Space was Warm.

[Nathan Poe]

In your mind, the crack that gives life was a rock crack. Not everyone finds that as plausible as you.

granted, it doesn't have any talking snakes or magic trees, but hey, to each his own.

Known well, and long by billlions and billions! Funny it is 'not known' to you.

Then you shouldn't have any difficulty giving a single example as to how it was "known."

Not just believed, but known.

Refresh my memory, did not you say you used to be some sort of Christian? Why I ask is that if that is true, you likely would have said you had some reasons to believe it yourself, one time, no?

Everyone makes mistakes.

If you were lying, why would we believe you now???

I never made anything up. I believed, then I learned better. How about you?

How would I know, you just made it up, you tell us???

The Split is the product of your own imagination. You tell us.

I say the past and future natural as described in the bible are different. I see no need for some tooth fairy pixie god, flying around doung miracles for all the trillions of differences that would have been needed.

You see no need for God? Welcome to the Atheists' Club!

 

[Nathan Poe]

The gift of God is eternal life, even though the wages of sin is death. Only our bodies die, we will get new ones.

And it's oh-so-cute that you believe that. Why?

Look around, you think this is natural, as God would make it, or a result of sin?

What God? You've already said you don't believe in God.

No, He had to limit our lifespan, so we s would not get so wicked so fast, we would not be able to be saved. God gives life.

But why give it in the first place? Why not just cut out the middleman?

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

The ressurected body of Jesus! It was spiritual and physical.

How is the resurrected body of Jesus, the proof of a split?

(actually wait, what body? fact and empirical proof I asked for)

I gave a link with lots of bible evidences.

Guess what, the link about Bible evidence, disagrees, with the holy Orthodox church, the Roman Catholic church, and the Anglican church,

Are you telling me, that you and the guy who wrote it, can interpret the Bible better, than everyone, in all the three above churches (btw the first two as you know have been interpreting and writing the Bible, for just under 2000 years)

But it knocks you out of the ring.

Irrelevant, I am asking, what is it that puts you in the ring, in the first place

It invalidates your dates.

Are you telling me humans lived among dinosaurs?

How did Noah, manage to get one of these, into the arc?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplodocus

We can also see all evidences we do have fit.

Yes, but, you must show these evidences, not just claim

Show me anyoneone that 'knows' the spiritual is always seperate!

Let me see, every Christian that I have ever known, every Muslim I ever knew personally, the holy Orthodox church (I know some clergy, fairly well, they come to our house a lot)

Name anyone that believes in the bible heaven that thinks we won't live with aggels and God Himself one day!!!!?

We will, in the spiritual world, or in a different physical one,

But still not evidence for a split 6000 years ago

No!!!! That is only true for a short time. We come back with Jesus to get our physical bodies raised from the dead, so that we will, like Jesus, have our complete immortal bodies, not JUST spiritual!!!! Why else would we need the our old bodies, or atoms or dna, or whatever from them?

NO, the physical bodies, cannot be raised from the dead, simply because a dead body decomposes, and the atoms from it, are assimilated into the bodies of the living, if the physical bodies would rise up, a lot of body parts would be missing, as much of their atoms, would be shared with other bodies

It is only logical, that new bodies will be given, or spiritual ones at that,


Again, I ask for empirical evidence, or fact

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Can you demonstrate that there is such a thing???

Umm, I believe it is you who is arguing for a non-PO universe, not me.

If not, how would you assume your ideas even matter on what it may be like???

Because there is no reason to assume otherwise.

If you can demonstrate it, then we will see how well your logic applies there!

On the contrary, I remain in the default position: do not assume a difference unless there is reason to assume.

We are discussing the utter lack of science and evidence you have for your falsely so called science claim that the past was the same state as the present universe!

I never said there was evidence (and, by the by, 'science' is not a property, it is a mentality, a methodolgy). I argue that my assumption ('same past') is more probable than your assumption ('different past'), as per Occam's Razor.

Nowthen, if we are to add in other beliefs, like which God I may believe in, then we will add the one you claimed you believe in, the horned one, as you called it! From a Christian perspective, that sounds a lot like the devil, as you must know.

I am well aware that the early Christians depicted their Devil to resemble the local deities. It is a clever ruse to get converts; claim their shepherds as wolves, and the sheep shall run!
Furthermore, you said 'the one you claim you believe in, the horned one, as you call it'. First, I do not claim to be believe in him, I do believe in him, in exactly the same way as you believe in whatever deities you worship. Second, it does not matter which theology I subscribe to; we were, at this point, discussing your beliefs, not mine. However, I am more than willing to answer any questions you may have.

No.

But your sacred text clearly condones it. Do you disagree with the Bible?

Do you?

Of course not. It is barbaric and cruel.

You don't have to speak fror your god, the bible gives us the goods on him.

The Bible mentions nothing of Wicca and it's deities, since Wicca was not founded till the mid-Twentieth century.

We know all about what he inspires.

Please, enlighten me.

God let them know how bad a state their rebellion would end them up in.

They? Who is this they?

Depends how it is defined. I advocate getting savedism, so we can understand what it isism, that God was talking about all alongism.

Literalism is the belief that the Bible is literally true, with no need for further interpritation.

Nope. The bible records history from day 1!

No, the Bible contains the beliefs of men who claim to know, via divine inspiration, how the universe began ('godditit').

YOU assume. You ASSUME. That is right, that's all you do for the far past.

You do exactly the same, unless you have any evidence to support your position.

But you're caught.

Hardly.

No, no one needs to do squat just because you make baseless claims from assumptions. Many of us look at the evidence, not just what you feel like assuming for no apparent reason!

You miss the point. We both make assumptions in our arguments, and it is these assumptions we are discussing. Mine is more probable unless you can provide one iota of supporting evidence. Since you have done no such thing, mine remains more probable.

It may surprise you that it was. Jesus was walking in Eden, and Jesus created the universe. All things that were made were made by Him. And without Him was not anything made that was made.

Where on Earth does it say that Jesus was walking around in Eden?

What I may understand, and what I may tolerate from you may sometimes depend on a few variables. If you use the E word we have to look at the connotation in each instance.

I make sure my arguments and statements are consistent. I will always refer to the scientific Evolution, unless otherwise specified.

Evolution is a created trait, as I said.

No, it is a biological phenomenon. It is not a trait, created or otherwise.

I mean the worm to elephant baloney in the dream past that never was.

Speciation across major taxonomical groups takes an extraordinarily long time, longer than the human race has been exant. You really expect it to have been reproduced in the laboratory? The point is that, if speciation across genii can occur, then it is trivial to demonstrate that, with enough time, any number of taxonomical transitions can take place.

Look again, the mumbo jumbo, hocus pocus, murky and substance lacking phrases might mean something to you, but do not form a complete thought on paper. At least not in the instance you just refered to.

Me: So because it was a spread out building, it took >48 hours to burn? If it was sky-scraper tall, then it might take that long. But it was an ancient temple.
You: Hey, you ought to have the honesty to admit you lost the pouint.
Me: Ad hominem. I try to have a rational debate with you, and resort to this?
You: No, I covered it beyond reasonable doubt,
Me: Hardly. Simply stating this does not make it so. I have outlined, quite clearly, our debates.
You: All depends what exactly you are refering to. If it is a same past, you have not covered it.

Please, show me where I descend into mumbo jumbo, hocus pocus, murky and substance lacking phrases.

Hey, take your pick of beliefs, just don't call them science, and we'r cool.

One the contrary, my belief is scientific because it is more probable than the alternate.

And, if I recall, you think that that is the highest law in heaven or hell!

Perhaps not the highest, but certainly one of the most fundamental logical principles when dealing with unknowns.

We had that chat, and I pointed out your old age samepast concepts takes many years to comprehend, and even then, I wonder how many are on the same page!

This is new information. You claim that my concepts take an extraordinary amount of time to comprehend?

The creation, and new heavens coming is so simple, that a child can get it over breakfast!

That is because there is little one cannot grasp in 'goddidit'. Scientific inquiry goes into much more depth, and works towards a posteriori conclusions, and does not work from a priori conclusions. You may be satisfied with what your book tells you, but I am not.

In the simple war, the primordial rock crack , and the universe in a pepper sized speck of hot sweet nothings, is not even a contender. It is the ultimate complcated mess to avoid.

This is not the debate at hand. Once one has assumed a 'same past' (as pointed to by Occam's Razor), Common Ancestry and modern Cosmology are both well-evidenced and empirically observed.

I have plenty more, you have nothing more!

