Analyzing the act of Creation

Upisoft

16th January 2006 - 02:28 AM

The Creationists say that if something has certain complexity, it must have been created. Let me add some notations.
cpx(A) - is the complexity of the object A
cpx(V) - the the complexity of the simplest virus(or simplest life form that is accepted to have been created by the Creator)
Crtd(A, - A was created by B

So, the assertion at the start of this post can be written as follows:

(1) If A exists and cpx(A) >= cpx(V), then there is some C such that C != A and Crtd(A,C)

Let accept that this statement is true and see what are the implications.
Either cpx( C ) > cpx(A), or cpx( C ) <= cpx(A).
If cpx( C ) > cpx(A) then cpx( C ) > cpx(V). Hence, there must exist D and Crtd(C,D).(see 1). Using normal words, I just proved that if (1) is true, and if there is Creator, which complexity is greater than the complexity of its creation, it also must have been created by some other entity D. This means that [b]C will not possess the ability "omnipotence", because C can't do Crtd(C,C)

If cpx( C ) <= cpx(A) then the creator is less or equal complex than it's creation. The theory of Evolution describes one potential variant.

So, the theory of Creation(ID or whatever) has the theory of Evolution as a subset. It also requires that the Creator is not omnipotent, if it's directly involved in the process of Creation.

Iesous

16th January 2006 - 07:51 AM

Are you trying to define a non linear object within linear terms?

Kinda like the goldfish on the counter saying look that silver thing (toaster) makes food for them. And their water looks very very clear.

Life as a goldfish.

Upisoft

16th January 2006 - 03:35 PM

QUOTE (Iesous+Jan 16 2006, 07:51 AM)

Are you trying to define a non linear object within linear terms?

Kinda like the goldfish on the counter saying look that silver thing (toaster) makes food for them. And their water looks very very clear.

Life as a goldfish.

Complexity of an object can be defined as cardinality of the set of the object's properties.

oomchu

16th January 2006 - 04:41 PM

QUOTE (Iesous+Jan 16 2006, 07:51 AM)

Are you trying to define a non linear object within linear terms?

Kinda like the goldfish on the counter saying look that silver thing (toaster) makes food for them. And their water looks very very clear.

Life as a goldfish.

True, but those observations aren't incorrect.

In fact a higher order being might be incorrectly viewed as omnipotent.
Just because a being has a higher order of technology beyond our current understanding would not make it magical.

If I follow your analogy correctly, then we are all goldfish..even those "godly" people.

gmilam

16th January 2006 - 04:54 PM

QUOTE (oomchu+Jan 16 2006, 10:41 AM)

QUOTE (Iesous+Jan 16 2006, 07:51 AM)

Are you trying to define a non linear object within linear terms?

Kinda like the goldfish on the counter saying look that silver thing (toaster) makes food for them. And their water looks very very clear.

Life as a goldfish.

True, but those observations aren't incorrect.

In fact a higher order being might be incorrectly viewed as omnipotent.
Just because a being has a higher order of technology beyond our current understanding would not make it magical.

If I follow your analogy correctly, then we are all goldfish..even those "godly" people.

Or even especially those "godly" people....

They do use a fish as one of their symbols.

csquared

17th January 2006 - 07:13 AM

QUOTE (gmilam+Jan 16 2006, 04:54 PM)

QUOTE (oomchu+Jan 16 2006, 10:41 AM)

QUOTE (Iesous+Jan 16 2006, 07:51 AM)

Are you trying to define a non linear object within linear terms?

Kinda like the goldfish on the counter saying look that silver thing (toaster) makes food for them. And their water looks very very clear.

Life as a goldfish.

True, but those observations aren't incorrect.

In fact a higher order being might be incorrectly viewed as omnipotent.
Just because a being has a higher order of technology beyond our current understanding would not make it magical.

If I follow your analogy correctly, then we are all goldfish..even those "godly" people.

Or even especially those "godly" people....

They do use a fish as one of their symbols.

ok, i'm sorry to go on a tangent, but i was wondering if there were any species that have gone extinct, not because of humans. because wouldn't that imply that God made a mistake?

Upisoft

17th January 2006 - 01:35 PM

QUOTE (csquared+Jan 17 2006, 07:13 AM)

ok, i'm sorry to go on a tangent, but i was wondering if there were any species that have gone extinct, not because of humans. because wouldn't that imply that God made a mistake?

That would imply many more unprovable assertions.

1) There is God
2) God created these creatures
3) God made a mistake
4) Creatures have gone extinct because of the mistake.

And yes, there were species that had gone extinct before the humans have appeared on Earth. Dinosaurs are one example.

csquared

18th January 2006 - 06:27 AM

QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 17 2006, 01:35 PM)

QUOTE (csquared+Jan 17 2006, 07:13 AM)

ok, i'm sorry to go on a tangent, but i was wondering if there were any species that have gone extinct, not because of humans. because wouldn't that imply that God made a mistake?

That would imply many more unprovable assertions.

1) There is God
2) God created these creatures
3) God made a mistake
4) Creatures have gone extinct because of the mistake.

And yes, there were species that had gone extinct before the humans have appeared on Earth. Dinosaurs are one example.

I agree with you. I'm coming from an evolutionist view of this. The point I was trying to get at was that creationists believe that A) God is perfect,

God created everything. If a species had, in fact, become extinct by reasons not caused by man, then this would imply that God made a mistake. And your point about the dinosaurs, how does that fit with the Great Flood Theory? If the age of the dinosaurs were to be compared to the supposed time of the flood, would they coincide? Are there any other species that we know of that has become extinct? Before the Ice Age?

Messenger

18th January 2006 - 07:18 AM

What if.........

While I rather enjoy listening to Roger Whitaker's 'Oh, I don't believe in IF anymore, IF's an illusion.....' - I generally disagree.

1. What if God, with the celestial host (angels) created the creatures on the earth? What if God gave them the gift and the joy of creating everything from aarvarks to dragons (dinosaurs) to zebras, and everything in between? What if some of 'their' designs were not perfect or suitable? Or what if they were no longer able to survive in the new atmosphere created by Noah's flood? What if God was playing? What if the dragons (dinosaurs) went extinct because of human hunting? Dragons (dinosaurs) are portrayed in many, many, many cultures.

2. What if we were created in the image of God? We produce children in our image. When they create something, what do the parents say? "Oh, that's beautiful!"

3. What if you haven't got the foggiest idea of what goes on outside this unverse?

4. What if maybe when you die and go to heaven - God will give you such a creative task for other universes? Do you love birds? Maybe you'll design a fabulous bird for some other universe? Do you love Saturn? Maybe you'll design an even 'cooler' planet.

I would say God would have to be pretty perfect in order to produce the universe that we live in. There are reasons for everything. People have tried to tell you all what they are throughout history. You ask for miracles of biblical proportion today - even the people who saw them then tried to find excuses for them, and generally stopped believing in them as soon as they were fat and happy again.

Jesus rose from the dead. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for Julius Caesar! The history of the Jews, along with the words of the New Testament, have withstood the test of time. The Jews of Jesus' day said that they should just let the Jesus' story perpetuate itself, eventually the novelty would wear off and people would fall away. Didn't happen.

RealityCheck

18th January 2006 - 08:06 AM

QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 18 2006, 07:18 AM)

What if.........

While I rather enjoy listening to Roger Whitaker's 'Oh, I don't believe in IF anymore, IF's an illusion.....' - I generally disagree.

1. What if God, with the celestial host (angels) created the creatures on the earth? What if God gave them the gift and the joy of creating everything from aarvarks to dragons (dinosaurs) to zebras, and everything in between? What if some of 'their' designs were not perfect or suitable? Or what if they were no longer able to survive in the new atmosphere created by Noah's flood? What if God was playing? What if the dragons (dinosaurs) went extinct because of human hunting? Dragons (dinosaurs) are portrayed in many, many, many cultures.

2. What if we were created in the image of God? We produce children in our image. When they create something, what do the parents say? "Oh, that's beautiful!"

3. What if you haven't got the foggiest idea of what goes on outside this unverse?

4. What if maybe when you die and go to heaven - God will give you such a creative task for other universes? Do you love birds? Maybe you'll design a fabulous bird for some other universe? Do you love Saturn? Maybe you'll design an even 'cooler' planet.

I would say God would have to be pretty perfect in order to produce the universe that we live in. There are reasons for everything. People have tried to tell you all what they are throughout history. You ask for miracles of biblical proportion today - even the people who saw them then tried to find excuses for them, and generally stopped believing in them as soon as they were fat and happy again.

Jesus rose from the dead. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for Julius Caesar! The history of the Jews, along with the words of the New Testament, have withstood the test of time. The Jews of Jesus' day said that they should just let the Jesus' story perpetuate itself, eventually the novelty would wear off and people would fall away. Didn't happen.

Mess,

That highlighted passage in the last paragraph just goes to show how WRONG they were in underestimating the credulous and superstitious nature of the HUMAN animal mind thoughout the ages before, then and since. I mean, any advertising executive will TELL you that "there's one born every minute"....much in YOUR mold, Mess. How can Humans be the great 'created' beings you think they are when you can STILL IN THIS DAY AND AGE convince an ADULT human that he has an invisible friend etc. etc. etc. WITHOUT THE LEAST SHRED OF OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE?

