Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The Case for Christ
w/ Lee Strobel
dyd2p1IaDpA
6_NNc1niKXk
ITty2zng1pg
haPtZRGYpNc
wvtvnTblDNg
L0TqMhbVlRw
nDmV_YqEF2c
khcoCNb7zBU

stop makin bullshit threads

That was convincing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That was convincing.

o i know

Well, to add some reasoning to chicken's statement, it's not a bad suggestion. Your two recent threads are nearly identical. And they could also go into threads that already exist, rather than making new threads for some copy/pasted youtube clips.

It's the same with recent threads about ID. We have multiple threads dedicated to it already, yet ushome has made at least 2 in recent weeks that I can think of that are nothing but veiled attempts to re-package pre-existing topics in order to push his agenda.

Debate where you will about whatever you want, but your thread habits are becoming ridiculous. It's becoming spam, and is notcably detracting from the diversity of the forum's threads.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Well, to add some reasoning to chicken's statement, it's not a bad suggestion. Your two recent threads are nearly identical. And they could also go into threads that already exist, rather than making new threads for some copy/pasted youtube clips.

It's the same with recent threads about ID. We have multiple threads dedicated to it already, yet ushome has made at least 2 in recent weeks that I can think of that are nothing but veiled attempts to re-package pre-existing topics in order to push his agenda.

Debate where you will about whatever you want, but your thread habits are becoming ridiculous. It's becoming spam, and is notcably detracting from the diversity of the forum's threads.

let me again restate you sir, are the best forum poster

Opened this thread expecting maybe a bit of text or a small video.... but damn!

Is anyone really gonna watch that?

Originally posted by Boris
Opened this thread expecting maybe a bit of text or a small video.... but damn!

Is anyone really gonna watch that?

no, no not really

Oh my god.

THis is true. How could I be so blind.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh my god.

THis is true. How could I be so blind.

i know right? i never knew how wrong i was. these videos opened my eyes.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
i know right? i never knew how wrong i was. these videos opened my eyes.


Maybe we should get onto YouTube and post some things that counter the opening clips... but that would mean we would have to watch them... oh! never mind.

And not one of you watched the video blog. How do I know this--just as I know many have not watched "The Case for a Creator?--because I watched them myself; and after doing so, I refreshed the page to find posts already on the threads. You can disagree all you want; I have no problem with that. But when people make statements about something they know nothing about is frustrating. It's not fair, and all I ask is for people to be reasonable. I'm not here to push an agenda. Watch the videos and take from them what you want. If anyone watched the videos, it would be clear that "objectivity" is the motivating factor behind them, not fallacious lies and propaganda. The videos are presented to create your own opinions.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Maybe we should get onto YouTube and post some things that counter the opening clips... but that would mean we would have to watch them... oh! never mind.



lol. im kinda gettin sick of ushomefree now. he' just postin shit.

hey shaky wanna pool together to get a big black guy named bubba to beat him up?

Originally posted by ushomefree
And not one of you watched the video blog. How do I know this--just as I know many have not watched "The Case for a Creator?--because I watched them myself; and after doing so, I refreshed the page to find posts already on the threads. You can disagree all you want; I have no problem with that. But when people make statements about something they know nothing about is frustrating. It's not fair, and all I ask is for people to be reasonable. I'm not here to push an agenda. Watch the videos and take from them what you want. If anyone watched the videos, it would be clear that "objectivity" is the motivating factor behind them, not fallacious lies and propaganda. The videos are presented to create your own opinions.

propaganda? practically every vid u post is christian propaganda. get your own damn evidence, and make it ****ing readable for once

I am of the personal opinion that, when you post a thread, the start of the thread should not just be a bunch of videos that you think everyone should watch. You should be voicing your own opinions and reflections on the videos that you are presenting.

I close Conspiracy Forum threads for simply starting with a video.

Chicken, please keep the language and content under control, please. We don't support bashing, no matter what the cause of it is.

"The Rest of the Story" Jeffery J. Lowder

Originally posted by Captain REX
I am of the personal opinion that, when you post a thread, the start of the thread should not just be a bunch of videos that you think everyone should watch. You should be voicing your own opinions and reflections on the videos that you are presenting.

I close Conspiracy Forum threads for simply starting with a video.

Chicken, please keep the language and content under control, please. We don't support bashing, no matter what the cause of it is.

good for you rex. this isnt a conspiracy thread, its thinly veiled douche baggery.

he starts multiple rediculus threads and expects people to read them.

i dont care that he starts with a vid, but 7 or 8 is way too much. how bout u tell him to stop makinj bullcrap stead of ALWAYS picking on me?

How about you listen to what I've asked you to do instead of accusing me of picking on you? You were bashing the thread openly, we don't tolerate it, so don't do it.

Originally posted by ushomefree
And not one of you watched the video blog. How do I know this--just as I know many have not watched "The Case for a Creator?--because I watched them myself; and after doing so, I refreshed the page to find posts already on the threads. You can disagree all you want; I have no problem with that. But when people make statements about something they know nothing about is frustrating. It's not fair, and all I ask is for people to be reasonable. I'm not here to push an agenda. Watch the videos and take from them what you want. If anyone watched the videos, it would be clear that "objectivity" is the motivating factor behind them, not fallacious lies and propaganda. The videos are presented to create your own opinions.