I have asked you countless times for this evidence you claim to have. Will you present it now?

Not a study of spooks and the supernatural, I assure you. It is stuck in the natural. That is it's fishbowl.

Science is a methodology used to generate rational, logical, and probable explanations of why the facts are as they are. If 'spooks and the supernatural' generate facts, then science will generate explanations for them.

There is if you get your head out of your assumption.

Cyclic logic to the extreme:
1) Do not assume A
2) Therefore, A is not assumed
OR
1) Assume A is false
2) Therefore, A is false

So, you aren't really sure of reality. I get it already. You hope for the best.

Yes. At least you weren't (as) condecending about it this time.

Right, like people see observe the unseen, then? Specifically the spiritual?

No. Once again, I use the scientific definition of observable. Colloquially, observation is strictly with the eyes: detection of photon intensity and wavelength.

Let us know when you pick one some day, eh?

It is not something to be picked. It is a simple consequence of our incomplete knowledge.

Reality is a concept that best remains solid, I contend.

Then demonstrate to me that our sensory input is immune to external manipulation.

So you are perfect then, OK.

I said no such thing. I said that I do not need saving, nor that I have sinned. While qualities of perfection, these do not make one perfect.

He came not to save the righteous but the sinners who know they need saving.

He came because Mary was impregnated.

I mean backed to the hilt with material proofs, and solid evidences, and observations, and repeated actual testings, etc. A case based on good hard science.

What do you care about science? You reject it, remember?

That really is different than an assumption that has no reason for living!

Indeed. Unfortunately, you have given no equivilent argument yourself, so my assumption remains unchallanged.

Just say "I don't know, science does not know". If ever you do know, do tell, now, eh?

You have no reason to assume a 'different past'. A 'same past' is more probable, and so is logically assumed until evidence to the contrary is presented. It is that simple.

Love.

1) 'Love' is not an argument.
2) 'Love' is a social, neurobiological phenomenon.
3) 'Love' is an instinct that is logical for a social species to evolve.

 

[dad]

granted, it doesn't have any talking snakes or magic trees, but hey, to each his own.

No, it doesn't.

Then you shouldn't have any difficulty giving a single example as to how it was "known."

Ask the billions who have believed for various reasons. Many of them, long before science was invented.

Not just believed, but known.

That is spiritual. How does one explain that to the carnal?

Everyone makes mistakes.

OK. So you used to be a Christian, and that was a mistake, you say. Fine. Now, that you turned your coat, why is it we should now believe one that used to say the opposite things???????

I never made anything up. I believed, then I learned better. How about you?

So, then God was real, but then He died, since you decided He was not real?? Or, are we to treat whatever you say as untrustworthy, like a lying witness in court???

The Split is the product of your own imagination. You tell us.

I never said God depended on this or the past natural.

You see no need for God? Welcome to the Atheists' Club!

No need in a science debate, no. Long as the goal is to get to the dead end you are at, and expose it as such! You can't speak about the state of the future or far past universe with science. You can only believe, and assume. I believe God, and need not stop at the limitations, and dead end of phyisical only science.
But we don't need to bring God into it to get you that far, to where science can't help you. You can go to hell, or chose the devil, or atheism, or you name it, as your belief. Just don't peddle it as science, and compel it on a majority that believe in God.
Science tell us you are ignorant of the future and past, we don't need God for that.

 

[dad]

Umm, I believe it is you who is arguing for a non-PO universe, not me.

Not with a science case, I wouldn't be that dishonest.

Because there is no reason to assume otherwise.

Then assume what you want! Don't call it science.

On the contrary, I remain in the default position: do not assume a difference unless there is reason to assume.

Great, assume away. Lurkers, take note of this guy. He has no science here, and just wants to go on assuming.

I never said there was evidence (and, by the by, 'science' is not a property, it is a mentality, a methodolgy).

I'll say.

I argue that my assumption ('same past') is more probable than your assumption ('different past'), as per Occam's Razor.

What is probable or logical in your head is all fine and dandy. It does not constitute proof, of course, or a science case for that same past.

I am well aware that the early Christians depicted their Devil to resemble the local deities. It is a clever ruse to get converts; claim their shepherds as wolves, and the sheep shall run!

So the horned one got you convinced that he isn't really the devil, then????

Furthermore, you said 'the one you claim you believe in, the horned one, as you call it'. First, I do not claim to be believe in him, I do believe in him,

Lurkers, take note.

in exactly the same way as you believe in whatever deities you worship. Second, it does not matter which theology I subscribe to; we were, at this point, discussing your beliefs, not mine. However, I am more than willing to answer any questions you may have.

Good. Then you can take the stand for awhile. Did you ever meet a 'god'?

But your sacred text clearly condones it. Do you disagree with the Bible?

You cannot understand it.

Of course not. It is barbaric and cruel.

Guess you think you are really a lot better than God, then, deep down.

The Bible mentions nothing of Wicca and it's deities, since Wicca was not founded till the mid-Twentieth century.

It mentions idols, and gods, and witches, and sorcerers, and the devil, and demons, fallen angels, etc.
Ac 13:8 - But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Ac 13:6 - And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus:
Ex 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
De 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
2Ki 23:24 Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD. Da 2:10 - The Chaldeans answered before the king, and said, There is not a man upon the earth that can shew the king's matter: therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things at any magician, or astrologer, or Chaldean. Etc.

Please, enlighten me.

Mt 9:32 dumb man possessed with a devil.

Mt 12:22 - Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
Lu 9:42 - And as he was yet a coming, the devil threw him down, and tare him. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child, and delivered him again to his father.
Joh 8:44 - Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. Joh 13:2 - And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;
Ge 3:4 - And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: Etc. Everything about him is evil, and vile.

They? Who is this they?

The ones that God was talking to in the verse you gave.

Literalism is the belief that the Bible is literally true, with no need for further interpritation.

Well, we do need some help seeing what it means, although it is true.

No, the Bible contains the beliefs of men who claim to know, via divine inspiration, how the universe began ('godditit').

The words of God piped through channels, sometimes in a trance, or sleep!!!

You do exactly the same, unless you have any evidence to support your position.

But I don't call it science.

You miss the point. We both make assumptions in our arguments, and it is these assumptions we are discussing. Mine is more probable unless you can provide one iota of supporting evidence. Since you have done no such thing, mine remains more probable.

Yours is not probable anywhere but in your head unless you support it as the science claim it is supposed to be.

Where on Earth does it say that Jesus was walking around in Eden?

Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
("ii. We can assume this is God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, appearing to Adam and Eve ..."
http://www.studylight.org/com/guz/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=3&verse=8#Ge3_8 )

I make sure my arguments and statements are consistent. I will always refer to the scientific Evolution, unless otherwise specified.

Great. Go ahead. Remember, that only goes as far back as created kinds, though!

No, it is a biological phenomenon. It is not a trait, created or otherwise.

Says you, who have no clue of anything but the present natural.

Speciation across major taxonomical groups takes an extraordinarily long time, longer than the human race has been exant. You really expect it to have been reproduced in the laboratory? The point is that, if speciation across genii can occur, then it is trivial to demonstrate that, with enough time, any number of taxonomical transitions can take place.

I think we all know that it goes real slow now. So???? Are we talking about NOW??? No.
Focus.

Please, show me where I descend into mumbo jumbo, hocus pocus, murky and substance lacking phrases.

Well, you haven't made a case at all for your claims of the two towers burning!

One the contrary, my belief is scientific because it is more probable than the alternate.

Probable in your mind has little meaning unless accompanied by the facts!

Perhaps not the highest, but certainly one of the most fundamental logical principles when dealing with unknowns.

So, you think you know how to deal with the unknown, then???? You simply take a Christian monk's concept, and appy it to all, as the highest law in the universe, and beyond!! Yeah, right.

This is new information. You claim that my concepts take an extraordinary amount of time to comprehend?

I know that it takes time to be a scientist. Time to be a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, or paleodreamer. Etc. People take years and years, and years, and years to learn the depths of theory, and applications, etc.
If someone wanted a good grasp of the big bang, it is a complicated thing. Or how atoms work.
A child can't just learn it over breakfast. The creation, and split, and heavens coming, he or she could get a good grasp of in an hour! Don't tell me about simple.

That is because there is little one cannot grasp in 'goddidit'. Scientific inquiry goes into much more depth, and works towards a posteriori conclusions, and does not work from a priori conclusions. You may be satisfied with what your book tells you, but I am not.

