How could Einstein know how God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning? The best minds in academia are still struggling to reconcile Einstein's theories with observations of the real universe, which is the point of this article. While they work on this, we can take time to consider the eyewitness account which says "In the beginning God created". It even says that light is a fundamental concept, much as you think that its quantization is more fundamental than the light itself.
(And yes, I know you mean "Einstein" figuratively ... there is so much stupid here, I feel I need to point this out.)
18 comments
<we can take time to consider the eyewitness account which says "In the beginning God created". >
Except that it can't be an eyewitness account as there was no-one but this "god" to witness it and he refuses to testify, making this nothing more than hearsay and about as reliable as a boat with more holes than a sieve.
You're right in that there is a lot.of stupid in your post.
Ok dimbulb, riddle me this, how the hell can there be an "eyewitness" account to Genesis? Where des it say, in either version, "god created the eyewitness, andit was good"?
Isn't Genesis supposedly written by Moses?
"While they work on this, we can take time to consider the eyewitness account which says "In the beginning God created"."
What about the eyewitness account of Allah creating the universe?
"there is so much stupid here, I feel I need to point this out"
Yes, there is a lot of stupid here.
we can take time to consider the eyewitness account which says "In the beginning God created".
Who was this eyewitness? If it was God itself, why is he talking about himself in the third person? If not, then who else?
"It even says that light is a fundamental concept, much as you think that its quantization is more fundamental than the light itself."
It says that light is A fundamental concept, not THE fundamental concept.
there is so much stupid here, I feel I need to point this out.
No need to point it out, your post illustrates it nicely.
There are no eye witnesses to the tree falling, yet we can observe the fallen log. Do you lack object permanence? Do you think things just pop into existence the first time they are observed by an eye witness?
By studying cosmic background radiation and red shift, we know the universe is constantly expanding and cooling as the average space between objects grows (on a very large scale). Seeing as how the radiation points to this being the trend for a very long time, we can infer that the early universe was very hot, and very dense.
we can take time to consider the eyewitness account
Not an eyewitness account unless the scribe was there. At best, it's second-hand and more likely hearsay.
For one thing, there's no proof that it is an eyewitness account, and for another thing, there's no proof the supposed eyewitness even existed.
As for relativity? Science has progressed since Einstein. More and more is discovered about relativity.
More importantly, how do you know that Goddidit? Were you there? You're the one making a claim, it's your job to demonstrate that its valid. Scientists have been struggling to reconcile the whole of science with the Bible for centuries, and whilst there are difficulties in reconciling the theory of relativity with quantum theory, it is based on solid observations, experimentation and interpretations, unlike the Goddidit belief, as is the rest of Einstein's work.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.