It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ok creationists answer me this please

page: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
So this is from the first creation myth in Genesis.


You have to read verse 1. As a title.

I see you didn't waste time putting your own spin on things.

Verse 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It says that's step 1 of the recipe.

Verse 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That's step 2 of the recipe.

OK. So now it is clear that the earth was created at the outset. By verse 2 we have an earth. Doesn't matter if the rest of the words are hard to understand like the Spirit of God concept. There is an earth.

So how come the earth is not the same age as the universe? How come the earth is 4.6 billion years old and the universe is like 13 billion years old? You know it's all science.


Well you are right. I am not fallowing the traditional interpretation of Genesis. Because it doesnt make sense. Because when i close the Bible and look around i see reality.

If you knew what i was talking about you would understand earths age.

Because the expansion of emitted energies will tell you.

Time is read by the emitted energy and how matter change.

The 4.6 billion years you believe in. Ain't more accurate than when Moses says, A day is like a 1000 years.




posted on May, 4 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



The 4.6 billion years you believe in. Ain't more accurate than when Moses says, A day is like a 1000 years.

I guess you don't follow science.

You go on by claiming cause and effect which is not stated in Genesis. This is where you claim verse 2 causes verse 3.

Then you claim that time begins with verse 5. Light begins in verse 4. Why can't there be time in verse 5? It seems rather explicitly written.


If you knew what i was talking about you would understand earths age.

So is this your stance, an inability to express a consistent idea?



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
This whole believer vs non-believer debate is never going to get anywhere because neither side will concede that they could very well be wrong and the other side right.

Good luck guys.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
 



The 4.6 billion years you believe in. Ain't more accurate than when Moses says, A day is like a 1000 years.

I guess you don't follow science.

You go on by claiming cause and effect which is not stated in Genesis. This is where you claim verse 2 causes verse 3.

Then you claim that time begins with verse 5. Light begins in verse 4. Why can't there be time in verse 5? It seems rather explicitly written.


If you knew what i was talking about you would understand earths age.

So is this your stance, an inability to express a consistent idea?



Yes i do.

-Cause = Movement. Last sentence in verse 2.

-Yes light is emitted energy from a source. Time actually starts in verse 3. But i was explaining that from the last sentence in verse 2 til verse 5 is about the creation of light and how it separates from darkness. The creation of light is the creation of time.

And that is science dude.

What is the difference between the infinite and light?

Light is emitted energy from the firmament. Light is a finite.

God is creating heaven and earth. That = finite emitted energies and finite matter.


EDITED: to make it more understandable. But it probably wont help lol.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Your cause=movement claim I will simply say is wrong. Causality is not shown here. At best it is a coincidence.

Must light be emitted from a source? The big bang says that the early universe had photons but no so-called source. You also claim that time starts with light? Why do you claim that? (see questions below). Comparing light and infinite is an invalid comparison.

And dude that is not science. This is your speculation and a poor one at that. So let me ask you a few questions about your speculation.

If time is caused by light is there time in the dark?
If time is caused by light does time slow down or stop at absolute zero?
Why is there more than 1 type of infinite?
The firmament is heaven, i.e. verse 8, the second day. How can light be from the firmament if light came on day 1 and no firmament till day 2?

BTW, I am trying to simplify this for you.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
 


Your cause=movement claim I will simply say is wrong. Causality is not shown here. At best it is a coincidence.

Must light be emitted from a source? The big bang says that the early universe had photons but no so-called source. You also claim that time starts with light? Why do you claim that? (see questions below). Comparing light and infinite is an invalid comparison.

And dude that is not science. This is your speculation and a poor one at that. So let me ask you a few questions about your speculation.

If time is caused by light is there time in the dark?
If time is caused by light does time slow down or stop at absolute zero?
Why is there more than 1 type of infinite?
The firmament is heaven, i.e. verse 8, the second day. How can light be from the firmament if light came on day 1 and no firmament till day 2?

BTW, I am trying to simplify this for you.


1.

If time is caused by light is there time in the dark?


Before God created light there was no time period. Because we measure time by observing emitted energy and the changes in matter.

You answer the question above with this question lol.

"If time is caused by light does time slow down or stop at absolute zero"?


How would you determine time in the infinite dimension of darkness?

Light is light, darkness is darkness. Don't you see the difference here?


2.

If time is caused by light does time slow down or stop at absolute zero?


If i was you, i would really think about what you are asking here. Because i don't really think you know what you are talking about.

