More Fluctuations Found in Isotopic Clocks

Institute for Creation Research ^ | 8-17-2012 | Brian Thomas

[Zeneta]

I like to entertain ideas about time.

I saw a show with some smart guy that suggested that time was an illusion. We are living in what I can only describe as “slices of space”.

Entertaining indeed, and hard to get your head around.

I’m not suggesting that I believe this. But as a thought experiment it can get interesting.

From my perspective, the only way time can be an illusion is if our entire universe is moving at or very near the speed of light.

There is of course no way to prove this.

[NonValueAdded]

Nevertheless, climate science is settled.

[allmendream]

The best argument against these climate guys is that none of them can explain how we went into and out of ice ages before humans and their dreaded SUVs.

That argument goes out the window if you are stuck pretending the earth is only a few thousand years old.

[Zeneta]

BTW, I think evoking Occam’s razor at this stage is premature.

[Zeneta]

The best argument against these climate guys is that none of them can explain how we went into and out of ice ages before humans and their dreaded SUVs.

That argument goes out the window if you are stuck pretending the earth is only a few thousand years old.

WOW

Your logic has sunk beneath your wisdom, like a stone.

[tacticalogic]

No.

If it was proven, beyond doubt, that it was 4 billion years old, whould it change yours?

[tacticalogic]

At the end of the day you, if you even bother to do some research, will find the Creationist community of scientists adhering to a standard of scientific rigor that an evolutionist only wished were present.

You paint with the broad brush of hubris.

[Zeneta]

If it was proven, beyond doubt, that it was 4 billion years old, whould it change yours?

YES.

If it where also proven that evolution actually happened.

It would mean that objective morality did not exist.

It would mean that neither you nor I have free will.

It would, and has devalued human life.

And just so you understand, objective morality is that sense of right and wrong that everybody has, regardless of what they have been told.

Now, as a practical matter we have been living in your world for the past 150 years.

[tacticalogic]

You appear to be starting from a premise that it is impossible for God to have created life with the ability to evolve. This leads to the conclusion that if evolution happened, then there is no God.

I do not accept that premise because I do not assume restrictions on the power of God. Because I do not start from that premise, I arrive at different conclusions.

[Zeneta]

Seriously ?

A proven, less than 10,000 year old earth would have no impact on how you viewed things ?

You are only left with two options.

Creation or Aliens.

[hosepipe]

[ BTW, I think evoking Occam’s razor at this stage is premature. ]

Depends on what you’re dividing...

[Zeneta]

dividing infinity (eternity) by anything gets a little silly.

[tacticalogic]

Freedom of religion means that no one else can tell you what your religious beliefs must be. It also means you don’t get to tell anyone else what theirs must be.

[Zeneta]

Freedom of religion means that no one else can tell you what your religious beliefs must be. It also means you don’t get to tell anyone else what theirs must be.

So, you think comparative religion classes are a waste of time ?

[tacticalogic]

So, you think comparative religion classes are a waste of time ?

What assumptions lead you to that conclusion?

[Zeneta]

Listen.

If you are actually sincere about exploring these issues, having an open mind and understanding of history will allow you to break on through to another side.

You can start with either:

http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926

http://www.amazon.com/Reasonable-Faith-Christian-Truth-Apologetics/dp/1433501155/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345255459&sr=1-1&keywords=reasonable+faith+by+william+lane+craig

best of luck to you.

[tacticalogic]

You appear to have made the assumption that someone else can only have different religious belifs than you out of ignorance. Is that an accurate assesment?

[Zeneta]

First of all, your statement is redundant.

Freedom of religion means that no one else can tell you what your religious beliefs must be. It also means you don’t get to tell anyone else what theirs must be.

It implies relativism.

That is the assumption that enforced my conclusion.

[Zeneta]

You appear to have made the assumption that someone else can only have different religious belifs than you out of ignorance. Is that an accurate assesment?

Yes.

Some religious beliefs are completely illogical, and many others have no historical foundation.

Still, there are those that are still seeking.

[tacticalogic]

I thought it an accurate statement of the practical effect of having freedom of religion.

Do you find that assesment to be inaccurate?

If it is accurate, then do you disagree with the idea that we should have it, because it allows people to have incorrect religious beliefs?