On Apr 4, 4:50 pm, PD wrote:
On Apr 4, 3:37 pm, Dubh Ghall wrote:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:42:06 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
That's correct. We also DO NOT have evidence of something that DID
create the universe. We DO NOT have evidence of different laws of
physics that operate beyond the range of validity of the laws of
physics we know.

But we do have evidence that the "laws", I use the term tentatively,
of known physics, do not apply during that first, tiniest fraction, of
a second.

OTOH; What do the creationists have?

Goddidit?

They have no better and no worse that what we physicists have.
Speculations.
Now, you may think, "Yeah, but my speculations are better than your
speculations, because they're *scientific* speculations." That's
putting glasses and a dress shirt on a pig. A pig is still a pig, and
a speculation is still a speculation.

No, not really. Speculations that start with a body of tested and
proven
scientific evidence are better, and more useful, than speculations
based
on pre civilisation fables.

The American Heritage(R) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition.
2000

Theory, noun:

Inflected forms: pl. the*o*ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
facts or
phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is
widely
accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory
statements,
accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice:
a
fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of
mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience
rather
than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension
or
judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually
return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a
conjecture.
-------
Science uses the 1st definition, and creationism uses the 6th one.
I rather disagree that the 6th definition even fits the word, other
than as
a statement of common MS-use.

Please keep in mind that I do NOT consider creationism (or its alter
egos) science. Never have, never will. But scientists -- at least the
good ones -- are a little squeamish about claiming science understands
something it does not.

Sure. But, science can be used to ask useful questions, and suggest
avenues and methods of answering those questions.

No other value system can say that truthfully. Thats a very important
distinction.

Andre

"PD" wrote in message
...
On Apr 4, 8:57 am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:42:06 -0700 (PDT), PD



wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:27 am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:51 am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote
toalt.atheismon 04
Apr 2008:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out
of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.

We don't know that the Great Arkleseizure didn't sneeze it into
existence either.

And so what?

However there is zilch, zip, nada reason to think that it was either
sneezed or created.

That's correct. We also DO NOT have evidence of something that DID
create the universe. We DO NOT have evidence of different laws of
physics that operate beyond the range of validity of the laws of
physics we know.

This is fundamentally an argument (and a silly one) about the UNKNOWN.
You are discussing the nature of something that is *established* to be
outside of our present domain of knowledge.

No, we are discussing idiots who think their religious beliefs should
be given equal credence with science.

There is no credence to be measured between science and religion in
the domain of the UNKNOWN.


Nobody outside their religion even gives it a thought because it's
merely the myths and legends of one of the thousands of religions out
there.

It's not even "the unknown" because there is no reason whatsoever to
bring it up.

It doesn't even make sense to talk about "vanishing small
probability/possibility" because its believers imagine this
consciously leaves room for it.

Once again, you are arguing about the value of extrapolating (and
thereby mentally computing a probability/possibility) laws from INSIDE
their domain of applicability to OUTSIDE their domain of
applicability. And you are asserting, incorrectly, that this is the
more "scientific" approach to treating the unknown than the religious
approach to treating the unknown. I dispute that, and I believe a very
large number of working physicists would dispute that. At least,
that's how I was trained as a working physicist.


When in fact it doesn't even arise outside the imagination of the
believers - who have already assigned a probability of 1 to it.

Now, you can have opinions or expressions of faith (that is, something
you believe without evidence) about how the unknown should be treated.
You can suggest, for example, that it is your *belief* that we will
encounter no fundamental surprises in the unknown once that boundary
is pushed. There will be people who *believe* the opposite.
You can suggest, for example, that we should operate under a rule that
says "Don't believe in anything until you have evidence for it." There
will be people who do not see the operational value of that.

And you can invent beliefs people don't have. It won't get you
anywhere.

Note that even among *scientists*, there is not consensus on the
proper way to treat the unknown. There are hundreds of theoreticians,
for example, that are working and working hard on *highly* speculative
what-if scenarios for which there is absolutely no evidence
whatsoever. You may regard that as foolish. The scientific community
does not unilaterally agree. In fact, the scientific community in
general does think there is value in that kind of research, but the
choice to work in that domain is purely personal. There are some that
are driven and gifted in that area, and there are others that driven
and gifted in more evidentiary areas.

However they are just scenarios, they _do_ fit the known facts and
unlike gods nobody claims they are accurate explanations. Just avenues
to be explored.

Read my lips. These are what-if scenarios for which there is NO
experimental evidence whatsoever. There is no accuracy of explanation
to be judged. There are no known facts fit. There is NO match to data
of any kind from string theory or brane theory or spin-foam lattice
theory, yet there are hundreds of very competent physicists who are
spending their careers on it.


