Kylie's Pool Challenge

[Kylie]

Most of them aren't though?

Do you know of any trolls who are also site supporters of the site they are trolling?

(Other than myself, of course. )

Ah, but you aren't trolling CF, are you? You are trying to troll the atheists here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, but you aren't trolling CF, are you? You are trying to troll the atheists here.

I can't support them, though, or I'd go broke!

 

[Kylie]

I can't support them, though, or I'd go broke!

Support or lack there of never entered into it. Stop trying to change the subject. That's one technique that trolls use often.

 

[AV1611VET]

Stop trying to change the subject. That's one technique that trolls use often.

If all one has to do is try to change the subject, then that about makes us all trolls, doesn't it?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Projection. "evolutionists" seem to be able to get a great many things done, unlike whiney creation apologists who contribute exactly ZERO to humanity and progress...

That’s funny since even Darwin was a creationist, lol.

Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, and most of the backbone upon which all science rests were creationists.

Your halarious....

I pointed out that the general interpretation is of course the earth was formed first, and everything else afterwards (which I'm still not sure where & how you stand on it being otherwise), but like I said, it gets interpreted a thousand ways from Sunday, so I'm happy to work with you on your interpretation, if you can let us know what your interpretation looks like, so we can move on.

Why would I believe that?

“In beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Notice which came first.

Nope! In order as mentioned, Part of the Theory of Evolution, Disproven, Original concept that led to the Theory of Evolution, These last two are pretty much the same thing, and are Part of the Theory of Evolution. See? Easy! Your protestations are quite unfounded in that all of these bar one are part of what we know as the Theory of Evolution, they're actually complementary points of observation and extrapolations which match real-world applications.

....are you talking to yourself here?? lol! for a sec there, I thought you were talking to me... and that would've been hilarious!

Yah sure, but then you erroneously claimed above creationists haven’t contributed anything when the truth is the entire backbone of modern science was created by those that believed in God. From the Big Bang to Darwinism... How’s it feel to be following creationists creations?

So your other claims are just as erroneous... that’s what is hallarious....

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

That’s funny since even Darwin was a creationist, lol.

Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, and most of the backbone upon which all science rests were creationists.

I think you're being somewhat disingenuous here - I think you know I refer to Creationists as the YEC Fundamentalists we encounter today, such as Kent Hovind and Matt Slick, etc. Pretty much everyone in science a century or more ago were believers of one stripe or another - this isn't anything I contest. Anyone earlier that 150-200 years ago pretty much had no choice but to believe the Creation myths of their cultures, because we as a civilisation simply lacked the knowledge we do today - so Newton was always going to be indoctrinated into such a belief just through the only education available back then.

What I do take issue with is that the vast preponderance of scientists today could all be believers of a 6,000 - 10,000 year old earth where Adam and Eve, along with a worldwide flood were all actual events and people in history. This is just not the case and any number of studies will show that. I'll go ahead and grant that there are fringe areas where YECist scientists can and have contributed to Science, but not where their YEC beliefs could have an effect - just like YECists can get jobs in admin & building and even engineering/legal/computer science after tertiary education where they become contributing taxpaying citizens of society - but wherever the facts and science matters how old something is, such as paleontology, geology, cosmology, biology, etc., they'll come to a crossroad and will have to choose to drop YECism, drop education, or continue on to become a propaganda mill shill under the likes of AiG, Discovery Institute or ICR, etc. and will likely never be able to contribute meaningful research to the topic they study.

In that context, Darwin wasn't a creationist once he'd worked out the finer points of the origin of species... he was also not a believer at all by the time he passed away. Maxwell could of course be a believer, just as there are plenty of believers of all faiths in Science today but I remain unconvinced that he would be a YEC by the definition in which I intended. All this aside though, Show me where a modern day young earth creationist scientist has contributed to the Theory of Evolution, or the Big Bang theory in any meaningful way? YEC Scientists are literally relegated to areas of science that don't rely on the actual age of the earth & universe, or go about denying well-evidenced science for Church groups and anti-science orgs. There's nothing honest about that.

Your halarious....

My halarious? I don't have a halarious, whatever that is....

Why would I believe that?

“In beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Notice which came first.

Sure. Carry on then, what comes next in his description of how everything went from formless void to what it is today, explain how you see it written and how it was intended to convey the creation event specifics in the order you suggest... perhaps like Aman, you shuffle everything around in different orders to support your particular interpretation? can't wait, always good to see yet another interpretation of another version of the "clear and unambiguous bible that's without confusion" derive a meaning that nobody has ever seen before!!

Yah sure, but then you erroneously claimed above creationists haven’t contributed anything when the truth is the entire backbone of modern science was created by those that believed in God. From the Big Bang to Darwinism... How’s it feel to be following creationists creations?

So your other claims are just as erroneous...

Again, disingenuous and probably a little dishonest on your part to demonstrate such an equivocation fallacy. Even if you were right and I was actually incorrect - why not demonstrate that with facts as opposed to saying "one thing's a lie, therefore everything is a lie"? Is it because you know you have no comeback? No facts??

I'm just going to put it all to you that your posts are dishonest and you have no comeback for the facts I present.

that’s what is hallarious....

....what is a hallarious again?? I've never seen one.

 

[Kylie]

If all one has to do is try to change the subject, then that about makes us all trolls, doesn't it?

Well, if one intentionally tries to change the subject - or just runs away from a discussion - because that discussion has lead to a point where one must either admit they were wrong or hold to a clearly ridiculous piece of reasoning, then I'd say yes.

 

[FredVB]

From AV's Pool Challenge thread...

Take a look at this picture:

Let's say someone set these balls down this way.

Later, someone looking at it says, "Nice break."

Was he wrong?

​

Now, I looked at this and thought that the situation wasn't taking into account everything it should have. So I presented an alternative situation...

Let's say someone broke, and then a second person wrote down a statement claiming that he had not broken, but had simply placed the balls in this position. Later, a third person comes in, reads the documentation and concludes that the documentation MUST be right, and anyone who says the balls reached this position as a result of regular play is terribly wrong. The third person refuses to consider any alternative, and claims, "The documentation says it, that settles it!"

Is the third person right?

Clearly this is an analogy, which we would all surely understand. But with actually looking at the arrangement on the pool table. I would have these things to say.

First I acknowledge that I am not at all a regular pool player. If this arrangement is a possible result of a break, I don't have such background to recognize that. Some others might be able to recognize its possibility, but I don't know that.

If there isn't such recognized, to validate the claim it was a break, there would need to be a computer simulation, or something equivalent, to show that.

But I do think of the probabilities I mention here.

If there is a play, I don't believe it would ever be stopped after a break, for one to make a photo, even an electronic one with a phone, especially to use for discussion of documentation. The players would actually keep playing, without the break at the start ever being photographed. So I see the probability is that the balls were actually manually arranged, and that arrangement on the pool table then photographed, likely for such discussion as this.

If there was computer simulation actually showing that would result from a break, that could establish it well enough, though it was valid to say first that probably isn't the case. But if it would be established that it could be from a break, even that meaning it probably was, that hardly will make a fair analogy to the start of this universe with all the mass of its matter and energy from a microscopic size. This was what was meant in discussing this, surely. If that beginning were possible, there still aren't the parameters of the physical constants independent of each other taken into account, that would have to be exactly right for this universe to expand just right with the great systems in it, the stars, and the particles, among more things that make all this, to be possible. There is nothing in such pool analogy to correspond to that. There have always been many things not explained, with moving away from understanding that the Creator is at the start of it all.

 

[AV1611VET]

There have always been many things not explained, with moving away from understanding that the Creator is at the start of it all.

All of this could have been avoided though, had Player 1 documented what he did, and everyone believed the documentation.

But Kylie doesn't have him doing that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think you're being somewhat disingenuous here - I think you know I refer to Creationists as the YEC Fundamentalists we encounter today, such as Kent Hovind and Matt Slick, etc. Pretty much everyone in science a century or more ago were believers of one stripe or another - this isn't anything I contest. Anyone earlier that 150-200 years ago pretty much had no choice but to believe the Creation myths of their cultures, because we as a civilisation simply lacked the knowledge we do today - so Newton was always going to be indoctrinated into such a belief just through the only education available back then.

Or perhaps it was simply you that was being disingenuous by implying creationists contribute nothing?

What I do take issue with is that the vast preponderance of scientists today could all be believers of a 6,000 - 10,000 year old earth where Adam and Eve, along with a worldwide flood were all actual events and people in history. This is just not the case and any number of studies will show that. I'll go ahead and grant that there are fringe areas where YECist scientists can and have contributed to Science, but not where their YEC beliefs could have an effect - just like YECists can get jobs in admin & building and even engineering/legal/computer science after tertiary education where they become contributing taxpaying citizens of society - but wherever the facts and science matters how old something is, such as paleontology, geology, cosmology, biology, etc., they'll come to a crossroad and will have to choose to drop YECism, drop education, or continue on to become a propaganda mill shill under the likes of AiG, Discovery Institute or ICR, etc. and will likely never be able to contribute meaningful research to the topic they study.

But I am not a YEC, so all of those arguments are null and void. I don’t think they are correct either.

In that context, Darwin wasn't a creationist once he'd worked out the finer points of the origin of species... he was also not a believer at all by the time he passed away. Maxwell could of course be a believer, just as there are plenty of believers of all faiths in Science today but I remain unconvinced that he would be a YEC by the definition in which I intended. All this aside though, Show me where a modern day young earth creationist scientist has contributed to the Theory of Evolution, or the Big Bang theory in any meaningful way? YEC Scientists are literally relegated to areas of science that don't rely on the actual age of the earth & universe, or go about denying well-evidenced science for Church groups and anti-science orgs. There's nothing honest about that.

Please, Darwin believed god created everything and then it proceeded by natural causes till the day he died.

I could care less about your gripe with YEC, and would agree with you on most of them.

Your arguments against them don’t apply to me, so why try to argue against them with me?

My halarious? I don't have a halarious, whatever that is....

Sure. Carry on then, what comes next in his description of how everything went from formless void to what it is today, explain how you see it written and how it was intended to convey the creation event specifics in the order you suggest... perhaps like Aman, you shuffle everything around in different orders to support your particular interpretation? can't wait, always good to see yet another interpretation of another version of the "clear and unambiguous bible that's without confusion" derive a meaning that nobody has ever seen before!!

Again, disingenuous and probably a little dishonest on your part to demonstrate such an equivocation fallacy. Even if you were right and I was actually incorrect - why not demonstrate that with facts as opposed to saying "one thing's a lie, therefore everything is a lie"? Is it because you know you have no comeback? No facts??

I'm just going to put it all to you that your posts are dishonest and you have no comeback for the facts I present.

....what is a hallarious again?? I've never seen one.

I need not shuffle anything.

I just need confirm my belief that the God who wrote the Bible, is the exact same God who also penned the earth.

That there have been 6 creations and 5 destructions is not in doubt. Nor do I need to pretend “hayah” means anything other than its accepted concordance meaning like others on here do.

So I find it not contradictory at all that “the earth “became - hayah” desolate and waste, and darkness became upon the surface of the deep. So that it is not surprising the dinosaurs died out before the creation of man. Asteroid, comet, I don’t care, take your pick. But personally I don’t think it was either of those since dinosaurs ceased to exist long before the K-T boundary. Comets or asteroids are just the standard fairy tale told to children.

Most YEC conveniently forget the Bible was simply written about man, from page 1 to its last page. His creation, fall and need for redemption is its entire purpose.

Want to understand all of creation and not just man? Then why would anyone ignore the Works of God which is the book of creation? Either we believe the same God wrote both and thereby understand it is through understanding the things made is His Glory revealed. Romans 1:20

The only thing I disagree with about age is your belief you can calculate any age accurately without taking time dilation into account in a universe increasing in acceleration since the beginning..... that and the fact evolution is a sham.....

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Or perhaps it was simply you that was being disingenuous by implying creationists contribute nothing?

Creationists contribute nothing to the working body of knowledge for the science they rally against. Is that better?

But I am not a YEC, so all of those arguments are null and void. I don’t think they are correct either.

Cool.

Please, Darwin believed god created everything and then it proceeded by natural causes till the day he died.

Nope, not so. Despite an Orthodox belief and ardent Church-going up to and during his HMS Beagle voyage, his belief tapered off to agnosticism where he eventually never attended Church when his family went every Sunday, opting for a walk or other activity instead, and didn't pray, etc.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1452.1&viewtype=text&pageseq=322

I could care less about your gripe with YEC, and would agree with you on most of them.

Your arguments against them don’t apply to me, so why try to argue against them with me?

Awesome! Like I said, that's my gripe and if you're not denying the well-evidenced science that demonstrates a 4.6 billion year old earth in a 13.8 billion year old universe, then they're not directed at you. it just seems some of your comments contradict others - like the earth isn't as old as it is, etc.

I need not shuffle anything.

I just need confirm my belief that the God who wrote the Bible, is the exact same God who also penned the earth.

then help me out here so I'm clear - do you take the "God written bible"'s order of events, or the "God penned earth (and universe)"'s evidence on what happened and when? For example:

God Written Bible's Genesis 1:

(1) a beginning;
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water;
(3) light;
(4) an expanse or atmosphere;
(5) large areas of dry land;
(6) land plants;
(7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning;
(8) sea monsters and flying creatures;
(9) wild and tame beasts and mammals;
(10) man.​

God Penned Earth (and Universe):

(1) a beginning;
(2) light;
(3) sun and stars;
(4) primitive earth, moon, and atmosphere;
(5) dry land;
(6) sea creatures;
(7) some land plants;
(8) land creatures and more plants and sea creatures;
(9) flying creatures (insects) and more plants and land and sea creatures;
(10) mammals, and more land and sea animals, insects, and plants;
(11) the first birds,
(12) fruiting plants (which is what Genesis talks about) and more land, sea, and flying creatures;
(13) man and more of the various animals and plants.​

Surely, you can't believe both order of events, can you? Personally, I go with the latter, because if there is a God, then this is his handiwork and I trust the evidence it yields when we investigate it first-hand.

That there have been 6 creations and 5 destructions is not in doubt. Nor do I need to pretend “hayah” means anything other than its accepted concordance meaning like others on here do.

So I find it not contradictory at all that “the earth “became - hayah” desolate and waste, and darkness became upon the surface of the deep. So that it is not surprising the dinosaurs died out before the creation of man. Asteroid, comet, I don’t care, take your pick. But personally I don’t think it was either of those since dinosaurs ceased to exist long before the K-T boundary. Comets or asteroids are just the standard fairy tale told to children.

Most YEC conveniently forget the Bible was simply written about man, from page 1 to its last page. His creation, fall and need for redemption is its entire purpose.

Again, help me out here - are Adam and Eve actual people who lived at the same time from which all human descendants are derived? Is the Flood of Noah a real event that inundated the entire planet?

Want to understand all of creation and not just man? Then why would anyone ignore the Works of God which is the book of creation? Either we believe the same God wrote both and thereby understand it is through understanding the things made is His Glory revealed. Romans 1:20

The only thing I disagree with about age is your belief you can calculate any age accurately without taking time dilation into account in a universe increasing in acceleration since the beginning.....

Then you still don't understand Physics and Cosmology. Have you spoken to anyone who has studied the subject matter properly? because you haven't even scratched the surface.

that and the fact evolution is a sham.....

Yet it's the most well-established theory in all of science, which yields useful and practical results and solutions every day in every way. Go figure...

 

[Kylie]

First I acknowledge that I am not at all a regular pool player. If this arrangement is a possible result of a break, I don't have such background to recognize that. Some others might be able to recognize its possibility, but I don't know that.

Those people would be analogous to scientists. And, in both the analogy and reality, we should consider the viewpoints of those more experienced and qualified to be the most accurate.

If there is a play, I don't believe it would ever be stopped after a break, for one to make a photo, even an electronic one with a phone, especially to use for discussion of documentation. The players would actually keep playing, without the break at the start ever being photographed. So I see the probability is that the balls were actually manually arranged, and that arrangement on the pool table then photographed, likely for such discussion as this.

That's stretching the analogy a bit far, I think.

 

[Kylie]

All of this could have been avoided though, had Player 1 documented what he did, and everyone believed the documentation.

But Kylie doesn't have him doing that.

I pointed out in post 157 that person 1 is simply meant to represent whatever unknown force caused the balls to break.

You seem to think that it must be a real person capable of writing things down.

Either you lack the intelligence to understand how an analogy works (which I doubt is the case), or you are trolling.

 

[AV1611VET]

I pointed out in post 157 that person 1 is simply meant to represent whatever unknown force caused the balls to break.

With respect to your OP, or in spite of it?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Creationists contribute nothing to the working body of knowledge for the science they rally against. Is that better?

No one on here does whether they support it or not.

But I tend to see those who claim they support science more often willing to ignore it when it’s convienent for them to do so. See below.

Nope, not so. Despite an Orthodox belief and ardent Church-going up to and during his HMS Beagle voyage, his belief tapered off to agnosticism where he eventually never attended Church when his family went every Sunday, opting for a walk or other activity instead, and didn't pray, etc.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1452.1&viewtype=text&pageseq=322

Yes, once he got confused he lost sight of the truth.

Awesome! Like I said, that's my gripe and if you're not denying the well-evidenced science that demonstrates a 4.6 billion year old earth in a 13.8 billion year old universe, then they're not directed at you. it just seems some of your comments contradict others - like the earth isn't as old as it is, etc.

I am denying your claim of any age since you do not know the galaxies velocity through space and have made no adjustments for time dilation.

then help me out here so I'm clear - do you take the "God written bible"'s order of events, or the "God penned earth (and universe)"'s evidence on what happened and when? For example:

God Written Bible's Genesis 1:

(1) a beginning;
(2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water;
(3) light;
(4) an expanse or atmosphere;
(5) large areas of dry land;
(6) land plants;
(7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning;
(8) sea monsters and flying creatures;
(9) wild and tame beasts and mammals;
(10) man.​

God Penned Earth (and Universe):

(1) a beginning;
(2) light;
(3) sun and stars;
(4) primitive earth, moon, and atmosphere;
(5) dry land;
(6) sea creatures;
(7) some land plants;
(8) land creatures and more plants and sea creatures;
(9) flying creatures (insects) and more plants and land and sea creatures;
(10) mammals, and more land and sea animals, insects, and plants;
(11) the first birds,
(12) fruiting plants (which is what Genesis talks about) and more land, sea, and flying creatures;
(13) man and more of the various animals and plants.​

Surely, you can't believe both order of events, can you? Personally, I go with the latter, because if there is a God, then this is his handiwork and I trust the evidence it yields when we investigate it first-hand.

There you go, just ignoring everything for your own beliefs.

What part of the earth became desolate and waste did you not understand? What part of only mans creation does the Bible speak of did you fail to understand?

What part of 6 creations and 5 destructions did you fail to understand?

Again, help me out here - are Adam and Eve actual people who lived at the same time from which all human descendants are derived? Is the Flood of Noah a real event that inundated the entire planet?

Yes, but since you refuse to correct for time dilation you arrive at incorrect answers.

Then you still don't understand Physics and Cosmology. Have you spoken to anyone who has studied the subject matter properly? because you haven't even scratched the surface.

That’s what you all keep saying and yet can’t ever seem to say anything that shows how I am wrong....

It seems I’m the only one here that understands increases in velocity change the rate of decay. Ask the twin, he can tell you, even if he once thought he wasn’t aging slower.....

Yet it's the most well-established theory in all of science, which yields useful and practical results and solutions every day in every way. Go figure...

It’s the most silly putty theory in all of science that allows you to say just about anything at any time. So is in fact useless as you can’t even define species without it being contradictory.

 

[Jack Slatts]

One would need to take into account the reputation
for honesty of the writer. If they had a history of
fabrication. Or if they had motive to lie that would
potentially ruin their future reputation.

In Illinois, a large number of scientists signed onto
research supporting Cold Fusion. They were seeking
to be famous, but it turned out that the researcher
had falsified his findings. A bad gamble on the reputation
of a co-worker.

All historical events are a matter of faith.

To say science is a matter of "faith" is ridiculous. If it was, there would be no need for science. Lightning? From Zeus! Rainbows? From Yahweh! Hurricanes? Poseidon! The sun rising? Ra!

Believing based on faith is for religions, not science.

 

[SkyWriting]

To say science is a matter of "faith" is ridiculous. If it was, there would be no need for science. Lightning? From Zeus! Rainbows? From Yahweh! Hurricanes? Poseidon! The sun rising? Ra!

Believing based on faith is for religions, not science.

It's not so ridiculous if you know the definition.

faith
fāTH/
noun

1. 1.
   complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
   "this restores one's faith in politicians"
   synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction;
   optimism, hopefulness, hope
   "he justified his boss's faith in him"

faith
[feyth]
noun

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing:faith in another's ability.

-belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
-to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
-the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
-the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.:
He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
-Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
-Idioms
in faith, in truth; indeed:
In faith, he is a fine lad.

 

[Jack Slatts]

It's not so ridiculous if you know the definition.

faith
fāTH/
noun

1. 1.
   complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
   "this restores one's faith in politicians"
   synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction;
   optimism, hopefulness, hope
   "he justified his boss's faith in him"

Very good.

Here:


Faith
feɪθ/
noun

1. 1.
   complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
   "this restores one's faith in politicians"
   synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence; More
   
   
2. 2.
   strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
   "bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"
   synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, persuasion, religious persuasion, religious belief, belief, code of belief, ideology, creed, teaching, dogma, doctrine
   "she gave her life for her faith"
   • 
     
     

Now show me where complete trust, or strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, appear:

scientific method
noun

a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

 

[Kylie]

With respect to your OP, or in spite of it?

I've made it clear, AV, stop quibbling.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

No one on here does whether they support it or not.

But I tend to see those who claim they support science more often willing to ignore it when it’s convienent for them to do so. See below.

How do you explain everything we know now? How is it we can accurately determine distance to stars and galaxies? How is it we can work out their compositions? Why would literally all the findings about distant stars and galaxies we can replicate here, are concordant? How do the predictions we make here match perfectly with what we expect to see there?

I still think it laughable that the likes of @sfs has it wrong with his decades of practical scientific research after years, if not a decade more of university education to understand all of it in the first place, but you have all the answers with a few evenings of layperson google-fu... the hubris is Strong in this one.

Yes, once he got confused he lost sight of the truth.

or it could be that the evidence didn't match the claim... but no, that couldn't be it, right Justa?

I am denying your claim of any age since you do not know the galaxies velocity through space and have made no adjustments for time dilation.

So, when cosmologists apply Einstein's relativity equations to finding the distance and size of stars and galaxies, you assert they aren't making adjustments for time dilation?? Aren't you aware of how we know about time dilation to start with?

There you go, just ignoring everything for your own beliefs.

What part of the earth became desolate and waste did you not understand? What part of only mans creation does the Bible speak of did you fail to understand?

What part of 6 creations and 5 destructions did you fail to understand?

The part where you get this from your Bible and in what context you get it all from. I'm interested to make sense of it, so let's have at it.

Yes, but since you refuse to correct for time dilation you arrive at incorrect answers.

Or, you could be the one arriving at incorrect answers.

That’s what you all keep saying and yet can’t ever seem to say anything that shows how I am wrong....

It seems I’m the only one here that understands increases in velocity change the rate of decay. Ask the twin, he can tell you, even if he once thought he wasn’t aging slower...

Well, you probably haven't been shown why you're wrong because you haven't shown why you're right to start with.

If something increases in velocity, then wouldn't it decrease in time experienced? that's to say, it would experience less decay relative to everything else (all things being equal, but that's another story). So, exactly what is it that you think changes in everything we have evidence of now? The earth has experienced 4.6 billion years of decay, and the universe has experienced the equivalent of 13.8 billion years of decay too. That we can see parts of the universe at least 13.4 billion years away/ago is testament to this fact. I challenge you to explain how we see these things at distance that Einstein's equations shows to be billions of years old, if you think they aren't.

It’s the most silly putty theory in all of science that allows you to say just about anything at any time. So is in fact useless as you can’t even define species without it being contradictory.

but it's still the most well-established theory in all of science, which still yields useful and practical results and solutions every day in every way, how could it be so useful if it's as useless as you wish it were? the term "Species" is a grey area precisely because of the branching nature of life! If it were as creationists assert, that life was uniquely and specially created, then species would be a hard and fast rule that could universally be applied everywhere - the fact that it isn't is contributory evidence that the Theory of Evolution is accurate.