Whatever the conclusions they start from they end up totally unable to tell us about the state of the universe in the past or future, or the spiritual, etc. Things that are all important in our walk on earth. So, complicated, and wrong!

This is not the debate at hand. Once one has assumed a 'same past' (as pointed to by Occam's Razor), Common Ancestry and modern Cosmology are both well-evidenced and empirically observed.

Sure, once we bite the same past bullet! But there is no proof for that, so all the rest is a house built on sand.

I have asked you countless times for this evidence you claim to have. Will you present it now?

Since it is admitted there is no scietific evidence, nothing else matters. I will discuss with sheep, and those willing to learn, and Christians, about the map of eternity God gave us, yes. I won't argue beliefs with you.
Our proofs, and evidences are known to us. They can be known to any who ask Him. Until then, you must park at the end of the road for science, able to go no further.

Science is a methodology used to generate rational, logical, and probable explanations of why the facts are as they are. If 'spooks and the supernatural' generate facts, then science will generate explanations for them.

Well, they better move it, they have been asleep at the wheel for what, 200 years?

Cyclic logic to the extreme:
1) Do not assume A
2) Therefore, A is not assumed
OR
1) Assume A is false
2) Therefore, A is false

Whatever you assume, about the reality of the spiritual, that God gives us, can't change it. Better to stick to PO formulas. In that fishbowl, you make sense.

Yes. At least you weren't (as) condecending about it this time.

Well, I can understand you being less than certain about reality.

No. Once again, I use the scientific definition of observable. Colloquially, observation is strictly with the eyes: detection of photon intensity and wavelength.

OK, so you do not observe the unseen?? Just spit it out, either way.

It is not something to be picked. It is a simple consequence of our incomplete knowledge.

Oh, Ok, so you are not sure when or if you can pick whether you have a firm, or vagiue grasp on reality. OK.

Then demonstrate to me that our sensory input is immune to external manipulation.

Why worry about the boogey man??? At least for Christians, we have no fears, if some external devil comes a knocking at our heart door, we let Jesus answer it.

I said no such thing. I said that I do not need saving, nor that I have sinned. While qualities of perfection, these do not make one perfect.

So, you are almost perfect, and not a sinner. OK.

He came because Mary was impregnated.

Mary was pregnant because He was to come.

What do you care about science? You reject it, remember?

Hey, it is MY friend. You seem to confuse past dreams with science. I like real science. I hate false science. Maybe a bit like the 3 wise men.

Indeed. Unfortunately, you have given no equivilent argument yourself, so my assumption remains unchallanged.

Why would I give an equivelent to a baseless, worthless assumption, that is not even backed by science and evidence???

You have no reason to assume a 'different past'. A 'same past' is more probable, and so is logically assumed until evidence to the contrary is presented. It is that simple.

I have a world, and universe full of reasons to know that the past and future are well in Hand. I have the known spiritual factor, the bible, and agreement with all scientific evidence we do have. I could not possibly have much more. You could not have any less.

1) 'Love' is not an argument.
2) 'Love' is a social, neurobiological phenomenon.
3) 'Love' is an instinct that is logical for a social species to evolve.

Love has creative power, and gives life meaning. Love created the universe, and love is God. It is both logical, and unscientific, as you asked for.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, it doesn't.

And of course, God could never take a hands-on approach to Creation, be He's gotta have the talking snakes, right?

Ask the billions who have believed for various reasons. Many of them, long before science was invented.

I'm asking you. You claim to have proof. If you've got anything more than mere belief (yours or someone else's) then put up or shut up.

That is spiritual. How does one explain that to the carnal?

You have nothing.

OK. So you used to be a Christian, and that was a mistake, you say. Fine. Now, that you turned your coat, why is it we should now believe one that used to say the opposite things???????

Because the Bible explains it to you -- if you know how to read it.

[BIBLE]1 Corinthians 13:11[/BIBLE]

So, then God was real, but then He died, since you decided He was not real?? Or, are we to treat whatever you say as untrustworthy, like a lying witness in court???

Nope, just a man humble enough to admit he made a mistake.

Someday you might become such a man.

I never said God depended on this or the past natural.

Of course you did. God needs a different past; you said it yourself that He'd have never done it Himself -- too much work for Him.

No need in a science debate, no. Long as the goal is to get to the dead end you are at, and expose it as such! You can't speak about the state of the future or far past universe with science. You can only believe, and assume. I believe God, and need not stop at the limitations, and dead end of phyisical only science.
But we don't need to bring God into it to get you that far, to where science can't help you. You can go to hell, or chose the devil, or atheism, or you name it, as your belief. Just don't peddle it as science, and compel it on a majority that believe in God.

Except you don't believe in God -- you believe in a Magic spirit who acts according to your rules.

Science tell us you are ignorant of the future and past, we don't need God for that.

Now you say you don't need God?

 

[dad]

And of course, God could never take a hands-on approach to Creation, be He's gotta have the talking snakes, right?

A hands on approach that means flying around to a trillion triilion2 spots on earth alons, and then starting on the whole universe, to keep it from decaying, and present lasws applicible, is not a rational proposal, sorry. The simple thing is to understand the origunal and future state of natural was different.

I'm asking you. You claim to have proof. If you've got anything more than mere belief (yours or someone else's) then put up or shut up.

The proofs we have, you don't want. The proofs you don't have we want. For the unbeliever, you have your dead end science for the past and future that can't help you. That is all you have. If you you want what we have, which includes a world of reasons to believe, you will have to come to Jesus. Clamoring for what scence can't give you alon won't help you. Either use the spiritual, or stay limited to the present natural, physical only. The choice is yours. While there is life, there is hope.

You have nothing.

We have everything. We always will, including heaven.

Because the Bible explains it to you -- if you know how to read it.

[bible]1 Corinthians 13:11[/bible]

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish thing

That refers not to being a backslider, but to our growing understanding, which is clearly explained in the next verse. It shows that the culmination of clarity, and growth is when we meet Him, or, in heaven, in other words. If your point was true, the end of the road would not be the same road of faith.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Nope, just a man humble enough to admit he made a mistake.

Someday you might become such a man.

Like Judas.

Of course you did. God needs a different past; you said it yourself that He'd have never done it Himself -- too much work for Him.

The differences are so great, only a different natural, or universe can explain it. Since He made the universe, and temporarily seperated us in this PO state, He 'done it'.

Except you don't believe in God -- you believe in a Magic spirit who acts according to your rules.

No, I adapt what I believe, according to how Jesus created, and the words He gave us to read all about it!

Now you say you don't need God?

No. But in the creation debate here, where you cannot use science to sipport a same past, your failure is evident. To illustrate that, we don't need to rifle through the bible, simply have a boo at your being stuck in the box.

 

[Nathan Poe]

A hands on approach that means flying around to a trillion triilion2 spots on earth alons, and then starting on the whole universe, to keep it from decaying, and present lasws applicible, is not a rational proposal, sorry. The simple thing is to understand the origunal and future state of natural was different.

But with God's magical throne, made of Flying Sapphires, it's a snap!

The proofs we have, you don't want. The proofs you don't have we want. For the unbeliever, you have your dead end science for the past and future that can't help you. That is all you have. If you you want what we have, which includes a world of reasons to believe, you will have to come to Jesus. Clamoring for what scence can't give you alon won't help you. Either use the spiritual, or stay limited to the present natural, physical only. The choice is yours. While there is life, there is hope.

You've been asked for anything. You have nothing.

We have everything. We always will, including heaven.

But you have no proof -- just huffing and puffing.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish thing

That refers not to being a backslider, but to our growing understanding, which is clearly explained in the next verse. It shows that the culmination of clarity, and growth is when we meet Him, or, in heaven, in other words. If your point was true, the end of the road would not be the same road of faith.

If you choose to misread scripture, and assume that everything can only mean one thing, then it's understandable how you could miss the point so utterly.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

And in faith, I saw through a glass darkly. Now I see the truth, face to face. Pretty self-explanatiory, although I do appreciate your help in explaining it to everyone else.

Like Judas.

And like Martin Luther.

The differences are so great, only a different natural, or universe can explain it. Since He made the universe, and temporarily seperated us in this PO state, He 'done it'.

Why would He do that? Being omnipresent and Omnipotent means He wouldn't have had to do it wrong the first time.

No, I adapt what I believe, according to how Jesus created, and the words He gave us to read all about it!

Except that nobody's ever seenn you do this. You've been spouting the same gibberish ever since you got laughed off the last forum and onto this one.

