Scientific proof that God exists?

[username18333]

. . .

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

Hindsight?  For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology.  I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation.  With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct.  This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

One's "hindsight" (the joint) consists of one's own conceptions of one's own experiences.

The "hindsight" I'm talking about is what occurs at the introduction of new evidence that does not fit the current theory.

That "hindsight" is, partially, a function of the set of evidence one could receive.

Different universe? Different set.

So long as that 'other' universe is beyond the scope of observation, that's fairly irrelevant, especially in a practical sense.  Are you aware of any proofs that necessitate other universes with unique syntax?  

. . .

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.

How would you describe the relationship between potential and nothing?  

We can only directly observe this universe; however, if one interpolates back to nothing, one may indirectly observe "naked" existence (i.e., "Ω = 0").

Because we are interpolating, we may apply the "laws" of this universe (e.g., "S₁ − S₂ < 0") to that "totality" of existence.

In doing so, one finds that it is, within the confines of the second law of this universe's thermodynamics, possible for any of an absolute quantity of microstates (i.e., "Ω = −0") to manifest into existence.


In summary, what was addressed wasn't so much "nothing" as it was "nonexistence."

[the joint]

. . .

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

Hindsight?  For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology.  I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation.  With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct.  This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

One's "hindsight" (the joint) consists of one's own conceptions of one's own experiences.

The "hindsight" I'm talking about is what occurs at the introduction of new evidence that does not fit the current theory.

That "hindsight" is, partially, a function of the set of evidence one could receive.

Different universe? Different set.

So long as that 'other' universe is beyond the scope of observation, that's fairly irrelevant, especially in a practical sense.  Are you aware of any proofs that necessitate other universes with unique syntax?  

. . .

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.

How would you describe the relationship between potential and nothing?  

We can only directly observe this universe; however, if one interpolates back to nothing, one may indirectly observe "naked" existence (i.e., "Ω = 0").

Because we are interpolating, we may apply the "laws" of this universe (e.g., "S₁ − S₂ < 0") to that "totality" of existence.

In doing so, one finds that it is, within the confines of the second law of this universe's thermodynamics, possible for any of an absolute quantity of microstates (i.e., "Ω = −0") to manifest into existence.


In summary, what was addressed wasn't so much "nothing" as it was "nonexistence."

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are essentially notating the relationships between what things are and what they are not, e.g. we can ascribe things to exist specifically because they are not non-existent.  And, extending to specific conditional events, we define them in terms of both what they are and what they are not, e.g. apple is an apple because it isn't a not-apple.

If this isn't what you're implying, could you provide additional clarity?  Furthermore, how would you describe the relationship between consciousness and "non-existence?"

[Decksperiment]

Non-existance is conciousnous. (the thought that grew in the abyss)

[the joint]

Non-existance is conciousnous. (the thought that grew in the abyss)

I'm a current believer of the following: 

God:Universe :: Man:Thoughts

[Lauda]

Do you understand everything about your FSM? If you do, then it is you that are god, not the FSM. If you are serious, read the New Testament in the Bible.

No one can understand everything about God.  

Reading a 2,000 year old book, when so much has changed since then, doesn't make much sense.  I understand this, but then again I had pasta 3 hours ago.

Read the scripture if you are serious.  

http://www.venganza.org/

Indeed it does not. I always asked myself why we (well in my classes in the past) learned some stuff that people said BC, or even in the Bible when science in the meantime proved them wrong.
Why should I read/believe what people said when they believed in magic, witches and similar things.
I'd rather join that Church than read the Bible  .

[Piston Honda]

Nope nope and nope.

No God, sorry to break it to you.

[the joint]

Nope nope and nope.

No God, sorry to break it to you.

As an (I presume) atheist, how would you reconcile that belief with the sameness-in-difference principle of logic which states any two relational entities X and Y must share a common relational medium?  The implications of this principle are vast in that it demonstrates it is a logical impossibility for any two entities to be absolutely different from each other.  This means that the physical and abstract aspects of reality are identical at a fundamental level and their differences only arise as a result of their similarities.

So, are you confident enough to rule God out completely when the Universe can't exist independent of its abstract/mental constituents?  

[username18333]

. . .

. . .

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.

How would you describe the relationship between potential and nothing?  

We can only directly observe this universe; however, if one interpolates back to nothing, one may indirectly observe "naked" existence (i.e., "Ω = 0").

Because we are interpolating, we may apply the "laws" of this universe (e.g., "S₁ − S₂ < 0") to that "totality" of existence.

In doing so, one finds that it is, within the confines of the second law of this universe's thermodynamics, possible for any of an absolute quantity of microstates (i.e., "Ω = −0") to manifest into existence.


