THEORY RE TIME DISPARITIES FROM FALLEN TIMES As for the Q, per se, I just do not believe God would waste such huge amounts of time. If I were Him, I'd want to get down to the action and get the program under way! So, No. I believe He is a God of positivity, thrival and activity - not a wishy-washy, like ourselves. In Australian terms, He would 'get the ball onto the boot', not dither around like an old woman for billions of years! No! Actually, Chuck, YOU may as well be the Lucky One that I reveal my 'theories' to about this one, though I tend not to give these ideas away because they are, as yet, Unfounded - they are only speculation as to what may have happened. Whereas, what I have revealed and discovered about the snake & Man, THAT I have proven scientifically, and can put it all into place logically, for I also know that God is a God of Symbolism, and it is something that He would very likely do: make Man & snake as opposites, after what the beast did to Man in the Garden. Yes; it is something I would expect of Him anyway - as well as something I have proven for myself, scientifically, and written on. Now, the 2 Prime Keys to the successful possibility of evolution are: #1: The enormous time periods that are claimed to be involved #2: The dream that random Mutations could not only occur and result in successfully changed beasts, but also be capably reproduced via mutant reproduction with the original Mother population - another claim which has always been shown in nature to be quite unfounded – even impossible. I think My snake discovery basically accounts for the claims of Mutation here. God obviously deliberated in His Creation. Intelligence was at work in making these creatures as they are. But how to answer, IF we really need do so after this snake discovery, the "time" dilemma! Why do these earthly instruments today indicate an aged earth?? IF a theory was developed which was as provable as mine re the snake, BOTH legs upon which evolution stands would be completely ripped out from under foot! Right?? My THEORY is this [but remember, at present it is just mere speculation]: We know that this episode with the serpent resulted in a Fallen earth - in "Fallen Man" - God cursed ALL things! Previously, they were all immortal. Adam was told, before he failed, that he would live forever, except that "in the day that thou partakest of the tree of Knowledge thou shalt surely die". Now ALL things die as a result of Adam’s transgression, because Adam was given Dominion over all things - so they All fell with him. Now for all life to be able to live indefinitely, the condition of all things must have been vastly different from its current state! This is an obvious statement. But exactly What condition was it in to achieve such previous Immortality??!! This is the Question. I have answers, or ideas, but I do not have proof; so I say very little on my ideas. But I find many of my answers to life's Questions in Holy writ itself - as I found in snake! Now, there is possibility in considering that we can discover something of God's condition of life [After all, Before the fall, He walked and talked with Adam in the Garden] ... as I say, we can discover something of the presence of God when we recognize that Holy writ tells us that those who saw God were "quickened by the Spirit" in order to be able to do so. IF they had to be quickened by the Spirit to achieve this, then it is likely that ALL 'natural' processes, as we know them now were actually vastly Faster in the world of Immortality – when the earth was in its previous state! We also recognize, too, that Jesus, after His resurrection, suddenly appeared through the walls or roof, into the room of His disciples, and that He was physically present there, because they felt of the nail prints in His hands and in His feet, and, further, He then ate with them. He said to them, “Handle me and see that it is I, for a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have.” So He was as physically present with them – as you and I are here today! How did He enter the room then? He must have been capable of vibrating the small molecules and atoms that make up the human frame in order to do so. If we are to put all of this together, it seems highly probable that molecules in the pre-Fallen earth state were operating at highly different rates and capacities re performance than we experience now. It is quite probable, for instance, that if processes were vastly superior and moving at vastly increased speeds than experienced today, then this would account for the time disparities that are apparent between the times claimed for Creation in Holy writ and the times that our current (Fallen) instruments seem to indicate as being the age, etc., of the earth and of the various other ‘aged’ items measured today.

You "scientifically disproved" evolution? Please don't reproduce until you've sorted out your issues.

Wow! YOU disproved Evolution? Scientifically? This is a joke, right? If you ask me whether the Earth is millions of years old, I would answer positively! Young Earth I understand is some kind of a religious theory where Earth was created a few thousand years ago!

denidowi- i can assure you that you have not scientifically disproved evolution. i tried to read your own answer above but frankly about a third of the way in i realised something- you are blatantly schizophrenic. you see, what you have written does not make ANY sense. you're rambling yet you seem to think it's coherent. it's not. plus you have deluded yourself into believing you have done something that the greatest minds of all time haven't managed. or at least technology wasn't advanced enough for them to do it. i think lastwraith's comment was a little harsh. simply wait until you have gotten treatment and THEN pursue the dream of having kids.

denidowi- i suppose i should have answered the actual question you were asking however like i said in my previous answer- i couldn't get thru more than one third of what you'd written. not because my intelligence level is low but simply because it doesn't make any sense. also, i was laughing so hard at your claim to have disproven evolution that i couldn't really read the rest of the question properly. why aren't you famous? why is evolution still taught at school? because you have merely put out another theory. you haven't proven or disproven anything. don't make radical claims like that and then expect to get taken seriously. and no, i haven't read your book i'm still half way thru my goosebumps book.

denidowi- i read your link on evolution. i'm not for evolution or adam and eve. both are ridiculous. i'm sure what really happened has been altered or simplified into one of these stories. BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT YOU ONLY PUT OUT ANOTHER THEORY. please go away and look up the meaning of the word theory in a dictionary. you haven't disproved anything because you have no facts. you only have theories and beliefs. if you would just say ''i have ... put out a really good argument against evolution ... '' then you'd annoy people less. you see, evolution hasn't even been proven yet SO HOW CAN YOU DISPROVE IT??!! all you can do is say..this is what i think.. so please stop making stupid claims and people might actually listen to you. plus, if you're such a big-shot scientist/mathematician what are you doing on answerbag? wouldn't you be in a lab somewhere trying to actually get some facts? i would also like to know how people like you don't feel hypocritical for whinging on and on at people for believing in say, evolution, when there's no proof and plenty of reasons why it's bollocks but then you'll turn around and say..''but you should believe in the god theory'' THAT'S JUST AS BAD AS BELIEVING IN EVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is nothing concrete to support either theory. just people's opinions and beliefs. so why waste time trying to convert people? what if your belief is the wrong one? just stick to what you wanna do and when the truth comes out some people will go down in history as being idiots and others will go down as being 'geniuses' even tho they prob just lucked into it. but that's life.