Missing the point entirely. You're trying to push your agenda onto others. Actually talk with people, and discuss them in the right places without creating worthless threads that all cover the same topic. Then maybe you'll get actual responses, or at least something more than the apathy that you routinely receive as a result of your tendencies on the forums.

Nobody is interested in your copy/paste messages because you come across as personally abrasive and impersonal. At this point, your debating tactics, if they can be called that, are reaching levels of JIA. You just manage to pull from alternative sources other than the Bible, but it's the same idea.

What do you recommend we talk about? And in what type of fashion?

Originally posted by ushomefree
What do you recommend we talk about? And in what type of fashion?

You and I? Nothing at all. We've been down that road, and it annoyed the hell out of me. But you probably have to stop acting like you have a strangle-hold on the truth and need to get others to believe the same things as you. Most people on the forums are big boys and girls, and resent being prosthelytized (sic?) to by other members who try to push their agendas and opinions on others.

"People conversing together about religious topics and opinions in search of further understanding" is a better way to look at it than "I need to 'win' the debate against the other side and covert people or tell them why they're wrong." And if you don't think you're the latter of those two, I can assure you that that's how you come across. Most of your ID posts, the recent anecdote about the MySpace guy, or numerous other posts, are prime examples of this type of behavior. It's condescending and doesn't go over well.

Better yet, leave ID threads alone for a while and try your hand at other topics. Because you're starting to get pretty one-tracked with the ID stuff, and eventually their aren't many new members that don't already have an opinion on you and your points....that's when they start tuning you out and getting nasty (which I don't advocate, but is inevitable sometimes on internet forums).

ushomefree are you interested in hearing how other people believe?

Originally posted by Captain REX
How about you listen to what I've asked you to do instead of accusing me of picking on you? You were bashing the thread openly, we don't tolerate it, so don't do it.

mmmk, wanna know i say you pick on me? becaaaaaaaauuuuuuse whenever other people "bash" no one says jack but when its me, u always tell me to calm down.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
ushomefree are you interested in hearing how other people believe?

i believe he is, but i dont think any evidence can ever convince him. he's one of those people who never give up on their beliefs no matter what quantities of evidence there are

Shakyamunison-

I subscribed to the KMC to engage in debate, and learning from others in the process is something I greet with open arms. However, when discussing any topic, and someone presents something that isn't true, I'm going to address it accordingly. On the flip side, if I'm unsure (or really haven't a clue), I won't say anything!

For example, in the past, the notion was raised that Jesus of Nazareth was a fictional character. I know that is false, but am I supposed to suck it up and say, "Yeah... that is an excellent point"? Give me a break.

Or how about when someone states that science proves--through quantum theory--that something comes from nothing (requiring no energy on top of that)? I mean... c'mon... that is a slap in the face to all of science. This too, am I supposed to suck it up and say, "Yeah... that is an excellent point"? Again, give me a break; and the list goes on.

From things about the Gospels being edited to Christianity borrowing "core" ideas from other religions, it's simply not valid. I even posted 2 video debates from YouTube to address the claim. I didn't do this to feel high and mightly--good about myself. Who cares? I did it to present the truth! And after doing so, I was told that the debators were weak. Yes, both of them. Again, am I supposed to suck it up and say, "Yeah... that was an excellent point"? No Shakyamunison. No one in their right mind would do that, unless they just flat out didn't care; but I do--about the truth itself and the need for people to know the truth (about any given topic).

It's a big deal to me. I take it seriously. Perhaps too seriously at times? I've posted things in the past, where the first thing people did was attack my source.

"Oh... this is BS," "This is Christian propaganda," "That is from a Creationist website," "That is unscientific," "That's a Christian term," "This site is proporting lies," and "This is dogmatic nonsense," are things that I commonly get bombarded with.

And directed towords myself: "Your bias," "Your full of s**t," "Your not open-minded," "Your spreading lies," "Your arrogant," and "Your only here to preach," is what I read.

And I'm the one supposedly having a bad attitude or method of addressing issues presented in the forum? Give me a break, please. And I do not profess to be right all the time!

A member named "xmarksthespot" corrected me a few days ago on a thread, and I owned up to it (immediately)! And what DigiMark007 brought up to my attention is true; I do need to subside with the Intelligent Design/Darwinian Evolution threads. And I will. The guy is right. And one last thing, when I shared the story of how I tried to help a guy on MySpace about what being Christian was about, the statement, "Holy S**t you are arrogant," was directed towards me.

Now... I'm sorry; but anyone having the slightest idea of what being Chrisitain entails--and stands for--would immediately know that the guy I spoke about was not Christian. Biblical Christians repent from sin, because they want to serve our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (the best way that they can) in faith. As a result, they will be "born again" of the Holy Spirit. They will be a new creation. Meaning, sin will always remain; but sin will no longer be the corner stone of one's life. Sin will be the exception, and they are saved. Biblical Christians take this seriously, because they have faith in Jesus Christ. Christians love Jesus! They want to honor Him, and so they would never blatantly set up a MySpace profile in the manner this Hip-Hop guy did. The Holy Spirit adds conviction in one's life, and he certainly showed no signs of that.

