I like to challenge it, explore it, put it to critical tests. And personaly, I haven't found anything to prove me wrong yet.

Dude, you need glasses. You're looking at an elephant's tail and deciding the whole thing is skinny and bony.
Ask yourself, Troy, why is it that scientist after scientist claims that religion is proven wrong, over and over. But somehow, you know that after your so-called critical questioning, it stands up to the test?

I mean, we've shown you where your christain text is utterly wrong. You chose not to read where the link leads! Sure the site mocks god, because it's such a preposterous idea. Do you think I would risk hellfire if there were even a TINY chance the christians or muslims or whoever could actually be correct?!?
Religion is that ludicrous.

Read the link we sent you. Read "The Demon Haunted World". Or don't bother arguing, if you aren't even going to read what we're talking about.

Chuck, the problem with sweeping generalzations is that they're general wrong.
In the persuite of my education I have gotten to know more then a few prof's who have held the belife that Religon and Science are not exclusave. There are volumes of text out there about it.

---

/Central Florida Astronomical Society

Sometimes the line between faith and fact is blurred.

We don't know that the laws of the universe will continue to work in the future as they do at this moment. We have reason to believe they will..and believe is equivalent with faith.

We also don't know what new quantum physics will bring to our plate that will allow us other...possibilities.

A good preface to read on science and faith being intertwines is atthe beginning of crichton's book "Timeline".

---

A good preface to read on science and faith being intertwines is atthe beginning of crichton's book "Timeline".

Working on it now. I love it, I read prey about six months ago and that was another worthy read

---

/Central Florida Astronomical Society

We don't know that the laws of the universe will continue to work in the future as they do at this moment. We have reason to believe they will..and believe is equivalent with faith.

WRONG. AGAIN.

We don't have "reason to believe." We have "logical precedent". EVRYTHING we see, everywhere, acts as if the physical laws were the same the whole time the universe was in existence. Geologists call it 'Uniformitarianism', and it holds up to experiment after experiment.

We have SOLID LOGICAL SCIENTIFIC PRECEDENT to predict that "the laws of the universe will continue to work in the future as they do at this moment." That is NOT faith. Faith is unquestioning stupidity, it is a conviction based on human emotion and desire. It is a childish attempt to control destiny and make reality conform to your desires. It is praying. That is faith.

I don't know why I bother to post in here when most of the people blurt utter bullshit with no trace of forethought.

---

Never Forget a Friend. Or an Enemy.

We don't know that the laws of the universe will continue to work in the future as they do at this moment. We have reason to believe they will..and believe is equivalent with faith.

We also don't know what new quantum physics will bring to our plate that will allow us other...possibilities.

We do know that the laws of the universe are not absolute. The laws as we know it break down inside of black holes and singularites. So really... almost anything is possable

---

/Central Florida Astronomical Society

I mean, we've shown you where your christain text is utterly wrong.

I must have been absent that day... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I mean, we've shown you where your christain text is utterly wrong.

I must have been absent that day... ;)

You and me both. Last time i looked it was still as valid as it was 2,000 years ago.

---

/Central Florida Astronomical Society

We don't know that the laws of the universe will continue to work in the future as they do at this moment. We have reason to believe they will..and believe is equivalent with faith.

We also don't know what new quantum physics will bring to our plate that will allow us other...possibilities.

We do know that the laws of the universe are not absolute. The laws as we know it break down inside of black holes and singularites. So really... almost anything is possable

Troy, that IS absolute. It's contextually absolute. Water's not a liquid at a certain temperature but that doesn't mean the laws of physics have broken down in my ice cube try. In fact, it does the opposite as it demonstrates that different aspects of nature conform to their own specific identities in xyz circumstances.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

It's contextually absolute.

FYI, God doesn't micromanage the universe any more than He micromanages us...

It's all in the manual... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Troy, that IS absolute. It's contextually absolute. Water's not a liquid at a certain temperature but that doesn't mean the laws of physics have broken down in my ice cube try. In fact, it does the opposite as it demonstrates that different aspects of nature conform to their own specific identities in xyz circumstances.

