An Ether-Based Creation Model

Once upon a time a biologist and a geologist were discussing a creationist lecture that they had both attended. The biologist said that the biology was garbage but the geology sounded good. The geologist said that the geology was garbage but the biology sounded good.

Man-eating aether. Hungry Hungry Aether.

The university that I attended had about 6000 students at the time. One floor of the library was devoted to science. It had aisles and aisles and aisles of large bound volumes of abstracts - i.e. brief summaries of what was in the papers. The papers themselves contained the details.You can't do science without details.

You have to read between the lines.

Not really. Take a look at the Topics list. We have threads more then ten times as long.It may seem long to you because you've told us everything you know.

There's a difference between "a" beginning and "the" beginning. Every person has "a" beginning. That doesn't make them creationists.

Have you ever heard of the concept of metaphor? Do you realize that light/darkness (good/evil) has nothing, nothing and also nothing to do with actual physical light?

Lucifer means light. You're the one who's always preaching against objective reality, expecting your seeing-eye god to lead you. I prefer to look out for the trees.

You have a lot of gall. Go back and answer the hundreds of my posts that you've ignored before you demand that I answer every thought that meanders through your mind. When have I ever done that?

The same as the difference between "a" big apple and "The" Big Apple. No, I'm pointing out that your comment is nonsense based on your misunderstanding of simple English. That's an unsupported assertion.

As you have been told, we don't know. You shouldn't pretend that you do.

You contradict yourself. You name two hypotheses and then claim there are none.

Why would a duck want to quack?

Jules Verne's vehicle to get to the moon was an enormous cannon, for which he presented a "model" in words, including facts and figures based on what people know about firearms.H.G. Wells' vehicle to get to the moon was a sphere, which he described in some detail, but the means of getting to the moon was a fictitious woo-woo metal that was impervious to gravity.Verne's vehicle, though impractical, could hypothetically be built.

Science doesn't work by epiphanies. Even epiphanies - I'm thinking of Kekulé and the structure of benzene - need to be confirmed experimentally. That's a false dichotomy. Many people of faith are also people of faith.And few people of faith are likely to swallow your nonsense. Your problem is that you keep trying to turn nonsense into sense. As long as you keep digging, you're just exposing more and more flaws in your thinking.