The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Fvck you, Beef. Fvck you in the ass, you repulsive excuse for aborted fetal matter.

Also: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html was the only one I care enough to look for. Google it yourself.

DE, so seriously, what right do you have to tell me I can't be naked anywhere I want? It fits every bit of your rebuttal as well as cross-dressing does.

In this case its more a case of the effects being naked might have on various small children, perverts etc. Though seriously, I might be slightly uncomfortable with you being naked, but if thats your thing I have no right to force my petty feelings onto you.

Cross-dressing is cowardice. It is pretending to be something you are not. It is no different than the closet homosexual who refuses to tell the world, because he feels some kind of shame for what he is doing.

Be WHO you are. Don't feel like you have to pretend to be someone else. A gay man PRETENDING to be a woman isn't comfortable with who he is, which is a gay MAN.

1. Thats you opinion. 2. You have no right to force it onto others. 3. You obviously have no clue why people like cross-dressing. 4. WHA'EVAR! I DO WA I WANT! 5. Cowarice isn't against the rules. 6. ???? 7. Profit.

Originally posted by Nephthys

In this case its more a case of the effects being naked might have on various small children, perverts etc. Though seriously, I might be slightly uncomfortable with you being naked, but if thats your thing I have no right to force my petty feelings onto you.

And what affects are those? How someone chooses to dress, or shouldn't dress should have no effect on someone else, according to your logic, am I correct?

1. Thats you opinion. 2. You have no right to force it onto others. 3. You obviously have no clue why people like cross-dressing. 4. WHA'EVAR! I DO WA I WANT! 5. Cowarice isn't against the rules. 6. ???? 7. Profit.

1. Yes it is. I am free to express it.
2. I haven't tried to. I have merely expressed it.
3. I know its pretending to be something you are not.
4. That is intelligent...
5. I am perfectly free to despise cowardice and hypocrisy when I see it.
6. What?
7. What?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Fvck you, Beef. Fvck you in the ass, you repulsive excuse for aborted fetal matter.

Also: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html was the only one I care enough to look for. Google it yourself.

A new study shows that gay men respond differently from straight men when exposed to a suspected sexual stimulus found in male sweat.

1. Thats you opinion. 2. You have no right to force it onto others. 3. You obviously have no clue why people like cross-dressing. 4. WHA'EVAR! I DO WA I WANT! 5. Cowarice isn't against the rules. 6. ???? 7. Profit.

Originally posted by truejedi
First, what does this have to do with being an American? I, as an American, am not diminished by the action of one intolerant person. You losing faith in your country over one isolated act is your loss, and your loss alone.

Except this is not an isolated incident but is instead an example of how homosexuals are discriminated against.

Originally posted by truejedi
1. I did not see the word "religion" in that article, so you tying it into this is a bit non sequitarish.

Christianity is a frustrating and depressing aspect of American culture and lo and behold the side effects.

Originally posted by truejedi
Interesting that you already hate religion, because as a college student, it would seem you might realize that religious intolerance and gender discrimination are two birds of the same "fear of the unknown" feather.

Fear the unknown? Hardly, I grew up in a religious environment. I used to be a devout Christian, so no, don't accuse me of fearing the unknown. I know very well how delusional religion is, because I lived it. I am very aware of the pluralistic aspects of religion. I didn't take Philosophy of Religion and several Religious Studies courses for no reason.

If religion kept to itself and did not in any involve itself in dictating social norms or policy, I wouldn't care about it. It does however get involved. Things like: stem cell research, same sex marriage, abortion, and euthanasia are all matters that religion has tried to impose social norms on. A great too many people believe that faith is a valid reason to believe in anything and so they use their faith as a justification to impose social norms.

All I had to do was read the first sentence before I closed it. It's not my job to look up proof for your argument.

Then you clearly have a closed mind, if you do not wish to learn other points of view. And its not my job to open your narrow mind.

Also, next time read teh bloody thing before dismissing it out of hand.

You really want to get into the debate of relativism and how retarded it is?

Less retarded than taking orders from my imaginary friend?

And what affects are those? How someone chooses to dress, or shouldn't dress should have no effect on someone else, according to your logic, am I correct?

