Moontanman

It would be quite easy for god to prove himself, stopping the earth's rotation for a day or two would do it, i mean he is supposed to have done it once before... what's one more time for old times sake?

We, human beings, created cows, pigs, chickens and other food animals for the express purpose of eating them. We did that to make meat more commonly available and so we didn't have to harvest animals from the wild. It's not unethical for crows to kill and eat everything from other birds to small reptiles and insects. It's not unethical for a cat to kill small animals even though domestic cats seldom even eat them. Animal life has to kill to live Why is it unethical to provide food for ourselves?

No, Science is not a religion.

and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di3CLFj6_Ag&list=PLA7D47214B99B0E0B

Yes, god is love, he loves to see us kill and conquer, rape and pillage, keep slaves, use underage girls as sex slaves, he loves for us to commit genocide and for some reason kill the animals of the people he wants us to destroy, yes god is love... unless of course you worship the wrong god or worship the right god in the wrong way. God is obviously not love. Just because you've been told god is love all your life and had small cherry pickled scriptures shoved at you to read all your life by some pastor or preacher doesn't make it true... Great video, darkmatter2525 is one of my favorite youtubers....

I'm not sure what you mean, are you saying you have positive evidence of life after death?

Reasonable Christian faith...

Says you with absolutely no evidence to back up that pure assumption... How is saying a god did it any different? --------------------- Evidence would be something tangible that you could show me and I could show Phi and he could show swansont and so on. It would be plan and simple for anyone to see and reproducing this evidence would be possible for anyone. ---------------------- I do not believe in the Christian God for the same reason i don't believe in Zeus, Thor, Krishna or Aswang. I do not need to define god before i can not believe in him. I have traveled this road many times yrreg, I was raised creationist or fundamental theist, every word in the bible was true, had to be true and questioning the veracity of these absolute truths often resulted in a beating. I have read the holy bible many times straight through and and read huge amounts of it many times as the small sound bites the pastor would read to us to assure us of these absolute truths. Usually this meant interpretation of scripture to mean what ever the pastor wanted it to mean. No, i already know what Aswang is supposed to be. You will ask me what I mean by aswang if you are rational. I am not stupid, i know how to search for things to find out what they are. How about you stop assuming you know things everyone else does not because they do not agree with you.. ----------------------------------- You are being equally flippant by making unsupported assumptions about god I can't help it if you do not get analogies based in sarcastic wit... Again i got the comparison and why it was accurate, you evidently did not. It should be quite easy for a god to provide evidence for it's existence, write Jesus Christ across the sky in stars should do the trick i would think....

I'd like to know how the ancients managed to move blocks of stone that weighed 1000 tons... that comes to 2,000,000 pounds, I'm not sure we could cut, move (sometimes hundreds of miles) and put these stones in place accurately. I think there is some evidence that suggests ETs might have visited us, gold models of stylized jet aircraft are suggestive, some passages in ancient books that describe beings from the sky and they come with the sound of roaring thunder on pillars of flame type stuff. In fact our whole idea of religion could have been inspired by ETs. Due to them already being here and colonizing our solar system and using it as raw materials to build their free orbiting colonies. But then you have the silly parts that take away any seriousness of the idea, like the sons of God mating with the daughters if men. We'd be more likely to successfully mate with a petunia than ET... On a better note, there is a good chance that WISE will be able to find any aliens in our solar system by detecting their waste heat.

You start out by making an absolutely unsupportable assumption then you demand we assume that assertion is true then you accuse us of being flippant. You have no evidence for any god much less the christian god, and you call us flippant... You have no evidence that any god much less the christian god is the first cause of anything much less everything then you call us flippant. You demand we define our concept of god when you cannot even provide any evidence of any god much less the one you are assuming is real. I do not have a belief in any god or gods, i cannot define god because i do not believe there are any gods. Then you insinuate that we are somehow ignorant of the christian god if we cannot define it. Are you aware of the psychopath that is described as god in the holy book you assume is true? Have you even read your own holy book, i get really tired of having to show believers what their book demands they believe. Your argument is nothing but horse feathers, you make the assumption there is a christian god, give some evidence of this god, just because you can define it doesn't make it any more likely to be real. I see no evidence for any god or gods, in the absence of evidence for the existence of gods the default position is there are no gods.

