Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

[ecco]

Fine use the word theory. However when I hazard a guess for things unknown theory is not really the word.

But you weren't hazarding a guess. It is your belief that Australia left Pangea and sped across the Pacific to its current location in a relatively short period of time. This is your theory to account for Roos and Koalas being present in Australia. Your theory is that the separation must have taken place sometime after the Flood.

The only guessing you admitted to was that it took a Century whereas you stated that your mentor Walt thought it took a lot less time.

But, as I already stated, in the future, I'll use nonsense concepts or maybe just WAG to describe your made-up beliefs. Regardless of what they are called, you have been unable to provide any support for any of them.

Now as for evidence in the bible that any separation has to be fast...just look at when the flood and tower of Babel were. Not a lot of time to play with.

The big problem with that nonsense concept WAG is that there is no evidence for a Global Flood 6000 years ago.

You really can't make a case for something in the Bible by trying to use something in the Bible to support things in the Bible. This is especially true since even most Christians and most Christian scholars no longer support an actual Global Flood.

 

[ecco]

Once again I have to remind you of what you posted. You posted that you believed it took about a Century. Don't you remember that?

I could allow up to that time. However, looking at the smash up that resulted in uplifted mountains and heat etc...perhaps it was faster.

See, now you are guessing. You have absolutely no factual support for any of your guesses.
It's like guessing that maybe a very long invisible string keeps the moon in its orbit around the sun.

You need to understand that the majority of educated Christians have rejected the stories in Genesis as allegory because they recognize that the stories make no logical sense. They know that continents can not zip across the ocean like little boats.

 

[ecco]

Lurkers: since this poster offers nothing but blind trust in dates because he trusts the folks who cite them, I can tell you that the dates are based on same state/nature past belief. Nothing else whatsoever.

It's become quite clear, from this thread alone that you deny radioactive dating methods. But that denial no longer works even for you. You have now taken a leap into believing in alternate pasts natures. That is something you alluded to here by writing about "same state/nature past" and in other posts as "alternate past natures".

You are at the point where even your Bible cannot support your nonsense ideas and you have to make up alternate past natures.

You keep descending further and further down into the rabbit hole.

 

[dad]

Right, because when the evidence of reality disagrees with your a priori fundamentalist religious beliefs, it MUST be reality that is incorrect.

No, actually, it is because I know how so called dates are attained by science. Once they near the time when nature was different their 'dates' experience an error curve so immense that it loses all contact with real time. Your dates are near the cusp on this. Sort of close, but no cigar. The actual dates can be gleaned from accounts of Jewish tradition and Scripture.

So people who speak the same language have no use for writing and reading?

Hard to say. However I like to stick to what we KNOW. What is known is that the first civilizations in history (that the bible would place as post flood) did write, albeit even if if was just picture writing at first! There are NO records of writing before this.

To be simple and clear, I place the flood possibly somewhere near or at the KT layer. No writings go back that far, and science does not even realize man existed at the time! They have been drowned in a delusional sea of religious dream dates and bizarre nightmarish godless models of a past that had precious little resemblance to actual history.

 

[dad]

You need have no fear of that. You are a Bible Toten', Fundamentalist, Creationist -period and exclamation mark.

Better than worm spawn.

 

[dad]

Not so. If your life truly had meaning you wouldn't be so dependent on a belief in eternity.

If our lives have meaning we would realize this world is just a small part of the picture.

 

[dad]

But you weren't hazarding a guess. It is your belief that Australia left Pangea and sped across the Pacific to its current location in a relatively short period of time. This is your theory to account for Roos and Koalas being present in Australia. Your theory is that the separation must have taken place sometime after the Flood.

That is correct. The time it took exactly I don't know. Nor do I know that marsupials and evolved only once they were on location in Australia.

The only guessing you admitted to was that it took a Century whereas you stated that your mentor Walt thought it took a lot less time.

OK, but I could swing either way, depending on evidence.

The big problem with that nonsense concept WAG is that there is no evidence for a Global Flood 6000 years ago.

That was not when the flood was in science time. You conflate actual time with dream dates based solely on the belief nature was uniform through all time.

You really can't make a case for something in the Bible by trying to use something in the Bible to support things in the Bible. This is especially true since even most Christians and most Christian scholars no longer support an actual Global Flood.

