Over the last few years people have started to wonder if Einstein was a fake and a thief.What are your opinions on this.At school in the Netherlands my teacher always told us Einstein was a fake.

Always believe your teacher. Teachers are never mistaken. Don't bother trying to follow the reasoning that Einstein himself put forward. Trust in what your teacher has told you about Einstein.
That's the scientific method.

do you know anything about Einstein(1895-1917)??
if you check the facts and then check them again you will know that Einstein was a fake.do you know anything about the man that you didnt get from the news papers??check the facts then you tell me. please dont think everyone in Bern and the rest of europe are wrong and a few media related(still)people were correct. Facts open your eyes

ps Einstein never put anything forward in his name alone.The four papers 1905 were in his wifes name(as he was not a member of the cientific comunity and worked in a patent office in Bern after failing on three ocasions entering engerniering school(iq 104)failed math throughout his childhood on two ocasiones.
ps My teacher at the erasmus uni.is family of the person who did the first paper 1905 who could it be?? facts dont trust books

1) facts aren't very useful without logic.
non sequiturs aren't correct logic.

2) unsubstantiated claims are NOT facts.

From where do these stories about Einstein arise; for example, that he published in his wife's name, and that he failed courses etc.? They are just not true! Einstein brought about a paradigm shift in physics. As we know from history such a person is ALWAYS at first treated with disbelief and contempt. But it is already a hundred years ago, and his theories on the special theory of relativity and the photo electric effect have been experimentally vindicated time and again. Give the man the credit he deserves as one of the greatest theoretical physicists that ever lived; on par with Newton and Maxwell.

Johnny,

There is some question about how much credit to give Einstein's wife. While the first published accounts listed only Einstein's name, there were some early russian translations that included his wife's name.

Some experts convened to try to sort this out and could not decide conclusively one way or the other.

Einstein never had trouble with math; however, he did have trouble with the foreign language requirements on at least one entrance exam. He also had trouble with authority in school and it was sometimes the case that other students lost respect for their teacher because of Einstein's presence.

As early as 14 he was asking himself (in his journals) the sorts of questions that would lead him eventually to discover relativity.

There are some kooks who have claimed repeatedly - with no evidence - that Einstein's wife did all the work. There is zero evidence for this. Einstein's professor knew him and respected him. Einstein's peers knew him and respected him. There is some question of his wife's involvement and contribution. There is NO reasonable question about Einstein's contributions.

BTW, my #2 in the above post should read
"2) unsubstantiated claims are NOT facts"
I'm sure you understood, but on the net one can never be sure exactly how far someone might go in attempts to misconstrue a point.

Fallible Fiend,
One of the powers of this forum is that you are able to go back and edit your own posts. If you want to change that statement, just click on the editing icon and have at it. A mistake can be easily corrected that way. It's a nice feature more people here should use to ensure they say what they mean to say. It's the closest thing to "DWIM"ware we have.

Amaranth

See, I had to fix a typo myself. Bad fingers!

AR,
thanks for the pointer. I attempted that, but it only allows one to edit the post within some time frame. Unfortunately, I got the message that I was no longer able to edit when I attempted.

I did not know there was a limited time. Do you wish me to go back and correct it for you?

Yes, thanks,
k

FF:
It's a done deal. PM me if you need anything else.

Amaranth

ps Einstein never put anything forward in his name alone.The four papers 1905 were in his wifes name(as he was not a member of the cientific comunity and worked in a patent office in Bern after failing on three ocasions entering engerniering school(iq 104)failed math throughout his childhood on two ocasiones.
REP: Is it bad to put your wife's name?Whether you agree or not so many people do it including me.!!
=====================================
ps My teacher at the erasmus uni.is family of the person who did the first paper 1905 who could it be?? facts dont trust books
REP:There is no need to doubt what he said. He is already under close scrutiny.

One doesn't have to "trust books." Annalen der Physik has actual copies you can go look at. Her name is not on them.

As I said, however, there exists a Russian translation that includes his wife's name. He *DID* do research with her. We know this very well. We do not know the extent to which she worked with him, but she certainly never claimed to have done work with him.