Having no clothes on would lead to many problems. People in enclosed spaces would be forced to dry hump, people might get touched in ways that they don't want to, perverts would florish etc Basically the only problem with girls and boys dressing in clothes traditionally for the other sex is that it can make bigots get angry and start over-using the phrase, 'It's a disgrace'.

1. Yes it is. I am free to express it.
2. I haven't tried to. I have merely expressed it.
3. I know its pretending to be something you are not.
4. That is intelligent...
5. I am perfectly free to despise cowardice and hypocrisy when I see it.
6. What?
7. What?

1. Good, just don't get out of hand.
2. Good, then you agree that it was wrong for that school not to allow it.
3. No, thats merely a side effect. Most cross-dressers cannot pull of looking like a girl/boy and its merely used becuase they feel more comfortable that way. There is nothing wrong with this.
4. South Park usually is.
5. Well, asit isn't cowardice or hypocracy, I don't see you point.
6/7. jokawer

Originally posted by Nephthys
Then you clearly have a closed mind, if you do not wish to learn other points of view. And its not my job to open your narrow mind.

Also, next time read teh bloody thing before dismissing it out of hand.

Less retarded than taking orders from my imaginary friend?

Originally posted by Autokrat
Except this is not an isolated incident but is instead an example of how homosexuals are discriminated against.

Right, because discrimination like this has nothing to do with a particular set of verses in the Bible that have a negative view of cross-dressing and homosexuality. It also has nothing to do with why forty five states still don't allow same sex marriage, of course a few allow for "civil unions."

Christianity is a frustrating and depressing aspect of American culture and lo and behold the side effects.

Fear the unknown? Hardly, I grew up in a religious environment. I used to be a devout Christian, so no, don't accuse me of fearing the unknown. I know very well how delusional religion is, because I lived it. I am very aware of the pluralistic aspects of religion. I didn't take Philosophy of Religion and several Religious Studies courses for no reason.

If religion kept to itself and did not in any involve itself in dictating social norms or policy, I wouldn't care about it. It does however get involved. Things like: stem cell research, same sex marriage, abortion, and euthanasia are all matters that religion has tried to impose social norms on. A great too many people believe that faith is a valid reason to believe in anything and so they use their faith as a justification to impose social norms. [/B]

A justification? You mean like "I don't want to follow any particular code of ethics. Instead I want to make up my own so I don't have to justify my actions. How can I do that? Relativism and secularism!!!"

Originally posted by truejedi
DE, so seriously, what right do you have to tell me I can't be naked anywhere I want? It fits every bit of your rebuttal as well as cross-dressing does.

Cross-dressing is cowardice. It is pretending to be something you are not. It is no different than the closet homosexual who refuses to tell the world, because he feels some kind of shame for what he is doing.

Be WHO you are. Don't feel like you have to pretend to be someone else. A gay man PRETENDING to be a woman isn't comfortable with who he is, which is a gay MAN.

This is not entirely accurate. A quick search based around the keyword "transgender" indicates that transexual individuals are not necessarily making a choice. Rather, they are expressing their individuality more fully.

WebMD defines it as "A person with the external genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics of one gender, but whose personal identification and psychosocial configuration are that of the opposite gender; a study of morphologic, genetic, and gonadal structure may be genitally congruent or incongruent." (Emphasis mine.)

Under this definition, transgenderism is a psychological state, not a lifestyle choice.

This personal account of one's experiences indicates that it was never a lifestyle choice. And, in what I think is the most telling counterpoint to the idea that it is a lifestyle choice, this 20/20 report tells about a child with gender-identity issues. The ramifications of your "It is pretending to be something you are not" call a six-year-old a liar. You would posit devious intentions on someone without the capacity to develop them.
link

---

Claiming that religion is delusional is hilarious.

A false belief or wrong judgment, sometimes associated with hallucinations, held with conviction despite evidence to the contrary.

I'd say believing in mankind or believing that everything is 'relative' to get away with doing anything you want

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
We've established that your worldview holds to a sequence of events that is false, given our current understanding of history. (You never responded to my beautiful post.) Moreover, religious conviction is held without any supporting evidence, such that the issue of disproof is simply overkill.