I'm not judging "him" personally; only God has the authority to do that. I am merely judging his "actions." And I am able to do so, because God is Holy. So, to whoever called me "arrogant," you please need to think about what you say (and why you say it)? Thank you.

Oh please, spare the sob story. All your threads thus far that I've seen have essentially been nothing more than thinly veiled outlets for you to attempt proselytize and/or blather on about intelligent design. JIA without the color.

Quantum mechanics, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the total energy of the universe equaling zero, random uncaused fluctuations in spacetime, virtual particles, symmetry principles, etc. etc. show the universe as we know it can arise from "nothing" via completely natural processes.

You responded to this by blathering on about general relativity, when it doesn't apply at quantum levels.

You blathered on that there were oodles and oodles of literature from scientists supporting intelligent design, or an intelligent agent. When I asked for one, singular peer-reviewed paper from a reputable journal you gave nothing but blathering rhetoric.

Bad grammar has been directed towards you? Cry me a river.

You're free to believe "Magic man done it." but don't claim it's scientific and don't try and shove it in people's faces.

To state, that my threads are thinly veiled outlets to attempt proselytizing and blathering about intelligent design is simply laughable; by your standard, we must conclude, that all members of the KMC--including yourself--commit such unforgivable, heinous acts. Relax; take a vacation. Lord forbid, that I disagree with the position of threads and provide a counter-argument. And how you propose that subatomic particles, atoms, etc., derive from quantum processes void of energy--from nothing!--escapes my mind. Your ego could move mountains. Energy is the back-bone of Quantum Mechanics! The origin of the universe, not to mention simple/complex organisms remains the most fantastic challenge for science to address; and it remains an utter mystery.

As I have previously stated, science is relentlessly in pursuit of acquiring knowledge pertaining to "cause" and "effect" phenomena in the observable universe; period. You, and scientists who hold the position, are walking on thin ice to conclude (and demand) that all "causes" must be natural. Thinking of this capacity reflects bias views, when in fact, all options should be on the table! And not doing so undermines science as a whole.

When science has demonstrated that mass, energy, space, and time birthed simultaneously (fine-tuned) and cells containing molecular machines performing functions ranging from replication and energy conversion to molecule transport and various signaling (containing highly coordinated moving parts)--and how this came into existence remains an utter mystery--it is not absurd to infer Intelligent Design--the product of an Intelligent Agent. And I haven't even discussed biological information; it's information! Where did it come from?

On the other hand, by natural means, we assume (and it doesn't look promising):

(1) nothing produces everything,

(2) non-life produces life,

(3) randomness produces fine-tuning, and

(4) chaos produces information.

In my view, the latter is completely unscientific, and it makes absolutely no sense. It's a religion.

E8NHcQesYl8

DNA Wrapping/Replication
Running Time: 3:07

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

I subscribed to the KMC to engage in debate, and learning from others in the process is something I greet with open arms. However, when discussing any topic, and someone presents something that isn't true, I'm going to address it accordingly. On the flip side, if I'm unsure (or really haven't a clue), I won't say anything!

For example, in the past, the notion was raised that Jesus of Nazareth was a fictional character. I know that is false, but am I supposed to suck it up and say, "Yeah... that is an excellent point"? Give me a break.

Or how about when someone states that science proves--through quantum theory--that something comes from nothing (requiring no energy on top of that)? I mean... c'mon... that is a slap in the face to all of science. This too, am I supposed to suck it up and say, "Yeah... that is an excellent point"? Again, give me a break; and the list goes on.

From things about the Gospels being edited to Christianity borrowing "core" ideas from other religions, it's simply not valid. I even posted 2 video debates from YouTube to address the claim. I didn't do this to feel high and mightly--good about myself. Who cares? I did it to present the truth! And after doing so, I was told that the debators were weak. Yes, both of them. Again, am I supposed to suck it up and say, "Yeah... that was an excellent point"? No Shakyamunison. No one in their right mind would do that, unless they just flat out didn't care; but I do--about the truth itself and the need for people to know the truth (about any given topic).

It's a big deal to me. I take it seriously. Perhaps too seriously at times? I've posted things in the past, where the first thing people did was attack my source.

"Oh... this is BS," "This is Christian propaganda," "That is from a Creationist website," "That is unscientific," "That's a Christian term," "This site is proporting lies," and "This is dogmatic nonsense," are things that I commonly get bombarded with.

And directed towords myself: "Your bias," "Your full of s**t," "Your not open-minded," "Your spreading lies," "Your arrogant," and "Your only here to preach," is what I read.

And I'm the one supposedly having a bad attitude or method of addressing issues presented in the forum? Give me a break, please. And I do not profess to be right all the time!

