Science (15 Billion years) vs Creation (6 days) maybe they are saying the same thing

Many of you may already be aware of this. I was not and found it interesting.
www.studiesintheword.org...

prophecyrevealed.com...

>>The same thing happens with time. It is as elastic as dimensional objects are.
Einstein’s theory of relativity that: time slows down for bodies in motion, was
proven by flying an atomic clock at a very high rate of speed and comparing it to
another atomic clock left at the airport. The one that was flown at high speed
“lost” time.
Now, as ridiculous as this seems, the six 24 hour days of creation AND the 15
billion years old age of our universe, are in fact, the same time period, depending
upon your perspective. Now stay with me here…
G-d measures time from “His” perspective, in other words from where He started
creation. We on the other hand measure time from here on earth; thus our different
perspectives vastly effect, or stretch time.
Let’s prove this from Einstein’s theory of relativity. The numbers that follow
come from the latest physics books and are used exclusively in physics laboratories
and review journals worldwide. For example, in The Big Bang, by Joseph Silk,
published by W.H. Freeman, or The Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E.
Peeble (both are 100% secular science), we are told that the universe is a million
squared times larger today than at the time of the Big Bang. This means that the
universe has been stretching and stretching. So let’s illustrate this.
8
Let’s say that G-d is sitting at the point of the Big Bang and is having fun with His
new laser gun. He sends out a pulse of light and imprints on it the message “I’m
sending you a pulse of light every second.” The first pulse moves away from Him
at 186,000 miles per second (the speed of light). Then, a second later, G-d fires the
next pulse, and a second later the next, etc.
But as they are traveling away from G-d what is happening to the universe? It is
s t r e t c h i n g outward as time goes
on. Therefore, the space between the pulses is also stretching, and it is taking
longer and longer for the pulses to move through the expanded space. As the
first pulse arrives at our big dish antenna here on earth, we are very excited. But,
from our perspective the next pulse doesn’t arrive a second later, it arrives in
direct proportion to the amount of stretching or expansion the universe has gone
through up until that time. For arguments sake let’s say it takes 25 years for the
second pulse to reach us. Then were the pulses fired a second apart? Yes, from
G-d’s perspective. And are the pulses actually 25 years apart? Yes, from our
perspective.
I know this is a hard concept to understand, so let me say it another way. G-d fired
His laser gun from the point of the Big Bang 5 billion years ago. Let’s say it took
one year for the light to travel across the universe at that time and size. Now, if He
fired it 10 billion years ago, since the universe had more time to expand, wouldn’t
it take longer for the light to travel through the larger universe? Yes, of course it
would. Well, it still only took one second of G-d’s time. But, because the universe
kept expanding, it would appear to have taken longer to reach us, because we
measure time from our already expanded universe perspective. So one second
equals different time periods, depending upon where you are measuring the time.
Well, science says that the universe is about 15 billion years old. The Torah says
G-d created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Do the math. Divide 15,000,000,000
(the estimated age of the universe) by 1,000,000,000,000 (the rate the universe is
expanding or stretching) = .015. Multiply .015 X 365 days in a year and this equals
approximately 6 (24 hour) days.

but still fails to explain how everything in genesis is in the wrong order

a decent attempt at the days bit though

reply to post by BlackProjects


Well explained, quite elegant and believable...thank you. I've often thought that this very point might be the case...after all, our notion of measured time in minutes and seconds is totally fabricated...who are we to say what a day is? That's only our interpretation of how to measure time. It's also very easy to "stretch" or "contract" time from our own perspective, in a personal way, even if we can't measure it so precisely.

As for the Genesis bit...with respect...it's only one understanding of it, and not gospel (please excuse the pun)...and that has been written in the last fragment of our time here, and may well still be evolving itself as people read and reinterpret it. Probably there is no such thing as the wrong order.

