Relativity in Creationism

I am talking about where you said:

quote:

---

He or she lives according to his or her own meanings, not God's meaning
or truth. This is relativity.

---

would imply you, at least in the case quoted, are talking about relativism - not relativity. Incidentally, the dimensions of this universe are at least 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension. Relativity isn't a dimension.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Hi, pam-powers:You are using terms in very unconventional ways, and (for me, at least) this is getting in the way of understanding the point of view that you are trying to express. ("We"? You and who else? Not an important question, really -- just curious.)The "dimensions of this universe," as I understand it/them, are the three familiar physical dimensions of space, plus the dimension of time, which for most people (if they are like me) is hard to picture as a "dimension", but that's just because we aren't accustomed to picturing things in more than three dimensions. Anyway, that's basically it: four dimensions.Relativity and quantum mechanics are not dimensions (of this or any universe); they are labels that refer to a couple of complex attempts at modeling physical reality in mathematical terms -- they are two theories that try to account for observable physical phenomena, by describing the unobservable structure that underlies the phenomena. To the extent that I understand them (which is admittedly very little), they are not yet fully reconciled into a single "unified" theory; one of them (quantum) applies very well at the atomic and sub-atomic scale (describing the behavior of particles), while the other (relativity) applies very well at the astronomical scale (describing the behavior of stars and planets, and of light traversing vast distances). Well, that's what I'm able to understand based on the descriptions provided by those who, I trust, understand the mathematics involved.At the "normal" human scale, of course, they both seem to be somewhat irrelevant and fairly hard to understand -- the theories of Newton and his contemporaries/followers are good enough for most of our day-to-day concerns. (Even "rocket science" can be reasonably successful, I think, just on the basis of Newtonian math, although knowing the speed of light is very important for accurate space travel, and Newton lacked a good estimate for it. Nailing down that constant was tricky, and I think Einstein may have helped with that.)If you are trying to explain anything about the physical nature of the universe as being the result of some event or condition involving man and God, you'll be better off using terms from philosophy rather than physics. In any event, if you want to use terms that people normally consider "scientific" in order to refer to something completely different, you really need to provide your intended definition -- "Here, I am using the word 'dimension' to refer to ...", "By 'relativity', I mean ...", and so on. That takes more time and space, but when you skip that part, you fail to communicate. Let me try to paraphrase: We now have over two thousand years of recorded history, during which a significant portion of the human population (i.e. a portion having the ability to record history) has expressed a firm belief in a single deity (creator and ruler) and in the ability to have a personal relationship and communication with that deity. Expressions of this belief, including quotations of verbal exchanges between man and deity, have had a persistent and dominant presence in the written records. (In my understanding, this part represents the statement: "Man's relation to God is central.")Now, it turns out that portions of the information in the oldest written records of the man/God relationship (in this case, the parts in Genesis about creation, Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and so on), are not directly compatible or reconcilable with the logical conclusions that we would need to make about the physical development of the universe, the Earth, life on Earth, and the human race, based on our own observations of our current physical reality.That is, some things are expressed in the Bible as "events that occurred" or "conditions that existed", but in order for these very old descriptions of events and conditions to be held as true, our detailed understanding of physics, astronomy, geology and biology, built up over just a few hundred years of meticulous observation and measurement, would need to be abandoned. And as a result of that, much of what we depend on in our day-to-day use of scientific results (space travel, oil exploration, genetic engineering, animal husbandry, DNA sequencing, nuclear power, ...) would need to be considered false.Therefore, the "reality" described in the Bible must have been radically different -- physically independent -- from the reality that surrounds us today. (I'm not sure, but I think this expresses the "different dimensions" ascribed to the time of Adam versus those of today.)It would simplify the matter a great deal if you just treat the passages in Genesis as allegorical, as "hypothetical" descriptions of conditions and events that were assembled to spark the imagination, to suggest explanations for things, to inspire awe and wonder, and to instill obedience, rather than to present factual reports of actual history. You can still regard them as being guided, inspired, and even spoken by God -- there would be no basis for denying that in any objective sense.But if you really are trying to twist the theories of physics so that you can sustain some notion of "physical reality" for these Bible passages, I think you are missing the essential points, both of science and of the Bible. I sincerely apologize if I have misunderstood your intent.Edited by Otto Tellick, : (added "Hi pam-powers" at top, to clarify who I was replying to)Edited by Otto Tellick, : (spelling correction)

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

I beg to differ but relativity and quantum mechanics are very definitely dimensions of
this universe. For an excellent DVD on the subject, I suggest physicist Brian Greene's
'Elegant Universe' (available through PBS) which deals mainly with the subject of quantum
mechanics. While I respect your opinions, a Christian like myself can never treat Genesis
or any part of the Bible as allegorical or hypothetical. We've stated our respective stances;
I'm not trying to change your opinions; I'm trying to reach believers with this word.