There is no equivalence between the suggestions that have been
proposed by physicists which break no known scientific laws, and the
unjustified invoking of a creator or a sneezer.

You're missing the point. The laws we understand are KNOWN not to work
in the first short time after the Big Bang. They CAN'T. What laws DO
work in that domain, we are presently oblivious to, though we are
working on several different possibilities that aren't obviously
wrong.

I'm missing nothing. You're re-interpreting an over-simplification.

PD

Your postings and thoughts have been very interesting; as well as very
compelling.

Thanks.

"PD" wrote in message
...
On Apr 4, 2:56 pm, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD



wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:51 am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote
toalt.atheism on 04
Apr 2008:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.

We know as far back as 1x10^-43 seconds into it's occurrence.

As you correctly state, what happened before that, we do not know,
because physics, as we understand it fails there.

In case you are unaware of what looks like, written in arithmetical
format, it is -
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds.

I'm aware. That is the number that's associated with the Planck epoch,
beyond which we know *everything* goes to hell in a handbasket. In
actuality, our uncertainty is quite a bit worse than that, since we
know that the Standard Model breaks down at the 1 TeV scale (roughly
where we hope to find Higgs bosons and/or supersymmetry) and that is
10 times lower energy (and longer in time) than what you've written.
In fact, we do not have even the slightest idea what happened before
the inflationary epoch at around 10^-35 seconds, and as I just said,
we don't really know much at all about the laws of physics other than
unsupported guesses (supersymmetry et al) before 10^-27 s. That is
sixteen orders of magnitude different than where you are claiming we
know the laws of physics. In case you are unaware of what that looks
like in arithmetic format, that is 10000000000000000.

Note that NONE of that information tells you ANYTHING about any
explanation for the big bang other than what was in effect some time
AFTER the big bang, let alone how or why it was done, which is
precisely what you find lacking in the bronze age myth. In fact, the
information provided tells you precisely that you do not know any
natural explanation of anything prior to 10^-27 s.

The fact remains that we are talking about the unknown. Not having a
natural explanation for the events prior to 10^-27 s is NOT persuasive
that there was a supernatural creator instead. On the other hand, not
having evidence of a supernatural creator for the events prior to
10^-27 s is NOT persuasive that there is a natural accounting (which
we do not have) either. The point being: I don't see why you think
there needs to be persuasion one way or the other about the realm of
the unknown. It seems to me to be a spectacularly ill-advised mandate
to decide to be persuaded either way about the unknown. "Well, if I'm
not persuaded of THIS about the unknown, then I guess I must be
persuaded of THAT about the unknown instead." Why on earth would you
do that, other than just being in the mood for a fight and having to
pick a side?

It seems you made the effort to not pick a side at all. To answer your
question, mankind has a deep desire the know the unknown. With 1/2 of
mankind taking a scientific approach, and the other 1/2 taking a spiritual
approach. Nothing wrong with that I guess. So it comes down to a choice.
Which do you choose to believe based upon all information giving at hand?

You seem to actually know what you are talking about as compared to some of
the others that post here and postulate themselves as scientists.

Giving the information at hand; and assuming you wanted to "pick a side" and
was "in the mood for a fight"; which seems more plausible for creation? A
creator that put into motion all the known laws? Or the "Big Bang" theory
that begun the Universe and it's following evolution?



Now if the information available, is not sufficient to persuade you
that it was a natural event, how come some childish bronze age myths,
with no explanation at all, as to how or why it was done, ARE enough
to persuade you that it was not natural, but supernatural, that there
was some external factor, i.e. a god, involved?

...Other than incredulity, and wishful thinking, that is.

"grecian" wrote in message
...


PD wrote:
On Apr 3, 7:52?pm, "adman" wrote:
We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of cosmology
that
the physical universe we see today was created out of nothingness
(meaning -
no time, no space, and no matter).

Well, hold on here. No time, no space, and no matter does NOT mean
nothing.
Matter can be created whole cloth out of energy. There is no such law
as conservation of matter.

if no time, space and matter, than explain
your foken energy

ohh, what a fooool,

this is a keeper, tell more

thanks

it must be somthen they put in your food
and your matter, take care

Why did you cut out and not respond to the rest of the post that supported
the conclusion?

Because you kooks are intellectually dishonest.

On Apr 4, 4:09*pm, Andre Lieven wrote:
On Apr 4, 4:50 pm, PD wrote:



On Apr 4, 3:37 pm, Dubh Ghall wrote:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:42:06 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
That's correct. We also DO NOT have evidence of something that DID
create the universe. We DO NOT have evidence of different laws of
physics that operate beyond the range of validity of the laws of
physics we know.

