Radiometric Dating and the Special Theory of Relativity.

(Me talking about Warner)
If he persists in believing that in the past time/days/years were different from the present he must also explain explain the correlations between all these levels of dating methodologies.(Warner's reply to me)
Mmm, perhaps you could summarise your point, because I'm feeling a bit muddled. You say they agree with each other, but measuring time in years or perceived age is one thing, and ...Let's say, for example, that in a year a carpenter can make 500 windows of a certain size.
What about a few million years ago (I say again, whatever that means!), maybe the carpenter could have made 50,000 windows in a year.
ie. the "time" went by very slowly(Another user 'Noggin' chimes in)
It seems to me that in this example, if I was the carpenter's next-door-neighbour I would be experiencing time passing at two different rates simultaneously. And since this doesn't seem to be a real possibility, that indicates that there's a conceptual problem in the formulation - which, as I suggested earlier, arises from supposing that time has some reality apart from its measurement.(Warner's reply to Noggin)
Yes, you are understanding what I'm getting at, I think, but:>> if I was the carpenter's next-door-neighbour I would be experiencing time passing at two different rates simultaneously.<<That's another angle, but I really meant that his neighbour would experience that the day was "longer" also.Summing up, I'm making a couple of points here. It's difficult to get it across, but we have the "apparent age" of things such as "it looks old and wrinkled", and then we have a measure of time due to motion, such as "earth's orbit round the sun", and then we have how long is it in terms of "getting things done".I know LJ's thinking that all his measures of time correlate, but what is he/we actually measuring. Ahaaa ... Realative to WHAT; not relative to God, THAT'S for sure, because he seems to have excluded the possibility of a superior force/being/intelligence to mankind that perceives that which we cannot, by design!Of course, if we could perceive what God perceives (or HOW God perceives), then life wouldn't be life as we know it.

He think time was running faster. Like a dvd on fast forward. So millions of layers were deposited, atomic nuclei decayed at they normal rate (but sped up)*, and this is all to do with (I kid you not) the fact that god is a fourth dimensional creature who sees time as variable with no cause or effect.

*i.e not that there were fewer frames of film but that it ran through the projector at twice the speed.

So the biblical calendar calculations are on 4Dgod time instead of human perception time.

Your arm's off.
No it isn't.
What are you going to do, bleed on me?
The Black Knight is invincible!
You're a loony!

The stock YEcreationist response is that the decay rates changed, and thus all you are seeing is the result of fast decay rather than long time.

The standard Warnerist response is that the decay rates haven't changed, but all you are seeing is the result of fast time. rather than fast decay

The standard Warnerist response is that the decay rates haven't changed, but all you are seeing is the result of fast time. rather than fast decay

If you speed up the movie, the Earth goes around the sun faster, but everything happens faster, so the same amount of things get accomplished as if the sun had gone it's normal speed. There's no difference.

You are suggesting that you're almost certain that space-time has not significantly changed over a billion years, from the point of view of "today's reference point". You take "the model of the universe" as "simple and predictable", whereas I do not ... and I acknowledge that "time" belongs to the One who "created it" along with the other dimensions in space.You assume, that as you are using the same reference point(s) over a billion years, that your measuring of time has significance
ie. makes sense and correlates with today's reference point.This IS an assumption which I don't share. Why should I? I wasn't here in the universe 100 years ago, although I'm aware of my ancestors endevours, yet alone millions of years ago ... you presume to know how this complicated universe that you perceive has been behaving in your absense, and furthermore, in the COMPLETE absense of mankind from the planet. If that's not an extrapolation, I'd like to know what is!You're saying "this is what happened millions of years ago, according to the evidence".
I'm saying, "Your statement has little meaning to me, because you make assumptions (with today's point of reference re time) that I don't share.I can agree with you on a scientific basis that studying tree-rings, ice-cores, corals, fossils give us reliable records of a "meaningful" history of the planet going back say, a few hundred thousand years, and I think that's being generous. Going back much further than that, I wouldn't call it an accurate reliable method of establishing the truth of the origins of space-time. Extrapolation is very useful in making "models" for mankind to study so as to give us an idea of how the world's climate might change or how spieces can evolve etc. but relying entirely on extrapolations and predicting certainties is naive and VERY foolish. IMHO.

I can agree with you on a scientific basis that studying tree-rings, ice-cores, corals, fossils give us reliable records of a "meaningful" history of the planet going back say, a few hundred thousand years, and I think that's being generous. Going back much further than that, I wouldn't call it an accurate reliable method of establishing the truth of the origins of space-time. Extrapolation is very useful in making "models" for mankind to study so as to give us an idea of how the world's climate might change or how spieces can evolve etc. but relying entirely on extrapolations and predicting certainties is naive and VERY foolish. IMHO.