chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
Hooberus,
See my post 1968 where I answered your question. It's interesting that you suddenly want evidence when in all the previous threads on this site where you have posted you run a mile when asked for your evidence.
Apognophos,
I see you are still having difficulties with the definition of complexity. Have you tried reading the wikipedia entry that I linked to?
by nature i'm a total geek.
i read the lord of the rings for the first time in grade 3 and i would probably have had a 20-sided die hung around my neck if it weren't for the silly superstitious restrictions against playing rpgs among jws.
if anything they should encourage role playing games among the youth because it'll keep them virgins forever.
40K conquest is a good game, I've bought the base game and I'm looking forward to the expansions. I also play the android netrunner card game. If you aren't playing in tournaments then they are both cheap to get into.
I have also been into Warhammer 40K and have several armies but I would hesitate recommending it these days as it is very expensive for what it is, they seem to be catering mainly to the collector market these days.
There are a number of alternatives to 40K these days, Distopian wars/legions, Warmachine, Malifaux, Infinity and Dreadzone, Dreadzone is one of my favourites. All are cheaper than 40K although warmachine is getting quite pricey.
X-wing miniatures game is good value for money and you get fantastic painted models of tie fighters and x-wings, and it is a great game as well. There are fantastic models of all the smaller Star Wars ships so you can have the the Millenium Falcon up against Boba Fett's Slave One.
Magic the gathering is described even by its fans as cardboard crack so I have never tried it.
A useful site for this sort of stuff is boardgamegeek, I have all my games listed on there (I have over 200! ) and they have detailed descriptions of any game you care to mention.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
Island man,
Precisely the point.
Apognophos,
Coming from someone who doesn't understand the word complexity or how to google basic concepts I will take that as a compliment.
The mistake that annoys me most is when I put in a double space at the end of a sentence. It is due to the fact that my phone auto-corrects this to a full stop, a space and then capitalises the next word. Familiarity and laziness are not a good combination.
Yes, it annoys me. My own spelling and grammar mistakes annoy me even more.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
Prologos,
Black holes are 'just' very dense dead stars that cause very extreme curvature of space-time, I'm unclear how you think they pertain to this conversation since they are part of the natural universe.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
My whole point is that, given the current amount of unknowns that we are all looking at, the relative likelihood of a creator vs. a self-making universe cannot be appraised. Also, lose the condescending attitude.
Apognophos
Then you have missed the point entirely, the point is that the natural universe is the same for both the theist and the atheist. The only difference is that the theist adds a creator.
I take it then that you admit your understanding of the word complexity is at odds with how the rest of the English speaking world uses it? If you choose not to admit it then I shall continue to make fun of you.
Prologos,
Your post is meaningless derp. There is no pre, no outside, I have no idea why you think black holes are important, and there isn't a place outside of time.
Hooberus,
I quite agree there is exactly zero empirical evidence for your god having any parts at all!
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
So we're here because of fluctuations caused by nothing in a field of nothing?
That is a lot more likely than we're here because an infinitely powerful creator caused fluctuations in a field of nothing.
Do you know how to use google? I suggest starting here if you want to start doing some research into how wrong you are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity
The whole point is that the number of unkowns in the natural universe is the same for the theist and the atheist so Occam's razor can be used to settle the problem.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
New thoughts and new ways of thinking can change the distrabution of the dendrites
Now you're just being difficult.
Facts just always get in the way don't they, incidently if you want to go back to your computer analogy, that also gets more complex. The computer equivalent of writing new neural pathways is writing information to the hard-drive. A hard drive full of data is more complex than one without any data.
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
The energy/ mass mixture sum of the universe was present in the void BEFORE the big bang
This is utterly meaningless since nobody has any evidence of what was 'before' the big bang. Even if there was a 'before' the big bang (nobody has any evidence for there even being a before either) there isn't a scientist on the planet who can prove it so please stop spouting this stuff as if you understand it and as if it is a scientific fact, it is at best conjecture and hypothesis.
There is no 'void' that the universe expands into, I've told you this before. There isn't anything 'outside' the universe, the universe is everything.
This does NOT imply that more energy is created, as you wrote, it is already there, and becomes evident, seen in action, as the universe expands. The expansion of the universe does not dilute the energy sum of the universe.
So are you claiming that you have some deep insight as to why we don't need dark energy to make the maths work in our current understanding of the universe? If so I would think that professor Hawking would love to hear your thoughts on the subject.