But we do have evidence that the "laws", I use the term tentatively,
of known physics, do not apply during that first, tiniest fraction, of
a second.

OTOH; What do the creationists have?

Goddidit?

They have no better and no worse that what we physicists have.
Speculations.
Now, you may think, "Yeah, but my speculations are better than your
speculations, because they're *scientific* speculations." That's
putting glasses and a dress shirt on a pig. A pig is still a pig, and
a speculation is still a speculation.

No, not really. Speculations that start with a body of tested and
proven
scientific evidence are better, and more useful, than speculations
based
on pre civilisation fables.

The American Heritage(R) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition.
2000

Theory, noun:

Inflected forms: pl. the*o*ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
facts or
phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is
widely
accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Note that what is commonly called "string theory", or "brane theory"
or "M-theory" or "spin-foam lattice theory" or for that matter
"supersymmetry theory" in physics does NOT meet this definition. Note
also that all energies (or equivalently times) between the 1 TeV scale
and the 10^16 TeV Planck scale that has been bandied around here, are
untested experimentally, and so we have no theory by this dictionary
definition of the term in that range.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory
statements,
accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice:
a
fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of
mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience
rather
than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension
or
judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually
return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a
conjecture.
-------
Science uses the 1st definition, and creationism uses the 6th one.
I rather disagree that the 6th definition even fits the word, other
than as
a statement of common MS-use.

Please keep in mind that I do NOT consider creationism (or its alter
egos) science. Never have, never will. But scientists -- at least the
good ones -- are a little squeamish about claiming science understands
something it does not.

Sure. But, science can be used to ask useful questions, and suggest
avenues and methods of answering those questions.

No other value system can say that truthfully. Thats a very important
distinction.

Agreed, and no argument. My focus was on what claims can be made in
the domain of the *unknown*, which is where a good chunk of the action
surrounding the big bang squarely sits.


Andre

On Apr 4, 4:26*pm, "adman" wrote:

It seems you made the effort to not pick a side at all. To answer your
question, mankind has a deep desire the know the unknown.

Which includes a compulsion to guess. I agree. There's not a thing
wrong with that, and indeed guessing is a crucial element of science.
The main thing to remember is when it is a guess and when it becomes
more than a guess. This is not as easy as it sounds.

Having a deep desire to know the unknown does not grant license to
make stuff up and call it known.

However, and this is another area of contention, I also hold that
there are more ways to know something than by the scientific method.
There are many who say hogwash, or if they acknowledge that it is so
then it is an inferior kind of knowledge. Personally, I do not agree.
However, this does not give license to say that a guess is known just
because it is very strongly desired that it be so.

With 1/2 of
mankind taking a scientific approach, and the other 1/2 taking a spiritual
approach. Nothing wrong with that I guess. So it comes down to a choice.
Which do you choose to believe based upon all information giving at hand?

There are many things about which I deliberately do NOT make the
choice. Demanding that a choice be made about the unknown is what I
regard to be both unnecessary and counterproductive.


You seem to actually know what you are talking about as compared to some of
the others that post here and postulate themselves as scientists.

Giving the information at hand; and assuming you wanted to "pick a side" and
was "in the mood for a fight";

I don't. Why is that necessary?

which seems more plausible for creation? A
creator that put into motion all the known laws? Or the "Big Bang" theory
that begun the Universe and it's following evolution?

Here's the thing about plausibility. As a physicist, I can tell you
that most of the things that go on in the universe are highly
implausible by our intuitive reckoning. Parallel lines intersect,
particles behave as though they are in two places at once, matter
disappears and reappears, objects go through barriers without
puncturing them, duration between two events changes depending on how
fast you move past them, etc. But these highly implausible things are
also *measured* to really occur. Physicists do not build theories
based on plausibiity. They often build theories based on quite
implausible presumptions and see what plays out from those
presumptions, and then tests those predictions against experiment. If
the experiments match, then the presumptions have support NO MATTER
HOW IMPLAUSIBLE they are.

Intuition is often confused with logic. People call things that clash
with their intuition and everyday experience "illogical", but there's
nothing illogical about counterintuitive. Intuition and common sense
are notorious liars and blind fools.


Now if the information available, is not sufficient to persuade you
that it was a natural event, how come some childish bronze age myths,
with no explanation at all, as to how or why it was done, ARE enough
to persuade you that it was not natural, but supernatural, that there
was some external factor, i.e. a god, involved?

...Other than incredulity, and wishful thinking, that is.

Now, notice that after all that, you still don't know whether I am a
believer or not.

