Space was Warm.

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

the Strong Nuclear Force comes into effect

Ah

Cheers, seems this force was something our school does not teach, wikipedia all the way

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hmm, dad seems to have given up.
Shame, I was enjoying that dialogue. It verged on the sane

 

[dad]

??


if it smells like a banana...

oh wait, pentyl ethanoate does

I smell fallacy

Notice the dots I included, assuming that people may catch the drift.
"
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;'
Now, another girl might have the same perfume as Juliet, but she just would not be the rose in question! Man cannot go just by what is under his nose. That can be a good indication, but not the great determiner of all things.
You can't hug pentyl ethanoate! You can't kiss it. (if you are of sound mind) It can't have a baby!
Anyhow, stellar evolution is very similar, in godless principle, to biological evolution, put it that way.

You do not, the billions before you did not, neither do the millions you speak of

If you did, you would have revealed it to the world, but you do not, why?

Why would everyone 'reveal it to the world'? It might be a revelation, a spiritual visist in a dream from a departed loved one, a healing from a wart, a nice girlfriend last night, they knew God arranged, an opportunity that opens, or closes, protection driving, or wherever, etc etc. Miracles don'r generally fit in a test tube, we are the test tubes. Jesus rose from the dead, and was seen by many, for example. Millions believe the record of the witnesses. Does this mean some scoffing unbeliever 2000 years later saw it in a lab? No. Open up your eyes, people, it is all around, the spiritual, and those that somehow experienced it in some way, some time, or know others that did.

A rhetorical q/n, which I will answer, because you do not have proof, you have something you think is proof, you wave at people and do no understand why they laugh, you do your best to show them, and still they do not believe and you think their hearts are hardened, but thy are people who believe in logic, if you had more evidence, or even a more valid logical system, they would believe you

Jesus said, something like 'though one appear to them from the dead, yet will they not believe'. He was right. Doesn't affect the billions of happy test tubes that know it works! The so called proof you seek is some man contrived, and controlled physical thing, and it is not man that controls the spiritual!

Science is constantly changing, and new logical systems, and new empirical data is in demand, if you do posses anything of the nature, please provide it, because it will only benefit science.

Well, science is a cute little pipsqueak. It covers the box. The present physical temporary universe, as best the little nipper can! It only has access to a fairly small portion of reality. If I get something it might like, I'll try to post it. Don't worry.

please understand, science does not care for your faith,

I don't much care for it's faith either. Guess we're even.

scientists are only doing their best to explain the universe,

Hey, I understand that, it is fine, long as they don't try to take theor pitiful little box logic, and laws, and try to enforce them on eternity! They dwell in the present, and are relative only to it.

and using everything we have, science does, you provide a new system, one which is illogical, and you give it fairy wings so that it can fly above the dirt that it should be buried beneath, by saying it was made from the supernatural, that different laws applied, it does not work,

Of course it works, you just don't have the wherwithal to see it yet. What doesn't work is applying box bylaws to the true natural eternal universe.

and will convince none who value logic or evidence, who think for themselves first and for religion later,

Well, apparently lots of people are quite convinced of God, and the afterlife, and the spiritual. Most people, actually. Look out of the box someday. Tha air is fine here.

This thread is for the discussion of science, not fairy tales (therefore evidence should be scientific, not a bunch of laws from fairy land)

Thanks for reminding us of that. Let's keep so called science, then far far away.

 

[dad]

I believe no change occured but, because of the nature of this problem, no evidence can be presented either way.

So, as a belief, then, long as you don't call it science, you are welcome to it.

What makes you think humanity is so important?

The bible.

Your words, not mine. The entire world can be wrong, y'know.

About evolution, for example.

The observable universe is 12 billion light-years in radius , considerably larger than a grain of sand. What problem do you have with the size of the universe?

Nothing with the size. The light we have now, however is PO universe light, travelling in this present. As distance, maybe it is a fair ruler, long as we leave redshift stuff out. As a time indication, it is absolutely worthless.

You misunderstand. The physical laws are the only laws.

...In the PO, yes, of course!

If the 'spiritual' was 'merged' with the physical, as you claim, then this spiritual-physical construct could be rightly called 'physical' for this period of time.
However, this is all baseless conjecture.

No, any more that it would rightly be called physcal. It was both. Merged kinda brings that out.

Do you know of some place where they do not 'operate'?

The past and future.

I see no evidence that:
a) Jesus existed
b) Jesus was a spiritual-physical construct
c) Jesus appeared & disappeared into locked rooms
c1) Appearance & disappearance into locked rooms is evidence of 'merged matter' passing through 'matter'.

I agree, you see no evidence.

Indeed. Care to show me something without quantum numbers?

The future and past. There it would probably be, as I said, more than PO Q numbers.

So you agree with the parts you like, disagree with the parts you dislike? Do you apply this mentality to your Bible as well?
Hosea 13:16: Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Tell me, do you plan to dash my little sister to pieces?

Put it in context, it was man that would be ripping them, cause they left His protection.
" Ho 13:9 O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help. "

14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: (some 'Ripper"!)

Ho 14:1 O Israel, return unto the LORD thy God; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity

4 I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him.

9 Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them? for the ways of the LORD are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall therein.

He warns what will happen if we depart from Him. It is a horrible thing quite often, how bad a stew we get ourselves in.

Laughable.
1) Science is any field of inquiry that makes testable hypothesis, unlike Creationism or theology.

It's little tests are in box. Ours span time, and space, and eternity.

2) You have not shown the claims of the scientific consensus to be false.

Until they are demonstrated as applying to the past, why bother? Anyone can make 'claims'.

3) Lack of proof does not constitute disproof.

Neither does lack of proof constitur proof! Did you forget that one?

4) Your personal feelings on a claim are irrelevant to the validity of said claim.

Right, it better stand on it's own two feet, as I say.

5) You have yet to use actual science. Please, prove me wrong.

No actual science applies to the past and future, prove me wrong.

Irrelevant. ...

You piking and choosing the monk's ideas to be godlessly applied in a negative way to the bible is germain.

I freely admit that my beliefs are improbable. But then again, I am not the one touting my beliefs as absolute truth, even in the face of empiricism, am I?

I don't know, does that mean you don't now believe in a same past? If so, there is no empricism that applies.

So there was a change then.

Not in our universe, in the former and future one where the great I AM lives..

So, long story short:
Apologetic: There is a time for everything, and in some situations we can answer a fool according to his folly. Most times, however, we should try to avoid that. If we always run around snipping titi for tati at every fool we meet, we do become like one ourselves.
I.e., pick and choose which verse you want to use.
Corollary: The Judaeo-Christian trumps logic.

Choice, free will, timing, and discretion work hand and hand with logic.

Hey, I'm not the one who believes this stuff.
Basically, your apologetics boil down to: The Bible, which is totally literally true, isn't being literal at this point. Therefore, repent or burn.

I am not a literalist, I am a realist. In taking most things literally that are meant to be taken as such, without getting silly, and out of balance with the spirit of the book, not just the dead letter of it! I like the red letter edition, not the dead letter edition!

Yes, and those people often watch their loved ones perish without proper medical care.

They also watched them rise from the dead, see again, no longer have cancers, and leap when they could'nt hardly squirm! Those that had not the faith, at least got healed totally forever anyhow, and died!

Show me a documented case where the dead has been raised, etc.

New Testament.

Millions suffer from audiovisual hallucinations. Your point?

Much of that is probably real! The shrinks are just so far removed from spiritual reality, they have no clue what is really going on.

I'm sure I misread you, but did you just say that the US population cannot understand a high percentage of believers?

No, I asked what exactly it was you feel that they can't understand? I guessed that you thought the big bad thing was that there were a lot of believers there.

I was talking about inanimate objects, actually. But while we're on that point, increasing variation down the taxonomy points to a common ancestor, not an ark.

Only if you assume a same past. I don't.

Stellar evolution is a fallicious term coined by the likes of Hovind. Evolution, the scientific definition of Evolution, is the biological phenomenon whereby inaccurate genetic replication causes a change in the frequency of alleles in a local population. You can make up all the other definitions you want, but do not attribute them to science.

Common usage invalidates a puritan rendering of the name.

At the bottom:
"One possibility is that life really did begin in a 'warm little pond', but not in hot volcanic springs or marine hydrothermal vents," he added.

So? Let me add, near the bottom of this post, .."No, there was no pond, or primodial"

I was not referring to an actual zoo. Please, learn some terminology.

I was having a bit of fun there.

An imaginary would not be backed up. Since Christian history is not backed up, we can conclude it to be imaginary. Since Archaeology is backed up, we can conclude it to be real.

I think your imagination is backed up.

I see no evidence the the observable universe is out of whack. Therefore, it is not out of whack.
Prove me wrong.

If it was so right, why is it in decay, and only temporary?

Autogenesis (particle-antiparticle pair creation in the quantum foam), the Casmir effect, zero-point energy... all are evidence of creation ex nihilo.

So, a particle, and anti particle is nothing? It may be small, but one would thing a particle is something!

1) I never mentioned William of Occam
2) I never blamed anyone, let alone a monk
What is your point? I also admit that your claims may be false.

Occam was a man, a Christian man. His ideas should be in that context, rather than hijacked for some ungodly concept support mission.

That is not a discovery. That is reading something in a book. You would really plagerise your own sacred text?

We discover treasures new and old in the bible.

Mt 13:52 - Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So, as a belief, then, long as you don't call it science, you are welcome to it.

My belief does not violate the scientific method, so is scientific. Indeed, my belief coincides with the scientific consensus.

The bible.

The Bible is an archaic set of documents compiled by those who thought the Torah's messiah had come. It is not evidence of a special purpose for humanity until the relavent verses can be proven to be true.

About evolution, for example.

Calling Evolution wrong is like calling the law of Gravity wrong because you say something obey it. Tell me, have you ever seen something contradict Evolution or the Theory thereof?

The light we have now, however is PO universe light, travelling in this present.

As opposed to? No, let me guess, some magical light that was made to make the universe simply appear to be billions of years old. But of course, this is not evidence of a deceiving god. Indeed, it points directly to the Judaeo-Christian god. Uhuh.

As distance, maybe it is a fair ruler, long as we leave redshift stuff out. As a time indication, it is absolutely worthless.

I love how you accept a scientific theory only if said theory omits the very thing that contradicts your beliefs.

...In the PO, yes, of course!

Since there is no evidence of an extra non-PO universe, any unsubstantiated claim of an extra non-PO universe is automatically violating Occam's Razor, and therefore is to be not preferred (compare 'Jelly sets because of the will of my god' to 'Jelly sets because that is how the molecules react after a given amount of time')

No, any more that it would rightly be called physcal. It was both. Merged kinda brings that out.

My point is that, at time T=t, the 'physical universe' is everything that exists at time t.

The past and future.

I beg to differ. Ancient records tell of the same physical constants as today. How, then, is the past an area of differance.

I agree, you see no evidence.

I feel you are implying that, although I do not see any evidence, you do.
If so, would you care to elaborate?

The future and past. There it would probably be, as I said, more than PO Q numbers.

