Real time or evo time?

[TLK Valentine]

I'll take what Jesus said and Scripture says for reality regarding the future and past.

And when did Jesus say that reality us malleable and subject to change without notice?

Heck, the present confirms it is right by the fulfilled prophesies we see around us and have all through history.

Excluding the self-fulfilling ones and the ones written after the fact...

Any other version of reality is a dark dream.

That's nice.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Scientists say the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

The universe has been in existence for some 6000 years.

13,700,000,000 / 6000 = 2283333.333333333

Are you saying 1 year real time equals 2.283 million evo years?

 

[dad]

And when did Jesus say that reality us malleable and subject to change without notice?

Not His reality. Guess what that leaves?

Excluding the self-fulfilling ones and the ones written after the fact...

Yeah right, Israel never really went into captivity in Babylon, and Jesus snuck into a virgin womb because he was a clever fetus--and paid them all to have the birth at some town? Get serious.

Lurkers beware. The delusional denial such as we see displayed on forums like this about history and Scripture can sneak up and bite you in the rear if you are not looking to God for help.

 

[dad]

Scientists say the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Yes, based on certain beliefs they hold that can't be proven. Much like Aesop's fables.

The universe has been in existence for some 6000 years.

True, heck I am liberal in some ways, I could even allow a few hundred years more if need be.

13,700,000,000 / 6000 = 2283333.333333333

I would be careful about dividing imaginary time with real time.

Are you saying 1 year real time equals 2.283 million evo years?

Let me do a rough calculation. I suspect the flood was about 70 million of their imaginary years away and about 4500 real years ago. That seems to work out to about 15,55.55555 imaginary years to the one real year in real time.

Now of course if we go deeper into imaginary time we would need to amplify the imaginary year results to the umpteenth power.

By the same token, if we go less far back in imaginary time, we get less of a ridiculous error curve! Example, ancient Egypt.

 

[Loudmouth]

No.

If radioactive decay was not the same in the past, then it wouldn't produce the same ratios. Thank you for agreeing with me.

I am saying that if you claim any decay at all in the past, then prove it.

I already did. Since the ratios are exactly what we would expect from radioactive decay as seen in the present state, then we have evidence that there was radioactive decay in the past.

That would be a start. Seems to me we would need our present laws for that. So you assume, rather than prove, and believe rather than know.

It isn't assumed.

Do you have to assume a defendant is guilty in order to get a DNA match for the forensic evidence?

? Good question. A bit like the old movie, field of dreams....'if you build it, they will come'. In your case, if you get any evidence we will come take a look!

Define evidence. I can't give you what you won't define.

Nature didn't produce it! Creation and the different nature, as well as what we call nature now did.

Based on what evidence?

?? Prove ANY radioactive activity happened or radioactive isotopes decayed in the far past??

I already did prove it. Since the ratios are exactly what we would expect from radioactive decay as seen in the present state, then we have evidence that there was radioactive decay in the past.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, based on certain beliefs they hold that can't be proven.

It has been proven. It isn't the fault of scientists that you bury your head in the sand.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not His reality. Guess what that leaves?

Yours. Which, what it lacks in cohesion, relevance, or sense, it makes up for in whimsy.

Yeah right, Israel never really went into captivity in Babylon, and Jesus snuck into a virgin womb because he was a clever fetus--and paid them all to have the birth at some town? Get serious.

You mean the Virgin womb which Matthew wrote about because he had Isaiah in front of him and mistranslated the Greek?

And the town? The hoops Matthew had to jump through to arrange that.... and the completely different set of hoops Luke had to jump through... making Joseph the stupidest man in all history and mythology to do so... that town?

Is this a road you want to walk down, dad? It's not.

Lurkers beware. The delusional denial such as we see displayed on forums like this about history and Scripture can sneak up and bite you in the rear if you are not looking to God for help.

You can try to rally the crowds to yor side, dad... but they won't stop laughing at you. They never stopped at any of the other forums you got laughed out of, did they?

 

[dad]

If radioactive decay was not the same in the past, then it wouldn't produce the same ratios. Thank you for agreeing with me.

If there was no decay, then how could it be the same or not? Prove there was any for a start. I agree you don't know. You assume that the present rules applied...end of story.

I already did. Since the ratios are exactly what we would expect from radioactive decay as seen in the present state, then we have evidence that there was radioactive decay in the past.

Irrelevant unless you kow what creation and the former state was like. All you are pointing out is the obvious, that is that any change in the original nature to ours was seamless.

