A question about possibility

Originally posted by whodey
Is anyone going to address my observations scientifically or is everyone just going to mindlessly say repeatidly that I am merely trying to justify my beliefs?

Let us look at one of the ridiculous statements within your post:
If, during those first 6 days, a clock had been suspended in that part of the universe now occupied by earth, it would not necessarily have recorded 15 billion years.
Did you or the original writer actually think about that?

What is that sentence trying to say or imply? Think about it a bit and give me your interpretation.

Now I could be wrong, but I think that your post is essentially saying that it is possible that the whole universe, including earth and man, were created in 6 days as measured by a clock somewhere in the universe.
Is that what you are saying? If so, once you have clarified that point, I will show you why it is not only ridiculous, but a clear and indisputable indication that you are merely trying to justify your beliefs.

Originally posted by Mexico
Your providing a possible interpretation, but a valid interpretation? based on ALL available data is something different..... Parsimony my friend parsimony. The simplest solution fitting all observed data is most likely to be the correct. This is the scientific method. You don't argue evolution, So the earth must be older than 6'000 years....... It can't have ...[text shortened]... which is the only one of relevance to us. The earth is most certainly older than 6000 years

I don't think you are getting the gist of what I am really trying to say here or what GS is trying to say here. Neither one of us is argueing the validity of carbon dating etc, rather, we are arguing that time measured here and now on the earth is not equal to time measured on earth say several billion years ago. Such factors that warp and bend the rate of time elapsed such as the speed of the earths rotation and relation to the rest of the universe in terms of gravitational fields must be factored in as well. What I think GS is saying is that if time had been measured right here right now in this fixed position in the universe at this exact speed since the beginning of time it is almost certain that the age of the universe would not be billions of years old, rather, it would be much younger in origin today in terms of carbon dating. Conversely, had the earth been held in position say several billion years ago in a fixed position and speed we might be saying that the earth is trillions of years old if not older.

BTW: It is scientific fact that a clock on the Moon runs more rapidly than the same clock when on the Earth because the Moon has less gravity than the Earth. Therefore, gravity is also a key factor in determaning the passage of time that I think I forgot to mention. I suppose then that you would possibly live longer on the Moon than on the earth. I dare say that the gravitational fields have shifted dramatically since the beginning of time and the Big Bang and it is therefore safe to assume that comparing the passage of time several billions of years ago on Earth and the passage of time today on Earth would then be like comparing apples and oranges.

Originally posted by whodey
I don't think you are getting the gist of what I am really trying to say here or what GS is trying to say here. Neither one of us is argueing the validity of carbon dating etc, rather, we are arguing that time measured here and now on the earth is not equal to time measured on earth say several billion years ago. Such factors that warp and bend the rate of ...[text shortened]... to mention. I suppose then that you would possibly live longer on the Moon than on the earth.

That's exactly what I understood, and doesn't make any sense. Just another try to complement some stupid things the Bible says with science.
Some say science is wrong, some try to interpret things other day to complement both, but in the end your faith system has no solid ground.

Originally posted by serigado
That's exactly what I understood, and doesn't make any sense. Just another try to complement some stupid things the Bible says with science.
Some say science is wrong, some try to interpret things other day to complement both, but in the end your faith system has no solid ground.

Once again, stop saying I am right and you are wrong without any arguements of substance whatsoever. I feel like I am on a school play ground or something.

Originally posted by whodey
Once again, stop saying I am right and you are wrong without any arguements of substance whatsoever. I feel like I am on a school play ground or something.

You wouldn't understand the arguments. If you understand something about General Relativity (not Special) , I'll explain it to you. So, I'm asking you to believe the knowledge of someone who's taking a PhD in physics and understands what's being talked about.

Either way you must agree this is a try to interpret the Bible to fit science. Unfortunately it does so in a way that sound scientific but it is NOT. To the common people it sounds good and seems to make a lot of sense, but trust me: IT DOES NOT.

Even if it did, it would be a long speculation of the interpretation of your Bible.

Originally posted by serigado
You wouldn't understand the arguments. If you understand something about General Relativity (not Special) , I'll explain it to you. So, I'm asking you to believe the knowledge of someone who's taking a PhD in physics and understands what's being talked about.

Either way you must agree this is a try to interpret the Bible to fit science. Unfortunately it ...[text shortened]... NOT.

Even if it did, it would be a long speculation of the interpretation of your Bible.

Ok then, no point in discussing it. We will just leave it to you Einstien.

Originally posted by whodey
Ok then, no point in discussing it. We will just leave it to you Einstien.

I prefer Feynman. Glad I could be of help.