Do you know anything about quantum numbers? Anything? I sincerely doubt it.

Put it in context, it was man that would be ripping them, cause they left His protection.
" Ho 13:9, 14:1,4,9."

What is your point? It was still your god who is responsible for setting up this absurd morality.
Although, the Bible does teach that you must punish the child for the sins of the father.
Would you really hit your child for your own transgressions?

It is a horrible thing quite often, how bad a stew we get ourselves in.

And the only solution is a holy genocide of the transgressors? My, your religion truely is the most loving

It's little tests are in box. Ours span time, and space, and eternity

No experiment done by for Creationism has fulfilled a Creationist theory.
Please, show me these 'tests'. It seem the whole Heathen, Satanic world has missed out.

Until they are demonstrated as applying to the past, why bother? Anyone can make 'claims'.

Indeed. But an unsubstantiated claim becomes scientifically accepted when it is 'simpler' that it's otherwise equal rivals. Since this is the claim of a physically constant past, that is what is accepted by the scientific consensus.
Believe me, there are more farfetched claims than yours. If you argue that 'simpler does not equal preferrable', then your own claim will still be rejected until substantiation.

Neither does lack of proof constitur proof! Did you forget that one?

No, I did not. I did not mention it because this logical outcome is not relevant to your claims.

No actual science applies to the past and future, prove me wrong.

Human memory is evidence that a past time exists. Prove me wrong.
You did not answer my challange, by the way. You have yet to demonstrate any scientific knowledge.

You piking and choosing the monk's ideas to be godlessly applied in a negative way to the bible is germain.

Did you mean, 'You were picking and choosing the Monk's ideas to be godlessly applied in a negative way to the Bible is German'?
Or perhaps your were referring to Sophie Germain?
Either way, your statment lacks the basics of English sentance structure, and your argument (such that I can make out of it) fails to counter my point.
So what if it is atheistic, or used to portray the Bible in a negative light? This does not negate the usefullness of the concept, and to argue otherwise is pure narcissism.

I don't know, does that mean you don't now believe in a same past? If so, there is no empricism that applies.

... I said that you tout your beliefs against empiricism. I said nothing that could imply that I reject the 'same past' assumption.

Not in our universe, in the former and future one where the great I AM lives..

So your god is not (and presumably never) present in the present?

Choice, free will, timing, and discretion work hand and hand with logic.

No. If you are logical, there is only one action to take. If you operate under nebulous impulses, then there are many actions.

I am not a literalist, I am a realist.

So you are neither a Creationists, anti-evolutionist, nor a believer in the Bible?

In taking most things literally that are meant to be taken as such, without getting silly, and out of balance with the spirit of the book, not just the dead letter of it!

So, basically, exactly what I said. You pick and choose.

I like the red letter edition, not the dead letter edition!

Eh?

They also watched them rise from the dead, see again, no longer have cancers, and leap when they could'nt hardly squirm! Those that had not the faith, at least got healed totally forever anyhow, and died!

So if the unfaithful were healed anyway, how does this point to a Christian dogma?

New Testament.

That, as I'm sure you are aware, is not a documented case. It's authors are shrouded in contradiction and mystery. It's validity has been long questioned.

Much of that is probably real!

No, audiovisual hallucinations are far more common than actual observations of the Christian theology.

The shrinks are just so far removed from spiritual reality, they have no clue what is really going on.

What, you're a Scientologist now?

No, I asked what exactly it was you feel that they can't understand? I guessed that you thought the big bad thing was that there were a lot of believers there.

For the third time, it is the US education system. It is one of the worst in the developed world.

Only if you assume a same past. I don't.

Your assumptions are erroneous, as I've mentioned time over.
And anyway, your 'split' is irrelevant in this particular point. The evidence after the split is, as you admit yourself, reliable, and it points to a common ancestry.

Common usage invalidates a puritan rendering of the name.

I wouldn't put it that way, but essentially yes, with a major 'but'. Since the colloquial use of Evolution is the scientific one, I'll stick to me guns thank you.

So? Let me add, near the bottom of this post, .."No, there was no pond, or primodial"

*sigh* The quote was from the very article you cited! You cannot refute your own source!

I was having a bit of fun there.

Really? Don't forget Poe's Law. It is hard to differentiate when you are joking from when you are being serious.

I think your imagination is backed up.

What?! This is what I would expect from a 10 year old! Tell me you did not just say that.

If it was so right, why is it in decay, and only temporary?

It is not temporary. It is not in decay. The Laws of Thermodynamics merely compel it into a state of equilibrium, whilst the Forces compel it into a state of non-equilibrium.

So, a particle, and anti particle is nothing? It may be small, but one would thing a particle is something!

1) A creation does is not 'nothing' simply because it is ex nihilo
2) Counter-intuition does not equal disproof

Occam was a man, a Christian man. His ideas should be in that context,

Why? A concept does not change due to the nature of it's human discoverer. Evolution has, is, and will continue to occur with or without human knowledge, understanding, and/or acceptance.

rather than hijacked for some ungodly concept support mission.

1) No-one hijacked it. Occam freely gave it to us.
2a) There is nothing ungodly about Evolution. It simply contradicts the literal Bible.
2b) There is nothing ungodly about the Scientific Method. It simply concludes that the Bible is not literal.
3a) Evolution is not a concept. It is an observed biological phenomenon.
4&5) Support? Mission?

We discover treasures new and old in the bible.

Mt 13:52 - Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

This verse is totally irrelevant to your point.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

Notice the dots I included, assuming that people may catch the drift.
"
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;'

I didnt actually get the drift, but then you didnt actually quote Shakespeare

Now, another girl might have the same perfume as Juliet, but she just would not be the rose in question! Man cannot go just by what is under his nose. That can be a good indication, but not the great determiner of all things.

Exactly, same as (this so called) stellar evolution, may smell of ungodliness, and of biological evolution, it would not be the evolution in question

You can't hug pentyl ethanoate! You can't kiss it. (if you are of sound mind) It can't have a baby!

I was using it to show that if something does smell of something, it is not necessary the something in question, but could be something else

Anyhow, stellar evolution is very similar, in godless principle, to biological evolution, put it that way.

Oh yes, science is completely godless, because it is just a study of what is. Apply why is, to science and it fails, but science explains what is going on, to many people (Christians) it never contradicts god, for example my Physics teacher is catholic, three of the top physics students are protestants, and two are theists in general, (this is the top 5 people)


Science however is more accurate in the areas it does cover, you are right , science is in a box, slowly expanding, but still in a box, however when we want to look at something, that is within the box of science and within Christianity, or any other religion, science is more accurate, pit science against the people who wrote the bible, and you will see, that science explains what is going on much better, look outside of the box of science (the supernatural world), and science fails to explain it badly,

The problem is, you are referring to a question within the box of science, and wanting to apply what I will refer to as "fairy laws" an approach worthy of peter pan, science covers space, and science covers dating, if we were discussing etheric/astral projection in a controlled environment, which yielded results science cannot explain, I would take the words of a holy book, since at that point in time, there would have been nothing better.

We are talking about the age of rocks, and space, sadly science has a better explanation, Occam's razor does hurt, ( I m also a theist) so I got cut, and learned my lesson.

Why would everyone 'reveal it to the world'?

You will save tens of millions of lost souls, (billions actually, since none of the other religions have empirical proof)

It might be a revelation, a spiritual visist in a dream from a departed loved one, a healing from a wart, a nice girlfriend last night, they knew God arranged, an opportunity that opens, or closes, protection driving, or wherever, etc etc.

This is not evidence, it can be interpreted in multitudes of different ways, in no way can they point specifically to the God of Christianity

Evidence, is when you guys have an icon, which when someone accepts Jesus in front of, would heal them of all disease, cancer, neurosis, it could be small glimmer of hope, a small token from God, which will lead to the conventions of millions, and when those millions spread the message, billions

But no, it does not happen, God will not provide such a small glimmer of hope, only occasional healing from warts, and girlfriends, to random people at random times, and if you dont get a benefit, then God is testing you, if you do get a benefit, God has answered you payers

One icon, like I described above, is all you guys need, and science, and the world will acknowledge your God, (out of free will btw)

Miracles don'r generally fit in a test tube, we are the test tubes. Jesus rose from the dead, and was seen by many, for example. Millions believe the record of the witnesses. Does this mean some scoffing unbeliever 2000 years later saw it in a lab? No. Open up your eyes, people, it is all around, the spiritual, and those that somehow experienced it in some way, some time, or know others that did.

Somehow, in someway, at sometime, and it must lead to the Christian God? hmmm..... I think it points to a invisible pink unicorn, which means I can use the same data as you and with as much knowledge, say it came from a different source, it is not evidence in any way

Jesus said, something like 'though one appear to them from the dead, yet will they not believe'. He was right. Doesn't affect the billions of happy test tubes that know it works! The so called proof you seek is some man contrived, and controlled physical thing, and it is not man that controls the spiritual!

One person, appearing from the dead, in a lab (after being dead for a month or two), a few times, and guess what? you will win millions of converts!!!!

Well, science is a cute little pipsqueak. It covers the box. The present physical temporary universe, as best the little nipper can!

Of course, it never claimed for more

It only has access to a fairly small portion of reality.

Are you able to access portions of reality, inaccessible to science?

If I get something it might like, I'll try to post it. Don't worry.

Cool

Hey, I understand that, it is fine, long as they don't try to take theor pitiful little box logic, and laws, and try to enforce them on eternity! They dwell in the present, and are relative only to it.

Not quite, although we do dwell in present, we have recollections of events from the past, and same goes for our planet, and these recollections of the past which have been when left on our planet, science pieces together, and uses to show what the past was like

Science enforces nothing, it only explains that which is already enforced

Of course it works, you just don't have the wherwithal to see it yet. What doesn't work is applying box bylaws to the true natural eternal universe.

The box laws, have been formulated by the universe, they only describe it, if the universe was different, so would the laws be,

There is no empirical evidence to show for a split of the two worlds of spiritual and physical, only once you have evidence, will it be accepted

Well, apparently lots of people are quite convinced of God, and the afterlife, and the spiritual. Most people, actually. Look out of the box someday. Tha air is fine here.

I am one of those people

But I realize that an event occurring in the box, is better explained by science,

And an event occurring outside, well, we can never know for sure, where it came from, and why, and there are many books telling us, where and why, and it is a choice of who do we trust?

Thanks for reminding us of that. Let's keep so called science, then far far away.

So called science, is the purpose of this forum (creation vs evolution), the discussion here are done in scientific light,

And for as long as you say, that you will not comply with science, you should not try to discuss scientific theories, because science cannot be brought down by the unscientific, just as blind faith cannot be brought down by science, they exist in worlds apart, and in creation vs evolution, the dwelling is made in the scientific part of town

 

[dad]

My belief does not violate the scientific method, so is scientific. Indeed, my belief coincides with the scientific consensus.

So what, you share beliefs, if you get some science beyond just religion, let us know.

The Bible is an archaic set of documents compiled by those who thought the Torah's messiah had come.