Though Einstein was a patent clerk, he had enormously impressed his professor. He and his wife had already done research on capillary action and while not exactly well-known, was at least well-respected in a small circle because of this earlier work.

I dont think Einsteins wife should get credit for the early papers as much as Einstein they stole everything(I think most in europe will agree, Hawkins does!)It was very strange for some one like Einstein to try and cover up his school records (1914) and then blame the loss(1920)on the war but he forgot something.Grades were from 1 to 10 with 6 passing and 5 not.with four 5?s somer school to up grade two of the four 5 to 5.6 or above.Einstein had a 5 for math with 12years and 14years old.these records are there for all to see.

I ask you this who would you say in order has the highest IQ Rumsfeld,Bush jr,Rice or Schultz??? and these four Stern,Einstein,Maric or Plank?? get the picture?? Hawkins did lorentz,Poincare and Paul Dirac did and thats just to name a few.Its easy to hide behind the whole nazi thing or the jewish thing so suggest go straight to the core records in Bern and Zurich and for the boffs look in to what he did in Italy.It all seems a bit fishy to me

"get the picture?"
No, I don't.

"It all seems a bit fishy to me"

I do not doubt that this all seems mysterious and suspicious to you.

Vague, unsubstantiated statements are not facts.

Suspicions are not reasoning. You and bazza are a lot better at talking about science than you are about practicing it. (And probably most people - including you two - are better at talking about logic than they are at practicing it.)

do you ever answer anything?? or are you insearch of logic that others have and information others have given.I think you miss the point but I am sure you could find many ways of explaining the meaning of point. I agree that I have not added to this forum but I would also say I have not seen anything original from yourself and If you truly believe you have something to offer..I suggest you start doing it

I would also like to say I am sorry I can not express myself that well in your lingo but I am getting better as I write. I thank you for that.
Brad Peters

I'm don't care about originality. We're not scientists looking for precendence here - at least I don't think we are.

We're looking for positive evidence that Einstein was a fraud. Not inuendo. Not claims.

I think It is very hard to now prove beyond doubt he was a fraud but is that not what you guys are good at not proving your theories.Hawkins has cast his doubts strongly along with Paul Dirac and many others(nobel prize winners) Why does the sientific world still talk about Einsteins theories? Its a name, a reference, even though we know he did nothing new and are now known to be incorrect.I dont question anyone esle, not Not Plank not Maxwell even though most of the work was done by Newton and Galileo. I have nothing against the guy

Hello again Bradp:

I noticed you're stuff on the Moon landing topic and I see you continue in the same style here. You call Einstein a fraud and st the same time say you have nothing against him! If you could prove him to ba a fraud then you should have something against him as we would against all frauds. Please advise exactly where Hawkins made suggestions or claims that Einstein was less than honest. Your generalized accusations will not convince any one I know.
jjw

I will gladly look that up for you.Are you telling me you have never heard other sientist not only doubt but call him a fraud I suggest you look at what alot of the nobel prize winners think about a fellow working in a patent office with no sientific back ground and not giving any references and publishing his papers in his wifes name(1905fact) and then still continue to go in for work for another 4 years as a clerk(low Level) also failed entrence exam 1895(Facttech.High school Zurich) I suggest you

check opinions Paul Dirac( a true genius) Hawkins,Plank(his friend for a short time. wifes were good friends) Lorentz(sued 1905 3x) Poincare.)1905 1906
Johannes Stark(nobel) I could go on and on I suggest you look into to this and form you own opinion because proof will be hard to find.Einstein himself blames the first world war for the loss of any school records in Zurich(strange didnt no Switseland had been in a war.I also suggest you look at Max Plank?s speach at nobel prize

How about some references or links to support your contentions? So far all I see is your opinion of something I don't have available to me. Bring on the links and let us judge them for ourselves.

I will point out in depth after the holidays how and where.I went to Munchen,Zurich and Bern and there is plenty to find if your eyes are open.Stay away from books and just look at records(period 1890 to 1917) I know some will say the nazis stole, changed records but that is not true.You can see who Einstein sat next to at school. Its Switzerland not nazi germany.

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function - Einstein(just joking)

Bradp:
I went looking for items as you suggested and found none. I did find:
http:\\www.davidlicke.net/mysteries/life/einstein/html
This lauds Einstein's stuff. I do not claim to understand the stuff but others see it as very noteworthy. I still prefer Isaac Newton myself.