[edit on 25-11-2008 by caitlinfae]

You tried, failed, and burned with satan.

good atempt though you put some serious thought into this regarding you as one of the smarter people around the world. kudos

reply to post by caitlinfae


>_< do i really need to go through it ?

cant have light without stars and the universe

cant seperate light from dark without a source for light, as darkness is just that an absense of light

cant have earth without the sun

cant have days and nights without both the earth and a sun to orbit around

whales arnt fish and should be in there after the land mammals

birds should come after the land mammals too

animals came before plants

it doesnt matter how you interpret it, its in entirely the wrong order

Nice, but, the Torah only begins its calendar at the end of the sixth day of creation, with the creation of ADAM. The preceding days were not witnessed by man, so therefore not quantified into hours or days as discerned by human observation. There's a great deal more. But all, or nearly all discrepencies can be reconciled between the scientific guesstimation of the universe's age and the old testament account.(With exegetical reading of course)

Who are we to say what is the wrong order? Genesis is alleged to be the word of God written by humans...maybe whoever it was didn't listen like he should. Maybe the whales came first, and the oceans were made for them to swim in when they got here....does it really matter? If light comes from God, then it will exist without stars.

And I believe that darkness has a will all of it's own, and is not merely the absense of light, but will exist and be useful regardless.

But that's just my perspective...I kinda liked the OP's explanation, is all I'm saying.

reply to post by BlackProjects


Few problems with your theory there Einstein, Einstein's theory is basically energy = mass times the speed of light squared. Is the speed of light constant? Harvard stopped light and another school out west sped it up to 3000 times faster. So which speed of light was Einstein talking about?

GOD Created in 6 literal 24 hour days and he did it in an order that makes it the only way and it proves that he is the Creator of all...

Burt other than that I will refrain from commenting on this thread as I am in battle of the witless in another thread on evolution. Although I would be interested in a response to the speed of light question if you so please.

One more thing GOD is outside time, GOD was before TIME and GOD will be after TIME. Read John 1:1 in the original.. In BEGINNING was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was GOD.

reply to post by noobfun


The universe was awash with free high-energy photons for a billion years before the first stars formed.
The photons were contained in a "fog" of primordial high-energy quarks and other subatomic flotsam, so the universe was dark, despite an abundance of photons.
The sun and moon are not the only way to measure time, ever hear of atomic decay?
Correct, whales aren't fish
Birds are dinosaurs, there, i said it
NO, plants came first, oxygenated the earth, then animal life took hold.

it doesnt matter how you interpret it, you just have to know what you're talking about.


[edit on 25-11-2008 by dashen]

[edit on 25-11-2008 by dashen]

Originally posted by dashen
reply to post by noobfun

 

The universe was awash with free high-energy photons for a billion years before the first stars formed.

but that isnt the way god did it he created the universe (stars) later

The sun and moon are not the only way to measure time, ever hear of atomic decay?

but thats not day and night is it? thats time

Correct, whales aren't fish

but they are land mammals that returned to the water so should come after land mammals

Birds are dinosaurs, there, i said it

ok ill let that one play but it still misses out ampibians reptiles and actual (recognised as such)dinosuars

NO, plants came first,

wrong single cell animal life existed first then some adapted to use the suns light as a source of energy and food, thats why plants carry basic genetic markers from early animal life

oxygenated the earth, then animal life took hold.

yepp once the animalistic single and multicellular organisms branched off to become plants and the earth had large quantaties of oxygen life really took off

it doesnt matter how you interpret it, you just have to know what you're talking about.

i know





[edit on 25/11/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by theindependentjournal

Few problems with your theory there Einstein, Einstein's theory is basically energy = mass times the speed of light squared. Is the speed of light constant? Harvard stopped light and another school out west sped it up to 3000 times faster. So which speed of light was Einstein talking about?

speed of light is coinstant in a void e.g. space

and e=mc2 is atomic energy not light velocity ... seriously you need to return to school

GOD Created in 6 literal 24 hour days and he did it in an order that makes it the only way and it proves that he is the Creator of all...

which also means 1+1 isnt 2

if god made it even maths is broken

Burt other than that I will refrain from commenting on this thread as I am in battle of the witless in another thread on evolution.

yah were still waiting for you to even comment on evolution and how its wrong not just call Darwin names

Although I would be interested in a response to the speed of light question if you so please.

the answer is go to the library and learn about iensteins thoery of relativity

not atomic energy

One more thing GOD is outside time, GOD was before TIME and GOD will be after TIME. Read John 1:1 in the original.. In BEGINNING was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was GOD.

wow thats handy isnt it

so where was he? if he is outside time he must still be somewhere ?

reply to post by noobfun


Ah, a worthy foe. Yet I have no intention of convincing you. You're smart enough to make your own decisions as to what to beleive in. But i will respond this last time on the subject.

