Real time or evo time?

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Imaginary time used by science (we can call it evo time here) is based on a belief that physics always existed as we know it basically.

In real time I suspect the flood was around 4500 years ago. IN evo time probably about 70 million years ago at the aprox time of the KT boundry.

There is no way to know if man and most animals would heave been even able to fossilize in the former nature. Science uses beliefs on top of assumptions on top of godless beliefs to set dates and model the past. They are wrong.
 

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
At this point there is no evidence, absolutely none, to suggest that the physical constants and the laws of nature were ever different in the past. The uniformitarian hypothesis remains perfectly valid until such time as evidence is available that would suggest otherwise. That would be an astonishing scientific find and probably worthy of a Nobel Prize. It would be just as astonishing to find evidence that there actually was a world-wide flood just a few thousand years ago.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
At this point there is no evidence, absolutely none, to suggest that the physical constants and the laws of nature were ever different in the past.
At this point there is no evidence, absolutely none, to suggest that the physical constants and the laws of nature were the same in the past. Try to post evidence and see.

That would be an astonishing scientific find and probably worthy of a Nobel Prize.

You assume honesty in the scientific world and some actual quest for truth. No. I see cover ups, bias and religious zeal thinly masking a hatred for God.

The uniformitarian hypothesis remains perfectly valid until such time as evidence is available that would suggest otherwise.
No more valid than any other godless baseless belief.
It would be just as astonishing to find evidence that there actually was a world-wide flood just a few thousand years ago.
That is already known. Now trying to get godless so called science to look in the right places and lose their fanatical predispositions and belief system is likely not going to happen. They are inspired of Satan when it comes to the endless stream of doubting creation and Scripture.

So, with a different nature all things are possible in the bible record.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
At this point there is no evidence, absolutely none, to suggest that the physical constants and the laws of nature were the same in the past. Try to post evidence and see.
R. Srianand, et al
Limits on the time variation of the electromagnetic fine-structure constant in the low energy limit from absorption lines in the spectra of distant quasars

The research article provides evidence to support the constancy of the fine-structure constant. This refutes your claim that there is no evidence. You may choose to challenge the evidence, but you cannot - rationally - deny its existence.

Just as rabbits in the Cambrian would refute evolution, only a single exception is required to refute your flawed assertion. Please do not resort to bombast and rhetoric to dispute this.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
At this point there is no evidence, absolutely none, to suggest that the physical constants and the laws of nature were the same in the past. Try to post evidence and see.
Perhaps you should take that up with the people who try to prove that the universe had to be created because of "fine tuning".
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,675
51,422
Guam
✟4,896,890.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Imaginary time used by science (we can call it evo time here) is based on a belief that physics always existed as we know it basically.
But what if I found a piece of torn paper with 17, 19, 23 written on it?

Shouldn't I assume all numbers before and after these three are prime numbers?
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
But what if I found a piece of torn paper with 17, 19, 23 written on it?

Shouldn't I assume all numbers before and after these three are prime numbers?
If you found a piece of torn paper with 17,19 and 23 written on it, and part of a header saying "prime numbers"... then dad would ask you to accept that the previous numbers were 4, 6 and 12... because there is no evidence that these numbers were not prime numbers "in the former nature".
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,652
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟104,175.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Imaginary time used by science (we can call it evo time here) is based on a belief that physics always existed as we know it basically.

One thing which has become apparent over the last couple of decades or so is that the laws of nature are balanced on a knife edge. If the fundamental constants were even a slightly bit different, the universe as we know it, and human beings in particular, would not be here. And yet you seem to think that they can be varied to suit your theological agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: expos4ever
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
From your article..opening paragraphs...

"The median redshift of our sample (z ≃1.55) corresponds to a look-back time of 9.7 Gyr in the most favored cosmological model today.."

Unless there is time out there red shift does not correspond at all. Your idea of the so called fine structure constant is absolute religion and belief. Pure, Uncut .Total.
The research article provides evidence to support the constancy of the fine-structure constant.
Not at all. Name an actual little part you think does?
This refutes your claim that there is no evidence. You may choose to challenge the evidence, but you cannot - rationally - deny its existence.
Assuming time exists is not evidence it does. Think about it. Your argument is petty, shortsighted, and vacuous.
Just as rabbits in the Cambrian would refute evolution,
Old wives tale. If rabbits and men and lions and etc could not fossilize in that former different nature and laws, then we do NOT expect them. Not at all, it does not help your religion.