Subject: NOVA Online/Einstein Revealed/Genius (Levenson Essay) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:24:38 -0800

There is a parlor game physics students play: Who was the greater genius? Galileo or Kepler? (Galileo) Maxwell or Bohr? (Maxwell, but it's closer than you might think). Hawking or Heisenberg? (A no-brainer, whatever the best-seller lists might say. It's Heisenberg). But there are two figures who are simply off the charts. Isaac Newton is one. The other is Albert Einstein. If pressed, physicists give Newton pride of place, but it is a photo finish -- and no one else is in the race.

Newton's claim is obvious. He created modern physics. His system described the behavior of the entire cosmos -- and while others before him had invented grand schemes, Newton's was different. His theories were mathematical, making specific predictions to be confirmed by experiments in the real world. Little wonder that those after Newton called him lucky -- "for there is only one universe to discover, and he discovered it. "

But what of Einstein? Well, Einstein felt compelled to apologize to Newton. "Newton, forgive me;" Einstein wrote in his Autobiographical Notes. "You found the only way which, in your age, was just about possible for a man of highest thought and creative power." Forgive him? For what? For replacing Newton's system with his own -- and, like Newton, for putting his mark on virtually every branch of physics.

That's the difference. Young physicists who play the "who's smarter" game are really asking, "how will I measure up?" Is there a shot to match -- if not Maxwell, then perhaps Lorentz? But Einstein? Don't go there. Match this:

* In 1905, Einstein is 26, a patent examiner, working on physics on his own. After hours, he creates the Special Theory of Relativity, in which he demonstrates that measurements of time and distance vary systematically as anything moves relative to anything else. Which means that Newton was wrong. Space and time are not absolute -- and the relativistic universe we inhabit is not the one Newton "discovered."

That's pretty good -- but one idea, however spectacular, does not make a demi-god. But now add the rest of what Einstein did in 1905:

* In March, Einstein creates the quantum theory of light, the idea that light exists as tiny packets, or particles, that we now call photons. Alongside Max Planck's work on quanta of heat, and Niels Bohr's later work on quanta of matter, Einstein's work anchors the most shocking idea in twentieth century physics: we live in a quantum universe, one built out of tiny, discrete chunks of energy and matter.

* Next, in April and May, Einstein publishes two papers. In one he invents a new method of counting and determining the size of the atoms or molecules in a given space and in the other he explains the phenomenon of Brownian motion. The net result is a proof that atoms actually exist -- still an issue at that time -- and the end to a millennia-old debate on the fundamental nature of the chemical elements.

* And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity -- which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough.

* And of course, Einstein isn't finished. Later in 1905 comes an extension of special relativity in which Einstein proves that energy and matter are linked in the most famous relationship in physics: E=mc2. (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body times the speed of light squared). At first, even Einstein does not grasp the full implications of his formula, but even then he suggests that the heat produced by radium could mark the conversion of tiny amounts of the mass of the radium salts into energy.

In sum -- an amazing outburst: Einstein's 1905 still evokes awe. Historians call it the annus mirabilis, the miracle year. Einstein ranges from the smallest scale to the largest (for special relativity is embodied in all motion throughout the universe), through fundamental problems about the nature of energy, matter, motion, time and space--all the while putting in forty hours a week at the patent office.

I will look some more, your claims look faulty so far.
jjw

"check opinions Paul Dirac( a true genius) Hawkins,Plank(his friend for a short time. wifes were good friends) Lorentz(sued 1905 3x) Poincare.)1905 1906
Johannes Stark(nobel) I could go on and on I suggest you look into to this and form you own opinion because proof will be hard to find.Einstein himself blames the first world war for the loss of any school records in Zurich(strange didnt no Switseland had been in a war.I also suggest you look at Max Plank?s speach at nobel prize"

This is the kind of post I find irritating. No idea what I'm supposed to be looking for in Planck's nobel lecture. No idea what sort of inference I'm expected to derive or why I should derive that view.

Assertions are not evidence.
Innuendo is reasoning.

