simple writes:
Therefore it is NOT science to make claims about the future or far past using an assumption it was physical only, unless that could be solidly supported!
Don't you yourself make predictions about the future? Let's say you're going on trip and have to drive 300 miles. You know you can average 60 mph. Don't you predict that it will take 5 hours of driving time to get there? And don't you then call your friends at the other end and say, "I'm leaving at 10 AM, so I should be there by 3 PM?"
Of course you do. Because your experience tells you that the world will behave tomorrow just as it does today.
The Europeans just had a probe reach the planet Venus earlier today. They accurately calculated the velocity and timing needed for a spacecraft launched from Earth 5 months ago to reach the present location of Venus.
And why is the past okay for science, but not the far past? Do you have any evidence for a boundary between the past and far past? Do you know how long ago that boundary occurred, or what caused it?
If the physical laws of the universe were not reliable and consistent then we would have evidence of it. We don't.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
