If evolution is true

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The idea that time varies over time is really an incoherent idea - what would it vary in comparison to? If you claimed it ran slower or faster in the past, what difference would it make & how could you tell?

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?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@inquiring mind, if time was as different in the past as you claim it is, how are we supposed to measure anything in fields such as archeology and paleontology?

 

[inquiring mind]

@inquiring mind, if time was as different in the past as you claim it is, how are we supposed to measure anything in fields such as archeology and paleontology?

This is way above my pay grade, but I brought it up so here goes. The question for me is ‘if space-time is bent with distances being shortened, isn’t time slowed, shortened or something according to theory?’ I may be wrong, but that’s my very limited understanding. If that is the case, and space is returned to its original shape, then so would distances and time. There would be no so-called ‘appearance’ of age, it would be actual for the time-frame it’s back in… wouldn’t it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is way above my pay grade, but I brought it up so here goes. The question for me is ‘if space-time is bent with distances being shortened, isn’t time slowed, shortened or something according to theory?’ I may be wrong, but that’s my very limited understanding. If that is the case, and space is returned to its original shape, then so would distances and time. There would be no so-called ‘appearance’ of age, it would be actual for the time-frame it’s back in… wouldn’t it?

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.

 

[inquiring mind]

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.

You mention the Big Bang, and there’s something there that has always baffled me. How could science reverse engineer, you could say, back to the concept of singularity (no where or when), and not see God being in the picture?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You mention the Big Bang, and there’s something there that has always baffled me. How could science reverse engineer, you could say, back to the concept of singularity (no where or when), and not see God being in the picture?

Because, as I have said repeatedly, God is of the super-natural. He exists outside of nature, the natural world, and thus He does not leave evidence.

Now, can you actually answer my question, since you answered it with a question of your own: if time was as different in the past as you claim it is, how are we supposed to measure anything in fields such as archeology and paleontology?

 

[inquiring mind]

Because, as I have said repeatedly, God is of the super-natural. He exists outside of nature, the natural world, and thus He does not leave evidence.

Wait a minute now, we're talking about singularity, essentially nothingness... right? Where's the nature in that?

Now, can you actually answer my question, since you answered it with a question of your own: if time was as different in the past as you claim it is, how are we supposed to measure anything in fields such as archeology and paleontology?

Didn't my 'returning to the original timeframe' answer that?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wait a minute now, we're talking about singularity, essentially nothingness... right? Where's the nature in that?

Which was formed in nature. Or rather formed nature. If you can back and show that that was God, you'd have a Nobel Prize waiting and every religious leader asking for an interview. However, since you or anyone else can show evidence of God existing, He can't be included in the equation.

Didn't my 'returning to the original timeframe' answer that?

You mean your "There would be no so-called ‘appearance’ of age, it would be actual for the time-frame it’s back in… wouldn’t it?" nonsense? No, that wasn't an answer. Can you even show what you mean by 'original timeframe'?

 

[inquiring mind]

Which was formed in nature. Or rather formed nature.

Sorry, nothing natural about nothingness.

You mean your "There would be no so-called ‘appearance’ of age, it would be actual for the time-frame it’s back in… wouldn’t it?" nonsense? No, that wasn't an answer. Can you even show what you mean by 'original timeframe'?

The timeframe you're talking about measuring archeology and paleontology in.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry, nothing natural about nothingness.

And there's nothing natural about God. So how can you show God then?

The timeframe you're talking about measuring archeology and paleontology in.

Nope, not an answer. Let's try again, and maybe you can try and answer the question:
Can you even show what you mean by 'original timeframe'?

 

[inquiring mind]

And there's nothing natural about God. So how can you show God then?

That's my point. Scientists reverse engineered back to nothingness, or nothing natural, so I wonder why they couldn't conceive the liklihood of God at that point?

Nope, not an answer. Let's try again, and maybe you can try and answer the question:
Can you even show what you mean by 'original timeframe'?

I thought I did... apparently not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's my point. Scientists reverse engineered back to nothingness, or nothing natural, so I wonder why they couldn't conceive the liklihood of God at that point?

Are you willingly ignoring what I'm saying? If you want to include God in anything, you need to show evidence for God existing. No evidence, no God in the equation. Very simple.

I thought I did... apparently not.

No, and I'll repeat my question and I'll highlight the pertinent point of my question: Can you even show what you mean by 'original timeframe'?
I'm asking for an example or even evidence (though that's highly unlikely) of what you're talking about.

 

[inquiring mind]

Are you willingly ignoring what I'm saying? If you want to include God in anything, you need to show evidence for God existing. No evidence, no God in the equation. Very simple.

Look, I'm sorry you don't understand my point. Everything is natural to you (no supernatural), but you reverse engineer to a state of nothingness (nothing natural there)... what does that leave??? Nothingness to something is certainly not natural.

No, and I'll repeat my question and I'll highlight the pertinent point of my question: Can you even show what you mean by 'original timeframe'?

A couple or three times trying is it for me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Look, I'm sorry you don't understand my point. Everything is natural to you (no supernatural), but you reverse engineer to a state of nothingness (nothing natural there)... what does that leave??? Nothingness to something is certainly not natural.

Just because you can't show anything natural, doesn't mean that the super-natural has evidence. That's not how it works. If you can show evidence for God, then show it. If not, then stop trying to shoehorn Him in.