Some 'image of god', heh?

RC.
.

Messenger

18th January 2006 - 08:17 AM

RC,

What good will evidence do you - if you do not have faith - and because of your lack of faith you end up missin' the boat?

What if the evidence is right in front of your face - but your pride prevents you from accepting it? It would be a real pity.

There's three schools of thought on 'missin' the boat'.
1. You'll go to hellfire and brimstone city.
2. You'll go to a lake of fire and be refined like gold (second chance?)
3. You'll just die. No what ifs for you.

This is something you really need to consider, RC. It's not my job to convince you, that's your job. I'm just the messenger. As they say, 'don't shoot the messenger'!

Recognize this?

.... must ultimately have 'philosophical' meaning for the 'minds', as well as 'physical' meaning for the 'brains', of we poor humans!

Why is that?

RealityCheck

18th January 2006 - 08:37 AM

QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 18 2006, 08:17 AM)

RC,

What good will evidence do you - if you do not have faith - and because of your lack of faith you end up missin' the boat?

What if the evidence is right in front of your face - but your pride prevents you from accepting it? It would be a real pity.

There's three schools of thought on 'missin' the boat'.
1. You'll go to hellfire and brimstone city.
2. You'll go to a lake of fire and be refined like gold (second chance?)
3. You'll just die. No what ifs for you.

This is something you really need to consider, RC. It's not my job to convince you, that's your job. I'm just the messenger. As they say, 'don't shoot the messenger'!

Recognize this?

.... must ultimately have 'philosophical' meaning for the 'minds', as well as 'physical' meaning for the 'brains', of we poor humans!

Why is that?

Seriously, Messenger,

What do you NOT understand about the FACT that untold millions of people DO start out and grow up in life having that "faith" in your 'god/bible" that you keep 'spamming' these threads about?

Can you UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING THERE? At ALL? People HAVE HAD "FAITH" but do NOT ANY LONGER NOW. Is that clear?

Please don't EVER AGAIN come and tell me to "have faith", because you sound retarded in your understanding of what MANY here have pointed out to you already.

No wonder you are treated as a joke...you NEVER LEARN because you are BLIND, 'religiously' so. You NEVER listen, because you keep repeating the same mistakes, just like an ill-trained puppy (how's Ziggy, BTW?).

All of these things make it obvious to everyone that you are ONLY here to 'spam' and 'proselytise', pure and simple. Whatever your well-meaning INTENTIONS, all you are doing is providing proof positive of the DANGERS of abdicating your (dare I jestingly say it?) 'god-given' intelligence faculties to religious/superstitious MEMES (BTW, have you looked that up..."meme"?).

Sincerely, without hate, but with unbounded optimism about your eventual enlightenment; yours truly,

RealityCheck.
.

Upisoft

18th January 2006 - 01:22 PM

QUOTE (csquared+Jan 18 2006, 06:27 AM)

I agree with you. I'm coming from an evolutionist view of this. The point I was trying to get at was that creationists believe that A) God is perfect,

God created everything. If a species had, in fact, become extinct by reasons not caused by man, then this would imply that God made a mistake. And your point about the dinosaurs, how does that fit with the Great Flood Theory? If the age of the dinosaurs were to be compared to the supposed time of the flood, would they coincide? Are there any other species that we know of that has become extinct? Before the Ice Age?

The dinosaurs' extinction event was 65 million years ago. The flood is supposed to happen about 4000 ago. No coincidence.
You can read this page for more information about ELEs.

Upisoft

18th January 2006 - 01:26 PM

QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 18 2006, 07:18 AM)

What if.........

While I rather enjoy listening to Roger Whitaker's 'Oh, I don't believe in IF anymore, IF's an illusion.....' - I generally disagree.

1. What if God, with the celestial host (angels) created the creatures on the earth? What if God gave them the gift and the joy of creating everything from aarvarks to dragons (dinosaurs) to zebras, and everything in between? What if some of 'their' designs were not perfect or suitable? Or what if they were no longer able to survive in the new atmosphere created by Noah's flood? What if God was playing? What if the dragons (dinosaurs) went extinct because of human hunting? Dragons (dinosaurs) are portrayed in many, many, many cultures.

2. What if we were created in the image of God? We produce children in our image. When they create something, what do the parents say? "Oh, that's beautiful!"

3. What if you haven't got the foggiest idea of what goes on outside this unverse?

4. What if maybe when you die and go to heaven - God will give you such a creative task for other universes? Do you love birds? Maybe you'll design a fabulous bird for some other universe? Do you love Saturn? Maybe you'll design an even 'cooler' planet.

I would say God would have to be pretty perfect in order to produce the universe that we live in. There are reasons for everything. People have tried to tell you all what they are throughout history. You ask for miracles of biblical proportion today - even the people who saw them then tried to find excuses for them, and generally stopped believing in them as soon as they were fat and happy again.

Jesus rose from the dead. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for Julius Caesar! The history of the Jews, along with the words of the New Testament, have withstood the test of time. The Jews of Jesus' day said that they should just let the Jesus' story perpetuate itself, eventually the novelty would wear off and people would fall away. Didn't happen.

What if....
I can do it too.

What if you're believing in fairy tales?

newguy

18th January 2006 - 01:53 PM

QUOTE (RealityCheck+)

Mess,

That highlighted passage in the last paragraph just goes to show how WRONG they were in underestimating the credulous and superstitious nature of the HUMAN animal mind thoughout the ages before, then and since. I mean, any advertising executive will TELL you that "there's one born every minute"....much in YOUR mold, Mess. How can Humans be the great 'created' beings you think they are when you can STILL IN THIS DAY AND AGE convince an ADULT human that he has an invisible friend etc. etc. etc. WITHOUT THE LEAST SHRED OF OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE?

Some 'image of god', heh?

RealityCheck/all: I'm going to quote a couple of scriptures, just to make a point.

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were ignorant and unlearned men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it."(Acts 4:13-14)

"And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus. And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all."(Acts 4:29-33)

I could have cited many other scriptures that would have basically said the same thing, but I feel that these two should suffice. I have seen TRUCKLOADS of "objective evidence" over the last 17+ years that proves to me, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Jesus Christ is alive and well. As I've testified plainly many times in the past, I have personally prayed for many, many, many different people, in the name of Jesus Christ, who have either been instantaneously healed or delivered from evil spirits with tangible results. Deaf NO LONGER deaf. Paralyzed NO LONGER paralyzed. Cancers, GONE. Fevers, GONE. Torments of various types, GONE. I, for one, will NEVER be involved in such trivial things such as defending the Pledge of Allegiance(The United States has NEVER been "One Nation Under God"), fighting to keep manger scenes(IDOLATRY) on government property, fighting to teach creationism is public school classrooms(Christians should be training their own children), fighting to keep the phrase "Merry Christmas"("Merry Christ Mass", Jerry and Messenger...hope you didn't get too much "sunburn" during your pagan feast of Saturnalia), etc., etc., etc. I, for one, will continue to fight against the enemy of men's souls with the spiritual weapons that have been entrusted to me through Jesus Christ. Talk is cheap. Well done is better than well said.

"For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power."(I Corinthians 4:20)

All I've heard for months on this forum is a lot of talk(I'm talking about both sides of the debate, in fact, I'm primarily talking about the so-called "Christian" side). I've put up with a lot of "anti-God/Christ" talk for several reasons. One reason is that so many atrocities have been committed throughout history in the name of God/Christ that I felt as if I was starting out in a six mile deep ditch.

"You've got some 'splaining to do, Lucy" - Ricky Ricardo in "I Love Lucy"

I've done enough explaining, at least for now. I know that there are multitudes of hypocrites, charlatans, blind-adherants, wolves in sheep's clothing, false converts, etc., etc., etc. within the ranks of professing Christianity. Some of them have even posted on this forum. None of these things move me(except in compassion for these lost, deluded souls). Jesus warned that it would be this way. I've grown weary of explaining(perhaps only momentarily). I'm starting to redirect my time back to the people in need. Later...

Upisoft

18th January 2006 - 02:07 PM

Hi all,

I have a question for you.
Genetic algorithms are currently widely used in the process of Engineering Design. Let's suppose that an engineer has the task to design an integrated circuit. He/she decides to use his/her new software to create the topology and tweak IC parameters. His/her new software has genetic algorithm(GA) that does the job. After obtaining the result from the GA, the engineer is very surprised how some problems were gone round. He/she starts to like his/her new software program, because of the good results it gives.

Now follows the question:

Who CREATED the topology and tweaks, i.e. that part that was the result of the GA?

Steveo

18th January 2006 - 06:33 PM

QUOTE

Hi all,

I have a question for you.
Genetic algorithms are currently widely used in the process of Engineering Design. Let's suppose that an engineer has the task to design an integrated circuit. He/she decides to use his/her new software to create the topology and tweak IC parameters. His/her new software has genetic algorithm(GA) that does the job. After obtaining the result from the GA, the engineer is very surprised how some problems were gone round. He/she starts to like his/her new software program, because of the good results it gives.

Now follows the question:

Who CREATED the topology and tweaks, i.e. that part that was the result of the GA?

Hahaha, nice post.
On the surface level it would be the genetic algorithm, but on a deeper level it would be the software engineer who wrote the software....and on an even deeper level it would be evolution LOL.