If there are no finite energies or finite matter you have a dimension of absolute vacuum. "No time Period". Because time is measured by the presence of observed emitted energies and the changes in matter.

So to answer your question: You have compared the dimension of emitted light to the dimension of absolute zero. You have just used light to prove that we must have emitted energy and matter to determine time.

Don't you see the problem with your own question?

You are using the dimension of absolute zero, and the dimension of light. You are using two different dimensions to compare. And to compare is to measure.

My question to you: Do you think the dimension of absolute zero produce light?

It probably wont! Right? because there are hardly any finite or movements within the existing finite in the dimension of absolute zero, to produce light.

--So what you basically have done, is that you have answered your own questions. With a question. Because, you dont know what your talking about.



Why is there more than 1 type of infinite?


I have have never said that there was more than one type of infinite.

There can only be one dimension that is infinite.

The infinite dimension houses all finite emitted energies and finite matter.

Got any more questions you would like me to answer?




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Just because we measure time using something does not mean that time is affected by the means of measurement. A lack of measurement does not mean that something exists or does not exist. There was matter there before light. It says so in verse 1. There is nothing in the bible about anything other than light.

You are clearly making things up as you go along. You lack understanding if you think that the question about absolute zero answers the other question. Thinking is required.

Don't you see the problem you've created for yourself? You are using a fallacious argument called arguing from ignorance. Your claim is that because you don't know how to do something then it must be wrong.

I must point out to you that absolute zero is not a dimension of absolute zero. Light is not a dimension. Furthermore to compare is to measure is wrong as well.

I think you need to look up Cantor and learn that there is more than 1 type of infinity.

You haven't answered any questions. The reason is simple. You do not understand the material you are posting.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
Just because we measure time using something does not mean that time is affected by the means of measurement. A lack of measurement does not mean that something exists or does not exist. There was matter there before light. It says so in verse 1. There is nothing in the bible about anything other than light.

You are clearly making things up as you go along. You lack understanding if you think that the question about absolute zero answers the other question. Thinking is required.

Don't you see the problem you've created for yourself? You are using a fallacious argument called arguing from ignorance. Your claim is that because you don't know how to do something then it must be wrong.

I must point out to you that absolute zero is not a dimension of absolute zero. Light is not a dimension. Furthermore to compare is to measure is wrong as well.

I think you need to look up Cantor and learn that there is more than 1 type of infinity.

You haven't answered any questions. The reason is simple. You do not understand the material you are posting.


No i am not. You are the one who is making excuses right now. I have challenged you on every claim that you have made against me. That's more than i can say for you. Because you cant argue them at all. You dont have the knowledge to.

You have done nothing but to prove that you don't know what the hell your talking about. Because you don't understand what you read. And i have even called you on that fact as well. By answering your questions. Which you your self clearly didn't understand. But since i called you on them, you can do nothing but say its based on fallacious claims. Yeah right. Prove me wrong. I challenge. Maybe we can clear up your knowledge a bit, because i think it needs to be worked on.

We can start with this question.

-Can a dimension of absolute Zero produce light?

I have already given the answer. "Remember". And with a explanation. Prove that what i am saying is false.

Next question:

Will a dimension of absolute zero have time?

My answer is yes. Because its not a absolute vacuum. I tried to explain that as well. But you didn't get that. Because you dont understand what you read.

A dimension that has finite matter and energies will have time. But a infinite dimension can not. Finite is created, the infinite is not.

What you have been talking about is nothing but emitted energy. Emitted energy needs a source. Emitted energy is not infinite. Because its expanding towards the infinite.









[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I have no problem admitting that I don't know wtf either one of you are talking about it.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


It's abundantly clear that you have no knowledge of anything you are posting. Clueless comes to mind. You understand none of this material. No surprise. I'm hoping you'll learn some basics out of this discussion.

A dimension does not produce light.
Absolute zero has nothing to do with dimensions.

"Can a dimension of absolute zero produce light?" That's a meaning less question.
"Will a dimension of absolute zero have time? " Another meaningless statement.

I think the confusion here is that I asked about absolute zero. Apparently, you do not know what this is.


A dimension that has finite matter and energies will have time. But a infinite dimension can not.

This is your conjecture that you take axiomatically. Do you have any evidence for this?



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


Spy has no idea what he saying either.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
 


It's abundantly clear that you have no knowledge of anything you are posting. Clueless comes to mind. You understand none of this material. No surprise. I'm hoping you'll learn some basics out of this discussion.