No your ice cube is pretty much in line with the laws of nature. What I am talking about is physics pretty much break down when you start talking about something with near infinate dinsity.

---

/Central Florida Astronomical Society

Troy, that IS absolute. It's contextually absolute. Water's not a liquid at a certain temperature but that doesn't mean the laws of physics have broken down in my ice cube try. In fact, it does the opposite as it demonstrates that different aspects of nature conform to their own specific identities in xyz circumstances.

No your ice cube is pretty much in line with the laws of nature. What I am talking about is physics pretty much break down when you start talking about something with near infinate dinsity.

Troy, it's an analogy. Analogies by definition are intentionally imperfect.

The 'laws' 'breakdown' but only because the context is changed exactly like the context changes when water turns to ice. Some philosophers have even claimed there are NO natural laws. How can there be a law of gravity when airplanes fly everyday, they ask. Context, that's how. The law of gravity means objects fall to earth UNLESS acted upon by another stronger force. The same thing can be said about matter in a black hole.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

it's an analogy. Analogies by definition are intentionally imperfect.

The 'laws' 'breakdown' but only because the context is changed

You understand 'analogies' and 'context' in science but you fail to understand 'metaphors' and 'context' in the Holy Books?

analogy:
Drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect.

metaphor:
A figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity.

Interesting... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

How's that, Jeffey?

I don't take the bible literally although many do....
At the time the bible was written I'm sure the ones that followed the religions (Judaism/Christianity) took it all very literally indeed. It's only the enlightenment period leading up to today's 'modern man' that people place metaphor on the bible AFTER THE FACT, which is a convenient way of backpeddling from the advances of philosophy and science and above all REASON.

You're not going to try to put words in my mouth again are you?

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

How's that, Jeffey?

I don't take the bible literally although many do....
At the time the bible was written I'm sure the ones that followed the religions (Judaism/Christianity) took it all very literally indeed. It's only the enlightenment period leading up to today's 'modern man' that people place metaphor on the bible AFTER THE FACT, which is a convenient way of backpeddling from the advances of philosophy and science and above all REASON.

You're not going to try to put words in my mouth again are you?

I know that atleast in the churches that i've been part of we haven't taken it literally. We don't belive that the universe was created in seven 24 hour periods. Its kind of one of thoughs things you have to remeber that these stories are 2000+ years old and that when they where first penned lit was very diffrent, just as I'm sure that in 2000 years if you where to read a lot of what we're putting out now they'd find our style of writing they'll find it a bit odd.

---

/Central Florida Astronomical Society

Dude, I find what your saying right now to be utterly off the wall.

You were given a link to absurdities in your holy books and you don't follow them. You ignore them. I gave jeffrey links to books that give him proof he asked for, and he still IGNORES it and hopes I'll forget. Then you turn around every few messages, and hope everyone has forgot, and claim you were never disproven.

It's like Rob and I keep belting our heads against brick walls - you guys have as much sense!
I would utterly leave you idiots to your own ignorance, but my fear is that people who don't know any better will swallow BULLSHIT masquerading as wisdom as in: "We don't know that the laws of the universe will continue to work in the future as they do at this moment. We have reason to believe they will..and believe is equivalent with faith."
or "How did my prophet knooooooooow, 1400 years ago, what is scientific fack todaayyyyyy???? ;-> :-( "-8"


It's my duty to humanity to expose ignorance and bullshit. But it's really becoming tiring. I swear by the stars (which are real), I will simply find the best posts I've made before, and continually cut and paste, PROVING you morons wrong over and over.
So.
Read "The Demon Haunted World" YET jeffrey? You've had at least two months from the time you insinuated directly that you have it by reproducing the quote form the inside cover. Or were you lying to me after 'looking inside' on Amazon? How about "Oasis in Space" jeffrey, that I ALSO sent you a link to, two months ago?
I've asked this question over and over, and got only the insinuation once.