I don't need to make a case for His word. All I do is point out science really doesn't know after all, and why. They have no authority to dispute Scripture.

 

[dad]

See, now you are guessing. You have absolutely no factual support for any of your guesses.
It's like guessing that maybe a very long invisible string keeps the moon in its orbit around the sun.

There really was a pile up. There really was a separation. Your problem is that you want to eliminate history and the bible/flood/former nature by washing all facts in your religion.

You need to understand that the majority of educated Christians have rejected the stories in Genesis as allegory because they recognize that the stories make no logical sense

We should have believed God. They have chose to disrespect Scripture and reverence man's 'wisdom'.

. They know that continents can not zip across the ocean like little boats.

No, they can't...now.

Psalm 114: 5 What ailed thee, O thou sea, that thou fleddest? thou Jordan, that thou wast driven back? 6 Ye mountains, that ye skipped like rams; and ye little hills, like lambs? 7 Tremble, thou earth, at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob

 

[dad]

It's become quite clear, from this thread alone that you deny radioactive dating methods.

No. They do exist, and are great in the short term...in this nature.

You have now taken a leap into believing in alternate pasts natures.

The recorded past in history and the bible may be alternate realities to your religion. So?

You are at the point where even your Bible cannot support your nonsense ideas and you have to make up alternate past natures.

Why pretend you have a bible case? Post it and show me wrong...I double dare you.

You keep descending further and further down into the rabbit hole.

No. I keep rising to the intellectual heavenlies leaving the demonic rabbit hole of endless delusions and lies and fabricated religious fables behind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, actually, it is because I know how so called dates are attained by science. Once they near the time when nature was different

What's your evidence for that claim again?

their 'dates' experience an error curve so immense that it loses all contact with real time.

Strange though, how despite such an "immense" error curve, still all independend lines of evidence yield the same dates nonetheless. You'ld think that accross fields, the date ranges would be completely out of wack, given an "immense" error curve. But no.

It's almost as if the entire "nature was different before" is pure bullsquirt. Almost.

The actual dates can be gleaned from accounts of Jewish tradition and Scripture.

So, from more claims. Claims, claims, claims.
All claims and no evidence.

Meanwhile the actual evidence of reality MUST be wrong, because they don't agree with the claims, claims, claims.

Hard to say. However I like to stick to what we KNOW.

And what we know, is that your babel myth is so ridiculous that it is prepostrous that it is even being brought up.

What is known is that the first civilizations in history (that the bible would place as post flood) did write,

The flood is also a myth.

albeit even if if was just picture writing at first! There are NO records of writing before this.

The oldest known example of writing is from about 3500 BC.
Cave drawings however go much, much further back.

To be simple and clear, I place the flood possibly somewhere near or at the KT layer.

So, around 65 million years ago then?

Also: the KT layer isn't flood sediment. It's rather fall out from a meteor impact that measured around 10km accross and impacted with the force of 100 trillion tons of TNT. It destroyed an area of thousands of km's and threw up stuff into the atmosphere that circled the planet.

This was a meteor impact. Not a magical flood.

But don't let the facts get in your way.

No writings go back that far

Indeed, there were no writing humans 65 million years ago. Or humans, for that matter.

, and science does not even realize man existed at the time!

Oldest traces of homo sapiens are some 150.000 years old. There were no humans at the time when dino's went extinct.

They have been drowned in a delusional sea of religious dream dates and bizarre nightmarish godless models of a past that had precious little resemblance to actual history.

 

[dad]

What's your evidence for that claim again?

The evidence for how science determines ages is easy to find. You kidding? It is what it is.

Strange though, how despite such an "immense" error curve, still all independend lines of evidence yield the same dates nonetheless.

Obfuscation aside, feel free to show collaboration for the dates here in question. What, you want to use the king lists!!? Ha.

You'ld think that accross fields, the date ranges would be completely out of wack, given an "immense" error curve. But no.

?? Why would I think that folks all using the same error would somehow all get it right...even if they have internal agreement?

It's almost as if the entire "nature was different before" is pure bullsquirt. Almost.

Your baseless opinion aside, what you need to do is show that your claimed nature and laws you claim existed on earth have some proof or evidence. (hint: that would be evidence does does not consist of your beliefs being dumped on evidences)

Meanwhile the actual evidence of reality MUST be wrong, because they don't agree with the claims, claims, claims.