This illustrates that any apparent conflict between sciene and religion come down to Genisis and the interpretation of it. God could have easily created through a natural process. And we know that 'creation' happened through nature. I have no problem with someone speculating that god did this, as it is out of the realm of scientific investigation. It is just as valid as "the universe is the result of some random quantum flucuation" or "our universe exists inside the black hole of another universe". All speculation, all fun to think about, none really scientific in the respect that they can be tested for.

sinned34

18th January 2006 - 07:00 PM

QUOTE

There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for Julius Caesar!

Sorry, Messy. You have a compilation of books that were hand-picked because of their contents (there's no way any books that gave an ENTIRELY different view of Jesus would have made it into the canon chosen by the RCC, would you?), but there are no "independant" historical documents that refer to Jesus. The only 3rd party "verification" writings refer to the Christian movement itself, or are highly suspected to be revised or forged by the RCC centuries ago in order to lend credence to the existence of Jesus. I'll be digging up information to refer to a post in the "absolute proof for creation" thread, hopefully sometime this weekend. I know it won't change your mind, but Darwin help me, I just can't stop myself!

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for Julius Caesar!

Sorry, Messy. You have a compilation of books that were hand-picked because of their contents (there's no way any books that gave an ENTIRELY different view of Jesus would have made it into the canon chosen by the RCC, would you?), but there are no "independant" historical documents that refer to Jesus. The only 3rd party "verification" writings refer to the Christian movement itself, or are highly suspected to be revised or forged by the RCC centuries ago in order to lend credence to the existence of Jesus. I'll be digging up information to refer to a post in the "absolute proof for creation" thread, hopefully sometime this weekend. I know it won't change your mind, but Darwin help me, I just can't stop myself!

What if God was playing?

Playing with the lives of trillions of living beings? What a cruel, unjust God you worship, Messy.

QUOTE

3. What if you haven't got the foggiest idea of what goes on outside this unverse?

Umm, we don't have the foggiest what goes on outside this universe. Of course, we don't even have any concrete evidence that there IS an "outside" of this universe.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

3. What if you haven't got the foggiest idea of what goes on outside this unverse?

Umm, we don't have the foggiest what goes on outside this universe. Of course, we don't even have any concrete evidence that there IS an "outside" of this universe.

I have seen TRUCKLOADS of "objective evidence" over the last 17+ years that proves to me, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Jesus Christ is alive and well.

Sorry, Newsie... You know I love ya, but every single person of any religion makes absolutely similar claims. It results in everybody shouting that their god must be the real one, but solves nothing. Perhaps we should create some sort of competition?

Kaeroll

18th January 2006 - 07:06 PM

And Elvis works in a chippy in Bolton. The king is alive!

I've not posted much since the 'holiday season' (I hope everyone is alive and well) because our latest batch of "evilution-is-a-lie" types are frustrating me in their sheer stubbornness not to be at all logical. I don't expect or even want them to agree with us (variety is the spice of life, as they say), but I wish a few of them would show some intelligence now and then ...

Messenger

18th January 2006 - 11:52 PM

RC,

In boldface - to make sure you grasp it this time.

QUOTE

What do you NOT understand about the FACT that untold millions of people DO start out and grow up in life having that "faith" in your 'god/bible" that you keep 'spamming' these threads about?

Truly and sincerely, no spamming and no trolling on my part. You bug me sometimes, and when you do I snap back, that's all. You are much more viscious than I.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

What do you NOT understand about the FACT that untold millions of people DO start out and grow up in life having that "faith" in your 'god/bible" that you keep 'spamming' these threads about?

Truly and sincerely, no spamming and no trolling on my part. You bug me sometimes, and when you do I snap back, that's all. You are much more viscious than I.

Can you UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING THERE? At ALL? People HAVE HAD "FAITH" but do NOT ANY LONGER NOW. Is that clear?

Please don't EVER AGAIN come and tell me to "have faith", because you sound retarded in your understanding of what MANY here have pointed out to you already.

Please do not EVER AGAIN preach evolution to me - and do NOT EVER AGAIN tell me what I can and cannot say. (Unless you're the moderator/owner of PhysOrg).

I have given you oodles and oodles of information to comtemplate out of the goodness of my heart. You snip, pick, shake, rattle, and roll until you get me to snip back - that's a troll.

I have learned quite a bit since I've been on this forum - unlike you. But I will also say that most of what I've learned has reaffirmed my joy and wonder in God's Intelligent Creation.

QUOTE

No wonder you are treated as a joke...you NEVER LEARN because you are BLIND, 'religiously' so. You NEVER listen, because you keep repeating the same mistakes, just like an ill-trained puppy (how's Ziggy, BTW?).

Ziggy's very well Thank You - he's sittin' right here wondering when my keyboard is going to explode. His little ears perk up every time I hit the bold key. I also have this dumb new keyboard that won't capitalize when it should (I must be typing too fast).

You need to understand that people are not here to agree with each other. They are here to debate. If you cannot respect an individual that you feel superior to - then I really do pity you. You are looking for power, control, and domination. What right do you have to tell me what I can and cannot say to you? None!

Don't call us evolutionists, we're offended.
Don't preach to us, we're offended.
Don't tell us your ID Creation stories, we're offended.
Don't talk to me at all - I hate people like you. I only want to believe what I believe and I don't want Christians telling me anything because they're this and they're that!

That's what many of you sound like. If ya don't wanna hear it - just PASS BY. Change the channel. But PLEASE -stop trying to thwart the free flow of information. Don't try to vent all your frustrations on people you don't understand.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

No wonder you are treated as a joke...you NEVER LEARN because you are BLIND, 'religiously' so. You NEVER listen, because you keep repeating the same mistakes, just like an ill-trained puppy (how's Ziggy, BTW?).

Ziggy's very well Thank You - he's sittin' right here wondering when my keyboard is going to explode. His little ears perk up every time I hit the bold key. I also have this dumb new keyboard that won't capitalize when it should (I must be typing too fast).

You need to understand that people are not here to agree with each other. They are here to debate. If you cannot respect an individual that you feel superior to - then I really do pity you. You are looking for power, control, and domination. What right do you have to tell me what I can and cannot say to you? None!

Don't call us evolutionists, we're offended.
Don't preach to us, we're offended.
Don't tell us your ID Creation stories, we're offended.
Don't talk to me at all - I hate people like you. I only want to believe what I believe and I don't want Christians telling me anything because they're this and they're that!

That's what many of you sound like. If ya don't wanna hear it - just PASS BY. Change the channel. But PLEASE -stop trying to thwart the free flow of information. Don't try to vent all your frustrations on people you don't understand.

All of these things make it obvious to everyone that you are ONLY here to 'spam' and 'proselytise', pure and simple. Whatever your well-meaning INTENTIONS, all you are doing is providing proof positive of the DANGERS of abdicating your (dare I jestingly say it?) 'god-given' intelligence faculties to religious/superstitious MEMES (BTW, have you looked that up..."meme"?).

I consider perpetuating the myth of evolution as ONE of the reason for society's downfall. Throughout the ages, science types have tried to portray us a a product of nature, just an animal. Throw morality out the window. That's my opinion, I'm entitled to it - just like you're entitled to yours.

All we can do is reason with each other. While I feel that I have softened a bit, and accepted that you truck drivers have fallen for the evolution theory hook, line, and sinker - .............I still consider that a problem - so here I am.

Just be nice, and I'll be nice back. I've always tried to be nice - but like I said - you keep fishin' and you'll get a bite now and then.

Equally as sincere, without hate, but with unbounded optimism about your eventual enlightenment; yours truly,

Messenger

QUOTE

What if....
I can do it too.

What if you're believing in fairy tales?

Upisoft,

What if I'm not?

Upisoft

19th January 2006 - 12:44 AM

QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 18 2006, 11:52 PM)

QUOTE

What if....
I can do it too.

What if you're believing in fairy tales?

Upisoft,

What if I'm not?

Then you'll have to blame yourself that you couldn't do anything to save my spirit. And you have to do it whole eternity.

Or, perhaps, you didn't care what will happen with my spirit?

-----

See? It's easy. Now, please, answer on my original question...
What if you're believing in fairy tales?

RealityCheck

19th January 2006 - 01:21 AM

QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 18 2006, 11:52 PM)

RC,

In boldface - to make sure you grasp it this time.

QUOTE

What do you NOT understand about the FACT that untold millions of people DO start out and grow up in life having that "faith" in your 'god/bible" that you keep 'spamming' these threads about?

Truly and sincerely, no spamming and no trolling on my part. You bug me sometimes, and when you do I snap back, that's all. You are much more viscious than I.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

What do you NOT understand about the FACT that untold millions of people DO start out and grow up in life having that "faith" in your 'god/bible" that you keep 'spamming' these threads about?

Truly and sincerely, no spamming and no trolling on my part. You bug me sometimes, and when you do I snap back, that's all. You are much more viscious than I.

Can you UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING THERE? At ALL? People HAVE HAD "FAITH" but do NOT ANY LONGER NOW. Is that clear?

Please don't EVER AGAIN come and tell me to "have faith", because you sound retarded in your understanding of what MANY here have pointed out to you already.

