Ok, I'll give you the first one, but only because instead of lying, there would be a lot of sleeping and snoring. Though I am not sure I would have been able to handle 4 years of "Don'cha'no" and compulsive winking...

Romney was lying throughout his campaign, too. They all always are. It's their job.

I agree, you should keep learning. Hopefully you'll come to the conclusion that the only ethical economics system out there is one that recognizes that you own your own body and all the products thereoff, and that everything else stems from that (RBE can not stem from that)

So, are we "creating" or are we just "channeling?" You can't have both? And if there is exactly zero factual corroborated and reproducible evidence for any of this, why is it relevant? I guess for you, you hope to be the very first person to actually have factual, corroborated, and reproducible evidence? I wonder what are the chances of that, since you'd be the first human (maybe second) to do this in 250,000 years.

Note that if you search for Oort cloud on wikipedia, or anywhere else, you will find the word "hypothesis," not "theory." Meaning it's just a guess based on how we know things word, but so far without evidence to back that up. When there is evidence (such as in the gravity theory, microbe theory, and evolution theory), then we eventually convert the idea from a hypothesys (colloquial "theory") to theory (colloquial "how things actually are")


There are also hundreds of articles that debunk much of the stuff on that site. Only hundreds instead of thousands, because much of the claims there are too silly to spend time on.
For example, in the section "What about dinosaur footprints? - In the footsteps of giants" has the following quote right at the beginning


It's cute how it tries to relate to common people who may not live anywhere near wild animals, by refering them to the tracks they may see in snow. It's silly (and rather stupid) because the tracks you may see in snow are of small mamals and rodens, who are typically forraging for food under that snow. Predators, large pack animals, and even migrating forraging rodents still travel in straight lines, but the common people don't see those, because they don't live near large predators, prarries full of pack animals, or in the forests near the homes those small rodents treck to and from.

Btw, I used to read that site all the time for amusement. It's like the Jerry Springer of science  



Let's see...

A Common Flood Story - Floods happened everywhere in the world, causing great destruction, and still happen everywhere. Why would it be surprising that everyone wrote about them?

The Code of Hammurabi - Hammurabi, or the fact that most of the places in the bible actually existed, isn't being questioned. The thing being questioned is whether the myths and tales of the people who used to live during that time are true. Much of Harry Potter happens in London, a real place, and much of Greek The Oddysey takes place in known Greek locations, also all real places. That alone does not make boy wizzards, or Greek gods, true (does it?)

The Nuzi Tablets - There is ton of eidence that the biblical story was basically ripped off from other stories. Heck, the whole sacrafice and resurection thing was lifted practically verbatum from much more ancient Egyptian folklore. Why should we be surprised that some practices that were written about in yet another book weren't lifted and included into the bible as well?

The Existence of Hittites - London <> Harry Potter

And, actually, it pretty much continues like that. I think what you Christians are misunderstanding is that proof of history only prooves that our recorded history is true. It doesn't actually prove that the miracles, mysticism, or gods that were talked about during those times are true. There are far more historical artifacts and landmarks that are mentioned in the Greek mythology, yet you don't believe in Zeus. Why?

No, I am saying people who abuse children should be sent to that jail as soon as the person with power do send them to jail finds out about it. Instead of simply standing idly by, watching it happen, telling the child they still love them, and hoping that the abuser will land in jail many years later for some other reason.

If you are simply saying that everything in the universe is god, then I am just as much in awe of god as I am of the universe. I.e. I give it zero reverence and respect, and it's at most a curiocity to study and explore.
Though then I would ask, why did you use the world "god" to mean universe? Why not "thing" or "fraglblagrl?" Was there some prior connotatioon associated with the word "god" that you were hoping to attach to your otherwise unimpressive and meaningless redefinition of words?

Thanks! I learned some new terms, and now have more lables to apply to myself  

Here is where it totally falls appart for me. I can't see how "creating something in your imagination" is actually creating anything at all. It's just imagination, which happens through a mechanical/physical process. If I change some electrons on a tiny slab of silicon, and the computer "imagines" the result as a picture of a house on a computer screen, the computer didn't actually "create" a house. It's just an asembly of electrons into a pattern that can be interpreted as a house. Same with our imagination - we aren't creating worlds, we are just rearranging electrons in a way that let our brains interpret them as a representation of something.