I suggest you take anything you find published by nazis the same way as anything you find written by Jews

Most of these stories all have the same sorce either John Stachel director of the centre of Einstein studies at Boston Uni. or the Hebrew Uni of Jerusalem. I suggesst you do what Einstein said he did with Planks theory,turn it around and look at where he lived and when.If these other people, schools,letters or theories coincide with time, place ect.. and then compare to Einsteins Archives. You will be suprised at the ********(sorry) out there.

Jerusalem Uni " Einstein was so dissappointed at the age of 17 he gave up his German nationality and took up Swiss Nationality" ok "17" he was born in Ulm 1879 march 14 so thats 1896 correct??
He got his Swiss nationality 1901 same source(fact) So he lived for around five years with no passport(18 onths in Italy) Hello!!!! This next is the best one. His uncle Jakov made him a genius by giving young Albert examples of what X or Y could be.Did Einstein have a uncle called Jakov?? the answer is yes did he live anywhere near young Albert?? the answer is no. Jakov is regersted as working and living in Kiel From 1882 to 1898 and kiel is more than 1000km from Munchen. There is so much of this crap out there

Why have I been sensored???????

I gave G.W.Bush as example?????

Ok I see whats going on. good bye everyone

A serious study of science still shows that Einstein was an individual thinker. He caused a paradigm shift, like Newton, which we sincerely needed. The time has come for another paradigm shift. Why are original thinkers routinely crucified? I suppose it is because there are so many idiots around that claim that they have the the "final solution". On the other hand, do not ignore them, God likes them! He created more of them than anybody else!

2005 you are wright Johnny Boy
1905 there were so many original thinkers around and only one "idiot" with the "final solution"
I dont doubt the theories I doubt the man

I hope that idiot you were calling is me.
As you will doubt me because I belong to different culture.
Isnt it true?
Say it come on.
But why ... even I dont mind smoking.

I think you are very original, dkv and I dont really think anyone is an idiot.
I didnt know there was another culture.
Original is a complement!!!

bradp,

you are so jelous of smart Jews, that you are inferior to the stupid ones. Do not spit on yourself.

e s

Out of context but what do the smart Jews stand for?

Which part do you not understand here: "smart" or "Jews" ?

e s

Oh [content deleted] ..
thats cool .
Honestly this is true.
Smart and Jews are synonomous.

extasense how can I be jealous of what I am.???? This will open some eyes in here
If you have a problem with that, speak to my mother

The things you are writing, which you apparently repeating from some deranged sources, are nonsensical on their face. No woman has made a meaningful contribution to the theorethcal physics, period. So likeliness of E's wife being super genius is exectly zero.

If your suspicions are genuine, direct them at those who claim such nonsense, that's all.

ES

This is the most retarded superstition, if there is one

e s

Worse than retarded. An act of world-class stupdity likely written by someone that is both.

extrasense "If your suspicions are genuine,direct them at those who claim such nonsense" ???????? you got me with this one.
bradp "How can I be jealous of what I am" "smart or jewish" You got the wrong one.Need more help?? I am not smart.
You got on another train!!

Can anyone give evidence(independent) the rocks and moon dust from 1969 are genuine. So we can put this to rest.

bradp:

I know that your skeptisim will not permit you to accept this- but

"I have inspected the Moon rocks personaly and they are really from the Moon" They even had labels to prove it." Tou want more proof?

jjw

jjw are you serious?? Which rock?? (ref.name )
I got a Armani shirt of a bloke down the pub (10 euros) it had labels aswell.
Maybe its the new armani moon collection

Not serious. I meant it to be obvious as such.
jjw

I think this posting has collapsed into a black-hole and going no-where. Time to end this rabbling.

Amit, I think "we" did stop discussing it in this thread ove 6 years ago, but I'm sure Pre would be glad to answer your question: "who discovered formula of energy E=mc^2".

Thanks Bill for pointing this one out.

E = mc2 is Not Einstein's Discovery

Robert A. Herrmann

Section 7. Final E= mc2 Remarks.

Poincaré, Hasenöhrl, and Planck are not the only individuals that have a certain priority relative to E = mc2.

According to Professor Umberto Bartocci, Olinto De Pretto published the expression E = mc2 in the science magazine Atti (Atte) in 1903. His expression was a speculation that was not derived from more fundamental principles such as special relativity.