Please do not EVER AGAIN preach evolution to me - and do NOT EVER AGAIN tell me what I can and cannot say. (Unless you're the moderator/owner of PhysOrg).

I have given you oodles and oodles of information to comtemplate out of the goodness of my heart. You snip, pick, shake, rattle, and roll until you get me to snip back - that's a troll.

I have learned quite a bit since I've been on this forum - unlike you. But I will also say that most of what I've learned has reaffirmed my joy and wonder in God's Intelligent Creation.

QUOTE

No wonder you are treated as a joke...you NEVER LEARN because you are BLIND, 'religiously' so. You NEVER listen, because you keep repeating the same mistakes, just like an ill-trained puppy (how's Ziggy, BTW?).

Ziggy's very well Thank You - he's sittin' right here wondering when my keyboard is going to explode. His little ears perk up every time I hit the bold key. I also have this dumb new keyboard that won't capitalize when it should (I must be typing too fast).

You need to understand that people are not here to agree with each other. They are here to debate. If you cannot respect an individual that you feel superior to - then I really do pity you. You are looking for power, control, and domination. What right do you have to tell me what I can and cannot say to you? None!

Don't call us evolutionists, we're offended.
Don't preach to us, we're offended.
Don't tell us your ID Creation stories, we're offended.
Don't talk to me at all - I hate people like you. I only want to believe what I believe and I don't want Christians telling me anything because they're this and they're that!

That's what many of you sound like. If ya don't wanna hear it - just PASS BY. Change the channel. But PLEASE -stop trying to thwart the free flow of information. Don't try to vent all your frustrations on people you don't understand.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

No wonder you are treated as a joke...you NEVER LEARN because you are BLIND, 'religiously' so. You NEVER listen, because you keep repeating the same mistakes, just like an ill-trained puppy (how's Ziggy, BTW?).

Ziggy's very well Thank You - he's sittin' right here wondering when my keyboard is going to explode. His little ears perk up every time I hit the bold key. I also have this dumb new keyboard that won't capitalize when it should (I must be typing too fast).

You need to understand that people are not here to agree with each other. They are here to debate. If you cannot respect an individual that you feel superior to - then I really do pity you. You are looking for power, control, and domination. What right do you have to tell me what I can and cannot say to you? None!

Don't call us evolutionists, we're offended.
Don't preach to us, we're offended.
Don't tell us your ID Creation stories, we're offended.
Don't talk to me at all - I hate people like you. I only want to believe what I believe and I don't want Christians telling me anything because they're this and they're that!

That's what many of you sound like. If ya don't wanna hear it - just PASS BY. Change the channel. But PLEASE -stop trying to thwart the free flow of information. Don't try to vent all your frustrations on people you don't understand.

All of these things make it obvious to everyone that you are ONLY here to 'spam' and 'proselytise', pure and simple. Whatever your well-meaning INTENTIONS, all you are doing is providing proof positive of the DANGERS of abdicating your (dare I jestingly say it?) 'god-given' intelligence faculties to religious/superstitious MEMES (BTW, have you looked that up..."meme"?).

I consider perpetuating the myth of evolution as ONE of the reason for society's downfall. Throughout the ages, science types have tried to portray us a a product of nature, just an animal. Throw morality out the window. That's my opinion, I'm entitled to it - just like you're entitled to yours.

All we can do is reason with each other. While I feel that I have softened a bit, and accepted that you truck drivers have fallen for the evolution theory hook, line, and sinker - .............I still consider that a problem - so here I am.

Just be nice, and I'll be nice back. I've always tried to be nice - but like I said - you keep fishin' and you'll get a bite now and then.

Equally as sincere, without hate, but with unbounded optimism about your eventual enlightenment; yours truly,

Messenger

Hi Mess.

Poor Ziggy; why don't you spend more time exercising/interacting with Ziggy instead of wasting yours and everyone else's time here by pounding on that 'unintelligently designed' (hehehe) new keyboard of yours?

I at least post objective 'substantiable' evidence for what I maintain. You on the other hand cut & paste from sources of subjective 'unsubtantiated' so-called (haha) "evidence"....and you REPEATEDLY come back with the same assinine/inane comments/assertions which have been THOROUGHLY AND REPEATEDLY REFUTED by myself and others....THAT is what gives me the right to say NOT to come back AGAIN with the same assinine/inane assertions/comments we ALREADY DEALT WITH NUMEROUS TIMES....or is it your intention to PURPOSELY waste everybody's time and patience by CONTINUING to come back with the same refuted comments/assertions? Surely we ALL have the right in a debating forum to DEMAND that the other party is HONEST AND FAIR DINKUM by REFRAINING from "religious spammming" and "AD NAUSEUM REPETITION"? Or are those legitimate (haha) "debating tactics" where you come from?

If responding to your posts with objective evidence, reasoned observations and 'inconvenient' reality sound "vicious" to you, then perhaps you should look to your own "filters" and actions in that regard.

And who's "preaching evolution" to YOU? YOU are the one who came here to 'confront' allegedly evil evolutionists. YOU are the one that makes assertions which under the rules of debate DEMAND timely/reasoned RESPONSES as a matter of course. YOU are the one that ignores ALL such OBJECTIVELY reasoned/substantiated responses and then proceed to "spam" and "proselytise" for all you're worth.

Don't be a greater hypocrite than you already have been found out to be. That's not being "vicious", Mess; that's being "truthful" and/or "factual" according to the objective evidence to be mined from your posting history.

It might surprise you to learn, Mess, that people starting out with divergent opinions HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO AGREE after reasoned debate of the evidence at hand. Such people are called "reasonable" and "honest debaters" and, yes, even "scientists"! YOU obviously do not WANT to agree with anything OTHER than what is already 'fixed' in your current 'mind' and your current 'agenda'.

That's all the time I have for now, Mess...see ya later!

RC.
.

RealityCheck

19th January 2006 - 01:50 AM

QUOTE (newguy+Jan 18 2006, 01:53 PM)

QUOTE (RealityCheck+)

Mess,

That highlighted passage in the last paragraph just goes to show how WRONG they were in underestimating the credulous and superstitious nature of the HUMAN animal mind thoughout the ages before, then and since. I mean, any advertising executive will TELL you that "there's one born every minute"....much in YOUR mold, Mess. How can Humans be the great 'created' beings you think they are when you can STILL IN THIS DAY AND AGE convince an ADULT human that he has an invisible friend etc. etc. etc. WITHOUT THE LEAST SHRED OF OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE?

Some 'image of god', heh?

RealityCheck/all: I'm going to quote a couple of scriptures, just to make a point.

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were ignorant and unlearned men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it."(Acts 4:13-14)

"And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus. And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all."(Acts 4:29-33)

I could have cited many other scriptures that would have basically said the same thing, but I feel that these two should suffice. I have seen TRUCKLOADS of "objective evidence" over the last 17+ years that proves to me, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Jesus Christ is alive and well. As I've testified plainly many times in the past, I have personally prayed for many, many, many different people, in the name of Jesus Christ, who have either been instantaneously healed or delivered from evil spirits with tangible results. Deaf NO LONGER deaf. Paralyzed NO LONGER paralyzed. Cancers, GONE. Fevers, GONE. Torments of various types, GONE. I, for one, will NEVER be involved in such trivial things such as defending the Pledge of Allegiance(The United States has NEVER been "One Nation Under God"), fighting to keep manger scenes(IDOLATRY) on government property, fighting to teach creationism is public school classrooms(Christians should be training their own children), fighting to keep the phrase "Merry Christmas"("Merry Christ Mass", Jerry and Messenger...hope you didn't get too much "sunburn" during your pagan feast of Saturnalia), etc., etc., etc. I, for one, will continue to fight against the enemy of men's souls with the spiritual weapons that have been entrusted to me through Jesus Christ. Talk is cheap. Well done is better than well said.

"For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power."(I Corinthians 4:20)

All I've heard for months on this forum is a lot of talk(I'm talking about both sides of the debate, in fact, I'm primarily talking about the so-called "Christian" side). I've put up with a lot of "anti-God/Christ" talk for several reasons. One reason is that so many atrocities have been committed throughout history in the name of God/Christ that I felt as if I was starting out in a six mile deep ditch.

"You've got some 'splaining to do, Lucy" - Ricky Ricardo in "I Love Lucy"

I've done enough explaining, at least for now. I know that there are multitudes of hypocrites, charlatans, blind-adherants, wolves in sheep's clothing, false converts, etc., etc., etc. within the ranks of professing Christianity. Some of them have even posted on this forum. None of these things move me(except in compassion for these lost, deluded souls). Jesus warned that it would be this way. I've grown weary of explaining(perhaps only momentarily). I'm starting to redirect my time back to the people in need. Later...

Hi newguy! How's things in the cold northern hemisphere, mate?

I need to be brief because of commitments elsewhere, newguy. It should suffice for me to point out equally LIKE "evidence" and PROCESSES that achieve similar results in similar circumstances WITHOUT requiring the "god' aspect to their application/efficacy. I am of course talking of:

(1) HYPNOSIS AND AUTO-SUGGESTION (both individual and mass audience/people); and

(2) SAVING FACE SCENARIOS/RITUALS (for various reasons).

