Image from www.quotessays.com
[Now that we’ve opened up the “No God” discussion, we’re keeping it open by featuring bloggers who initially reacted to a You Tube lecture by Dr. Gerald Schroeder on Genesis and the Big Bang Theory, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAdDwLXO4Xg, then got into a long discussion of their own. First, click the link and watch the lecture, then you might prefer reading the blogs on that same page; if not, join us in this cyber-eavesdropping adventure. Often the comments are just as interesting as the lecture. Sample the following and notice the original dates of the interactive exchanges, you might learn a thing or two—specially how the rest of the world thinks differently from you (or maybe not) and if nothing else, you will be amused. Warning — language is uncensored, at some point it reads like a reality show.
Original format edited for this post, you might wish to start from the bottom [3 years ago] and read upward [2 months ago] for it to make sense. Some comments showed up as “spam” and therefore were not posted.–Admin1.]
—————————————
- kingseho 2 months ago
I don’t agree with this aspect of time, tesla refuted it and i refuse to accept any of einsteins plagiarized theories which are incorrect. There is no physical aspect of time.
- muslUnbounded6 months ago
rehzon, if by “agree with the biblical story” you mean “not agree with much at all”. the bible is a cheap rip-off of the previous stories. the biblical stories are so brief that they only raise questions that have to be enlarged by the earlier non-biblical sources. considering that the non-biblical sources are condemned by the bible itself, that means that the bible isn’t doing anyone any favors by mentioning anything in the first place.
- TN BN6 months ago
If you mean stories like gilgamesh etc., there have been tablets found in
other parts of the world (that are possibly older), that agree with the
biblical story.
- muslUnbounded9 months ago
this loser doesn’t understand that every primitive philosophy believed the same thing, that matter condensed from something flimsier than matter. there is nothing special about genesis, which is just the hebrew plagiarism of pagan babylonian philosophy.
- odinata11 months ago
If making false assertions is preferable to finding the facts, then I think he may have gotten too much “funk” in his “soul”.
You’re right, pot doesn’t seem to be helping you. It makes you think other people are smoking it when they are clearly sober and you are not.
I completely and utterly reject your entire way of thinking. It solves nothing, it offers nothing. But it’s your right to hold said position. It just smacks of religion, which I explained to you long ago. Don’t be a hypocrite. Science is not your personal dogmatic tool.
Good luck on your spiritual quest, circus.
Biology isn’t your enemy.
Pot doesn’t seem to be helping.
Doesn’t seem odd to you that gods only hide where we can’t see them–in the gaps of our understanding?
Yeah, its precisely a god of the gaps argument.
It doesn’t fly.
It’s not God of the gaps, I’m not saying God is responsible for this unknown over here. It’s not a gap at all. It’s about holding different starting assumptions.
- odinata11 months ago
“Let’s say I’m totally wrong and it’s just a stochastic process that gives rise to all the variety we see.”
Strawman.
SELECTION is non-random.
It’s not God of the gaps, I’m not saying God is responsible for this unknown over here. It’s not a gap at all. It’s about holding different starting assumptions.
- odinata11 months ago
“Let’s say I’m totally wrong and it’s just a stochastic process that gives rise to all the variety we see.”
Strawman.
SELECTION is non-random.
“And it doesn’t explain things like consciousness…”
God of the Gaps.
“God dunnit” doesn’t explain anything, circus.
You haven’t discovered anything that indicates that non-random evolutionary processes are guided by magic.
Let’s say I’m totally wrong and it’s just a stochastic process that gives rise to all the variety we see, and the variety we don’t see is that which failed to live up to the demands of the environment. Essentially it’s random, but with the unbiased “guiding hand” of chemistry. It still doesn’t explain the genetic expression system. It doesn’t explain the deterministic, non-random genetic mechanisms that have been discovered. And it doesn’t explain things like consciousness…
It is quite apparent that I’m the ONLY one of us who is looking past bias to evaluate it.
- odinata11 months ago
make sense.
You can’t see past your religious opinion to grasp the fact that zebras and bacteria don’t have similar methods of reproduction.
- odinata11 months ago
“They don’t have to be passed on in the same way for my logic to be consistent..”
Bacteria simply split in two.
Zebras don’t do that , or your assertion that they could control their genome MIGHT
- odinata11 months ago
DON’T forget that random mutation in DNA transcription is only ONE of MANY stochastic processes that have the affect of increasing variation in a population of individuals.