No. But in the creation debate here, where you cannot use science to sipport a same past, your failure is evident. To illustrate that, we don't need to rifle through the bible, simply have a boo at your being stuck in the box.

And how can the Bible possibly help anyone in the "Creation Debate"?

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

I have this feeling I am being ignored

dad, would you like to retort?

 

[dad]

How is the resurrected body of Jesus, the proof of a split?

Because it is evidence of the merged state of matter. His body was BOTH spiritual, and physical, and it's properties were anything but PO matter properties!

(actually wait, what body? fact and empirical proof I asked for)

If you reject the evidences of our witnesses, who touched, and handled, heard, and saw, and were relatives, friends, and deciples of His, you can't blame us.
If all you want is PO science, of the last few hundred years evidence, you won't have much.

Guess what, the link about Bible evidence, disagrees, with the holy Orthodox church, the Roman Catholic church, and the Anglican church,

OK, so you believe in those things???? The catholic have lots of miracles they believe in. If the anglican's or orthodox don't, maybe they ought to find a better religion. I suspect they do. Wasn't Rasputin from Russia, I think he may have been orthodox? He was credited with some miracles.

Are you telling me, that you and the guy who wrote it, can interpret the Bible better, than everyone, in all the three above churches (btw the first two as you know have been interpreting and writing the Bible, for just under 2000 years)

First of all, do you believe the bible??? If not, cut the sorry attempt at dividing, based mostly on your imagination. If you do, then make your case, and let's have a stab at it! Be honest.

Irrelevant, I am asking, what is it that puts you in the ring, in the first place

Well, having knocked you out of it, there is only so many left in the ring! You have no same past science case, so you can have no past case.

Are you telling me humans lived among dinosaurs?

Of course. I don't know how, 'among' that was, they weren't dumb. But at the same time, of course.

How did Noah, manage to get one of these, into the arc?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplodocus

I think that the land dinos were extinct by the flood. I could be wrong. Many feel that they took some eggs, or babies.

Yes, but, you must show these evidences, not just claim

Not unless you are a believer. If not, you have no access to the restricted evidence site. You are left with the dead end of science in regards to the future, or past.
If you say you are a Christian, you tell me? We have a world of miracles, and healings, and gifts of the spirit, answered prayers, bible miracles, and etc. You would have these.

Let me see, every Christian that I have ever known, every Muslim I ever knew personally, the holy Orthodox church (I know some clergy, fairly well, they come to our house a lot)

If they believe in heaven, with angels and God, they belive it will not bbe seperate. You are wrong.

We will, in the spiritual world, or in a different physical one,

But still not evidence for a split 6000 years ago

So, if you acknowledge the different universe in the future, you realize science can't evidence that. All you need to do then, is connect the dots. Look at the similarities in Eden, and heaven. Jesus walking around, the tree of life, eternal life, animals that talk, and us eating things from trees in a garden that was planted days before, no curse, and etc. You just can't have it then any more than you can have it in heaven unless it is a different state.

NO, the physical bodies, cannot be raised from the dead, simply because a dead body decomposes, and the atoms from it, are assimilated into the bodies of the living, if the physical bodies would rise up, a lot of body parts would be missing, as much of their atoms, would be shared with other bodies

Wrong!!! You assume God is not in control. Our physical body can be reconstructed by Him, to join our spirits. How much dna would He need, or whatever He uses?? One hair? The very hairs of our head are numbered. He knows. We also have angels here. Could their job include making sure a tiny hair, or something was safely stored somehow??
Somehow, He is going to have us get our new bodies like His.

It is only logical, that new bodies will be given, or spiritual ones at that,

No, it is clear He is coming here to raise the dead bodies of ours, or change the living ones if we are still here at the time.

Again, I ask for empirical evidence, or fact

Observations are for the fishbowl.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not with a science case, I wouldn't be that dishonest.

If you do not have a scientific case, then what is your purpose here?

Then assume what you want! Don't call it science.

I have explained to you over and over again that an assumption can be scientific. Once you understand this fact, we can talk.

Great, assume away.

We all make assumptions, mon ami.

Lurkers, take note of this guy. He has no science here, and just wants to go on assuming.

I could say exactly the same to you.

What is probable or logical in your head is all fine and dandy.

Logic is not 'in one's head'. It is an overarching systematic set of rules for how sentient beings ought to think and rationalise. It exists outside of subjectivity, and this is why it is so useful.

It does not constitute proof, of course,

For the last time, noone claims that 'probable' is identicle to 'proven'. It is simply that, in the abscence of any other desider, probability determines which assumption we make.

or a science case for that same past.

On the contrary, logic points to the more probable option (which, in this case, is your 'same past' scenario).

So the horned one got you convinced that he isn't really the devil, then????

Indeed. Care to show me how my god is your devil?

Lurkers, take note.

Take note of what? That I have a belief system that dares to differ with your dogma?

Good. Then you can take the stand for awhile. Did you ever meet a 'god'?

Not objectively. I have talked to my deities, but not in any objective way.

You cannot understand it.

That is not my question. I'll rephrase:
Do you believe that the entire Bible is literally accurate?

Guess you think you are really a lot better than God, then, deep down.

I consider my morality to be preferrable to your god's morality, yes.

It mentions idols,

Such as your crucifix, your stained glass windows, your church spires?

and witches, and sorcerers,

But not Wiccans.

and the devil, and demons, fallen angels, etc.

Nothing to do with Wicca.

Well, we do need some help seeing what it means, although it is true.

Surely the word of your god should be universally understandable? Or is your god favouristic?

The words of God piped through channels, sometimes in a trance, or sleep!!!

Ah, how conclusive. Tell me, how does this differ from Voodoo trances? Pagan meditation? Hindu yoga? Buddhist enlightenment?

Yours is not probable anywhere but in your head unless you support it as the science claim it is supposed to be.

On the contrary, Occam's Razor posits that the simpler is to be logically preferred.

Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
("ii. We can assume this is God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, appearing to Adam and Eve ..."

And why, pray tell, can we make this assumption?

Great. Go ahead. Remember, that only goes as far back as created kinds, though!

You'd have to demonstrate that there were created kinds, of course.

Says you, who have no clue of anything but the present natural.

Neither do you. We are both humans, trapped in your 'PO' universe. How is your argument any more valid than mine?

I think we all know that it goes real slow now. So???? Are we talking about NOW??? No.

Care to give me any reason that it should go faster in the past?

Focus.

Hippocrit. Stay away from the non sequiturs.

Well, you haven't made a case at all for your claims of the two towers burning!

The Twin Towers were each effectively struck by an airborne bomb. Simply setting the towers alight would do nothing. but combust a few rooms, maybe a floor or two.
Besides, it is my belief that the destruction of the WTC was assisted by internal explosives, but that is way beyond this thread.

Probable in your mind has little meaning unless accompanied by the facts!

On the contrary, it is the only thing that matters when there are no facts. Care to present some?

So, you think you know how to deal with the unknown, then????

Yes. No amount of question marks will change that.

You simply take a Christian monk's concept, and appy it to all, as the highest law in the universe, and beyond!!

Yes. No amount of exclamation marks will change that.

I know that it takes time to be a scientist. Time to be a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, or paleodreamer. Etc. People take years and years, and years, and years to learn the depths of theory, and applications, etc.
If someone wanted a good grasp of the big bang, it is a complicated thing. Or how atoms work.

Perhaps. But in my 18 years I have already surpassed you.

A child can't just learn it over breakfast.

Noone is asking them to, but it is possible.

The creation, and split, and heavens coming, he or she could get a good grasp of in an hour!

That is because there is nothing to comprehend! Stating that 'goddidit' is not an explanation.

Whatever the conclusions they start from they end up totally unable to tell us about the state of the universe in the past or future, or the spiritual, etc.

Indeed. That is why this approach is wrong. I wonder if you realise that you are agreeing with me?

Sure, once we bite the same past bullet! But there is no proof for that, so all the rest is a house built on sand.

Certain assumptions must be made. It is logical, intuitive, and above all probable to assume a 'same past'. You come along and challange this, with no rational reason. Tell me, what is your reason for rejecting this assumption?

Since it is admitted there is no scietific evidence, nothing else matters.

Actually, you have admitted that there is scientific evidence. So please, cite it.

Our proofs, and evidences are known to us. They can be known to any who ask Him. Until then, you must park at the end of the road for science, able to go no further.

How convienient.

Well, they better move it, they have been asleep at the wheel for what, 200 years?

It is people like you who hold back scientific progress, and you have the audacity to complain?

