Strange

I think it just a result of having one particularly vociferous preacher turn up. Hopefully he will get bored and wander off soon.

Genetics and other factors. That might mean that there are more genes involved in the definition of the human face (structure and musculature) than some other animals (although other primates are obviously close to humans in this respect). But even if true (which I doubt) it says nothing at all about genetic diversity in general.

Pretty much all physicists believe that.

Can the whole universe be made from nothing? Are you joining recursion in his irrational beliefs?

So no evidence for Jesus driving evolution then? I have no idea what "defamation or personal attacks" you are referring to. But if you think that is the case, please feel free to use the report function.

That is not what you said. I can only read and reply to what you write. I am not a mind reader. I prefer sceptical and critical. If you find having your ideas challenged an insult, maybe a discussion forum is not the best place for you. Your second sentence is ambiguous (which is worrying for someone so obsessed with "logic"). Do you mean: a) If the universe was created by "nothing" then god is "nothing" (i.e. doesn't exist); or b) If the universe was not created then god did that (i.e. did nothing) and is therefore redundant. And, of course, there is no evidence that the universe was created (whether by god, nothing or Santa Clause). Yet another incorrect definition of logic. How many more have you got? Again, this is philosophy and has little or nothing to do with science.

I assume that is the Royal "we"? As evidence can be used to show that a proposition is false, your definition is pretty poor. And as you never provide any evidence for any of your beliefs, opinions or assertions(*) it hardly matter what your definition of evidence is. (*) As you are such an expert in logic, you will know that an assertion is an statement with no logical or evidential support.. All appraisals of what? Also, logical errors are commonly made so I don't know why you can make this assertion. Objective evidence doesn't depend on social agreement. That is what "objective" means. So, there is no objective evidence for your god or gods. (Maybe one day there will be, but you can't base an argument on wishful thinking.) Which you totally fail to answer, for some reason. (I won't bother with you personal and dubious definition of God vs gods, as it is neither relevant nor interesting.) So you used it deliberately. (Your long rambling waffle doesn't stop the statement being tautological.) Of course it is not an insult. Why would you say that. ("It is a technical existence of a form of logic". I can't decide whether to give you the benefit of the doubt as a non-native speaker, or to laugh at your mangling of English. I will go with the former, for the moment.)

a) What evidence do you have for the "permanence of all things"? b) What evidence do you have to the the "tracibility [sic] of all matter, energy, and actions? This one is fairly easily falsified by both the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and chaos theory. So doubly wrong. c) What do either of these dubious assertions have to do with "future judgement"? By "mentioned", I think you mean "asserted with no evidential or logical basis".

While that is true, your vague claims do nothing to change the very clear evidence that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. It may be that new evidence will emerge that will change, slightly, our understanding of the history of the Earth. This might add or subtract a few million years here or there but it will not change the overall picture. [i hope you will excuse me cutting some of your rambling, near incoherent sentences down a bit, to focus on the main point.] IF god exists. But, from a scientific (objective, measurable evidence) point ot of view, there is no reason to consider such a possibility. Correct. That is not what science is about (and hasn't been for a long time). You might wish science had different goals but ... well ... <shrug> ... tough. You have some very weird ideas. Philosophy is not conjecture, it is about the rigorous analysis of questions. Logic is part of philosophy (with formal logic becoming part of mathematics). Logic is NOT fact. So it is not really objective, is it.

You are right, this analogy doesn't work. http://xkcd.com/895/ Time to learn what GR is really about!

There is a lot of evidence that most of our decisions are made at an "intuitive" level, before our "rational brain" gets involved.

You might believe that but it obviously isn't true. After all, there is no objective evidence for god or gods of any flavour. I don't see how not believing in something for which there is no evidence can be regarded as illogical. And what is "false theism"? People who believe in a different god/sect than you? To you, that is obviously the case. However, there is no reason for anyone else to think that it is the truth. Believing in something for which there is no objective evidence is a conclusion with no logical basis. That is what is known as a tautology. If the word of God is not true then God is a liar. You just broke my irony meter. So every single religion and superstition is true (otherwise people wouldn't believe in them). (I'm expecting the "no true Scotsman" fallacy as a response to this.) Wow. I wasn't expecting that. You said something that is "true".

Obviously it is 500ms before we are aware of our decision. This is hardly surprising as we (our brains) have to integrate signals that can vary in time by nearly 1 second so that they all appear to be happening "now". It is rather annoying that some people claim this means that someone else is making the decision for us (or something).

Then you should ask on a forum devoted to religion or theology. (Assuming the "somebody" is you.) Maybe you are talking about the big bang model? In which case, nothing exploded. What is a "thermal process"? You claimed to have an alternative model to the big bang. A model means mathematics, and specifically, mathematics that describes what we see around us. If you don't have such a model, then you should stop making outrageous claims. Then feel free to ask questions in the appropriate part of the forum. This one, I assume: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/7-astronomy-and-cosmology/ There doesn't appear to be anything to solve there.

5 - God doesn't want us to suffer but is powerless to do anything about it.

Causes what?

You are clearly not a scientist, so why the "we"?

After all, you would have to believe before you were worried about "damnation".

Well, that is a refreshing change from the usual criticism that science is unable to accept new ideas (usually made by cranks, with their own "pet" theory).

I see no insults. But if you think there are, just use the Report link at the bottom of the offending post. The obviously wrong. I regret giving you a +1 when it seemed you had finally agreed to go and learn what Bell's theorem really says, rather than your meaningless version. Why do you keep repeating this lie? There is masses of evidence. It is even being developed as a technology in quantum computing and secure communication. Scientists would love to prove it wrong - it would guarantee them a Nobel Prize. Good. I hope this means studying (i.e. READING not watching youtoob videos) and finding out what Bell's theorem is really about.

How did Jesus affect evolution? What evidence do you have for Jesus-driven evolution over the last 2,000 years? As someone who likes to bang on about "pure logic" you seem very keen to push your own wacky beliefs. And yet many people accept the contradictory and illogical tales in the Bible as literally true.

Everything you read is true? So there really is a Santa Claus and a flying snowman and a talking bear called Pooh. Got it. Objective truth has nothing to do with science. Only religion deals in "truth" and then it is never objective.

Of course science disproves young-earth creationism. There is a ton of evidence that the Earth is more than 6000 years old. I have no idea what you are talking about, so: citation needed. Science has little to do with truth and nothing to do with God. If you claim otherwise, please provide some evidence. Of course it is a theory: it is a complete mathematical model that makes testable predictions that match experimental evidence. Because it is a scientific theory. That sounds like a problem for philosophy, not science. The whole point of science is to get away from psychological biases like that by focussing on quantitative predictions and objective measurements. You have a very weird idea of what science is. Why? If they are objective, why did you previously say that sentience, for example, cannot be defined? Why are all these still subject to endless philosophical debate? How would you objectively measure any of these to make them amenable to the scientific method?

That is why I suggest you read this: http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm He works through it step by step, showing exactly what is predicted by a hidden variables model and by QM. And there is no complicated mathematics (apart from pointing out that the QM prediction is cos2). I understand exactly what your simulation is doing, that is why I keep trying to explain that it has nothing to do with Bell's theorem.

Why? When the evidence shows that they cannot exist.