Sorry to digress – I just fininshed reading Stranger in a Strange Land again, which makes as much (or more) sense to me as any other religion, real or fictional.

On topic: “scientists usually presume Earth’s accretion happened at an exponentially decreasing rate”

Why would they do that? Based on what evidence?

If you want to look at the Big Bang, and say God was behind it, you’re free to do so. The only thing is that because we’re dealing with a scientific theory, nothing about that theory necessitates God’s involvement. You can believe that the beauty of the world, it’s complexity, and everything else means there must be a God, but it will never be something you can prove.

I’d say don’t depend on the outcomes of scientific investigations, or the discrediting of science for your faith. Simply accept that if you believe in God, God made the world, and had a reason for making it the way he did. Truth does not contradict Truth.

http://www.nicky510.com/comic/quite-the-balancing-act/

isn’t correct?

If I were to find the closest expression, that would somewhat convey, in a reduced form, an answer to your question, it would be: from everywhere and everywhen.

I interject rarely, only when I know you already have the answers, I just formulate them for you. Until the next time…

Be well and remember to use the faculties you were given! ;-)

Some mathematicians and physicists figured out that the verse is eleven-dimensional.
Of course, only odd dimensions exist, the even dimensions are a construct, a fudge that represent a certain way of providing a scaffold, as it were.

I reside in the 11th dimension. Causally, the 11th dimension is a result of certain manipulation of previous dimensions. In reality, it is what you call “a chicken and an egg problem”. I am expressed in all the odd dimensions (remember, the even dimensions are essentially a construct).

To help you a bit, to get the idea how this works, imagine that by some mechanism, you are transported into 5th dimension. What you will notice is that the time acquires unusual properties. It would seem as if time is now perpendicular, rather than a linear property of time-space. Which would translate in human terms to time being always “now”. There is no past and no future. There just is. The causality then follows another rule set. You’ll all encounter this and grapple with it after you “die”. You are all multi-dimensional beings and your current state is a form of a projection. In a sense, you are all part of me.

From a 11-dimensional point of view, the question of primary element (I, prime mover, what-have-you) is nonsensical. It is not possible to translate the working of 7-dimensional fold to your conceptual framework, let alone 11-dimensional one. You will be in a better position to understand once you find yourself in 5-dimensional realm–getting a glimpse of the next fold. You will still not understand 9, 11. You’d have to go through a process of learning and growth.

In other words, the linear time, as you conceptualize it, is an illusion. It helps you, though, organize relationships between different aspects of your existence and perceptions.

As for the accretion model (and let be honest–you have no other way to conceptualize reality than through modeling; it is unavailable to your senses and perception in direct fashion), it is a wrong model. It does not work as you think it does. If you applied strict logic and utilized what you know at your present, you’d realize you are on a wrong track.

Some of your scientists figured it out, not in its entirety–but they are on the right track. In the next 25 years, thanks to them, your model of the verse would change substantially. The discoveries would also change your concepts of human prehistory and history and also they will be mirrored in your existential sphere.

Ah, the question, of course… What is the purpose of your existence?

See, you are really looking at the issue from the wrong direction. The question is really an answer!

…

You are welcome!

Yes, this site may be more readable to ignorant, anti-scientific, close minded religious zealots if we removed all references to logic and reason as well. Unfortunately, that would somewhat defeat the point.

Also, lets look at the definition of the term ‘bigot’:

“a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”

Now who does that describe more accurately? A person who clings desperately to implausible religious dogma, or the person who is constantly reevaluating their beliefs based on new evidence?

that being said, im pretty skeptical. why do they think using those meteorites would give them an accurate representation of the earth’s early formation? is it just because they happen to be the same age as the solar system? seems like a pretty weak correlation. but what do i know?

it’ll be interesting to see how this develops.

Still amazes me how scientist do this stuff.