- odinata11 months ago
Lets not forget that NOTHING in ANY of these DIFFERENT processes indicates a Jeebus–or any magical sky fairies of any sort.
No, your logic ISN’T consistent because there is no way that meiosis and sexual reproduction can produce variety that is PLANNED.
- odinata11 months ago
If your assertions about bacteria are true, it STILL doesn’t remove stochastic processes as a MAJOR source of individual variety in MULTICELLUAR life.
THINK about it.
They don’t have to be passed on in the same way for my logic to be consistent because it isn’t about reproduction. It’s about the PRE-EXISTING genetic mechanisms. You can’t think outside of your bias to even evaluate it.
Prokaryotes don’t pass on heritable traits in the same way RATS do, so your generalizations between the two are a really good example of highly flawed logic.
No, this isn’t about where information comes from.
That’s your religious opinion.
Organisms inherit there traits and PASS them on.
The copies aren’t identical.
The information doesn’t “come” from any process.
Genetic information is inherited–imperfectly.
The variation in the heritable traits of organisms is due to this
Variation? No, this is about information and where it comes from and how it is utilized in the first place. I’ve already explained variation. It comes through adaptive non-random adaptive mechanisms. In bacteria, it simply leads to further and further specialization. In animals it leads to variety in the gene pool. Little of it has to do with random.
You can’t seem to wrap that religious head around the FACT that stochastic processes are just ANOTHER source of variation in the gene pool…..
As is SEX.
You are claiming that you agree with evolution and disagree with it, all at the same time you aren’t understanding what it is or what science claims it is.
Bacteria don’t reproduce in the same way that vertebrates do, or plants, so your conclusion about there intelligence has no bearing on them.
Yes, actually they are. Study bacteria. But I think I see the flaw in your logic. You are assuming that information ONLY comes from stochastic processes, where randomness generates something that wasn’t there before. Actually, that isn’t correct. And if you’d just grasp what I’ve said ad nauseum, there are pre-existing mechanisms that dynamically alter genomes adaptively according to information about the environment that is processed by the organism (i.e. bacteria).
First of all, there is LAMARKIAN type inheritance in the epigenomes of many organisms. Second, I’m not claiming to explain evolution in the sense you are describing it, I’m only talking about adaptations within existing populations. I don’t believe that zebras magically became giraffes. That’s your deal.
What you are proposing isn’t tenable, circ.
You are proposing LAMARKISM.
Evoluiton doesn’t happen that way.
Organisms don’t decide what they need to survive, stretch there necks, and then magically alter their genome to make babies with longer necks.
THINK about how gametes are formed and how they are introduced during sexual intercourse.
You AREN’T thinking critically.
- odinata11 months ago
@circusOFprecision
YOU love to side with the YECs and claim evolution doesn’t happen when you CONCEDE it happens, and nothing you propose changes how it unfolds in any discernible way.
- odinata11 months ago
@circusOFprecision
YOU argue just to argue, because if you thought this through, you would see that there is ZERO DISCERNIBLE DIFFERENCE between what you propose and what we already see.
This is why I don’t like conversing with you. You twist things around.
What you CAN’T do is think critically, because if you could, you would understand that there is no way that stochastic processes COULDN’T be involved in the content of gene pool.
You are arguing just to argue. But no, adaptation is the process that leads to beneficial changes in an organism.
RANDOM processes ADD variety to the gene pool.
THAT is what natural selection acts upon to produce the evolution you CONCEDE occurs.
No–adaptationS-occur.
Adaptation isn’t a proccess–its a trait.
“An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life…”
LOOK IT UP!
YOU haven’t proposed a mechanism that would enable meiotic crossover to be non-stochasti.
You haven’t demonstrated how two gametes would meet in a non-random way
Yeah, adaptation occurs. Yes, natural selection selects. But the creatures that end up being selected are often simply the lucky ones. Natural selection acts on organisms, we’ve already been through this a dozen times. You have to look deeper, down at the molecular level, at the programming.
No, stochastic processes aren’t an opinion..
They are demonstrable, and if you would THINK THROUGH your assertion, you would find that they are necessary.
Stochastic processes…you are just assuming them to be nothing more than unbridled chemical reactions. But that’s just your opinion. Take a computer program that utilizes both stochastic and deterministic programming. That’s probably what it takes to achieve the dynamic necessary for adaptation. Life is complex, surely we agree on that point.