Your religion is only evidence of beliefs held. You really should be fined for even using the word reality.

And what we know, is that your babel myth is so ridiculous that it is prepostrous that it is even being brought up.

Not sure what you have against history. Your religion had a grudge on with so many things.

The flood is also a myth.

Declaration overruled.

The oldest known example of writing is from about 3500 BC.
Cave drawings however go much, much further back.

Show us the basis for your dates, we need a laugh.

So, around 65 million years ago then?

In so called science time, yes, that is my current guess, subject to evidence.

Also: the KT layer isn't flood sediment. It's rather fall out from a meteor impact that measured around 10km accross and impacted with the force of 100 trillion tons of TNT. It destroyed an area of thousands of km's and threw up stuff into the atmosphere that circled the planet.

Ever hear of 'sediment'? Ha.

This was a meteor impact. Not a magical flood.

I know your fables. I know why the folks who taught you them claim what they do. However, science also thinks that iridium comes from deep under the earth as well as from space. That is where the flood waters came from.

Indeed, there were no writing humans 65 million years ago. Or humans, for that matter.

Bingo! No writing or remains left from humans. If they did write, perhaps we might have some ancient fragment of a manuscript or some such. We don't! The evidence mounts. Of course we do not expect fossilized remains since in that former nature, since we could not apparently leave any.

Oldest traces of homo sapiens are some 150.000 years old. There were no humans at the time when dino's went extinct.

I understand that there was a time, in this nature, that man and most animals starting joining the fossil record and leaving bones and etc. That does not mean man just started to exist then of course, as poor sillyscience claims!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The evidence for how science determines ages is easy to find. You kidding? It is what it is.

I'm talking about your claim that somehow biology, physics, chemistry, electro magnetism, photosynthesis, quantum mechanics, the speed of light, etc was somehow "different" in the past.

Obfuscation aside, feel free to show collaboration for the dates here in question. What, you want to use the king lists!!? Ha.

Nothing obfuscation about that, I would think. You aren't aware that there are multiple independent ways of dating things? If you aren't, then that's kind of emberassing, considering the bold claims you are making here on this subject.

?? Why would I think that folks all using the same error would somehow all get it right...even if they have internal agreement?

"accross fields".
Meaning, completely different approaches to dating.
From counting winter/summer cycles in ice cores to measuring atomic decay.

I can't imagine an "immense error curve" that would nevertheless make such distinct dating mechanisms yield the same dates.

Your baseless opinion aside, what you need to do is show that your claimed nature and laws you claim existed on earth have some proof or evidence. (hint: that would be evidence does does not consist of your beliefs being dumped on evidences)

No, we've been over this. This is an attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

Your religion is only evidence of beliefs held.

Irony.

You really should be fined for even using the word reality.

LOL, stop it... you're killing me.
My irony meter almost did anyway, when it exploded.




ow well

 

[shmogie]

Dude, are you serious? Did you click the link to my previous post?

Yesterday the link didn´t work, early this morning, it did.

 

[tas8831]

Totally irrelevant, all of your comments. If amino acids are found in meteors, I would say they exist in nature.

And thus no Hebrew tribal deity is needed to make them:

Adv Space Res. 1983;3(9):5-18.
Amino acids in meteorites.
Cronin JR1, Pizzarello S.

Abstract
Carbonaceous chondrites carry a record of chemical evolution that is unparalleled among presently accessible natural materials. Within the complex suite of organic compounds that characterize these meteorites, amino acids occur at a total concentration that may reach 0.6 micromole g-1 meteorite (approximately 60 ppm). Both free amino acids and acid-labile amino acid derivatives have been found in hot-water extracts of a CI1 and seven CM2 chondrites. Although the amino acid composition of all CM2 chondrites is not the same, differences may be largely explicable on the basis of spontaneous and biologically-caused decomposition occurring during their terrestrial residence. The amino acids of the Murchison meteorite (CM2) have been extensively analyzed and 52 amino acids have been positively identified. Thirty three of these amino acids are unknown in natural materials other than carbonaceous chondrites. Thus the Murchison meteorite has recently been the major source of new naturally-occurring amino acids. The Murchison amino acids comprise a mixture of C2 through C8 cyclic and acyclic monoamino alkanoic and alkandioic acids of nearly complete structural diversity. Within the acyclic monoamino alkanoic acid series, primary alpha-amino alpha-branched amino acids are predominant. The concentrations of individual amino acids decline exponentially with increasing carbon number within homologous series. Amino acid enantiomers are found in approximately equal amounts. Eight of the terrestrial protein amino acids have been found.​