PD

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
| On Apr 4, 4:50 pm, PD wrote:
| On Apr 4, 3:37 pm, Dubh Ghall wrote:
|
| On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:42:06 -0700 (PDT), PD
|
| wrote:
| That's correct. We also DO NOT have evidence of something that DID
| create the universe. We DO NOT have evidence of different laws of
| physics that operate beyond the range of validity of the laws of
| physics we know.
|
| But we do have evidence that the "laws", I use the term tentatively,
| of known physics, do not apply during that first, tiniest fraction, of
| a second.
|
| OTOH; What do the creationists have?
|
| Goddidit?
|
| They have no better and no worse that what we physicists have.
| Speculations.
| Now, you may think, "Yeah, but my speculations are better than your
| speculations, because they're *scientific* speculations." That's
| putting glasses and a dress shirt on a pig. A pig is still a pig, and
| a speculation is still a speculation.
|
| No, not really. Speculations that start with a body of tested and
| proven
| scientific evidence are better, and more useful, than speculations
| based
| on pre civilisation fables.
|
| The American Heritage(R) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
| Edition.
| 2000
|
| Theory, noun:
|
| Inflected forms: pl. the*o*ries
| 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
| facts or
| phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is
| widely
| accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
| 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory
| statements,
| accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice:
| a
| fine musician who had never studied theory.
| 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of
| mathematics.
| 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience
| rather
| than theory.
| 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension
| or
| judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually
| return to the scene of the crime.
| 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a
| conjecture.
| -------
| Science uses the 1st definition, and creationism uses the 6th one.
| I rather disagree that the 6th definition even fits the word, other
| than as
| a statement of common MS-use.
|
| Please keep in mind that I do NOT consider creationism (or its alter
| egos) science. Never have, never will. But scientists -- at least the
| good ones -- are a little squeamish about claiming science understands
| something it does not.
|
| Sure. But, science can be used to ask useful questions, and suggest
| avenues and methods of answering those questions.
|
| No other value system can say that truthfully. Thats a very important
| distinction.
|
| Andre

Why did you cut this out:

Please keep in mind that I do NOT consider creationism (or its alter
egos) science. Never have, never will. But scientists -- at least the
good ones -- are a little squeamish about claiming science understands
something it does not.


And why did you not address it?



|
|

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:50:31 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:

OTOH; What do the creationists have?

Goddidit?

They have no better and no worse that what we physicists have.
Speculations.
Now, you may think, "Yeah, but my speculations are better than your
speculations, because they're *scientific* speculations."

.... And then again, I may not.

However, I may well think that *testing* my speculations, makes my
time better spent, than merely assuming their validity, and than
talking to my hands.

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:59:14 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:

On Apr 4, 3:51*pm, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:31:48 -0700 (PDT), PD



wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:56*pm, Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:51*am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote toalt.atheismon 04
Apr 2008:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.

We know as far back as 1x10^-43 seconds into it's occurrence.

As you correctly state, what happened before that, we do not know,
because physics, as we understand it fails there.

In case you are unaware of what looks like, written in arithmetical
format, it is *-
*0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds.

I'm aware. That is the number that's associated with the Planck epoch,
beyond which we know *everything* goes to hell in a handbasket. In
actuality, our uncertainty is quite a bit worse than that, since we
know that the Standard Model breaks down at the 1 TeV scale (roughly
where we hope to find Higgs bosons and/or supersymmetry) and that is
10 times lower energy (and longer in time) than what you've written.
In fact, we do not have even the slightest idea what happened before
the inflationary epoch at around 10^-35 seconds, and as I just said,
we don't really know much at all about the laws of physics other than
unsupported guesses (supersymmetry et al) before 10^-27 s. That is
sixteen orders of magnitude different than where you are claiming we
know the laws of physics. In case you are unaware of what that looks
like in arithmetic format, that is 10000000000000000.

Note that NONE of that information tells you ANYTHING about any
explanation for the big bang other than what was in effect some time
AFTER the big bang, let alone how or why it was done, which is
precisely what you find lacking in the bronze age myth. In fact, the
information provided tells you precisely that you do not know any
natural explanation of anything prior to 10^-27 s.

The fact remains that we are talking about the unknown. Not having a
natural explanation for the events prior to 10^-27 s is NOT persuasive
that there was a supernatural creator instead. On the other hand, not
having evidence of a supernatural creator for the events prior to
10^-27 s is NOT persuasive that there is a natural accounting (which
we do not have) either. The point being: I don't see why you think
there needs to be persuasion one way or the other about the realm of
the unknown. It seems to me to be a spectacularly ill-advised mandate
to decide to be persuaded either way about the unknown. "Well, if I'm
not persuaded of THIS about the unknown, then I guess I must be
persuaded of THAT about the unknown instead." Why on earth would you
do that, other than just being in the mood for a fight and having to
pick a side?

