Infinite time?

[charris]

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past. All that would be required is for a previous event or cause (depending on you interpretation of QM).

I mentioned this, and was met with the objection, "If the past was infinite, then it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here." I personally think this objection is pointless, so maybe if you think this is the case you could expound upon it. If you disagree, then if you could post your reasons as well I would appreciate it.

Also, if you disagree because of other reasons, I would like to hear them.

[LittleNipper]

The elasticity of fossil remains https://answersingenesis.org/creation-v ... -creation/ There are far too many variables that point to Creation and not Billions of years and the chance model.

You have to be kidding! Have you never read their statement of faith?
"...it is imperative that all persons employed by the AiG ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith and conduct themselves accordingly."
https://answersingenesis.org/about/fait ... DMQAvD_BwE

The reason is obvious as to why no religion has ever overturned something we have discovered via the scientific method. Religious claims come and go.

So why have scientific researchers changed their tune. Here are but a few examples: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sci ... s-mistakes https://www.famousscientists.org/10-mos ... -debunked/

In contrast, please how a belief of the Bible that has been proven wrong...

[benchwarmer]

The elasticity of fossil remains https://answersingenesis.org/creation-v ... -creation/ There are far too many variables that point to Creation and not Billions of years and the chance model.

You have to be kidding! Have you never read their statement of faith?
"...it is imperative that all persons employed by the AiG ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith and conduct themselves accordingly."
https://answersingenesis.org/about/fait ... DMQAvD_BwE

The reason is obvious as to why no religion has ever overturned something we have discovered via the scientific method. Religious claims come and go.

So why have scientific researchers changed their tune.

Ummm, if you are in the Science and Religion section debating it's somewhat expected (hoped for?) that you understand the basic scientific method. Science has a built in mechanism for updating previous knowledge if/when better methodology and data have superseded older understanding.

The entire point is that when you are employing and understanding science properly, it's fully expected to have previous understanding updated/improved/overturned if necessary. This is a feature, not a bug. Science is not a religion. The only remotely 'religious' aspect of it is that you have to follow the scientific method or it ceases to be science.

In contrast, please how a belief of the Bible that has been proven wrong...

While science has proven the Bible wrong in many areas, internal contradictions in the Bible itself are (should be?) enough.

I suggest rereading the book of Genesis again very closely. Note the two separate creation stories. Don't worry, they happen in the first two chapters so it won't take long. If you would like some quick links here you go:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

As for science disproving Bible stories, it happens right in the first chapter in Genesis. In fact, it happens in the first sentence of the first chapter of the first book. i.e. We don't even get one sentence in and its wrong. Of course do your own research into planet formation research, but here's a starter:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/research/to ... -formation

The Bible story starts with Earth being the first thing there. Everything else (including light from stars) comes later.

So we have a double failure. The Bible internally fails with no science objections needed. Each of the stories also fails on their own as they don't comport with modern knowledge of how things work.

In short, you can't even make it past the first page before running into wrong. It doesn't get any better if you keep reading. In fact, I heartily recommend anyone with a passing interest in Christianity to read the entire Bible from cover to cover in case anyone thinks maybe we just keep pointing at Genesis because it's the only problem. It just happens to be one of the easiest problems to point at because you only have a read a couple chapters right at the front of the book.

[LittleNipper]

The elasticity of fossil remains https://answersingenesis.org/creation-v ... -creation/ There are far too many variables that point to Creation and not Billions of years and the chance model.

You have to be kidding! Have you never read their statement of faith?
"...it is imperative that all persons employed by the AiG ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith and conduct themselves accordingly."
https://answersingenesis.org/about/fait ... DMQAvD_BwE

The reason is obvious as to why no religion has ever overturned something we have discovered via the scientific method. Religious claims come and go.

So why have scientific researchers changed their tune.

Ummm, if you are in the Science and Religion section debating it's somewhat expected (hoped for?) that you understand the basic scientific method. Science has a built in mechanism for updating previous knowledge if/when better methodology and data have superseded older understanding.

The entire point is that when you are employing and understanding science properly, it's fully expected to have previous understanding updated/improved/overturned if necessary. This is a feature, not a bug. Science is not a religion. The only remotely 'religious' aspect of it is that you have to follow the scientific method or it ceases to be science.

In contrast, please how a belief of the Bible that has been proven wrong...

While science has proven the Bible wrong in many areas, internal contradictions in the Bible itself are (should be?) enough.

I suggest rereading the book of Genesis again very closely. Note the two separate creation stories. Don't worry, they happen in the first two chapters so it won't take long. If you would like some quick links here you go:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

As for science disproving Bible stories, it happens right in the first chapter in Genesis. In fact, it happens in the first sentence of the first chapter of the first book. i.e. We don't even get one sentence in and its wrong. Of course do your own research into planet formation research, but here's a starter:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/research/to ... -formation

The Bible story starts with Earth being the first thing there. Everything else (including light from stars) comes later.