A member named "xmarksthespot" corrected me a few days ago on a thread, and I owned up to it (immediately)! And what DigiMark007 brought up to my attention is true; I do need to subside with the Intelligent Design/Darwinian Evolution threads. And I will. The guy is right. And one last thing, when I shared the story of how I tried to help a guy on MySpace about what being Christian was about, the statement, "Holy S**t you are arrogant," was directed towards me.

Now... I'm sorry; but anyone having the slightest idea of what being Chrisitain entails--and stands for--would immediately know that the guy I spoke about was not Christian. Biblical Christians repent from sin, because they want to serve our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (the best way that they can) in faith. As a result, they will be "born again" of the Holy Spirit. They will be a new creation. Meaning, sin will always remain; but sin will no longer be the corner stone of one's life. Sin will be the exception, and they are saved. Biblical Christians take this seriously, because they have faith in Jesus Christ. Christians love Jesus! They want to honor Him, and so they would never blatantly set up a MySpace profile in the manner this Hip-Hop guy did. The Holy Spirit adds conviction in one's life, and he certainly showed no signs of that.

I'm not judging "him" personally; only God has the authority to do that. I am merely judging his "actions." And I am able to do so, because God is Holy. So, to whoever called me "arrogant," you please need to think about what you say (and why you say it)? Thank you.

A simple yes or no answer would have been fine.

Are you ever wrong? Of course you are; everyone from time to time is wrong. The problem I see is that you only come from one point of view, and you seem to be unable to see the topic from someone elses view. Again, we all have this problem from time to time.

I don't know about the YouTube clips you show because YouTube is blocked on my computer here at work, but you have used biased sources in the past, and that only discredits your point in my eyes. I suggest you try to get away from the Christian web sights when arguing with a non-Christian. Like for example: if you were to learn a little about my religion, and then showed that I was wrong by my own beliefs, I would have to listen. However, that takes a lot of work and you may not want to do that.

Shakyamunison-

You seem to be a good person; honestly. And yes, I have been wrong about many things in life, and I have no problem dealing with that. We all have bias views; but it is imperative to keep them in check--to remain open. You simply must understand, that I do that!

About 4 to 5 years ago, when I decided to take religious study seriously, I didn't dive straight into Christianity without question; my heart cannot embrace what the mind rejects. To be practical, I studied religions that had the most influence in the world. I thought that was a logical place to start. I don't have the time or resources to study every religion in the world; but Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were the heavy hitters that I began with. And throughout my studies, questions and concerns would arise, and I found myself studying other religions to find answers.

In studying these religions, theology was not the only subject I referenced. I also studied science, archeology, and history. It was hard work (and expensive), but I enjoyed all the study. For me, it was mentally stimulating. But getting to the point, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were the most formidable in my findings.

In the end, I embraced Christianity. Judaism rejects Jesus as Messiah; Jews were expecting an "earthly" King, and they ignore aspects of their own Scripture, namely, prophecy of the coming Messiah. Some Jewish sects actually remove Isaiah 53 out of Scripture. Islam rejects Jesus as Messiah; but the Koran was written 600 years after the fact. It is not reliable in regards to the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.

If you wish to get your foot in the door of why I became Christian, watch the videos I presented in this thread (when you get home). As for science, specifically Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution, I studied those subjects as well. Hands down, Evolution is true; but not on the "macro" level. When naturalists study molecular biology, astronomy, or physics, they have to constantly remind themselves that God does not exist. And I do not understand that. What's to fear? Accountability? I honestly cannot think of a thread where members of the forum provided a convincing/persuasive argument.

What's to fear in truth?

The last "anti-religious" video I watched was presented by Richard Dawkins entitled, "The Root Of All Evil." And prior to that, I watched the movie entitled, "The God Who Wasn't There," presented by Brian Flemming. Sam Harris? I watched his book presentation on television! Members of the forum think they know me; but they haven't a clue. When I make the statement that I have studied and remian open-minded, it should be taken seriously. Instead, I'm ridiculed.

What did you think of my last post--the response to xmarksthespot? Did you:

(A) agree with the majority of it,

(B) disagree with the majority of it, or

(C) found it mentally stimulating, but remain neutral?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

You seem to be a good person; honestly. And yes, I have been wrong about many things in life, and I have no problem dealing with that. We all have bias views; but it is imperative to keep them in check--to remain open. You simply must understand, that I do that!

About 4 to 5 years ago, when I decided to take religious study seriously, I didn't dive straight into Christianity without question; my heart cannot embrace what the mind rejects. To be practical, I studied religions that had the most influence in the world. I thought that was a logical place to start. I don't have the time or resources to study every religion in the world; but Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were the heavy hitters that I began with. And throughout my studies, questions and concerns would arise, and I found myself studying other religions to find answers.

In studying these religions, theology was not the only subject I referenced. I also studied science, archeology, and history. It was hard work (and expensive), but I enjoyed all the study. For me, it was mentally stimulating. But getting to the point, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were the most formidable in my findings.

In the end, I embraced Christianity. Judaism rejects Jesus as Messiah; Jews were expecting an "earthly" King, and they ignore aspects of their own Scripture, namely, prophecy of the coming Messiah. Some Jewish sects actually remove Isaiah 53 out of Scripture. Islam rejects Jesus as Messiah; but the Koran was written 600 years after the fact. It is not reliable in regards to the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.