The former (1) is used extensively for pain reduction/blocking at the 'neural pain receptor/processing' parts of a body's pain/warning sensors/recognition/reacting system. It can also be used in psychiatry to treat manic/compulsive and other disorders/disturbances by 'reprogramming/ memory/response and other 'trigger' areas of such disorders.

The latter (2) need only be a "CONVINCING" and "acceptable" form of REDEMPTION/FORGIVENESS "RITUAL" that may be pointed-to or rationalised-by the "forgiven/cured" individual affected, such as to make it more "legitimate" and "self-explanatory" whenever that person has to "justify" (to themselves or others) that HOW and WHY they NOW have "turned over a new leaf" and/or been "born again" etc...so providing the "face-saving" (but nevertheless very "real" and "important" to them and others) RATIONALISATION which will allow such persons to get on with their lives with, as it were, "a clean slate".

So you see, what you do is and has been done by psychiatrists, social workers, priests and EVEN THE ANCIENTS...with ONLY the latter two 'practitioners/exorcists' having to call upon 'superstitious/religious' beliefs/entities for their legitimacy/efficacy. Of course in NO instances do I comment on the 'motives' of either the 'practitioners' or the 'cured', heh? Like you, myself and others have point out, many things are done for the basest of motives, but that does not necessarily impune the 'sciences' and/or 'arts' being MISUSED.

That's all the time I've got, mate. See ya round. Love to the family! Your friend,

RC.
.

Upisoft

19th January 2006 - 04:57 AM

QUOTE (Steveo+Jan 18 2006, 06:33 PM)

Hahaha, nice post.
On the surface level it would be the genetic algorithm, but on a deeper level it would be the software engineer who wrote the software....and on an even deeper level it would be evolution LOL.

This illustrates that any apparent conflict between sciene and religion come down to Genisis and the interpretation of it. God could have easily created through a natural process. And we know that 'creation' happened through nature. I have no problem with someone speculating that god did this, as it is out of the realm of scientific investigation. It is just as valid as "the universe is the result of some random quantum flucuation" or "our universe exists inside the black hole of another universe". All speculation, all fun to think about, none really scientific in the respect that they can be tested for.

Yes, it's good question with hard answer, but it seems that "Creationists" dismissed it. Do you think that they are afraid to face their "creator-less creation"? Or, perhaps, they don't have a clue what I'm talking about. "Genetic algorithms" are not mentioned in the Bible, so I guess they may not exist

You may look at the GA software as a tool. The software engineer is the tool maker. As a hammer maker, who knows how to make hammers, he didn't know the exact task his "hammer" could be used for. Is the hammer maker creator of the sword? No. The smith is. So, the software engineer is not the "creator" in our case.

Is the GA algorithm the "creator"? Is the hammer creator of the sword? No way.

Is the IC engineer the "creator"? If he/she was the "creator", then he/she would know the result, thus avoiding surprise of the result. Everything that he/she did was to enter the required data and, while waiting the result, to drink coffee.

I've listed all observable data. There was no "creator" there. Yet we observe "impossible" event. There was increase of the useful information. So, how do you think, do the "Creationists" have enough grounds to summon the God, and give Him credit for this creation?

Messenger

19th January 2006 - 05:43 AM

QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 18 2006, 06:44 PM)

QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 18 2006, 11:52 PM)

QUOTE

What if....
I can do it too.

What if you're believing in fairy tales?

Upisoft,

What if I'm not?

Then you'll have to blame yourself that you couldn't do anything to save my spirit. And you have to do it whole eternity.

Or, perhaps, you didn't care what will happen with my spirit?

-----

See? It's easy. Now, please, answer on my original question...
What if you're believing in fairy tales?

Upisoft,

You are aware of the steps you need to take - it's your decision, the ball is always in your court. Your salvation is based on your free will. That's the whole point. God doesn't want to force anyone into salvation - He wants you to come to Him of your own free will and choice.

What if I believe in fairy tales?

Then I just die and there's no loss. I've had a wonderful life already - and hope to enjoy a bit more of it.

If you feel that something is a fairy tale - then you should research it to find the truth. You will find many myths that the 'church' has started and then perpetuated. It's amazing how two people can read the Bible and come up with different interpretations, but that's what happens.

We had a discussion here a while back on 'preterism' - the view the the Second Coming of Jesus Christ already happened at the destruction of Jerusalem in about 70AD - as opposed to a big showdown in Israel any day now. There are verses in the Bible to support my view, yet people say those verses mean something else. I don't get it and I don't like it, but that's the way it is. It's your own personal journey, but you are not meant to travel it alone.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

What if....
I can do it too.

What if you're believing in fairy tales?

Upisoft,

What if I'm not?

Then you'll have to blame yourself that you couldn't do anything to save my spirit. And you have to do it whole eternity.

Or, perhaps, you didn't care what will happen with my spirit?

-----

See? It's easy. Now, please, answer on my original question...
What if you're believing in fairy tales?

Upisoft,

You are aware of the steps you need to take - it's your decision, the ball is always in your court. Your salvation is based on your free will. That's the whole point. God doesn't want to force anyone into salvation - He wants you to come to Him of your own free will and choice.

What if I believe in fairy tales?

Then I just die and there's no loss. I've had a wonderful life already - and hope to enjoy a bit more of it.

If you feel that something is a fairy tale - then you should research it to find the truth. You will find many myths that the 'church' has started and then perpetuated. It's amazing how two people can read the Bible and come up with different interpretations, but that's what happens.

We had a discussion here a while back on 'preterism' - the view the the Second Coming of Jesus Christ already happened at the destruction of Jerusalem in about 70AD - as opposed to a big showdown in Israel any day now. There are verses in the Bible to support my view, yet people say those verses mean something else. I don't get it and I don't like it, but that's the way it is. It's your own personal journey, but you are not meant to travel it alone.

I at least post objective 'substantiable' evidence for what I maintain.

RC,

Then please do so. You can start with this statement:

Recognize this?

.... must ultimately have 'philosophical' meaning for the 'minds', as well as 'physical' meaning for the 'brains', of we poor humans!

Why is that?

Messenger

19th January 2006 - 06:14 AM

QUOTE

You have a compilation of books that were hand-picked because of their contents (there's no way any books that gave an ENTIRELY different view of Jesus would have made it into the canon chosen by the RCC, would you?), but there are no "independant" historical documents that refer to Jesus. The only 3rd party "verification" writings refer to the Christian movement itself, or are highly suspected to be revised or forged by the RCC centuries ago in order to lend credence to the existence of Jesus.

sinned 35,

First you say I have a set of hand picked books and no independant documents that refer to Jesus.

Then you say there are independant documents that refer to Jesus.

You're discounting them BECAUSE they refer to Jesus.

I don't doubt that the RCC has messed things up. But please remember, it's humans that are doing the messing up, not God.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

You have a compilation of books that were hand-picked because of their contents (there's no way any books that gave an ENTIRELY different view of Jesus would have made it into the canon chosen by the RCC, would you?), but there are no "independant" historical documents that refer to Jesus. The only 3rd party "verification" writings refer to the Christian movement itself, or are highly suspected to be revised or forged by the RCC centuries ago in order to lend credence to the existence of Jesus.

sinned 35,

First you say I have a set of hand picked books and no independant documents that refer to Jesus.

Then you say there are independant documents that refer to Jesus.

You're discounting them BECAUSE they refer to Jesus.

I don't doubt that the RCC has messed things up. But please remember, it's humans that are doing the messing up, not God.

QUOTE

What if God was playing?

Playing with the lives of trillions of living beings? What a cruel, unjust God you worship, Messy.

Now why do you have to go and say something hateful and ignorant like that?

What was I referring to when I said God was playing?

Do you ever 'play'? How could you do that? People are dying of aids and other diseases, all sorts of terrible things are happening. How can you play at a time like this?
You answer that honestly and you'll have a hint as to how God could also play.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

What if God was playing?

Playing with the lives of trillions of living beings? What a cruel, unjust God you worship, Messy.

Now why do you have to go and say something hateful and ignorant like that?

What was I referring to when I said God was playing?

Do you ever 'play'? How could you do that? People are dying of aids and other diseases, all sorts of terrible things are happening. How can you play at a time like this?
You answer that honestly and you'll have a hint as to how God could also play.

QUOTE

I have seen TRUCKLOADS of "objective evidence" over the last 17+ years that proves to me, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Jesus Christ is alive and well.

Sorry, Newsie... You know I love ya, but every single person of any religion makes absolutely similar claims. It results in everybody shouting that their god must be the real one, but solves nothing. Perhaps we should create some sort of competition?

Like 'newsie', I could make a similar claim. When someone becomes a Christian - it is just something they 'know'.
I could be convinced of evolution - but I could never be convinced that God is not real.

RealityCheck

19th January 2006 - 06:33 AM

QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 19 2006, 05:43 AM)

QUOTE (RealityCheck+)

I at least post objective 'substantiable' evidence for what I maintain.

RC,

Then please do so. You can start with this statement:

Recognize this?

.... must ultimately have 'philosophical' meaning for the 'minds', as well as 'physical' meaning for the 'brains', of we poor humans!

Why is that?

Mess,

What has your UNREASONING SUPERSTITION and UNREASONING RELIGION to do with REASONED PHILOSOPHY?

Metaphysics is a 'HUMAN' concept; whereas REALITY is WHAT IT IS, IRRESPECTIVE of WHAT we humans THINK it is.

