The universe is proof of god!

[Elixir]

There's a fair bit of information about the Plank era, but we are still trying to nail it down.

And if we don't? Then we're screwed?

 

[bilby]

There's a fair bit of information about the Plank era, but we are still trying to nail it down.

And if we don't? Then we're screwed?

Quite likely. We may splinter into different factions (although that would go against the grain).

 

[none]

Well, when they figure out an experiment we'll have something to hang a hat on until then home is where the heart is

 

[skepticalbip]

There's a fair bit of information about the Plank era, but we are still trying to nail it down.

And if we don't? Then we're screwed?

Quite likely. We may splinter into different factions (although that would go against the grain).

But it is much easier to splinter with the grain... so that is more likely.

 

[Rhea]

Quite likely. We may splinter into different factions (although that would go against the grain).

But it is much easier to splinter with the grain... so that is more likely.

Goodness, don’t you boys ever get board of doing that?

 

[bilby]

Quite likely. We may splinter into different factions (although that would go against the grain).

But it is much easier to splinter with the grain... so that is more likely.

Goodness, don’t you boys ever get board of doing that?

Wooden think so.

 

[Juma]

Be very careful here, Learner. You are trying to use Math to make an argument, but you are using words instead of math. You should go pose this question in the Mathematics forum here. people better versed in Math than I am will show you your errors thoroughly.

But your proposition, that you can divide numbers by infinity and prevent time from moving ...
... is bunk.

Its quite a simple logic ...no maths required from this angle (Gods gift you could say to mankind). Isn't it strange that you would be willing to believe in a "Higgs field","or vibrating strings" (whats beyond that "realm" know one knows) and go search for it , at the same time observe "physical matter" that behave by the influence of "invisble" forces which is NOT physical itself.

Physical universe (what Random was on about) came into existence, was "already" defined when the introduction of the Big Bang came about ...all regarding physical observable matter.

There are then two seperate issues regarding universe began and a universe (non matter) that always was.

”Higgs field” is the name for a model of an observed behavior.
Nothing esoterical about that.

Matter moved by ”non-physical gods” is on the other totally unobserved nonsens.

 

[Learner]

”Higgs field” is the name for a "model" of an observed behavior.
Nothing esoterical about that.

Matter moved by ”non-physical gods” is on the other totally unobserved nonsens.

Matter moved by non-physical gods?

I'm saying its automatic (like programming the behaviour rules) .. invisible forces that scientists are also trying to look deep into , the difference being the creation "model" POV.

 

[Elixir]

”Higgs field” is the name for a "model" of an observed behavior.
Nothing esoterical about that.

Matter moved by ”non-physical gods” is on the other totally unobserved nonsens.

Matter moved by non-physical gods?

I'm saying its automatic (like programming the behaviour rules) .. invisible forces that scientists are also trying to look deep into , the difference being the creation "model" POV.

There is no "Creation Model". Just a bunch of fleecers, taking advantage of ignorant rubes who are anxious to have someone they are just as smart as those pointy-headed scientists who know damn well that religious assertions are farcical.
"Bible Sez" is NOT a model.

 

[Learner]

There is no "Creation Model". Just a bunch of fleecers, taking advantage of ignorant rubes who are anxious to have someone they are just as smart as those pointy-headed scientists who know damn well that religious assertions are farcical.
"Bible Sez" is NOT a model.

Of course there is. The "bible sez" not of any "behaviour" models ..(observed behaviour to suggest models) but Intelligent designers do. Design / creation,whats the difference ? I'm not going to use invisible-gods for this particular discussion am I?

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is no "Creation Model".

Of course there is.

Nope.

Models are developed from theories which are formslized hypotheses built from observations.

Creationism starts from the conclusion and works backwards to evidence. That's not a model, thats a means of filtering observations.

 

[Learner]

There is no "Creation Model".

Of course there is.

Nope.

Models are developed from theories which are formslized hypotheses built from observations.

Creationism starts from the conclusion and works backwards to evidence. That's not a model, thats a means of filtering observations.

Models are developed from theories which are formslized hypotheses built from observations. Its exactly the same for the Intelligent designers but yes not most theists.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Models are developed from theories which are formslized hypotheses built from observations. Its exactly the same for the Intelligent designers but yes not most theists.

Nope. ID is just Creationism dressed up to resemble something scientific.

If they had actual science, they should have presented it at ANY trial that ended up kicking ID out of science classes in public schools.

It's always the same, though. A person or group shows up with a textbook that says ID is a science, nothing to do with religion.
Then the school board, or a group of concerned citizens, or a judge kicks the textbook to the curb.
Textbook proponents resort to the same threat you have used today. "You'll be sorry, one day, for kicking GOD out of iur once-proud schools!"

No. There are no creationist models. ID is creationism.

 

[Random Person]

Was ID scientifically tested before it was rejected?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Was ID scientifically tested before it was rejected?

Every time.

That's why it's rejected..

 

[Random Person]

Was ID scientifically tested before it was rejected?

Every time.

That's why it's rejected..

How was it tested?

 

[skepticalbip]

Was ID scientifically tested before it was rejected?

Every time.

That's why it's rejected..

How was it tested?

Scientifically.

 

[Random Person]

How was it tested?

Scientifically.

Great. Let's see a link to the scientific study.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Was ID scientifically tested before it was rejected?

Every time.

That's why it's rejected..

How was it tested?

i suspect i'm being dismalized once more.

 

[Random Person]

Sounds like a scientific claim is being made without the benefit of applying science.