Now try to independently show that there is agreement with your imaginary ages and some unrelated aspect of science, such as a fossil, or whatever? Produce the real goods, and quit wasting our time.

It isn't assumed.

That the daughter and parent isotopes you use for dating were obeying presemt physics is assumed, and is the mother of assumptions involved.

Do you have to assume a defendant is guilty in order to get a DNA match for the forensic evidence?

You need to show Adam had DNA. Otherwise the real criminals are not even in your little kangaroo court. You have framed the present state with the crime.

Define evidence. I can't give you what you won't define.

Show us independent proof there even was any decay of isotopes in the early days of earth. That does not mean interpreting the ratios with your religion either.

Based on what evidence?

Creation is outside science and it's frame of references and mandate and abilities and religion! The evidence man has for creation is that Jesus came and rose from the dead as well as gave us Scripture that is tested and tried and true and beyond reproach or sane doubt.

I already did prove it. Since the ratios are exactly what we would expect from radioactive decay as seen in the present state, then we have evidence that there was radioactive decay in the past.

Foolishness. Your expectations are solely based on partial info, and your ability to know what laws actually were is nill. You have religion.

 

[dad]

Yours. Which, what it lacks in cohesion, relevance, or sense, it makes up for in whimsy.

If you demonstrated an ability to deal with Scripture you might be able to comment.

You mean the Virgin womb which Matthew wrote about because he had Isaiah in front of him and mistranslated the Greek?

The great sign spoken of and expected by New Testament Jews was that a virgin would conceive. The message of Scripture is that God became a man, so that He as a man could redeem man from the sin and fall of Adam. That involves something more than some teen having a baby. Obviously.

And the town? The hoops Matthew had to jump through to arrange that.... and the completely different set of hoops Luke had to jump through... making Joseph the stupidest man in all history and mythology to do so... that town?

Baseless doubts long after the fact and many witnesses are basically insanity.

You can try to rally the crowds to yor side, dad... but they won't stop laughing at you. They never stopped at any of the other forums you got laughed out of, did they?

The EVC forum doesn't laugh truth out, they do what a coven does...they only let certain things in. I have no need to debate anywhere anymore. I already won. Literally, totally, really.

In testing a few other pagan so called science forums, the results came in also. They are closed minded cultists that cannot discuss anything outside the little prison they set up and that their minds are in. I have learned that what really triggers an episode in them, is to point out that they have nothing but religion. They can't argue that and can't deal with it.

 

[Loudmouth]

If there was no decay, then how could it be the same or not?

The ratios of isotopes demonstrates that there was radioactive decay.

You assume that the present rules applied...end of story.

No such assumption is used. If the ratio of isotopes in rocks was inconsistent with the present state decay, then I would conclude that there was not radioactive decay in the past. It is a conclusion, not an assumption.

You might as well claim that we have to assume a suspect is guilty in order to get a DNA match.

Irrelevant unless you kow what creation and the former state was like.

We do know what the former state was like. It was the same as now because all of the evidence is consistent with a same state past.

Now try to independently show that there is agreement with your imaginary ages and some unrelated aspect of science, such as a fossil, or whatever? Produce the real goods, and quit wasting our time.

The goods have already been produced. Stop ignoring them.

That the daughter and parent isotopes you use for dating were obeying presemt physics is assumed, and is the mother of assumptions involved.

No such assumption is made. Do we have to assume a suspect is guilty in order to get a DNA match? If the ratios match the present state, then they were produced in a same state past. That's the way conclusions work. No assumptions needed.

You need to show Adam had DNA. Otherwise the real criminals are not even in your little kangaroo court. You have framed the present state with the crime.

Why would I have to show that Adam had DNA in order to use DNA fingerprinting in a court of law? You aren't making any sense.

Show us independent proof there even was any decay of isotopes in the early days of earth.

The independent proof is the ratio of isotopes in rocks.

That does not mean interpreting the ratios with your religion either.

I wasn't aware that measuring the products of radioactive decay was a religion. Please explain.

Creation is outside science and it's frame of references and mandate and abilities and religion! The evidence man has for creation is that Jesus came and rose from the dead as well as gave us Scripture that is tested and tried and true and beyond reproach or sane doubt.

Those are stories in books, not evidence. I guess you don't understand what evidence is.

 

[dad]

Why would I have to show that Adam had DNA in order to use DNA fingerprinting in a court of law? You aren't making any sense.

