[_ Old Earth _] Time does not exist, and this impacts evolution

[Rollo Tamasi]

The truth matters. It should matter to you, too. As you see, "Yom" does not mean what he wants it to mean. No way to dodge that.

Other than crabbing at me for bringing up facts you don't like, do you really have anything to say?

I disagree.
I'm right and you're wrong!

 

[Barbarian]

Comes down to evidence. You lose.

 

[Free]

Actually, ancient Christians always believed the Yom to be 24 hours.
It was ancient Christian writers who "speculated" that it may have meant something else.
Again, you are trying to intertwined your so-called scientific fact with faith in the Bible.

The use of 'yom' in Scripture shows its varied meanings for different lengths of time.

And yet you cannot even provide a definition of "yom" without resorting to standard time--"a single 24 hour time."

The Hebrew word yom is the basic unit of measuring events, known as a day, or 24 hours.... the yom is when the earth turns into and away from the sun, making a period of daylight and night time....

The Science use of time includes features that yom doesn''t.... such as time that goes backwards.... yet true Science only experiments in the present time.... experiments based on past events are based on assumptions

The fact that the sun went backwards 10 degrees an than forward again, shows that time as Science define it, does not exist...since the yom is based only on earth rotation on its axis, and thus is not exact or accurate...yet this does not matter to Hebrew thinking....

When God creates earth with features in 6 literal yoms, we can believe this was so, a literal week of time.... yet other parts of our universe where affected by other journeys of time, hence look older and more mature....

Shalom

Again, you are using the very thing you say doesn't exist in order to prove that it doesn't exist. Rather circular.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Comes down to evidence. You lose.

Boy, what a slow day today.
I feel like I'm evolving.

 

[Jim Parker]

there are many Scientists who also agree, time does not exist,

many? How many?
Einstein did not agree. He invented the idea of "space-time."

So evolution does NOT exist either, because it runs on time....

oi veh
Trust me, time exists. Yesterday I was an innocent kid. Now I'm a 71 year old curmudgeon.

However, Darwin's theory (and evolutionary theory has moved forward from that) was based on the then scientific consensus taht the universe was composed of one galaxy and that the galaxy was infinitely old and unchanging.
Edwin Hubble, using the then brand new telescope at the Mt. Wilson observatory discovered two important facts; (1) those "blobs of light" that the previous telescopes could not resolve were other galaxies and (2) those other galaxies were all moving away from us. (ie: the universe is expanding)
That meant the universe was not static or infinitely old. It has been determined that it is only 13.7 billion years old and that is not enough time for evolution to have taken place according to Darwin's original theory. (Even less likely with a 4 billion year old earth!)

The Bible does have a word for the forward progression of events

The Bible is not a science book. It is God's self revelation to mankind.
Using the Bible for science is like trying to use a shovel to stir your coffee. It's the wrong tool.

We have been here since Adam about 6,000 journeys around the Son (sun) of God, and soon a 1000 journeys of a huge marriage party will begin....what a party that will be for the redeemed...

We've been here a good deal longer than that.
See: Naquatica: Bosnia Pyramid Carbon Dated 25 Thousand Years Old

The Bible is arranged chronologically but it is not a chronology of creation.

iakov the fool 2

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Jim Parker,

Trust me, time exists.

Science as defined by science is something that moves forwards or backwards, like Doctor Who time. Bible time is only something that moves forward.

It has been determined that it is only 13.7 billion years old and that is not enough time for evolution to have taken place according to Darwin's original theory. (Even less likely with a 4 billion year old earth!)

Interesting

The Bible is not a science book.

Newton used Scripture to find natural events.... as did our pioneers of the Noachian flood

We've been here a good deal longer than that.
See: Naquatica: Bosnia Pyramid Carbon Dated 25 Thousand Years Old

Carbon dating is full of assumptions.... there was no C14 in the Eden world
that greatly changes the processes used to calculate backwards time

Shalom

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Free,

The use of 'yom' in Scripture shows its varied meanings for different lengths of time.

Only if your willing to trust translators who believe in polysemy and make a Hebrew word have multiple meanings..... which in all languages is very rare...



Again, you are using the very thing you say doesn't exist in order to prove that it doesn't exist. Rather circular

Science time is like Doctor Who time. something that moves backwards and forwards....