A dimension does not produce light.
Absolute zero has nothing to do with dimensions.

"Can a dimension of absolute zero produce light?" That's a meaning less question.
"Will a dimension of absolute zero have time? " Another meaningless statement.

I think the confusion here is that I asked about absolute zero. Apparently, you do not know what this is.


A dimension that has finite matter and energies will have time. But a infinite dimension can not.

This is your conjecture that you take axiomatically. Do you have any evidence for this?


-A dimension does produce light. Because light is a dimension of emitted energy. "Light comes from a source". All sources have a dimension and belongs to a dimension.

Man are you totally blank?

Well maybe i cant blame you. But your teacher. I dont know. But your are sooo out of it.



A dimension that has finite matter and energies will have time. But a infinite dimension can not.
This is your conjecture that you take axiomatically. Do you have any evidence for this?


Do i really have to? Can't you do the math? I thought you where smart!

How would you meassure time in the infinite dimension without finite? Gesses, I know your trying to save face but God. At least think before you act.






[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
A dimension does not produce light. Go learn something - please. Your logic is a mess. You again show how you know only how to exhibit foolishness.

You have done no math. Show me the math. You wrote, "Do i really have to?" The answer is yes. You should. Don't try to weasel out. Show me the math.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
 


It's abundantly clear that you have no knowledge of anything you are posting. Clueless comes to mind. You understand none of this material. No surprise. I'm hoping you'll learn some basics out of this discussion.

A dimension does not produce light.
Absolute zero has nothing to do with dimensions.

"Can a dimension of absolute zero produce light?" That's a meaning less question.
"Will a dimension of absolute zero have time? " Another meaningless statement.

I think the confusion here is that I asked about absolute zero. Apparently, you do not know what this is.


A dimension that has finite matter and energies will have time. But a infinite dimension can not.

This is your conjecture that you take axiomatically. Do you have any evidence for this?


Why is absolute zero being related to time in the first place? If you take any science class they teach you absolute zero is a measurement of temperature.


Absolute zero is the theoretical temperature at which entropy would reach its minimum value.
Absolute Zero

So I agree with you, the measurement of time to absolute zero is meaningless because it doesn't have anything to do with time; rather a measurement of temperature.

I'm not completely privy to light in dimensions. Light in itself is one dimensional but if shined on a three dimensional object casts a two dimensional shadow. Then it's meaningless to ask if a dimension can produce light because it can't be tested; to my knowledge.

Infinite dimensions are just a theory and I don't know how you can scientifically prove this.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
A dimension does not produce light. Go learn something - please. Your logic is a mess. You again show how you know only how to exhibit foolishness.

You have done no math. Show me the math. You wrote, "Do i really have to?" The answer is yes. You should. Don't try to weasel out. Show me the math.




If a matter ain't a dimension. Than what is it?

If light ain't a dimension. Than what is it?

You should know since you say a dimension can't produce light. And that light which is emitted energy can't be a dimension.

Please educate me!



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Spy is making a direct connection to time and emitted energy. If no energy can be emitted does that affect time is my question. I say no. If that is the case then time is not necessarily connected to the ability to emit energy.

Light travels in a straight line. That is 1 dimension. The source of the light is not the dimension.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Matter is not a dimension. Light is not a dimension.

A dimension is an axis along which positions are specified. Points of a space are mapped to a set of scalars that describe each point. The minimum number of scalars required defines what is known as the dimension of the space.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
Spy is making a direct connection to time and emitted energy. If no energy can be emitted does that affect time is my question. I say no. If that is the case then time is not necessarily connected to the ability to emit energy.

Light travels in a straight line. That is 1 dimension. The source of the light is not the dimension.


Good, so far you are getting there. Light is one dimension within emitted energy.

Otherwise your are wrong about what i am saying.

I have said that for time to exist: There must be finite matter and energy.

If there is no finite matter and energies there is no time. Because than everything is infinite.

Energy and matter are dimensions of finite. And finite cant be infinite because they change.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
 


Matter is not a dimension. Light is not a dimension.

A dimension is an axis along which positions are specified. Points of a space are mapped to a set of scalars that describe each point. The minimum number of scalars required defines what is known as the dimension of the space.


LoL

I know we will never agree. We have very different knowledge about knowledge. But thank you any ways.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



Light is one dimension within emitted energy.

So you are changing your definition of dimension to the frequency spectrum?


Energy and matter are dimensions of finite.

Then you change the use of dimension almost immediately.

How do you define dimension?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join