NASA - Meteorites Reveal Another Way to Make Life's Components
Meteorites Reveal Another Way to Make Life's Components

03.09.12

Creating some of life's building blocks in space may be a bit like making a sandwich – you can make them cold or hot, according to new NASA research. This evidence that there is more than one way to make crucial components of life increases the likelihood that life emerged elsewhere in the Universe, according to the research team, and gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by impacts from meteorites and comets assisted the origin of life.
In the study, scientists with the Astrobiology Analytical Laboratory at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., analyzed samples from fourteen carbon-rich meteorites with minerals that indicated they had experienced high temperatures – in some cases, over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. They found amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins, used by life to speed up chemical reactions and build structures like hair, skin, and nails.
Previously, the Goddard team and other researchers have found amino acids in carbon-rich meteorites with mineralogy that revealed the amino acids were created by a relatively low-temperature process involving water, aldehyde and ketone compounds, ammonia, and cyanide called "Strecker-cyanohydrin synthesis."
[...]
The team believes the majority of the amino acids they found in the 14 meteorites were truly created in space, and not the result of contamination from terrestrial life, for a few reasons. First, the amino acids in life (and in contamination from industrial products) are frequently linked together in long chains, either as proteins in biology or polymers in industrial products. Most of the amino the amino acids discovered in the new research were not bound up in proteins or polymers. In addition, the most abundant amino acids found in biology are those that are found in proteins, but such "proteinogenic" amino acids represent only a small percentage of the amino acids found in the meteorites. Finally, the team analyzed a sample of ice taken from underneath one of the meteorites. This ice had only trace levels of amino acids suggesting the meteorites are relatively pristine.​

Extraterrestrial Enigma: Missing Amino Acids In Meteorites

Date: November 4, 2003
Source: Geological Society Of America
Summary: Amino acids have been found in interstellar clouds and in meteorites – but with some enigmatic omissions and tantalizing similarities to life on Earth.

Amino acids have been found in interstellar clouds and in meteorites – but with some enigmatic omissions and tantalizing similarities to life on Earth. Just why some amino acids are present in meteorites and others are absent, and why they seem to prefer the same "left-handed" molecular structure as Earth's living amino acids are questions that could unravel one of the most fundamental questions of science: Where and how did life begin?

"The bottom line is that you have these materials that come from space," says Steve Macko, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. Macko refers specifically to eight of the amino acids found in a certain kind of meteorite – a carbonaceous chondrite. All eight amino acids are identical to those used by life on Earth. That could seem to point to a cosmic origin of these basic biological building blocks, says Macko. The case is bolstered by the fact that early Earth was bombarded with meteorites and the amino acid glycine has been detected on interstellar molecular clouds.

The implications and enigmas of extraterrestrial amino acids will be detailed at a special session celebrating the life and work of the late Glenn Goodfriend, on Monday, Nov. 3, 2003, at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Seattle, WA.

Making the case for cosmic origins of Earth's amino acids even more compelling is the fact that all of the meteorite amino acids, except glycine, favor the "left-handed" molecular structure, or chirality, that is also favored by life on Earth. The preference for left-handed amino acids was a necessary precondition for life, but just why life chose left (L-amino acids) over right (D-amino acids) is a mystery.​

And so on.

Can you provide even one actual research paper referring to corroborating evidence for ANY miraculous bible tale?
Nope.

Miller Urey created a process by which these things were created.

The process was throw some ingredients together and add an energy source.

Still waiting for that "recent interview:" with Miller - who died in 2007 - in which he declared his experiments were failures.


Any research on how dust of the ground can be turned into skin and bones by a deity breathing into it?

 

[tas8831]

Yep, I was in error.

YOU SAW IT HERE FIRST FOLKS - A CREATIONIST ADMITTED ERROR!!!!