In this sentence you make the mistake of thinking that the consequences of an idea influence how true it is. The simple fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the morals found in religious books like the Torah or the Bible are any more absolute than the ones of the !Kung tribe. (Also there is no evidence that they are any more appealing.) [/B]

The alternative of course would be to create and follow man's law which as has proven, lead to Stalin and the Holocaust. The only argument you may possibly have against religion would be directed towards the fanatics. The rest of us who try to follow most of the principles tend to lead moral and ethical lives.

*Waits for the "Who are you to.." speech*

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You'll have to explain how the fact that I didn't research a rebuttal for your post, indicates that my worldview holds to a sequence of events that is false. Unless of course you think I'm the last line of defense for religious people, in which case you've picked the wrong fight.

No evidence that they are any more appealing? You mean like the rise of Christianity, the Crusades, and more than 1500 years of more or less most of the world following Christianity?

Spoiler:
in the 100s, when Christianity was being formulated

The alternative of course would be to create and follow man's law which as has proven, lead to Stalin and the Holocaust. The only argument you may possibly have against religion would be directed towards the fanatics. The rest of us who try to follow most of the principles tend to lead moral and ethical lives.

*Waits for the "Who are you to.." speech*

Anyways, I'm not convinced that this conversation is worthwhile, since you're parroting points that have already been soundly rebuffed. Have you had major head trauma since last we spoke about this?

(And you misused a comma in your last post.)
lol

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
[/b]
As of this moment (this moment right now) the evidence that you and I have encountered (collectively) is such that the Judaic genesis account is not compatible with factual evidence. To continue to support it (the Judaic account of Genesis) is to continue supporting a false sequence of events.

Did you really just use the Crusades to say that Christian "morals" are superior to other moral systems? That is the opposite of the thing that you wanted to say. And in a popularity contest Buddhism wins. What do you know? Anyway, in a popularity contest

Spoiler:
in the 100s, when Christianity was being formulated

the Earth is flat.

Hitler was a Christian. Stalin's actions were not a consequence of his lack of religion. "The rest of us" do not get our morality from the bible, as it is primarily obsolete. Those who claim it as their moral compass have, as a rule, not read it. Those who have must label several distasteful portions (genocide, for example, or stoning disrespectful children) as "symbolism."

Stalin's actions were a result of lack of religion. Stalin was a staunch follower and supporter of Marxism. "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

Anyways, I'm not convinced that this conversation is worthwhile, since you're parroting points that have already been soundly rebuffed. Have you had major head trauma since last we spoke about this? [/B]

Soundly rebuffed? When? Where? The only thing that was rebuffed were your hilarious attempts to disprove God on Gideon's forum. Who has the major head trauma now? Then again I do sympathize with you. You haven't been the same since I made you my ***** not 6 months ago, and you ran off for a month, electing to post once in a wihle now.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
(And you misused a comma in your last post.)
lol

Ahhh, alleged grammar correction. The last resort argument of the pseudo intellectual.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

Under this definition, transgenderism is a psychological state, not a lifestyle choice.

Red, in your definition lies the weakness of the argument: These people have the psychological make-up of the opposite sex. I really get that. However, does this mean that they are perfectly normal, or delusional? If i have the psychological makeup of a horse, should I be allowed to live as a horse, and face no discrimination? Or should I be labeled psychotic.

From your definition (i didn't research it, going entirely on the info YOU provided) you are calling transgender borderline pyschotic, is that a fair interpretation?

Originally posted by truejedi
Red, in your definition lies the weakness of the argument: These people have the psychological make-up of the opposite sex. I really get that. However, does this mean that they are perfectly normal, or delusional? If i have the psychological makeup of a horse, should I be allowed to live as a horse, and face no discrimination? Or should I be labeled psychotic.

From your definition (i didn't research it, going entirely on the info YOU provided) you are calling transgender borderline pyschotic, is that a fair interpretation?

That's not fair at all. I didn't use the word "psychotic" once, nor did I mean to.

The line "perfectly normal" is, I think, telling. There is a tendency (I've noticed) towards enforcing "normality" onto others, by both implicit and explicit rules. The eagerness to enforce those rules relies strongly on one's upbringing. I was raised to respect and embrace differences (among other things). I suspect that your social environment put a much stronger emphasis on obedience (if not conformity). There is a fundamental difference (outlined in Lakoff's Don't think of an Elephant) between people that focus on obeying rules and people that focus on making good ones.

