalist or Creationist scenarios?
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?