Congratulations - you just rose up a few rungs in my book.

Your narrative is creationism is insane, and those who believe it are ignorant.

I have no real narrative, but I can draw conclusions from my nearly 30 years of interest in this 'debate' and my 2 decades of post-doctoral research and teaching experience in the subject.
And those conclusions are that, in general, creationists do not understand the science of evolution; creationists, as often as they can, conflate evolution and abiogenesis, attacking a 'weaker' research program (abiogenesis) as their arguments against evolution as such are almost entirely bogus and/or irrelevant;
creationism is a purely religious belief, unsupportable by any empirical evidence; many creationists ARE ignorant of the relevant science, and many are also malicious and/or purposefully deceptive in their zeal to prop up their religious views.

Of course there are rare exceptions.

Therefore, since abiogenesis, and thus evolution on the macro scale occurred, creationism and those who might support it must be discredited. All are to be judged by those previously discredited.

^^Note conflation of abiogenesis with evolution^^

Nearly all creationists - to include the professionals* (see below) - typically fail to think through their supposed arguments. Denying macroevolution (i.e., speciation) makes the ark story 100% untenable; many creationists opt to accept, without evidence, large-scale post-flood hyper-evolution (for which there is no evidence of any kind) to keep the number of critters on the ark manageable, but they just cause more problems for themselves.

Typo´s, minor errors are to be portrayed as major efforts to deceive, and since the creationist position on abiogenesis is unassailable, everything possible to discredit the creationist that is observed, or if you can get away with it, imagined.

Right - it is all just typos and 'minor errors'...

I on the other hand have the fun objective of stating, whenever it comes up, that abiogenesis is an imagined process, with no evidence that comes within a million miles of documenting it.

I on the other hand have the fun objective of stating, whenever it comes up, that creation is an imagined process, with no evidence that comes within a million miles of documenting it.

Of course, I must always play defense. Since my position is based in fact

Yes - the fact that you are attacking something unrelated to evolution to attack evolution; something for which there is at least SOME research and observational evidence for, as oppposed to your fantasies based on middle eastern tales.

, something else must be used too A) discredit Creationism, and B) stir the mud so abogenesis is not the issue, my alleged dishonesty is, and that quickly is applied to many millions of creationists ( you want the exact number ? I don´t have it. another unsubstantiated assertion, ya got me again, there may be only 137 creationists)

By alleged dishonesty are you referring to your debunked claim that the textbook reviewers were not creationists, when in fact they were?

Or your as yet unsupported claim that Stanley Miller gave a "recent interview" despite dying in 2007 in which he admitted that his experiments were failures?

I must further play defense, because I personally loathe (or is it I am loath ? look it up, I might be trying to deceive you) to attack people as people.

Odd - reading through your posts, even those from well before I had replied to you (I had you on ignore for some reason up until a few days ago), I noted that your tone was decidedly aggressive and condescending. So color me unimpressed by your pleas to the contrary.

So, few creationists are willing to put up with the abiogenesis/evolutionist tactics, crap.

Look up "projection."

In my entire working life I dealt with arrogant people, from lying newspaper reporters, to those who, because of their social status, believed they should be treated differently. The whole gamut.

Look up "projection."

You guys are pipsqueaks in comparison.

So, accuse away and take your unearned victory laps.

Accuse? I think you mean "demonstrate".

Your alleged motive for the very minor errors I made is bogus, your allegations that I failed to supply supporting evidence is bogus, and I am pretty sure your analysis of my character is bogus.

To be clear, your belief in abiogenesis is unsupported, yet I know in your mind you believe it occurred, no matter your posted denials. You have the faith.

Bring it.

There are no ground rules,

And then you just do the same things over and over.

Like every other creationist I have ever encountered.

To be clear, your belief in creation is unsupported, yet I know in your mind you believe it occurred, no matter your posted denials. You have the faith. I also know you cannot produce any evidence that a relevantly educated would find convincing.


