Real time or evo time?

[Derek Meyer]

And why would there be if the former nature did not allow fossilization of man and most animals??

What the heck would 'the former nature' even mean? It's quite a word salad you provided here.

 

[Derek Meyer]

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.

We sure can. SN1987A. Oklo nuclear reactor. The natural science called physics. The natural science called chemistry. Genetics. Otzi. Plate tectonics. Exploration and mining companies. You want more?

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, but get the original quote right!

Derek if you - quite rightly - choose to correct others for minor errors, will you ever be getting around to addressing the point raised in another thread where you continued to deny the evidence for subduction in South Africa? Or do you conveniently run away when shown to be wrong on major issues?

Apologies to other members for taking his off topic.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Derek if you - quite rightly - choose to correct others for minor errors, will you ever be getting around to addressing the point raised in another thread where you continued to deny the evidence for subduction in South Africa? Or do you conveniently run away when shown to be wrong on major issues?
Apologies to other members for taking his off topic.

Sure, I should have been more clear when I wrote it; there is absolutely no signs of subduction in South Africa.

Billions of years ago, the rocks forming the Greenstone Belt of what is now in South Africa, Swaziland and Mozambique, were subjected to enormous bombardment from space. These rocks were subjected to lots and lots of bombardment. And subduction. Some of the oldest rocks on earth with their fossils and all didn't get subducted. They ended up on a continent.

But, for billions of years after that, those rocks haven't been subjected to subduction. That's why they are some of the oldest rocks found on a continent.

Some of the oldest rocks on earth outcropping in my country haven't been subjected to subduction for billions of years, same as the much younger rocks in the country which have never been subjected to subduction.

Does that clear it up?

 

[Freodin]

No idea what that is supposed to mean.

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?

So here we are.
On the one hand we have a devout Christian who needs nature to be completely different in order to defend his faith.
On the other hand we have a devout Christian who needs nature to be fixed and perfect for the 'goal' of life in order to defend his faith.

These two positions are diametially opposed.

So what is their solution to solve this dilemma? Ignore the topic and debate the unbeliever!

And there are still Christians out there who wonder why the unbelievers say that Christianity is full of contradictions. You people are so funny.

 

[Derek Meyer]

And there are still Christians out there who wonder why the unbelievers say that Christianity is full of contradictions. You people are so funny.

Actually most of the mainstream Christian organisations and Churches accept all the scientific theories. Only a small percentage of Christian organisations don't (such as JW's and SDA's). Those small cults are very vocal, but do not represent Christianity.

 

[dad]

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.

So I expose a belief system and you lose control. I have my own religion, thanks. If you had more we might have seen that. Rationally. Calmly. Science I think is alright as long as we utterly separate the false evil so called sciences from it. And exorcise them on the way out.

 

[dad]

I'll bite. Specify exactly how they fail to correspond.

Let's phrase that question like this..'Specify exactly how does redshifting involve time'? Well, all waves involve time for one thing. All light far away seen here involves time...etc etc...get it?

I thought I cautioned you about using rhetoric and bombast.

The fear of the Lord is to hate pride and evil. I like truth. I will not accept lies.

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.

ALL the evidences you use are religion for that fine structure in the past. The Oklo fable...want to look at that? The blind assumption time exists and spacetime as we know it near earth...etc. Religion. Religion. Religion.

I don't cherry pick. The entire paper does the job. I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding it.

Religion...I understand perfectly. Deeply.

Just running with your own assumption, or did Christ not walk the land roughly 2,000 years ago?

Yes, of course. So?

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.

There is NO scientific reason to think rabbits would have fossilized. So no one needs to prove they did or should have. The whole theory of evolution is religion and a lie.

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

OK. Go get em!

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

Jesus created Adam and the universe. Absolutely. Really. No foolin.

 

[durangodawood]

No way am I going to argue with someone whos "undefeated".

 

[TLK Valentine]

But dad, how does this explain the strawberry custard from the previous state?

 

[Ophiolite]

Let's phrase that question like this..'Specify exactly how does redshifting involve time'? Well, all waves involve time for one thing. All light far away seen here involves time...etc etc...get it?
The fear of the Lord is to hate pride and evil. I like truth. I will not accept lies.
ALL the evidences you use are religion for that fine structure in the past. The Oklo fable...want to look at that? The blind assumption time exists and spacetime as we know it near earth...etc. Religion. Religion. Religion.
Religion...I understand perfectly. Deeply.
Yes, of course. So?
There is NO scientific reason to think rabbits would have fossilized. So no one needs to prove they did or should have. The whole theory of evolution is religion and a lie.
OK. Go get em!
Jesus created Adam and the universe. Absolutely. Really. No foolin.

Forum rules require me to address posters arguments, not to criticise the person. Since your vacuous responses contain no arguments this is problematic. Let me know if you ever lose the blindfold. Until then (or until an especially egregious post catches my eye) goodbye.

 

[AV1611VET]

Two creationists take a Commercial flight

 

[Jimmy D]

Two creationists take a Commercial flight

That was a classic.

 

[AV1611VET]

That was a classic.

Sure was!

 

[TLK Valentine]

And why would there be if the former nature did not allow fossilization of man and most animals??

Why would there be if the former nature turned most men and animals into strawberry custard??

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

And how long have you be jealous that they don't use your assumptions and beliefs instead?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

I have posted evidence, and I watched you run away from it.

Do we need to go over K/Ar and Pb/U ratios again?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Okay, but what about peanut butter jelly time?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dad]

No way am I going to argue with someone whos "undefeated".

Smart move.

 

[dad]

But dad, how does this explain the strawberry custard from the previous state?

Resort to custard when you get flustered.