Bible time only travels forwards.... hence its not the time Science defines...

For example our protein does not age.... our bodies are always around 4 months old.... rebuilt regularly from new amino acids.... so why do we look old ?
Mutations destroy our DNA and this changes the rebuilding process....

So much for evolution .... mutations will one day kills us....

Shalom

 

[rthom7]

Greeting Barbarian,

If you think "Yom" means "all the days" instead of "one 24 hour day", how exactly is that different than "forever?" The text doesn't say "all the yom." It says "yom", which you've told us means "all the days." That means each "yom" in Genesis could mean "all the days."

There's really no way out of this, but to admit what it is

You should know Barbarian Hebrew words have broad meanings, and slight changes to its single basic meaning is allowed...

So I show you an example....


Jeremiah 35:19.... to stand before me for ever.
Jer 35:19 (YLT.... standing before me is not cut off all the days.'

My translation .... standing before me daily.


1 Samuel 2:32.... and there shall not be an old man in thine house for ever.
1Sa 2:32 (YLT) ....and there is not an old man in thy house all the days.
My translation ....and there is not an old man in thy house all the days.
The context says the man is not in God's house from any day forward.

1 Samuel 2:35.... and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever.
1Sa 2:35 (YLT) ..., and he hath walked up and down before Mine anointed all the days;

My Translation ....and he shall walk before me anointed each day.

You can appreciate the dynamic translators reason to make day into a different word because English has many words while Hebrew does not....

The fact is the basic meaning for yom is a day....

And this does not assume anyway....

Whereas your theory of faith Barbarian assumes the word experiences polysemy based on context.... you are changing the Hebrew language to suit yourself for English.....reading...

Try to read the word in Hebrew.....yom = a day....

Shalom

 

[GodsGrace]

Science as defined by science is something that moves forwards or backwards, like Doctor Who time. Bible time is only something that moves forward.
Shalom

Regarding what you say here:
You can appreciate the dynamic translators reason to make day into a different word because English has many words while Hebrew does not....

The opposite is also true. A foreign language, even Hebrew and Greek, may have different words for one idea while the English has just one. This also creates a problem when translating. "Love" would be a good example. Different words for love in Hebrew - it becomes more defined. Also, Americans love their cars. You cannot love your car in French or Italian. You could only love a person. What about the German "zum". Tell me what that means! There are words in Italian that CANNOT be translated into English. This is good to know when reading the bible.

Also, you keep saying the following:
Science as defined by science is something that moves forwards or backwards, like Doctor Who time. Bible time is only something that moves forward.

Do you just mean that we can speak of time as past, present and future - or do you mean something more?

Wondering

 

[Jim Parker]

Science as defined by science is something that moves forwards or backwards, like Doctor Who time. Bible time is only something that moves forward.

Do you mean "Time as defined by science?"
Theoretically, time can only move in both directions if you can go fast enough to go backwards. So far, how fast we can go is, more or less, the speed of light in a vacuum. So, for all practical purposes, time goes only forward though it's speed varies by being influenced by gravity. (Which is why the Air Force has to reset the clocks on the GPS satellites once a year. Time goes slower 200 miles up than it does on the surface.)

Newton used Scripture to find natural events.... as did our pioneers of the Noachian flood

That Newton found inspiration in the Bible does not make the Bile a science book.
It's not a "Noachian flood." The Noaic flood epic is at least 500 years younger than the Mesopotamian flood epics. It follows the exact same 5-part literary structure as the earlier epics from the ancient Middle East (AME) and varies primarily in its explanation for the cause of the flood. The other AME flood epics give overpopulation as the reason for the flood. The Noaic epic gives unbridled sin as the cause.
I don't know who or what you mean by "pioneers of the Noachian flood".

Carbon dating is full of assumptions....

All science is based on assumptions. Carbon dating is an accepted method of dating ancient artifacts among legitimate scientists. Not so much among "young earth creationists" because it's one of those pesky scientific facts that blows their "less the 10,000 year old universe" out of the water.

there was no C14 in the Eden world

There is absolutely no way that you can provide any testable evidence to prove that.
I don't know why you would even make such a statement. It is scientifically meaningless.

that greatly changes the processes used to calculate backwards time

Only if one inserts that useless assumption into the calculations.

