Jump to content


Photo

RickyVernio


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 RickyVernio

RickyVernio

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York
  • Interests:history, opera, hockey, architecture, science, theatre
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York

Posted 01 April 2012 - 10:55 AM

Hi, everyone!

I'm a storyteller and artist. I live in New York. I'm a Christian (denomination: traditional). Two things:

1. Sticking folks in categories is very popular these days; everybody does it. The practice can be helpful now and then (seriously, it can). Once in a while, though, categorizing gets in the way of grasping important nuances. When registering on this forum, I had to choose between "Creationist" and "Young Earth Creationist." I realize this is necessary. However, "Creationist" comes across as a derogatory term that atheists came up with to label all non-atheists with. Apart from that, both categories are a bit too rigid. It seems that a Creationist is someone who believes that God created the Universe some 14 billion years ago; and a Young Earth Creationist is one who believes that He did it about 6 or 7 thousand years ago. Both notions have problems, I think.

Back when God started the project, space and time did not exist. God does not bow to time; it's the other way around; God created time as we know it.

Really? Wait a minute! Doesn't it take time to create something? And doesn't Genesis mention DAYS; and isn't a day a unit of time?

Yes; in our view, anyway. I'm firmly convinced that all Creation is divided into two categories (here we have categories, again!):

a)knowable ... and
b)unknowable (aka ineffable).

From the strictly scientific point of view (and that's something that Evolutionists either miss or ignore), that which is knowable is knowable BECAUSE it can be detected by our five senses (sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste) and processed by the brain.

That which is unknowable cannot (for various reasons, I think; maybe if we had, not five, but twenty-three senses, we'd be able to understand some of the unknowable; maybe grasping all of the unknowable requires an infinity of senses: we don't know; only God has an infinity of senses).

I think that the story of Creation as presented in Genesis is the best possible explanation of it; it's as much as we can grasp. It's part fact, part symbol, part parable. There is a reason Jesus often resorted to parables when speaking of the Kingdom of God: He told us as much as we can understand.

For the stubbornly scientific minds who absolutely require a model (and models are, in a way, parables) in order to rationalize the six days of Creation plus one day of rest, one would have to introduce a kind of SuperTime, or TimePlus. (The Trekkies use SubSpace to circumvent Albert Einstein's maxim that nothing can travel faster than light in traditional space).

So I have this idea that, while working on the Universe in this, like, SuperTime, or TimePlus, God did not create ordinary time (i.e. time as we know it) until at least the creation of man; or maybe He only created time-as-we-know-it after Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden.

This idea puts all "prehistoric" periods of the Earth's existence in God's own laboratory (or studio), with the Ultimate Artist putting in layer after layer on His canvas, each layer representing a period, in SuperTime. Which is why, when we tap into it, we discover, say, dinosaurs, and they look as if they lived millions of years ago. Once Adam and Eve are expelled from Eden, God turns on the clock (creates Time-as-we-know-it). And this makes Time itself 6 or 7 thousand years old.

So if Time-as-we-know-it is only 7 thousand years old, and all of Creation took place in SuperTime ... how vast is SuperTime? In terms of Time-as-we-know-it, how long did it take?

SuperTime cannot really be compared to Time-as-we-know-it. In other words, in Time-as-we-know-it, it took God an infinity to create the Universe; or just one microsecond; or - surprise! - six days, plus one day of rest.

This isn't even a hypothesis: just an illustration, a vision, or a modern-day parable, if you like.

Does this idea make me a Creationist or a Young Earth Creationist? Aye, there's the rub.

2. This second item isn't related to the first one in any way, manner, or form.

I'm really annoyed by every Evolutionist's disgusting habit of implying that their favorite fairy tale is science (and everything else isn't). "You're a Creationist; ergo, you think Science is wrong."

The Theory of Evolution is not science. The evolutionary hypothesis is, or was, until the atheist propaganda machine turned it into a religious cult. For a hypothesis to become a theory, the scientific method is used; evidence needs to be produced that supports the ideas put forth in the hypothesis. There are but two ways (as far as science is concerned) to produce such evidence for evolution: invent a time machine capable of carrying a genetic lab back and forth across the murky oceans of unrecorded history; or live for a few million years while collecting and documenting data. Assumptions and conjecture, no matter how witty, cannot be used as evidence. Ergo, the evolutionary hypothesis is science (whether it's right or wrong is unimportant: it's a hypothesis). Calling it a theory renders it unscientific.

I like science a lot, and I have a soft spot for Natural Sciences in particular. I'm kind of irked by the fact that atheists have monopolized the academic circles and have the effrontery to speak to the world through the media in the name of science. I'm also annoyed by the fact that they have turned science (or their idea of it, anyway) into a ubiquitous religious cult. (In a layman's mind, scientific means completely and unquestionably true these days). Biochemistry is, to the best of my knowledge, the only area in science where one does not have to pay lip service to Evolution in order to keep the paycheck. This is sad.

