15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[luchitociencia]

The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.

Show time. I want to see its flowing.

I'll love to see how far your ignorance has made you reach the limits of the absurd.

It's called Torah study.
I can read Hebrew; you can't.
I will not denigrate your beliefs.

Great, I have the Torah in front of me, and no flowing time is mentioned, unless you use the Chinese pirate Hebrew version.

 

[luchitociencia]

So this conversation isn't actually happening?

I believe you are looking at it the wrong way. As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once. Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything. That's what it means to be outside of space and time.

You didn't understand the bible at all.

The essence of God is not in the known physical universe.

Plus, the physical universe is formed by space and matter, where time is nothing but a measure invented by man.

 

[luchitociencia]

And what about if you are your own fairy tale story, who you tells everyone a story about the self made fairy tale "I"? Isn't it much more fascinating what my comrades sang thousands of years ago on their campfires? What had they understood if someone had said to them "... And god said: Let there be electromagnetic waves.

Wrong, not all electromagnetic waves cause illumination as light.

And god saw the electromagntic waves, that it was good: and God divided the electromagnetic waves from the darkness ..." ... So what do you understand today really about your world, which would not be the same, if not thousands of years someone had written down this words? "And god saw it was good what he had done" is one of the most important keys to understand what's really written there.

Your point has been proved false.

And by the way: "Seven miles boots" do we call today "automobiles". You should perhaps start to think about why you hate spirituality - and you should perhaps also think about, why you are disrespecting fairy tales.

I have missed this part of the seven miles boots. refer me where such comes from.

If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales.
Albert Einstein

Sure, Einstein was a poor deluded guy who thought time is flexible as babbling gum. His fairy tales known as relativity theories are the most fantastic fantasies ever invented by a loony.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

... Creationism is unfalsifiable. ...

Creationism : the "ism" shows normally always an ideolgy. Ideologies are in general closed systems of thoughts, Falsifyable within this system of thoughts - not falsifyable outside of this system of toughts.

But the Christains religion is not an ideology - while "darwinism" is the same time often nothing else than an extremist racist ideology. On the other side: The real scientific theory of evolution is not an ideology too.

But the discussion in the internet seems only to be a discussion from ideologists with ideologists, who share a common bad "knowledge" about the belief in god and about the Christian religion as well as about the basics of natural science and the methods and essential arguments of natural science in case of biology.

Internal falsifiability is all fine and good,

1. It's not fine and good - it's the criterion for an ideology - a closed system of thoughts.

but not at all what I'm discussing, and not relevant to the discussion of science vs religion.

2. A discussion "science vs religion" alias "philosophy vs spiritualiy" is not a discussion about easily comparable things.

The scientific method is PURELY a method of proving hypotheses false to eliminate possibilities and push closer to affirmative understandings. If a hypothesis cannot be disproven through experiment, you're no longer talking science. That ought to be not only sufficient reason to separate the teaching of science from creationism, it ought to be the beginning and end of the entire f'in discussion.

3. The methods of natural science are a rpduct of the philosophy empirism. Is empirism the same like the creator god, who made more than only thsi what is able to be subsejct of empirism?

I simply wish these "I'm an atheist, debate me!"

4. Hä? ... ah sorry: Eh? ... The belief in atheism is not a very interesting belief. I call atheists normally people, who don't believe to believe.

kids would give it a fuckin' rest.

5. Kids? And the F-word? ... Can it be you have not a big idea about how to educate children? ... And what have children now to do with your ideas about your atheism and your ideas about anti-atheists?

It's like there's people trying to play tennis on a football field, and rather than simply explain to them that they're playing their game in the wrong setting,

6. You try to tell people they play a wrong game, because you don't like their rules?

the football players start scoring touchdowns to show the tennis players how inferior tennis is to football.

7. And? If Tennis players play with a football and have fun ... who cares?

If people would simply remember that science is a method for FINDING, and not a synonym OF truth, and certainly not a label to categorize the beliefs and viewpoints of educated/enlightened people, that would go a long way to clear this nonsense up.

8. Natural science is a method to find what are the [mathematical] laws in the nature and what's right or wrong in this context. If we find a natural law on Earth then this natural law is the same in the Andromeda galaxy and every other place and time of the universe.

Lol!

Spooky laughing in the beginning.

It's weird to see a response broken down line by line like that, which nonetheless rarely addresses the points made in any of the lines it breaks down. Lemme see if I can clear some of this up for ya. I'm unaware of any quick way to break the format of the post like you did, so I've taken the liberty of numbering each line in the "quote", and I'll use corresponding numbers in my reply.