JustinW, don't you understand that the things you are saying about "the" singularity are nothing but speculations? Hanging your belief on a theory that is almost certainly, if not flawed, is incomplete, makes no sense to me. The expansion of the universe from a singularity is subject to change at anytime with out notice. People are working on refining the hypothesis and there are ideas that avoid the singularity altogether but more importantly your assertions about the singularity are not exactly widely supported. I remember when i was young it was often stated that anything could come from a singularity, a sofa, a space ship, a rock, the laws of nature as we know them don't seem to apply, the idea that nothing can come from one with out a creator making it happen is bizarre. If I was a theist i wouldn't try to convince others of my theism by using a science theory that is.... under construction at the very best. if you think there is a creator then fine. Pick a flavor of theism and have faith it is true, science doesn't seem to be in any position to say anything about the existence of creator one way or another. Personal experiences with god abound, you can go to lots of churches and see everything from speaking in tongues to loosing conscience under the influence of a god. To me these things are meaningless, I've had one of those personal experiences, it is overwhelming, but it is also not something you can "show" someone else the value of. I guess i just don't understand the evident drive to demand scientific respect for something that is not scientifically testable.

Of course there is the possibility of a creator in there someplace, there is the possibility of a hyper intelligent shade of the color purple too but there is no good reason to assume it it is true...

Let me get this straight, first you want us to assume that not only is there a god but he is the christian god and that he has always existed and you want us to assume he is the cause of everything in the universe.... what is your point? If we assume all those things there is no debate only agreement.

of course the cultural meme of faking UFO's for fun has led to dismissals as well. That's why I mainly focus on reports by military pilots in the early years, hoaxing makes it almost impossible to really trust any civilian accounts or photos but of course as i said earlier one hoax or a thousand doesn't mean something isn't really happening, meteorites continued to fall from the sky for centuries while the knowledgeable of that day proudly proclaimed it was all nonsense and all such rocks that fell from the sky were fakes and the people who saw them fall were liars. You cannot take one false or hoaxed case and use it to proclaim all are such... I think the subject deserves to be studied by people who do not set out with a goal in mind positive or negative, it could very well be something completely unexpected and give some insight into how the human mind works. maybe we are hard wired to see certain things under certain conditions and in the distant past we saw gods and demons or angels and now we see technology.. Or it could be that in the past the aliens were real and used religious belief to control us in some manner. The possibilities are endless of course but i think something is happening that is a real phenomena. the fact that UFOs have been seen by multiple witnesses and seen on multiple radars and military personal on the frond, pilots in the air as well as civilian pilots and all in one sighting while not proof it is interesting enough to me that I think it should be investigated and the Airforce's debunking left no room for study, their just make something up and blame it on that attitude has not exactly helped. I am still waiting to see if the data from WISE shows any heat anomalies, any alien space craft or base should be visible in the infrared...

If I understand the theory correctly, and I might not btw, the membranes can have wrinkles that would come in contact before the entire membrane contacted each other but no matter how they collide form our perspective it would seem to be nearly a point source.

As I said before there is not necessarily a singularity and no one knows what a singularity can or cannot do if one existed. Please provide some evidence that a singularity acts the way you say or that a singularity even exists. Again what evidence do you have to back up this assertion you keep making about singularities? Again, how about some evidence that your definition of a singularity and what it can or cannot do has anything what so ever to do with reality. It's even quite possible there was no big bang as currently defined as i explained in another thread. JustinW, there are theories other than the big bang for the existence of our universe, one of them proposes a "multidimensional bulk space" with various objects existing there. Three dimensional membranes are part of that "multidimensional bulk space" collisions of these membranes are what we see as "The Big Bang" due to our limited view of the universe. From our stand point everything occurred as what we know as space time (yes there are theories that suppose that time exists separate from what we call space-time) sprang from an apparent point source. But on a larger scale the big bang occurred everywhere all at once and the point like expansion we see was really just a wrinkle in the membranes as they touched and annihilated each other, this annihilation caused the membranes to spring apart but eventually their mutual gravitational attraction will bring them back together for another "big bang" This hypothesis not only allows for an eternal universe but allows it to cycle with out there being enough matter in either universe to cause a big crunch that would be required for the big bang to occur over and over again. This hypothesis not only allows for the naturalistic existence of what we see as the universe it allows what we see as the universe to be just a tiny part of a greater whole that is no more an indication our universe is special any more than a single charged ice crystal has to do with a stroke of lightning. The idea that the universe had to be created by some intelligent creator is bogus and just as subject to being wrong as the idea that lightning is the wrath of the creator...

This is misleading, yes a human can get by with only eating plant material but they have to take vitamin supplements and plant proteins are not complete. Humans evolved to eat both plants and animals, we are animals, there is no reason or advantage to eating only plants. This is misleading, the nutrient content is only minimally affected and cooking breaks down the cell walls of the plants and allows us to digest them better. We are not equipped with the correct digestive system to live off plants like for instance gorillas are. Most cases of food poisoning originate in contaminated plants, properly cooked meat is healthy and unlikely to make you sick.

