Detaching evolution from time

[EarlyActs]

I recently finished a small study that I think can help people with Genesis. I think it may be 'time' for us to get over the time problem. That problem is that most research says there are huge time periods going back. When evolutionary theory is added to this, it becomes an explanation of sorts of our biological life. And it is pretty dismal.

Now what we should notice is the attachment to time because evolution would need that to succeed. It could never happen in a few thousand.

But evolution is really falling apart lately. See discovery.org's Evolution News. There is no such thing.

So the position of my book is that if there is no advantage to their being long ages past and no evolution, what difference does it make if the vast universe around us (not the local objects) are very old?

I not only find support for this in certain word-choice in Genesis, but in Peter's own comments.

My book is online, Back In Business. Marcus Sanford.

 

[CrowCross]

I recently finished a small study that I think can help people with Genesis. I think it may be 'time' for us to get over the time problem. That problem is that most research says there are huge time periods going back. When evolutionary theory is added to this, it becomes an explanation of sorts of our biological life. And it is pretty dismal.

Now what we should notice is the attachment to time because evolution would need that to succeed. It could never happen in a few thousand.

But evolution is really falling apart lately. See discovery.org's Evolution News. There is no such thing.

So the position of my book is that if there is no advantage to their being long ages past and no evolution, what difference does it make if the vast universe around us (not the local objects) are very old?

I not only find support for this in certain word-choice in Genesis, but in Peter's own comments.

My book is online, Back In Business. Marcus Sanford.

Considering gravity slows time down something existing in a lesser gravitational field would appear older to something in a greater gradational field.

Time on the International Space Station moves slightly slower than with a person sitting on a beach chair by the ocean.

 

[Frank Robert]

I recently finished a small study that I think can help people with Genesis. I think it may be 'time' for us to get over the time problem. That problem is that most research says there are huge time periods going back. When evolutionary theory is added to this, it becomes an explanation of sorts of our biological life. And it is pretty dismal.

Now what we should notice is the attachment to time because evolution would need that to succeed. It could never happen in a few thousand.

Why do you doubt the 20th century science that evolution happened over 4.55 billion years old, which by the way, is the age of the earth?

By dating the rocks in Earth's ever-changing crust, as well as the rocks in Earth's neighbors, such as the moon and visiting meteorites, scientists have calculated that Earth is 4.54 billion years old, with an error range of 50 million years. Source...​

But evolution is really falling apart lately. See discovery.org's Evolution News. There is no such thing.

So you say. There is zero scientific evidence at Evolution News to substantiate their erroneous claims.

So the position of my book is that if there is no advantage to their being long ages past and no evolution, what difference does it make if the vast universe around us (not the local objects) are very old?

That is your point of view which is totally non nonsensical as it is not based on any scientific facts.

I not only find support for this in certain word-choice in Genesis, but in Peter's own comments.

Peter could have had a 20th century understanding of the search for order in the world through physical laws and conservation principles.

 

[CrowCross]

Why do you doubt the 20th century science that evolution happened over 4.55 billion years old, which by the way, is the age of the earth?
By dating the rocks in Earth's ever-changing crust, as well as the rocks in Earth's neighbors, such as the moon and visiting meteorites, scientists have calculated that Earth is 4.54 billion years old, with an error range of 50 million years. Source...

There is problems with radiometric dating...They don't know the amount of the original parent isotope.