Creation According to Genesis

[Maurepas]

I tend to think of it as perhaps a colorized view of an intervention sometime in humanity's past.

You and your "posting on topic" this thread has evolved far beyond such things,

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

'We don't know' is a more logical conclusion than 'God did it'.

There's no net energy. The complete lack of energy doesn't need an explanation.

[New Kereptica]

Because every scientists ever hates religion.

Whoa, now, don't go putting words in my mouth.

You claimed that 'everyone' (meaning all scientists) were on the same page about cherrypicking. The cherrypicking regarded essentially discrediting religion. Thus, it logically follows that you are claiming that all scientists want to discredit religion. The simplest explanation for that is that they all hate religion.

The simplest explanation is not always the correct one, no matter what Occam would have you believe.

The simplest explanation at a given time may not be the correct one. In retrospect, it's quite often the simplest explanation that takes the cake.

[Almajoya]

No. 'God' is a completely illogical being and the existence thereof is rather strange.

Source?

Its an unprovable concept, therefore illogical,

Nope, try again. Unprovable =/= illogical. Unprovable = unable to be supported, which a claim like "God is illogical" should be. Question: What makes him illogical?

[Almajoya]

Because every scientists ever hates religion.

Whoa, now, don't go putting words in my mouth.

You claimed that 'everyone' (meaning all scientists) were on the same page about cherrypicking. The cherrypicking regarded essentially discrediting religion. Thus, it logically follows that you are claiming that all scientists want to discredit religion. The simplest explanation for that is that they all hate religion.

The simplest explanation is not always the correct one, no matter what Occam would have you believe.

The simplest explanation at a given time may not be the correct one. In retrospect, it's quite often the simplest explanation that takes the cake.

Quite often, but not always. Such is the case here.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Cool there is no energy in the universe. we should stop converting energy from one form into another because there is none.

No net energy. There's no net charge either. That doesn't mean that there aren't regions with differing levels of charge density.

[Blouman Empire]

The origins of the universe are just as much more difficult to prove.

Where did this energy come from?

'We don't know' is a more logical conclusion than 'God did it'.

Well that's true doesn't quite answer the question though.

[New Kereptica]

Because every scientists ever hates religion.

Whoa, now, don't go putting words in my mouth.

You claimed that 'everyone' (meaning all scientists) were on the same page about cherrypicking. The cherrypicking regarded essentially discrediting religion. Thus, it logically follows that you are claiming that all scientists want to discredit religion. The simplest explanation for that is that they all hate religion.

The simplest explanation is not always the correct one, no matter what Occam would have you believe.

The simplest explanation at a given time may not be the correct one. In retrospect, it's quite often the simplest explanation that takes the cake.

Quite often, but not always. Such is the case here.

Proof?

[Blouman Empire]

Cool there is no energy in the universe. we should stop converting energy from one form into another because there is none.

No net energy. There's no net charge either. That doesn't mean that there aren't regions with differing levels of charge density.

But there is energy?

[Barringtonia]

'We don't know' is a more logical conclusion than 'God did it'.

There's no net energy. The complete lack of energy doesn't need an explanation.

No net energy is not necessarily the same as no energy whatsoever. I can have $50 in my pocket and owe my friend $50, the $50 is still there.

[Blouman Empire]

'We don't know' is a more logical conclusion than 'God did it'.

There's no net energy. The complete lack of energy doesn't need an explanation.

No net energy is not necessarily the same as no energy whatsoever. I can have $50 in my pocket and owe my friend $50, the $50 is still there.

I know that but I simply said there is energy I then got told I was wrong there was no net energy.

[New Kereptica]

'We don't know' is a more logical conclusion than 'God did it'.

There's no net energy. The complete lack of energy doesn't need an explanation.

No net energy is not necessarily the same as no energy whatsoever. I can have $50 in my pocket and owe my friend $50, the $50 is still there.

Debt is not anti-money.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Nope, try again. Unprovable =/= illogical. Unprovable = unable to be supported, which a claim like "God is illogical" should be. Question: What makes him illogical?

Is god omnipotent? If so, what do you mean by omnipotence? Depending on your definition of omnipotence, I can pit god's power against him and show that omnipotence (of certain kinds) is self-refuting.