Then Jesus was quoting what, for scripture, that was written many centuries before??

It is not evidence of a special purpose for humanity until the relavent verses can be proven to be true.

The relevant verses will be proven true when man ascends from the darkest of ages, and gets some science worth it's salt.

Calling Evolution wrong is like calling the law of Gravity wrong because you say something obey it. Tell me, have you ever seen something contradict Evolution or the Theory thereof?

The theory of evolution, as pertains to creation, and the pond, (however much evos hate being tied to that obvious fairy tale), needs not be contradicted, any more than Hans Christian Anderson! Science and evidence are lacking, so it is mere religion.

As opposed to? No, let me guess, some magical light that was made to make the universe simply appear to be billions of years old. But of course, this is not evidence of a deceiving god. Indeed, it points directly to the Judaeo-Christian god. Uhuh.

Light in heaven is different. We will not even need the light of the sun. In the past, light was here, and plants long before any sun was created. Yes, light was different, our light, if we look at evidence is now so slow it could not be a suspect.

I love how you accept a scientific theory only if said theory omits the very thing that contradicts your beliefs.

In other words if it is real science and actually backed by evidence, and observation, etc.

Since there is no evidence of an extra non-PO universe, any unsubstantiated claim of an extra non-PO universe is automatically violating Occam's Razor,

No, cause there is plenty of evidence, just not the kind science is able to deal with, the pipsqueak.

and therefore is to be not preferred (compare 'Jelly sets because of the will of my god' to 'Jelly sets because that is how the molecules react after a given amount of time')

Oh, right, the high and holy monk commandment you twisted into some paganzed precept. All things must bow to that little rule in the universe, including Occam's God, eh? No. That is a silly, vague little misapplied idea.

My point is that, at time T=t, the 'physical universe' is everything that exists at time t.

When is t time? Now?

I beg to differ. Ancient records tell of the same physical constants as today. How, then, is the past an area of differance.

What records are they, the bible? No, don't think so. Other holy books? How many have no spiritual at all? Does that sound like today? How about Egypt? The book of kins, I think lists the first few kings of Egypt as spiritual beings, or gods! What precisely are you talking about?

I feel you are implying that, although I do not see any evidence, you do.
If so, would you care to elaborate?

All you chose to see is what the material world has to offer. You can see physical only evidence of the present. Spiritual people see much evidence, generally of the spiritual, whether or not you can.

Do you know anything about quantum numbers? Anything? I sincerely doubt it.

Anything important that you think we should know of those numbers? I sincerely doubt it. But, do tell.

What is your point? It was still your god who is responsible for setting up this absurd morality.
Although, the Bible does teach that you must punish the child for the sins of the father.
Would you really hit your child for your own transgressions?

Can you show us where it says we should punish anyone, let alone some sinner's grandkid???

And the only solution is a holy genocide of the transgressors? My, your religion truely is the most loving

If you are talking about the old testament, there was a lot of fighting, and God saw to it, when they were not too out of it, that His people won most of them!
But we are in a new day now. The man of Love came down, and gave a new way.

No experiment done by for Creationism has fulfilled a Creationist theory.
Please, show me these 'tests'. It seem the whole Heathen, Satanic world has missed out.

Many prove, and test God, and find positive results. Like this guy.
Jud 6:39 - And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew. He works. Elijah put Him to the test, and the wet wood burned with fire from on high, while the crazed idol worshipping people of Baal, cut themselves, and tried for hours, with dry wood, and got nothing.
David put God on the spot, and took on a lumbering giant with a little slingshoot! But God made sure it hit the spot, and Goliath hit the ground, dead.
And on and on it goes, right on to this very hour!
Try it, you just might like it.

Mal 3:10 - Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

Indeed. But an unsubstantiated claim becomes scientifically accepted when it is 'simpler' that it's otherwise equal rivals. Since this is the claim of a physically constant past, that is what is accepted by the scientific consensus.

Even though it is totally unsibstansiated. I see. Doesn't speak to well of that little clan.

Believe me, there are more farfetched claims than yours. If you argue that 'simpler does not equal preferrable', then your own claim will still be rejected until substantiation.

You know what? I don't buy the twisting of the monk's ideas as the be all end all principle! Not all things simple are good, or bad. I am more of a let every tub stand on it's own legs, type!

Human memory is evidence that a past time exists. Prove me wrong.

I agree, pretty much, for most people. There are always exceptuions. I don't ususally doubt someone's fond childhood memories.

You did not answer my challange, by the way. You have yet to demonstrate any scientific knowledge.

Well, since science doesn't cover the past, so what? What are wew talking about, the present? If so, I might hit you with a little science.

Did you mean, 'You were picking and choosing the Monk's ideas to be godlessly applied in a negative way to the Bible is German'?

Ha. Spelled it wrong. germane

So what if it is atheistic, or used to portray the Bible in a negative light? This does not negate the usefullness of the concept, and to argue otherwise is pure narcissism.

Twisting a monks ideas to put the bible in a negative light is farcical.

... I said that you tout your beliefs against empiricism. I said nothing that could imply that I reject the 'same past' assumption.

No, empiricism has to do with the present. I don't have a bone to pick with that.

So your god is not (and presumably never) present in the present?

Not to the naked eye, telescope, or PO instrument. Neither are other spirits.

So you are neither a Creationists, anti-evolutionist, nor a believer in the Bible?

Those are realists.

So if the unfaithful were healed anyway, how does this point to a Christian dogma?

God usually heals the obedient. But if there was some spiritual occurance, outside of the realm of His people, I would not see a problem. The spiritual is known cross religion, and worldwide.

That, as I'm sure you are aware, is not a documented case. It's authors are shrouded in contradiction and mystery. It's validity has been long questioned.

They questioned Noah building the ark too. So? Of course we are not all one big happy band of brothers at the moment, we are in a war of the worlds.

No, audiovisual hallucinations are far more common than actual observations of the Christian theology.

Prove it.

What, you're a Scientologist now?

No. I just consider that profession, basically a fraud.

For the third time, it is the US education system. It is one of the worst in the developed world.

Oh. Well, there could be something to that.

Your assumptions are erroneous, as I've mentioned time over.

Which assumptions, do I have to repeat myself, here?

And anyway, your 'split' is irrelevant in this particular point. The evidence after the split is, as you admit yourself, reliable, and it points to a common ancestry.

Only as common as the ark. Of course it would point there.

I wouldn't put it that way, but essentially yes, with a major 'but'. Since the colloquial use of Evolution is the scientific one, I'll stick to me guns thank you.

The scientific one agrees with the bible one. The common usage, where we are animals, and pond scum, irelevant, and have a worm for an ancestor, does not.

*sigh* The quote was from the very article you cited! You cannot refute your own source!

Of course I can. Just because I use an article doesn't mean every whim of the author is gospel.

What?! This is what I would expect from a 10 year old! Tell me you did not just say that.

Look what it was in response to.

It is not temporary. It is not in decay. The Laws of Thermodynamics merely compel it into a state of equilibrium, whilst the Forces compel it into a state of non-equilibrium.

The attempt at normalizing, seems to lead to decay. Sfter all, it hasn't been at it that long. This temporary universe will never reach equilibrium.

1) A creation does is not 'nothing' simply because it is ex nihilo

Say what?

2) Counter-intuition does not equal disproof

Lack of proof does not equal proof, whatever your intuition! Did you miss that one?

Why? A concept does not change due to the nature of it's human discoverer. Evolution has, is, and will continue to occur with or without human knowledge, understanding, and/or acceptance.

No more than any other facet of created abilities! In fact, possibly a lot less. In heaven, and eternity, what would things need to adapt to? It is the perfect state! It is here, where we needed that quality.

1) No-one hijacked it. Occam freely gave it to us.

He gave nothing to anyone to try and attack God, or the bible. Monks are like that. Especially Christian ones.

2a) There is nothing ungodly about Evolution. It simply contradicts the literal Bible.

Contradicting God with no proof is ungodly!

2b) There is nothing ungodly about the Scientific Method. It simply concludes that the Bible is not literal.

Using teensy, limited proinciples and observations of the box, or the present! No can do.

3a) Evolution is not a concept. It is an observed biological phenomenon.

Like growing teeth, we came well eqipped!

 

[dad]

I didnt actually get the drift, but then you didnt actually quote Shakespeare

Long as you actually do now.

Exactly, same as (this so called) stellar evolution, may smell of ungodliness, and of biological evolution, it would not be the evolution in question

Like twins, or an octopus, there is a relation.

I was using it to show that if something does smell of something, it is not necessary the something in question, but could be something else

The smell of some things is pretty plain. If I drive by a farm, with a lot of cattle, I recognize the smell. I may be in another country but it is still recognizable!

Oh yes, science is completely godless, because it is just a study of what is. Apply why is, to science and it fails, but science explains what is going on, to many people (Christians) it never contradicts god, for example my Physics teacher is catholic, three of the top physics students are protestants, and two are theists in general, (this is the top 5 people)

Science is fine, I like it. It covers the here and now. And the not too distant there and then.

Science however is more accurate in the areas it does cover, you are right , science is in a box,

Right. It is in a box. It has clear limits. The box I refer to is this present universe, however, not what science knows about this box! Expand all they want, they will still be in the box! Long as they are a study of only the present 'natural'.

slowly expanding, but still in a box, however when we want to look at something, that is within the box of science and within Christianity, or any other religion, science is more accurate, pit science against the people who wrote the bible, and you will see, that science explains what is going on much better,

False! It is no contest. Science isn't even a distant runner up. It is barely an also ran!

look outside of the box of science (the supernatural world), and science fails to explain it badly,

Now we're talking.

The problem is, you are referring to a question within the box of science, and wanting to apply what I will refer to as "fairy laws" an approach worthy of peter pan,

No, that is not the problem in any way. I accept the natural box. Nice place. The spiritual is seperate. The problem is you try to appy the rules of the box to the past and future. They contain the spiritual element. If you want to come out of the box you have to face that.

science covers space, and science covers dating,

No, just in box dating. The use the natural clock, and it tells time in this temporary natural universe. The eternal clock is the one that covers outside that natural only box!

if we were discussing etheric/astral projection in a controlled environment, which yielded results science cannot explain, I would take the words of a holy book, since at that point in time, there would have been nothing better.

But we aren't.

We are talking about the age of rocks, and space, sadly science has a better explanation, Occam's razor does hurt, ( I m also a theist) so I got cut, and learned my lesson.

Happily, the bible has the explanation that is the best. Occam would agree. PO razors may be good box cutters, but they do not terrorize the future or the past in any way at all.

You will save tens of millions of lost souls, (billions actually, since none of the other religions have empirical proof)

Including so called science, that is, the so called exporting of good present science to eternity, and beyond. No can do.

This is not evidence, it can be interpreted in multitudes of different ways, in no way can they point specifically to the God of Christianity

Oh yes it very much is. To the people it was meant for. And that seems to be a lot, as the majority believe in some spiritual!