If you wish to get your foot in the door of why I became Christian, watch the videos I presented in this thread (when you get home). As for science, specifically Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution, I studied those subjects as well. Hands down, Evolution is true; but not on the "macro" level. When naturalists study molecular biology, astronomy, or physics, they have to constantly remind themselves that God does not exist. And I do not understand that. What's to fear? Accountability? I honestly cannot think of a thread where members of the forum provided a convincing/persuasive argument.

What's to fear in truth?

The last "anti-religious" video I watched was presented by Richard Dawkins entitled, "The Root Of All Evil." And prior to that, I watched the movie entitled, "The God Who Wasn't There," presented by Brian Flemming. Sam Harris? I watched his book presentation on television! Members of the forum think they know me; but they haven't a clue. When I make the statement that I have studied and remian open-minded, it should be taken seriously. Instead, I'm ridiculed.

What did you think of my last post--the response to xmarksthespot? Did you:

(A) agree with the majority of it,

(B) disagree with the majority of it, or

(C) found it mentally stimulating, but remain neutral?

Sorry, but I didn't read it. If I get the time I will read back, but I'm really busy right now. However, you have a valid point. Communication is a two way street, and if the other person is not willing to see it from your point of view, then why should you?

As far as going home and getting on the forum: I'm in the middle of a recording project that has been on going for 3 years. I'm in that really tedious phase of listening to every track alone. I have hundreds of tracks. That has been my life after work.

Do not encourage idiots.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Do not encourage idiots.

All people can learn, and we all have the Buddha nature that searches. Even an idiot will become a Buddha.

Originally posted by ushomefree
To state, that my threads are thinly veiled outlets to attempt proselytizing and blathering about intelligent design is simply laughable; by your standard, we must conclude, that all members of the KMC--including yourself--commit such unforgivable, heinous acts. Relax; take a vacation. A list of some of your recent threads:
Video Blog: The Case for Christ
Intelligent Design
Video Blog: The Case for a Creator
Intelligent Design (ID) Theory
Darwinism: Survival without Purpose
Jesus the Christ: The Fulfillment of Prophecy
Salvation: A Brief Overview
"Evolving" Robots Challenge Evolution

Ha ha indeed.Originally posted by ushomefree
Lord forbid, that I disagree with the position of threads and provide a counter-argument. And how you propose that subatomic particles, atoms, etc., derive from quantum processes void of energy--from nothing!--escapes my mind. Your ego could move mountains. Energy is the back-bone of Quantum Mechanics! The origin of the universe, not to mention simple/complex organisms remains the most fantastic challenge for science to address; and it remains an utter mystery. I haven't proposed anything, I've stated experimentally verified mechanisms in modern physics by which the universe can arise via natural processes.

You haven't offered any counter-argument to physicists besides "Magic man done it."
Originally posted by ushomefree
As I have previously stated, science is relentlessly in pursuit of acquiring knowledge pertaining to "cause" and "effect" phenomena in the observable universe; period. You, and scientists who hold the position, are walking on thin ice to conclude (and demand) that all "causes" must be natural. Thinking of this capacity reflects bias views, when in fact, all options should be on the table! And not doing so undermines science as a whole. You're under the assumption that all things must have a cause, when random uncaused quantum phenomena have been confirmed experimentally.
Originally posted by ushomefree
When science has demonstrated that mass, energy, space, and time birthed simultaneously (fine-tuned) and cells containing molecular machines performing functions ranging from replication and energy conversion to molecule transport and various signaling (containing highly coordinated moving parts)--and how this came into existence remains an utter mystery--it is not absurd to infer Intelligent Design--the product of an Intelligent Agent. And I haven't even discussed biological information; it's information! Where did it come from?

On the other hand, by natural means, we assume (and it doesn't look promising):

(1) nothing produces everything,

(2) non-life produces life,

(3) randomness produces fine-tuning, and

(4) chaos produces information.

In my view, the latter is completely unscientific, and it makes absolutely no sense. It's a religion. For one thing, under current models matter, energy and spacetime weren't "birthed" simultaneously. From what you've written "machines" "moving parts" and the use of "information" which is most likely in reference to Dembski's widely panned "information" theory, I can pretty safely say that what you know or assume you know about biology and physics you've derived from creationist and cdesign proponentsist websites or your lovely little youtube videos. And I've no intention of teaching anyone about either topic for free on a website when I could be paid quite well doing it in person.

"When people make statements about something they know nothing about." hypocrisy.

Heh. I told him what the inevitable response to his arrogant tactics would be, then he proceeded to list a bunch of those responses like somehow they vindicated shoddy posting. Yeah, other people can be d*cks too, ushome. It's not excusable but it doesn't absolve you of arrogance and idiocy. And it doesn't change my point. Until you start treating the forums as a place to hang out and talk while sharing ideas, it'll be more of the same.

At this point he's done little but fall into his past traps guys, including some video (amongst the dozens of others) to make whatever point it makes. I consider most of his threads anymore as spam and have basically had the same mentality toward him and his prosthelytizing that I do toward JIA. He showed the desire to change momentarily but appears to have failed in the execution, so my opinion (and future indifference) won't really change.