1. In the beginning=BIG Bang (Primordial Matter for all creation is created)(Vaccum of space is created just now as well)
2.BANG
3.Cloud(soup) of super dense proto-subatomic particles hold all available light (photons) inside.
4.Universe continues to expand in vaccum of space.
5.As density of cloud decreases, huge release of free photons occurs
(Separate Darkness from Light)
6. Day and night are merely regular observations of predictable change
perhaps, this is when the first heavenly bodies became fixed in orbit, or the first time day and night were able to be differentiated.
7.Whales are great, I love 'em, but once mammals are created if they go airborne or into the water, it is of no consequence. The Old Testament is not a newspaper, or a science book, the order of creation is accurate in that it expresses a very real order in nature, and if taken too literally, we get people like you, who scoff-off every possible discrepancy to "well established" scientific knowledge which is obsolesced every few years or decades now.
8.Birds are still dinosaurs, there, I said it again. Amphibians, and the others are classified as creeping things. Again, the Old Testament isn't as arbitrary or picky in classification as Linnaeus.(unless it comes to practical applications)
9.The discussion of whether plant or animal cells came first, or whether plantlife took hold on land first is still hotly debated and disputed in scientific circles, so we're stuck on this one.(Unless you know better than them all).
10.The early Earth's oceans were blood red with oxidized iron, which was oxidized by the early plantlike singlecell organisms, allegedly. And this is still highly debated in the scientific community. Oh, and has anyone noticed that for the past 20 years scientists add a billion years to the age of the universe every few years?

So for now, I propose that we all respect each other's faith, don't respect ignorance, love each other, and hate hatred. I'm done with this one.

[edit on 25-11-2008 by dashen]

Originally posted by dashen
reply to post by noobfun

 

6. Day and night are merely regular observations of predictable change
perhaps, this is when the first heavenly bodies became fixed in orbit, or the first time day and night were able to be differentiated.

this is one of the points first you need stars to create the elements through nucler fission then to collapse and expell matter

without stars first there is only clouds of hydrogen in space and no way to make planets from it

and the earth could only be formed with the help of the suns gravity it could never hav gained enough mass to become a pplanet without it and would have drifted off into space without it also

7.Whales are great, I love 'em, but once mammals are created if they go airborne or into the water, it is of no consequence. The Old Testament is not a newspaper, or a science book, the order of creation is accurate in that it expresses a very real order in nature,

but it creates them befor land mammals for them to return to the water its saying whales came first then land mammals

and if taken too literally, we get people like you, who scoff-off every possible discrepancy to "well established" scientific knowledge which is obsolesced every few years or decades now.

no just improved upon in the same way einstein corrected gravity we didnt throw it all away just gained a better undertsanding

8.Birds are still dinosaurs, there, I said it again. Amphibians, and the others are classified as creeping things. Again, the Old Testament isn't as arbitrary or picky in classification as Linnaeus.(unless it comes to practical applications)

^_^

9.The discussion of whether plant or animal cells came first, or whether plantlife took hold on land first is still hotly debated and disputed in scientific circles, so we're stuck on this one.(Unless you know better than them all).

take a look at this
www.biomedcentral.com... animalistic life gained the ability to fix nitrates to become useful this then migrated through genetic drift to become the basis of early plant life like algae

10.The early Earth's oceans were blood red with oxidized iron, which was oxidized by the early plantlike singlecell organisms, allegedly. And this is still highly debated in the scientific community. Oh, and has anyone noticed that for the past 20 years scientists add a billion years to the age of the universe every few years?

just refining our knowledge for a better understanding

notice they dont suddenly go aww we were wrong its 1 million years the figure always goes higher and its the universes age not earths

So for now, I propose that we all respect each other's faith, don't respect ignorance, love each other, and hate hatred. I'm done with this one.

i have no probelm with christianity unless i feel like it in some threads and then its that persons interpretation

its not evolution or christianity thats a simple outright lie

if you say its simply an analogy for the creation of earth fine no problem with that at all

if you say its accurate and thats how it happens things get interesting

From my perspective, 15 billion years can be created in a few days. Consider that the entire timeline was created in the beginning and it's been evolving ever since. It started simple, but new details are constantly being added in between previously existing events, not after. I went into in some detail about it here.

