bulletproof alternate universe

Sounds good to me.He has now gotten to the point of changing his concept to accomodate the problems of inescapable logical failures inherent within the original concept. A tacit admission of the failure of the concept, and a typical "move the goalpost" tactic.My work here is done ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Exactly! You got it. Science is based on the fundation that human emotion and beliefs and such get in the way of actual progress. This is why computers are especially good at simulating events.When we involve feelings and desires, we are involved in something else, which is the really sweet thing called being human. It's good when it comes to listening to music, loving someone, talking to people, and such, but REALLY bad when doing things like math or cosmonology.If you base your theories on how you *want* things to be instead of how you *observe* them to be - and this goes for real scientists too - then you are damaging the scientific methods.I can understand if you feel like some scientists are overly defensive of their conclutions. If they refuse to accept new evidence, even if they can verify them, then they are just as bad as someone who doesn't accept the evidence in the first place. But you really need to change your view on what science actually is, because your current one is WAY off base.And with this, I thank all of you for a slightly amusing and educational but ultimately tiresome thread.

quote:

---

changing his concept

---

Here's from post # 1
"It goes something like this. Back near the creation of our universe, it was necesary for the process of time to be set up, that the physical universe be seperated from the invisible, or spiritual one. As it was seperated, what we had was more or less what we see now."
There is a difference between trying to figure out what you are driving at, in what seemed to me fairly unmannered posts, and changing concepts. Who said the seperation lasted a day, a minute, or an hour?
It seems you P universe concepts have in the past won some debates, and you are unhappy this has come to an end. Nevertheless, the S world indeed does have different rules we need to acount for.
Creation debate includes creation ideas. Not just pagan theory like the speck. The evo modererators seem very bias here. You should change the name of the forum to something like evolution only forum. Or pagan dreams supposedly supported by science, or antichristian philoshophy in disquise, or wiccans, atheists, backsliders, and bible denying nominal christians forum. You have no monopoly on creation, or science. You can call names all you want, and close threads, but your selective knowledge snippets, and antiGod bias is anything but objective. It is exclusive. Shrill, insulting cries of how God must be ruled out, (and all things supernatural) are coupled with silly speck philosophy, and unexplained phenomena unexplainably being denied any other explanation but pagan propoganda in the guise of science. When no answers can be given, you resort to threats, and insults.
That is fine, Actually man is not in a proper state to learn some of these things, as, no doubt, he's only use it to destroy the earth faster. You must remain for now, restricted from many things. Last call for christians to wake up, and stand up to this dictatorship of utterly false evo theory. The evo borg can't allow too much light on their darkness that they love.
If I recheck the thread, and see I missed something that would be seen a changing ideas, my mistake. I haven't seen any real change from how I conceived it, maybe something in the explaining. Anyhow, I certainly have had no answers to why the split could not have happened! Bulletproof! Now, it's easy to close the thread, and say someone had some answers, but they didn't.

quote:

---

beliefs and such get in the way of actual progress

---

Bad beliefs, in particular. Such as is the basis for winding back to a speck soup!

quote:

---

REALLY bad when doing things like math or cosmonology.

---

Seems like soon as I tit for tatted Eta, that's what the moderator did? No?

quote:

---

I can understand if you feel like some scientists are overly defensive of their conclutions. If they refuse to accept new evidence, even if they can verify them, then they are just as bad as someone who doesn't accept the evidence in the first place.

---

There is only assumptions that say there was a speck. It is clear that by accepting a creator, really in the speck (everything came from the soup) it is silly to ignore a known spirit world.

One thing I don't understand is why you are so aggressivly against the big bang theory. Couldn't you adopt an equally "bullet proof" theory of two parrallel specs, one spiritual and one real? Why does the idea that things might have been relatively smaller at one point in time pose such a challenge to your beliefs?