...

Also, pretty much everything X said.

ushomefree if i may make a suggestion so that u dont sound so.....frigid. when you talk your analytical. thats not bad per se, but when you talk like that constantly and you have an air around you that says "im better than you" people get angry. ty and imitate other peoples speech patterns.

On what planet do you inhabit? Wowie... wow, wow, wow! You have my undivided attention; explain to myself (and members of the forum) what specific information you have to substantiate your claims. Please elaborate on all points. If not for me, elaborate for members of the forum.

Originally posted by ushomefree
On what planet do you inhabit? Wowie... wow, wow, wow! You have my undivided attention; explain to myself (and members of the forum) what specific information you have to substantiate your claims. Please elaborate on all points. If not for me, elaborate for members of the forum.

You should avoid post just to insult. Other people might be able to get away with it, but I don't think it will make you any points.

Originally posted by ushomefree
On what planet do you inhabit? Wowie... wow, wow, wow! You have my undivided attention; explain to myself (and members of the forum) what specific information you have to substantiate your claims. Please elaborate on all points. If not for me, elaborate for members of the forum.

O MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU QUOTED SOMEONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A MIRACLE!!

Thank you; I'll work on it.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Thank you; I'll work on it.

thank you for the love of god finally


EDIT: for the love of science AND Chuck Norris

Oh come on! I throw a little heat towards someone, and I'm being made to look like the bad guy. I'm just having a little fun; if xmarksthespot can't handle it, he can go cry a river. Right X?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Oh come on! I throw a little heat towards someone, and I'm being made to look like the bad guy. I'm just having a little fun; if xmarksthespot can't handle it, he can go cry a river. Right X?

I'm sorry if what I said made you look like the bad guy. That was not my intent. I was just trying to help you. In other words, if everyone is getting on your case, don't give them full, is all I was saying.

Cool beans Shakyamunison!

Originally posted by ushomefree
Cool beans Shakyamunison!

can u say something from....this century? cool beans is something people from 80's movies say. where the hell do you hang out? old mens country clubs?

Yeah... I just left (ha ha ha)!

Originally posted by ushomefree
Yeah... I just left (ha ha ha)!


in case u hadnt noticed, there are smily faces

Originally posted by chickenlover98
in case u hadnt noticed, there are smily faces

Don't tell him about those.

Before you know it his posts will be like...

smartassred_bandana

...and no one will understand what he is talking about.

chickenlover98 "And how is that different from now?"

Shakyamunison "Good point!"

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/8905/strobelii9.jpg


hysterical2

Originally posted by ushomefree
On what planet do you inhabit? Wowie... wow, wow, wow! You have my undivided attention; explain to myself (and members of the forum) what specific information you have to substantiate your claims. Please elaborate on all points. If not for me, elaborate for members of the forum. Symmetry principles are fundamental to all physics. The success of quantum mechanics is a direct result of it's ability to predict and explain the experimental evidence. And as far as I'm aware there's yet to be any experiment performed with results violating the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics.

The existence of virtual particle pairs arising spontaneously from vacuum was a hypothesis upon which predictions were made. These predictions were shown accurate by Willis Lamb over sixty years ago. Other experimental findings agree with the existence of virtual particle pairs. Virtual particle pairs are a vacuum fluctuation effect, other vacuum fluctuation effects have been or are being studied in the field of quantum electrodynamics.

The existence of vacuum fluctuations and virtual particle pairs is allowed by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is continually mathematically confirmed, as well as via thought experiments.

Bell's inequality experiments also demonstrated that deterministic "hidden local variables" do not comply with experimental data, and cannot explain the randomness observed in quantum systems. There is no hidden "cause."

The total energy of the universe mathematically equates to zero, when one takes into account cosmological principle.

And under the current inflationary model of the universe energy was generated before a friction effect converted some of it into matter.

That's about as much as I'm willing to spoonfeed someone who's not actually willing to learn, in no position to be using a condescending tone and essentially vindicating the comments he was complaining about beforehand.

You're still yet to offer an evidenced counter-argument to the physicists who proposed these hypotheses and/or verified them.

Besides "Magic man done it."

And I'm still waiting for you to select a peer-reviewed scientific article from a reputable journal from your oodles of literature supporting an intelligent intervention to show me. There must be too many to choose from, huh? So I don't see why I should have to explain anything I've posted to you anyway.

xmarksthespot-

I applaud your post; it contained more information than all former combined. I referenced key terms and principles presented, and I sense the depth of your argument. I must manage time and resources to address it properly; my knowledge concerning Quantum Mechanics is limited. To aid in my efforts, I have printed articles encompassing the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Cosmological Principle, and Vacuum Fluctuations. With no further ado, I'm signing off; I have much to study. thumbsup

I'm sure Professor Hawking and his contemporaries eagerly await your emails.

Agreed; and quantum mechanics doesn't violate "classical" physics either.