It's not unfathomable, it just requires a different perspective.

Lets go back a little ways to the beginning if the moon is the same age as the earth. The moon has been moving away from the earth and its a comon fact that eventually we will lose our moon, but why is the moon not gone yet? If the moon is billions of years old (measuring the center-to-center) distance from the Earth to the Moon, the distance would be about 384,403 kilometers/238,857 miles, give or take a few. Thats far, but being that far away is not far enough. The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually being measured at about 4 centimetres a year. It would have been even greater in the past. Take into account the fact that the force of gravity varies with distance, the tidal pull and other such things. Since the moon is backing away from the earth over a 4.5 Billion year period, that means that the earth and the moon were touching, very close together, or inside one another (which yes is impossible). Can you imagine the Moon so close to the earth, the tides would have been absolutly insane!

Lets look at the sun:

According to current models of stellar evolution, when a star like our sun is very young, its enormous output of energy is provided by gravitational contraction. As it grows older, the models show that the source of its energy should change over to that of nuclear fusion as it slowly develops a very hot and dense core. Where exactly does our sun fit into this sequence?

ICR does a great job of putting evidence forth for a young sun.
ICR-Evidence for a young sun

Lets look at people themselves:

Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros; that is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000.
This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billons of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years.

Good article by Answersingenesis.org, Human Population

Lets look at stars. Why do we see no stars forming? We see them blown up all the time we call this explosion, Novas and Super Novas, but why have we seen none form? Maybe its because its just not possible for a star to create itself, maybe it needs a creator.

Mercury is a planet of extremes. The side of the planet that faces the sun reaches a temperature of about 430°C (more than enough to melt lead), while the dark side is a frigid –170°. Mercury revolves around the sun every 88 days, and has the unusual characteristic of rotating on its axis exactly three times for every two complete orbits. Scientists have discovered that Mercury has the highest density of all the known planets (other than Earth). Mercury is so dense that it’s thought to have an iron core occupying some 75% of its diameter. This extraordinary density has generated much turmoil and confusion in evolutionary astronomy. Evolutionists mostly agree on models of planetary formation … but their models say Mercury can’t be anywhere near as dense as it actually is.
Mercury, stripping away its lesser-density material, and leaving behind the high-density planet seen today. Consider the implications of this. Evolutionists have admitted that the planet that we see today cannot be explained by gradual evolutionary processes! This is a stunning admission. Instead, they propose a long-ago catastrophic collision. What is the evidence for this collision? Only that Mercury would otherwise disprove evolution!

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by theindependentjournal

Few problems with your theory there Einstein, Einstein's theory is basically energy = mass times the speed of light squared. Is the speed of light constant? Harvard stopped light and another school out west sped it up to 3000 times faster. So which speed of light was Einstein talking about?

speed of light is coinstant in a void e.g. space

and e=mc2 is atomic energy not light velocity

... seriously you need to return to school

GOD Created in 6 literal 24 hour days and he did it in an order that makes it the only way and it proves that he is the Creator of all...

which also means 1+1 isnt 2

if god made it even maths is broken

Burt other than that I will refrain from commenting on this thread as I am in battle of the witless in another thread on evolution.

yah were still waiting for you to even comment on evolution and how its wrong not just call Darwin names

Although I would be interested in a response to the speed of light question if you so please.

the answer is go to the library and learn about iensteins thoery of relativity

not atomic energy

One more thing GOD is outside time, GOD was before TIME and GOD will be after TIME. Read John 1:1 in the original.. In BEGINNING was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was GOD.

wow thats handy isnt it

so where was he? if he is outside time he must still be somewhere ?

Oh thank heavens somebody besides me knows C does not equal the speed of light.

This was used because at the time C stood for constant which meant something that is constant and the speed of light in their time was the most constant thing they could relate (or what Einstein could find to relate the equation to) so they placed that in school books with a disclaimer.

