I am not fooled, so speak for yourself! The speed of light has only been clocked in this area of the solar system. Period. If you dispute that, then show us how you would clock movements from stars or objects in deep space, as to speed? Ha. All you know is fishbowl speed limits, basically.
Still, a lack of evidence that "the nature" never changed sometime in the past is significant ...
That's just the point, dad. There is plenty of evidence that "the nature" never changed sometime in the past. The effects and results of natures consistent operation in the past is precisely what we expect it to be. There are no ... as in none ... effects or results that differed in the past from the same operations of nature we see today.
If nature changed her processes 10 thousand years ago or 100 million years ago or whenever, we would see the differences. We don't. That lack of evidence of a change says it didn't change.
No one can say nature operated different in the past from the way it operates now. You have no evidence of a change because there isn't any. That lack of evidence for a change is because it did not change. Without evidence you have nothing.
Just like your creation myth, your talking snake and your idiot flud, some change in "the nature" a long time ago did not happen.
quote:That's just the point, dad. There is plenty of evidence that "the nature" never changed sometime in the past. The effects and results of natures consistent operation in the past is precisely what we expect it to be. There are no ... as in none ... effects or results that differed in the past from the same operations of nature we see today.
None that you can see, being blinded by your beliefs. How would you know if there was radioactive decay in the past? You don't. You see it exists today, for example, and then you assign ratios of isotopes dates based on this. A more honest view of the ratios would include creation, as well as the former nature, as well as this present nature! Instead you look only at this end. You assume all the material/ratios came to exist in this present nature. The same sort of thing is true is all other areas and evidences.
You view the fossil record as having been formed in our nature. You cannot prove it. So you try to shift the burden of proof to other beliefs! I can use belief in looking at the fossil record also. You are not the only one that can do that. I believe that nature was likely different and that in that different nature most life on earth simply could not leave remains. That means that man and most animals did exist, but could not leave remains at that time in that nature. From dust we came and to dust we used to very rapidly return apparently! That means your beliefs would totally ruin the true story of the fossil record!
So this is why you MUST demonstrate that the nature on earth in the past was the same. Otherwise all is lost for your religion. (whether you realize it or not)
Your twisted religious bullshit not withstanding you have no evidence of any faster nature in the past. Your reliance on some old fairy tale myths from thousands of years ago is not real. It is not evidence of anything but your gullibility and lack of critical thinking skills.
Your evidence, your bible myths, your fairy tales, are rejected.
Radioactive decay rates are based on some of the most fundamental properties of the Universe. If those fundamental properties changed enough to change radioactive decay rates the repercussions would echo down the ages and we'd see them today. We've looked. They aren't there. Radioactive decay rates haven't changed noticeably in the last 13 billion years or so.
Not that you're capable of comprehending that science is one big interconnected ball. You can't change anything that you want to without breaking the entire thing. Since we know science works in the present, and it wouldn't if our conclusions about the past were significantly wrong, we know lots of things about the past that you want to deny.
No parallax measure can be used for distances to deep space. All you do is grab a slice of this solar system area and use our time and space here in a big line as one of three lines to a star!! That is just a statement of faith that time and apace are the same all the way to the star. If time and space were not the same no distance is possible. Have you anything else other than religion here? If you want to cite radioactive decay you have a problem also, The time that decay takes is observed only here, If time were not the same out there, you can forget decay times being the same. Forget light movement times being the same etc.
quote:Radioactive decay rates are based on some of the most fundamental properties of the Universe
Says who!? Try to remember that properties of laws here in the solar system and area involve time. What we experience in our time as, for example, 51 days, could represent for example, a fraction of a second out there. The time it takes light here to travel is not equal to the time involved in light moving out in the far universe as far as we know. You only believed that for no reason. So, no, you cannot extend fishbowl properties to the whole universe.
quote:If those fundamental properties changed enough to change radioactive decay rates the repercussions would echo down the ages and we'd see them today. We've looked. They aren't there. Radioactive decay rates haven't changed noticeably in the last 13 billion years or so.
The ONLY radioactive decay and times we see are HERE. If time were not the same out there, that would mean that the decay times we observe would not be the same as the time involved out there. So nothing changes here.
If you claim anything as science you need real evidence and support.
Yes, that's what I've been telling you. If YOU claim that something happened in the past - e.g. that nature somehow changed - then YOU need to provide evidence that nature changed. Unless YOU can show evidence that nature changed, WE go with the conclusion that nature didn't change.
If I claim we do not know, I am off the hook.
You can claim that YOU don't know. You can not claim that WE don't know.