1. When I said all fine and good, I was dismissing it as irrelevant to any point

A. Aha. You think what I say is irrelevant - thatäs why you will not waste time to think about this what I think.

I was making in the discussion to which you were responding. I wasn't arguing with you about the nature or definition of ideology.

B. Or with other words. You are an fanatics, who tries to speak about something, because you think something about me what has nothing to do with my person.

2. Science vs religion is NOT philosophy vs spirituality. Philosophy is not science.

C. What's wrong. Physics is a part of natural philosophy for example.

Science is a method of testing hypotheses through experimentation.

D. Or withother words: The spirituality of physics is mathematics and the god of physics is teh experimaent. But not all sciences are able to make experients. It's for example impossible to make in history experiments. What woudöl be today without Alexander the great? Ignoramus, igorabimus.

Philosophy, like religion, includes the exploration of the unfalsifiable.

E. So what?

Mind you, I'm not trying to downplay the importance of philosophy, or to imply the superiority of science over any of these other concepts. However, philosophy and science are NOT synonymous.

F. What's again wrong. The mother of all sciences is philosophy.

And that first comparison, science vs religion, IS actually an easy comparison to make.

G. No.

One is a method of experimentation, the other is a system of beliefs.

H. What a nonsense. Just a moment ago you said "Philosophy, like religion, includes the exploration of the unfalsifiable." Now you say philosophy needs experiments.

3. No, empiricism is not like the creator god, assuming for the sake of argument that there is, in fact, a creator god. Empiricism is a philosophy, the creator god is a being that created the universe. Quite frankly, this question's answer is so obvious that I'm guessing the meaning got lost somewhere in translation.

I. A philosophy is a way of thoughts. So the empirism of physics is basing on meta-physics.

4. I think we largely agree, here. I think it's foolish for one to confidently declare that they don't believe in God, even if they believe that to be true. We aren't wired up for not believing in something, and it generally just requires the right circumstances to draw that belief out of someone. It's like they used to say after WWII, there's no atheists in a foxhole.

5. When I said kids, I wasn't literally referring to children. I only used the term to emphasize the immaturity of crusading to prove the stupidly obvious truth that some particular religion isn't scientific.

J. Eh?

Anyone claiming that their religion is science doesn't understand their religion, and anyone trying to apply science to religion doesn't understand science. And, I gotta tell you, it's awfully presumptuous to think that you can extrapolate someone's understanding of education, from the mere fact that they used "fuck" and "kids" in the same sentence.

K. I'm sure I'm right. Do you have children? Ask them and their mother what they think about your arts to educate your children.

6. This has nothing to do with whether or not I like the rules of any game. The tennis/football thing was a metaphor about simply acknowledging when someone is playing a different game than you are, rather than simply playing back at them as though the two different games are at all compatible. Scoring touchdowns against someone who is playing tennis is utterly meaningless, even if they're mistakenly trying to play tennis on your football field. Get it?

L. Sure I got it. To play is a serios thing. And everyone has to follow the same rules. Aye, Captain.

7. I'll try and cut you some slack based on English not being your native language,

M. Yeah - I'm privileged.

but good lord man, this was obviously a metaphor. If I apply your question back to the point I was illustrating with my metaphor, you're essentially asking me this: If the people who want to teach creationism in science class have a good time doing so, then what's the problem? The problem is that unfalsifiable ideas aren't science and shouldn't be taught as science, regardless of how much fun it is for the creationists.

N. Sorry - but we don't have a big problem with religious education in our schools here - better to say: we don't like to miss religious education in our schools. And we also don't like to miss natural sciences.

8. I wouldn't be so confident that the laws of nature are uniform throughout the universe. That's something that we're a long way from being able to verify.

O. What a brainwashing bullshit to say so. We never found any exception from this rule.

Wow. For all your spooky laughing, you seem to be having a really hard time understanding what I'm saying. This time letters in stead of numbers.

A. This response only makes sense when you cut the quote off as you have. Obviously, saying that something is irrelevant to the conversation at hand isn't the same as saying that it's irrelevant. Ideology, it's exact definition, and where/if it diverges from religion, are all topics that I consider to be incredibly relevant, just not relevant to the conversation of why religion shouldn't be taught as science. Maybe stick to what I've actually said rather than selectively cutting sentences apart and then disingenuously using manipulated quotes to try and extrapolate my character flaws?

