If you could step back in time and change the past, your action would have the automatic and immediate effect of changing the present as well. You can’t do it, but God might have done it.
When God aged the wine at Cana, he may have given us a peek at his creation methods in the beginning. Why should God employ an “appearance of age”, when he can impose a real one? He simply steps back in time and creates!
In a single 24-hour period, the starlight travel time problem is solved. This happens as a natural consequence of a supernatural act. Minkowski spacetime and the principle of causality are in full force on Creation Day Four. First, on Day One, God creates the earth in the present – that is, the Minkowski “now”. Then three days later, he enacts a miracle. He steps back into deep time and creates the universe. In so doing, he causes the universe to predate the earth in spacetime order, and causes our past light cone to immediately come into being along with a deep universe history.
The effect on earth’s geology in the present is immediate. In a sense, the earth is “recreated”, only now it is billions of years old. If you were standing in the present and watching the miracle unfold, the earth would suddenly be transformed from a nascent state to a state with mature geologic features. As well, the sun and moon would suddenly come into view.
In ordinal time – that is, the Minkowski “now” – our planet has turned only once and only one day has elapsed. Creation Day Four has ended. Life is next.
The craziness level of that idea makes it comparable to chiropteran guano. In essence, you are embracing last-Thursdayism. I will also note that it invalidates all your scientific claims. The universe really is old. The earth really is old. Life really is old. It’s just that they became old only a few thousand years ago. Thus all data accessible to us should show old universe/earth/life. It also invalidates the flood, unless there’s backward causation negating all evidence for it. You have been forced to destroy your position in order to save it.
God didn’t dream up the wackaloon story about supernatural miracles making time go backwards to give the Earth a false appearance of old age. That was one of his followers.
No, we’re dealing with your notion of what God might have done. Don’t confuse your notions with God.
It’s up to you to show why it’s wrong. If God created the earth with all its backdated strata during creation week, there can be no significant flood deposits, and the fossil record must be backward-caused to be as old as we think it is.
No you won’t put this off on me. We are dealing with an ancient text that says God created in 6 ordinal days. I am trying to deal honestly with that claim and think of every way possible. Not only is that idea feasible 1. because God the omnipotent, could do it but 2. it is actually physically, scientifically, sound
…or better yet, let’s say it this way…be my guest. >>> overthrow it.
As with other forms of Last-Thursdayism or Omphalism, there is no conceivable evidence either for or against it. If you disagree, please refute the idea that the universe was created last Thursday, with full appearance of a prior history. If you want to believe it, fine. Just don’t think that it’s in any way a scientific hypothesis.
And I will also note that it is incompatible with your other notion that a global flood produced the fossil record and that radiometric dates are all due to contamination.
It’s your burden of proof to support this latest loony claim, not the job of anyone else to disprove it.
Did you ever figure out a mechanism for creating angular unconformities of different ages with fossilized remains in both sets of strata? Do you realize your latest claim of backwards time / old appearance directly contradicts your earlier young life creation claims?
There was no “backwards time travel”, not for God. Question: does God presently exist 14 billion years ago?
In our Christian and secular views of a God - with all his omni-attributes which we all conclude he must have in order to be God - does that God presently exist 14 billion years ago (as well as 14 billion years hence)?
If I understand correctly (and I may have it all wrong) the observer in the diagram (the point connect future and past light cones) exists on a plane ( called the hyper surface of the present) with all the other nows throughout space, each with its own set of light cones. So points outside our light cone in the now still exist. Also, I don’t think there’s a privileged reference frame as your idea implies. So I think this is a major problem for you.
@r_speir this is very similar to Hud Hudsons, Hypertime Fall,
He works it out to the point that everyone agrees that 1. it is six day creation, and 2. it is entirely consistent with our observations of an ancient universe. As I said, it is very close to your proposal.
Sheesh. My gosh, you understand this mumbo jumbo? What on earth is he even saying? I need some physical anchors, goalposts, something to tie his lofty thoughts to the real world. Help me.
I have not stipulated a metric yet, but let’s say I stipulate Friedmann spacetime. As such there is not a preferred spacetime frame. So the question becomes, by “privileged reference frame” are you thinking I am requiring a preferred spacetime frame or are you just complaining that God’s selection of our planet as his spacetime starting point for Minkowski “now” could not possibly have occurred? There is a big difference in a preferred spacetime frame and simply a privileged view from earth. Which are you complaining about?
There’s no singular now in Minkowski space. Even if there were, it would be a “point” and certainly not an entity like a planet. Also, a point on the sun is just as valid as a point on earth or in another galaxy because there is no privileged reference frame or “now”
You seem confused. I will try to give an answer to your jumbled reply.
Of course! There is always a “now” in Minkowski spacetime. Is it singular? Why even ask that? That adds nothing to the matter at hand. It sounds like you are trying to catch me at something completely outside the bounds of the pertinent discussion.
Yes, the earth can be considered a “point” in Minkowski spacetime. Why would one even try to argue with that? It too is completely irrelevant and does not add to the discussion. Why are you bringing the sun into the discussion? Of course, it too could be considered a “point”. Are you aware that both the earth and the sun might be considered a “point” in this discussion if so desired? But it would not add meaning. So, either you are confused or you are trying to catch me at something you think is in your favor, but is not.
And why keep bringing up a privileged reference location in the cosmos? As an earth observer, you are always privileged. If I was looking back at you from a distant galaxy, I too would be privileged. Where are you going with this? Are you perhaps conflating a privileged location with a preferred spacetime frame of reference?
I already told you that I might choose the Friedmann metric, and that alone quashes any idea of a preferred spacetime frame.
The earth is your privileged reference frame in the Minkowski now because all other nows are non-existant. The atoms of the earth come from the stellar cloud that condensed into our solar system, that were previously ejected from other older stars. Each has its own path through Minkowski space time but those paths don’t exist, so neither can those atoms. Essentially you created one universe and then replaced it with one entirely different universe and called that the same.