He does it because if he had to admit to a "speck" then he would have to accept the subsequent expansion and if he accepts the subsequent expansion he would have to accept that it took a darned sight longer that 6200 to get from the "speck" to where we are now. He will not entertain ANYTHING that might disagree with an Earth only 6200 years old, no matter what!Arkathon, what if God created the "speck" as you so fondly call it, but much longer ago? God can still be the Creater for you, all that changes is the time since it happened. What's your problem with this?

yes whenever in doubt as the the reality of the situation, you can always declare victory and leave the field patting yourself profusely on the backcongratulations on what you have provedabsolutely nothing.enjoy it. it may be your biggest self-declared victory yet.Don't forget to throw a few insults and gratuitous ad hominums as you go. (((oh wait ... you already did ... )))I prefer croisants.http://EvC Forum: bulletproof alternate universe The first mention by me of your problem with time, one I have been consistent on asking you about.http://EvC Forum: bulletproof alternate universe In other words, the "instant" was not denied, not contradicted, not clarified as some other amount of time, certainly no mention then of a "process" of separation (do we now get into days of creation and a day is as a thousand years?), instead the problems from the moment of separation are waved of as irrelevant ...http://EvC Forum: bulletproof alternate universe 102 posts later ... Care to count how many times I asked you about the instant of separation before you finally say ~~~wait, what if it wasn't instant? what if it was a (yet to be defined) process?~~~Not to mention that it doesn't solve your darkness problem, or your old earth problem, or your infinity of ages equally valid problem or .... but I'm sure you don't get the picture.Perhaps you think there are reproductions better than this ....Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

I asked you about the instant of separation

---

Well, in that you consider the universe billions of years old, and even in a several thousand year time frame an hour, week, minute, day, or even year is what I consider one to be talking about here. If you want to get into a precise little time frame, that is something else.

quote:

---

Not to mention that it doesn't solve your darkness problem

---

That seems more your problem. You haven't clearly made a case a certain amount of darkness, exactly was needed.

quote:

---

or your infinity of ages

---

It's not my infinity of ages, I'm going with the creation date as is already known. Nothing infinityish about it.

quote:

---

one I have been consistent on asking you about

---

How would my answer indicate it must be a certain length? It was
"Perhaps more irrelevant than instant." I never really even was thinking about that aspect. Anyhow, I have addressed it lately.

quote:

---

In other words, the "instant" was not denied, not contradicted, not clarified as some other amount of time, certainly no mention then of a "process" of separation (do we now get into days of creation and a day is as a thousand years?), instead the problems from the moment of separation are waved of as irrelevant ...

---

Any process wouldn't involve hardly any time. How long would a creator need anyhow, when we are not dealing with physical forces alone?

quote:

---

instead the problems from the moment of separation are waved of as irrelevant ...

---

Try asking what it is that is a concern exactly, and maybe you'll get an answer that you want. If you wonder how we went from a to b, then it shouldn't be hard to figure out.

quote:

---

but I'm sure you don't get the picture.

---

Seems to be the object of your efforts. I wouldn't be so sure. If you think you have such good points, why not be clear, and see how well they do.

quote:

---

He does it because if he had to admit to a "speck" then he would have to accept the subsequent expansion and if he accepts the subsequent expansion he would have to accept that it took a darned sight longer that 6200 to get from the "speck" to where we are now.

---

Trixie, I see nothing wrong with (yet) some 'expansion' as you might interpret it, or movement. When the complete universe was split, and our part restricted to time, it was 6200 or so years ago. Then it started to take much time to get out to far stars. We cannot just assume that we can go back beyond that, and figure out some long time backward. The stars in the complete universe were not billions of years away. In the spiritual world, they could be reached a lot quicker, not being limited by physical bodies. When God split our physical dimension, or universe, off, it then would take billions of years at rates our physical dimension goes.
Just because Abby wants to harp on the split time and method, does not affect in the very least the overall concept. Yes, they are billions of light years, with this theory, no they were not hardly any time, if any away at all before the split. Just as when it is merged at the new heaven and new earth, the time will again be no more.

quote:

---

Arkathon, what if God created the "speck" as you so fondly call it, but much longer ago? God can still be the Creater for you, all that changes is the time since it happened. What's your problem with this?