B. It's not about fanaticism, nor does this have anything to do with what I think about you as a person, true or otherwise. The reason I say that the nature/definition of ideology is irrelevant here is because the only point I was making is that creationism isn't science. My argument for this point doesn't require any acknowledgement of the concept of ideology. It only requires acknowledgement of the fact that creationism is unfalsifiable, and therefore not science.

C. Natural philosophy might discuss physics, and the conceptual categorization of physics as we know it today may even have emerged from natural philosophy. Natural philosophy still isn't science, and even where the concepts explored in natural philosophy overlap with those explored in physics, the natural philosophy discussion still isn't a scientific one insofar as the scientific method isn't the basis for the ideas being expressed. It's this simple: Scientific method = science. Not scientific method =/= science.

D. When you say that not all sciences are able to make experiments, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of what science actually is. If a subject cannot make experiments, it isn't science. That simple. History can't be verified or debunked via experimentation because history isn't a science. Maybe one day the physicists invent a time machine and history becomes scientific, but until there's some way to fully verify historical claims, it ain't that.

E. So what? So philosophy is not a science.

F. The mother of Jesus is Mary. Mary is not Jesus. Science emerged from philosophy, but philosophy is not science. How is this hard to understand?

G. Yes.

H. Again, if you would use ENTIRE quotes in stead of chopping them up for effect, I wouldn't have to explain this. What I said was, "And that first comparison, science vs religion, IS actually an easy comparison to make. One is a method of experimentation, the other is a system of beliefs." SCIENCE vs religion. I don't believe that philosophy requires experimentation, which is precisely why I've insisted several times now that philosophy isn't science. Try to keep up.

I. Ah, I see what you're saying, now. I don't know about creator God, but it definitely had a hand in the birthing process.

J. I don't know how to make it much simpler than that. I wasn't literally referring to children. I was just calling them "kids" to emphasize the childishness of it all. Sometimes I refer to myself as a kid for similar reasons.

K. Based on an exchange of 2 posts on a political message board, you're SURE that you've accurately guessed what, if any, preferences I have in methods of education and the relative effectiveness of those methods? LMFAO. I'd love for you to explain the reasoning behind that analysis, Sigmund.

L. Nah, you don't get "it", if "it" refers to the point I was making. "It" was never about the importance of adhering to rules. "It" was about the fruitlessness of expecting people playing a separate game to adhere to the rules of your game. This conversation is starting to make me wonder if I've stumbled onto that very territory, cuz you're clearly perceiving a different conversation to be taking place than the one that I'm having.

M. Zing.

N. That's solid policy. Religious and scientific education are both incredibly important, regardless of what one believes.

O. It's brainwashing bullshit to say that we haven't verified the uniformity of the laws of physics in every corner of the known universe? Lol! I hate to break it to you, but nobody's ever brainwashed someone else just to make them skeptical. Seriously, though, the fact that we haven't disproven this uniformity is NOT verification that it's true. We've never sent a human further away than our own moon, and the furthest travelled probes that we've ever sent out are barely past the edge of the sun's magnetic field and tens of thousands of years from ever approaching the nearest star, let alone another galaxy, let alone the edges of the universe. So yeah, we haven't ever disproven this rule, but in all fairness, we still have just a teensy little bit of universe left to explore and learn about before we can rule out that possibility.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

So this conversation isn't actually happening?

I believe you are looking at it the wrong way. As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once. Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything. That's what it means to be outside of space and time.

You didn't understand the bible at all.

The essence of God is not in the known physical universe.

Plus, the physical universe is formed by space and matter, where time is nothing but a measure invented by man.

That last bit doesn't appear to be true. Experimentation has proved that entropy occurs at different rates when, for instance, travelling at different speeds. Time exists and is quantifiable insofar as we can observe how various phenomena affect it. The only part humans invented are the particular units that we use to measure it.

Humans invented inches, too, but the dimension of length exists whether we choose to measure it or not.

 

[luchitociencia]

That last bit doesn't appear to be true. Experimentation has proved that entropy occurs at different rates when, for instance, travelling at different speeds. Time exists and is quantifiable insofar as we can observe how various phenomena affect it. The only part humans invented are the particular units that we use to measure it.

Humans invented inches, too, but the dimension of length exists whether we choose to measure it or not.

Explain the mechanism acting in those observations you say do exist. You must prove that an existing and flowing time is the cause. How is that happening?

You not having the explanation of the mechanism will mean your theory is false, invalid, a nonsense.