So we have a double failure. The Bible internally fails with no science objections needed. Each of the stories also fails on their own as they don't comport with modern knowledge of how things work.

In short, you can't even make it past the first page before running into wrong. It doesn't get any better if you keep reading. In fact, I heartily recommend anyone with a passing interest in Christianity to read the entire Bible from cover to cover in case anyone thinks maybe we just keep pointing at Genesis because it's the only problem. It just happens to be one of the easiest problems to point at because you only have a read a couple chapters right at the front of the book.

But do scientists actually always follow the scientific method? Don't they conveniently leave out the part regarding observation? Did you know that because of Hubble astronomers are recently beginning to question the Big "THEORY". Yet, I still firmly accept that GOD/CHRIST spoke all of Creation into existence. That revelation has still not been proven wrong ---- and for how many MILLENNIUM?

[benchwarmer]

But do scientists actually always follow the scientific method?

Let me answer your obvious question with a similar one. Do Christians always follow the ten commandments?

I think we both know the answer is no in both cases. So what?

If a scientist is using the scientific method, then science is being done. If not, then they are not conducting science.

Don't they conveniently leave out the part regarding observation?

What? Are you claiming ALL scientists leave out observation? Got any evidence for that? That's a pretty sweeping claim that we all know is false.

Did you know that because of Hubble astronomers are recently beginning to question the Big "THEORY".

First, pick an argument. Are scientists not observing or are they?

Yes, I'm familiar that the new James Web telescope had captured some stunning data that initially looked like it may cause our understanding to change. So far, it seems the Big Bang theory is remaining intact. Do you have a link to an actual scientific paper that suggests otherwise? If so, I would love to read it. Please don't point me to AIG or some other Christian site, I want hard science since this is what we are discussing.

https://www.space.com/james-webb-space- ... -explained

https://webb.nasa.gov/content/features/ ... 20universe.

This is how science works. Better data + better methodology = better science = better understanding.

Yet, I still firmly accept that GOD/CHRIST spoke all of Creation into existence. That revelation has still not been proven wrong ---- and for how many MILLENNIUM?

And now we are back to simple faith claims, not science. You can't on one hand complain that some scientists might not be following the scientific method in some cases while on the other hand you are completely discarding it yourself.

Again, you seem to have a misunderstanding of how science works. It is not in the business of disproving faith claims or any other bald assertions people want to make. It is in the business of providing a method that allows us to follow observable evidence and hopefully discover how things work.

Have you observed God/Christ? Have you observed any god? If so, please publish your method and findings so it can be peer reviewed and we can all benefit.

Otherwise, your claim is no different than me saying "There is an invisible, pink unicorn living in my hedge. PROVE ME WRONG!!!!".

How about attempting to provide actual, usable evidence for your claims so the rest of us can verify it.

[LittleNipper]

But do scientists actually always follow the scientific method?

Let me answer your obvious question with a similar one. Do Christians always follow the ten commandments?

I think we both know the answer is no in both cases. So what?

If a scientist is using the scientific method, then science is being done. If not, then they are not conducting science.

Don't they conveniently leave out the part regarding observation?

What? Are you claiming ALL scientists leave out observation? Got any evidence for that? That's a pretty sweeping claim that we all know is false.

Did you know that because of Hubble astronomers are recently beginning to question the Big "THEORY".

First, pick an argument. Are scientists not observing or are they?

Yes, I'm familiar that the new James Web telescope had captured some stunning data that initially looked like it may cause our understanding to change. So far, it seems the Big Bang theory is remaining intact. Do you have a link to an actual scientific paper that suggests otherwise? If so, I would love to read it. Please don't point me to AIG or some other Christian site, I want hard science since this is what we are discussing.

https://www.space.com/james-webb-space- ... -explained

https://webb.nasa.gov/content/features/ ... 20universe.

This is how science works. Better data + better methodology = better science = better understanding.

Yet, I still firmly accept that GOD/CHRIST spoke all of Creation into existence. That revelation has still not been proven wrong ---- and for how many MILLENNIUM?

And now we are back to simple faith claims, not science. You can't on one hand complain that some scientists might not be following the scientific method in some cases while on the other hand you are completely discarding it yourself.

Again, you seem to have a misunderstanding of how science works. It is not in the business of disproving faith claims or any other bald assertions people want to make. It is in the business of providing a method that allows us to follow observable evidence and hopefully discover how things work.

Have you observed God/Christ? Have you observed any god? If so, please publish your method and findings so it can be peer reviewed and we can all benefit.