Thanks for reading!

I promise to be a lot more entertaining in the future.

#2 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 14 April 2012 - 08:44 PM

Hi, everyone!

I'm a storyteller and artist. I live in New York. I'm a Christian (denomination: traditional). Two things:

1. Sticking folks in categories is very popular these days; everybody does it. The practice can be helpful now and then (seriously, it can). Once in a while, though, categorizing gets in the way of grasping important nuances. When registering on this forum, I had to choose between "Creationist" and "Young Earth Creationist." I realize this is necessary. However, "Creationist" comes across as a derogatory term that atheists came up with to label all non-atheists with. Apart from that, both categories are a bit too rigid. It seems that a Creationist is someone who believes that God created the Universe some 14 billion years ago; and a Young Earth Creationist is one who believes that He did it about 6 or 7 thousand years ago. Both notions have problems, I think.

Back when God started the project, space and time did not exist. God does not bow to time; it's the other way around; God created time as we know it.

Really? Wait a minute! Doesn't it take time to create something? And doesn't Genesis mention DAYS; and isn't a day a unit of time?

Yes; in our view, anyway. I'm firmly convinced that all Creation is divided into two categories (here we have categories, again!):

a)knowable ... and
b)unknowable (aka ineffable).

From the strictly scientific point of view (and that's something that Evolutionists either miss or ignore), that which is knowable is knowable BECAUSE it can be detected by our five senses (sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste) and processed by the brain.

That which is unknowable cannot (for various reasons, I think; maybe if we had, not five, but twenty-three senses, we'd be able to understand some of the unknowable; maybe grasping all of the unknowable requires an infinity of senses: we don't know; only God has an infinity of senses).

I think that the story of Creation as presented in Genesis is the best possible explanation of it; it's as much as we can grasp. It's part fact, part symbol, part parable. There is a reason Jesus often resorted to parables when speaking of the Kingdom of God: He told us as much as we can understand.

For the stubbornly scientific minds who absolutely require a model (and models are, in a way, parables) in order to rationalize the six days of Creation plus one day of rest, one would have to introduce a kind of SuperTime, or TimePlus. (The Trekkies use SubSpace to circumvent Albert Einstein's maxim that nothing can travel faster than light in traditional space).

So I have this idea that, while working on the Universe in this, like, SuperTime, or TimePlus, God did not create ordinary time (i.e. time as we know it) until at least the creation of man; or maybe He only created time-as-we-know-it after Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden.

This idea puts all "prehistoric" periods of the Earth's existence in God's own laboratory (or studio), with the Ultimate Artist putting in layer after layer on His canvas, each layer representing a period, in SuperTime. Which is why, when we tap into it, we discover, say, dinosaurs, and they look as if they lived millions of years ago. Once Adam and Eve are expelled from Eden, God turns on the clock (creates Time-as-we-know-it). And this makes Time itself 6 or 7 thousand years old.

So if Time-as-we-know-it is only 7 thousand years old, and all of Creation took place in SuperTime ... how vast is SuperTime? In terms of Time-as-we-know-it, how long did it take?

SuperTime cannot really be compared to Time-as-we-know-it. In other words, in Time-as-we-know-it, it took God an infinity to create the Universe; or just one microsecond; or - surprise! - six days, plus one day of rest.

This isn't even a hypothesis: just an illustration, a vision, or a modern-day parable, if you like.

Does this idea make me a Creationist or a Young Earth Creationist? Aye, there's the rub.

2. This second item isn't related to the first one in any way, manner, or form.

I'm really annoyed by every Evolutionist's disgusting habit of implying that their favorite fairy tale is science (and everything else isn't). "You're a Creationist; ergo, you think Science is wrong."


Welcome. Don't worry, such insincere atheists (usually the ones who, ironically, pride themselves on "free thinking" yet believe what other atheists tell them) hate YEC equally as much as Creationists. Fortunately, we can tell the difference between sincere debaters and trolls, and we bounce trolls out of here, which includes anyone who tries to post ad hominem attacks as "you are a creationist, your science is wrong".

We do have a third category, and that is Old Earth Creationist so Creationist does not necessarily mean you believe in billions of years, it specifies no earth age at all. I recently changed from YEC to Creationist simply because I do not know if the age of the earth is knowable.

I believe that the earth was created instantly with the appearance of age by necessity (like Adam and Eve, animals, the sun, etc), requiring a stable environment that could support and sustain life. I also entertain the idea that some phenomena has caused radiometric decay to accelerate. Certain things such as ionizing radiometric material has been shown to accelerate decay by leaps and bounds (millions of years down to days) and we certainly don't know everything about the earth's past just by looking at it.