 

[Indeependent]

The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.

Show time. I want to see its flowing.

I'll love to see how far your ignorance has made you reach the limits of the absurd.

It's called Torah study.
I can read Hebrew; you can't.
I will not denigrate your beliefs.

Great, I have the Torah in front of me, and no flowing time is mentioned, unless you use the Chinese pirate Hebrew version.

You know Hebrew?
If not, this discussion is over.

 

[ding]

So this conversation isn't actually happening?

I believe you are looking at it the wrong way. As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once. Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything. That's what it means to be outside of space and time.

You didn't understand the bible at all.

The essence of God is not in the known physical universe.

Plus, the physical universe is formed by space and matter, where time is nothing but a measure invented by man.

I'm not the droid you are looking for.

God can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.

 

[ding]

So this conversation isn't actually happening?

I believe you are looking at it the wrong way. As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once. Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything. That's what it means to be outside of space and time.

You didn't understand the bible at all.

The essence of God is not in the known physical universe.

Plus, the physical universe is formed by space and matter, where time is nothing but a measure invented by man.

That last bit doesn't appear to be true. Experimentation has proved that entropy occurs at different rates when, for instance, travelling at different speeds. Time exists and is quantifiable insofar as we can observe how various phenomena affect it. The only part humans invented are the particular units that we use to measure it.

Humans invented inches, too, but the dimension of length exists whether we choose to measure it or not.

The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.

Problem of time - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

That last bit doesn't appear to be true. Experimentation has proved that entropy occurs at different rates when, for instance, travelling at different speeds. Time exists and is quantifiable insofar as we can observe how various phenomena affect it. The only part humans invented are the particular units that we use to measure it.

Humans invented inches, too, but the dimension of length exists whether we choose to measure it or not.

Explain the mechanism acting in those observations you say do exist. You must prove that an existing and flowing time is the cause. How is that happening?

You not having the explanation of the mechanism will mean your theory is false, invalid, a nonsense.

First off, I'm going to insist that you take note of the first sentence in my last post. "That last bit doesn't APPEAR to be true." I'm not saying that this is definite, as science is a method for disproving errant possibilities. Proving an affirmative assertion is a much trickier, arguably impossible task.

Anyway.

I'm immediately spotting one major hole in your logic: The validity of an experiment doesn't rest on my personal ability to understand and explain it. If I can't explain the mechanism of someone else's scientific research, that doesn't disprove anything other than my own understanding. And we're not talking about -my- theory. We're talking about Einstein's theory, and there have actually been many experiments made suggesting this to be the case.

Hafele–Keating experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Three Experiments That Show Relativity Is Real

Relativity predicts a lot of phenomena that seem weird, but there are a huge number of experimental tests confirming that it's real. Here are three of the best.

www.forbes.com

GP-B - NASA Science

science.nasa.gov

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi2nc7pq-HqAhWJjp4KHc8hB-kQFjAEegQIChAJ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.outerplaces.com%2Fscience%2Fitem%2F6019-physicists-confirm-that-time-moves-more-slowly-for-objects-in-motion&usg=AOvVaw1b5JZ5vHUcacSP11RyMvfX

Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction Verified

Experiments at a particle accelerator have confirmed the "time dilation" effect predicted by Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity

www.scientificamerican.com

You'll notice that the common thread with most of these time experiments is extremely precise time measuring instruments synced up. Some are kept relatively stationary while others are sent into motion. As more and more experiments have been conducted to this end, the results have consistently shown not only that the moving clocks measured a different amount of time passing than those that were stationary, but also always as predicted by the mathematics of relativity theory.

In terms of proving that it's the existence and flow of "time" that's the "cause", you're simply talking semantics. The point is, things occur, and the rate at which they occur is relative to phenomena including, but not necessarily limited to velocity and gravity. That rate of occurrence is what we call time, and it is a thing whether or not we choose to measure or name it.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

So this conversation isn't actually happening?

I believe you are looking at it the wrong way. As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once. Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything. That's what it means to be outside of space and time.

You didn't understand the bible at all.

The essence of God is not in the known physical universe.

Plus, the physical universe is formed by space and matter, where time is nothing but a measure invented by man.

That last bit doesn't appear to be true. Experimentation has proved that entropy occurs at different rates when, for instance, travelling at different speeds. Time exists and is quantifiable insofar as we can observe how various phenomena affect it. The only part humans invented are the particular units that we use to measure it.

Humans invented inches, too, but the dimension of length exists whether we choose to measure it or not.