- odinata11 months ago
Adaptations are NOT acquired by individuals.
That is called acclimatization.
What you are proposing is called LAMARCKISM.
And its shown to be WRONG.
You aren’t usin’ yer noggin–again….
“I showed you that adaptation isn’t always about selection,”
Adaptation is a TRAIT, not a process.
Another example of you misunderstanding the terminology.
You CONCEDE that natural selection acts upon populations.
Now turn on your thinking cap:
WHAT does natural selection act upon.
You are equivocating.
You NEVER showed that stochastic processes were not involved in evolution.
Not once.
I’ve challenged you to think through why you CAN’T…
You might as well be talking to an imaginary friend. I never said random processes CAN’T be involved. I simply showed you where they were NOT involved. I showed you that adaptation isn’t always about selection, it’s often about intelligent biological mechanisms that alter the organism purposefully for its survival. You need critical thinking, and a lot of it.
- odinata11 months ago
This is the real reason that circusOFcision has decided to STOP thinking things through…..
The facts are on my side, circus.
You have had to capitulate on every assertion you have made then subsequently thought through.
I’m not the one claiming that random processes can’t be involved in evolution.
If you thought that through, you would find there is no critical thinking in it.
You are wrong. The thing is, you are wrong because you don’t know how to think critically. You don’t even understand, hopeless.
- odinata11 months ago
This is the way it always goes.
You deny evolution, then you admit it.
You deny common ancestry, then you admit it.
Now you deny randomness, now you admit it.
Fine.
You tell me what wasn’t black about your denial of randomness in genetic processes.
Or white.,
I’m starting to think you don’t really know.
…disturbing.
I’m not saying it can’t be stochastic. You are interpreting what I am saying that way because you can only think in black and white.
You CAN’T correct anything.
You can’t demonstrate that crossover isn’t stochastic.
And if you though about it CRITICALLY, you would find something very….
“It’s the crap that’s destroying this world.”
Sorry, but that’s completely ridiculous. In fact, it’s so ridiculous that the fact you actually think that tells me just how stupid you are.
You want to know what is destroying this world? Do you really want to know? Because you don’t have the slightest clue.
Actually, no. You have never paid attention and connected the dots. So, again, you are just asserting things out of confusion. It’s sad really. So sad that I no longer even care to try and correct your ignorance.
FOCUS!
You claim that evolution can’t have ANY assistance from random processes–nothing stochastic.
What does that mean about the varied individs ina populatin?
I get off on shutting down YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST BULLSHIT.
Its the crap that is destroying this world.
Now stop with the secondary insults and back your talk!
Stop with the insults and THINK THROUGH your main assertion–that genetic drift can’t be stochastic, that meiotic crossover can’t be stochastic.
Think CRITICALLY
Do you get off on dragging people into your stupid arguments and then projecting every facet of your pathetic existence onto them? I should get an award for my patience with you, offering you countless chances to articulate a point with integrity. But you aren’t interested in that. You aren’t good at that. You are good at being a sleezy troll though. So enjoy having people call out out as the retard that you are. I guess you get off on it.
Disrespect is the only thing you are good at.
If its science, you hate on it.
If it doesn’t back Young Earther garbage, you’ll poo poo it.
You hate facts.
You didn’t start out objecting to Biolgy–you started out with a religious opinion, and when you found out (2nd hand) that science didn’t back u, you threw a fit
No, I’m just letting him know that his certitude can be flipped on him in the same disrespectful manner with which he pushes it on other people.
No, I just have a thing against lying intellectual failures who troll angrily because they lack the ability to articulate any sort of respectable intellectual position what so ever (yes, that’s you).
YOu haven’t the ability to articulate how your only objection to evolution–“random mutation”–would appear differently if the mutations weren’t random.
- odinata11 months ago
Think critically for once.
You claim that you don’t believe in common ancestry in all cases.
Redefine biology for us–which organisms AREN’T related?
Try it! you’ll find it doesn’t work your way.
That’s probably because you only use one half of your brain. Why do you put subjective limits on the potential of individual human intelligence? Seems jealousy won and out and has angered the closed minded half brain.
Another content -free statement.
You don’t have the capacity to put your doped brain behind your religious opinions.
Think it through for once.
Put down the pipe and tell the world what the functional difference is between stochastic genetic processes and non-stochastic ones.