---

I happen to know He wasn't lying, or kidding, or incompetant. Also there is now no need at all to have an old date, as I think I explained.

quote:

---

Why does the idea that things might have been relatively smaller at one point in time pose such a challenge to your beliefs?

---

It's the time period. People simply look how long it would take for light to travel there, and say it was billions of years to the star. (which is how, mainly the big bang is extrapolated backward from, to billions of years ago)
But before our Physical universe, or dimension, has been seperated from the Spiritual universe, this was not the case, spirits and spirit world material, so to speak, is not limited by our speed of light, or time! Since the split, yes. But we can not use only the temporary physical dimension's speeds, and laws, to apply to the other side. Therefore, the stars are not billions of years away, but only would take that long to get to now.
So why dream our way back to some pagan soup?

I'm afriad I'm still not with you. What's so paganistic about the big bang? It doesn't deny the spiritual world. You can still have your god, your ghosts, your UFO's, etc. You can even have a young creation if you modified your theory slightly to say that the universe at large is old but the spiritual universe began only 6200 years ago when the the spiritual and real halves split.All that aside I'd like to say that I'm a christian here and I think you're so stuck on genesis here that your missing the big picture about the good book. The bible is also about doing onto others as you would have them do unto you. You don't seem to like people shoving thier theories about the universe down your throte so why are you shoving your theories onto us?

quote:

---

You don't seem to like people shoving thier theories about the universe down your throte so why are you shoving your theories onto us?

---

Self defense.

quote:

---

The bible is also about doing onto others as you would have them do unto you.

---

Yes, that's the big one. However, we only have two cheeks, and sometimes we need to smack the wolves of false tale tellers to children, with the rod, till they yelp, and run off, tale between their legs. In this forum, that only goes so far, since the field is owned by evos, and the wolves protected! So here it's more smack and get ordered off the field, when the yelping gets too loud!

arkhathonPersonal anecdotes are not good evidence especially indirectly.You may also be unaware of how science is making inroads into the courts and showing the unreliability of witnesses.Get with the program and understand that the requirements for deciding guilt in a court of law are no where near as stringent as those required by science for investigating and interpreting evidence.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

My friend, if one thing should be clear to you by now, it's that your not changing anybodies views. You're not balencing the scales your just making yourself look stupid and insulting open minded people of faith. You really threw the first stone on this one by saying that your theory was absolutely correct and irrefutable from the get go.The other thing on the subject is that your also committing a sin of pride. You're claiming to be able to see into the mind of god essentially. The point of the first part of genesis is that he created it all. How he laid it out, through what mechanism of time -- parrallel universes or seperations or variable speeds of light was not specified in any clear language. It is my conviction that god meant for us to figure these things out with the tools and insturments that he gave us the minds to create.I'm reminded of a quote by the late dr. Richard Feynman: "If you think science can disprove religion then I think you know less about science than I know about religion". You've no need to act in self defense, nobody is out to disprove your god. The same goes for proving religion with science. It's not the perpose of science. Anyone who knows what science is will reject any sutch proof. It's just not possible to prove god in a scientific way because god is a concept not somthing that can be measured. And when I say measurment I don't mean asking how many people who believe or say they have seen somthing or anything like that. Measurment by scientific insturments. Everything else doesn't count in science. If you wan't to think the scientific findings are wrong feel free t, but if you want to say that to scientifically minded people you have to use the tools and methods of science to do so. It's the fact that you aren't thinking scientifically that has got people upset, not your belief system. In short, nobodies out to bite you so there is no need to bite back.

quote:

---

deciding guilt in a court of law are no where near as stringent as those required by science for investigating and interpreting evidence.

---

Depends what part of science! The so called speck type prognostications take not much more than backwards dreaming, and eliminating other causes for some things we see like background radiation, than the desired speck effect.

quote:

---

science is making inroads into the courts and showing the unreliability of witnesses

---

That's good. Let's get some speckmeister spinners up there & really drill em with all the latest stuff!