Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the missing 95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart guy.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment. So... > your point is? You have a problem with Einstein? > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I >>> think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably >>> accurate. I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is >>> 100M years old. >>> >>> Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox. A twin that >>> steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year, >>> comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same >>> period. And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only >>> lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went >>> from milliseconds to seconds. >>> >>> So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days >>> creating the heavens & earth. Do we have any reason to think that He is >>> limited to going only the speed of light? Nope. He undoubtedly zipped >>> around the universe at far faster than the speed of light. From His >>> perspective, it took 6 days. From the perspective of someone sitting on >>> the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years. God's own little twin >>> paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago. Pretty >>> amazing. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio >>>> Dating results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or >>>> there in various methods do not contradict the essential point that >>>> radioactive decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. >>>> >>>> I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in >>>> different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. >>>> Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong >>>> with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. >>>> >>>> While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on >>>> Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics >>>> that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally >>>> correlated with Egyptian history. >>>> >>>> Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate >>>> a convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset >>>> the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'. >>>> >>> >>> >> >
