Timetravel_0:

I think we’re probably closer than you think here. I’ll certainly buy your explanation of time travel as purely relative to the observer. I’m also not sure we’re that far apart on the reason there are no paradoxes. (Your Dictionary definition is of course the correct one, I was merely making a simplification of it for my own purposes.)

As to the possibility of multiple universes, well, it gets used a lot to try to explain things that can’t be explained but to me it’s a cop out due to lack of evidence and the very fact that it GETS used so much as a way to explain that which is otherwise currently un-explainable. I need more evidence. The existence of multiple universes leads me to believe that if there is more than one of them, there must therefore be an infinite number of them. If there are an infinite number of them, then everything that can happen, has already. I dislike this theory for two reasons. 1. It destroys the necessity for free will thereby making all descisions made by choice inherently moot. 2. It goes against “Occam’s Razor”. The principle that the simplest explaination is probably the best one. I really don’t see the Universe needing to be so complicated as to require infinite universes just to solve the concept of paradoxes.

Peace.

I thought it interesting that my little “Flood” analogy sparked such conversation.

By all means many cultures refer to “Great Floods” in their history. And Local phenomenea ARE the reason these persist in mythology.

Pamela, you’ve been reading the propaganda of the “Young Earth Creationists” I see. Their web sites are all over the place. Unfortunately, these theories they propound are not only NOT POSSIBLE, but have long since proven to be so.

Unfortunately many of these, like the so-called “Dr.” Kent Hovind have fabricated their own “degrees” in higher education. Hovind for instance, started a “University” in his living room, awarded himself a “Doctorate” in Theology, and uses this to tout his self professed “expertise” in geological and biologocal matters.

The “Vapor Cloud” myth is a fairly old one trotted out to answer the “Where did the water come from?” question. But YOUR explainations are right out of the Creationists handbook 101. And equally mythological as they are without foundation or acceptance by the Scientific Community at large.

Think about it. If it never rained before the flood, what did plants live on? As to the Vapor Cloud it self, it’s already been calculated that to produce the water necessary for world wide full deluge, the cloud would be so thick as to block out the sun entirely. Meaning it MUST have been dark always before the so called “Great Flood”. Preposterous. Every Creationists argument on this issue is totally debunk-able. Not just because it isn’t so, but because it can be PROVEN to be not so.

May I suggest you do some browsing around the various Talk Origins websites where the real scientists hang out and you’ll begin to see how truly silly some of these Literal Scripture interpretations really are.

Not that I’m arguing against (or for) the existence of God, just that if you want to view the Bible as an informative and inspirational document, may I suggest that you at least study the differences where metaphor is used instead of an intended depiction of reality.

Genesis has TWO depictions or accounts of Creation. The Creationsts won’t tell you about the second one because it is contradictory to THEIR view. And supports the concept of Evolution. It’s called selective intepretation. And they engage in it all the time.

Or as the old song goes,

“Some Things That You Libel,
To Read In The Bible,
It Ain’t necessarily So.”

Good luck, and

Peace.