What I think is happening here is that you are seeing rules (social norms, etc.) being broken, while I see social norms that have outlived their usefulness. This was probably the same split that occurred over miscegenation laws (and their repeal).

---

This is according to you. I have given you a lecture where an astro physicist accounts for both to be true. I have also consulted a Rabbi about it. The one thing I haven't done was process it into notepad and post it here. So as far as trying to convince yourself that they are incompatible, you've done a good job.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you either didn't read what I said, or understand it. I merely stated that Christianity dominated for nearly 1500+ years as of now. I'm not sure what your point was in regards to Buddhism, so I'll assume you had none.

you
No evidence that they are any more appealing? You mean like the rise of Christianity, the Crusades, and more than 1500 years of more or less most of the world following Christianity?

The Buddhism thing was an edit to correct a mistake, but you've not responded to the hang-up that it doesn't matter how many people believe something; the number of adherents does not decide if an idea is correct.

Hitler wasn't a practicing Christian. Hitler's belief was that Aryan blood was pure. This isn't a Christian belief. Furthermore, Hitler was full of shit 100% of the time. He burned both Jewish and Christian bibles. I believe one of his quotes was something like "The Jews represent the conscience, we must destroy the conscience, we must destroy the Jews."

Stalin's actions were a result of lack of religion.

Re: the quote:
The full quote is found on the Wiki [their emphasis retained]

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

You haven't been the same since I made you my ***** not 6 months ago,

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
-

Really? Do I have to post it again? The lecture, as well as the speaker's other books, suffer from fundamental flaws. I outlined those flaws, substantiating many of the criticisms of various critiques of his work. He is factually wrong. You can't argue with that. (Or else you would have.)

You did a bit more than state that Christianity thrived for 1500 years. You held up one of the most destructive wars of aggression as proof that Christian morals are superior to others'.

The Buddhism thing was an edit to correct a mistake, but you've not responded to the hang-up that it doesn't matter how many people believe something; the number of adherents does not decide if an idea is correct.

Prove it.

Dr. David Barrett, editor of the massive World Christian Encyclopaedia, and author of Cosmos, Chaos and Gospel, and Our Globe and How To Reach It, has documented that Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was responsible for killing over 40 million people. Joseph Stalin closed down over 48 000 churches, and attempted the liquidation of the entire Christian Church.

Re: the quote:
The full quote is found on the Wiki [their emphasis retained]

Was this before or after we had to wait 8 months between you saying that "you would get to a response" and that you couldn't find a response? [/B]

By "we" I assume you mean you. Furthermore, me honestly stating that I wasn't going to pursue the matter is a hell of a lot better than you getting your ass handed to you, disappearing, and then using the same arguments.

And I think it was more like 4 months..

The argument was last march. I was still expecting it at the beginning of school. So September. That's seven.

Re: the rest
We've been over this already.
Hitler was a jerk no matter who claims him.

Stalin didn't do the things he did because atheism told him to. (That's dumb.)

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
The argument was last march. I was still expecting it at the beginning of school. So September. That's seven.

Re: the rest
We've been over this already.
Hitler was a jerk no matter who claims him.

[quote]Stalin didn't do the things he did because atheism told him to. (That's dumb.)

Gotta love the way you state that. Good job. How about Stalin saw religion as a huge obstacle and sought to eradicate it? Unless of course we're going to argue that Communism in the Soviet Union tolerated religion during the 20th century.

What we DO know is that either secular groups or groups absent of religion have killed a lot more than those in the name of religion.

The Origin of Anatomically Modern Humans
When and where did fully modern humans-what paleo-anthropologists call anatomically modern humans- originate?

One hypothesis for the origin of fully modern humans is that Homo sapiens evolved in each region from the local populations of H. erectus. This model of parallel evolution of modern humans is called the multiregional hypothesis. It is mainly advocates of this hypothesis who refer to the regional derivatives of H. erectus as "archaic Homo sapiens," giving the geographic variants of fossils sub-species manes, such as H. sapiens neanderthalensis for European forms. In this view, the great genetic similarity of all modern people is the product ofoccasional interbreeding between neighboring populations that has provided corridors for gene flow throughout the geographic range of humans.

