Oliver,

I would appreciate it if you could at least do me the courtesy of reading the material I present before launching into criticisms. Not only does it waste my time explaining things to you, it also makes you look rather silly.

You said: "Such a preferred zone cannot exist outsie of four-dimensional space-time"

Preferred zone? Who said anything about a "preferred zone"?!? Stop talking rubbish and respond to what is actually being said instead of making up silly straw-men.

You deny the possibility of a Euclidean (timeless) zone and accuse creationists of ignorance and/or incompetence.

But if you had read Humphreys' paper, he explains very clearly how this happened. Indeed, the existence of the Euclidean zone is derived from both Oskar Klein's space-time metric and the Hellaby, Sumerak, Ellis metric. Are you accusing such notable cosmologists as Oskar Klein and George Ellis of ignorance and incompetence? Is their work "unreliable"?

In addition, Hawking came to the same conclusion using the Robertson-Walker metric, although he described it as "imaginary time."

Your quote from Penrose does not contradict anything Humpreys proposes.

This is the 2nd time I have caught you out talking nonsense about things you clearly do not understand and have not bothered to check.

Re Kuhn - he also points out that revolutions only occur when their is an acceptable alternative or ready replacement for the existing paradigm. If there is no read replacement the existing paradigm stays and the "crisis" remains. In addition, he notes that many who hold to the problematic paradigm NEVER give it up even when a replacement is found - it is the next generation of scientists who take up the new paradigm.

Aslan,

I too am very busy and no need to post this site. Nonetheless, I will address your points in due course. Afterwhich, I will cease to waste your time. We can agree to disagree. But just quickly I have never used such strong language against people who disagree with me; creationist or physicists. I can accept others holding opinions and ideas contrary to my own. Seemingly, you cannot.

Albeit, there are a few matters, I would like to explore with Philo.

O.

Oliver,

Agree or disagree - that's up to you - I don't mind. But at least try to understand another's position first. How can you disagree with something you don't understand and continuously misrepresent?

Even worse, how can you raise objections against ideas and concepts which I do not advocate or endorse, as if I did? This is straw-manning and it is particularly poor form.

Ultimately, Oliver, you are free to believe whatever you like but you are not free to be correct.

Aslan, the hypocrisy with which you approach contributing to this forum takes my breath away - accusing Oliver of strawman argument has to be the icing on a very unpalatable cake.

Your very first contribution to this particular thread contained the following:

>>McKinnon says: "The religious Right, according to Wallis, misses the real essence of Jesus’ moral teaching, and in blindly pursuing its two key issues, actually ends up opposing much of what Jesus said."

Strong claim. No evidence or argument, just massive (and baseless) stereotyping.<<

Later - in the same post - you say:

>>Unfortunately there are many Christians who hold such syncretistic views. They substitute moral outrage for morality, equality and fairness for justice, and talk about 'right and wrong' but don't know the first thing about truth.<<

Be honest with yourself, just for a moment. Is that not an equally strong claim, with equally little evidence or argument, and equally massive (and baseless) stereotyping?

I haven't the time to dissect each one of your dribblings to find all such contradictions, but you know and I know that they are there. Why don't you try, for a change, to tone down your pseudo-intellectual posturings, and enter into the spirit of the forum - lively but polite discussion - instead?

Pericles,

You object to my comment in first post: "Unfortunately there are many Christians who hold such syncretistic views. They substitute moral outrage for morality, equality and fairness for justice, and talk about 'right and wrong' but don't know the first thing about truth."

You claim I offer no "evidence or argument".

Firstly, my comment was made in direct reference to the article which did not offer any serious suport for what it argued. That is a matter of fact.

Secondly, I note that you selectively quoted that post, and deliberately cut out the bit where I DID offer support/argument for my counter view. Let me fill in th gaps. The bit you cut was:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"And how can Wallis and McKinnon pretend to know what motivates Christians on the 'religious right'? Do they really think we are indifferent to the poor? Why do you think so many join the Liberal Party? Because socialism has never gotten anyone out of poverty - it just equally distributes poverty!

Who do they think started all those aid agencies? Worldvision (before being co-opted by lefties), Samaritan's purse, CCF, Christian Blind Mission, MAF etc etc.

McKinnon observes: "This book...is [not] a comprehensive analysis of current US policies...On the other hand it is not a biblical commentary or deep theological work. It is not intended to be a scholarly work but contains plenty of referenced facts alongside numerous personal anecdotes and opinions."

Not surprising. No deep, scholarly, theological analysis [would] come up with this tripe. Instead, Wallis and McKinnon have tried to "trim" the Bible with their scissors to make it fit their own preconceived socialist ideas.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

How about you try to be honest with yourself, Pericles...just for a moment.

Aslan,

I have not forgotten about the physics matters will reply in due course.

But reading your recent post, I find it interesting Christians, so attached the literal bible, would not be socialist. Well, hopefully not a Banker or Moneylender types. Herein, the Bible states one should not take advantage of others (Lev.25 14-17, not love money (Timothy 6:10) and not charge creditors interest (Exodos 22:25).

1. Do you see people who work in Banks as anti-biblical low-lifes?

2. Do you see the Church in the "temple" and wealth of Churches or in Belief?

3. Would not Marx's Theory of Surplus Value appoximate Lev. 25?

4. Would not Jesus disapprove of financially advanageous cliques amongst the memberships of tradionally right-wing churches, such as the Mormons and The Adventists?

5. Is not just one human life worth more than all the worth of the Vatican?

6. Could not the Churches sell off their vast real estate and run services in multi-denominational multiplexes? Or would the need to own and control land exceed helping the poor?

"To take interest for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality, which is contrary to justice. Now, money was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange. Hence, it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as interest." St. Thomas Aquina