THAT is why NON-SCIENCE (METAPHYSICS) is a PHILOSOPHY ONLY; and why it's results DEPEND ON THE INDIVIDUAL SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION (meaning for the MIND) of the results of the SCIENCE (meaning for the BRAIN).

THAT is why SCIENCE (PHYSICS) IS A METHOD; and WHY its results STAND ON THEIR OWN CONSISTENCY WITH OBJECTIVE OBSERVATION.

A human being "exists" MEANINGFULLY only in his "world construct"; whereas the objective world and body energy/matter "exists" even in the ABSENCE of human INTELLECT.....so our minds and brains are INSEPARABLE because our "world construct" is the result of 'THE SUM IS GREATER THAN ITS PARTS' effects called EMERGENT BEHAVIOUR described by COMPLEXITY THEORY related to the unforeseen outcomes/permutations in ANY system possessing more than a certain CRITICAL MASS/NUMBER of interactions/components. "LIFE" and "INTELLECT" and "MIND" are a perfect examples of such 'emergent behaviour' arising in extremely complex systems comprised of "otherwise-inanimate" constituents.

BTW, that passage you quoted above is from my opening post in the PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS thread in the 'special project' Sub-forum; to wit:

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 13 2005, 09:48 PM)

Hello everyone.

Discussion with TRoc has convinced me that any truly 'complete' TOE theory must ultimately have 'philosophical' meaning for the 'minds', as well as 'physical' meaning for the 'brains', of we poor humans! So I have started THIS 3rd ASSOCIATE thread to run 'in parallel' with the TOE thread and the OTHER associated threads ("mathematical/number-theory" and "physical-theory-comparisons" and etc.).

As for those OTHER associated threads, the title is self-explanatory; and it is left to the discretion and common sense of any would-be contributor to keep relevant and to the point as far as is consistent with fruitful, wide-ranging discussion of any philosophical aspects that 'fall' out of our TOE as we slowly grind towards its 'completion' (hopefully!).

'Philosophy' loosely translates as 'lover of contemplation/thinking/reasoning'; so good luck....good thinking...and....ENJOY!

RealityCheck.
.

You will note: NOWHERE is there mention of 'religion' or 'superstition'; only 'philosophy' as a general human pursuit.

Anyhow, Mess, thanks for reading some of my posts in the 'special project' sub-forum. Perhaps you should read ALL/EVERYBODY'S posts in all the threads/topics therein...you might actually learn something NEW!....like how REASONING and THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD is performed.

That's all the time I have for now. Ciao!

RC.
.

gmilam

19th January 2006 - 03:13 PM

QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 19 2006, 12:14 AM)

I could be convinced of evolution - but I could never be convinced that God is not real.

I have no desire to convince you of either one. My only concern is that people be able to see why one is science and the other is not.

Upisoft

19th January 2006 - 05:18 PM

Messenger,

QUOTE

What if I believe in fairy tales?

Then I just die and there's no loss. I've had a wonderful life already - and hope to enjoy a bit more of it.

Good, I'm happy that you're not afraid to die. I had the impression that most religios people are afraid to die, and for that reason they "invented" God. Now I see that you'll accept death without fear, even there is no God. And everithing that God will give you, if He exists, you will accept as a gift. That includes eternal life, resurrection, etc.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

What if I believe in fairy tales?

Then I just die and there's no loss. I've had a wonderful life already - and hope to enjoy a bit more of it.

Good, I'm happy that you're not afraid to die. I had the impression that most religios people are afraid to die, and for that reason they "invented" God. Now I see that you'll accept death without fear, even there is no God. And everithing that God will give you, if He exists, you will accept as a gift. That includes eternal life, resurrection, etc.

You are aware of the steps you need to take - it's your decision, the ball is always in your court. Your salvation is based on your free will. That's the whole point. God doesn't want to force anyone into salvation - He wants you to come to Him of your own free will and choice.

Well, I'm not afraid of death either. If there is no God, my reasons are simiar to yours.

You know that I don't believe in your version of God. So, please accept that I'll use the word "God" with the meaning "any possible omni-whatever entity that is the reason, direct or indirect, we do exist".

If there is God, there are two possibiities. He cares about us and He doesn't care about us. The latter case is equivalent to the situation where there is no God. So'll suppose that God cares about us.

Now I'll suppose that you're right and God did created us. This means that abilities I have are given to me by Him. I have the ability to see the contradictions in the Bible. This ability hinders the possibility that I'll believe in anything based on the Bible. He made me this way that I'm unable to believe in Him, if He was the source of the Bible.
When He judges me He will see that it's not my fault. If He is just, I will join you in the heavens, Messenger.
And if He isn't just... Then... Well... Do you think that ANYONE will get what one deserves?

Thomas the Gardener

19th January 2006 - 06:07 PM

Here are a couple of references to show a few times the church has been caught lying to us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_constantine

We all know that the winners write the history, well the Roman version of Christianity has wrote the history for 2000 years.

Steveo

19th January 2006 - 07:40 PM

QUOTE

You are aware of the steps you need to take - it's your decision, the ball is always in your court. Your salvation is based on your free will. That's the whole point. God doesn't want to force anyone into salvation - He wants you to come to Him of your own free will and choice.

I know this was not directed at me, but I wanted to respond, so here goes...
Your working on the assumption that salvation is a definitive fact, and that all of us believe in said fact. If we all believed that there was salvation, and the Christian road to it was the correct road there would be no need to be having this conversation. Everyone would choose it, and there would only be one religion in the world. The problem is, there is no proof, besides in the minds of the saved (minds meaning personal proof, not delusional, just to clarify incase of a misunderstanding) And not everyone agrees or believes that there is such thing as salvation and/or that the Christian way to salvation is the correct one. You make salvation seem like "be saved and be smart or willfully choose to turn you back on god and go to hell" I can't turn my back on something I don't think exists. For me there is no choice, because I do not have any internal conflicts about this, and god's existance is irrelevant to me. I am not willfully choosing the path away from god, but in my reality the only two pathes are the one to be a good person and the one not to be. I choose the path to be a good person (at least I think I am a good person) God has no pathes in my life at all.

Messenger

19th January 2006 - 11:00 PM

QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 19 2006, 11:18 AM)

Messenger,

QUOTE

What if I believe in fairy tales?

Then I just die and there's no loss. I've had a wonderful life already - and hope to enjoy a bit more of it.

Good, I'm happy that you're not afraid to die. I had the impression that most religios people are afraid to die, and for that reason they "invented" God. Now I see that you'll accept death without fear, even there is no God. And everithing that God will give you, if He exists, you will accept as a gift. That includes eternal life, resurrection, etc.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

What if I believe in fairy tales?

Then I just die and there's no loss. I've had a wonderful life already - and hope to enjoy a bit more of it.

Good, I'm happy that you're not afraid to die. I had the impression that most religios people are afraid to die, and for that reason they "invented" God. Now I see that you'll accept death without fear, even there is no God. And everithing that God will give you, if He exists, you will accept as a gift. That includes eternal life, resurrection, etc.

You are aware of the steps you need to take - it's your decision, the ball is always in your court. Your salvation is based on your free will. That's the whole point. God doesn't want to force anyone into salvation - He wants you to come to Him of your own free will and choice.

Well, I'm not afraid of death either. If there is no God, my reasons are simiar to yours.

You know that I don't believe in your version of God. So, please accept that I'll use the word "God" with the meaning "any possible omni-whatever entity that is the reason, direct or indirect, we do exist".

If there is God, there are two possibiities. He cares about us and He doesn't care about us. The latter case is equivalent to the situation where there is no God. So'll suppose that God cares about us.

Now I'll suppose that you're right and God did created us. This means that abilities I have are given to me by Him. I have the ability to see the contradictions in the Bible. This ability hinders the possibility that I'll believe in anything based on the Bible. He made me this way that I'm unable to believe in Him, if He was the source of the Bible.
When He judges me He will see that it's not my fault. If He is just, I will join you in the heavens, Messenger.
And if He isn't just... Then... Well... Do you think that ANYONE will get what one deserves?

Upisoft,

I operate from the premise that I am storing up for myself 'treasures in heaven'. There are many instances in the Bible where it talks about rewards, using your talents wisely, and so forth.
I believe the 'lake of fire' is a refinement area/place/thing/whatever you call it.
I don't believe a loving and just God would torture an unbelieving humanity for all eternity when he only gives us an average of 70-100 years to figure it out on earth.
People will throw a bunch of verses at me now - but serious study reveals that most of those verses deal with matters of the spirit/heart/mind.
God says he will refine us like gold is refined by the 'fire'.
There are parables in the Bible about people who were given 'talents', or money - and then told to 'take care of it' while the Master was gone. The Master checked back with these people at a later date and found varying degrees of resourcefulness. The ones who were very resourceful received more, the one who was not resourceful at all with his talents, had his talent taken away.
So it goes with your life on this earth. What will you do with your talents? Will you be greedy and hoard them, be afraid that you'll lose something? Or will you use your talents to benefit your Master? (This does not mean give your money to church. This means that you should be doing worthwhile things with your talents, whether they be talents like science, or whether they be financial.)

And I guess I believe this refinement process is made easier when we accept that Jesus is Lord.