Now days the books just say it's the speed of light and are completely wrong because somewhere along the line the kiddie books forgot what C really meant along with the teachers.

The original C as was taught to me was "some constant squared and because at the time light was considered to have a constant speed they used that for the equation".

quote]Originally posted by TheMythLives
Lets go back a little ways to the beginning if the moon is the same age as the earth. who said that? its nearly as old but not quite (ejection event not its forming that came a bit later)

The moon has been moving away from the earth and its a comon fact that eventually we will lose our moon, but why is the moon not gone yet?

becasue tidal locking is very slowly slowing its rotation pulling it out of orbit and we havnt alwaays had tides to lock it ..... but thats just silly science lets hear more from ken 'if it dont fit my book its a lie' ham

If the moon is billions of years old (measuring the center-to-center) distance from the Earth to the Moon, the distance would be about 384,403 kilometers/238,857 miles, give or take a few. Thats far, but being that far away is not far enough. The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually being measured at about 4 centimetres a year.

3.8 cm to be a bit more accurate

It would have been even greater in the past.

its moving away the gap cant be bigger in the past, or do you mean traveling away faster? which is again wrong

Take into account the fact that the force of gravity varies with distance, the tidal pull and other such things.

other such things?

Since the moon is backing away from the earth over a 4.5 Billion year period, that means that the earth and the moon were touching,

more then you know the moon in made from the earth its called Big Impact Theory

very close together, or inside one another (which yes is impossible).

lol no

Can you imagine the Moon so close to the earth, the tides would have been absolutly insane!

there were no seas to lock it when it was created that came later sorry

the moon was formed when a planetoid collided with the earth, the earth expelled large amounts of matter which was then trapped in our orbit, this formed over time into the moon as the earth became water covered(not entirely sorry noah) the tides began to lock the moon slowing its orbit

it is now moving away at 3.8cm a year but it is an accelerating process 3.8 x number of years wont account in anyway for this gradual acceleration of it ^_^

1+1=3 is wrong sorry

so enjoy it while you can we lose our second moon(Cruithne) is escaping in a about 5000 years luckily luna(our real moon) is gonna be gone in a couple of billion so will still be all good ^_^ at least for now

Lets look at the sun:

According to current models of stellar evolution, when a star like our sun is very young, its enormous output of energy is provided by gravitational contraction. As it grows older, the models show that the source of its energy should change over to that of nuclear fusion as it slowly develops a very hot and dense core. Where exactly does our sun fit into this sequence?

ICR does a great job of putting evidence forth for a young sun.
ICR-Evidence for a young sun

www.godandscience.org... actual sceintists and christians saying whats written above is total tosh just check 'fussion in the sun'

just like the moon info


now we enter my favorite topic

Lets look at people themselves:

Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros; that is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000.
This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billons of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years.

Good article by Answersingenesis.org, Human Population

No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

we will lie misinterprate and lie some more if it doesnt agree with our beleifs ..... you need a reliable source everyone here will laugh at your for using it

and guess what his population models ignore very vital information about population growth rates

like the fact populations didnt grow as fast as they are currently doing simply becasue we wernt producing anywhere near enough food until a little over the last 150 years,m the fact that death rates were drastically higher then he is willing to admit, the fact that until we started to settle down and farm in the neolithic mankind had a rediculously small population

hell we nearly died out totally at least twice

Lets look at stars. Why do we see no stars forming?

we have

We see them blown up all the time we call this explosion, Novas and Super Novas,

but why have we seen none form?

becasue you wernt looking? the astronomers were though luckily

Maybe its because its just not possible for a star to create itself, maybe it needs a creator.

or just large hydrogen clouds and gravity like we know they do ^_^ becasue we have seen it tested it and generally already know

Consider the implications of this. Evolutionists have admitted that the planet that we see today cannot be explained by gradual evolutionary processes! This is a stunning admission. Instead, they propose a long-ago catastrophic collision. What is the evidence for this collision? Only that Mercury would otherwise disprove evolution!

hahahhahahahahahhahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahahah add more ha and ha as you feel

evolution has nothing to do with stars not even close thats astro physics and astronomy


shall we ask a physacist?




even he knows its nothing to do with evolution

Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest proto-organism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

this evolution no stars big bangs abiogenesis allowed




[edit on 26/11/08 by noobfun]

What if the universe you see is Not what you believe it to be?