The Heisenberg Uncertaintly Principle (HUP) deals specifically with measuring particles; within HUP, the momentum of the particles are uncertain, and measuring the momentum of particles equates to uncertainty as well. This is all find and good, but HUP has nothing to do with creation (or even evolution).

Needless to say, it has been argued that accurate measurments will be possible once technology advances. Which is a good thing!



Agreed; but Vacuum Fluctuation are not void (empty) of mass--hence the creation of particles, and they are certainly not void of energy.

"In modern physics, there is no such thing as 'nothing.' Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy." --Richard Morris

"There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty-five zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero." --Stephen Hawking

The "total sum of energy equating to zero," is defined by--or the direct result of--postive and negative energy.

In how you imply this fact, can be viewed as misleading.



Agreed; but you can't apply HUP and Vacuum Fluctuations to creation or evoution. The HUP deals with measuments, and Vacuum Fluctuations deal with the relationship between energy and mass, however out of focus they may be. Don't you agree with that?



Agreed; the cause is not "hidden." It simply cannot be quantified and measured accurately. Stay tuned as technology advances.



I agree 100 percent! The Big Bang theory varifies universal inflation (expansion), but where did the "energy" come from. That is the fundamental question. I'm not trying to be saucy or arrogant with you, but that remains a mystery. In biology, the question is, "Where did the information come from"?

Thanks to you, I have developed interest in Quantum Mechanics. I'm going to contiune studying and--at minimum--become knowledgeable enough to engage in conversation without reading 3 articles and referencing about 15 various websites! I have a DVD movie called, "The Elegant Universe," I purchased from Nova. It's a great movie, and I think you would get a kick out of it. The DVD is primarily about Quantum Mechanics and "String theory," not to mention "classical" physics. The entire video used to be posted to the Nova wesbite--in the educational section (I think?)--you may want to check it out. Take care.

Under current models the initial positive energy that caused inflation of spacetime was due to spontaneous vacuum fluctuations. Energy conservation principles are not violated as the positive energy produced would be balanced by the negative energy curvature in spacetime.

I wasn't applying uncertainty principle or vacuum fluctuations to evolution. I was stating the mechanisms by which the universe as we know it can arise without cause or intervention. The matter derives from energy, the energy derives from spacetime curvature, spacetime curvature is an uncaused phenomenon.

If you're asking how spacetime arose, then you're making the assumption that spacetime had to arise. A concept of "time" and "space" outside of known spacetime can't yet be modeled. So whether the initial spacetime singularity always existed, or didn't always exist has yet to be confirmed. You're also making the assumption that if it did arise it could only arise via a "cause." Which is untrue under modern physics, considering there are uncaused spontaneous phenomena. And if you're assuming it arose from "void" then you're making the assumption that outside of known spacetime, there is "void."

xmarksthespot-

With all due respect, with what information I have read regarding Quantum Mechanics, it seems to me, that you are extrapolating on areas of Quantum Mechanics that remain mysterious (or dubious). As to your intent, I think you are sincere, but facts surrounding Quantum Mechanics are not black and white--a matter of fact--as you present them. I ask that you read the article, "Quantum Mechanics, the Modern Goliath," authored by Astronomer Hugh Ross, Ph. D. When reading the article, the terms, "God," "Bible," "Transcendent Creator," etc., are apparent; I ask that you ignore the terms, and focus on the material being presented. In other words, I ask that you read the article openly. And the top of the article provides other articles that have relation--directly or indirectly--to the topic. I encourage you to read them; take care.

X, you just gave him a new (and even more obtuse) scientific field to butcher with creationist propoganda.



I'd lol, but it's probably getting close to a lot of our limits when it comes to debating about this stuff (or caring, frankly, especially with ushome).

Though I'd really like to point out a macroscopic perspective on this to ushome: X (and others...anyone who knows evolution, in fact) can and has been able to refute you or provide all the evidence you continuously demand. And now you're looking for creationism loopholes in....quantum physics? Just look at it all. You're becoming the very definition of the "god of the gaps" theory that is both infuriating and unscientific. If X can keep up with all this (by all accounts, he can) you'll have to retreat to...i dunno...dualistic theories of consciousness next, which may or may not exist but hardly endorse anything resembling evidence for your Creator....just like quantum physics never will.

Quantum physics is strange and incomprehensible to a huge number of people, so it's easy to draw false analogies to the fields of religion and philosophy without fear of being debunked by too many people. But the leap from one field to the other is so vast that it makes any attempt ridiculous unless it's empirical and scientific in its methods and conclusions. The theories that are accepted within the scientific community match our observations and tests, so there is little reason to doubt them...just as there is little (if any) reason to try to find religious solace in the seemingly counter-intuitive nature of quantum physics with our normal understanding of mechanistic forces of nature.

DigiMark007-

Did you read the article I provided?