Otherwise, your claim is no different than me saying "There is an invisible, pink unicorn living in my hedge. PROVE ME WRONG!!!!".

How about attempting to provide actual, usable evidence for your claims so the rest of us can verify it.

When did a evolutionist witness Macro Evolution in progress? I've certainly witnessed GOD working in my own life, and HE answers my requests. There is certainly quite a lot of evidence that JESUS was a real person, and HE claimed that HE was the SON of GOD (making HIM GOD the I AM). Even Mahammad was a real person (tell me he wasn't), yet he didn't claim to be GOD's SON. Pink unicorns would at best be a CREATED animal. When I find one I'll give it a carrot and I'll let you know... Were any dinosaurs "pink". What color were they?

PS> Is there an invisible pink unicorn living in your hedge? How can you tell what color it is? You do know that the primary way fossils are formed is with mud and water. Sounds like a Flood to me.

[benchwarmer]

When did a evolutionist witness Macro Evolution in progress?

First, link me to a scientific paper that explains what "Macro Evolution" is. If you can't do that, we are dead in the water before we start. Also care to define 'evolutionist'? Is this some sort of back handed insult for the word 'biologist'?

Hint, this entire line of questioning is a common strawman used by some science deniers. I think the actual scientific word you might be looking for is 'speciation'. However, let's wait for your evidence about "Macro Evolution", whatever that is first.

I've certainly witnessed GOD working in my own life, and HE answers my requests.

So you actually saw God? Huh, that seems to be against scripture.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one shall see me and live.”

Care to try again? Maybe shift the goal posts a bit more to the left so you don't run afoul of your very own scripture?

There is certainly quite a lot of evidence that JESUS was a real person,

Really? Do tell. As far as I'm aware, all of it is contained in the Christian Bible. The few extrabiblical mentions talk about Christians, but no first hand accounts of seeing Jesus.

Please enlighten us and provide links to this "quite a lot of evidence".

and HE claimed that HE was the SON of GOD (making HIM GOD the I AM).

I've claimed I was right many times and later proven wrong by my spouse. Simply making claims is proof of nothing other than people make claims.

Even Mahammad was a real person (tell me he wasn't),

I don't have to. You are making the claim, you have to provide the evidence. Are you forgetting how this debate thing works?

Pink unicorns would at best be a CREATED animal.

Another claim. Evidence?

When I find one I'll give it a carrot and I'll let you know... Were any dinosaurs "pink". What color were they?

Here's a start to answer your question. Google really is so handy. I'm surprised you didn't bother to even look before typing out what you thought was a 'zinger' that could not be answered.

https://www.discovery.com/science/how-d ... saurs-were

But in 2010, a close examination of the feathers of Sinosauropteryx resulted in a surprising reveal. Discovered in 1996, Sinosauropteryx was the first dinosaur we found with feathers (though that might be splitting hairs since the line between bird and dino is notoriously blurry). When examined under a microscope, however, those feathers were found to have surviving melanosomes: the tiny, cellular organelles that generate melanin, and thus, pigment.

So what color were dinosaurs? For now, we can't answer that question for every dino, but when it comes to Sinosauropteryx, the picture is nearly complete. And very raccoon-like. These little beasts, which were only about a meter (three feet) long, had a robber mask around their eyes, dark, reddish coloration on their backs, a pale belly, and long striped tails.

PS> Is there an invisible pink unicorn living in your hedge? How can you tell what color it is?

I know using your method. I just made a baseless faith claim and expected you to believe me. If it's good enough for you to use, surely I can use the same method right?

You do know that the primary way fossils are formed is with mud and water. Sounds like a Flood to me.

Your scientific rigor on full display I guess. Some fossils are formed after being buried in mud and you jump to a flood (I can only assume you are referencing the global flood in the Bible).

Again, a quick google search would have avoided this error.

https://australian.museum/learn/austral ... sils-form/
NOTE: I have removed all the details (now just ... below), and just provided the titles. Follow the link and/or do your own fact checking:

Five common ways that fossils form
Permineralisation...
Impression fossils...
Amber ...
Trace fossils ...
Soft tissues ...

What it's all sounding like to me is someone who runs to places like Answers in Genesis or other science denying Christian websites for science information instead of looking at actual published research.

[Clownboat]

But do scientists actually always follow the scientific method? Don't they conveniently leave out the part regarding observation? Did you know that because of Hubble astronomers are recently beginning to question the Big "THEORY". Yet, I still firmly accept that GOD/CHRIST spoke all of Creation into existence. That revelation has still not been proven wrong ---- and for how many MILLENNIUM?

And the bold is what would have made you a good Muslim if you were born elsewhere. Pretty meaningless as far trying to justify odd beliefs about gods speaking the universe into existence, but you do you. I trust you understand as to why your explanation is meaningless to those not in your choir already.