I’ll give you one more chance. Watch your false accusations. Try and put forth an argument, or continue to be an angry, mentally retarded troll. The choice has always been yours. I personally have no hope in you. You are a sad, pathetic, frustrated person.
Watch your accusations. Not only are they false (potentially slanderous), but they make you a bold faced liar.
Seriously, what is the point of your question? How about take some time to articulate it, perhaps give me a little context. Good grief. Even if I think I understand what you are trying to ask, I’m tired of you setting me up with ambiguous questions. It’s called intellectual fortitude. Try it.
Your bitching and pot-smoked bellyaching about how Biology is wrong doesn’t make that science which you have no knowledge about wrong.
It makes you a zealot.
And another empty assertion. You really love to just pile them on. Respect is something you will never achieve until you actually DO show anything what so ever. Put forth a coherent argument yourself, or a coherent refutation with facts and sources. Now there are some good ideas. Your welcome.
You are the master of empty.
You start with a religious opinion, and fight any science that shows it was just one of your dope smoking fantasies.
Worthless.
Dope smoking? It’s real simple my retarded friend. I don’t embrace your assumptions and/or your pathetic worldview. I don’t think you are worthless, but your world view most certainly is. Your whining changes NOTHING. Your anger…FUTILE. Do you understand?
Why don’t you think one of your pot smoke fantasies through for once?
What is the implication of a MULTI-CELLED organism producing gametes intelligently?
That’s just another empty assertion, one you put forth habitually. The problem is that it’s completely false. YOU have shown nothing, because all you like to do is whine about my religious opinion and assert my “failings”. Not very intellectual, kind of ant-intellectual actually.
Bullshit.
You turn to name calling when you are shown to be wrong.
YOU have the burden of proof, but you don’t have the tools to build it.
No new phylogeny…
No new phylogeny? Yeah, and I don’t have a new theory of gravity either. So I guess you don’t have to take me seriously then. That’s cool, I could care less.
Yeah–you have a GOD OF THE GAPS and an argument from incredulity.
YOu claim that evolution isn’t the FOUNDATION of Biology…But manly you just don’t LIKE it.
You could care less about TRUTH.
What you care about is lashing out at everyone who doesn’t believe your marijuana hallucination that Jeebus made everything.
YOu deny stochastic processes, but you haven’t shown they don’t exist.
You don’t seem to know the difference between bacteria and Buffaloes.
- odinata11 months ago
circus has a thing against anyone that doesn’t subscribe to his drugged up viewpoints and pot-based religious opinions.
Wow, that was a great argument!
“Shove it up your ass?”
I guess its as good as anything you’ve come up with so far.
This guy is a JOKE, and you just can’t stand ANYONE that doesn’t share your religious opinions.
KEep up the great work!
Failure.
No offense, but my comments are Shakespeare compared to the mental retardation you display on a daily basis.
No offense but “stick it up your ass” is probably your most cogent argument.
Actually, when I make a slightly crude joke you mistake it for an argument because all of my other arguments are so far beyond your pathetic intellect. And that is the sad truth. And the crazy part, you have never even made a single argument. Wait…just one. Evolution IS Biology. Nice.
Actually, you think your turds don’t smell.
As we can see, you are quite impotent.
You’ve never studied biology, and you can’t seem2separate it from evolution…
“all of my other arguments are so far beyond your pathetic intellect. “
You’ve been smoking the drugs AGAIN, eh clown?
If the arguments aren’t beyond your intellect, than perhaps addressing them is beyond your ability of articulation. Either way, you’ve got nothing to show. Assertions without evidence don’t count…isn’t that your little intellectual escape route? Try it on yourself. Maybe even improve yourself. What an idea! Self improvement. Maybe one day people will take you seriously! Wow, anything is possible with a little humility and some genuine intellectual effort. It’s on you.
Iv’e shown you precisely what is flawed with your assertions.
Every one.
From your misunderstanding of the def. of evolution, to your incredulity about “random”.
You make an assertion that I show beyond doubt to be FLAWED, then you turn to insults and run away.
Every.
Single.
Time.
- ThinkCritically10001 year ago
How can a scientist and a RABBI co-exist in the same mind. Sounds like a contradiction and a paradox. Seems like the Rabbi won out and has zombied the scientist.
- pana3761 year ago
he should be selling cars
- gubodun1 year ago
So if the universe has a beginning, then time also has a beginning? If time started at the onset of the big bang, then there was no time “before” the big bang?