DigiMark007-

The reason I asked whether or not you read the article, is because of your attitude and choice of words. As with other conversations we have had in the past, you've claimed that I base arguments on "Creationist propaganda." This simply isn't true; if you read the article, you simply skimmed through it, and that is not reading, let alone understanding the author's arguments (or questions). Point being, if you had taken the time to read the article (and perhaps reference other sources in conjunction with) you wouldn't have labeled the article "Creationist propaganda." At minimum, whether you disagreed (or agreed), you'd realize that the article is based on science. I highly recommend you print and read the the article entitled, "Astronomical Evidences for the God of the Bible." The article is easy to read; it's not a book, but it delivers the basics. It is a great source of information, since the bibliography contains 141 references. Give it a fair read. Sheesh....

Don't accuse me of skimming. I'm insulted...

...in fact, I didn't read it at all. Or even consider reading it.

31

I've gotten into with you before, and you know my stance. For me, it's not nearly worth it when all you do is find loopholes (either with your threads or your arguments themselves) to push your agenda.

If someone wants to discuss the nuances of quantum physics, I'm all for it. But I'll enter the talk when it's a scientific discussion, not a fault-finding mission for which to bolster a religious agenda that is far removed from anything having to do with legitimate science.

And you know this because you haven't read the article? DigiMark... c'mon man!

I know this because I know your intents and methods. I couldn't care less if it's you posting it. But if someone else were to post the same thing with legit scientific questions about quantum physics, not in an attempt to use it toward a religious end that has nothing to do with it, but in curious scientific (empirical) inquiry, and that focused on what we can and do know rather than demanding answers of theories, I'd be all for it. But I doubt you can lay claim to any of it. Every other post you've ever made speaks otherwise, so don't bother taking the high road. All you've ever done is use perceived flaws in whatever theory of the day you've targeted to try and work in your baseless unscientific religious claims.

So no, you c'mon. I really don't think you've grasped my point ever, and you continue with the same tactics that got you on so many unofficial ignore lists in this forum.

I read, or more rather began reading the article. And DigiMark's pre-assessment is rather accurate... ermm

The unrefereed article is largely an exercise in flowery language, which if I were to ignore would eliminate most of the article, equivocation and argumentum ad ignorantiam. It references research literature, then tries to refute it with statements, referencing his own unrefereed articles and unrefereed books. It makes statements of what can and cannot occur before the Planck time and further what can and cannot occur outside of known spacetime, based on I don't know what. It would never be pass even the most lenient peer-review as rather than scientific, it is a subversion of scientific terms to fit a preconceived conclusion "God did it."

It also doesn't do anything in particular to dissuade me from my established perception of Hugh Ross, nor that mechanistic universal expansion requires no intervention.

I'm quite certain I've said it many times already, science does not deal with the supernatural. Science is not equipped to deal with the supernatural. Ross' assertion that he speaks on behalf of physicists and astronomers and that science not only proves a creator, but that it proves his particular variant of a creator, is fallacy - and it is that, that reveals Ross' writings as little more than propaganda.

(Oh and in advance dualist theories of quantum consciousness essentially can't be tested empirically as far as I'm aware, Digi.)

Don't you agree, that Dr. Ross's views are based on science?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Don't you agree, that Dr. Ross's views are based on science? Ross tries to subvert other people's science to endorse his particular religious views, which science neither can nor will ever do. He has already come to his conclusion, and is working backwards from there. That isn't science.

Even if science asserts that known spacetime has a beginning, it doesn't prove or disprove a creator, and it most certainly does not prove any particular variant of a creator. All it does is assert that known spacetime has a beginning.

xmarksthespot-

Hugh Ross is an Astronomer. And he wasn't always a "deist." It is science--not religion--that lead him to belief in a Creator, much like Anthony Flew. I agree; science is not in the business of answering questions concerning the supernatural "itself." Science is about "cause" and "effect" within the observable universe. And science, especially over the past 30 years, is amounting to evidences that allow scientists to speculate that the universe is the product of a supernatural "cause." Can we study the supernatural cause directly? No! But that is irrelevant! If I told you that a turtle typed this message and posted it on this thread, you'd think I was out of my mind. Why? Because this message requires "intelligence." Well, what is the evidence? You are reading the evidence. This message "itself" is proof that something "intelligent" wrote it, not a turtle (or even a lamp falling over on the key board). We can reach this conclusion by studying phenomena in the observable universe, not the supernatural. Don't you understand that?

Originally posted by ushomefree
xmarksthespot-

Hugh Ross is an Astronomer. And he wasn't always a "deist." It is science--not religion--that lead him to belief in a Creator, much like Anthony Flew. I agree; science is not in the business of answering questions concerning the supernatural "itself." Science is about "cause" and "effect" within the observable universe. And science, especially over the past 30 years, is amounting to evidences that allow scientists to speculate that the universe is the product of a supernatural "cause." Can we study the supernatural cause directly? No! But that is irrelevant! If I told you that a turtle typed this message and posted it on this thread, you'd think I was out of my mind. Why? Because this message requires "intelligence." Well, what is the evidence? You are reading the evidence. This message "itself" is proof that something "intelligent" wrote it, not a turtle (or even a lamp falling over on the key board). We can reach this conclusion by studying phenomena in the observable universe, not the supernatural. Don't you understand that?

ok seriously ushomefree can you see the quote button or are you just selectively blind. LEARN TO CLICK IT GOD DAMN IT.

EDIT: science damn it.