That has to be the longest straw man, that I have ever read.

If you say so. A straw man is usually something known to be wrong for
the purpose of knocking it down. What I said was right, not wrong.


You are correct, my bad.

I should have said, "red herring"



Now if the information available, is not sufficient to persuade you
that it was a natural event, how come some childish bronze age myths,
with no explanation at all, as to how or why it was done, ARE enough
to persuade you that it was not natural, but supernatural, that there
was some external factor, i.e. a god, involved?

...Other than incredulity, and wishful thinking, that is.

...And you didn't answer the question.

Yes, I did. It was apparently too long for you to read. I'll try to
keep it to the comic book speech bubble.

They aren't.

PD

"PD" wrote in message
...
On Apr 4, 4:26 pm, "adman" wrote:

It seems you made the effort to not pick a side at all. To answer your
question, mankind has a deep desire the know the unknown.

Which includes a compulsion to guess. I agree. There's not a thing
wrong with that, and indeed guessing is a crucial element of science.
The main thing to remember is when it is a guess and when it becomes
more than a guess. This is not as easy as it sounds.

Having a deep desire to know the unknown does not grant license to
make stuff up and call it known.

However, and this is another area of contention, I also hold that
there are more ways to know something than by the scientific method.
There are many who say hogwash, or if they acknowledge that it is so
then it is an inferior kind of knowledge. Personally, I do not agree.
However, this does not give license to say that a guess is known just
because it is very strongly desired that it be so.

With 1/2 of
mankind taking a scientific approach, and the other 1/2 taking a spiritual
approach. Nothing wrong with that I guess. So it comes down to a choice.
Which do you choose to believe based upon all information giving at hand?

There are many things about which I deliberately do NOT make the
choice. Demanding that a choice be made about the unknown is what I
regard to be both unnecessary and counterproductive.

Tell that to about 50 billion people that will disagree.


You seem to actually know what you are talking about as compared to some
of
the others that post here and postulate themselves as scientists.

Giving the information at hand; and assuming you wanted to "pick a side"
and
was "in the mood for a fight";

I don't. Why is that necessary?

I see you do not want to choose. Which os ok. That is a "safe" position to
take.

which seems more plausible for creation? A
creator that put into motion all the known laws? Or the "Big Bang" theory
that begun the Universe and it's following evolution?

Here's the thing about plausibility. As a physicist, I can tell you
that most of the things that go on in the universe are highly
implausible by our intuitive reckoning. Parallel lines intersect,
particles behave as though they are in two places at once, matter
disappears and reappears, objects go through barriers without
puncturing them, duration between two events changes depending on how
fast you move past them, etc. But these highly implausible things are
also *measured* to really occur. Physicists do not build theories
based on plausibiity. They often build theories based on quite
implausible presumptions and see what plays out from those
presumptions, and then tests those predictions against experiment. If
the experiments match, then the presumptions have support NO MATTER
HOW IMPLAUSIBLE they are.

Intuition is often confused with logic. People call things that clash
with their intuition and everyday experience "illogical", but there's
nothing illogical about counterintuitive. Intuition and common sense
are notorious liars and blind fools.

Forgive me for being presumptuous. But you sound as if you made a great case
"for a creator" but a creator with a sense of humor that makes "particles
behave as though they are in two places at once, matter disappears and
reappears, objects go through barriers without puncturing them, duration
between two events changes depending on how fast you move past them". The
bible is clear when is says they will seek and seek, yet never find answers

But should we give up? No. The bible is also clear when it says that "all
those that truly seek ME will find me"



Now if the information available, is not sufficient to persuade you
that it was a natural event, how come some childish bronze age myths,
with no explanation at all, as to how or why it was done, ARE enough
to persuade you that it was not natural, but supernatural, that there
was some external factor, i.e. a god, involved?

...Other than incredulity, and wishful thinking, that is.

Now, notice that after all that, you still don't know whether I am a
believer or not.

Well, i really could care less(no to be rude at all).

However, I do know truth when I read it and there is truth in your
words.Which is the sole reason why I asked if you were to choose a side,
which side would you choose; Because I believe whatever side you choose
would probably be closer to what is the real truth.

How dare i presume that? Well, You do not seem to be corrupted by a hatred
for God, or a suspicion of Science. Nor do you present answeres like some of
these so called "real" arm chair scientists on usenet.


A breath of fresh air, to say the least.

PD