PLEASE HELP! arguments in evolution

[stevor]

What I just thought of is the 6 days. They've recently discovered that time is getting faster. So, long ago it was slower. Six days for long ago might equal quite a long time for today's time. Would it be the thousands of years? To find out,you'd probably have to find out if the rate is some sort of exponential thing or other curve and try to figure out where on the curve we are now. Then go backwards and see if could be.
If you do it, I'd be interesting what you come up with.

[flynvfae]

that would be really fun. where did you get that information?

[stevor]

I've read it in a number of places. I'm pretty sure that one of the articles in the current Scientific American magazine mentions it, too, but the article isn't about that. It might have been about telescopes to "see back in time" or about some other space thing.

[mith]

Post a link?

[alextemplet]

The big bang and evolution are two completely different concepts. The big bang is a specific theory developed by the Catholic Church to prove the existence of God; evolution is a broad field of research with origins at least as old as ancient Greece, with evidence so overwhelming that scholars from Aristotle (arguably the most renowned thinker of ancient Greece) to Augustine (perhaps the greatest theologian in Christian history) to Pope John Paul II (now called "the Great" for good reason) have been amazed at its comprehensiveness.

The use of the term "intelligent design" to describe anti-evolutionary ideas is inaccurate at best and outright silly at worst. There simply is no reason why an intelligent designer could not have chosen to use evolutionary processes as part of his design plan. I myself believe that the universe is intelligently designed; the conditions for life simply seem too delicately balanced not to be. But intelligent design is not real science, and I do not reject legitimate scientific theories over any sort of philosophical dispute. Like anyone else who has seriously studied the subject, I am convinced that evolutionary theory is the most solidly supported account of the history of life on earth. I simply cannot see how it could be any other way.

[flynvfae]

wow i didnt know the big bang was made by catholics
i bet alot of catholics dont know that either

[alextemplet]

You're probably right. But you don't have to take my word for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

[stevor]

I wish I had the references handy, but I don't. Anyhow, the speed of time is thought to be changing. When we "look back" in time through space, it is related to the speed of time. If time was different long ago, then what was "long ago" is not long ago. I'm too tired right now (a long day) to figure which would be right if time is getting faster, but that would either mean that "long ago" was "longer ago" or "not as long ago". That doesn't prove or disprove the Big Bang, but it sure changes what can be calculated, and how old the universe is.

If the universe is not nearly as old as "current" theory suggests, that means there was less time to "evolve" (to get back on topic about evolution). If you extrapolate biological changes that weren't within species of a thousand years ago with species of today, I doubt that there's enough time for everything to have started from "nothingness" to what it is today.

According to Wikipedia, the universe is 13.7 billion years old. That's 13.7 million thousands. If you can name 1000 steps of evolution from a thousand years ago and multiply it by 13.7 million, I doubt that's near to all the steps that were supposed to have evolved since the Big Bang (and I'd guess there's a lot more than a trillion steps (80 per year needed to be in the correct order for all of those 13.7 billion years, including all the years with toxic gases that needed coalesce and molten lava making the universe uninhabitable) that would get us from step zero to what is around today.

[mith]

what exactly does speed of time mean?

If you assume time is like a movie reel, does that mean the frames are being played out faster?

Or are the actual frames themselves being snipped short?

[stevor]

Supposedly, a second from long ago does not match a current second. I read something about how they figure it out, probably related to looking back in time through telescopes, but don't recall where I read it.

From what I understand, they currently measure time by the vibrations of a Cesium atom or something like that (and thus the Cesium clock is THE clock). I guess the atoms were faster or slower before.

[alextemplet]

I've always thought of time as the distance travelled through the fourth (temporal) dimension; thus, one second equals the same distance no matter what. Is a meter any longer or shorter than in the past? Of course not. "Time" is merely a concept that we use to measure distance through a particular dimension, and its measurements are only what we decide they should be.

[Feast23]

thats because no one gives them a chance

That is because if you start by refusing science as part of your starting hypothesis, you are not likely to be published in anything scientific...

So in other words you are saying that you dont believe in God and the Bible is a book of lies