---

Never Forget a Friend. Or an Enemy.

Men of Reason, Unite! hehee.

At the time the bible was written [blah blah blah snip]

They sure did use metaphors... They just didn't have a 'word' for them yet... ;)

Son of a gun
Beat around the bush
Cut through the red tape
Minding your Ps & Qs
Wet your whistle
Saved by the bell
Not fit to hold a candle to
Giving someone the cold shoulder
Getting a square meal
Frog in your throat
Turn the tables
Clean your plate before you have dessert
Rule of thumb
Getting your goat
Saving face or losing face
Mind your own beeswax
Tie the knot
Between a rock and a hard place
Bought the farm
Break a leg
Knock on wood
Clear as a bell
Close, but no cigar
Cut the mustard
Dead as a door nail
Getting off Scott free
Going to hell in a hand basket
Half Assed
I haven't got an axe to grind
In the lime light
Jumping Jehoshaphat
Jumping the gun
Kangaroo court
Keep a stiff upper lip
Keep your shirt on
More than you can shake a stick at
Don't let the cat out of the bag
Raining cats and dogs
You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours
Rob Peter to pay Paul
Shake a leg
Take it with a grain of salt
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater
Under the weather
Whole ball of wax

... And my personal favorite ...

Shut your face

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I'm offended.....thoroughly OFFENDED. Just like those new laws in France, the U.S. and Iran.

I want the above post taken down.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

We don't know that the laws of the universe will continue to work in the future as they do at this moment. We have reason to believe they will..and believe is equivalent with faith.

WRONG. AGAIN.

We don't have "reason to believe." We have "logical precedent". EVRYTHING we see, everywhere, acts as if the physical laws were the same the whole time the universe was in existence. Geologists call it 'Uniformitarianism', and it holds up to experiment after experiment.

We have SOLID LOGICAL SCIENTIFIC PRECEDENT to predict that "the laws of the universe will continue to work in the future as they do at this moment." That is NOT faith. Faith is unquestioning stupidity, it is a conviction based on human emotion and desire. It is a childish attempt to control destiny and make reality conform to your desires. It is praying. That is faith.

I don't know why I bother to post in here when most of the people blurt utter bullshit with no trace of forethought.

You're making am argumentum ad antiquitutem. What we have is the past that may or may not prove out in the future. You cannot with 100% certainty say the sun will come up tomorrow. You can say "Well we're 99.99% sure of yaddah-yaddah-yaddah."

As long as there is a possibility that the universe will go horsehooey on everyone, then it's not a certainty, but requires a certain amount of belief that things will prove out as they have in the past.

You're attitude is the same arrogant one that science had in the late 1800's when they said they knew all there is to know about the universe and the laws of physics.

And once again that circle-jerk comes around. Once again the haughtiness of science says "Well, we know all there is to know." Only this time around, they're not publically saying this, because they were lambasted for it when proven incorrect the last time.

Want to know what? My guess is their attitude is once again, "out there".

Also your ad hominem does nothing but weaken your position. If you're going to make statements and argue with someone, at least have the reasoning to not fill your response rife with logical fallacies.

Also, just because what has worked in the past is no certainty that it will do so in the future to 100% certainty is considered a non sequiter argument.

If you can say, and predict the future with such 100% certainty, why are you not a lottery winner?

---

Different winning lottery number combinations don't violate the laws of physics that that poster was defending.

Additionally, it is impossible to claim "we are %99.999 sure ofxyz unless we KNOW what would constitute being %100 certain of xyz. It's meaningless to assert certitude of %99 or %1. Both are equally baseless at this point. We can state assertions with certainty within a realm of context. Example: If I drop this bowling ball off this skyscraper it will fall at x rate and hit the street below UNLESS it is somehow counteracted upon by an opposing force. If it were to suddenly float up in the sky we know that this does NOT mean the law of gravity has been violated. It is contextually absolute and certain.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!