There is considerable evidence that Einstein was aware of the De Pretto speculation and that this was an additional driving force behind his faulty attempt to derive this expression for radiation, at the least.

There is also very strong evidence that Einstein never gave De Pretto any credit for his great insight. It is an absolute requirement that one must do a certain amount of literature "research" prior to publishing a claimed new disclosure. This is done to determine if, indeed, your claimed disclosure is new, or to give credit to others that have certain levels of priority if your derivation is obtained by other means.

There is no doubt in my mind that Einstein would have known of the last Hasenöhrl paper since it appeared in the principle journal that Einstein used six months later to publish his own claimed (1905) derivation.

If I am correct, then Einstein would thus have been aware of Hasenöhrl's first paper as well. Poincaré was a very well-known mathematician who had won the first Bolyai prize, a prize that Einstein did not win when nominated by Hilbert.

I do not speculate any further as to why, today, proper credit is not being given to the contributions of Hasenöhrl, Poincaré, Planck and De Pretto.

(9 Sept 2000. Revised 1 Jan 2004)

The full PDF is at:

http://www.raherrmann.com/einpdf.pdf

Using the word 'retarded' as a term of abuse is as bad as racism. Both denigrate a person for something over which they have no control and show a lack of maturity and decency on the part of the perpetrator.

As these seem for some reason to be old posts, I am surprised that the nasty comments of D.A Morgan and extrasense are still on site as preearth as already posted a topic which covers the same ground without being offensive.

Even stranger is the fact that the post by Amit, to which I responded, seems to have vanished.

Yes he was there and being inoffensive too!

Glad someone else saw his post. Now I can't even find Amit on the user list. It gets curiouser and curiouser.

Many people have claimed that Einstein was a total fraud;

Here is a list of quotes from a few notables (including many Nobel prize winners);

In 1912 the Nobel prize winner (physics) Johannes Stark accused Einstein of plagiarism.

Einstein did not deny the charge, but replied;

"J. Stark has written a comment on a recently published paper of mine for the purpose of defending his intellectual property. I will not go into the question of priority that he has raised, because this would hardly interest anyone, all the more so because the law of photochemical equivalence is a self-evident consequence of the quantum hypothesis."

Professor Reuterdahl accused Einstein of plagiarizing his work, as well as the work of others.

"No unprejudiced person can deny that, in the absence of direct and incontrovertible proofs establishing his innocence, Einstein must, in view of the circumstantial evidence previously presented, stand convicted before the world as a plagiarist."

Einstein Charged with Plagiarism, New York American, (11 April 1921)
A. Reuterdahl, "The Origin of Einsteinism", The New York Times, (12 August 1923)

Professor Westin charges Einstein with plagiarism:

Westin protested to the Directorate of the Nobel Foundation against the reward of Einstein, thus:

"From these facts the conclusion seems inevitable that Einstein cannot be regarded as a scientist of real note. He is not an honest investigator."

Reported in the New York Times, (12 April 1923).

Professor See charges Einstein with plagiarism:

"Professor See Attacks German Scientist...", The New York Times, (13 April 1923).
"Einstein a trickster?", The San Francisco Journal, (27 May 1923).

Nobel prize winner (physics) P. Lenard, E. Gehrcke, Paul Weyland, and other scientists accused Einstein of plagiarism.

"In fact, one begins to doubt the justice of these claims and to wonder if the charges (of plagiarism made against Einstein) made by a fast growing group of German scientists who, like E. Gehrcke, P. Lenard, and Paul Weyland, hold that Einstein is both a plagiarist and a sophist, are not, after all, true."

J. T. Blankart, "Relativity or Interdependence", Catholic World, Volume 112, (February, 1921)

The Nobel prize winner (physics) and friend of Einstein, Max Born, had this to say;

"Many of you may have looked up his paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper' in Annalen der Physik, vol. 17, p. 811, 1905, and you will have noticed some peculiarities. The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true."

Max Born, "Physics and Relativity", Physics in my Generation.

Professor Nordmann implicitly charges Einstein with plagiarism:

"All this was maintained by Poincaré and others long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him."

