Creationism vs. Evolution

[With Teeth]

Genius.

Is it just me or is over thinking things?

The problem seems to be a lack of thinking at all.

[Dragonisia]

They may not perceive the deviation until something around them is unaffected by the same exact change. Our observations are also localized to within this heliosphere and the effects of our sun, gravity has an impact on time. That's why satellites have to be corrected in earth orbit. And that is part of my point. If time has altered before we were able to perceive its alterations, then our measurements could be vastly off.. in either direction.

So, to summarize, you believe that a meteor caused the flood because our perceptions of time are relative?

Shoot me

They're distantly related items, It's just that responses lead to build the conversation in that direction.

[Dragonisia]

Is it just me or is over thinking things?

The problem seems to be a lack of thinking at all.

Glad to know I've basically won the debate and you have nothing left to contribute fellas that will actually refute my statements.

[Blasveck]

So, to summarize, you believe that a meteor caused the flood because our perceptions of time are relative?

Shoot me

They're distantly related items, It's just that responses lead to build the conversation in that direction.

So that's a yes?

[Blasveck]

The problem seems to be a lack of thinking at all.

Glad to know I've basically won the debate and you have nothing left to contribute fellas that will actually refute my statements.

Wha....
I...
You have utterly defeated us...*bows*

[Dragonisia]

I believe a meteor could have caused the flood.. whether or not time is relative. However, someone went into c-14 records for the age of the earth and that got mingled into the argument.. and so I went into the relativity of time. That sort things better?

[With Teeth]

The problem seems to be a lack of thinking at all.

Glad to know I've basically won the debate and you have nothing left to contribute fellas that will actually refute my statements.

I answered your remarks in other posts. I'm free to mock your ideas in the meantime.

[Need a Name]

The problem seems to be a lack of thinking at all.

Glad to know I've basically won the debate and you have nothing left to contribute fellas that will actually refute my statements.

I need to hear this from you, do you think that a asteroid started the flood? Never mind, i read his earlier post

[Anachronous Rex]

The problem seems to be a lack of thinking at all.

Glad to know I've basically won the debate and you have nothing left to contribute fellas that will actually refute my statements.

I seem to recall you failing to respond to several of my points.

But I understand your juvenile need to declare victory.

[Dragonisia]

Glad to know I've basically won the debate and you have nothing left to contribute fellas that will actually refute my statements.

I need to hear this from you, do you think that a asteroid started the flood?

Possibly..

I was not there.

[New Libertarian States]

I believe a meteor could have caused the flood.. whether or not time is relative. However, someone went into c-14 records for the age of the earth and that got mingled into the argument.. and so I went into the relativity of time. That sort things better?

The thing is, it's a HYPOTHESIS.
It's not proven.
There is no reason to believe so, and as multiple users have posted, everything would probably be DEAD.
I wasn't there for the creation of china.
It dosent mean china now dosent exist.

[Need a Name]

I believe a meteor could have caused the flood.. whether or not time is relative. However, someone went into c-14 records for the age of the earth and that got mingled into the argument.. and so I went into the relativity of time. That sort things better?

I guess

[Dragonisia]

Glad to know I've basically won the debate and you have nothing left to contribute fellas that will actually refute my statements.

I seem to recall you failing to respond to several of my points.

But I understand your juvenile need to declare victory.

I may have missed them. THere was a lot to cover. If you wish to restate you may. Childish? The one insulting others' intellects calls my behavior childish? Please.. hypocrite, find some ground to tread on first.

[Seperates]

Perhaps, but there is no logical reason to ASSUME that. The key is that yes, time is relative, Einstein proved that. However, time is only relative for objects which are moving at vastly different speeds. Assuming that the Earth was formed at approximately the same velocity, all the relative radioactive aspects of the Earth should be relative equal to each other. And if time is experienced differently, then it is likely that the entire solar system, nay, the entire Galaxy experienced the same difference in the flow of time, making the matter inconsequential, because it would affect the energy of everything equally. Basically, no matter the relative flow of time, the age of Earth is approximately 6 billion revolutions around the Sun. Perhaps it was 'faster' than our relative flow of time, but it is irrelevant to the matter at hand, because it was all experienced simultaneously.

There is no reason to assume the contrary either, but all of our science is based on that assumption because we simply observed it happening now. If everything in science were pretexted with the simple were "According to our perception.." then proceeds with how it is perceived to be, it would be much more accurate.

Of course everything is based on our perception. And perhaps it will change, perhaps it won't. We will see. But we shouldn't assume de-facto that it is wrong, otherwise we have nowhere with which to start a scientific dialogue.

But as I pointed out, flow of time or no, it is irrelevant to the question of the age of the Earth, because unless you are suggesting an isolated event that specifically targeted parts of the Earth, something which there is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, for (and therefore should be Occam's Razored out for the time being), time has been relatively experienced the same for this solar system at the very least, making the question of the age of the Earth relative to the rest of the solar system being an answerable question.

