Creationism/Intelligent Design

If hypothetically there was a God, how long would his day last?

A little poem I wrote on the subject:

His day would last however long it takes the planet he's on to revolve around the sun his planet revolves around.

God wouldn't have days, because days are defined by constraints that only exist in our known universe.  And he wouldn't call them days, anyway.

tuxon wrote: If hypothetically there was a God, how long would his day last?

There is an old story about eternity I like very much. Somewhere in a distant land there is a high mountain completely made of diamond. To this mountain every 10000 years a little bird flies and sharpens its beak on it. And when the whole mountain has finally been used up, then one second of eternity has passed.

^^^

inpraiseoffolly wrote: ^^^   Not the creationists I know.  They dismiss all new scientific evidence (not just about creation) and accept only the bible.   Also, Michael Behe, a creationist, once said in court that some subject never had been researched, was presented with 58 papers on the subject, and dismissed them as "insignificant" because they supported evolution and not creationism.   I'm glad you liked the poem.

    

But don't scientist do the same way with the bible, calling it irrelevant for it isn't scientifically proven.

It's actually a different bird every 1000 years btw.

I know nothing can be scientifically proven, facts are only facts as long as you consider them facts, they are disputable, debatabble and open to interpretation, it's just my english isn't very good, so i have to make due with the vocabulary I have.

anyway.

Creationist don't throw out science (not the kind I belong to), i just don't think science is objective.

Science measures only what it wants to meisure, and by meisuring they are forcing the outcome to be what they are meisuring, neglecting the fact that other thruths are also factual if another meisuring device is used (photon's can be forced to act as partical's or waves, depending on the meisuring technique, and for electrons the same apply's) (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle)

tuxon wrote: I know nothing can be scientifically proven, facts are only facts as long as you consider them facts, they are disputable, debatabble and open to interpretation, it's just my english isn't very good, so i have to make due with the vocabulary I have. anyway. Creationist don't throw out science (not the kind I belong to), i just don't think science is objective. Science measures only what it wants to meisure, and by meisuring they are forcing the outcome to be what they are meisuring, neglecting the fact that other thruths are also factual if another meisuring device is used (photon's can be forced to act as partical's or waves, depending on the meisuring technique, and for electrons the same apply's) (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle)

You confuse Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (which states that we can never measure momentum and location of a particle exactly at the same time) with the wave/particle paradoxon of light and electrons.


Edited by BaldFriede - January 25 2007 at 17:01