The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.

Problem of time - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

This is a big part of my "seems" bit, as well.

Once you get into quantum physics, you move well beyond territory where I've got even a cursory, conceptual understanding of many of the concepts being presented. I tend to put a lot of stock into what the atomic clock experiments seem to suggest, but it's definitely possible that human perception is so far removed from reality that things occurring in any sort of succession at all is simply an illusion. Maybe everything physical already existed/exists/will exist simultaneously, all in a single, immeasurably finite instant, and our disembodied, immaterial consciousnesses have it all fucked up.

Honestly, I've always enjoyed thinking about this stuff.

 

[ding]

So this conversation isn't actually happening?

I believe you are looking at it the wrong way. As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once. Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything. That's what it means to be outside of space and time.

You didn't understand the bible at all.

The essence of God is not in the known physical universe.

Plus, the physical universe is formed by space and matter, where time is nothing but a measure invented by man.

That last bit doesn't appear to be true. Experimentation has proved that entropy occurs at different rates when, for instance, travelling at different speeds. Time exists and is quantifiable insofar as we can observe how various phenomena affect it. The only part humans invented are the particular units that we use to measure it.

Humans invented inches, too, but the dimension of length exists whether we choose to measure it or not.

The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.

Problem of time - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

This is a big part of my "seems" bit, as well.

Once you get into quantum physics, you move well beyond territory where I've got even a cursory, conceptual understanding of many of the concepts being presented. I tend to put a lot of stock into what the atomic clock experiments seem to suggest, but it's definitely possible that human perception is so far removed from reality that things occurring in any sort of succession at all is simply an illusion. Maybe everything physical already existed/exists/will exist simultaneously, all in a single, immeasurably finite instant, and our disembodied, immaterial consciousnesses have it all fucked up.

Honestly, I've always enjoyed thinking about this stuff.

The only way reality can manifest itself is through human perception. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.

"Early in this century it became evident to all physicists that the observer is an intrinsic component of every physical observation. Physical reality is what physicists recognize to be real. One cannot separate the recognition of existence from existence. As Erwin Schrödinger put it: “The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence.”

Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive. This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of complementarity, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.

Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.

It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious." George Wald

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

elijahwald.com

 

[luchitociencia]

You know Hebrew?
If not, this discussion is over.

I know that much that I can easily find texts from it which have been read according to "tradition" but way away from what ancient Hebrew really says.

No flowing time at all, that is 100% guarantee.

 

[luchitociencia]

So this conversation isn't actually happening?

I believe you are looking at it the wrong way. As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once. Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything. That's what it means to be outside of space and time.

You didn't understand the bible at all.

The essence of God is not in the known physical universe.

Plus, the physical universe is formed by space and matter, where time is nothing but a measure invented by man.

I'm not the droid you are looking for.

God can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.

When you perceive the universe, you are perceiving his signature, not Him. You have been made at his image, not as Him himself.

 

[luchitociencia]

The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.

Problem of time - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

A convenient measure.

And with it you can't demarcate any expansion of the universe because actually you can't perceive it by any means, so such idea is still hypothetical.

 

[ding]

So this conversation isn't actually happening?

I believe you are looking at it the wrong way. As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once. Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything. That's what it means to be outside of space and time.

You didn't understand the bible at all.

The essence of God is not in the known physical universe.

Plus, the physical universe is formed by space and matter, where time is nothing but a measure invented by man.

I'm not the droid you are looking for.

God can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.

When you perceive the universe, you are perceiving his signature, not Him. You have been made at his image, not as Him himself.

I'm not a pantheist, dear. I don't believe the painter is the painting.

So was St. Paul wrong when he said, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made."

 

[ding]

The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.

Problem of time - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

A convenient measure.

And with it you can't demarcate any expansion of the universe because actually you can't perceive it by any means, so such idea is still hypothetical.

hmmmm... interesting. Here is how I perceive it, my dear.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

I told you I wasn't the droid you were looking for

 

[luchitociencia]

I'm immediately spotting one major hole in your logic: The validity of an experiment doesn't rest on my personal ability to understand and explain it. If I can't explain the mechanism of someone else's scientific research, that doesn't disprove anything other than my own understanding. And we're not talking about -my- theory. We're talking about Einstein's theory, and there have actually been many experiments made suggesting this to be the case.

Hafele–Keating experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

L. Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock laughed of relativists, and said Einstein folled himself and fooled a generation of scientists with his good for nothing theories full of "thought experiments".

