: Since that is observably the case, it is, in my opinion, common sense to presuppose that our concept of the physical world millions - even hundreds of thousands - of years ago may be somewhat askew.You've completely and illogically switched gears. I said that the actual behavior of physical things has not changed in billions of years. You're now talking about how the conceptions of scientists, as embodied in the latest statements of physical "law", change. One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.
I would like to start by saying that I have admired many of your posts since I started reading here. These posts in our discussion here are no exception.
While I did not go to great lengths to explain myself in detail, assuming that many of the things you have since mentioned were well understood by you, I continue to find it amusing how quickly you have niched "my view" of things. You said that the actual behavior of physical things has not changed in billions of years (as I recall, not in those words, exactly) but our description of those actual behaviors has changed significantly many times. While reality does not change, our concept of what reality is does change.
I am not talking about a distinction between observation and explanation of observation, I am talking about our innately limited ability to correctly assess what we are observing. I did not say that decay rates do change, I said I am personally not confident that we can say we understand enough about isotopes themselves to state with certainty that their currently observed nature is as it always has been.
What evidence do you have, for example, that isotope decay rates may change over time?
Should the question be inverted ... but that is a digression. I am not even hung up on decay rates, per se. I am saying that our abilities to observe phenomenon and arrive at immutable conclusions about the consistency of observed behavior have been proven wanting time and again and that conceptualization rather than observation is usually the key to recognizing the inconsistencies in the "consistent" behavior of physical things.
So that you will know, I believe that space is much more like the Riemann-Kaluza model. I believe that all matter originated from a fixed point, billions of years ago. I believe that our concept of space must first expand to accept more than three dimensions of space and one of time before all matter can be tracked back to arrive simultaneously at a specific point at the same "time." I believe the concept of more dimensions of space and/or time means we must allow for the possibility that actual physical behaviors evidenced in our "observable" dimensional viewpoint can be influenced by actual physical behaviors of things that do not exist in our "observable" dimensional viewpoint?and even of things that exist both inside and outside.
If that is Young Earther talk, it's news to me. Since we are barely scratching the surface of potential impacts exerted on our "observable" dimensional viewpoint from these "conceptual" perspectives of a greater reality that cannot be directly observed, I personally choose to withold judgement when it comes to our accuracy in interpretting the observable behavior of matter as the actual behavior. Thus my statement that I am "not confident" of our current abilities as a species.
As to my being anti-evolutionist, I wasn't aware I held that viewpoint. Please clear up for me what gave you that idea. I would say I am neither evolutionist nor Creationist, strictly speaking. I can say I am definitely NOT a fundamentalist. Not that I am trying to impress, mind you. I have not pretended anywhere on this forum to be anything other than I am, a man. There is nothing terribly impressive about being a specimen of the human race.
Are my opinions not welcome on this topic? If so, I will take my leave.
Respectfully,
OldSoul