I understand what you are saying but do you understand that dismissing these reports out of hand achieves nothing? Dr. J. Allen Hynek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek A scientist hired by the US Airforce to debunk UFO sightings come to the conclusion that there was credible evidence that something not of this world was going on. He was not studying things that had happened so long ago memories were suspect and while the average eye witness might be less than credible a great many of the eye witnesses were highly trained and highly credible, far beyond what you might see in court as a simple witness, more like a expert witness in a trail... It can be asserted with little debate that the Airforce not only lied and ridiculed peoples reports of UFOs they did not scientifically study the phenomena and did much to prevent any real study of this phenomenon. To this day the US Airforce's stance of ridicule has prevented almost any serious study of the phenomena. I just don't think the subject has gotten the study it deserves and anyone who tries risks being labeled a crank or crack pot. Not all UFO's are simple lights in the sky, many have an embarrassing amount of observational data and remain completely inexplicable. If any other subject had as much evidence as UFOs do it would be rigorously studied... I just can't dismiss all sightings as mistaken identity or hoaxes or stupidity. At one time meteorites were dismissed out of hand and the people who saw then and even picked them up after they fell to earth were dismissed as unreliable "eyewitnesses" this went on for centuries, ridicule accomplishes nothing.

This thread has become a bad joke told over and over by someone who demands we laugh because he says we have to....

Or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1FKJ3kHOD8

Chickens are descended from a bird called a Jungle Fowl, Cattle are descended from an animal called an auroch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junglefowl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs The question of killing to eat is debatable, but humans are not vegetarians by nature. it has been theorized that the evolution of our large brains was allowed by or fueled by eating meat. Our digestive system is evolved to digest meat and vegetable material but not to exclusively eat plants. When we do eat plants we generally eat the highly nutrient dense vegetables like tubers, fruits, seeds, and flowers. Generally we have to cook such vegetable material to get the amount of nutrients we need. Is it ethical to kill to survive? I honestly do not see how anyone can mount an argument that shows that killing is unethical or even unnecessary. To actually feed the world on nothing but plant material would take more land area than eating meat and plants together like we have evolved to do. Does this mean that any killing is ok? No, that is a strawman argument, killing humans and killing animals is quite different, from a human stand point as it is quite different for a lion to kill and eat another lion as opposed to a lion killing and eating a zebra. But if we were stranded someplace where there was no food and you died, i might eat you.... i was raised on a farm, we raised our own food animals and hunted wild animals for food as well, domesticated animals were always treated well, besides the obvious need to keep your animals healthy, deliberately torturing an animal would bring about a swift ass whipping from my parents. It's quite easy for us modern humans to think we are above the animal world and the food chain but tell that to a hungry bull shark or crocodile. we are animals and have just as much right to kill to eat as any other animal does....

No, you are making an unwarranted assertion based on highly limited and speculative data. The idea the universe had to have a cause is unwarranted and the idea that cause had to be some kind intelligence is even more speculative. I have been doing my best to explain this to you, your idea of a cause and a creator is just as wrong as the idea that volcanoes erupt do to some intelligent agent that can be appeased by throwing a virgin into the lava in the crater. All you have is faith and belief but really really believing something does not make it true and having faith is no better, but hanging both on the premise that something unexplained must be due to some unknown intelligence is.... Well so far it has not worked out well for those who think this way and they have to keep shoving their idea of a creator into another gap in knowledge each time their belief or faith is shown to be wrong.... Zeus fell victim to this as did Thor and Krishna and so on. Believe if you want but trying to hang belief on some apparent lack of data is simply dishonest...

JustinW, there are theories other than the big bang for the existence of our universe, one of them proposes a "multidimensional bulk space" with various objects existing there. Three dimensional membranes are part of that "multidimensional bulk space" collisions of these membranes are what we see as "The Big Bang" due to our limited view of the universe. From our stand point everything occurred as what we know as space time (yes there are theories that suppose that time exists separate from what we call space-time) sprang from an apparent point source. But on a larger scale the big bang occurred everywhere all at once and the point like expansion we see was really just a wrinkle in the membranes as they touched and annihilated each other, this annihilation caused the membranes to spring apart but eventually their mutual gravitational attraction will bring them back together for another "big bang" This hypothesis not only allows for an eternal universe but allows it to cycle with out there being enough matter in either universe to cause a big crunch that would be required for the big bang to occur over and over again. This hypothesis not only allows for the naturalistic existence of what we see as the universe it allows what we see as the universe to be just a tiny part of a greater whole that is no more an indication our universe is special any more than a single charged ice crystal has to do with a stroke of lightning. The idea that the universe had to be created by some intelligent creator is bogus and just as subject to being wrong as the idea that lightning is the wrath of the creator...

I like to eat cow, they generally object if they are not dead, why is it unethical to kill a cow?

Damn, trampled by pwnies..... No wait... what about that lounge chair?