Because who says he even had any DNA as we know it today?? Stop fantasizing.

The independent proof is the ratio of isotopes in rocks.

False. Creation and the former state also involved the same stuff. Your little present state cannot have the credit. Get over it.

I wasn't aware that measuring the products of radioactive decay was a religion. Please explain.

You take the little amounts of stuff and foist a belief that it came from present physics on it.

Those are stories in books, not evidence. I guess you don't understand what evidence is.

Part of the delirium and delusional state people sink into is considering the word of the Almighty as mere stories.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because who says he even had any DNA as we know it today?? Stop fantasizing.

I am talking about a suspect in a crime. Do we have to assume the suspect committed the crime in order to get a DNA match? Yes or no?

I want you to answer this question to see if you even understand what evidence is and what assumptions are.

 

[dad]

I am talking about a suspect in a crime.

Show us the fossil? Fingerprint? Historical record....anything at all?

Do we have to assume the suspect committed the crime in order to get a DNA match? Yes or no?

You have no suspect, just doubts based on fantasy based on doubt, based on nothing...and on and on we go.

I want you to answer this question to see if you even understand what evidence is and what assumptions are.

Show me the suspect line up or fingerprints or DNA, or fossil? Do you understand you have none?


We ask for proof of the physics you say were in place and that you require for your models of the past. You start looking at ratios as if they all got here by present laws, tagging on imaginary ages, and thinking you have something. Circular logic.


You: 'gee, if there was enough imaginary time, the parent material would have produced the daughter material we see'

Me: 'how do you know there was enough imaginary time'?

You: There had to be, it produced all the daughter material!'

Science should be more than comedy.

 

[lesliedellow]

Show us the fossil? Fingerprint? Historical record....anything at all?

Believe what you want to believe. You will anyway.

 

[Freodin]

I am talking about a suspect in a crime. Do we have to assume the suspect committed the crime in order to get a DNA match? Yes or no?

I want you to answer this question to see if you even understand what evidence is and what assumptions are.

You won't get him to answer any question. Answering a question would mean that he would have to settle on an answer... and that would contradict his basic postion of "whatever I say... if I say anything at all".

I really don't understand why you still bother at all, after the last exchange we had: there is nothing that you can do to show him wrong... nothing at all. You cannot attack a position that is all but smoke and mirrors.

 

[AirPo]

You won't get him to answer any question. Answering a question would mean that he would have to settle on an answer... and that would contradict his basic postion of "whatever I say... if I say anything at all".

I really don't understand why you still bother at all, after the last exchange we had: there is nothing that you can do to show him wrong... nothing at all. You cannot attack a position that is all but smoke and mirrors.

That's the beauty of the HI Theory!

 

[Loudmouth]

Show us the fossil? Fingerprint? Historical record....anything at all?


You have no suspect, just doubts based on fantasy based on doubt, based on nothing...and on and on we go.


Show me the suspect line up or fingerprints or DNA, or fossil? Do you understand you have none?


We ask for proof of the physics you say were in place and that you require for your models of the past. You start looking at ratios as if they all got here by present laws, tagging on imaginary ages, and thinking you have something. Circular logic.


You: 'gee, if there was enough imaginary time, the parent material would have produced the daughter material we see'

Me: 'how do you know there was enough imaginary time'?

You: There had to be, it produced all the daughter material!'

Science should be more than comedy.

Just answer the question.

Do we have to assume the suspect committed the crime in order to get a DNA match? Yes or no?

 

[Loudmouth]

You won't get him to answer any question. Answering a question would mean that he would have to settle on an answer... and that would contradict his basic postion of "whatever I say... if I say anything at all".

I really don't understand why you still bother at all, after the last exchange we had: there is nothing that you can do to show him wrong... nothing at all. You cannot attack a position that is all but smoke and mirrors.

I can show that dad has to ignore all rules of evidence in order to deny that there is evidence for a same state past.

 

[lesliedellow]

I can show that dad has to ignore all rules of evidence in order to deny that there is evidence for a same state past.

Dad is master of the art of ad hoc hypotheses. There is nobody on this site to beat him, and that is saying something, because he has got plenty of stiff competition.

 

[Jimmy D]

In testing a few other pagan so called science forums, the results came in also. They are closed minded cultists that cannot discuss anything outside the little prison they set up and that their minds are in. I have learned that what really triggers an episode in them, is to point out that they have nothing but religion. They can't argue that and can't deal with it.

It's not me who's wrong.... it's everyone else!