Please look at the wikipedia article on evolution.

denidowi, before I start my answer, I have to say, you did not disprove evolution. As much as you tell yourself and other people that you did, the fact of the matter is, you didn't. I sat down and chewed through your answer on that topic and found it laughable for the most part. Now, the young earth vs 'millions of years' debate. I consider the young earth creation theory to be nothing more than pseudoscience. It has little supporting evidence. I have studied both sides of the debate and I have decided that in my opinion, the earth was not created in 6 days. Everything credible I have read and studied indicates that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old.

Having scientifically disproved evolution, I think you should go for a kind of Unified Field Theory by incorporating your ideas on the creation into the fabric of the Cubic Time theory. It would take you a few years of intensive work, in which you wouldn't be able to visit AB, but it would be worth it. http://www.timecube.com

The Universe revolves around the Earth... which in turn revolves around you.

Now I will post a SERIOUS answer. I believe in the "millions of years". I am also rather perplexed as you seem to have made a HUGE (pseudo)logical leap from "Evolution is wrong" to "GOD IS REAL!". By your "logic", because I do not drive a Ford, I MUST drive a Chevy. A 4WD, Boxer-engined Chevy with a Pleiades cluster for a grill insignia. Or lets put it in computer terms; my friends computer is not a Mac, so he MUST be running Windows. Just as Subarus and Linux exist, there also exist possibilities other than the one that you denounce and the one that you promote. I want to see what you think of this; the Theory of Evolution is wrong, at least as written. Our understanding of the nature of the Universe and of life is flawed. Additionally, nothing causes itself. These two facts infer the existence of an unknown entity on a higher plane of existence that created an intricate "mechanism" that we call "reality", and also designed in the eventuality of life and the ability for said life to adapt to it's environment and to lose less-fit members, ensuring that the next generation would be ever so slightly better than the previous one, eventually evolving, but not in the ways that Darwin and his successors/disciples thought/think. In short, intelligent design with the basics of Darwinism but not the flawed details that have been crufted onto the basic theory since it's conception.

I don't see anywhere in your so called proof any such thing. It is just your opinion.You got blinders on Denis. Wake up.. And to say the Pope is wrong about it and you are right is laughable. What makes you think as you stated to another poster that you had a Divine intervention that helped you come up with such rubbish. Don't you think the Pope may have had a Divine intervention to proclaim that there was some evidence to the evolution theory? Or are you just an arrogant dill out of touch with reality? And BTW, How come the scientific community knows nothing about this self proclaimed scientific study of yours?

you expect anyone with a smidgen of intelligence to believe this? I dont think so.

? you've done what no other has been able to do as of yet? congratulations! you're the most brilliant mind ever! (note heavy sarcasm...)

LADIES & GENTLEMAN !!!! IT'S THE BATTLE OF THE MILLENIUM !!!! CREATION VS. EVOLUTION!!! This is going to be a caged, no holds barred match, to the death!!!! In one corner we have EVOLUTION, who brings with it an assortment of weapons, including : records, fossils, actual proof, and even a bit of faith & belief. In the other corner we have CREATION, who brings---wait a minute, CREATION is pulling something from out of a sack, it's a....it's a.... It's a book ?!? CREATION has brought a book to use in battle. And yes a bit of faith & belief. It's unbelievable the way they are going at each other folks ! It's a battle royal. Who will win this grudge match? Who will suffer from their loss? We may never know. Let's watch & see, and pray ours is the victorious one, which ever that may

In the words of Douglas Adams in The Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy "'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'" It is the faith even though there is no proof which makes religion so great.

You have outdone yourself, sir. I thought your snakes vs man was amazing, but now this? The imagination of yours must literally make steam escape your ears! How you can think any of this makes a shred of sense is beyond me - and apparently all the others who've responded to this. - Amazing... -4

Well, I was originally raised Catholic and, while thinking that in order to be a Creationist I needed to be a "Young Earth" thinker, I came up with a Theory on how the Earth could be young and old at the same time (a theory that I'm still so proud of that, even though I don't believe in it anymore, I'm more than happy to put it out there in case someone else does want to believe in it). I call it...The Chocolate Chip Cookie Theorem (if you prefer a different type of cookie it will still have the same effect, I promise). Okay, so many scientists date the "age" of Earth by using a carbon dating system which basically dates how old the Carbon is in the Earth in various places (I know that carbon dating isn't the championed technique it once was, but go with me). But, let's say you're making CC Cookies and all of your ingredients are a month old. When you pull the cookies out of the oven are the cookies a month old? I just thought that was clever when I first came up with it. However, now that I'm Wiccan and have been doing much reading in the subject, I can proudly say that I am a Pro-Evolution Creationist thanks to Starhawk's beautiful rendition of the Earth's beginnings in her book The Earth Path. Of course, she's no scientist, but then neither are most other priests and priestesses and yet most Creationists credit them with their beliefs.

Your "proof" contains a bit too much: - "I think...", - "I believe...", - "...only speculation..." - "...must have been...", - "It seems..." - "It is quite probable, ..." _ ...and you actually even say: "...I do not have proof; ..." _ Plus, I don't see how your snake got involved in all of this? Keep it zipped up man.