Better get back to the drawing board.

Oh and your link talks of the Oklo reactor setting constraints for the fine structure. That is another fable. Sounds like the guy in the bible of whom it was said..'comparing themselves with themselves..'

2Co 10:12 - For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But what if I found a piece of torn paper with 17, 19, 23 written on it?

Shouldn't I assume all numbers before and after these three are prime numbers?
If they find Noah's diary with numbers, we can look at that.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
One thing which has become apparent over the last couple of decades or so is that the laws of nature are balanced on a knife edge. If the fundamental constants were even a slightly bit different, the universe as we know it, and human beings in particular, would not be here. And yet you seem to think that they can be varied to suit your theological agenda.
Off base. On earth it was not likely our laws changing a lot or a little! The former laws changed! As for the universe, your models are truly a joke and without any possibility of defense.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Perhaps you should take that up with the people who try to prove that the universe had to be created because of "fine tuning".

Becasue there is life here and no scientific reason why it would be here.
Or anywhere. How does non-living matter benefit from there being life?
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,127
Los Angeles Area
✟820,765.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Imaginary time used by science (we can call it evo time here) is based on a belief that physics always existed as we know it basically.

In real time I suspect the flood was around 4500 years ago. IN evo time probably about 70 million years ago at the aprox time of the KT boundry.

There is no way to know if man and most animals would heave been even able to fossilize in the former nature.

Dinosaurs fossilized, but they don't appear much after 70 million years ago. Did Noah not take them on the ark?

There are no human fossils 70 million years ago. What made human bones different from dinosaur bones?
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Dinosaurs fossilized, but they don't appear much after 70 million years ago.
Not after the flood, no. So? The 4500 real years (or if you prefer the 70 million imaginary years) since the flood was different in nature so naturally we would not see dinosaurs.

Did Noah not take them on the ark?
Hey, maybe most died off or reevolved to birds or whatever before the flood! Simple.
There are no human fossils 70 million years ago.
And why would there be if the former nature did not allow fossilization of man and most animals??
What made human bones different from dinosaur bones?
Whatever it was worked! Now maybe part of the process of rapidly decomposing man and most animals was an army of specialized worms, creatures, bacteria or whatever?! Even today we have snotworms that specialize in whale bones.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Unless there is time out there red shift does not correspond at all.
I'll bite. Specify exactly how they fail to correspond.

Your idea of the so called fine structure constant is absolute religion and belief. Pure, Uncut .Total.
I thought I cautioned you about using rhetoric and bombast.

I have not made known my idea of the fine structure constant. I have simply demonstrated that your statement that there was no evidence for the constancy of constants was nonsense. And that you have not addressed.

Not at all. Name an actual little part you think does?
I don't cherry pick. The entire paper does the job. I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding it.

Assuming time exists is not evidence it does.
Just running with your own assumption, or did Christ not walk the land roughly 2,000 years ago?

Old wives tale. If rabbits and men and lions and etc could not fossilize in that former different nature and laws, then we do NOT expect them.
You appear to be ignorant. Let me help you out. When asked what would falsify the theory of evolution an evolutionist, it may have been Haldane, replied "Rabbits in the Cambrian". The fact that so far we have not found fossilised rabbits in the Cambrian in now way proves evolution. However, if they ever were found there that would pretty much do it. Equally, I only need to find one piece of evidence that supports to constancy of constants to refute your statement that such evidence exists.

For your future reference I treat with equal contempt and disdain those evolutionists who claim there is no evidence for a God.

In short, I am offended by assertions by persons, such as yourself, who make absolute statements when none are justified.
 
Upvote 0

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,908
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
At this point there is no evidence, absolutely none, to suggest that the physical constants and the laws of nature were the same in the past. Try to post evidence and see.

No more valid than any other godless baseless belief.
That is already known. Now trying to get godless so called science to look in the right places and lose their fanatical predispositions and belief system is likely not going to happen. They are inspired of Satan when it comes to the endless stream of doubting creation and Scripture.

So, with a different nature all things are possible in the bible record.
I find this post full of inflammatory rhetoric against science. That is a major no-no in a serious theological discussion. Hence, your statements have absolutely no credulity and are definitely not worthy of being taken seriously by myself.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums