Taking questions on the Creation.

[CraigBaugher]

Albert Einstein, one of the foremost scientist of all time, believed in creation and God! The amazing thing is, he was trying to prove it, scientifically... Using the speed of light, but he discovered the speed of light changes, and that the nano particles that make up light, also move at different rates. But to put in simple terms that so that even non-scientific people, like myself can understand; he wanted to prove that what appears to be billions of years old, could be only 1,000s. In other words, time is relative, and what appears to be one hour of time to us, could be a nano-second depending on speed, or something like that...

 

[AV1611VET]

Either way, you missed the point.

Did you expect any better?

 

[gaara4158]

am i doin it rite?
▲
▲ ▲

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words, time is relative, and what appears to be one hour of time to us, could be a nano-second depending on speed, or something like that...

Well --- people are taught that the earth "aged" to its current age --- irregardless of the speed that it aged.

And I disagree.

I think it came into existence with its age already there.

To put it semantically: Some people think the earth appears old --- I think it appeared old.

 

[gaara4158]

Well --- people are taught that the earth "aged" to its current age --- irregardless of the speed that it aged.

And I disagree.

I think it came into existence with its age already there.

To put it semantically: Some people think the earth appears old --- it think it appeared old.

You keep saying that, but you fail to explain the presence of history where there should be none!

 

[Alunyel]

Albert Einstein, one of the foremost scientist of all time, believed in creation and God!

Um. No.

"As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into every child by way of the traditional education-machine. Thus I came — though the child of entirely irreligious parents — to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true."

He didn't believe in God (And certainly not Creation), nor did he ever say there was no God. Einstein was agnostic, saying that we can't know whether there is, or isn't, a God.

 

[AV1611VET]

You keep saying that, but you fail to explain the presence of history where there should be none!

We both deny history --- what's the problem?

• Some deny a global flood.
• Some deny a Big Bang.

 

[Alunyel]

We both deny history --- what's the problem?

• Some deny a global flood.
• Some deny a Big Bang.

The flood's based on unfounded religious belief with empirical evidence contradicting it.

The "Big Bang" is the result of years and years of observation, supported by mathematics and stacks and stacks of evidence.

Belief in the former is entirely irrational.

 

[gaara4158]

We both deny history --- what's the problem?

• Some deny a global flood.
• Some deny a Big Bang.

Again, you are dodging the question. The flood story is not substantiated in Earth's geological record (history) and is thus yet another problem in your argument. However, other things, having occurred millions of years ago, are substantiated in Earth's geological record. For the umpteenth time, why do we find history where you claim there should be none?

 

[AV1611VET]

The "Big Bang" is the result of years and years of observation, supported by mathematics and stacks and stacks of evidence.

Wasn't geocentrism based on 'years and years' of observation?

Isn't it true that I can claim that observation shows geocentrism today?

 

[Alunyel]

Av basically follows Last-Tuesdayism.

 

[AV1611VET]

The flood story is not substantiated in Earth's geological record (history) and is thus yet another problem in your argument.

Not a problem for me --- I assure you.

It might be a problem with your software, but not mine.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Albert Einstein, one of the foremost scientist of all time, believed in creation and God! The amazing thing is, he was trying to prove it, scientifically... Using the speed of light, but he discovered the speed of light changes, and that the nano particles that make up light, also move at different rates. But to put in simple terms that so that even non-scientific people, like myself can understand; he wanted to prove that what appears to be billions of years old, could be only 1,000s. In other words, time is relative, and what appears to be one hour of time to us, could be a nano-second depending on speed, or something like that...

Seriously, where do you guys come up with this stuff?

 

[gaara4158]

Not a problem for me --- I assure you.

It might be a problem with your software, but not mine.

Your software is faulty, then. It's the kind that would have broken down in the year 2000.

You are quite visibly dodging the question I've been asking in every single post today. Why is there history where your Embedded Age hypothesis predicts that there is none?
We can do this all night. Go ahead, /thread. I know you want to.

 

[Alunyel]

Wasn't geocentrism based on 'years and years' of observation?

Isn't it true that I can claim that observation shows geocentrism today?

No. Geocentrism was simply a wild guess.

5 minutes observation, at best.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your software is faulty, then.

I didn't write my Software though.

You guys write your own software, then you change it, then you high-five each other because you changed it, then you look for the next changes.

You're on version what now --- Version 10.9.9.9?

God's Software is unchanging --- Version 1.0.0.0.

 

[CoderHead]

I didn't write my Software though.

We know.

God's Software is unchanging --- Version 1.0.0.0.

That, I believe, is the problem. You're basing your arguments on the knowledge man had attained during the first century AD. We're basing our arguments on the knowledge we've now attained in the 21st century. There's a huge gap there, as if you didn't know. You're still living back in the day when the Earth was flat and the stars were just lights fastened into a canopy covering the flat Earth.

 

[gaara4158]

I didn't write my Software though.

You guys write your own software, then you change it, then you high-five each other because you changed it, then you look for the next changes.

You're on version what now --- Version 10.9.9.9?

God's Software is unchanging --- Version 1.0.0.0.

AV, you're kind of upsetting me now. I really wanted to believe that you were real. Horribly confused, but real. But this exchange where you clearly have no intention to answer a question about creation in a thread titled "Taking Questions about the Creation" is a sign of trolling that only a fool could miss. I'll ask it again:

If the Earth was created with age, but without history, why do we find both age AND history in the geological record?

 

[AV1611VET]

You're basing your arguments on the knowledge man had attained during the first century AD.

No, I'm basing it on the knowledge man was given --- in writing --- over 15 centuries.

We didn't attain it --- it was given to us.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the Earth was created with age, but without history, why do we find both age AND history in the geological record?

You're taught two major mistakes:

1. Processes take longer than 6100 years.
2. Processes occur only by nature.