Whatever you assume, about the reality of the spiritual, that God gives us, can't change it. Better to stick to PO formulas. In that fishbowl, you make sense.

So you reject logic?

Well, I can understand you being less than certain about reality.

Indeed. Your point?

OK, so you do not observe the unseen?? Just spit it out, either way.

The unseen cannot be observed (I would prefer the term unobservable, but whatever).

Oh, Ok, so you are not sure when or if you can pick whether you have a firm, or vagiue grasp on reality. OK.

Logically, we cannot know that our observed reality is the real reality.

Why worry about the boogey man???

I do not worry. I merely accept that my sensory input may be being manipulated. I assume it is not, but I do not know that it is not.

At least for Christians, we have no fears, if some external devil comes a knocking at our heart door, we let Jesus answer it.

And what if your messiah is just another fabrication? Can you really know that he is not?

So, you are almost perfect, and not a sinner. OK.

I am not almost perfect, far from it.

Hey, it is MY friend. You seem to confuse past dreams with science.

What, such as YEC, embedded age, divine creation, and human superiority?

I like real science. I hate false science.

At least we agree on this.

Why would I give an equivelent to a baseless, worthless assumption, that is not even backed by science and evidence???

Because you cannot reject something without supplying a replacement. Before Quantum Mechanics was devised, we had to work with Classical Mechanics, even though we knew it was flawed at subatomic scales.

I have a world, and universe full of reasons to know that the past and future are well in Hand.

You may stroke your own ego with this drivel, but do not push it on the rest of us.

I have the known spiritual factor,

No, you have your spiritual beliefs.

the bible,

An old set of documents, no more valid than the next sacred text.

and agreement with all scientific evidence we do have.

Really? What evidence might this be?

Love has creative power, and gives life meaning. Love created the universe, and love is God.

Utter drivel. Do you read self-help magazines, by any chance?

It is both logical, and unscientific, as you asked for.

Nonsense. Come back when you do not rely on such nauseating drivel.

 

[dad]

But with God's magical throne, made of Flying Sapphires, it's a snap!

Compared to your PO fishbowl, yes, everything about God, including His cosmic wheels is mind blowing. I would hope so.

You've been asked for anything. You have nothing.

I have everything. Including all the evidence working for me in your fishbowl.

But you have no proof -- just huffing and puffing.

No, YOU have no proof, and won't have, as long as you lock yourself in the box.

If you choose to misread scripture, and assume that everything can only mean one thing, then it's understandable how you could miss the point so utterly.

Seeing face to face with God is not in your fishbowl. The point of the bible is believing it, you don't, so you miss the point.

And in faith, I saw through a glass darkly. Now I see the truth, face to face. Pretty self-explanatiory, although I do appreciate your help in explaining it to everyone else.

Face to face with what? Now you claim you don't just know in part, but know it all? Strange claim.

Why would He do that? Being omnipresent and Omnipotent means He wouldn't have had to do it wrong the first time.

He did do it right, and we went wrong, so an adjustment was needed. A temporary arrangement.

Except that nobody's ever seenn you do this. You've been spouting the same gibberish ever since you got laughed off the last forum and onto this one.

Of course it is evident that I adapt to the bible. If I did post on a board, and was evicted by the wicked, it wasn't for lack of a bible case. Some boards have a fangs out moderation. Who needs that?

And how can the Bible possibly help anyone in the "Creation Debate"?

It has the creation documented, and itemized, and chronicled. Wheras science can't so much as tell us the state of the past.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

Wasn't Rasputin from Russia, I think he may have been orthodox? He was credited with some miracles.

Did you just debunk the orthodox church, in one sentence?

Wait, isnt Benny Hinn, a Christian, a profiteer? I think he was credited with some miracles

Ad hominem against the church?

First of all, do you believe the bible??? If not, cut the sorry attempt at dividing, based mostly on your imagination. If you do, then make your case, and let's have a stab at it! Be honest.

This does not answer my question, please do

Are you saying that you and the guy who wrote that pdf, have a more valid interpretation that the Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican church?

I will, however answer your questions

First of all, do you believe the bible?

To a certain extent, it should be read in proper context, of course, but to a certain extent, I will take certain elements in it on faith

OK, so you believe in those things??

Of course, if there is a matter of Christian doctrine, I wish to understand, the Orthodox church first, the Catholic second and the Anglican church third, I will listen to

Well, having knocked you out of it, there is only so many left in the ring! You have no same past science case, so you can have no past case.

I asked what puts you in the ring? please answer my question

I think that the land dinos were extinct by the flood. I could be wrong. Many feel that they took some eggs, or babies.

Do you have any sources for this?, are there cave paintings of it?, is it mentioned in the scripture? (as explained by the people who wrote it)

If they believe in heaven, with angels and God, they belive it will not bbe seperate.

Actually, what the people I know believe, I would know, (I will see if a Christian friend of mine, on the forums, wants to post his opinion)

you realize science can't evidence that

Of course science has no evidence for the future

I believe the PO universe will continue to exist, until it ends, our next lives will be during the existence of the PO universe, either reincarnated, or on a higher plane

Somehow, He is going to have us get our new bodies like His.

New, is the keyword, not from old atoms, otherwise sharing will occur, and I assume God is omnipotent, hence he has no need for angels to count you hair

(isnt that a bit full of ego? having angels count every hair you ever had?)

Observations are for the fishbowl.

Are you saying that you have no empirical evidence or fact?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Compared to your PO fishbowl, yes, everything about God, including His cosmic wheels is mind blowing. I would hope so.

No, you're hoping that God is lazy, and not into micromanagement. Otherwise, who needs your magical Split?

I have everything. Including all the evidence working for me in your fishbowl.

The fishbowl evidence works against you, so you've rejected it. You've offered nothing in its place.

No, YOU have no proof, and won't have, as long as you lock yourself in the box.

Still bringing nothing to the table dad, just more of your meaningless huffing and puffing.

Seeing face to face with God is not in your fishbowl. The point of the bible is believing it, you don't, so you miss the point.

Believing is not knowing, this is why you have nothing.

Face to face with what? Now you claim you don't just know in part, but know it all? Strange claim.

The harsh realities of the world.
I never claimed to know it all -- you did. And you don't even know your own Bible.

He did do it right, and we went wrong, so an adjustment was needed. A temporary arrangement.

And your foolish limited God didn't see it coming, and is now scrambling with temporary, jury-rigged solutions?

Of course it is evident that I adapt to the bible. If I did post on a board, and was evicted by the wicked, it wasn't for lack of a bible case. Some boards have a fangs out moderation. Who needs that?

You've adapted the Bible to fit to you -- like any other fundie. You're simply more humorous than most.

It has the creation documented, and itemized, and chronicled. Wheras science can't so much as tell us the state of the past.

But why should anyone believe this "document" is accurate? It doesn't even match up to the present without your ludicrous invented "Split"?

 

[dad]

If you do not have a scientific case, then what is your purpose here?

I might ask you the same. I simply point out you cannot cover the past, and what can. Putting science in it's place.

I have explained to you over and over again that an assumption can be scientific. Once you understand this fact, we can talk.

So what? Of course it can. It depends on the assumption. A same past one cannot!

We all make assumptions, mon ami.

So?

I could say exactly the same to you.

But you could not add that I have a false science claim as well! You do.

Logic is not 'in one's head'. It is an overarching systematic set of rules for how sentient beings ought to think and rationalise. It exists outside of subjectivity, and this is why it is so useful.

And logic comes from where, then, if not the mind of man? Think about it logically.

For the last time, noone claims that 'probable' is identicle to 'proven'. It is simply that, in the abscence of any other desider, probability determines which assumption we make.

Nothing is probable about the spiritual! And I don't mean maybe.

On the contrary, logic points to the more probable option (which, in this case, is your 'same past' scenario).

No. You have a Buzz Lightyear grasp on logic if you think our PO based conclusions apply to eternity, and beyond!

Indeed. Care to show me how my god is your devil?

I don't really know. But it sounds suspicious. 'horned one'? You don't happen to call it Lucifer, do you???

Take note of what? That I have a belief system that dares to differ with your dogma?

the horned one, as you call it'. First, I do not claim to be believe in him, I do believe in him,
That. Who knows, some might read just a bit, thinking you were Christian. Others don't even believe there are witches, etc. It is a simple point of note.

Not objectively. I have talked to my deities, but not in any objective way.

Did they talk back?

That is not my question. I'll rephrase:
Do you believe that the entire Bible is literally accurate?