Why do religious people like to pretend that humans that don't accept any of the available god concepts hold on to scientific theories like religious people do their religious beliefs? Science could show that the expansion of the universe is wrong or that the theory that explains evolution is wrong and I wouldn't lose any sleep. I would be on the edge of my seat waiting to hear the better explanation.

Meanwhile the religious mechanism is: "I still firmly accept that GOD/CHRIST spoke all of Creation into existence."

The honest answer to how the universe formed is, "I don't know".
This allows for investigation.
The religious answers are: "my god or gods did it".
This stops all investigation.
Do you understand as to why pretending to know the unknowable is bad for gaining knowledge? If so, why is it ok for religions to do this? Or is it only ok for your religion to do it (special pleading)?

[Clownboat]

When did a evolutionist witness Macro Evolution in progress?

First, link me to a scientific paper that explains what "Macro Evolution" is. If you can't do that, we are dead in the water before we start. Also care to define 'evolutionist'? Is this some sort of back handed insult for the word 'biologist'?

Hint, this entire line of questioning is a common strawman used by some science deniers. I think the actual scientific word you might be looking for is 'speciation'. However, let's wait for your evidence about "Macro Evolution", whatever that is first.

I've certainly witnessed GOD working in my own life, and HE answers my requests.

So you actually saw God? Huh, that seems to be against scripture.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one shall see me and live.”

Care to try again? Maybe shift the goal posts a bit more to the left so you don't run afoul of your very own scripture?

There is certainly quite a lot of evidence that JESUS was a real person,

Really? Do tell. As far as I'm aware, all of it is contained in the Christian Bible. The few extrabiblical mentions talk about Christians, but no first hand accounts of seeing Jesus.

Please enlighten us and provide links to this "quite a lot of evidence".

and HE claimed that HE was the SON of GOD (making HIM GOD the I AM).

I've claimed I was right many times and later proven wrong by my spouse. Simply making claims is proof of nothing other than people make claims.

Even Mahammad was a real person (tell me he wasn't),

I don't have to. You are making the claim, you have to provide the evidence. Are you forgetting how this debate thing works?

Pink unicorns would at best be a CREATED animal.

Another claim. Evidence?

When I find one I'll give it a carrot and I'll let you know... Were any dinosaurs "pink". What color were they?

Here's a start to answer your question. Google really is so handy. I'm surprised you didn't bother to even look before typing out what you thought was a 'zinger' that could not be answered.

https://www.discovery.com/science/how-d ... saurs-were

But in 2010, a close examination of the feathers of Sinosauropteryx resulted in a surprising reveal. Discovered in 1996, Sinosauropteryx was the first dinosaur we found with feathers (though that might be splitting hairs since the line between bird and dino is notoriously blurry). When examined under a microscope, however, those feathers were found to have surviving melanosomes: the tiny, cellular organelles that generate melanin, and thus, pigment.

So what color were dinosaurs? For now, we can't answer that question for every dino, but when it comes to Sinosauropteryx, the picture is nearly complete. And very raccoon-like. These little beasts, which were only about a meter (three feet) long, had a robber mask around their eyes, dark, reddish coloration on their backs, a pale belly, and long striped tails.

PS> Is there an invisible pink unicorn living in your hedge? How can you tell what color it is?

I know using your method. I just made a baseless faith claim and expected you to believe me. If it's good enough for you to use, surely I can use the same method right?

You do know that the primary way fossils are formed is with mud and water. Sounds like a Flood to me.

Your scientific rigor on full display I guess. Some fossils are formed after being buried in mud and you jump to a flood (I can only assume you are referencing the global flood in the Bible).

Again, a quick google search would have avoided this error.

https://australian.museum/learn/austral ... sils-form/
NOTE: I have removed all the details (now just ... below), and just provided the titles. Follow the link and/or do your own fact checking:

Five common ways that fossils form
Permineralisation...
Impression fossils...
Amber ...
Trace fossils ...
Soft tissues ...

What it's all sounding like to me is someone who runs to places like Answers in Genesis or other science denying Christian websites for science information instead of looking at actual published research.

Just look at all the knowledge benchwarmer wouldn't have obtained if he pretended to know these things based off of religious claims.

To person A: How do fossils form?
A: A global flood!
To person B: How do fossils form?
B: I don't know, so I'm going to investigate and I now have additional knowledge that would have escaped me had I accepted one of the many religious explanations.

Religious explanations literally stop discovery of new information! I don't see how this can be a good thing for societies.

[TheHolyGhost]

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past.

Until it comes to the end of time.

[Clownboat]

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past.

Until it comes to the end of time.

What end of time are you referring to and why do you think that time will end?
You bolded your words and added emojis, but your statement doesn't relay any meaning as you typed it.

Thanks for the clarification.