I will tell you this. Atomic clocks are so sensitive, because they work thru internal signals and motion of atoms of Cesium, that you move it from one room to another and its time data has been affected already. Mr. Essen knew it, he was the builder of that clock.

Three Experiments That Show Relativity Is Real

Relativity predicts a lot of phenomena that seem weird, but there are a huge number of experimental tests confirming that it's real. Here are three of the best.

www.forbes.com

Test 1. I will explain you this way. You have your twin brother, and he will take a trip around the earth at 8 km/s, while you will be resting at the beach, having your refreshment, listening soft rock music.

According to the stupidity called relativity, time will "slow" for your brother because his speed.

But it happens that actually you, resting at the beach, and your brother in the space ship, are both traveling at 27km/s around the sun. In simple words, both of you are actually traveling at the same speed of 27km/s because that is the speed which rules over both of you.

So, if any difference is found in time data between your clock and your brother's clock, then definitively is not time dilatation but simply malfunction in your brother's clock.

Your theory has been debunked.

Test 2. There is not suich a thing as gravitational lenses, such is stupidity. The case of the solar eclipse in 1919 is nothing but "atmospheric lens". The Sun's hot atmosphere caused the distortion and the image of a near star will appear to be in a different location. This is a very common optical phenomenon.

Your sh*t theory is debunked again.

Test 3. The results only show how rotation of bodies affect the surroundings. You can't observe any compression of space time, and no similar fantasies.

Your theory debunked one more time.

GP-B - NASA Science

science.nasa.gov

NASA has changed the theory of relativity.

Idiot Einstein never ever mentioned any spinning of bodies as causing gravitational effects. His idea was solely "density" of bodies causing distortion in his imaginary space time.

Your legs have been pulled, because I am more than 20 years already showing relativity as false with its density and gravity. The spinning is not Einstein's idea, it is MY idea.

Go and review all the papers from Einstein, his theory is good for nothing.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi2nc7pq-HqAhWJjp4KHc8hB-kQFjAEegQIChAJ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.outerplaces.com%2Fscience%2Fitem%2F6019-physicists-confirm-that-time-moves-more-slowly-for-objects-in-motion&usg=AOvVaw1b5JZ5vHUcacSP11RyMvfX

Find another source for your propaganda, I don't deal with Google.

Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction Verified

Experiments at a particle accelerator have confirmed the "time dilation" effect predicted by Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity

www.scientificamerican.com

The example given about you and your twin brother -right above- deletes completely and forever the stupidity of time dilatation. You will never ever be capable to beat my statements. Not using relativity, that is for sure.

Relativity is a fraud.

You'll notice that the common thread with most of these time experiments is extremely precise time measuring instruments synced up. Some are kept relatively stationary while others are sent into motion. As more and more experiments have been conducted to this end, the results have consistently shown not only that the moving clocks measured a different amount of time passing than those that were stationary, but also always as predicted by the mathematics of relativity theory.

Since nothing is "stationary" in the universe, then your theory is 100% invalid.

Go back to school, demand your money back, because your teachers have taught you sh*t. Come back, and ask me, I will teach you science based on reality.

In terms of proving that it's the existence and flow of "time" that's the "cause", you're simply talking semantics. The point is, things occur, and the rate at which they occur is relative to phenomena including, but not necessarily limited to velocity and gravity. That rate of occurrence is what we call time, and it is a thing whether or not we choose to measure or name it.

Semantics my ass.

You don't provide the explanation of the mechanism of how time dilates, of how time is affected by a moving object, then you have come here to put crappy links and talk pure sh*t.

You have nothing to validate relativity, you are spreading fraud around.

I'm a master, and I can dance the Macarena over all your relativity sh*t. Lol.

 

[Crixus]

Creationism has never made sense, some of their explanations are wildly tortured and well.... stupid!

Evolution is a far more stable and reasonable science, they have improved a lot in recent decades in how they explain their fossil and other evidence to create a basic picture of what it is.

Even the part where the guy who created the theory proclaimed that black people and woman of all races do not possess the ability to reason at the level of men in the white race? You are coming off a bit racist here.

 

[Crixus]

The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.

Problem of time - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

A convenient measure.

And with it you can't demarcate any expansion of the universe because actually you can't perceive it by any means, so such idea is still hypothetical.

hmmmm... interesting. Here is how I perceive it, my dear.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

I told you I wasn't the droid you were looking for

Psft, you just made all that up. Link or its all fake.