It isn't all meant to be, a lot is spiritual. That is true, but not strictly literal in a present universe sense.

I consider my morality to be preferrable to your god's morality, yes.

So you think you are more righteious, and better than God. OK.

Such as your crucifix, your stained glass windows, your church spires?
But not Wiccans.
Nothing to do with Wicca.

Well, I guess that depends. I guess at your level, and in the strict application of the term as you know it, that might be true. But you do share the title of witch. To many bible believers, we may not be able to detect a difference.

Surely the word of your god should be universally understandable? Or is your god favouristic?

He favors His Own. Those that chose to believe Him, by accepting the sacrifice of His son. You won't get that far in understanding the bible without His spirit.

Ah, how conclusive. Tell me, how does this differ from Voodoo trances? Pagan meditation? Hindu yoga? Buddhist enlightenment?

See, the spiritual has some common factors across the board. It differs in the Spirit doing the possessing.

And why, pray tell, can we make this assumption?

We can't. You and I, but we Christians can.

You'd have to demonstrate that there were created kinds, of course.

Some assumptions are scientific, didn't you say? But I don't have to do that unless I have a science case. The same past believers have to do that.

Neither do you. We are both humans, trapped in your 'PO' universe. How is your argument any more valid than mine?

We who are spiritually minded are not carnally minded, and bound just to the carnal.

Care to give me any reason that it should go faster in the past?

Care to tell us how the past was? Care to tell us how the merged universe works? Not with science you can't. All we can do is look at now. Then some have assumed it was the same.

Hippocrit. Stay away from the non sequiturs.

Strange response to a polite chiding, of one word. "focus".

The Twin Towers were each effectively struck by an airborne bomb. Simply setting the towers alight would do nothing. but combust a few rooms, maybe a floor or two.
Besides, it is my belief that the destruction of the WTC was assisted by internal explosives, but that is way beyond this thread.

The towers I refered to were Solomon's temple, and the Chineese palace.

On the contrary, it is the only thing that matters when there are no facts. Care to present some?

What is in your mind is all that matters? OK.

Yes. No amount of question marks will change that.

You simply take a Christian monk's concept, and appy it to all, as the highest law in the universe, and beyond!!
Yes..
Wow, what silliness. Now the monk's idea is the highest law in the universe. Lurkers take note.

Perhaps. But in my 18 years I have already surpassed you.

To quote you, ..
You may stroke your own ego with this drivel, but do not push it on the rest of us.

Noone is asking them to, but it is possible.

You claim now, that you could teach a 6 year old the theory of evolution, and cosmic evolution, and radioactive decay concepts, and geology, paleontology, taxonomy, and etc, in one hour!!!! To where they would have a good solid grasp of the evolution rather than creation claims!!!!!!!??????????????
Well, shut down all universities, people, this guy has just made them unneeded.

Indeed. That is why this approach is wrong. I wonder if you realise that you are agreeing with me?

That they are totally unable to get beyond a deqd end, why would I not agree?

Certain assumptions must be made. It is logical, intuitive, and above all probable to assume a 'same past'.

They are not any of that. Your same past assumptions are simply belief. Pure, uncut, undiluted, unsupported assumption.

You come along and challange this, with no rational reason. Tell me, what is your reason for rejecting this assumption?

There is no reason to accept it.

Actually, you have admitted that there is scientific evidence. So please, cite it.

All the evidence we have agrees! You name it.

How convienient.

How sweet it is.

It is people like you who hold back scientific progress, and you have the audacity to complain?

I don't do any such thing. Real science, especially ir reigned in from the paganistic, moraless free for all it has become, is fine.

So you reject logic?

No, I exceed PO logic.

Indeed. Your point?

My point is that no one that is in the box of the PO can be sure of any reality beyond those limits.

The unseen cannot be observed (I would prefer the term unobservable, but whatever).

OK, then the past and future and spiritual are not empirical. We can't observe them.

Logically, we cannot know that our observed reality is the real reality.

Yes, I can. Maybe you can't. It is real temporary.

I do not worry. I merely accept that my sensory input may be being manipulated. I assume it is not, but I do not know that it is not.

Which way to the oracle?

And what if your messiah is just another fabrication? Can you really know that he is not?

We can know Him.

I am not almost perfect, far from it.

But you do say you are not a sinner, and better than God!

What, such as YEC, embedded age, divine creation, and human superiority?

No. What you seem to confuse with science is all the stuff based on what you admit is just assumption.

At least we agree on this.

..

Because you cannot reject something without supplying a replacement. Before Quantum Mechanics was devised, we had to work with Classical Mechanics, even though we knew it was flawed at subatomic scales.

Sure I can. But I also have the replacement, the grand unifying merged universe..

An old set of documents, no more valid than the next sacred text.

To the unsavy, no.

Utter drivel. Do you read self-help magazines, by any chance?

No. But you asked for something unscientific, and logical. Love is. It is logical for a mother to love her baby. It is not science.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I might ask you the same.

You might. And I would respond, 'I do have a scientific basis. My assumption is scientific since it does not contradict the scientific method'.

I simply point out you cannot cover the past, and what can. Putting science in it's place.

No, you claim that there was a change in the physical laws of this universe; more specifically, you claim that the original 'merged' universe was somehow seperated into the spiritual and the physical. Why do you make this claim?

It depends on the assumption. A same past one cannot!

Why not?

So?

You mocked me for making assumptions, and I was simply pointing out that you and everyone else also make assumptions.

But you could not add that I have a false science claim as well!

Yes, I could. Your claim fails the scientific method, and so is unscientific. My claim passes the scientific method, and so is scientific.

You do.

Please, demonstrate as such.

And logic comes from where, then, if not the mind of man?

It does not come from anywhere. You might as well ask why 1 + 2 = 3.

Nothing is probable about the spiritual!

It is possible that your concept of spirituality may be de re true, and it is possible that it may be de re false. Since we lack conclusive evidence (not your wishy-washy 'We're Christians™, we just know'), the reality of the situation remains unknown.

No. You have a Buzz Lightyear grasp on logic if you think our PO based conclusions apply to eternity, and beyond!

Care to explain why they do not? You make these grandose claims without ever elaborating.

I don't really know.

Then do not equate my diety with your Devil.

But it sounds suspicious. 'horned one'?

Why is that suspicious? The Christian Devil is depicted with horns specifically to cause these misconceptions. Pagans had the image of a horned deity long before it was Christianised into the Devil. Ever wondered why the Bible makes no mention of horned & cloven hooved devils?

You don't happen to call it Lucifer, do you???

Lucifer is the Morning Star, the heralder of your god. My god does not herald your god, so no, I do not call him Lucifer.

the horned one, as you call it'. First, I do not claim to be believe in him, I do believe in him,
That. Who knows, some might read just a bit, thinking you were Christian.

My faith icon shows that I am Wiccan, not Christian. My name rather obviously points to my Wiccan faith. If they miss these clues, then more the fool them.

Did they talk back?

Yes, they did. I find these encounters fascinating, to say the least.

It isn't all meant to be, a lot is spiritual. That is true, but not strictly literal in a present universe sense.

I'll take that as a 'no'.

So you think you are more righteious, and better than God. OK.

Than your god, yes. Your point?

To many bible believers, we may not be able to detect a difference.

That is because the Old English word 'witch' has a different meaning today. But I will not excuse my faith. If your god does not approve of us, then that is his problem. I personally could not care less about what his wishes and whims.

He favors His Own.

Why?

You won't get that far in understanding the bible without His spirit.

Why?

See, the spiritual has some common factors across the board. It differs in the Spirit doing the possessing.

The only way to the Father is through Jesus, remember. How can you claim that the Father is 'piped' through other faiths? Is this not in direct contradiction to Jesus?

We can't. You and I, but we Christians can.

Again, why can you Christians make this assumption? What rationale do you have?

Some assumptions are scientific, didn't you say?

Indeed.

But I don't have to do that unless I have a science case.

If you want to successfully show why an assumption is unscientific, you must do it via the scientific method. This is the very definition of scientific.

The same past believers have to do that.

And indeed we have. Since our assumption passes the scientific method, it is scientific.

We who are spiritually minded are not carnally minded, and bound just to the carnal.

I take it you refer to your spirituality?

Care to tell us how the past was?

I cannot, since you reject basic assumptions.

Care to tell us how the merged universe works?

I cannot, because there is no evidence of a merged universe, no rational reason to assume that it existed.

The towers I refered to were Solomon's temple, and the Chineese palace.

Ah, my mistake.