On the other side of a very lively debate about human origins are the proponents of the "Out of Africa" hypothesis, also called the replacement hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, all Homo sapiens throughout the world evolved from a second major migration out of Africa that occurred about 100,000 years ago- a migration of anatomically modern humans that completely replaced all the regional populations of Homo derived from the first hominid migrations of H. erectus out of Africa about 1.5 million years ago. Most advocates of the replacement hypothesis prefer to give separate species names to the regional hominids that were not anatomically modern, such as Homo neanderthalensis for the Neanderthals in Europe.

Note that both hypotheses recognize the fossil evidence for humanity's African origin. The debate centers on the vintage of the most recent hominid ancestor in Africa common to all the world's modern populations. The multiregional hypothesis places that last common ancestor in Africa over 1.5 million years ago, when H. erectus began migrating to other parts of the world. But accoring to the replacement hypothesis, the diverse human populations of the world are much more closely realated. In this view, all of the world's populations diverged from anatomically modern Homo sapiens that evolved from an African H. erectus population and then migrated throughout the world beginning only 100,000 years ago.[...]

This section deals with humans: I think it is clear why the multiregional hypothesis does not support genesis. It insists Adam and Eve must have lived at a point far earlier than modern humans to allow them to be the first common ancestor of humanity. This does not allow them to actually be human. So that hypothesis precludes genesis.

Look at the replacement hypothesis though; it suggests evolution from a previous ancestor to a form capable of replacing the global populations of other hominoids. Could that be the 'deeper meaning' (the golden apple) of Adam and Eve? Is the biblical version of genesis an account of the first human colony? I think not.

Dr. Schroeder makes abundantly clear that the changeover from 'genesis time' to 'human time' took place with the creation of the first man: Adam. If we ignore the supernatural origin of man's body (Gen. 2:7- And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul), then we have the basis for a metaphorical interpretation. The underlined portion describes man's corporeal body while the bolded portion indicates the 'ensoulment' or creation of 'neshamah'. The importance of the latter half of the passage will become apparent soon.

Anatomically modern humans lived before 4,000 BCE- this much is indisputable. The best data source I have available to me is that the replacement postulated would have occurred about 100,000 years ago. This is much earlier than the changeover to 'human' described in Genesis. The implication is therefore that there must be some non physical difference between "Adam's" ancestors and himself- the neshamah- that manifested itself about 6,000 years ago, fulfilling both Biblical descriptions and scientific observations.

The 'neshamah' cannot be scientifically discussed- it is a matter of personal faith only. What can be scientifically discussed is the concrete facts around the time of the alleged 'neshamah's' creation and see if any difference manifests itself. Problems for Schroeder arise through this examination: there was a well organized state in Egypt before 6,000 years ago, and none of their records indicate a radical change in the nature or ability of Man (which would, of course, be a noteworthy event). In addition to the Ancient Egyptians' failure to notice a distinction between pre and post-Adam humanity, there is the plethora of earlier human activity.
Humans can be distinguished from other animals by certain behaviors:
[list]
[*]Humans have structured language- a definite grammatical structure and, occasionally, a writing system.
[*]Humans have the ability to create technologies to improve their standard of living and to improve those technologies- a beaver will not improve its dam by noticing flaws in the design. Even chimps (another species able to use simple tools) have not (to my knowledge) been observed to improve on the tools they use.
[*]Humans create art (music, dance and visual images). No other animal has been seen to create art.
[*]Often, humans formulate some sort of religion, while other animals have not been known to do so.[/list]
By these criteria then the 'non-human' predecessors to "Adam" would not have had a language or any form of art or religion. If they did then they would already have been human.

The problem is that organisms prior to 4,000 BCE did have those attributes- as suggested by archaeological evidence.

[list]
[*]The cave paintings in Pech Merle (France) are dated as old as 25,000 years before present- more than 4 times older than the Bible's 'humanity' is.
[*]Body adornments are seen as long as 35,000 years ago- almost six times older than Genesis's humanity. Bone needles have been found as early as 23,000 years ago.
[*]Pottery has been dated as old as 12-14 thousand years before present. This indicates that "prehumans" were able to build a kiln and get it to over 1000 degrees. Is there any non-human creature that can create pottery, let alone use it?
[*]Ancient communities about 8,000 years ago are seen to use seals, indicating some form of writing.
[*]Almost 2,000 years before the 'changeover' in genesis, Sumerian societies in Mesopotamia are creating temples! Is there any nonhuman creature that has an idea of religion?[/list]

The answer, of course, is no. "Human like animals" were displaying uniquely human behaviors long before the postulated 'final [spiritual] creation'. A contemporaneous society even fails to note any sort of change. There is no evidence whatsoever that any form of supernatural intervention made changes to society at that time, or even global society in the long run. Thus, the concept of a 'neshamah' defaults back into the area of pure faith.