Evidence, is when you guys have an icon, which when someone accepts Jesus in front of, would heal them of all disease, cancer, neurosis, it could be small glimmer of hope, a small token from God, which will lead to the conventions of millions, and when those millions spread the message, billions

Jesus is our Icon. But not all will accept Him. Not all are God's people.

But no, it does not happen, God will not provide such a small glimmer of hope, only occasional healing from warts, and girlfriends, to random people at random times, and if you dont get a benefit, then God is testing you, if you do get a benefit, God has answered you payers

Actually, God always answers prayers. Sometimes, the answer is no! But, we still have heaven, where all our wishes are fulfilled.

One icon, like I described above, is all you guys need, and science, and the world will acknowledge your God, (out of free will btw)

You assume God 'needs' all men to believe? Believing, is a bit like a bowel movement. It is our job, and we are the ones most affected if we don't do it!
He wants us to chose Him, chose to believe. Not ram it down man's throats. Whosever cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out, it says. Not 'whosoever comes to some idol, and gets a miracle. Look at all the miracle of the old testament, and new! Did they all chose God? No. The people that killed Him, hired people to lie, saying He really didn't rise from the dead! Then they tried to kill His followers.

Somehow, in someway, at sometime, and it must lead to the Christian God? hmmm..... I think it points to a invisible pink unicorn, which means I can use the same data as you and with as much knowledge, say it came from a different source, it is not evidence in any way

Ok, beleive as you wish. Just don't claim that there was a same past, cause that you can't call science, and evidence.

One person, appearing from the dead, in a lab (after being dead for a month or two), a few times, and guess what? you will win millions of converts!!!!

We been there done that. The lab was a grave.

Are you able to access portions of reality, inaccessible to science?

You joking??? Any school kid can do that almost! Science only has access to the present natural. That ain't nothin to get excited about.

Not quite, although we do dwell in present, we have recollections of events from the past, and same goes for our planet, and these recollections of the past which have been when left on our planet, science pieces together, and uses to show what the past was like

No, they don't do any such thing. They use the present natural, and assume their way by imagination into what they think is the past. It is a present based dream past that never was.

The box laws, have been formulated by the universe, they only describe it, if the universe was different, so would the laws be,

That's the point! The universe is PO, physical only. It is the box.

There is no empirical evidence to show for a split of the two worlds of spiritual and physical, only once you have evidence, will it be accepted

There is no evidence to show no split, or a same past.

I am one of those people

Then you realize science can't follow you.

But I realize that an event occurring in the box, is better explained by science,

So?

And an event occurring outside, well, we can never know for sure, where it came from, and why, and there are many books telling us, where and why, and it is a choice of who do we trust?

The past and future are outside. Trust whoever you want, science can't help.

So called science, is the purpose of this forum (creation vs evolution), the discussion here are done in scientific light,

No, real science is. Get that straight. So called acience is when thet try to export it into the mystic!

And for as long as you say, that you will not comply with science,

We are pals, what are you talking about? I even discuss the false stuff, out of the present natural.

you should not try to discuss scientific theories, because science cannot be brought down by the unscientific, just as blind faith cannot be brought down by science, they exist in worlds apart, and in creation vs evolution, the dwelling is made in the scientific part of town

You shoud try to discuss science. It's fun.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So what, you share beliefs, if you get some science beyond just religion, let us know.

My main point was that my beliefs are scientifically valid, and I made the note that my beliefs also coincide with the scientific consensus. The latter is purely qualitative; it does not mean anything new.
Also, bear in mind that I am not talking about my religious beliefs.

Then Jesus was quoting what, for scripture, that was written many centuries before??

I'm sorry? Jesus may have existed, and he may have said the things the Bible claims he said, but this does not mean he was right. He was just a man, like you or me, and you cannot prove otherwise. Indeed, you cannot even rightly assert that he is beyond human.

The relevant verses will be proven true when man ascends from the darkest of ages, and gets some science worth it's salt.

In other words, you have no justification. You are still working under the a priori assumption that the Bible is true.

The theory of evolution, as pertains to creation, and the pond, (however much evos hate being tied to that obvious fairy tale), needs not be contradicted, any more than Hans Christian Anderson!

On the contrary, the stories of Anderson, if held as a scientific hypothesis, would be disproved by counter-example.

Science and evidence are lacking, so it is mere religion.

How is the evidence lacking? There is a link in my signiture to a post I made a while back containing proof of Evolution.

Light in heaven is different.

Naturally.

We will not even need the light of the sun. In the past, light was here, and plants long before any sun was created. Yes, light was different, our light, if we look at evidence is now so slow it could not be a suspect.

You have no rationale to assume a 'slower' light, or a sourceless light.

In other words if it is real science and actually backed by evidence, and observation, etc.

That is not what I said and you know it.

No, cause there is plenty of evidence, just not the kind science is able to deal with, the pipsqueak.

Then I ask again: show us this evidence of an extra, non-PO, spiritual universe.

Oh, right, the high and holy monk commandment you twisted into some paganzed precept.

Must we go through this again?

All things must bow to that little rule in the universe, including Occam's God, eh?

Yep. Logic is universal, mon ami. Even your god must 'bow' before it.

No. That is a silly, vague little misapplied idea.

Ah, so now you curse the ideas of a revered monk! Sinner!

When is t time? Now?

Time t is a non-specific point in time. It is a general variable.
An analogy: a straight line (in Euclidean geometry) has the equation y=mx+c. Under just these boundry conditions, there is no one value of these variables and constants. They are general.

What records are they, the bible? No, don't think so. Other holy books? How many have no spiritual at all? Does that sound like today? How about Egypt? The book of kins, I think lists the first few kings of Egypt as spiritual beings, or gods! What precisely are you talking about?

The Chinese, the Babylonians, the Greeks, etc, all independantly 'discovered' mathematical laws that govern the universe (although some were incomplete, like Newton's Laws of Motion). Take a trip to your state library, or the British History Museum.

All you chose to see is what the material world has to offer. You can see physical only evidence of the present. Spiritual people see much evidence, generally of the spiritual, whether or not you can.

You forget that I am a practicing Wiccan and Witch. You would call me unspiritual?

Anything important that you think we should know of those numbers? I sincerely doubt it. But, do tell.

What you have said about quantum numbers was incorrect. Therefore, I concluded that you do not know about them.
Is this conclusion correct? Was it correct before you wiki'd it?

Can you show us where it says we should punish anyone, let alone some sinner's grandkid???

By all means:
Leviticus 26:39
Leviticus 26:40
1 Kings 14:22
2 Kings 14:6
2 Kings 15:9
2 Chronicles 25:4
Ezra 9:7
Nehemiah 9:2
Psalm 79:8
Isaiah 14:21
Isaiah 65:7

Jeremiah 11:10

Jeremiah 32:18

Daniel 9:16

If you are talking about the old testament, there was a lot of fighting, and God saw to it, when they were not too out of it, that His people won most of them!

So you freely admit that your god helped in the slaughter.

But we are in a new day now. The man of Love came down, and gave a new way.

Then why do Christian participate in gay bashings then?

Many prove, and test God, and find positive results. Like this guy.
Jud 6:39
Mal 3:10

These are false stories. Prove me wrong.

Even though it is totally unsibstansiated. I see. Doesn't speak to well of that little clan.

You seem to have forgotten that this only applies when all things are otherwise equal. Clearly if one claim is substantiated, then it wins over the unsubstantiated one, even if more complex.

You know what? I don't buy the twisting of the monk's ideas as the be all end all principle!

Again you rattle on about a dead monk. He is irrelevant,
as is your rejection or acceptance of logic. The principle applies to all things whether you agree with it or not.
An analogy: you can reject that A=A all you wish, but this does not change that it is universally true.

Not all things simple are good, or bad.

Morality has nothing to do with this conversation. Where did you get that from?

I agree, pretty much, for most people. There are always exceptuions. I don't ususally doubt someone's fond childhood memories.

There you are then. We can determine the past.

Well, since science doesn't cover the past, so what? What are wew talking about, the present? If so, I might hit you with a little science.

Very well. Show us your best shot.
I believe our dialogue has moved to a 'pro/anti Christian', 'pro/anti evolution', and a 'pro/anti Creationist' place now, yes?

Twisting a monks ideas to put the bible in a negative light is farcical.

Why? Just because the Bible is your choice of sacred text does not make it immune to scrutiny, or automatically make it self-consistent.

No, empiricism has to do with the present. I don't have a bone to pick with that.

No, empiricism is objective observation and logical induction to conclude an a posteriori hypothesis/theory.

Not to the naked eye, telescope, or PO instrument. Neither are other spirits.

You claim, somewhere here, that people have observed spirits.
Explain.

Those are realists.

Realists reject the a priori positions. Creationism, Christianity, and anti-evolutionism are all a priori positions.

God usually heals the obedient.

Unjustified assertion.

But if there was some spiritual occurance, outside of the realm of His people, I would not see a problem. The spiritual is known cross religion, and worldwide.

So you reject monotheism, and the concept that 'the only way through to the father is through [Jesus]'?

They questioned Noah building the ark too. So? Of course we are not all one big happy band of brothers at the moment, we are in a war of the worlds.

What is your point? My statment still stands.

Prove it.

There have been no authentisised case of direct observation of Christian theology. Therefore, audiovisual hallucinations are more common by an infinite factor.

No. I just consider that profession, basically a fraud.

Agreed. Scientology is dangerous and malicious.

Oh. Well, there could be something to that.

Unfortunately so. I personally blame Bush & the Religious Right. A war-mongering leader of the remaining superpower is not what this world needs right now.

Which assumptions, do I have to repeat myself, here?

That there was a different past. You assume this without justification. Logic dictates that we adopt the default position until otherwise compelled (rather like the Physical laws themselves)

Only as common as the ark. Of course it would point there.

Variation has a predictable rate. Given the current amount of variation among the Earth's organisms, it is trivial to show that this leads to common ancestor far beyond the ark.

The scientific one agrees with the bible one.

The Bible does not mention Evolution.

The common usage, where we are animals, and pond scum, irelevant, and have a worm for an ancestor, does not.

That is not the colloquial usage. Rather, it is something like, 'We descended from apes/monkeys', 'Evolution makes things better' etc. This is not the scientific definition.

Look what it was in response to.

I remember it.
Saying 'I think your imagination is backed up' is a childish response, akin to 'I don't like your conclusion' -> 'I don't like your face!'.
What on Earth did you hope to achieve?

The attempt at normalizing, seems to lead to decay. Sfter all, it hasn't been at it that long.

This temporary universe will never reach equilibrium.

Arguably. If the omega constant is sufficiently large, then the universe will continue to expand indefinitely. Eventually, although there will be obvious irregular dense patches, the universe will be in an almost exact equilibrium state.

Say what?

Sorry, I meant:
A creation does is not 'nothing' simply because it is ex nihilo

Lack of proof does not equal proof, whatever your intuition!

Well... yes. Otherwise everything would automatically be proven. I.e.:
1) We have no proof of A. Therefore, A.
2) Wh have proof of A. Therefore, A.

No more than any other facet of created abilities! In fact, possibly a lot less. In heaven, and eternity, what would things need to adapt to? It is the perfect state! It is here, where we needed that quality.