What is in your mind is all that matters? OK.

Do not put words into my mouth. I said:
[In determining which assumption to prefer, probability] is the only thing that matters when there are no facts.

You simply take a Christian monk's concept, and appy it to all, as the highest law in the universe, and beyond!!
Yes..
Wow, what silliness.

Care to explain why it is 'silliness'?

Now the monk's idea is the highest law in the universe. Lurkers take note.

You ridicule the concept, but you do not explain why it should be rejected. Counter-intuitiveness is not grounds for dismissal.

You claim now, that you could teach a 6 year old the theory of evolution, and cosmic evolution, and radioactive decay concepts, and geology, paleontology, taxonomy, and etc, in one hour!!!!

Not in one hour. But give me a child, and I will teach it a complex subject of your choice while it remains a child.

To where they would have a good solid grasp of the evolution rather than creation claims!!!!!!!??????????????

That is the just, yes. You might want to tone down on the exclamation and question marks, by the way. To quote Terry Pratchett, '5 or more exclamation marks is a true sign of insanity'.

Well, shut down all universities, people, this guy has just made them unneeded.

On the contrary, adults require much more time to grasp new information than infants. A baby can learn to walk and talk within a year or two, whilst an adult starting from scratch takes many years to become even half-way decent (after a stroke, for instance).

That they are totally unable to get beyond a deqd end, why would I not agree?

You are referring to Creationists ('they start from they end up').

They are not any of that.

Then demonstrate as such.

Your same past assumptions are simply belief. Pure, uncut, undiluted, unsupported assumption.

That is why it is called an assumption, not a supported theory.

There is no reason to accept it.

On the contrary, it is probable that the assumption is true. Besides why do you accept your own assumption?

All the evidence we have agrees!

Ah, how specific. Do not take me for a fool, dad. You claim to have evidence, then cite it. If you do not have evidence, then cease this time-wasting.

How sweet it is.

You clearly did not sense the sarcasm.

I don't do any such thing. Real science, especially ir reigned in from the paganistic, moraless free for all it has become, is fine.

1) How is the scientific community 'paganistic'?
2) How is the scientific community 'moraless'?
3) How is the scientific community a 'free for all'?
I notice that your definition of 'real' science is only that which supports your a priori theology. Anything that contradicts this theology is, by your definition, not 'real' science.

No, I exceed PO logic.

Nonsense. You merely make unfounded accusations and then refuse to justify them. This is not exceeding logic, this is abandoning reason.

My point is that no one that is in the box of the PO can be sure of any reality beyond those limits.

Notice how you make the automatic assumption that there are limits. Why do you do this?

OK, then the past and future and spiritual are not empirical. We can't observe them.

The future is, to a degree, predictable, and therefore observable. The past is definitely observable, since we have records of it. The spiritual is observable if it intereferes with the non-spiritual.

Yes, I can.

No, you cannot. You assume that light hits your retina, and that triggers an action potential to your brain. You do not know that you are merely in a tub hooked up to some virtual reality. You assume you are not, but you do not know. Granted, it is unlikely that you are, but it is nonetheless possible.

Which way to the oracle?

I'm sorry?

We can know Him.

That is not an answer. I repeat:
What if your messiah is just another fabrication? Can you really know that he is not?

But you do say you are not a sinner, and better than God!

Indeed. Who is to say that your deity is perfect?

What you seem to confuse with science is all the stuff based on what you admit is just assumption.

Science is based on assumptions, whether you like it or not. The one you like to criticise is the assumption that the physical laws are immutable.

Sure I can. But I also have the replacement, the grand unifying merged universe..

So now you admit that your claim (this 'grand unifying merged universe') is a scientifically valid substitute for what you call the 'same past' assumption?

To the unsavy, no.

Demonstrate that your sacred text is any more valid than the next (oh, wait, I'm not Saved-By-Jesus™).

No. But you asked for something unscientific, and logical. Love is.

Love is scientific. How does it fail the scientific method?

It is logical for a mother to love her baby. It is not science.

On the contrary, love is a physio-neurological phenomenon. It is scientific.

 

[dad]

Did you just debunk the orthodox church, in one sentence?

Why, - do they not believe in heaven or the ressurection??

Wait, isnt Benny Hinn, a Christian, a profiteer? I think he was credited with some miracles

So???

Ad hominem against the church?

Who, where, what??

This does not answer my question, please do

You first.

To a certain extent, it should be read in proper context, of course, but to a certain extent, I will take certain elements in it on faith

OK, so you believe little bits of it, sort of. OK.

Of course, if there is a matter of Christian doctrine, I wish to understand, the Orthodox church first, the Catholic second and the Anglican church third, I will listen to

So you have a modest interest in the church building system, where the system is huge enough. OK.

I asked what puts you in the ring? please answer my question

You might be more concerned with why you were knocked out of it. That would be because you have no case. I do. Not a science limited case, but a case.

Do you have any sources for this?, are there cave paintings of it?, is it mentioned in the scripture? (as explained by the people who wrote it)

Well, As I said saome feel that way. There are many opinions.
"not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably “teenagers” or young adults. "
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp
This probably included a young pair of each main type of dinosaur. Perhaps God just included the basic types of dinosaurs He first created; not every variety that had developed since Creation
http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-ark1b.html



http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dino_ark.html

"
Also show them a football and tell them that the largest dinosaur eggs ever found were no bigger than the football, so even the huge dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus rex and Apatosaurus were once as small as the football."
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/dinosark.html

So, that is a sampling of the kind of opinion out there. I said that my opinion is that the land dinos likely were extinct. Why? Well, I have had some discusion of the fossil record, and think that it fits best that way.

Actually, what the people I know believe, I would know, (I will see if a Christian friend of mine, on the forums, wants to post his opinion)

OK, but they have to believe in the ressurection to be Christian, so don't hold your breath! If they do not believe in heaven, maybe they ought to consider the KGB, rather than religion???

Of course science has no evidence for the future

Thank you.

I believe the PO universe will continue to exist, until it ends, our next lives will be during the existence of the PO universe, either reincarnated, or on a higher plane

OK, so kind of a hindu type thing. Fine. After all, it is just a belief.

New, is the keyword, not from old atoms, otherwise sharing will occur, and I assume God is omnipotent, hence he has no need for angels to count you hair

What is wrong with sharing?? Jesus still had the unhealed wounds in His new body.
As for angels counting hair, why would that happen??? Sounds absurd.

Are you saying that you have no empirical evidence or fact?

No one does, or can observe the far past or future. Not with science, at least. Of course we had people go there, and observe and come back to us with the notes!!!!

 

[dad]

No, you're hoping that God is lazy, and not into micromanagement. Otherwise, who needs your magical Split?

Only a different natural explains the differences in a rational way.

The fishbowl evidence works against you, so you've rejected it. You've offered nothing in its place.

No, it is all on my side.

Believing is not knowing, this is why you have nothing.

How do you know? Is that what you believe!?

The harsh realities of the world.
I never claimed to know it all -- you did. And you don't even know your own Bible.

I don't know it all. I know a lot more than science can tell us though. Anytime you think you're up to a bible challenge, rather than the usual zero you come up with, step right up. Your offering was ! Cor, where it says we will one day know clearly what we just see through a glass darkly now. Face to face, with God, in other words. You twisted it to try to justify backsliding.

You've adapted the Bible to fit to you -- like any other fundie. You're simply more humorous than most.

No, as your lack of a counter bible case proves.

But why should anyone believe this "document" is accurate? It doesn't even match up to the present without your ludicrous invented "Split"?

It isn't sipposed to, the present will not be here long.

 

[dad]

You might. And I would respond, 'I do have a scientific basis. My assumption is scientific since it does not contradict the scientific method'.

You might say that, then I might say, show us the basis.

No, you claim that there was a change in the physical laws of this universe; more specifically, you claim that the original 'merged' universe was somehow seperated into the spiritual and the physical. Why do you make this claim?

Not a change in box. Not a change in the PO universe, this is the change. What we see is what we got.

Why not?

Because you have no science yo back up a claim as to the state of the past.

..I was simply pointing out that you and everyone else also make assumptions.

Not cloaked as a claim of science, though, that would be..you.

Yes, I could. Your claim fails the scientific method, and so is unscientific. My claim passes the scientific method, and so is scientific.

No, only falsely so called science. The same past claim is an assumption nothing more. It is neither observed or tested.

It does not come from anywhere. You might as well ask why 1 + 2 = 3.

Your logic comes from nowhere???? Why compare it to math, then, that comes from somewhere!