Charles Nordmann, Einstein et l'universe (1921).

If Einstein was not a fraud, these scientists would not have called Einstein a fraud.

If you need more proof that Einstein was a fraud (in this case that special relativity existed before Einstein) download the 1900 book by Larmor;

http://preearth.net/pdfs/aetherandmatter00larmgoog.pdf

What can you find in Larmor's 1900 book; Aether and Matter?

You can find the "Lorentz" equations on page 167 (PDF page 192) in section 106.

Remember that the "Lorentz" equations are ALL of Special Relativity,... everything about Special Relativity follows directly from them. And remember that Larmor published the "Lorentz" equations, before Lorentz.

Here is a short article on Larmor's priority for the "Lorentz" equations.

http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:9560/larmor.pdf

Larmor calculates the length contraction of special relativity on page 175 (PDF page 204) at the end of section 111;

And, on page 182 (PDF page 213), section 117, he calculates the length contraction for all moving masses, not just electrons. So, he has already made the conceptual jump from electrodynamics, to all physics, being invariant under the "Lorentz" equations.

Larmor deals with the Doppler effect & relativity on page 177 (PDF page 205) at the end of section 102 and later.

Concerning Einstein's infamous 1905 paper on special relativity, Max Born said; "The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature." Einstein did not reference those who worked on relativity before he did (for obvious reasons).

If Einstein was not a fraud, Einstein would have referenced this work of Larmor.

If Einstein was not a fraud, Einstein would have referenced Poincare's work.

If Einstein was not a fraud, Einstein would have referenced Hasenöhrl's work.

If Einstein was not a fraud, Einstein's infamous 1905 paper would have been refereed, just like any other paper.

If you good folk have any problems with these facts,... please say so.

So you all agree with these facts then,....

Agree? No. But we all realize the futility of engaging with you over anything. It's a waste of our energy. You are opinionated, dense, and lacking in manners. And those are your good points.

Haha well said AR2 ... I think he is ocnfusing us with people who care about his opinion or his theory.

Pre

einstein stole from others , that's the truth.

if you want these people to believe something you must
use lies.

they will not believe , nor do they have the necessary ability
to believe the truth , they only believe lies.

this is a direct result of being taught lies.
and defending those lies.

so lie to them if you want them to believe anything.

if you are not using lies you are wasting time here.

225 posts in the past 30 days! Are you using lies, or just wasting a lot of your time?

I'm not going to be wasting a lot of time on you Bill s.

as you are one of the members of the science cult you cannot
understand any thing that resembles truth.

and your post reflects that your cult ( modern science ) uses
tactics devoid of logical thinking as shown below.

as for the large number of post , I can only say in my defense
that I try to respond to the cult members when they lie to me.

since there are 4-5 cult members that I must reply to
naturally I have a larger number of post than any of you.

I'm sure now you understand why I have a large number of post

as for lies , just look in your science book's.

in my opinion and others your teacher was right.

what did your book's say about einstein?

or was your teacher wise enough to not let you learn the lies.

Question everything, apply logic to everything, form your own conclusions.

That seems to be the approach to life that you espouse. Would that be a wrong impression?

To a great extent that is the way I approach life, which is why I ask a lot of questions.

so let's apply a little logic to the current situation; starting with a few questions and answers:

Have I insulted you? No.
Have I said your beliefs were wrong? No.
Have I said I thought you had no right to express your views? No.
Have I defended your right to hold, express and defend your views? Yes.
Have I ever posted anything that might support your views? Yes.
Have I asked you questions about your views? Yes.

Logically, which of those answers might be calculated to provoke your disparaging comment?

Surely it has to be the last one, it would make no sense for it to be one of the others.

So is asking questions a valid thing to do only when those questions appear to support your beliefs?

Bill S. I am going to ignore Paul's comments about liars and I suggest that you do so also. I can safely ignore them because I checked right away and they don't apply to me because my pants aren't on fire.

Bill Gill

Agreed Bill, Paul is simply in pain and his lashing out does not require more provocation but requires our sympathy and compassion which I for one freely give.

It will be interesting to see if preearth offers you friendship and kindness Paul. There is a certain irony here, Preearth seeks to install a new theory in the very thing you seek to destroy

1 post 3 replies.