The Bible is still not a science book.
YOu have not responded to that assertion in any manner.

iakov the fool

shazbat

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Jim Parker,

Theoretically, time can only move in both directions if you can go fast enough to go backwards. So far, how fast we can go is, more or less, the speed of light in a vacuum. So, for all practical purposes, time goes only forward though it's speed varies by being influenced by gravity.

Are you saying by travelling at the speed of light one could travel backwards in time ? Can you prove this ? I am only aware of a forward progression of events, as the Bible defines, "yom" and other forward progressions of conscious events.


That Newton found inspiration in the Bible does not make the Bile a science book.

Maybe but it does make Newton respect God and His creation, Science is afterall the observation experimental testing of God's creation in the present.
Newton did not believe in a materialistic evolution of molecules.

It's not a "Noachian flood." The Noaic flood epic is at least 500 years younger than the Mesopotamian flood epics.

I notice you do not believe in a global flood while Noah and his family survived.
There are many Creation Scientists who uphold a Noachian global flood...but your welcome to your theory of faith, as I am mine.


I don't know who or what you mean by "pioneers of the Noachian flood".

Nicholas Steno established the theoretical basis for stratigraphy when he introduced the law of superposition, the principle of original horizontality and the principle of lateral continuity in a 1669 work on the fossilization of organic remains in layers of sediment, his preface is worded "dedicated to the Noachian flood".

All science is based on assumptions. Carbon dating is an accepted method of dating ancient artifacts among legitimate scientists. Not so much among "young earth creationists" because it's one of those pesky scientific facts that blows their "less the 10,000 year old universe" out of the water.

There is absolutely no way that you can provide any testable evidence to prove that.

Adam lived 930 years, as did many others.... the water vapour removed much of the ionization if not all of it.... many of our mutations that cause us our death is caused by cosmic radiation..... God is a god of order.... radioactive Carbon is not ordered...it's a decaying molecule...

Some of my theories of faith for starters on his idea....


The Bible is still not a science book.

There are two Hebrew words that prove this idea wrong....

"yada" means to know....which is what Science means "to know something"
and "madda" also specifically means "science revealed" what man has learned so far...

Da 1:4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science,

Ge 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

There is two types of Bible science, functional and dysfunctional...and both are present on earth as a result of Adam's sinning.

Shalom

 

[rthom7]

Greetings wondering

Regarding what you say here:
You can appreciate the dynamic translators reason to make day into a different word because English has many words while Hebrew does not....

The opposite is also true. A foreign language, even Hebrew and Greek, may have different words for one idea while the English has just one. This also creates a problem when translating. "Love" would be a good example.

Well observed Wondering. Yes Hebrew has 7 words for naked, nude etc, but English has only a few. And Hebrew has two words for love, Ahab and ahabuh.

The problem with translators is they make their choice of words seem like the language has multiple meanings.... personally I would prefer a strict literal translation to make the Hebrew translation accurate. Even if it makes no sense in the English.

Also, you keep saying the following:
Science as defined by science is something that moves forwards or backwards, like Doctor Who time. Bible time is only something that moves forward.

Do you just mean that we can speak of time as past, present and future - or do you mean something more?

First we cannot go backwards in time to a past event... nor can we say our bodies age.... they do no get older, they experience molecular problems with association because mutations destroy the DNA so the repair and rebuilding process makes us look older.... molecules of protein do not age... technically we are no longer than 4 months of age, rebuild over and over..

Nor can we use a process to predict a time in the past.... a process reaction based on nuclear reactions is not time based... sure you can measure in present time the decay and half life of material as it processes and decays in the present...but do we then assume such reactions continue forever in a different world in the past.... that is an assumption....

When the volcano of St Helens blew up a few years back Science learned that sediments are laid hundreds of metres in a day...we also can make fossil oil carbon fuels from coal easily in a process...

As I said, time is not based on processes , but that's all science bases time on, processes of something moving.... when you watch U tube videos on Science who also debate this question, the listening can get hard... but the fact remains... many question whether our current understanding of time is wrong...