It is possible that your concept of spirituality may be de re true, and it is possible that it may be de re false. Since we lack conclusive evidence (not your wishy-washy 'We're Christians™, we just know'), the reality of the situation remains unknown.

Unknown by those who don't want to know. Well known to us. Well known to a majority of men of all time. The universe doesn't turn to what you or science happens to have the wherewithal to know.

Care to explain why they do not? You make these grandose claims without ever elaborating.

Because you want to go into the eternal state future, and impose the limitations of the soon to pass away present laws. You can no more do that, than Buzz Lightyear can fly to infinity, and beyond. In fact, he can't get out of the box by himself.

Then do not equate my diety with your Devil.

Why not?? You told us nothing about it. You never answered if it was called lucifer even. You called it the horned one. What is it, a goat?

Why is that suspicious? The Christian Devil is depicted with horns specifically to cause these misconceptions.

Prove it, where is you empirical evidence?

Pagans had the image of a horned deity long before it was Christianised into the Devil. Ever wondered why the Bible makes no mention of horned & cloven hooved devils?

Well, I don't know, never gave it much thought. The bible does refer to him as a dragon. Many seem to think they had horns.

Plus, he was described as having instruments in his body, I think, namely pipes, or, we might say, horns.
Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created

Lucifer is the Morning Star, the heralder of your god. My god does not herald your god, so no, I do not call him Lucifer.

Well, apparently he hasn't been heralding God for a long time now. I wouldn't go by that.

My faith icon shows that I am Wiccan, not Christian. My name rather obviously points to my Wiccan faith. If they miss these clues, then more the fool them.

'More the fool them'? Whatever.

Yes, they did. I find these encounters fascinating, to say the least.

So, your gods taked to you. OK. Are they spiritual??

I'll take that as a 'no'.

It is not totally physically literal, I woult think. Although most consider me a literalist, cause I believe almost all of it can ne literal.

Than your god, yes. Your point?

Just wanted clarity, it isn't an accusation, then, it is an admission. You think you are sinless, and more righteous than God. Fine.

That is because the Old English word 'witch' has a different meaning today. But I will not excuse my faith. If your god does not approve of us, then that is his problem. I personally could not care less about what his wishes and whims.

So you figure there isn't much difference in the wotches of old, and today. Fine.

Why?
Why?

I can't tell you why He does everything, and I doubt you care anyhow.

The only way to the Father is through Jesus, remember. How can you claim that the Father is 'piped' through other faiths? Is this not in direct contradiction to Jesus?

Oh, it isn't Jesus, or God, or the Holy Spirit piping through them. It is spiritual, though. There are oodles of spirits of all kinds. The bible says to not believe every spirit. Only if they confess Christ. Otherwise, they are evil spirits!

Again, why can you Christians make this assumption? What rationale do you have?

Because we have more than just science to go on, we have His word.

If you want to successfully show why an assumption is unscientific, you must do it via the scientific method. This is the very definition of scientific.

No, only if we are talking in box. Assumptions that want to Buzz Lightyear it out of the universe, into infinity and beyond can't be dealt with 'via the scientific method'.

I take it you refer to your spirituality?

Christian. Those that are spiritually minded but not Christian likely also have valid reasons. For example, some spirit talks to them, or to their former leader, etc.

I cannot, since you reject basic assumptions.

Only if they are baseless.

I cannot, because there is no evidence of a merged universe, no rational reason to assume that it existed.

Or not.

Do not put words into my mouth. I said:
[In determining which assumption to prefer, probability] is the only thing that matters when there are no facts.

If there are no facts, what is your probability based on? How much moss is on the north side of a tree?

Care to explain why it is 'silliness'?

To elevate the musings of a monk to the 'highest truth in the universe'. Absurd.

You ridicule the concept, but you do not explain why it should be rejected. Counter-intuitiveness is not grounds for dismissal.

-the monk's idea is the highest law in the universe
(the idea you agreed with)

To claim it is more important than the afterlife, God, the laws of the spiritual, the bible, and everything that could be conceived, and 'whatever is simplest' is the highest law in the universe has no merit. Who wrote that commandment?? You?

Not in one hour. But give me a child, and I will teach it a complex subject of your choice while it remains a child.

Then you now admit that the evo group of complicated ever changing origins theories is not simple! My point exactly. Remember Occam's razor! My ideas are! And I could do it that fast.

That is the just, yes. You might want to tone down on the exclamation and question marks, by the way. To quote Terry Pratchett, '5 or more exclamation marks is a true sign of insanity'.

Never heard of him!!!!!!

On the contrary, adults require much more time to grasp new information than infants. A baby can learn to walk and talk within a year or two, whilst an adult starting from scratch takes many years to become even half-way decent (after a stroke, for instance).

Hey, I could even teach the average 50 year old over dinner! Now that is simple.

Then demonstrate as such.

Form a complete thought first. Then I might demonstrate something.

That is why it is called an assumption, not a supported theory.

And that is why it is not science.

On the contrary, it is probable that the assumption is true. Besides why do you accept your own assumption?

That depends. Which one? Chances are, though, if it was my assumption, I would accept it.

Ah, how specific. Do not take me for a fool, dad. You claim to have evidence, then cite it. If you do not have evidence, then cease this time-wasting.

You name it, fossil record, population numbers since the flood, history, cosmological info, atomic, etc etc etc etc. All evidence that you have I have. We just interpret it differently.

You clearly did not sense the sarcasm.

I took advantage of it.

1) How is the scientific community 'paganistic'?

How is it they retain God in their knowledge?

2) How is the scientific community 'moraless'?

Are you suggesting it is moral to have nukes, and etc??

3) How is the scientific community a 'free for all'?

Just try regulating genetical research, or something, and find out.

I notice that your definition of 'real' science is only that which supports your a priori theology. Anything that contradicts this theology is, by your definition, not 'real' science.

Anything in box is real. If it deals with facts, and actual tests, and real observing, etc. We can evidence how to build a brifge, or spaceship. We can observe gravity working right now. We know about magnetism. Etc. Rock crackism is another story.

Nonsense. You merely make unfounded accusations and then refuse to justify them. This is not exceeding logic, this is abandoning reason.

No, I read the bible a bit occasionally, and see more than the laws of physics at play in the future fields of the Lord! Saying you have science against that is insanity.

Notice how you make the automatic assumption that there are limits. Why do you do this?

Try slapping your desk. .......

........

.... -- Ok, did your hand go through it? No. There are limits. We know some of the limits of the physical. For example we can't go into the future or far past.

The future is, to a degree, predictable, and therefore observable.

Not the degree we are talking about in claims of false science, that the sun will burn out!

The past is definitely observable, since we have records of it.

True. But there are clear limits there.

The spiritual is observable if it intereferes with the non-spiritual.

True, but not scientifically so, so that it can be repeated.

No, you cannot. You assume that light hits your retina, and that triggers an action potential to your brain. You do not know that you are merely in a tub hooked up to some virtual reality. You assume you are not, but you do not know. Granted, it is unlikely that you are, but it is nonetheless possible.

Here we go with that reality questioning again. Get a grip, man.

I'm sorry?

You said

I do not worry. I merely accept that my sensory input may be being manipulated. I assume it is not, but I do not know that it is not.

So I refered to the movie, the Matrix, where they went to ask the 'oracle'.

That is not an answer. I repeat:
What if your messiah is just another fabrication? Can you really know that he is not?

Yes, He gives us a sound mind, and makes Himself known.

Indeed. Who is to say that your deity is perfect?

Him, us, and me.

Science is based on assumptions, whether you like it or not. The one you like to criticise is the assumption that the physical laws are immutable.

True. I like to critisize that pipe dream.

So now you admit that your claim (this 'grand unifying merged universe') is a scientifically valid substitute for what you call the 'same past' assumption?

It is a valid substitute, but not one, thankfully limited to PO rules, regulations, methodologies, and shiboleths, and taboos, and etc. It explains things, it meets all evidence, and it meets God and the bible, and the known spiritual factor. Plus, are you sitting down? --It is the simplest one!!!!

Demonstrate that your sacred text is any more valid than the next (oh, wait, I'm not Saved-By-Jesus&#8482.

Take it or leave it. Try it, if you like, or not. I don't have to make excuses for God. He can take good care of Himself!

Love is scientific. How does it fail the scientific method?

Got any in a test tube? Where is there a love course we can take in science???? How is love science, now????

On the contrary, love is a physio-neurological phenomenon. It is scientific.

Objection, PO opinion.