Minimum viable population
[as an objection to a literal reading of genesis]

The Biology of Human survival: life and death in extreme environments

[Although this discusses space colonization, the principles of genetics within a totally isolated community remain sound]
This means a permanent human colony in space [or the very first one- without neighbors] will have to be of sufficient size and genetic diversity to avoid random extinction. The minimum size necessary for a permanent, self propagating space colony has never been determined[...] If the limited genetic diversity of reconstituted populations of endangered species is any indication, the minimum founder population for a remote permanent space colony is likely to be on the order of 100 to 200 unrelated individuals.

A minimum viable population (MVP) size is an estimate of the number of individuals required for a high probability of survival of a population over a given period of time.

Inbreeding depression refers to the reduction of genetic fitness within a population as a result of breeding between closely-related individuals.

Two people simply do not provide the requisite genetic diversity to populate the earth.

This is not, of course, an important point if you do not suggest a literal reading of the explanation of Man.

The claims regarding time dilation are simply false. Their relation to scripture is irrelevant; whether scripture meshes well with pseudo science is irrelevant. This is a bold claim and is not a label I feel comfortable applying to something without good reason; I assure you that I do in fact have a rationale for such the accusation.

The crux of Schroeder's argument lies on the theory of relativity's view of time dilation- the idea that time can move differently depending upon the reference frame from which it is observed. There is no absolute time. Thus, what seems like 15 billion years to us can seem like 6 days within a different reference frame. Hence the "agreement" between scripture and history. He suggests that God operates in his own reference frame up until the point of Adam's creation. At that point he switched to our frame of reference. The discrepancy is only that the bible looks from within that reference frame and science looks from within ours.

The idea is nice but not entirely accurate. Special relativity claims only that time flows differently in different reference frames. There are two factors (that I know of) that alter time in a relevant way: velocity and gravity.

To achieve the situation Schroeder describes under Special Relativity, God must be a physical body that occupies a fixed location in space, and in order to achieve the dilation effect postulated, God's frame of reference would have to be moving very, very quickly in relation to that of the universe.

Schroeder, however, does not use Special Relativity. He uses general relativity. He claims that as gravitational forces grew over time (due to the formation of matter through Einstien's e=mc^2) the flow of time slowed down. As he accurately notes, oranges would take longer to ripen on the sun than on earth (in terms of earth time) because of the different time flow (ignoring, of course, the absurdity of the situation; oranges are outlandishly expensive on the surface of the sun!).

I see an obvious flaw with the usage of special relativity (using velocity to explain the dilation): The universe cannot be compared with anything else. If the universe does not have an external inertial frame of reference then we cannot determine the changes in duration of time. (Just as one could not tell the changes of a car's speed based on the behavior of the other seats in the car.) Furthermore, the application of special relativity, rather than general relativity inserts the additional complication of determining G-d's speed in relation to the rest of the universe.

The same problem lies with general relativity: time dilation applies to all conceivable clocks within the universe. We can determine the age of the universe but not how long it has taken to get there because there is no absolute time. There is no standard against which to compare our own experience of time. The fundamental problem with Schroeder's calculations is that there is no way to examine them against another inertial reference frame.

While the concepts discussed by Schroeder are scientifically based, the application of the theory (theories) of relativity does not match their definition; by relying on the existence of 'absolute time' Schroeder directly contradicts those theories. Because Schroeder's interpretation uses scientific theories in direct contradiction to their actual meanings (intentionally- it is difficult to believe a doctorate holder would make a mistake like that) it becomes pseudoscience, in the formal usage of the word.

...
Also, that flood page doesn't work; it does not specify where the water would have come from- Genesis describes water above all landmasses. There isn't enough water- liquid or otherwise- on earth to accomplish that. But you don't really want to argue flood geology, do you? The archaeological evidence does not support it and it does not make accurate predictions about the way the world is. It is untenable.