QUOTE

Your working on the assumption that salvation is a definitive fact, and that all of us believe in said fact

Steveo,

Know what happens when you assu-me? You make one out of you and me.

I am working from no such assumption. I have no idea what you believe. I'm just offering my $0.02 - take it or leave it, as usual, it's always your choice.

Upisoft

20th January 2006 - 12:53 AM

QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 19 2006, 11:00 PM)

Upisoft,

I operate from the premise that I am storing up for myself 'treasures in heaven'. There are many instances in the Bible where it talks about rewards, using your talents wisely, and so forth.
I believe the 'lake of fire' is a refinement area/place/thing/whatever you call it.
I don't believe a loving and just God would torture an unbelieving humanity for all eternity when he only gives us an average of 70-100 years to figure it out on earth.
People will throw a bunch of verses at me now - but serious study reveals that most of those verses deal with matters of the spirit/heart/mind.
God says he will refine us like gold is refined by the 'fire'.
There are parables in the Bible about people who were given 'talents', or money - and then told to 'take care of it' while the Master was gone. The Master checked back with these people at a later date and found varying degrees of resourcefulness. The ones who were very resourceful received more, the one who was not resourceful at all with his talents, had his talent taken away.
So it goes with your life on this earth. What will you do with your talents? Will you be greedy and hoard them, be afraid that you'll lose something? Or will you use your talents to benefit your Master? (This does not mean give your money to church. This means that you should be doing worthwhile things with your talents, whether they be talents like science, or whether they be financial.)

And I guess I believe this refinement process is made easier when we accept that Jesus is Lord.

I hope we finally understand each other. I know I can't change your oppinion about Creation, and you can't change my oppinion about Evolution. BTW, when I say Evolution, I mean the principle of Evoution. The theory of evolution can be incorrect. The principle will stay.

Have you seen my question about who is the creator of topology of the IC? Please, give an answer. I want to know how you look at this the problem.

Regards,
Upisoft

RealityCheck

20th January 2006 - 01:38 AM

QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 19 2006, 11:00 PM)

......
.........
I operate from the premise that I am storing up for myself 'treasures in heaven'. There are many instances in the Bible where it talks about rewards, using your talents wisely, and so forth.
I believe the 'lake of fire' is a refinement area/place/thing/whatever you call it.
I don't believe a loving and just God would torture an unbelieving humanity for all eternity when he only gives us an average of 70-100 years to figure it out on earth.

Hi Mess.

That seems to throw into stark relief the difference between the 'superstitious/religious' type of so-called "good" person and the "atheist" type of so-called "good" person.

YOU are acting "good" based on YOUR EXPECTATION of being "rewarded" with "treasures in heaven". Whereas an ATHEISTIC "good" person must LOGICALLY and BY DEFINITION be acting "good" simply because it is the right thing to do NOW; and all IRRESPECTIVE of any superstitious/religious "afterlife" rewards/punishments mumbo jumbo.

I hope the point does not elude you (we live in hope, heh?). Ciao.

RC.
.

Messenger

20th January 2006 - 03:28 AM

QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 18 2006, 08:07 AM)

Hi all,

I have a question for you.
Genetic algorithms are currently widely used in the process of Engineering Design. Let's suppose that an engineer has the task to design an integrated circuit. He/she decides to use his/her new software to create the topology and tweak IC parameters. His/her new software has genetic algorithm(GA) that does the job. After obtaining the result from the GA, the engineer is very surprised how some problems were gone round. He/she starts to like his/her new software program, because of the good results it gives.

Now follows the question:

Who CREATED the topology and tweaks, i.e. that part that was the result of the GA?

Either way, the results stem from a previously designed product.

Humans were intelligently designed - but our algorithims will run the gamut.

The program will never rise and come to life, nor will it evolve into anything else. It will always remain a program that performs certain functions based on pre-determined settings or guidelines.

In this case, the engineer gets credit for the results. The software designer/company earned their reward when they sold the software.

It's the same for God, you know.
He's the Designer, you're the engineer. You are His reward. Your reward is earned by how you use your talents.

I hope I understood your question and motive, and I hope you understood my answer.

Thanks,

Upisoft

20th January 2006 - 04:57 AM

QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 20 2006, 03:28 AM)

In this case, the engineer gets credit for the results. The software designer/company earned their reward when they sold the software.

Messenger,

Do you say the creator of the topology and tweaks is the engineer?

OK. Let he gets the credit for the result. Now I’ll complicate the situation a little. Suppose that the task was given to two engineers – Alice and Bob. They had the same program with genetic algorithm. Alice and Bob started the program to find solution and, while waiting the result, they drank coffee and discussed the over-employment problem within the firm. After few hours the results were ready. Alice and Bob presented their results to their boss. He thought like you and believed that the credit for the result have the engineer who presented it. Alice’s result was better than Bob’s result. Their boss fired Bob, because he gave worse result and he had to reduce number of employees.

The question is:
Both Alice and Bob did the same things, yet Bob was fired and Alice was not fired.
Was the Bob’s dismissal justified?

Messenger

20th January 2006 - 05:52 AM

NO.

Did the boss have a thing for Alice?

Although, perhaps Bob could have reviewed the results instead of just depending on the software. If the same conditions were put in, but different results came out - then that doesn't sound like a very good program.

What are you trying to imply?

Thomas the Gardener

20th January 2006 - 05:17 PM

QUOTE

All truth goes through three stages.
First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self evident.

You seem to have hit the idea of evolution on the nose. One day soon it will be accepted as self evident. Darwin will follow in the steps of Galileo Galilei.

Upisoft

20th January 2006 - 06:06 PM

QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 20 2006, 05:52 AM)

NO.

Did the boss have a thing for Alice?

Although, perhaps Bob could have reviewed the results instead of just depending on the software. If the same conditions were put in, but different results came out - then that doesn't sound like a very good program.

What are you trying to imply?

Yes, Bob could review the result. The result is not bad. Just Alice's result is better. Bob coudn't do anything to have better resut in the same timeframe. He could refine the result or use the program until better result pops up. However, his boss will be not very happy about the delay, so he would be fired again.

You may not like the program, because of it “random” behavior. However, the genetic algorithms are based on this random behavior. In some areas genetic algorithms are must, because of the complexity of non-random algorithm. In most cases they don’t give the best possible result. However, they give reasonably good results.

The program that Alice and Bob have is the best solution of their problem – to create IC with reasonably good parameters. If they had to do it by hand, it would take them very long time. There isn’t computer program that gives the best possible solution, because the complexity of the problem is too big. Such algorithm is not invented yet, and there is no reason to think that it will be invented in the near future.

So what you’ll suggest? How they have to do their job?

Steveo

20th January 2006 - 06:55 PM

QUOTE

I operate from the premise that I am storing up for myself 'treasures in heaven'. There are many instances in the Bible where it talks about rewards, using your talents wisely, and so forth.
I believe the 'lake of fire' is a refinement area/place/thing/whatever you call it.
I don't believe a loving and just God would torture an unbelieving humanity for all eternity when he only gives us an average of 70-100 years to figure it out on earth.
People will throw a bunch of verses at me now - but serious study reveals that most of those verses deal with matters of the spirit/heart/mind.
God says he will refine us like gold is refined by the 'fire'.
There are parables in the Bible about people who were given 'talents', or money - and then told to 'take care of it' while the Master was gone. The Master checked back with these people at a later date and found varying degrees of resourcefulness. The ones who were very resourceful received more, the one who was not resourceful at all with his talents, had his talent taken away.
So it goes with your life on this earth. What will you do with your talents? Will you be greedy and hoard them, be afraid that you'll lose something? Or will you use your talents to benefit your Master? (This does not mean give your money to church. This means that you should be doing worthwhile things with your talents, whether they be talents like science, or whether they be financial.)

I happen to think that interpretation makes more sense givin the fact that god is supposed to be just, and love his creation. So good job messenger of ignorance! I commend you! (just not enough to lose that title just yet hehe).
And then this refining problem probably would be quick....if I died, then then was in hell in the 'fire' getting poked in the @ss by a sharp stick from Satan I would quickly change my views on god (or currently on lack there of - not caring if there is).

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I operate from the premise that I am storing up for myself 'treasures in heaven'. There are many instances in the Bible where it talks about rewards, using your talents wisely, and so forth.
I believe the 'lake of fire' is a refinement area/place/thing/whatever you call it.
I don't believe a loving and just God would torture an unbelieving humanity for all eternity when he only gives us an average of 70-100 years to figure it out on earth.
People will throw a bunch of verses at me now - but serious study reveals that most of those verses deal with matters of the spirit/heart/mind.
God says he will refine us like gold is refined by the 'fire'.
There are parables in the Bible about people who were given 'talents', or money - and then told to 'take care of it' while the Master was gone. The Master checked back with these people at a later date and found varying degrees of resourcefulness. The ones who were very resourceful received more, the one who was not resourceful at all with his talents, had his talent taken away.
So it goes with your life on this earth. What will you do with your talents? Will you be greedy and hoard them, be afraid that you'll lose something? Or will you use your talents to benefit your Master? (This does not mean give your money to church. This means that you should be doing worthwhile things with your talents, whether they be talents like science, or whether they be financial.)

