limpid

Simon it's hard enough posting anything on the thread tonight because it's so busy. I tried my best. Why are you saying Meyer is not a Creationist? I can find no evidence to back this up at all. I'm not. Please read what I've written. I'm saying exactly the opposite of that. You said (and I quote) "What he states is that he has no Creationist agenda" and I showed an example of how he does have a creationist agenda, by trying to make it law that creationism is taught in schools as science. This means he lied about having no creationist agenda. The Center for Science and Culture (founded by S C Meyer) have a page on wikipedia you could read. The first paragraph under "Controversies" talks about his interaction with museums. But I confess, I was mixing him up with someone from the Creation Museum. I don't understand what that part is supposed to be about. Who said the Universe is only half of 12,000 years old..... 6,000 years old? I'm sorry if I'm a year or two out, do you think it's 6016 years old rather than 6000? Don't tease, how old do you think earth is? Your opinion please, not Meyer's. I thought you were one who dismissed carbon dating out of hand. I must have mis-remembered. Carbon dating is not the only method archaeologists use, but I'm sure you'll discover this as part of your search for knowledge. So there are "there is NO evidence of human habitation or remains" and yet there are "finds that are being dug up". That's quite a leap between paragraphs. Regardless, archaeologists study the past of human life and culture. If you are correct that it's just stones, they wouldn't be there. There is no problem with this being a much older site unless you are trying to make history fit into an unchangeable time frame defined in a stone age book. You question them for specific answers while doubting their ability to date things accurately. If you don't trust their ability to date things accurately, why do you trust anything else they've said? I guess you didn't see my points about order from chaos. which was your opening gambit. You seem to have responded to all my points concerning the human players, but not the headline you introduced as a simple fact and I dismissed. This is disappointing, because I thought this may have actually been your own opinion rather than that of someone else. I guess it wasn't or you'd have been able to back up such a strong assertion.

Science doesn't happen in debates. I wouldn't want to debate with him either, what does that prove? Meyer is a good debater, that doesn't make him a scientist, nor does it make what he's arguing for correct. Scientific method is need for that, not rhetoric. As you completely ignore most of my post, are you conceding my points on order from chaos, infinity as it relates to probability (and monkeys), the fact that Meyer lies when he says he's not a creationist and that you have cut and pasted someone' else's interpretation of what Dawkins actually said in the example that you introduced? How do the archaeologists react when you imply they are liars because they have identified the artefacts as twice the age of the universe? Or are you cherry picking parts of what they say to reinforce your preconceptions? My use of "la la la la fingers in the ears" is the conclusion to a portrayal of how I observe some posters to behave in these threads. I was not quoting someone or I would have indicated it with a quote box.

We see order from chaos all over the place. Waves form in water and sand. Clouds form from water vapour. Rain forms from clouds. Snow forms from rain. Liquids form bubbles. Water carves caves. Molecules make trees. Crystals form in chemical solutions. All of those are the creation of something more complex without an external intelligence. I guess you have some special definitions for order and chaos as you have capitalised them. No scientist would ever claim to have all the answers, that's the whole point of science. As I've explained many times, science is the ongoing process of finding faults in science. Regardless of this, this was not Dawkins' quote. It is a (your?) corruption of a quote designed to explain infinity which pre-dates Dawkins by decades. No-one who understands the mathematical meaning of infinity would try to "get the computer programme he invented to demonstrate this". Dawkins wrote a programme to test something similar to this, but with all the infinities replaced with finite parameters. The programme worked as configured. I'm assuming you are regurgitating something you found on the internet due to your two fundamental errors in this paragraph. This is the person who makes his living selling tickets to his "museum" which shows dinosaurs and humans living alongside one another? I would expect scientists to attend this. Why would they not? Even scientists and atheists like a laugh. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. He's an evangelistic creationist. He's a liar and he lies. He was one of the people who drew up a legal framework to try and brainwash children into being taught creationism as science. Do you regard Dawkins as some kind of infallible prophet? That is how you portray him. He isn't the representative of some non-deity. He just this guy, you know? He doesn't speak for atheists, he speaks for himself. He's not worshipped or revered. I agree with much of what he says, but not everything. It's not like he wrote the atheist bible. Although to make this discussion fair, perhaps you should read the book that the monkey quote comes from before you feel you can discuss it. I did read them and I asked you the same question about them twice. You didn't bother to answer. I don't understand how you can claim anything based on evidence which is from before your god created the earth. Absolutely. And I'll defend that right. I'll also ridicule you for it. And if you turn it into a method of brainwashing impressionable people, I'm likely to take action and incite others to stop you. and? So the people who wanted to control and tax the populace used the same methods and the same materials. They then handed these thoughts and ideas down the generations. I bet they misquoted what went before like your creationist did to Dawkins above, hoping that their brand of quackery would acquire something by association. It's nice that that forum isn't this one. The internet would be a lot less interesting if all sites were the same. But Julie, what happens isn't arguing back, it's a regurgitation of what believers have been told, then the ignoring of any questions without a scripted answer and eventually once someone's been incited to an ad hominem attack, put fingers in ears and going "la la la la this isn't fair". But you are complaining. Saying you aren't doesn't negate the fact that you are. A bit like starting a post with "I'm not going to debate this but..."