Variation does no exist because of a 'need' to adapt. It exists because biological reproduction is inexact.

He gave nothing to anyone to try and attack God, or the bible.

Occam revealed a powerful logical concept. He cannot dictate how it is used once people know of it. This is like saying that after Einstein proved that spacetime is curved by mass, he is free to stop people using his theorums and formulae.

Contradicting God with no proof is ungodly!

1) Contradict the literal Bible does not contradict the Judaeo-Christian god.
2) Evolution is a proven fact, known for ~4 decades.

Using teensy, limited proinciples and observations of the box, or the present! No can do.

Can you show me something other than these 'limited principles'?

Like growing teeth, we came well eqipped!

...in a way. What is your point?

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

That's the point! The universe is PO, physical only. It is the box.

Exactly, the universe is PO. Our 3 (possibly 4) dimensional world we experience, is the universe, is the box, is answering to science.


I think our biggest problem in this discussion is the spiritual world

Am I correct if I think, that you are of the opinion that the physical and the spiritual realms were joined, split, and now are separate, and that before the occurrence of this split, the universe was governed under a different set of laws?

Depending, on you answer to this question (and clarification, if necessary) we can progress with a logical discussion,

however one more thing, how do you define "spiritual"?

I am working under the concept of either the Kabbalistic 4 worlds (spiritual being the three higher ones), the concept of the astral planes, and would include the etheric one, and what is in other form known as the world of spirits, (depending on the concept, one can define it as outside time)

Seeing as how these are slightly different, and that other ones can exist, what exactly, is the "unnatural", the spiritual?

 

[dad]

I'm sorry? Jesus may have existed, and he may have said the things the Bible claims he said, but this does not mean he was right. .

So, you are saying that scripture started with Jesus, then. Got it. Maybe someone can straigten you out there.

In other words, you have no justification. You are still working under the a priori assumption that the Bible is true.

I work under the absolute fact that you have no scientific claim to the state of the past.

On the contrary, the stories of Anderson, if held as a scientific hypothesis, would be disproved by counter-example.

Can you give a counter example of this? Even putting an example on the table will do.

How is the evidence lacking? There is a link in my signiture to a post I made a while back containing proof of Evolution.

And what point in that stuff would you feel is germane? Cause the ability we had, and to some small extent still have to adapt, and evolve started at creation, and you have not the slightest thing that says otherwise. That is all that matters.

You have no rationale to assume a 'slower' light, or a sourceless light.

Sourceless? I think we have evidence that the light comes from the source. As for speed, you have no evidence that the universe state of the past saw our light. None. So why would I believe you?

Then I ask again: show us this evidence of an extra, non-PO, spiritual universe.

It is non PO evidence. If you want to stick to PO evidence, (science) you got nothing either way!

Yep. Logic is universal, mon ami. Even your god must 'bow' before it.

Actually, He considers the highest wisdom of man, literally foolishness. I am beginning to agree to a certain extent.

Ah, so now you curse the ideas of a revered monk! Sinner!

I scoff at the stolen, and ungodly applied concepts of the monk.

Time t is a non-specific point in time. It is a general variable.
An analogy: a straight line (in Euclidean geometry) has the equation y=mx+c. Under just these boundry conditions, there is no one value of these variables and constants. They are general.

In other words, PO in box spacetime.

The Chinese, the Babylonians, the Greeks, etc, all independantly 'discovered' mathematical laws that govern the universe .

And this shows they were not inspired, or affected, or believed in spirits, how? Ever heard of Greek gods?

You forget that I am a practicing Wiccan and Witch. You would call me unspiritual?

Depends if you believe in spirits or not. I am not sure if all of you guys do or not. If you do, then you admit there is more than the physical we see.

What you have said about quantum numbers was incorrect. Therefore, I concluded that you do not know about them.
Is this conclusion correct? Was it correct before you wiki'd it?

Well, I know that electron orbits and such operate a certain way in this present universe, and somewhat differently in the perfect state. Perhaps one reason that some uncertainty is involved there now.

By all means:
Leviticus 26:39

Again, God wanted here to let His people know that if they didn't listen, bad things would happen.
Leviticus 26:14 But if ye will not hearken unto me, ...
Then..such and such is going to happen. Like if you had a teen, and said something like, "If you street race on crack, after not sleeping 4 days, in traffic, on slippy roads, making a call at the same time on a cell phone, and checking the glove compartment for a paper with a phone number, while your girlfriend rubs your neck, and bald tires, with the wrong air pressure, ignoring police warnings to stop or they'll shoot, in a stolen car, after robbing a bank, and killing an officer, you are going to be in some trouble"

Like a good father, He loves them, and has to tell them what is best.

"

a. These verses describe a progression of rebellion (if you do not obey Me . . . after all this, if you do not obey Me . . . if by these things you are not reformed by Me, but walk contrary . . . after all this, if you do not obey Me). God brings these curses slowly, desiring repentance; but if Israel will not repent, the curses intensify.
b. Significantly, God does not say He will forsake Israel; only that they will be cursed - and these curses became the tragic story of Israel's history - defeat, deprivation, exile, desolation, and disease all too often have marked Israel's past."
http://www.studylight.org/com/guz/view.cgi?book=le&chapter=26&verse=39#Le26_39

Now, where does this tell me to slay anyone, cause their parents blew it?? That is loving parent talk.

So you freely admit that your god helped in the slaughter.

Hey, the wicked ought to mind their Ps and Qs as far as messing with the Almighty.

Then why do Christian participate in gay bashings then?

Why do they participate in unjust wars? Not all 'Christians' seem to have the love of God pulsing through their veins, and much of a clue what the bible says.

These are false stories. Prove me wrong.

Don't have to, this is a science forum. The scriptures are sealed in the blood of the righteous, protected by God Himself, and verified by the witness of the spirit. Those who are carnal minded don't catch that, so can't really know.

You seem to have forgotten that this only applies when all things are otherwise equal. Clearly if one claim is substantiated, then it wins over the unsubstantiated one, even if more complex.

All you need to do now, then, is substansiate your same past! They can't just appeal to self defined simplicity.

Again you rattle on about a dead monk. He is irrelevant,
as is your rejection or acceptance of logic. The principle applies to all things whether you agree with it or not.
An analogy: you can reject that A=A all you wish, but this does not change that it is universally true.

No it does not appy to all things in any way. It is a puny in box principle.

There you are then. We can determine the past.

Some aspects of some of it, of course. Not the universe state of the far past.

Why? Just because the Bible is your choice of sacred text does not make it immune to scrutiny, or automatically make it self-consistent.

If I take a quote from Darwin, to say that creation is the only way, it is misrepresenting his positon. If you twist ideas from a Christian monk, you don't speak for him.

No, empiricism is objective observation and logical induction to conclude an a posteriori hypothesis/theory.

"
empiricism is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements. It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Whenever you use the word, it shouts, "in box"!

You claim, somewhere here, that people have observed spirits.
Explain.

Ghosts, departed loved ones, apparitions, demons, angels, and etc. Very common throughout history.

5. Have you ever:Felt the presence of a dead person68%Felt the presence of a guardian angel or spirit guide77%Spoken with the spirit of someone who has died25%Seen a "sign" from one who has died57%Dreamed about someone who has died92%Experienced paranormal activity56%

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/162/story_16237_1.html

Sounds pretty common even today!

The 73 percent of adults who believe in miracles include 79 percent of women, 83 percent of those with high school education or less and 76 percent of Republicans. Fewer (66%) men, post graduates (50%) and Independents (65%) believe in miracles.
The 70 percent who believe in heaven includes 76 percent of women and 64 percent of men. This falls to 60 percent of Independents and 49 percent among people with postgraduate degrees.
Realists reject the a priori positions. Creationism, ..
Hey, that is a lot more than people that believe in you!!

Just under three in ten (28%) adults believe in witches with slightly more men (30%) than women (27%) believing in them.

%​

God

82
8
10​

Miracles

73
16
11​

Survival of the soul after death

70
12
18​

Heaven

70
15
15​

Jesus is God or the Son of God

70
15
15​

Angels

68
17
15​

The resurrection of Christ

66
17
17​

The devil

61
26
13​

Hell

59
25
16​

The Virgin birth (Jesus born of Mary)

58
24
18​

Ghosts

40
39
22​

UFOs

34
41
25​

Witches

28
56
16​

Astrology

25
57
19​

Reincarnation – that you were once another person

21
54
25​

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=618

Christianity, and anti-evolutionism are all a priori positions.

Evolution from the pond, and a same past are the classic apriori positions! Belivers in God and the spiritual have some evidences at least.

1. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; [same past] deductive.

1. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
2. Knowable without appeal to particular experience.

So you reject monotheism, and the concept that 'the only way through to the father is through [Jesus]'?

No. But many reject God, and must live in a world where there are still spirits of another kind, bad spirits.

There have been no authentisised case of direct observation of Christian theology. Therefore, audiovisual hallucinations are more common by an infinite factor.

Yes, the record of the martyrs and early Christians is just that. If you want it on a poloroid, or in a test tube,, no, it doesn't work that way. You don't set the rules!

Unfortunately so. I personally blame Bush & the Religious Right. A war-mongering leader of the remaining superpower is not what this world needs right now.

Big topic, better pass on that one.

That there was a different past. You assume this without justification. Logic dictates that we adopt the default position until otherwise compelled (rather like the Physical laws themselves)

No logic demands that the default position be right. It is by virtue of evidence, and observation, and proof, wtc, that a position should be one of default. Otherwise, it is just de fault position.

Variation has a predictable rate. Given the current amount of variation among the Earth's organisms, it is trivial to show that this leads to common ancestor far beyond the ark.

No, it is impossible. All you can do is spout a belief that the past was the same, hence, the evolution rate, and life processes. No proof exists, or ever will!

That is not the colloquial usage. Rather, it is something like, 'We descended from apes/monkeys', 'Evolution makes things better' etc. This is not the scientific definition.

Well, one needs to be clear on what one means, one would think, if one wants to be understood.

I remember it.
Saying 'I think your imagination is backed up' is a childish response, akin to 'I don't like your conclusion' -> 'I don't like your face!'.
What on Earth did you hope to achieve?

What was it you were saying was backed up?

Arguably. If the omega constant is sufficiently large, then the universe will continue to expand indefinitely. Eventually, although there will be obvious irregular dense patches, the universe will be in an almost exact equilibrium state.

No, that is just PO fanyasizing, and what ifing. There will be no PO ever again in the not too distant future.

Sorry, I meant:
A creation does is not 'nothing' simply because it is ex nihilo

A creation "does" If here was no creation, according to you, how would it "do" anything?

Well... yes. Otherwise everything would automatically be proven. I.e.:

As it is samepasticism, and pondacism can't be proved, however.

Variation does no exist because of a 'need' to adapt. It exists because biological reproduction is inexact.

Prove it. When, for example the ice age came, things had to adapt. Like foxes, and bears, and etc. There was a need.