That's the thing, we have witnessed it. We gathered some experimental data from satelites, and used our imagination and knowledge of math and physics to construct a model. The model stated that the universe popped into existence, containing equal parts matter and antimatter, so that the "matter can not be created or destroyed" law still applied, which it does, since the sum of all universe cancels each other out to 0. We confirmed part of that by observing the motions of stars and galaxies, and seeing that the matter was balanced by dark matter we can't see. Then we expanded on the "popping into existence" theory by using updated physics models to predict that such an event can happen spontaneously, on it's own. And finally, when we ran the Large Hadron Collider, we actually saw such an occurence happen many times, where tiny particles would pop into existence, containing both matter and antimatter. Essentially we saw tiny big bangs, except they were very little banks, and, having popped into our own already existing universe, quickly burned out or were annihalated. This confirmed that an event such as a universe popping into existence was not only possible, but probable. Oh, P.S. that's also how we generate anti-matter at this point: we made lots of these little pops happen, then separate matter from antimatter using magnetic fields. That's how it was done in Dan Brown's Angels and Demons, too.


But my being formed through chemical processes isn't a singularity. There was no pre-existing idea of my car 5 years ago, either, but it was put together from raw materials, and now here it is. I don't call that a singularity, I cann it a normal physical event.


It's inconsiistend to reason that an environment of physical laws and raw materials needs to pop into existance, before those physical laws and raw materials can be used to put something together?


If that is your definition of a singularity, then neither the Big Bang, nor my formation, were singularities, since we can coherently explain how both happened.


Why is it relevant which one of these two is true? If there is no difference in the way I percieve the universe from either of those cases, then it makes no difference as to whether one is true and one is false. I will still come to the same conclusions, based on my own observations and experiences. It's like believing that there is a god, but that he is unable to interract with this world in any way. In either of those scenarios, the easiest and most productive outcome for research is the one that ignores the untestable and unprovable (all in my imagination, or an untouchable god), and only focus on things that may affect reality, however we may percieve it.



Electrons aren't spinning, they are in a cloud around the protom, existing in quantum state, i.e. everywhere in the cloud at once. You can pull a limited amount of energy out of them, but it's like extracting energy out of a spring: all you are doing is changing the hydrogen atop, and it will "snap" back, releasing the energy, as soon as you let go. Ditto for magnets. It's not mystical energy, it's just potential and kinnetic energy. When you pull two magnets appart, you are using kinnetic energy to store potential energy between them. When they come back together, they take their stored potential energy and releasse it as kinnetic to snap back together. Magnets are about as full of mystical energy as mattress springs, and as effective. All "pulls" will always end up at a point where there is nowhere else to pull to...

According to people who actually know what they are talking about (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability) Bitcoin scales quite well, and can easily do many times the transaction volume of Visa and Mastercard.

Was this a personal loan, or was he running a ponzi?

Lol! That's like the "famous last words" in bitcoinland 

He's not dead, he just went back home. To the future.

FYI, sorry, buy I don't have the time, or the bandwidth to watch videos (I'm typically on my Android tablet)


What if I change #1 to "Let's define a pink unicorn as the creator of the universe." Can I follow the rest of your steps, and prove that pink unicorns exist? Can I use any fantasy creature or concept I want? And what if I refuse to define God as Creator of the Universe, and insist that the universe was created from a spontaneous quantum event, the type of which we have already witnessed? Doesn't that screw up the whole ontological argument?


Laws don't break down there, they just change. I think the reason the Big Bang was called a singularity was because it was. At that high gravity, everything might as well be a single point. But OK. Just as long as we are using the same language, or can at least understand the terms...


I don't know enough string theory to know what that means, but I'm somewhat certain that's not the model for Big Bang that is being used. The one I subscribe to is the one proposed by Stephen Hawking back in late 80's/early 90's, which was confirmed by the Hadron Collider.


Where are you getting two singularities from? It was just one single quantum "pop."