I like to think of God as existing outside of time, kind of like a video editor, He can fast forward, rewind, pause, etc. The difference is, He can enter into time as he wishes, according to His plan and reveal things, become flesh, etc. This is why God has always and will always exist.

I think that SuperTime is an interesting idea. By my understanding, SuperTime would be a distortion of the "laws of physics" where physical interactions could happen (be made to happen) faster or slower relative to each other, since time is a measure of physical interactions happening at known rates. Time dilation has been thought to happen in black holes. The only thing I can think of is, God does not do anything without reason, so I personally don't think that He would need to change physics like that when He could just create things instantly. Can you think of a reason why God might need to do that?

#3 RickyVernio

RickyVernio

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York
  • Interests:history, opera, hockey, architecture, science, theatre
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York

Posted 14 April 2012 - 11:28 PM

I think that SuperTime is an interesting idea. By my understanding, SuperTime would be a distortion of the "laws of physics" where physical interactions could happen (be made to happen) faster or slower relative to each other, since time is a measure of physical interactions happening at known rates. Time dilation has been thought to happen in black holes. The only thing I can think of is, God does not do anything without reason, so I personally don't think that He would need to change physics like that when He could just create things instantly. Can you think of a reason why God might need to do that?

SuperTime is an abstract concept; it doesn't really exist; it's a mental crutch of sorts: like the lines we draw to show planets' orbits.

When you say "I believe that the earth was created instantly with the appearance of age by necessity," there's really no difference between an instant and an eternity; we can sort of grasp it in an abstract sort of way; but try visualizing it: you'll fail. We're not equipped to understand it, at least not in this life. When I say SuperTime, I mean exactly that: it is an instant that is also an eternity; or, if you like, six days, plus one holiday (as it says in the Book).

As for black holes (if in fact they do exist): they may be actual holes in the fabric of space. Time doesn't merely dilate in them; it ceases to exist altogether, since we need space in order to have time. They say that the same effect can be achieved by moving at light speed; stands to reason, but wouldn't that suggest that entities that do exactly that (electromagnetic waves) exist above and beyond time; existing in SuperTime, so to speak?

I like to think of God as existing outside of time, kind of like a video editor, He can fast forward, rewind, pause, etc. The difference is, He can enter into time as he wishes, according to His plan and reveal things, become flesh, etc. This is why God has always and will always exist.

Good point; but may I add that while editing, he allows us (the characters in the movie) to make a choice or two here and there.


#4 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 15 April 2012 - 07:10 AM

SuperTime is an abstract concept; it doesn't really exist; it's a mental crutch of sorts: like the lines we draw to show planets' orbits.

When you say "I believe that the earth was created instantly with the appearance of age by necessity," there's really no difference between an instant and an eternity; we can sort of grasp it in an abstract sort of way; but try visualizing it: you'll fail. We're not equipped to understand it, at least not in this life. When I say SuperTime, I mean exactly that: it is an instant that is also an eternity; or, if you like, six days, plus one holiday (as it says in the Book).


Well that is how you describe it, unimaginable. Really when you logically consider it, it is not that difficult to imagine. Time measures the speed of physical interactions, so in order to significantly change the concept of time as we know it, we need to affect how we measure time; physical interactions. This means that in SuperTime it would either mean that time was on pause, and thus there are no physical reactions to measure the passage of time, thus according to us, when time was un-paused everything happened instantly, or as I said before, physical reactions can be either slower or faster relative to each other, thus rendering time a useless measurement.

As for black holes (if in fact they do exist): they may be actual holes in the fabric of space. Time doesn't merely dilate in them; it ceases to exist altogether, since we need space in order to have time. They say that the same effect can be achieved by moving at light speed; stands to reason, but wouldn't that suggest that entities that do exactly that (electromagnetic waves) exist above and beyond time; existing in SuperTime, so to speak?


Wrong, space must exist where matter exists, and time exists where matter has movement. No matter can exist outside of space and time. Only spiritual beings could exist in SuperTime, outside of the material world. Since electromagnetic waves are material, being subject to the laws of physics, they cannot exist outside the material world, outside of space and time.

Theoretically, black holes don't make matter and space disappear, they compress it. Time would cease to exist because matter would be incapable of moving while being so compressed.

Good point; but may I add that while editing, he allows us (the characters in the movie) to make a choice or two here and there.


That could be. Well I really don't think He edits anything or it would make studying history illogical. He can however see the future and the past from His vantage point. I would say He only works in the present, having the capability to do so perfectly the first time, therefore not needing to revise the past.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users