I happen to think that interpretation makes more sense givin the fact that god is supposed to be just, and love his creation. So good job messenger of ignorance! I commend you! (just not enough to lose that title just yet hehe).
And then this refining problem probably would be quick....if I died, then then was in hell in the 'fire' getting poked in the @ss by a sharp stick from Satan I would quickly change my views on god (or currently on lack there of - not caring if there is).

Know what happens when you assu-me? You make one out of you and me.

I am working from no such assumption. I have no idea what you believe. I'm just offering my $0.02 - take it or leave it, as usual, it's always your choice.

A lot of times a person's orginal feeling on something is how the think about it, and later they find justifications for these feelings. My feeling on god is that he doesn't exist....however I know there is no factual justification for it. I know whether or not god exists is not important to how I live, so I think it doesn't matter if god exists or not, at least to me. You are working on the assumption (at least it appears to me) that you can choose your initial feeling, or gut feeling on something. You can't always do that, so its not as simple as choosing salvation. If you feel in your heart, and 'choose' salvation your not really saved because you don't really believe god exists.....so its not neccessarily a simple choice like you make it out to be. And I always thought assumption was the mother of all f*ck ups! Besides most of us in here are always @sses, so does that mean we are always assuming things?

QUOTE

Humans were intelligently designed - but our algorithims will run the gamut.

The program will never rise and come to life, nor will it evolve into anything else. It will always remain a program that performs certain functions based on pre-determined settings or guidelines.

I would not argue with that statement scientifically one bit if you made the small change to say that the intelligent design came in at the beginning of the universe, and not argue very much if you say the intelligent design came in at biogenisis. However there is no scientific evidence that god created Adam and Eve around 6000 years ago. There may be scientific evidence of a large, localized flood that can understandable be seen by the ancient people as world wide, but no evidence for the basics of the creation myth.

RealityCheck

21st January 2006 - 12:24 AM

Hi Steveo!....and Grumpy, adoucette, Messenger et al.

Harking back to our dadl-days (hehehe) when we tried to reason with that person on the evidence that the universe CAN'T be 6000yrs old.

[By the way, Messenger, apart from your opinion of the Earth's age, what age do you think the rest of the "observable" universal structure is?]

Anyhow.....

(1) Grumpy pointed out to dadl the Billion-years propagation time for light to get here from distant galaxies.

(2) Adoucette pointed out to that same dadl the phenomenon of delayed-arrival here of that reflected-off-the-gas-cloud light from that supernova.

I'd now like to add a further item:

(3) Observed gravitational galaxy-to-galaxy 'tidal' interactions. We see many examples where 'streams' of stars from one galaxy to another galaxy are formed due to the gravitational tug from a bigger galaxy on a smaller neighbouring galaxy. This is similar to what happens when a star's material is caused to stream towards a 'black hole' companion....only in the galaxy scenario, the distances are huge: ie., millions of light years distance between the galaxies.

And that is the point. Even if we discount the time taken for the light signal to get here so that we may observe the event, it doesn't change the fact that for MATTER (ie, stars) to travel those vast distances from one galaxy to another, those stars at the leading edge of that 'matter stream' must have been travelling at less than light speed, and so must have taken literally billions of years to be where they were when their 'snapshot' of the light from them was 'taken' (and received here now, billions of years later, of course...but again, that was covered by Grumpy).

Anyhow, to put a sharper point on it, the distances travelled by MATTER at much-less-than-lightspeed must have taken many hundreds of millions or even billions of years. Meaning that the observable universe, for as far out as where the interacting galaxies are at least, cannot be younger than the time it took for slow matter to stream across the millions-of-light-years gulf between those galaxies.

So, even ignoring the light-time from here to there, the LOCAL (there/then) space and time involved just between the interacting galaxies only must tell that the observable universe at that time must be billions of years old.

That's all I have to add, everyone!

Messenger: I hope you understand the principles/implications of all this. Ciao all!

RC.
.

Upisoft

21st January 2006 - 01:04 AM

QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 21 2006, 12:24 AM)

(3) Observed gravitational galaxy-to-galaxy 'tidal' interactions. We see many examples where 'streams' of stars from one galaxy to another galaxy are formed due to the gravitational tug from a bigger galaxy on a smaller neighbouring galaxy. This is similar to what happens when a star's material is caused to stream towards a 'black hole' companion....only in the galaxy scenario, the distances are huge: ie., millions of light years distance between the galaxies.

And that is the point. Even if we discount the time taken for the light signal to get here so that we may observe the event, it doesn't change the fact that for MATTER (ie, stars) to travel those vast distances from one galaxy to another, those stars at the leading edge of that 'matter stream' must have been travelling at less than light speed, and so must have taken literally billions of years to be where they were when their 'snapshot' of the light from them was 'taken' and received here now, billions of years later, of course (...but again, that was covered by Grumpy).

Anyhow, to put a sharper point on it, the distances travelled by MATTER at much-less-than-lightspeed must have taken many hundreds of millions or even billions of years. Meaning that the observable universe, for as far out as where the interacting galaxies are at least, cannot be younger than the time it took for slow matter to stream across the millions-of-light-years gulf between those galaxies.

So, even ignoring the light-time from here to there, the LOCAL (there/then) space and time involved just between the interacting galaxies only must tell that the observable universe at that time must be billions of years old.

RealityCheck,

Earth is 6000 years old. There is only one possible explanation.

God have created huge Universe and have implanted in it all the light we observe. If you look through the telescope, you don’t see distant galaxy, but you see light that has traveled about 6000ly.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (Genesis 1:3)

You can see that God created the light. It is not created by the distant galaxies.

… He also made the stars. (Genesis 1:16)

See? No galaxies, only stars. Galaxies are illusion.

RealityCheck

21st January 2006 - 03:46 AM

Upisoft.

Hehehe, good one, Upisoft. That hit the funny bone quite nicely. Thanks!

RC.
.

Messenger

22nd January 2006 - 06:48 AM

QUOTE (Upisoft+Jan 20 2006, 12:06 PM)

QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 20 2006, 05:52 AM)

NO.

Did the boss have a thing for Alice?

Although, perhaps Bob could have reviewed the results instead of just depending on the software. If the same conditions were put in, but different results came out - then that doesn't sound like a very good program.

What are you trying to imply?

Yes, Bob could review the result. The result is not bad. Just Alice's result is better. Bob coudn't do anything to have better resut in the same timeframe. He could refine the result or use the program until better result pops up. However, his boss will be not very happy about the delay, so he would be fired again.

You may not like the program, because of it “random” behavior. However, the genetic algorithms are based on this random behavior. In some areas genetic algorithms are must, because of the complexity of non-random algorithm. In most cases they don’t give the best possible result. However, they give reasonably good results.

The program that Alice and Bob have is the best solution of their problem – to create IC with reasonably good parameters. If they had to do it by hand, it would take them very long time. There isn’t computer program that gives the best possible solution, because the complexity of the problem is too big. Such algorithm is not invented yet, and there is no reason to think that it will be invented in the near future.

So what you’ll suggest? How they have to do their job?

Read the manual.

--------------

RC,

QUOTE

quote by RC,
[By the way, Messenger, apart from your opinion of the Earth's age, what age do you think the rest of the "observable" universal structure is?]

By the way, just what is my opinion on the age of the earth? Please provide proof. I have said that 'if the earth was 6000 years old' - but I have never said it is.

I have no idea on the age - and neither do you. Your theories are based on circular reasoning: Fossils determine the age of the rock. Rock layers determine the age of the fossils. What determines the age of the rock and the fossils? The Grand Canyon was created in moments, not millions of years. Looks like a series of earthquakes and flood carving.

I believe that the atmosphere of the earth was different prior to the flood. This is why you find 'giant' human skeletons, huge dinosaur (dragon) fossils, and other amazing creatures and vegetation. There was more oxygen in the atmosphere prior to the flood which makes these things possible. Also, if the earth were tilted ever so slightly - it would be springtime all throughout the earth, with the exceptions of the north/south poles. The flood is responsible for almost all the geological layers you see today.

The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals. How did that happen? Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water. Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood. Fossilized fish have been found in the act of eating other fish. Fossilized fish have been found in the act of giving birth. How do you explain this?

The earth was not as it is today, 4500 years ago. There were not as many mountains, lakes, rivers, desserts, etc. When the flood occured - it wasn't just a few days of rain, it was a catastrophic event.

You should spend more time considering and researching the possibility that this is true, than you spend on criticism.

P.S. REALITY CHECK -
It would be nice to see you respond to Grendle's and Silent.cecilias post about altruism and the like - in the 'evolutionary psychology' thread.
Thanks,

RealityCheck

22nd January 2006 - 07:14 AM

QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 22 2006, 06:48 AM)

QUOTE

quote by RC,
[By the way, Messenger, apart from your opinion of the Earth's age, what age do you think the rest of the "observable" universal structure is?]

RC,

By the way, just what is my opinion on the age of the earth? Please provide proof. I have said that 'if the earth was 6000 years old' - but I have never said it is.

I have no idea on the age - and neither do you. Your theories are based on circular reasoning: Fossils determine the age of the rock. Rock layers determine the age of the fossils. What determines the age of the rock and the fossils? The Grand Canyon was created in moments, not millions of years. Looks like a series of earthquakes and fl