Occam revealed a powerful logical concept. He cannot dictate how it is used once people know of it. This is like saying that after Einstein proved that spacetime is curved by mass, he is free to stop people using his theorums and formulae.

Einstein's ideas were all in box! Occam's ideas are applied, in an ungodly way to be just in box.

1) Contradict the literal Bible does not contradict the Judaeo-Christian god.

Never seen anyone able to do either!

2) Evolution is a proven fact, known for ~4 decades.

Not Granny Luca, and Pondacism.

Can you show me something other than these 'limited principles'?

Can you show me something other than the universe we bnow live in? Can you show me the past, and future? Can you show me the seperated spiritual? Noo. All we can show is the present natural. If we are using science.

 

[dad]

Exactly, the universe is PO. Our 3 (possibly 4) dimensional world we experience, is the universe, is the box, is answering to science.

Well, science tries to grasp what it can.

I think our biggest problem in this discussion is the spiritual world

Your problem.

Am I correct if I think, that you are of the opinion that the physical and the spiritual realms were joined, split, and now are separate, and that before the occurrence of this split, the universe was governed under a different set of laws?

Right.

Depending, on you answer to this question (and clarification, if necessary) we can progress with a logical discussion,

however one more thing, how do you define "spiritual"?

Like a ghost, not physical.

I am working under the concept of either the Kabbalistic 4 worlds (spiritual being the three higher ones), the concept of the astral planes, and would include the etheric one, and what is in other form known as the world of spirits, (depending on the concept, one can define it as outside time)

God is a spirit. Angels are spirits. Miracles are spiritual.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So, you are saying that scripture started with Jesus, then. Got it. Maybe someone can straigten you out there.

No:
I'm sorry? Jesus may have existed, and he may have said the things the Bible claims he said, but this does not mean he was right.
I mentioned nothing about the authorship of the Bible.

I work under the absolute fact that you have no scientific claim to the state of the past.

Do not play scientific semantic wordgames, and then deliberately misuse the word 'fact'.

Can you give a counter example of this? Even putting an example on the table will do.

'The Little Mermaid', if taken as a proposed hypothesis, fails because it incorrectly assumes that the presence of legs grants an the ability to survive on land.

Sourceless? I think we have evidence that the light comes from the source.

You claim the light is sourceless, dispite the fact that electromagnetic radiation is emmitted when electrons cascade down an atom's energy level(s).

As for speed, you have no evidence that the universe state of the past saw our light. None. So why would I believe you?

Yes, this is the main point of this thread. Empiricism is useless without the assumption of constant physical laws. Thus, no evidence can be used for or against. Logic favours the assumption, but this is not evidence.

It is non PO evidence. If you want to stick to PO evidence, (science) you got nothing either way!

Very well. Show me something non-PO. I'm curious as to what you have plucked from a divinely seperated spiritual universe.

Actually, He considers the highest wisdom of man, literally foolishness. I am beginning to agree to a certain extent.

Then your god is a fool. We are created in his image, are we not?

I scoff at the stolen, and ungodly applied concepts of the monk.

And I guffaw at the ad hoc ramblings of a blind zealousy.
You would really reject an argument simply because it's author would presumably disagree with it's applications? Stunning.

In other words, PO in box spacetime.

That is not what I said and you know it.
You have the tendancy to infer your own arguments from whatever anyone says. This does not help your case.

And this shows they were not inspired, or affected, or believed in spirits, how? Ever heard of Greek gods?

Naturally. But correlation does not imply causation. In this case: in all human cultures, spirituality exists. In all human cultures, logic and the physical laws prevail. Thus, any culture that codifies this logic & these laws will have a spirituality. Correlation, but not causation.

Depends if you believe in spirits or not. I am not sure if all of you guys do or not. If you do, then you admit there is more than the physical we see.

I believe that our plane of existance is not the only one in the physical universe, as does science. However, in my theology, there are levels unaccepted by the scientific method, because the only evidence of their existance is subjective observations.
However, I do not claim that there is more than the physical universe, that the physical laws are mutable (or were once non-existant), or that the Bible is anything more than a sadistic text.

Well, I know that electron orbits and such operate a certain way in this present universe, and somewhat differently in the perfect state. Perhaps one reason that some uncertainty is involved there now.

You know nothing about your pre-split universe.
And, evidently, nothing about quantum numbers. Do not assume me wrong if you do not even know what I am talking about.

Again, God wanted here to let His people know that if they didn't listen, bad things would happen.

Yes, that's not impeaching on free will at all.

Like a good father, He loves them, and has to tell them what is best.

And if they disobey the father, then they're in for a world of (masocistic?) sadism and eternal 'wailing and gnashing of teeth'.
Loving.

God brings these curses slowly, desiring repentance; but if Israel will not repent, the curses intensify.

Your point? This is exactly the mentality of the person who invented the rack: slowly increase pain and discomfort till conformity occurs.

Now, where does this tell me to slay anyone, cause their parents blew it??

Leviticus 26:39:
And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies' lands; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them.
I.e., your god demands that the sins of the father be a burden on the child.

Hey, the wicked ought to mind their Ps and Qs as far as messing with the Almighty.

I'll take that as a yes.
So your god is still loving, even though he actively slaughters people who disagree with him?

Why do they participate in unjust wars? Not all 'Christians' seem to have the love of God pulsing through their veins, and much of a clue what the bible says.

Ah, the infamous 'They weren't real Christians™' argument. I wondered when someone would use it
I won't begin to tell you how offensive your claim is.

Don't have to, this is a science forum.

Yes you do, because this is a science forum. To claim something is scientific you must place it under scrutiny of the scientific method.

All you need to do now, then, is substansiate your same past! They can't just appeal to self defined simplicity.

Since our two claims are equal except in entity number, it is to entity number we look to. Occam's Razor states that we accept the one with fewer entities.
So yes, 'simplicity' wins in this scenario.

No it does not appy to all things in any way. It is a puny in box principle.

On the contrary, A=A is one of the fundamental axioms of logic. If you can disprove A=A, or show any reason why such a law is not universal, then you have overthrown all of Science, Logic, and Mathematics.

If I take a quote from Darwin, to say that creation is the only way, it is misrepresenting his positon. If you twist ideas from a Christian monk, you don't speak for him.

Preciesly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Whenever you use the word, it shouts, "in box"!

No, you shout 'in box!', and expect that to mean something.

Ghosts, departed loved ones, apparitions, demons, angels, and etc. Very common throughout history.

This does not make it true. It merely points to a common human neurological trait, namely, our brain's ability to explain the new and/or unknown.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/162/story_16237_1.html
Sounds pretty common even today!

Again, this merely points to a common human neurological trait. Correlation does not, as always, imply causation.

[Breakdown of believers]

Pure waffel.

Hey, that is a lot more than people that believe in you!!

Your point?

Evolution from the pond, and a same past are the classic apriori positions!

No, this is an a posteriori consequence of the modern day phenomenon of Evolution. Alternate theories for the origins of life exist, such as panspermia.

Belivers in God and the spiritual have some evidences at least

Subjective observeation is just that: subjective.

No. But many reject God, and must live in a world where there are still spirits of another kind, bad spirits.

Unless, of course, the spiritual does not exist.

Yes, the record of the martyrs and early Christians is just that.

This is not part of the Christian theology, this is past of the Christian history.

No logic demands that the default position be right.

Well, yes, but what of the scenario where we do not conclusively know which position is right? In that scenario, the simpler is to be preferred.

It is by virtue of evidence, and observation, and proof, wtc, that a position should be one of default.

Not entirely true. Evidence, both observed and inferred, substantiates a claim and makes it the default against unsubstantiated claims, whilst simplicity determines the preferred position against two equvilient unsubstantiated (or otherwise equally substantiated) claims.

No, it is impossible. All you can do is spout a belief that the past was the same, hence, the evolution rate, and life processes. No proof exists, or ever will!

I never mentioned a proof, just that the rate of evolution is predictable.

Well, one needs to be clear on what one means, one would think, if one wants to be understood.

Indeed. Unfortunately, not everyone is clear. That is why we have standards and accepted definitions.

No, that is just PO fanyasizing, and what ifing. There will be no PO ever again in the not too distant future.

I love this. You chastise 'PO'ists for 'fantasising and what-if-ing', and then you do it yourself immediately after!

A creation "does" If here was no creation, according to you, how would it "do" anything?

I don't believe this. I copy-and-pasted my quote with the intent to correct it, and forgot to correct it! My bad

'A creation is not 'nothing' simply because it is ex nihilo'
I believe this was in response to your claim that creation ex nihilo is nihilo itself, and therefore self-contradictory.

As it is samepasticism, and pondacism can't be proved, however.

My point was that your argument had illogical conclusions.

Prove it. When, for example the ice age came, things had to adapt. Like foxes, and bears, and etc. There was a need.

During the last Ice Age (peaked about 25 thousand years ago) caused a relatively significant shift in evolutionary selective pressures, namely favouring those adapted to the changing climate. The adaptations did not occur because of the change.

Einstein's ideas were all in box!

This is irrelevant to my point.

Never seen anyone able to do either!

Not my point, but when has that mattered to you.
Contradiction #2:
1) 2 Kings 25:8-9 says the temple burned on the 7th day of the fifth month.
2) Jeremiah 52:12-13 says the temple burned on the 10th day of the fifth month.
Direct contradiction, mon ami.

Not Granny Luca, and Pondacism.

I never said they were. What is your point?

All we can show is the present natural. If we are using science.

So if we don't use science (no idea why we wouldn't, but nevermind) we can show a nonpresent unnatural?

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

Ok, now that Im clear on your view on the split of the physical world from the spiritual, what is it that makes you think that some time ago there was a change in the laws of physics??

I mean from day to day it does not happen, it has never been recorded by secular history, (or Christian history for that matter), no people describe it

 

[dad]

The Bible is an archaic set of documents compiled by those who thought the Torah's messiah had come.
...

I mentioned nothing about the authorship of the Bible.

Well, the bible is more than the new testament.

Do not play scientific semantic wordgames, and then deliberately misuse the word 'fact'.

What about the absolute fact your fantasy same past is unfactual, unsupported, and unscientific, and unsound did you not understand?

'The Little Mermaid', if taken as a proposed hypothesis, fails because it incorrectly assumes that the presence of legs grants an the ability to survive on land.

Thanks for clearing that up. Some may have been wondering on your opinions of animated movies.

You claim the light is sourceless, dispite the fact that electromagnetic radiation is emmitted when electrons cascade down an atom's energy level(s).

No, I don't claim that light is sourceless. Stop making things up.

Yes, this is the main point of this thread. Empiricism is useless without the assumption of constant physical laws. Thus, no evidence can be used for or against.

Thank you, now try to remember that one. I will use it againt your fables a lot.

Logic favours the assumption, but this is not evidence.

Right, so get some, or renounce a scientific claim on the far past and future, and we can all go out and have a drink.

Very well. Show me something non-PO. I'm curious as to what you have plucked from a divinely seperated spiritual universe.

