Squeers,

I try to run Religionist ideas through by mind. To be fair to their ideas I test/exam (null hypotheses) them, but my engine seems to run on a different fuel.

Blackwattle,

"The very act of saying GOD reduces the divine to a singularity, a division, this dimension consists of opposites, male female, light and dark, hot and cold, its elegant design and the designer is beyond our comprehension". -BW

- Are you saying that complementalities rather thn infiniies exist in the divine realm? What present seems Daoist.

All religionists,

In English sentences, subjects have predicates. If god Creates and there is a Created: Does God form a part of the universe, as a commission agent of first cause with the universe of Creator and Created? If god has fore-knowledge of all events, who is first cause of evil? If I knowing build a car will a flaw am I culpable? What if a Creator allows flaws? Why did God create the devil? Is creating the agents of evil intelligent design?

oliver quote<<..The Laws..apply "after" the universe comes to a stable state...[Time does really exist before 10 minus forty-third power.>>>/..great..can you prove it for simpltons...maybe first by explaining..what measure of time..were talking about here

clearly measures of minuted/days years or meter's/feet or inches...are irirelivant aqs comparitiver..measure..of anything at this time...what shall we call this unmeasurable time...in words...not/by..making it an mathimatical irrelivance..to us mathimatical illiterates...

im not impressed with knowledge..you cant explain to a 5 year old..or can only be proved..by nonsense abstraction or math..e=mc squared means..mass=enenery times two..[huge numbers]..[e=mc2=energy is mass/times the speed of light.times the speed of light..lol.

its nonsense..when compared to the pre-big/bang..stage..[science says its..the size..of a FULLSTOP..[.]..

thus..to equate the light..[squared]..times the masss of the/a universe..[the size of a [.]...when this theoretical light/speed..dosnt egsist..yet..because the suns dont egsist..[yet]

what of the relivance of e=mc2..when all the mass of all the suns [egsisting inside..[.]..a..[pre big bang..[black hole]...

how relivant is the speed of light..traveling across the distance of [.]..across the distance of a full stop..[pre big-bang]...it's..as absurd as it sounds

black-holes would suck..in the light..[to where?]...im fine/debating any of./the sciences...they all are pretty much using big words..or formulas..that mostly..meet the observed affect...till that one exception..that teaches..the next 'law'

<<The universe then cooled>>...to my thinking big-bang distorts time and space..so much[so]..that/heat isnt really heat..[just as light in a black hole isnt light....its ALL been converted..to mass

<<after 380,000 years>>..thats speculation..[define time]...time is able to be distorted by mass..[planks consatant]..[or some other such buzz word...think of the syn-simpsons episode...i might have the wrong naming...but..mass distorts time..proves time/..is a constant

<<and stable particles>>...particles cannot be stable..anywhere near the big bang...to explain..science decieves us ..in such simple things as pressure in a container....the theory..they say..is molicules are speeding/bumping arround inside the vessel..[causing presure]

my explanation..[never yet rebutted]..is the molivcles orbiting fields are forced to interact..[the more air gets put/in...forcing the bits..orbiting the atom..into lower orbital plains...changing their state...ie air becomes liquid...if this/..in a simple presurised bottle..how much more../in the post big-bang stage?

as for creating matter..they are putting in energy..[mass is potential energy..same/same...not proving they made it from nothing

Oliver,
not sure what you mean by "null hypotheses"?

While I admire your patience in trying to engage rationally with some of the stuff that gets put up, I've come to the conclusion that it's a waste of time when people have fixed ideas that no appeal to reason can shake. Blowed if I know our these people can just make statements about how things are--as if they knew!

Col, I imagine one could feed haemorrhoids more easily than pearls to swine? They'd no doubt gobble them up like truffles!

col quote<<..socialists and hemorrhoids....>.socialim...is just another...isn..[all get run by an elite..[who are not subject to the abuses of the m-asses...as for..a-hem-or-ho-ids..thats just..so we can get an idea..what a pain in the butt..we are..to our creator

oliver quote<<..Scientists/created matter/using LASER-beams,>>>not that amasing..[nothing to do with..evolution debate...but im fine debating..the rest of the science/spin

<<basically..the opposite to a nuclear-explosion,>>.basiclly deceptive...

..focused energy..being beamed into containment..[no doudt in those masivlty expensive..hard-on colliders..invertying..mass = energy[times the speed of light squared...

so naturally..put enough light/energy in/you expect mass at the end..[i could easilly have guessed it..for/free..[you think this prooves what?]

we..spend trillions..converting scarce energy..into common mass..[but look arround..the universe/god..has made plenty of it..[gods way...ie for free]

<<which represents...lol..partial conversion..of matter to energy.lol..>>>..realise what your saying..first you say energy to matter..,now its matter to energy..[people dont usuall read what written]...or get careless quoting stuff..they dont comprehend

<<Moreover,..matter can be destroyed.>>yes use circular logic...you began explaining with nuke explosions...all that writing..to your big punch line...matter can be destroyed..[converting it to energy...

but its scatterd/disipitated ..not destroyed...the energy from the nuke disipitates/spread..into the atmosphere..etc ...its not destroyed,..its dispersed[blown to the winds/dust..[making its parts ie heat/light/dust/fallout..+..other radiations

<<<If an electron..meets a positron,[...in a hadron..]..both are destroyed:>>..so why nukes need presise colisions/critical/mass.. at speed..to smash together...its not the meeting..but their being pulverised/togetrher..at huge force..that creates the affect/re-action/blast.