But instead is a holographic experience, manifested by a processing system, that has been pre written, before your experience, if so we that is all of us, need to look at our understanding again!

No I am Not talking about a god of Hebrew or Roman Doctrine, nor am I referring to Aliens.

But rather of Conscious Intelligence, that may in fact be collectively our own Consciousness, including All other Consciousness.

DNA is Not the Only form of processing whether Automatic or Not.

If it is, such an experience, then All, have to take another look at understanding.

The knowledge may be correct, but the understanding of knowledge may Not be correct!

Can in fact this be disproved ????

If you are going to answer Don't bring up other theories or other Ideas, in opposition, as we have heard it all, a billion times before, and nothing at all comes of it....

Just see if this analogy can disproved?????





[edit on 29-11-2008 by The Matrix Traveller]

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
What if the universe you see is Not what you believe it to be?

then the creator of it is a liar

they made 99.99999% of the entire universe just to lie to us and make it look really really old

if i ever beleive in a god i dont want a lair, after all how would i know he wasnt laying when he said im a god

But instead is a holographic experience, manifested by a processing system, that has been pre written, before your experience, if so we that is all of us, need to look at our understanding again!

then the proggrammer is exceptionally skilled

but has still created one big lie for us to live in

and where did the programmer come from? and he was just there is a cop out, its a terminator to an infinate regress

creating a stop point(kind like rounding number up to a whole) and calling it god gives it no special powers. its like saying 19.9999999(reccuring) when made into 19.99 so you can sell it suddenly makes it all powerful and all knwoing and somthing we should worship

for there to be an unnatural creator they always need to be more complex then what they make and the process that made them more complex still and on to infinity

No I am Not talking about a god of Hebrew or Roman Doctrine, nor am I referring to Aliens.

But rather of Conscious Intelligence, that may in fact be collectively our own Consciousness, including All other Consciousness.

now if you can prove conciousness is energy then you could be on to somthing and might get a nobel peace prize

but still doesnt change the fact the world was brought about by natural causes or who/what ever did it is a big con man using tricks and lies

DNA is Not the Only form of processing whether Automatic or Not.

If it is, such an experience, then All, have to take another look at understanding.

but experience can be very deceptive in its self were looking on the glory and wonder of an immense natural system and trying to make sense of it with our out dated and limited sense organs

were stuck to living in the past, and not seeing and hearing whats there just what we think is there, the mind is fallabel thats why we use other methods to test and compare then just our senses

The knowledge may be correct, but the understanding of knowledge may Not be correct!

or we could be both knowing and undertsanding

Can in fact this be disproved ????

no, but the burden of proof lies with the proposer, the argument for is a dreadfully weak as the argument against

but is it probable is an entirely different matter and the odds are around staggeringly large

hiding in gaps is the same as telling science dont bother we will just make up a reason why

and if we put a piece of evidence in the hole the lovers of this god rejoice now they have twice as many holes to hide in and think it in some way strengthens the case

If you are going to answer Don't bring up other theories or other Ideas, in opposition, as we have heard it all, a billion times before, and nothing at all comes of it....

your right nothing at all comes of it becasue it is nothing but a poor reasoning and a gap in the evidence to claim as your/thier own

it doesnt help anything, doesnt explain anything, it has no purpose or value

Just see if this analogy can disproved?????

we shall await you to attempt to prove it, so then we can disprove the evidence

until then my friend the super unicorn says this is a joke he made when he was making the world with his magic horn and he cant beleive you actually took it serious -- can you prove the super unicorn is wrong? no .. guess you better start believeing he did it then and what you beleive was just a practical joke

sorry matrix your bringing philosophy to ascience debate, and unlike good philosophy it doesnt rely on reason or logic just child hood games of hide and seek

Is it right to say that God created everything in six days!

When God also say that a day is like a 1000 years,and a 1000 years is like a day.
You can grow one heck of a garden in a 1000 years

And remember we can destroy everything on this planet in less then a day.

Then imagine the power that God has.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]