A couple or three times trying is it for me.

Except that you haven't shown anything. So I'll repeat: Can you even show what you mean by 'original timeframe'?

If you want to be honest for once and say that you can't, then by all means say that you can't.

 

[Astrophile]

This is way above my pay grade, but I brought it up so here goes. The question for me is ‘if space-time is bent with distances being shortened, isn’t time slowed, shortened or something according to theory?’ I may be wrong, but that’s my very limited understanding. If that is the case, and space is returned to its original shape, then so would distances and time. There would be no so-called ‘appearance’ of age, it would be actual for the time-frame it’s back in… wouldn’t it?

If you can show, or can quote a paper that shows, in quantitative terms, how much time is shortened at the speed at which the Earth orbits the Sun or in the gravitational field at the Earth's surface, we can have a rational discussion about this. As it is, it looks as if you are merely trying to imply, without a scrap of evidence, that relativistic effects in the terrestrial environment can shorten geological or astronomical time-scales of hundreds or thousands of millions of years to a few thousand years.

 

[inquiring mind]

If you can show, or can quote a paper that shows, in quantitative terms, how much time is shortened at the speed at which the Earth orbits the Sun or in the gravitational field at the Earth's surface, we can have a rational discussion about this. As it is, it looks as if you are merely trying to imply, without a scrap of evidence, that relativistic effects in the terrestrial environment can shorten geological or astronomical time-scales of hundreds or thousands of millions of years to a few thousand years.

I don't require 'a paper' to think, but I do like the way you put it. However, I'm just saying we don't know exactly 'what' or 'how' it all played out, and the nature of the time involved could be a part of that ineptness.

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't require 'a paper' to think, but I do like the way you put it. However, I'm just saying we don't know exactly 'what' or 'how' it all played out, and the nature of the time involved could be a part of that ineptness.

I don't think you need a scientific paper or knowledge to demonstrate what you think time dilation does for your ideas.

A vague understanding that time can be warped by relative gravity/velocity and assuming that this could be used to justify your personal preferences about history being inconsistent with the evidence is not coherent.

The literalist and anti-evolution positions are inconsistent with the evidence of billions of years of evidenced geological and evolutionary history. Warping time on Earth to make all those events take a shorter period of time relative to some other observer doesn't change the amount of time within the Earth reference.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. Can you explain how relative time dilation helps your case?

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't think you need a scientific paper or knowledge to demonstrate what you think time dilation does for your ideas.

A vague understanding that time can be warped by relative gravity/velocity and assuming that this could be used to justify your personal preferences about history being inconsistent with the evidence is not coherent.

The literalist and anti-evolution positions are inconsistent with the evidence of billions of years of evidenced geological and evolutionary history. Warping time on Earth to make all those events take a shorter period of time relative to some other observer doesn't change the amount of time within the Earth reference.

Science reverse engineered us to nothingness (not a natural state). Science theorized space-time warps (something I’m sure we both have a vague understanding of). And you question the possibility that actual history and evidence (as we interpret it) could be inconsistent? You speak of time being relative to another observer… do you think we’re talking about the two trains passing thought experiment or something? And, what other observer… we’re talking about God creating the universe.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. Can you explain how relative time dilation helps your case?

I’m saying we don’t understand it. So, your timetables could or could not mean anything when it comes to God’s creation.

 

[Shemjaza]

Science reverse engineered us to nothingness (not a natural state). Science theorized space-time warps (something I’m sure we both have a vague understanding of). And you question the possibility that actual history and evidence (as we interpret it) could be inconsistent? You speak of time being relative to another observer… do you think we’re talking about the two trains passing thought experiment or something? And, what other observer… we’re talking about God creating the universe.

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.

Time/space warps aren't simply theorised, they are clearly in evidence. It wouldn't be possible to maintain the time on GPS satellites or pilot probes between planets without accounting for relativity.

By evidence I'm talking about all the usual evidence of historical events and billions of years of geology and biology.

Now with different frames of reference you can create a different perspective of time passing, but that doesn't make events over time disappear, just apparently go faster/slower.

So if you assume that from God's perspective the time on Earth is only 6 days, 6000 years or the blink of an eye, that doesn't make the billions of years of Earth's history not take billions of years for things on Earth, just not seem so long from the slower perspective.

I’m saying we don’t understand it. So, your timetables could or could not mean anything when it comes to God’s creation.

There being some mysteries and some things that aren't known for sure doesn't remove the ability to know anything at all.

You can't reasonably take the fact that time is more malleable and mysterious than our conventional experience would tell us as a way to dispute any event that occurs in time as unknowable and unreliable.

I remember a quote about this kind of phenomena:
"...when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
--Issac Asimov


You are the one bringing up time dilation as a solution to your preferences about history being not supported by evidence... can you be specific about what elements can be perceived differently in light of time dilation to support your conclusions?

 

[VirOptimus]

Science reverse engineered us to nothingness (not a natural state). Science theorized space-time warps (something I’m sure we both have a vague understanding of). And you question the possibility that actual history and evidence (as we interpret it) could be inconsistent? You speak of time being relative to another observer… do you think we’re talking about the two trains passing thought experiment or something? And, what other observer… we’re talking about God creating the universe.


I’m saying we don’t understand it. So, your timetables could or could not mean anything when it comes to God’s creation.

Using god(s) in a science debate is an autoloss.