<<antimatter,..wherein..there are two solutions..to the equation>>..anti matter is bull....its a buzz word..to explain why their formulas dont meet their predictions...all that invisable matter/missing/anti-matter..in the universe...lol...means..their math is wrong...its science/fiction

<<When the products..physical products..of the two solutions..only two/which/2..come into contact..these are destroyed>>>..dispersed/transmutated..but..not allways .chemistry is full of usefull combinations....chemestry..is even expert at extracting/refining/filtering out..specifics from compounds..apparently...des-troy-ed..

<<how,when and why,the universe/created by..god.>>..god is beyond any religion...god is cause...religions are side/affects

how..is by sequenbtial/big-bangs and big-collapses..inversion..[pre big bang..is a change of state..reversing the inertia..of the collapse...

god is/was pre all big bang..remains after...why maybe we can find the reason in it soon-ish [eh]...were so clever[collectivly]...and yet the cause of causes..is yet more amasing...

and we can know the cause of causes one to one...WOW

OUG,

Are you digging yourself into a deeper hole?...It's a shame because you're a learned person.

You now resort to..."you are misquoting the Bible" line...which of course I am not.

I have demonstrated the Bible is totally unreliable.

Furthermore it seems that you expect "mere humans" to give you the formula of your so-called soup and yet ask nothing of "your creator", who creationists say can make man in an instant. If he/she/it existed the creation of a new species could be instantaneous.

Demand of GOD what you demand of mere humans! Of course you won't because you know GOD can't do it either.

I am pleased to hear that you are not foolish enough to believe the world is 6000 years old.

The fact that you can so simply ignore the science behind "Lucy" and yet believe creationism after I have proven the Bible wrong is amazing.

It seems that you are trying to slot GOD into the equation without any proof.

AS I have shown you...the Bible is not reliable and yet creationists just ignore that. They demand answers from people who are more open to the evolutionary theories.

There is a massive energy that is a part of us all and a part of all matter....This energy however is not GOD....GOD is a human construct that tries to explain this energy.

The dusty old creationist books are just ancient man trying to explain something beyond them.

However, by the time Moses got a hold of things he used his alleged God to commit atrocities and control the people. Moses was an evil man who justified his actions and instructions by saying they were from GOD.

If anyone believes Moses was a righteous man then they don't know their Bibles!

Finally I agree that certain events probably happened and were documented wrongly by mankind...Noah's flood was probably a local flood.

BUT that isn't what Creationists/Believers/Religious institutions teach, is it?...They teach myth as fact!

If they fib about these matters during worship, why believe the falsehoods they teach on any subject?

So much for Christian/religious morality!...They are the deceivers!

o2 please..feel free to requote the line in question,..and we shall debate this if this is as your require...

lines must be read in context,..your claiming the bible is unreliable,..is a subjective issue,..unreliable compared to what...

the human state is full of human error..[especially peer revieuwed science,..let alone peer translated holy texts]...texts so much depend on who..is saying what..to who..[at which time]...

science claims to have gone beyond this..but via peer/revieuw keeps dragging..origonal discovery/thought..back to the dark ages..[where the/ignorant..judge the wise]

i expect nothing from humans..except fair value/for fair labour...science makes no claim of fairity...it speculates soup...is it not fair..they present its recipe..for validation/rebuttal?

<<GOD can't do it either...>>...your proof is what...miss-translated holy texts?


<<..the science behind.."Lucy"..>>..name her science...artists sculpt a fiction/re-con-struct...earth diggers find fosils...libraians classify pictures...editors craft believable words

<<you are trying to slot GOD..into the equation..without any proof.>>...your willing to cast god out...[for a theory]...science/peers..automaticlly..[unthinkingly]..reject creation,..its their prime rule...see previous debate at link

<<the Bible is not reliable>>>...it dosnt claim spi-ritual infal-ability..[or..if your in dispute..quote the text book/number where it does]

<<creationists..demand answers>>>..so too should science..[one needs wonder..why science..dosnt validate/..their theory,..into science...

and why those..with faith in evolution..dont demand faulsifyable proofs/true answers...[not just theory/speculation/pretty pictures and spin]

<<There is a massive/energy..This energy..is not GOD.....of course its not god..[god is cause..not affect]...the source...not the flow

<<GOD..is a human construct..that tries to explain this energy>>..no god explain's..cause..underpinning life/logic/love/creation...

<<creationist books..are just ancient man..trying to explain something beyond them..>>...just as many science books describe their latest theory...to their believers..same same..

<<that..isn't what Creationists/Believers/Religious institutions teach,is it?...They teach myth as fact>>>..as science teaches theory/myth as fact...

lets face it only one admits were only human...that humans must forgive each others failings...make this your reality!

<<why believe the falsehoods..they teach?>>...its about knowing god is...then...in time..[one to one]..for god is a personal god..to realise god is love/light/life/logic...the root cause/root reason/root cause...

if you dont know a concept..you cant expect to find its truth[or faulsity]

<<They are the deceivers>>...as mere humans..are want to do...ONLY GOD IS PERFECT!