But, what if there is more to reality than the physical world. What is there is another reality that cannot be detected by physical means?
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.
Scientists are trained to reason using a first principle, a fundamental assumption that is the basis for their empirical definitions, measuring units, mathematical methods and "constants". What assumption is this? The one the Bible predicted for the false teachers of the last days - that all things remain the same.
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.
What do they do with this idea of their's (panta houtos diamenei - that all things remain the same)?
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.
On the contrary, scientists are trained to reason, measure and mathematicate with an assumption - that atoms are perpetual motion engines.
It sn't an assumption; it's Newton's First Law. It's - once again - based on every observation.
On the contrary, we observe in all parts of the spectrum how star globs accelerated outward as galaxies intrinsically grew - taking up more space concurrently with the accelerating atomic clocks. Many galaxies are spirals and they grew into huge growth spirals as the properties of matter continued to change in defiance of every law of modern physics.
That is in no way "contrary" to what I said. All you're doing is pasting in random snippets from some blog.
You are right that scientific training does not explicitly focus on the first principle.
Then it isn't a first principle.
Proclus, the last of the pagan philosophers....
Maybe it's time for you to move ahead to the nineteenth century when at least scientists knew what science was.
The months were not measuring time, they were merely markers for the passing of cyclical events.
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.
Moses could no more have imagined a 24 hour day than he could visualize a cell phone.
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.
The sequence and duration are recorded - but there is no reference to time, per se.
Sequence and duration are time.
The fact that durations are not linear is clearly stated....
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?
Science used to be called philosophy. It was the search for certain knowledge. Just because science has bastardized itself from the nineteeth century onward from its honest beginnings, does not mean it is more correct than its original state.
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.
You only have to look at OUR UNIVERSE to know... 2. that all visible atomic clocks in billions of galaxies clock a different frequency than local atoms.
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?
You cannot invent a precision empirical system without assuming that atoms are always clocking the same rates.
We had a precision empirical system for measuring time longbefore we knew anythng about atoms.
There is a simple way to test whether clocks really are linear.
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.