[Anachronous Rex]

I believe a meteor could have caused the flood.. whether or not time is relative. However, someone went into c-14 records for the age of the earth and that got mingled into the argument.. and so I went into the relativity of time. That sort things better?

No, once again, when you increase the magnitude of the impact, you increase the amount of water that is displaced as vapor. The effect is a larger, more energetic, explosion. The peaks of mountains would not be flooded, they would be fried.

[Dragonisia]

I believe a meteor could have caused the flood.. whether or not time is relative. However, someone went into c-14 records for the age of the earth and that got mingled into the argument.. and so I went into the relativity of time. That sort things better?

The thing is, it's a HYPOTHESIS.
It's not proven.
There is no reason to believe so, and as multiple users have posted, everything would probably be DEAD.
I wasn't there for the creation of china.
It dosent mean china now dosent exist.

Everything we have discussed so far is a hypothesis.. except for the things people claim to know as absolutes. Given I claim to know nothing as an absolute.. you're open to your hypothesis.

[Need a Name]

I believe a meteor could have caused the flood.. whether or not time is relative. However, someone went into c-14 records for the age of the earth and that got mingled into the argument.. and so I went into the relativity of time. That sort things better?

The thing is, it's a HYPOTHESIS.
It's not proven.
There is no reason to believe so, and as multiple users have posted, everything would probably be DEAD.

He said he believe that it could have happened. Not that he believe it did happen,

[New Libertarian States]

I seem to recall you failing to respond to several of my points.

But I understand your juvenile need to declare victory.

I may have missed them. THere was a lot to cover. If you wish to restate you may. Childish? The one insulting others' intellects calls my behavior childish? Please.. hypocrite, find some ground to tread on first.

Which, you know, he's done, which your response has been, to the effect of "Your wrong, your wrong, time is non linear, nah nah nah nah boo boo"

[Dragonisia]

I believe a meteor could have caused the flood.. whether or not time is relative. However, someone went into c-14 records for the age of the earth and that got mingled into the argument.. and so I went into the relativity of time. That sort things better?

No, once again, when you increase the magnitude of the impact, you increase the amount of water that is displaced as vapor. The effect is a larger, more energetic, explosion. The peaks of mountains would not be flooded, they would be fried.

To be exact, the peaks would probably be fried first.. the a combined tidal wave and rain (water impact= massive evaporation).. might flood them.. depending on whether or not the altitude of said mountains wasn't sheered by the blast wave echoing through the atmosphere around the planet at hypersonic speeds. Will something survive on the other side of the planet? Unknown.

[Blasveck]

The thing is, it's a HYPOTHESIS.
It's not proven.
There is no reason to believe so, and as multiple users have posted, everything would probably be DEAD.
I wasn't there for the creation of china.
It dosent mean china now dosent exist.

Everything we have discussed so far is a hypothesis.. except for the things people claim to know as absolutes. Given I claim to know nothing as an absolute.. you're open to your hypothesis.

But the age of the earth isn't a hypothesis. Scientists don't make things up and forget about them.

It is proven.

[With Teeth]

Everything we have discussed so far is a hypothesis..

I take it back.

I take everything back.

I give you to the ''Totally Understands Science Award''.

Congratulations, you've earned it.

[Need a Name]

I may have missed them. THere was a lot to cover. If you wish to restate you may. Childish? The one insulting others' intellects calls my behavior childish? Please.. hypocrite, find some ground to tread on first.

Which, you know, he's done, which your response has been, to the effect of "Your wrong, your wrong, time is non linear, nah nah nah nah boo boo"

This is getting out of hand, new topic, Chuck Norris.

[Blasveck]

Everything we have discussed so far is a hypothesis..

I take it back.

I take everything back.

I give you to the ''Totally Understands Science Award''.

Congratulations, you've earned it.

Maybe he'll get the Darwin Award one day?

[Anachronous Rex]

I seem to recall you failing to respond to several of my points.

But I understand your juvenile need to declare victory.

I may have missed them. THere was a lot to cover. If you wish to restate you may. Childish? The one insulting others' intellects calls my behavior childish? Please.. hypocrite, find some ground to tread on first.

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.

Now, provide maths describing this hitherto unaccounted for time-dilation.

Remembering, of course, that the basic tenant of relativity is that there is no uniquely real present moment, and that all time-dilation is relive to the observer, who perceives no change unto them self.

[Dragonisia]

There is no such thing as proven science unless you can duplicate it in front of your face. Can you duplicate the age of the earth in front of your face and sit through it every moment of its existence from end to beginning?

Oh wait.. you're human.

So no, it's a hypothesis based on indirect observations... and anything beyond that is a religion.