*Over the years, I have encountered a couple of professional creationists and challenged them on their claims. 2 examples - One creationist claimed that researcher bias accounted for most of the molecular phylogenetic analyses indicating common ancestry for humans and chimps. So, I took the current data set I was using (~35 taxa), removed all identifying features for each taxon, removed any alignment gaps and scrambled the order of the taxa in the data matrix, and sent him the file. I told him that he could re-align and re-analyze the data, and if his thesis was correct, he should get a totally different outcome. He declined, claiming he did not have enough time.
Another was a currently well known creation 'scientist' who has written several articles claiming to have debunked chimp-human ancestry. His first efforts on this topic were to re-analyze sequence identity and using a series of 'rigged' analyses, he produced numbers well below the usual numbers given (~70% similar rather than the usual 90+% similar), concluding that humans and chimps could share an ancestry as their %sequence identity/similarity was too low. I contacted him, challenging him to do a similar analysis on pairs of creatures creationists claim descended from a created Kind. He replied that it was dumb and that he was right... Coward...

 

[ecco]

Better than worm spawn.

If you were honest, you would drop the picture of Einstein as your avatar, and use...

 

[ecco]

Not so. If your life truly had meaning you wouldn't be so dependent on a belief in eternity.

If our lives have meaning we would realize this world is just a small part of the picture.

Rational people are far more aware of this than you will ever be.

Rational people also realize how truly amazing a natural universe is compared to a GodDidIt poofing.

 

[tas8831]

That was a gaffe ?

I hope so.

Should I have said ¨known to exist ¨ ? Evidence please.

Evidence for what? Your gaffe?

Sure -

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe


"Miller Urey did not show how 9 amino acids, out of 200 required for life, formed naturally. "



In real life:

Amino Acids

"The 20 amino acids that are found within proteins convey a vast array of chemical versatility. "
...
"Humans can produce 10 of the 20 amino acids. The others must be supplied in the food. Failure to obtain enough of even 1 of the 10 essential amino acids, those that we cannot make, results in degradation of the body's proteins—muscle and so forth—to obtain the one amino acid that is needed. Unlike fat and starch, the human body does not store excess amino acids for later use—the amino acids must be in the food every day.

The 10 amino acids that we can produce are alanine, asparagine, aspartic acid, cysteine, glutamic acid, glutamine, glycine, proline, serine and tyrosine. Tyrosine is produced from phenylalanine, so if the diet is deficient in phenylalanine, tyrosine will be required as well. The essential amino acids are arginine (required for the young, but not for adults), histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, and valine. These amino acids are required in the diet. Plants, of course, must be able to make all the amino acids. Humans, on the other hand, do not have all the the enzymes required for the biosynthesis of all of the amino acids."​

Again, you were making 'absolute' statements, ringing with certainty, yet they were quite wrong, and a mere 're-wording' suggestion won't clean it up.

This is the sort of thing we see all over with creationists - certainty despite not grasping the basics.

 

[dad]

I'm talking about your claim that somehow biology, physics, chemistry, electro magnetism, photosynthesis, quantum mechanics, the speed of light, etc was somehow "different" in the past.

OK, and...what about it?

Nothing obfuscation about that, I would think. You aren't aware that there are multiple independent ways of dating things?

I am aware of the dating methods and the beliefs they rest upon. What about them?

From counting winter/summer cycles in ice cores to measuring atomic decay.

So for example in dating when the first written work of man was, show us how you use these things? Ha.

I can't imagine an "immense error curve" that would nevertheless make such distinct dating mechanisms yield the same dates.

Once you enter la la land, it doesn't matter if imaginary dates exist. Of course dates based on same nature in the past belief would get real wrong real fast. The only question is what state existed. The only thing you need to do is prove the nature you claim existed, rather than appealing to belief and religion.

 

[ecco]

That is correct. The time it took exactly I don't know. Nor do I know that marsupials and evolved only once they were on location in Australia.

Huh?

OK, but I could swing either way, depending on evidence.

That's your problem, isn't it? There is no evidence supporting your WAGs and you dismiss actual evidence because it conflicts with your religious views.

That was not when the flood was in science time. You conflate actual time with dream dates based solely on the belief nature was uniform through all time.

Nothing in science states that nature was not uniform through all time.
Nothing in your Bible states that nature was not uniform through all time.

That is a concept that you made up because your ideas are so convoluted.

I don't need to make a case for His word. All I do is point out science really doesn't know after all, and why. They have no authority to dispute Scripture.

But somehow you have the insightfulness and authority to warp scripture to fulfill your own silly ess ideas.