[Patriqvinia]

I tend to think of it as perhaps a colorized view of an intervention sometime in humanity's past.

You and your "posting on topic" this thread has evolved far beyond such things,

yep, you got me, I was too lazy to read everything

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

No net energy is not necessarily the same as no energy whatsoever. I can have $50 in my pocket and owe my friend $50, the $50 is still there.

Yes, but the conservation of energy is only concerned with the net energy of a system.

[Maurepas]

No. 'God' is a completely illogical being and the existence thereof is rather strange.

Source?

Its an unprovable concept, therefore illogical,

Nope, try again. Unprovable =/= illogical.

You may wish to peruse this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

But there is energy?

There's positive mass energy negative gravitational energy. They exactly cancel out.

[Sitspot]

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:
The peer-review process really doesn't allow cherry-picking to survive for long.

It's not so much that it always works or that it even works most of the time in short term.

[Blouman Empire]

But there is energy?

There's positive mass energy negative gravitational energy. They exactly cancel out.

So you have already said but I never said they didn't.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:
The peer-review process really doesn't allow cherry-picking to survive for long.

It's not so much that it always works or that it even works most of the time in short term.

Yeah, that's not a contradiction, Einstein. One says that it doesn't allow for long term survival, and the other says that it may allow for short term survival. How can you not understand that?

[Almajoya]

Nope, try again. Unprovable =/= illogical. Unprovable = unable to be supported, which a claim like "God is illogical" should be. Question: What makes him illogical?

Is god omnipotent? If so, what do you mean by omnipotence? Depending on your definition of omnipotence, I can pit god's power against him and show that omnipotence (of certain kinds) is self-refuting.

I argued this point pages ago, love. God's methods are science; science is man's interpretation of God's methods. The facts that to you make his omnipotence "self-refuting" were created by Him, and can be broken by Him on a whim. That is the sort of omnipotence I am describing.

[
The simplest explanation is not always the correct one, no matter what Occam would have you believe.

The simplest explanation at a given time may not be the correct one. In retrospect, it's quite often the simplest explanation that takes the cake.

Quite often, but not always. Such is the case here.

Proof?

Proof that because a scientist discredits religion, he hates it? Do you want me to examine every scientist in the world, past and present? I admit that I should not have used an absolute so freely, but that does not change my point: science and religion are at odds, although they do not have to be.

[New Kereptica]

[
The simplest explanation is not always the correct one, no matter what Occam would have you believe.

The simplest explanation at a given time may not be the correct one. In retrospect, it's quite often the simplest explanation that takes the cake.

Quite often, but not always. Such is the case here.

Proof?

Proof that because a scientist discredits religion, he hates it? Do you want me to examine every scientist in the world, past and present? I admit that I should not have used an absolute so freely, but that does not change my point: science and religion are at odds, although they do not have to be.

They do. Science rests on provable facts and observations. Religion, by definition, rests on belief in supernatural (unprovable) phenomena.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I argued this point pages ago, love. God's methods are science; science is man's interpretation of God's methods. The facts that to you make his omnipotence "self-refuting" were created by Him, and can be broken by Him on a whim. That is the sort of omnipotence I am describing.

I wouldn't use facts to make certain definitions of omnipotence self-refuting. I would only use logic and the provided definition.

[Sitspot]

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:
The peer-review process really doesn't allow cherry-picking to survive for long.

It's not so much that it always works or that it even works most of the time in short term.

Yeah, that's not a contradiction, Einstein. One says that it doesn't allow for long term survival, and the other says that it may allow for short term survival. How can you not understand that?

Well Woo-suk, when I say something won't survive for long, that tends to mean it will expire in the short term. We obviously use English in quite different ways.

[Almajoya]

No. 'God' is a completely illogical being and the existence thereof is rather strange.

Source?

Its an unprovable concept, therefore illogical,

Nope, try again. Unprovable =/= illogical.

You may wish to peruse this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

Hmm. Let's say that I fail to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that my client did not rob an ice cream truck. Is it then illogical that he did not rob an ice cream truck? Or is there any way to know? My claim is unsupported, but not illogical.

You're getting Wiki-happy, my friend. Try again.