Shalom

 

[rthom7]

ere is a current blog on this subject...again Science is based on Assumptions

According to Science…
Quantum Theory and non-locality goes something like this (in simple terms); Take two particles, A and B (photons or electrons for example). Pair them, then separate them, and put them on either side of the planet. Stimulate particle A, and particle B will react without any perceivable time delay.

In other words both particles act at the same moment in time regardless of distance. This is remarkable right, how can this be? We need to have a physical connection, we need to observe some kind of interconnecting frequency waveform or something! This also means we’ve got an interaction between particles happening way beyond the speed of light, right?

Well, not really.

Quantum studies are showing science, at the fundamental level, that our concept of time as thought of as a linear passage of events is totally wide of the mark, and in fact there is no mark.

All points of reference are arbitrary, they are conveniences, they are non existent in fundamental reality.

What’s actually happening when we denote a point in space is we are collapsing a fluctuating field of vibration into matter http://hardcorejunkie.co/the-illusion-of-time/

I would say the reason both particles A and B react together all at once is because they are linked by Zero point energy, a force field presence of God that Science fails to acknowledge is there, like the ether of space...we have forgotten about God.... we also do not understand Creation is upheld by His presence, thus all materialism is in existence because of God, and since time does not exist with God, nor does time exist in His creation either...but...

The measuring of events, the forward progression of events as the yom says is a day moving forward, God places this in this universe for us to be conscious of events flowing forward... Science today does not allow God over His Creation, so make us theories to explain things without God's presence...and time is one of them...

Shalom

 

[Edward]

You seem to be looking to argue your way to a victory.
Do you really have anything to say?

I got the same thing out of his post, lol...

 

[Jim Parker]

Are you saying by travelling at the speed of light one could travel backwards in time ?

I think it would require going faster than light.

Can you prove this ?

Nope. I'm not a physicist.
Check with the physics dept. at your local university.

I am only aware of a forward progression of events, as the Bible defines, "yom" and other forward progressions of conscious events.

Then you are consulting the wrong book for the answer to a physics question.

Maybe but it does make Newton respect God and His creation, Science is afterall the observation experimental testing of God's creation in the present.
Newton did not believe in a materialistic evolution of molecules.

No "maybe" about it. The Bible is not a science book.
Newton is not the last word on physics. A lot more has been discovered since 1727.

 

[Jim Parker]

Nicholas Steno established the theoretical basis for stratigraphy when he introduced the law of superposition, the principle of original horizontality and the principle of lateral continuity in a 1669 work on the fossilization of organic remains in layers of sediment,

Ah so des ka! Nick the pioneer! OK!

his preface is worded "dedicated to the Noachian flood".

That's nice. But that doesn't make the Bible a science book either.

I notice you do not believe in a global flood while Noah and his family survived.

There was a flood. There are flood epics from ancient cultures around the world.

Adam lived 930 years, as did many others.... the water vapour removed much of the ionization if not all of it.... many of our mutations that cause us our death is caused by cosmic radiation..... God is a god of order.... radioactive Carbon is not ordered...it's a decaying molecule...

That is a matter of faith, not science.
Faith is not proof of anything but that you have faith.

The Bible is still not a science book.
There are two Hebrew words that prove this idea wrong....
"yada" means to know....which is what Science means "to know something"
and "madda" also specifically means "science revealed" what man has learned so far...

Pardon me if I identify that "proof" as 100% baloney.
Where do you get this nonsense?

Da 1:4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science,

Oh great! You're using the Late MIddle English translation of ancient Hebrew to try to make the KJV usage of the word "science" equivalent to the modern English meaning of the word "science."
When the word "מַדָּע" (maddâ') was used in spoken language, the modern concept of science (as practiced by Sir Isaac Newton, for example) was still 2000 years in the future.
Your "proof" does not rise to the level of only being absurd.

There is two types of Bible science, functional and dysfunctional...and both are present on earth as a result of Adam's sinning.

And by your use of the term, "Bible science" you commit "the cold blooded murder of the English tongue" by using a word to describe scripture that is totally foreign to anything in scripture.

Because of your insistence on using the word "science" in a manner that is totally foreign to anything that any of the writers of scripture would have understood, you render your apologetic to the realm of nonsense. You have completely ignored the fact that there was no concept of what we today call science at any time during the approximate 1500 years of Biblical writings and you have ignored the fact that, because English is a living and constantly changing language, the word "science" in 1611 (Late Middle English [LME] or Elizabethan English) does not have the same meaning today as it did in the 16th and 17th centuries.