Things from there appear and disapear at what we would call random. From a PO perspective, maybe like an uncertainty principle! Actually, it is usually a bit more contrived, when you know what is really going on. They generally do it on purpose! They seldom appear to us. In fact, angels routinely, like spies, come in disguise, so we will not recognize them!

Then your god is a fool. We are created in his image, are we not?

We were, yes. But we did not have all His wisdom, even before we fell. The image was not the total image. I think it may refer largely to free will.
But God is no fool, no. He sees how silly man's wisdom is, and how limited, and how deceived he is.

And I guffaw at the ad hoc ramblings of a blind zealousy.
You would really reject an argument simply because it's author would presumably disagree with it's applications? Stunning.

I accept in in box, not as some universal or cross universal principle that overules God, or reason. Neither did the monk mean it to.

That is not what I said and you know it.
You have the tendancy to infer your own arguments from whatever anyone says. This does not help your case.

Well, if your little formula did not concern space and time in our universe, what was the point?

Naturally. But correlation does not imply causation. In this case: in all human cultures, spirituality exists. In all human cultures, logic and the physical laws prevail. Thus, any culture that codifies this logic & these laws will have a spirituality. Correlation, but not causation.

Codifying angels, gods, and spirits into physical laws now, are we? Who picks the code, a ghost, or a man?

However, I do not claim that there is more than the physical universe, that the physical laws are mutable (or were once non-existant), or that the Bible is anything more than a sadistic text.

What you claim is weighed with what you can support it with. You sure don't have the bible, and you have no science to support, as you admitted, the same past either! What do you have then? A feeling?

You know nothing about your pre-split universe.

Sure I do, a fair bit. It is you that know nothing of it.

And, evidently, nothing about quantum numbers. Do not assume me wrong if you do not even know what I am talking about.

No, I assume you wrong, until you say something clear! That is when you usually get caught! What about Quantum anything, including numbers is it you feel is germane?

Yes, that's not impeaching on free will at all.

He didn't turn them into robots with no power to chose. He laid it on the line in full color what they would be getting into if they would not listen.

And if they disobey the father, then they're in for a world of (masocistic?) sadism and eternal 'wailing and gnashing of teeth'.
Loving.

Well, Christians disobey all the time! Yet we are heaven bound. We might catch some hell right here on the way, if we really stray far, yes.

Your point? This is exactly the mentality of the person who invented the rack: slowly increase pain and discomfort till conformity occurs.

A word to the wise is sufficient. Others take a little more schooling in the school of hard knocks of their own way. Such is in the power of man to chose. Therfore chose carefully.

Leviticus 26:39:
And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies' lands; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them.

I.e., your god demands that the sins of the father be a burden on the child.

He pointed out the concequences, no demanded. If some for example, get saved, from an occult background, they really have to read the word a lot, and really fight just a little harder, to avoid the past influences.
Or, if someone was a murderer, and had kids, the kids might suffer, cause their parent was in the slammer for the rest of their life. Etc.
Just like a Godly heritage, they have that extra advantage.

I'll take that as a yes.
So your god is still loving, even though he actively slaughters people who disagree with him?

He fights back those that fight Him, or His. As for someone who just 'disagrees', I have never heard of Him slaughtering them!

Ah, the infamous 'They weren't real Christians™' argument. I wondered when someone would use it
I won't begin to tell you how offensive your claim is.

They were real out of it anyhow. Not all religious people of Jesus day were sincere and followers of God's spirit either. They had Him killed! They let a terrorist go, rather than Jesus, they paid people to lie about the ressurection, they never mentioned the fact that the veil of the temple was rent, they paid Judas, etc etc .

Yes you do, because this is a science forum. To claim something is scientific you must place it under scrutiny of the scientific method.

No, only what applies to science. That would be the present.

Since our two claims are equal except in entity number, it is to entity number we look to. Occam's Razor states that we accept the one with fewer entities.
So yes, 'simplicity' wins in this scenario.

You had a pre big bang yoiu know not what that was beyond the laws of physics. There is an entity for you. Then you had the very early phases of it, still beyond physics. Another entity. Then, you say the universe we know was in the little hot soup speck. Another entity. Then it became several different more stages, or entities, till it became the universe we recognize. Another one!
Then the earth had to come to be after this. Another one! Then we needed a host of conditions, like water, etc, to be in place, more entities! Then, we nned life to appear. Add another entity. Or, some put the chances for that, with what is it 26 os, or something? Add an entity for each digit!!!
Then we had billions of imaginary years for life not to be wiped out, and earth by a comet, or whatever. More entities! And on and on and on it goes! We win.

On the contrary, A=A is one of the fundamental axioms of logic. If you can disprove A=A, or show any reason why such a law is not universal, then you have overthrown all of Science, Logic, and Mathematics.

First A needs to be defined! If we really had, A=POa, and it was just a perception problem on your part, the so called logic dissintegrates.

No, you shout 'in box!', and expect that to mean something.

It means this universe. Most agree it is here. It had to be the same for your idea to have any merit, and you admit you can't at all support that! You have no case at all.

This does not make it true. It merely points to a common human neurological trait, namely, our brain's ability to explain the new and/or unknown.

Calling spiritual things figments of the imagination is insulting to most of humanity, unsupported, and head in the sandish.

Your point?

The point is that about 3 times the people in the US believe in God as even believe in witches!

No, this is an a posteriori consequence of the modern day phenomenon of Evolution. Alternate theories for the origins of life exist, such as panspermia.

Well, I think creationists, in any creation/evolution debate are debating pondscumism, and other forms of replacing God as the creator for life, and the universe.

Subjective observeation is just that: subjective.

If I chose between absolute nothing, and a planet full of testimoies apanning all human history, I'll take what you call subjective. It is your subjective view after all that the experience of most men is meaningless!

Unless, of course, the spiritual does not exist.

It does.

This is not part of the Christian theology, this is past of the Christian history.

A history written in blood, and sealed with God's spirit, and tried over and over and over, and it comes out as oure gold. Unbelievers may disbelieve it, but theirs is a view from the outside that changes nothing about the record we have. They simply chose to ignore, and reject it.

Well, yes, but what of the scenario where we do not conclusively know which position is right? In that scenario, the simpler is to be preferred.

No, in that scenario, admitting you don't know what the hec you are talking about is by far the best scenario!!!

Not entirely true. Evidence, both observed and inferred, substantiates a claim and makes it the default against unsubstantiated claims, whilst simplicity determines the preferred position against two equvilient unsubstantiated (or otherwise equally substantiated) claims.

Not the calim of the same state past and future!

I never mentioned a proof, just that the rate of evolution is predictable.

So wgat? Many created traits are predictable. Like having babies, if we operate naturally, in many cases. Just the way it works, and was designed to work.

Indeed. Unfortunately, not everyone is clear. That is why we have standards and accepted definitions.

Good. Although it was you I was refering to that should be clear on some things.

I love this. You chastise 'PO'ists for 'fantasising and what-if-ing', and then you do it yourself immediately after!

No! There is a difference between fantasy, and simply reading the bible. A new heavens is coming, and these ones will be no more.

'A creation is not 'nothing' simply because it is ex nihilo'
I believe this was in response to your claim that creation ex nihilo is nihilo itself, and therefore self-contradictory.

Good, now that you straighten out the grammer, maybe translate it to english.

My point was that your argument had illogical conclusions.

Objection, opinion.

During the last Ice Age (peaked about 25 thousand years ago) caused a relatively significant shift in evolutionary selective pressures, namely favouring those adapted to the changing climate. The adaptations did not occur because of the change.

And how do you think you know that? (I won't bother with the dating attempts there)

This is irrelevant to my point.

Maybe, but since I use his pic as an avatar, I thought I'd throw that in. Besides, you mentioned him.

Not my point, but when has that mattered to you.
Contradiction #2:
1) 2 Kings 25:8-9 says the temple burned on the 7th day of the fifth month.
2) Jeremiah 52:12-13 says the temple burned on the 10th day of the fifth month.
Direct contradiction, mon ami.

No no no.
"
Verse 8. In the fifth month
On the seventh day of the fifth month, (answering to Wednesday, Aug. 24,) Nebuzar-adan made his entry into the city; and having spent two days in making provision, on the tenth day of the same month, (Saturday, Aug. 27,) he set fire to the temple and the king's palace, and the houses of the nobility, and burnt them to the ground; Jeremiah 52:13, compared with Jeremiah 39:8. Thus the temple was destroyed in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar, the first of the XLVIIIth Olympiad, in the one hundred and sixtieth current year of the era of Nabonassar, four hundred and twenty-four years three months and eight days from the time in which Solomon laid its foundation stone. "
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=2ki&chapter=25&verse=8#2Ki25_8

The mistake is yours, not Gods. Take a breath next time, and look into it, rather than being quick on the draw to recite silly dark doubts.

I never said they were. What is your point?

They are the key issues of the creation debate, really. If you say evolution, without providing context, watch out, many think you refer to a common lifeform, and ancestor for all life. That is just the way it is.

So if we don't use science (no idea why we wouldn't, but nevermind) we can show a nonpresent unnatural?

No, you are hooped. All you have as your present limits is this present reality and universe state, and you have to accept darkness, and ignorance of the dark ages of the present.
Those who wish, may light the way brightly, and march triumpantly into eternity simply taking advantage of the words God saw fit to get down to man. Aside from that, there is no way.

 

[Cannonflare]

Stop it stop these ten mile post! I can't beleave actualy I can beleave dads fantasies can cause this to happen.
This mess of a thread. Dad mabe you should consead and except your awards.

 

[dad]

Ok, now that Im clear on your view on the split of the physical world from the spiritual, what is it that makes you think that some time ago there was a change in the laws of physics??

No, the change was from the original merged state, to this state, where the laws here came to exist.

I mean from day to day it does not happen, it has never been recorded by secular history, (or Christian history for that matter), no people describe it

It happened, apparently about the time of Babel, in the days of Peleg, when the earth was divided (split). People could hardly talk to each other, and to communicate, had to use pictures, in many cases. Hieroglyphics.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, the bible is more than the new testament.

Indeed. And yet, my statement stands.

What about the absolute fact your fantasy same past is unfactual, unsupported, and unscientific, and unsound did you not understand?

1) Unfactual? Perhaps you mean false? Or do you like your stream of 'un-s'?
2) Unsupported? Perhaps. But then, so is your claim.
3) Unscientific? I think not. My claim does not violate Occam's Razor, and is accepted by the scientific community.
4) Unsound? How does my logic fail?
5) I understood you perfectly. I was merely pointing out that you misused the term fact (a fact is something empirically known, be if by observation or definition).

Thanks for clearing that up. Some may have been wondering on your opinions of animated movies.

You do know that the Disney movie was based on Anderson's story?

No, I don't claim that light is sourceless. Stop making things up.

You: We will not even need the light of the sun. In the past, light was here...before any sun was created.
Unless, of course, there was some other source of light?

Thank you, now try to remember that one. I will use it againt your fables a lot.

You might want to also remember that any argument or claim you make will also be unsubstantiateable; that is, without empiricism, there is no point in these debates. Indeed, all human endevour becomes futile.