Bill s
Bill
orac

being a liar is the same as agreeing that evolution happened.

being a liar is the same as agreeing that Creation did not happen.

And the significance is?






I see no proofs of anything in your comment surely you can do better.

I guess it is all in your definition and how angry you are ... I am as they say turning the other cheek as I did promise

I just checked again. My pants still aren't on fire. And childish claims are that liars pants are on fire so I guess I am vindicated.

Bill Gill

Might be that the reference is to an eternal fire..

Turn Or Burn , LOL

Clever , I agree.

that statement is as close as you will come to
admitting that there is no certain proof that could
possibly validate the theory of evolution.

agreed , Creation can not be validated so any opposing views
or claims such as the theory of evolution must first be validated in order to invalidate Creation.

that's the way I see it and that would be the logical way
to look at it.

Creation was here first as far as history is concerned and
it was evolution that proposed to invalidate Creation.

just claiming things has no value.

for instance , I could claim that I evolved from a
pool of slime , and that Creation is incorrect ,but
in order for me to back up that claim it would need
to be validated.

I would need to provide evidence that shows that I
evolved over a period of time and that evidence should depict
that evolutionary process in actual fossils not illusions or pictures of what I think I evolved from.

if I cannot produce any feasible evidence that supports
my claim then my claim can not be validated and if my claim
cannot be validated then any claim that Creation is incorrect
cannot be supported by my claim.

yet , I continue to claim that my claim is correct after
hundreds of years of failure to find any evidence in support of my claim.

therefore my claim cannot be a logical claim.

Paul, that makes no sense. Why would anything be needed to invalidate something that " can not be validated" in the first place?



Evolution does not "proposed to invalidate Creation". There are supporters of evolution who seek to make it do that. There are creationists who do the same. I believe they are both wrong. Neither need necessarily invalidate the other.

then let me rephrase that for you.



to me and my logic the cambrian explosion could be
evidence of Creation.
and to test that we simply need to look below the pre cambrian.

and we did and we found nothing that points to evolution.



that is also my opinion , I should have said the below

it was evolutionist that proposed to invalidate Creation.

I believe that a similar thing to evolution occurred in
some life forms , yet most of what is considered to be
any evidence of evolution were simply breeds of species
that died off like the tazmanian devil.

which is why there are no transitional fossils to be found.

but creation occurred over millions / billions of years , from below the pre cambrian period up until man.

only I count the millions / billions of years as being the day's that God spent Creating everything.

Is that relatively speaking?

There is another irony here Preearth will have to wade thru all this

Only a slightly more serious note that would imply we are here for some reason Paul?

Any idea why we are here?

Thanks. For obvious reasons I would hesitate to assume that you did not mean exactly what you said.



In your opinion, what lies below the Pre-Cambrian? Who looked there, and when?



You know something the rest of the world doesn't know?

sorry wrong name , Tasmanian Tiger

Thylacines — Greek for dog-headed pouched one — were the largest known carnivorous marsupial of modern times, top-level predators native to continental Australia, Tasmania and New Guinea.

Commonly known as the Tasmanian Tiger due to its striped back, the Tasmanian Wolf, and colloquially the Tassie (or Tazzy) Tiger, or simply the Tiger, they were the last extant member of their genus, Thylacinus. Their closest living relative is thought to be either the Tasmanian Devil or Numbat.

sorry again , below the cambrian.

since you now know what I meant do you have any comments
about the corrected version below?

to test that we simply need to look below the cambrian.
and we did and we found nothing that points to evolution.

This thread is about the FRAUD Einstein,.... remember?

No time to look stuff up at the moment, but if I remember rightly there was some fresh work done on Kimberella (I think K quadrata) in the 1990s linking it to Cambrian, and later forms.

Might be a good place to start.

which brings us back to what I said earlier.



unless there are transitional fossils found that show links
to the abundant forms of life in the cambrian then this could easily just be a breed of a species that died off.

all the kimberella fossils that I have looked at so far , basically look the same to me.



what we need is a fossil like the kimberella that has grown
leggs or something , besides isnt this a jelly fish?

So, you boys have no comment to make about these Nobel prize winners claiming that Einstein was a fraud;