Summations Only

If there was an alternate reality that couldn't be detected, then creationists wouldn't be able to detect it either. The charlatan says, "There are some things that can't be explained... so here's the explanation...."You can't have it both ways. If it can't be detected, it can't be detected and you can't claim it happened. If there is no explanation, don't try to explain it.

Deleted double post.Edited by ringo, : @#$%ing wonky wifi.

You're misusing 2 Peter.

quote:

---

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

​

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

---

The emphasis is that there is no sign of his coming. Everything has been the same since the beginning. There's no suggestion that there can be no change, only that none has been observed.Scientists are taught that if something does change, it should be possible to observe signs of that change.

Again, the idea is that things have remained the same throughout history. There is no suggestion that things cannot change but the expectation is that any changes that do occur will produce observable effects. It sn't an assumption; it's Newton's First Law. It's - once again - based on every observation.

All observations of all moving objects have confirmed Newton Laws (with allowances being made for relativistic effects and quantum effects). Every motion is perpetual - until some force changes it. That still isn't true, no matter how many times you repeat it. Scientists are not trained to assume that nothing can change. They are trained to look for evidence of change.Edited by ringo, : Speling.

That is in no way "contrary" to what I said. All you're doing is pasting in random snippets from some blog. Then it isn't a first principle. Maybe it's time for you to move ahead to the nineteenth century when at least scientists knew what science was.

Or here: http://godsriddle.com/ (crank warning).

On the contrary, Ecclesiates 3 clearly states that time is reality-based:

quote:

---

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted....

---

That's what measurement is: counting the markers. We measure the age of a tree by counting the rings. We measure the speed of something by counting the number of heartbeats that it takes to move a certain distance. Your contempt for the Bible authors is noted.Of course, Moses did (as the traditional author of Genesis) go to considerable trouble to establish the orderly passage and measurement of time, right in Chapter 1.

Sure he did. He said that the sun and the moon would indicate the days and the years and the seasons. Sequence and duration are time. Whether or not it is clearly stated in the Bible is irrelevant. You haven't demonstrated that it is a fact. The fundamental question remains: If time was not linear,how would you know? How would you detect the change?

An attainable goal is usually better than an ideal ivory tower goal. The Wright brothers didn't set out to build a perfect aircraft, just one that worked.The lack of certainty is what makes science science. By constantly improving our knowledge, we can come to a close approximation of reality. By sitting in a tower philosophizing, all we get is seven hundred varieties of certainty - most of it claptrap.Edited by ringo, : Spleling.

You assert that but you haven't shown that it's true. (Do you even understand what an "atomic clock" is?)The only way you could show that your claim is true is by some kind of measurement, which you seem to be claiming is impossible. How can you tell that those clocks have different frequencies if you can't use time to measure the frequencies?

We had a precision empirical system for measuring time longbefore we knew anythng about atoms. As I understand it, there are a number of proposed explanations for the Pioneer anomaly. Why do you reject all of them and jump to the conclusion of non-linear time? Your motivation seems to be "the Bible sez so", which is meaningless in this forum.