Right, so get some, or renounce a scientific claim on the far past and future, and we can all go out and have a drink.

Lack of evidence does not imply that something is unscientific.

Things from there appear and disapear at what we would call random. From a PO perspective, maybe like an uncertainty principle! Actually, it is usually a bit more contrived, when you know what is really going on. They generally do it on purpose! They seldom appear to us. In fact, angels routinely, like spies, come in disguise, so we will not recognize them!

Unjustified assertion. I claim the exact opposite, that things from your non-PO do not appear in our PO universe.
Besides, if something can interfere with the PO universe, then it is part of the PO universe. That is the definition of PO.

I accept in in box, not as some universal or cross universal principle

Irrelevant to the validity of Occam's Razor.

that overules God, or reason.

The former is a possible consequence of Occam's Razor, the latter just false propoganda.

Neither did the monk mean it to.

For the final time, the monk himself is irrelevant. It is the scientific principle of Occam's Razor that is important. Do not forget that Occam is not the only person to posit that the simpler is the more likely of two otherwise identicle explanations.

Well, if your little formula did not concern space and time in our universe, what was the point?

The formulae were examples of universal laws.

Codifying angels, gods, and spirits into physical laws now, are we? Who picks the code, a ghost, or a man?

That is not what I meant. Any culture which codifies the laws of nature, will also, by virtue of human society, have a spirituality. I did not mean that codifying the laws creates the spirituality, or that the spirituality is codified.

What you claim is weighed with what you can support it with. You sure don't have the bible, and you have no science to support, as you admitted, the same past either! What do you have then? A feeling?

I freely reject the Bible, you know this. What is your point?
Also, I did not say that my claim is unscientific. I believe what I believe because of logical induction.

Sure I do, a fair bit. It is you that know nothing of it.

No, you do not. If your claim is true, then empiricism is false, as we know nothing.

No, I assume you wrong, until you say something clear!

What I said was clear. Your inability to comprehend the concepts involved does not change this. As it happens, Quantum Theory is a complex and counter-intuitive field. Few people who have not studied it in depth understand it.

That is when you usually get caught! What about Quantum anything, including numbers is it you feel is germane?

The point I was originally making is that a particle's mass is a single quantum number that determines how much the particle is affected by spacetime depression. It is universal.

He didn't turn them into robots with no power to chose.

Why not? Surely this is preferable to suffering?

He laid it on the line in full color what they would be getting into if they would not listen.

Your point? If your god wanted to give humans free will, then he cannot rightly dictate arbitrary punishments for 'incorrect behaviour'. If an act truely is immoral, then it's immorality will be born out in it's consequences.

A word to the wise is sufficient. Others take a little more schooling in the school of hard knocks of their own way. Such is in the power of man to chose. Therfore chose carefully.

Inconsistent. This would imply that your god must dictate a unique moral system for each moral agent, which contradicts the typical Christian claim of an absolute morality.

He pointed out the concequences, no demanded.

Essentially the same. 'I'm not demanding that you do this act, I'm just saying that, if you don't, then I will brutally and mercilessly torture you and your descendants for all eternity'. They are one and the same.

If some for example, get saved, from an occult background, they really have to read the word a lot, and really fight just a little harder, to avoid the past influences.
Or, if someone was a murderer, and had kids, the kids might suffer, cause their parent was in the slammer for the rest of their life. Etc.

I am not saying that the child won't suffer because of the sins of the father, but that the child shouldn't suffer because of the sins of the father.

He fights back those that fight Him, or His.

Rather an unfair advantage, is it not? Imagine two children arguing, and then the father helps his favourite child by shotgunning the less favoured child in the chest.

They were real out of it anyhow. Not all religious people of Jesus day were sincere and followers of God's spirit either. They had Him killed! They let a terrorist go, rather than Jesus, they paid people to lie about the ressurection, they never mentioned the fact that the veil of the temple was rent, they paid Judas, etc etc .

And what of those who are sincere? How do you reconcile them?

No, only what applies to science. That would be the present.

So you admit that your claim is unscientific? Now we're getting somewhere.

You had a pre big bang yoiu know not what that was beyond the laws of physics. There is an entity for you. Then you had the very early phases of it, still beyond physics. Another entity. Then, you say the universe we know was in the little hot soup speck. Another entity. Then it became several different more stages, or entities, till it became the universe we recognize. Another one!
Then the earth had to come to be after this. Another one! Then we needed a host of conditions, like water, etc, to be in place, more entities! Then, we nned life to appear. Add another entity. Or, some put the chances for that, with what is it 26 os, or something? Add an entity for each digit!!!
Then we had billions of imaginary years for life not to be wiped out, and earth by a comet, or whatever. More entities! And on and on and on it goes! We win.

OK, let's break this rant down.
Overview: the claims we are talking about is the existance or nonexistance of a change, or creation, or whatever, of the physical laws at the time of the 'split'. You are aruging against the whole of the scientific consensus of the universe's history. But anyway.
1) Both of us have an entity for a cause of the universe. Mine is an autonomous creation, yours is a deity.
2) The primordial universe is not an entity, just an unknown.
3) Noone has ever claimed the primordial universe to be a 'little hot soup speck', and even if they did, this is not an entity.
4) There were no stages in the universe's history. There are arbitrary points where abstract phenomena begin to occur, but these are not actual stages. And neither are they entities.
5) The creation of the Earth is insignificant, as is it's particular molecular makeup. These are not entities.
6) Abiogensis is an entity. It's counterpart in your arguments is 'god'.
7) Why do you assume that, if an event has a probability of 1 in 10 ^ n, we are assuming n entites?
8) Life has been wiped out, only to start again. Learn your facts.

You lose.

First A needs to be defined!

No! A is a general term for all entities. The element a of set A is anything that satisfies a=a, i.e., A={ a : a = a}, and this is the universal set W. Likewise, the set of elements a satisfying the condition a¹a is the null set, i.e., Æ={ x : x ¹ x }.
​

Continued...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

...continuation

It had to be the same for your idea to have any merit, and you admit you can't at all support that!

Another difference between our arguments: I freely admit that I may be wrong, and that you may be right. But bear in mind that the probability of being right is determined by simplicity, since our arguments are otherwise identicle.

Calling spiritual things figments of the imagination is insulting to most of humanity

So?

The point is that about 3 times the people in the US believe in God as even believe in witches!

Yes, I gathered that. But why did you make the effort to point this out? The demograph of belief in various entites among the US populace, while undoubtedly fascinating, seems to be irrelevant.

Well, I think creationists, in any creation/evolution debate are debating pondscumism, and other forms of replacing God as the creator for life, and the universe.

1) Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, just about what life does after it has begun.
2) Your arrogance continues to astound me. You think that the scientific world wants to replace your particular deity?

If I chose between absolute nothing, and a planet full of testimoies apanning all human history, I'll take what you call subjective.

Objectivity trumps subjectivity, my friend.

It does.

It does not. Prove me wrong (which, I think, is what we are oscillating around anyway).

Unbelievers may disbelieve it, but theirs is a view from the outside that changes nothing about the record we have. They simply chose to ignore, and reject it.

Indeed. Usually there is a rational reason to disbelieve it. Personally, I find the morality horrific, the deity childish and sadistic, and the prejudism astounding.

No, in that scenario, admitting you don't know what the hec you are talking about is by far the best scenario!!!

*sigh*
The scenario where Occam's Razor has the deciding vote is as follows:
Two claims are presented. Both are identicle explanations for the same facts, but neither are empirically substantiated. They differ in only one regard: one invokes more entities than the other.
Occam's Razor posits that the second claim, the one with fewer entites, is to be preferred.

If you do not understand something, don't enbolden your text in an effort to emphasise your ad hominem attacks. Indeed, your ad hominem's only make you seem more and more ignorant.

Not the calim of the same state past and future!

... yes. Our mutually exclusive claims fit this catagory perfectly.

Or perhaps this is like the Webster's definition of animal:
'Anything satsifying the biological features of the kingdom Animalia. Except humans.'

So wgat? Many created traits are predictable. Like having babies, if we operate naturally, in many cases. Just the way it works, and was designed to work.

My point is that, given a rate and current value, time can be calculated:
Dt=Dx/(dx/dt)

Good. Although it was you I was refering to that should be clear on some things.

Such as? It is not my responsibility to be aware of what you don't know, nor explain everything to you in excrutiating detail.

No! There is a difference between fantasy, and simply reading the bible.

Indeed. It is when one takes the Bible to be literally true without any rationale, that one enters a fantasy.

Good, now that you straighten out the grammer, maybe translate it to english.

I believe it was in English. Perhaps you would prefer something a little less taxing on your US education?
'You claim that only nihilo can be created ex nihilo. This is false.'
Better?

And how do you think you know that? (I won't bother with the dating attempts there)

You have a relatively stable climate, and organisms will evolve into that niche. When the climate suddenly changes, so must the organisms evolve to suit that niche, or perish. It is a concept, a consequence of Evolution.

Maybe, but since I use his pic as an avatar, I thought I'd throw that in. Besides, you mentioned him.

Ah, now I understand your picture. I thought it was a reference to Poe's Law, not your PO-only rubbish.

Verse 8. In the fifth month
On the seventh day of the fifth month, (answering to Wednesday, Aug. 24,) Nebuzar-adan made his entry into the city; and having spent two days in making provision, on the tenth day of the same month, (Saturday, Aug. 27,) he set fire to the temple and the king's palace, and the houses of the nobility, and burnt them to the ground; Jeremiah 52:13, compared with Jeremiah 39:8. Thus the temple was destroyed in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar, the first of the XLVIIIth Olympiad, in the one hundred and sixtieth current year of the era of Nabonassar, four hundred and twenty-four years three months and eight days from the time in which Solomon laid its foundation stone. "
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=2ki&chapter=25&verse=8#2Ki25_8

How does this resolve the contradiction? You still have two seperate dates for the burning of the temple.
Unless, of course, you admit that the verses are not literal?

The mistake is yours, not Gods. Take a breath next time, and look into it, rather than being quick on the draw to recite silly dark doubts.

Do not advise someone to do something you would not do yourself.

They are the key issues of the creation debate, really.

So you admit that the Crevo debate exists because of a misunderstanding on the Creationist's part?

If you say evolution, without providing context, watch out, many think you refer to a common lifeform, and ancestor for all life. That is just the way it is.

It is not the responsibility of the debaters to clue in their competitors. If you do not know what you are talking about, you do not belong in a scientific debating arena.

No, you are hooped. All you have as your present limits is this present reality and universe state, and you have to accept darkness, and ignorance of the dark ages of the present.
Those who wish, may light the way brightly, and march triumpantly into eternity simply taking advantage of the words God saw fit to get down to man. Aside from that, there is no way.

Self-centered, egotistical drivil. Go preach elsewhere.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Stop it stop these ten mile post! I can't beleave actualy I can beleave dads fantasies can cause this to happen.
This mess of a thread. Dad mabe you should consead and except your awards.

I think not. I am getting to the heart of dad's beliefs, arguments, and claims.