You are attempting to make the meaning of the LME word "science" an exact equivalent to the modern meaning of the word "science" based on the reading and video you have read and seen. It is apparent that you do not have the training in language to see the absurdity of such a position.

And the people who write those books and make those videos and have those conferences depend on their audiences not having such training in order to continue to perpetuate their fraud.

The Bible is the revelation of God to man.
It tells us of God's great love for His creation and His calling to mankind to be conformed to the image of Christ Who id the exact Icon of the Father in bodily form.

All this "Bible = science" bunk is a distraction from your calling to be Christlike. It is exactly the kind of distraction that Paul warned Timothy to guard against.
2Ti 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
And that's exactly what this so-called "Bible Science" is; a fable. And those who are seeking the truth are not going to be drawn to Christianity by these fables. In fact, they'll be repulsed by the notion that, in order to understand the Gospel, one has to believe such fables.

The Bible is NOT a science book.
The sooner you accept that fat, the sooner people will take you seriously.

Have a fabulously blessed rest of your life.

jim

 

[Jim Parker]

I would say the reason both particles A and B react together all at once is because they are linked by Zero point energy, a force field presence of God that Science fails to acknowledge is there,

Then you would be babbling nonsense.
Science is the study of CREATION.
God is not part of CREATION and is not available for scientific investigation.
How is it that you do not know that?

 

[Jim Parker]

again Science is based on Assumptions

As is your whole "science of the Bible" line based on assumptions.
The difference is that science makes sense and you do not.
Science is based on empirical data any your "Bible science" is based on fantasy.

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Jim

You have written a lot of criticism about Science and the Bible science concepts found in the Holy Word.

So please Define Science in your own words, without using the word "to know", or the word "why", or the word " seeking knowledge" as these are Hebrew words all stemmed from our Science definition, I believe... there are around 4 or 5 Hebrew words for "science" what ever that word means...so you define it for us to read.... And just to be more detailed, here is the list of Hebrew words and there meanings:-

View attachment 9234
These words also apply to Solomon, who asked for "to know" and "seek more" and to "answer why" - so I assume these words have something to do with Science today....

When the word "מַדָּע" (maddâ') was used in spoken language, the modern concept of science (as practiced by Sir Isaac Newton, for example) was still 2000 years in the future.
Your "proof" does not rise to the level of only being absurd.

Your suggesting science only existed today, rather than 3000BC.... my understanding of science is the term means "to know" "to ask why" and to "gain knowledge" about something.... exactly what these Hebrew words are about...

For example

2Ch 1:2 Wisdom and knowledge "madda" is granted unto thee; and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like.

Solomon is supposed to have been the smartest person who ever lived according to Scripture, not sure how he would stack up against Einstein, but I am assuming He knew about things....

Applied science, is a different concept and this implies skills, trade skills and wisdom to do technology and work with materials.... I suppose the ancient civilizations did not make experiments with technology and science...Making the sanctuary from metals, requires skills, material science skills and technology science skills, does it not?

Science is the study of CREATION.
God is not part of CREATION and is not available for scientific investigation.
How is it that you do not know that?

Are you saying God has nothing to do daily with His own Creation?

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath "Ruwach" of life; and man became a living soul.

The Ruwach is a Hebrew word for the Holy Spirit, so the breath of life is a continuous presence of God via the Holy Spirit, that empowers all matter so chosen to be alive.... so yes God's life force is pouring over His Creation daily...

science
ˈsʌɪəns/
noun
noun: science

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

An interesting definition meaning simply to study the natural world through seeing and doing.... in other words to gain knowledge...

Shalom

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Jim

The Bible is NOT a science book.
The sooner you accept that fat, the sooner people will take you seriously.

I found this link among many who agree with me:-

101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge

Psalm 19:1-3 – The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.
Jeremiah 10:12 – He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.

Romans 1:20 – For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts. That book is the Bible.
This booklet presents 101 scientific facts found in the Scriptures. Many of these facts were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece to the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator. How does this affect you? The last several pages provide the answer – you need to read them carefully. http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html

Shalom