for dodgyknees: It's a 7" android tablet not yet launched in the UK. There are people selling them in the UK for £140. Amazon haven't given a launch date for the UK yet, presumably they are still negotiating with rights holders for content, like Google Music.

But that all happened before your god created the earth.

Socrates also said "The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms". You set out your terms of debate clearly, you won't listen. I hope that brings you wisdom. Everyone's beliefs are there to be questioned. There is nothing special about religious beliefs.

How are those Gobleki pillars twice as old as the biblical earth?

I'm not sure that Thor would care much about ho you lived.

That's why it's detailed in the posting guidelines. I wouldn't want people wandering off and applying their own interpretation of the word of mod

??? The links were fine. In fact they were better before.

Why hope when you can read the posting guidelines? For they are truly the word of mod.

That fact the General said that is nearly as crazy as a Villa fan suggesting the club should change its name.

Your ratings and reactions please. Keep it respectful even if you know everyone else is wrong. [table color=#bccde9:8ea3397f01][mrow][mcol color=yellow:8ea3397f01]Norwich[mcol]2-0[mcol color=#8c333c:8ea3397f01]Aston Villa [row][col color=yellow:8ea3397f01]Holt 8[col][mcol color=#8c333c:8ea3397f01] [row][col color=yellow:8ea3397f01]Jackson 21[col][mcol color=#8c333c:8ea3397f01] [/table]

Apart from the three teams with fewer points then us?

Hitler was raised Catholic. If your statistic is true, perhaps the failed attempts served to reinforce his superstitious beliefs that he was doing god's will, but more dangerously, caused others to believe it too. Allowing people to be trained not to think for themselves from a young age is really dangerous.

Energy condenses into matter. Energy doesn't have a velocity, only a potential, although it can be said to have a vibration. But I know what you mean.

So who did collapse the wave function of the universe? BTW, I agree completely. There is no free will. Decisions are made on the basis of chemical changes in the brain in response to stimuli. The brain is a chaotic system and therefore incredibly hard to model, but the illusion of free will is simply a by product of chemical reactions.

You can't have a stage of a collapse of a wave function. You've just proven that free will can't exist; "god" caused everything to have happened by observing it at the end of time (not the beginning). I think we've drifted into philosophy

That's cool. I'll stay away from the New Scientist for this as it's not peer reviewed, but I'll take another dig around. Hopefully I can find something somewhere. Multiple universes does not mean that time existed before our universe though. Time is just a dimension in spacetime and spacetime is an integral part of our universe. You'd still need to hypothesise some kind of causal sequence which existed outside of any particular universe. I assume that multiverse theory allows for encapsulated universes whereby extra-universal "time" would be defined by the parent universe? Time for some study I think.

clicky

Not really my area, but when you stay "is not stable", what happened when you tried it?

Any particular phone?

I look forward to learning about these. I don't suppose you've got any links to anything peer reviewed? Given the nature of this thread, I'm not going to take things on faith. A few months ago it was all still propositions, nothing you'd call a working theory. I'm surprised and impressed that they already have testifiable hypotheses.