Admittedly, I didn't really read the evidence (as I know it would be as much bunk as evidence of perpetual motion machines, made up by people who don't actually know how brains work), but the levitating man video was amusing. It's the oldest magic trick ever. Note the curtain behind him

Sorry, I tried, but I still don't quite get it. It sounds like you are trying to apply abstract math to specific physics to show that what is actually completely physically separate in things like chemistry, physics, and quantum particles, is actually not separate because of an abstract mathematical concept. I'm not sure I'm ready to give up physical reality for abstract mathematics yet.

Forget about me being "ticked" at god. I'm not. I don't believe in him, and thus am just as ticked at god as you are ticked at Lady the Sasquatch. ("Who?" "Exactly.")

So, are you saying that if one of your kids was abused, the loving thing to do would be to tell them you still love them, and allow them to continue to be abused, hoping the abuser will just say sorry eventually, and only punishing the abuser years later if he doesn't?

Actually, as I stated, it adds up to zero. A nice round number that resulted from all out observations of the universe's matter and antimatter.


Luckily for us, when it comes to science, you don't have to believe anything

So, if one of your children starts to get abused on a daily basis, and comes to you crying, you will hold a phone that can call the police in one hand, a gun that can stop the abuser in the other, refuse to use them or do anything about it, and simply tell your child that you are crying too? Not much love there if you refuse to even raise a hand to help.

Obviously you would not refuse to help, and your moral urges would get you to do SOMETHING. And the reason is because you (hopefully), as a human being in this day and age, is better than the god of your bible. That's like one of the basic underlying principles of atheism: we figured out that god is AWEFUL, and that we as humans are way nicer, better, and more moral that the crap he spews.

When the bible was written, we didn't really know anything about fire. We knew that it was hot, and that it hurt. We know a lot more now. Out of curiocity, do you think whatever it is that souls are made of can chemically combine with oxygen? Because if souls can't combine with oxygen, then they pretty much can't burn and are impervious to fire. Likewise, do you think souls can have an electric field, to let the nerve endings send the electric impulses to tell the brain that there is pain somewhere, and do souls have brains capable of causing chemical reactions that would allow them to respond to pain? Pain, and fire, and very physical and chemistry-based things. I don't think souls, if existed, would even be able to sense fire.

Nope. That happened centuries later, when some people specifically rejected the ideas of those sheep hearders, and decided to actually do physical experiments in the physical world. Many were even punished or burned for doing this by the sheephearder followers.


I doon't follow. No, a logical conclusion is not just whatever fantasy you wish to imagine.


Because a singularity is a physics defined term, that means matter and energy in such a compressed state, that the gravity there overcomes light and time itself, etc. etc. etc.? I'm pretty sure I was never a black hole. Nor was I ever a spontaneous quantum explosion of matter and antimatter. All those things involving the Big Bang actually have some actual physical science behind them, so please don't conflate terms. Occam's razor would make my consciousness much more basic and simpler than some mystical thing that many people try to push here, and likewise would make the idea of the universe spontaneously popping into existence the way we have witnessed particles pop into existence in particle coliders WAY more probable than some omnippootent consciousness popping into existence to create the universe.


We have pretty conclusive evidence that changing or damaging certain parts of the brain severely alters consciousness, that interfeering with brain chemistry alters consciousness, very good evidence on how brains are built and how they send signals, and practically no evidence that they receiive signals from elsewhere. Are you suggesting that brain damage due to physical trauma or disease actually interfeers with brain's "antenna" qualities, instead of actually damaging the consciousness that it works with? Your same Occam's raizor would say that the simplest explanation is that consciousness originates from the brain itself, as opposed to a vastly more complex idea that there is some great, unknown, untestable consciousness that our brain simply received (through what material or means, and why can't it be blocked)?

Not really. "I don't know" is a pretty simple answer, and is probably better than trying to make something up, and getting stuck with having to answer even more questions. But priests and religious types in general are pretty convinced that they know the answers - the "truth" - and can't help themselves.


Pretty fair, considering he knew that this would happened, and purposefully came to earth specifically in order to have it happen. God basically willingly committed suicide with that one. If I shoot myself in the head, how far is it of me to suffer through taking my own gun, putting the gun to my head myself, and pulling the trigger? Pretty stupid question when you put it that way.