PP.I have read all of Brian's books, as well as those of Stephen Hawking, Murray Gell-Mann, Freeman Dyson, Lisa Randall and a host of other physicists.And I can state categorically that you are dead wrong.Your obvious ignorance of QM and relativity are not Brian's fault.

I've just read that that and you are totally wrong, my friend.

I enjoyed Greene's PBS series. The problem, I think, is that if this is your only source of information on what General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are then you totally miss the subjects. Your misinterpretation of what you thought you heard in a TV program is not sufficient knowledge to make the claims you are making. Your claims are wrong.A question, please. In the OP you allude to this radical new idea for Creationism's proof. Is there a paper or article that you can site as your source so that we can get a better understanding of the hypothesis? I feel you are not doing a good job of relaying the information accurately.Or is this your radical idea?That would explain a lot.abe: Greene is a String Theorist, btw. His program was his attempt to educate the public on String Theory.Edited by AZPaul3, : 'cuz I wanted to.

Hey wait. I'm a Christian and I treat Genesis as allegorical....Unless this just means that I'm not a Christian that is like you?

CS, I propose that, in jar's absence, you are now our first port of call for refuting "You're not a real Christian" style bullshit!

---

Mutate and Survive

They most defntely are not. If you want anybody to understand what you are saying, you must use words with one of their previously stablished meanings (or you can define your own new meanings for them before using them), otherwise you just sound like a crazy person. sorry.Edited by fallacycop, : got to fix them quote boxes...

Are you saying that the New Testament contains no passages (not a single one!) where Jesus used parables -- stories that present fictional or hypothetical situations -- to explain or demonstrate important issues? I do recall seeing the word "parable" used in the NT to describe things that Jesus said, and I understand this term to mean "stories that do not represent factual historical events." Are you using some translation of the NT that does not use this word? Or are you disagreeing with (or reinventing) the meaning of "parable"?If Jesus is (in some sense) God, then it seems clear that God uses parables, and it's exceedingly strange that you have a problem with this. I can certainly understand that there might be some trouble deciding which parts in particular are parables, but as a general guide to leading a sane life, I think it makes sense to start with something like "if an event or condition is described that directly contradicts physical reality, it should be taken as a parable (or some other form of communication that does not directly represent physical-historical fact)."Instead, in your arguments it seems almost as if you are willing to subvert the clear meanings in some portions of the Bible, simply for the sake of preserving a relatively irrelevant sense of "historical truth" in some other portion. I suspect there are many theologians who would view your proposals as unacceptable on purely doctrinal grounds, without even considering the dubious statements of quasi-scientific jargon. (Of course, the same can be said about lots of proposed religious beliefs, depending on your choice of theologians.)Each person who tries to understand the Bible can only do so in his or her own personal, internal way. The personal experience of God in one's own life is just that: PERSONAL -- not replicable or detectable, let alone explicable, in any sort of scientific, empirical way. That's just the kind of material the Bible is, and that's why it does not work as a basis for proposing or judging scientific descriptions of physical reality. If you think you can make it so, well, that's your choice: to bear the burden of holding a belief that is demonstrably wrong.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

I'm surprised and a little amused at the number of responses my comments have generated.
I've posted on other discussion boards.& have never generated this level of response. To
move on, however. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions; some relevant to this
topic are very thought-provoking. I stand by my assertions. My statements are not just
my own private opinions; they're revelations. If you really want to get worked up, try
checking out my website: Revelations from the Lord.

Doesn't matter if you stand, sit, squat...you're still wrong. I see. This is your own stuff.A ”revelation’ indeed.So you are now one of the thousands with their own personal revelations from god on the web.Such a waste of electrons.

Ah, well, as long as it really is revelation, then I certainly have nothing to refute, since doing so can have no impact on the validity of your hallucinations beliefs. Have fun with that.But I'd be careful about trying to recruit others to see things the same way. Some might assume that such visions involve the aid of recreational pharmaceuticals. (Do they? ) Anyway, do be careful about the risk of attracting the "wrong sort of people"... and best of luck to you, honestly.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

No, they're not. You're probably delusional if you truly think these are revelations.I didn't get past the first "revelation" before seeing the first gross error. The error proves that these ideas do not come from god. You're wrong in the emphasized portion because a point has no demionsions!From wikipedia:

quote:

---

A spatial point is a concept used to define an exact location in space. It has no volume, area or length, making it a zero dimensional object.

---

Since your revelation is erroneous, it cannot be from god.You have either been fooled or are lying.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I think I understand what your saying:
Are you basically trying to say that God created the universe, but once man sinned and Earth became Satan's the way life and the universe worked was altered in such a way that caused it to appear old and naturally created, contrary to what you believe to be true?If you are saying what I think you are saying its a neet idea, and one of which I have thought of but never spoken of before. My idea is the same as yours but that possibly the past was altered as well as the present and future. One of many similar ideas I have thought of.Edited by willietdog, : No reason given.Edited by willietdog, : added quote

---

I Am A: "Christian Evolutionist"