… did the big bang also happen by chance? -But without time, how can there be chance?
- cykoaudio7771 year ago
scientists are re-arranging their “definties” every couple years…what they “knew” 40 years ago,has been re written and re written..you must not know too much about this doctor,or think your credentials match up in the same universe of scientific knowledge,huh? but the Bible and those first verses have been un changed for millenia and still proven exact even w/ time/energy mathematics…if that doesn’t look even a little like a miracle, your eyes are closed.
Einstein was a brilliant scientist, but I don’t think he was educated in the original hebrew translations of all of the texts that Schroeder knows inside and out. Schroeder is no idiot. He has a good argument, and he may be entirely wrong. So if he is, show me how instead of insulting him. By the way Einstein did believe in an impersonal intelligence (not the God of Abraham, but a God of sorts) precisely because he was so brilliant, he could see the obvious.
- azcentralsurprise1 year ago
@circusOFprecision,
Schroeder IS an insult.
If you can not figure this out for yourself…pick up the talmud and thump 10 times on your head for all answers to modern Physics and Cosmology.
‘He has a good argument…’ maybe, you should thump 20 times.
He’s an insult to what? Your simple minded, arrogant view of reality? Maybe you should pick it up and shove it up your ass.
I don’t need to try very hard to rationalize it, I would need to try a lot harder to prove it. But creatures in the past lived with more carbon dioxide, more sunlight, more cosmic radiation, why couldn’t they have lived with “less” time? You are the one who can’t seem to grasp the true implications of relativity. So please, before you claim that the bible is wrong (which isn’t even the real issue), I would try to actually tackle Schroeder’s argument.
- circusOFprecision1 year ago
Ironically, you are the one that lacks understanding here. Time is RELATIVE. It slows down in terms of it’s relationship to light as the universe expands. So what if the first creatures lived much shorter compared to us. It doesn’t matter. Trying to compare our experience of time to what happened billions of years ago is futile, plus it changes nothing. You have a subjective conceptual problem, maybe the public does too. But don’t cry pseudoscience from your own ignorance.
- Damscot22 years ago
Dr Schroeder states in part 3 that time “took hold” a “moment” = 10^-x seconds after the bang began, when there was only dark energy, no physical laws yet. But a moment is a finite duration of time. Thus, in effect, he said “there was time before there was time.” Unless there were two different forms of time, this is a logical contradiction. Either The big bang, as theorized, is a physical impossibility, or logic is wrong.
(cont.) “Christians (and others) are never happy unless they have CONVERTED everyone, because that is what their fucking holy books tell them.”
So? If they want to let them. It’s not like they are forcing anyone to believe it like Islam is so why should you care?
- Johanan Raatz2 years ago
“Scheroder’s “theory” in science but nobody with a relevant credential will support this quacky stuff.”
Ok, so he has 3 premises in it. 1.) The age of the universe, 2.) The Big Bang expansion factor. 3.) The equations of general relativity. Now I have 2 questions. 1.) Which one of these premises is quacky? 2.) Can a quacky conclusion logically follow from quacky premises?
“Nothing is compatible with religion.”
Well it seems that his calculations from general relativity are.
- Johanan Raatz2 years ago
LOL I get it now! In other words you are not so much concerned with whether or not Schroeder is correct. It’s that you don’t like the fact that what he found happens also to be compatible with religion. You’re one of those anal-retentive anti-theists who throws hissy fits about religion.
Ok, forget if it’s right for a second. Let’s look at this from a social point of view. Religion is a natural mechanism for keeping societies glued together. As such it’s good to promote it.
- Johanan Raatz2 years ago
“is like blending a validated relativity theory with stories from ancient text, is garbaging-down science.”
But the point is that what he is doing is not ALL about science. He’s trying to bridge the science vs religion gap. Naturally he’s going to talk about stuff from both ends. As long as it doesn’t mess up the science in the process so what?
- Johanan Raatz2 years ago
It’s not about “garbaging down” science though. It’s just regular science. All he’s using are the age of the universe, the big bang expansion factor and general relativity equations. Nothing that isn’t already accepted. And if it happens to line up with what people believe about Genesis then so what? Why would you care? It’s not like the scientific half of it is using anything that isn’t already known elsewhere.
- Johanan Raatz2 years ago
How is it harmful though? It meshes nicely with the data and so there is no threat to science. As for the Christian (or in this case Jewish -Schroeder is Jewish) aspect of it, that is neither scientific nor pseudoscientific. Schroeder is just pointing out that the science half is compatible with the religious half, and so we can have both our burger and our fries with our Happymeal instead of just one or the other.
- Johanan Raatz2 years ago
If the shoehorn mathematical fits who cares?
if thats the case enlighten me
- gregrutz2 years ago
the age of the universe is only valid from a particular point in space time,
NO, IT STARTED AT ONE TIME, THE BEGINNING OF TIME. EVERY PLACE IN THE UNIVERSE LOOKS THE SAME AS OUT VIEW.
- gregrutz2 years ago
The bible says a thousand days is a year and a year is a thousand weeks, and a thousand weeks is one 24 hour day and anything else you want.
- MrJSpice7772 years ago
tHe four who hate this are idiots
- gregrutz2 years ago
Four people are smart enough to know he is wrong. Have you ever studied Einstein’s Theories?
- Calixtus2 years ago
Has anyone realised this yet? Actually what is said on the 7th Day of creation in the Bible destroys the mythological belief that the discovery of evolution destroys the sanctity of the substance of the Bible. As it is said, God rested after all His creating was completed. He had no need left to interfere with the motions of the universe from that point, since everything has been set in placed and prepared for the eventuality of the completion of the Universe, which happened on the 7th Day.
- gregrutz2 years ago
Why did God have to rest?
- Calixtus2 years ago
You want to know? I don’t know if this is a serious question, but I will answer. It is a metaphorical statement of a state of rest being a state of completion. There’s no need to rest, but there’s no need to do anything anymore, since the blueprints have been set in place. This is a question that assumes of itself the question, the Bible was ever written literally or with metaphorical meaning. I don’t understand what it is trying to state, or what it insinuates.
- gregrutz2 years ago
This is a question that assumes of itself the question,
WHAT IS THAT IS SECULAR ENGLISH?
- revahp0013 years ago
Richard Feynman, smart man, also a Jew. I dont think he gets it as well as Schroeder does though
- koldkase773 years ago
Name one credible reference that accepts your view and then you have an argument.
- Knowwheretorun19843 years ago
I honestly dont believe you have understood the theory he has put forth, and are arguing only what you think he means. and so there is no use arguing with you at this point.
- Knowwheretorun19843 years ago
the age of the universe is only valid from a particular point in space time, as Schroeder states, this is well accepted and caused not just by moving at light speed but rather gravity’s effect.. therefore the time must be calculated based on a the dynamics of a particular location and they would vary vastly depending on several factors, putting all this aside the reason you are wrong is because it is not based on a arbitrary hypothetical observer but rather…..
- Knowwheretorun19843 years ago
on the accepted calculations of the speed of the expansion and slowing down. that is why I said you dont understand it, or if you do, you are simply arguing your own straw man. which was anticipated and is why I put the first line in the description section after the link.
- Knowwheretorun19843 years ago
For someone who obviously claims to have more understanding than the “general public” about relativity, you sure did whif badly on understanding Schroeder’s theory. Lets say i live on the sun, minute for me would seem like days or even years on earth, which one is passing faster? or are they relative to the observer? entire eons could have passed in “real” time while the conception of those times changed with the ever expanding universe.
- arizonaviking3 years ago
“Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum
star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in
which there are far more galaxies than people” Carl Sagan
- annxtte3 years ago
Pontecanis,
He already stated the first six days are from the perspective of God – then it shifts to ‘our’ time (still from God’s perspective). Obviously you are not a believer – but consider for one moment that God is real… God created a story that is easy enough for a child to understand without compromising scientific truth —- throughout the ages. (How would you explain time dilation & evolution/ eons to the people beginning 4000 years ago?)
- pontecanis3 years ago
No he isn’t…his mistake is in assuming it is valid to observe Earth FROM Earth and from the edge of the expanding universe, and then to conclude that the Talmudic and Biblical timelines are valid due to the relativistic behavior of time…this is reverse extrapolation taken from the vantage point of space, which is NOT where the Talmud/Bible were written…it is completely invalid, as are the subsequent conclusions drawn from the original error.
- Evestrin3 years ago
He is brilliant!!!
- gregrutz3 years ago
Time is not the same Anywhere, it depends on the warped space-time environment it is in.