In summary, what was addressed wasn't so much "nothing" as it was "nonexistence."

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are essentially notating the relationships between what things are and what they are not, e.g. we can ascribe things to exist specifically because they are not non-existent.  And, extending to specific conditional events, we define them in terms of both what they are and what they are not, e.g. apple is an apple because it isn't a not-apple.

If this isn't what you're implying, could you provide additional clarity?  Furthermore, how would you describe the relationship between consciousness and "non-existence?"

. . .

As an (I presume) atheist, how would you reconcile that belief with the sameness-in-difference principle of logic which state any two relational entities X and Y must share a common relational medium?  The implications of this principle are vast in that it demonstrates it is a logical impossibility for any two entities to be absolutely different from the other.  This means that the physical and abstract aspects of reality are identical at a fundamental level and their differences only arise as a result of their similarities.

So, are you confident enough to rule God out completely when the Universe can't exist independent of its abstract/mental constituents?  

Within Homo sapiens thought, the following often holds:

Code:

∀x Microstate-of(x, Existence) ∧ Mezostate-of(f(x), Existence) ⇒ x ≔ f(x)

[the joint]

. . .

. . .

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.

How would you describe the relationship between potential and nothing?  

We can only directly observe this universe; however, if one interpolates back to nothing, one may indirectly observe "naked" existence (i.e., "Ω = 0").

Because we are interpolating, we may apply the "laws" of this universe (e.g., "S₁ − S₂ < 0") to that "totality" of existence.

In doing so, one finds that it is, within the confines of the second law of this universe's thermodynamics, possible for any of an absolute quantity of microstates (i.e., "Ω = −0") to manifest into existence.


In summary, what was addressed wasn't so much "nothing" as it was "nonexistence."

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are essentially notating the relationships between what things are and what they are not, e.g. we can ascribe things to exist specifically because they are not non-existent.  And, extending to specific conditional events, we define them in terms of both what they are and what they are not, e.g. apple is an apple because it isn't a not-apple.

If this isn't what you're implying, could you provide additional clarity?  Furthermore, how would you describe the relationship between consciousness and "non-existence?"

. . .

As an (I presume) atheist, how would you reconcile that belief with the sameness-in-difference principle of logic which state any two relational entities X and Y must share a common relational medium?  The implications of this principle are vast in that it demonstrates it is a logical impossibility for any two entities to be absolutely different from the other.  This means that the physical and abstract aspects of reality are identical at a fundamental level and their differences only arise as a result of their similarities.

So, are you confident enough to rule God out completely when the Universe can't exist independent of its abstract/mental constituents?  

Within Homo sapiens thought, the following often holds:

Code:

∀x∀y[microstate(x, existence) ∧ mezostate(y, existence) ∧ x ∈ y ⇒ x ≔ y]

Yeah. I need to learn more about notation.  Any way you could take that mathematical statement and phrase it in English?  I should be able to reverse model it back to your notation.

[username18333]

. . .

. . .

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.

How would you describe the relationship between potential and nothing?  

We can only directly observe this universe; however, if one interpolates back to nothing, one may indirectly observe "naked" existence (i.e., "Ω = 0").

Because we are interpolating, we may apply the "laws" of this universe (e.g., "S₁ − S₂ < 0") to that "totality" of existence.

In doing so, one finds that it is, within the confines of the second law of this universe's thermodynamics, possible for any of an absolute quantity of microstates (i.e., "Ω = −0") to manifest into existence.


In summary, what was addressed wasn't so much "nothing" as it was "nonexistence."

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are essentially notating the relationships between what things are and what they are not, e.g. we can ascribe things to exist specifically because they are not non-existent.  And, extending to specific conditional events, we define them in terms of both what they are and what they are not, e.g. apple is an apple because it isn't a not-apple.

If this isn't what you're implying, could you provide additional clarity?  Furthermore, how would you describe the relationship between consciousness and "non-existence?"

. . .

As an (I presume) atheist, how would you reconcile that belief with the sameness-in-difference principle of logic which state any two relational entities X and Y must share a common relational medium?  The implications of this principle are vast in that it demonstrates it is a logical impossibility for any two entities to be absolutely different from the other.  This means that the physical and abstract aspects of reality are identical at a fundamental level and their differences only arise as a result of their similarities.

So, are you confident enough to rule God out completely when the Universe can't exist independent of its abstract/mental constituents?  

Within Homo sapiens thought, the following often holds:

Code:

∀x Microstate-of(x, Existence) ∧ Mezostate-of(f(x), Existence) ⇒ x ≔ f(x)

Yeah. I need to learn more about notation.  Any way you could take that mathematical statement and phrase it in English?  I should be able to reverse model it back to your notation.

It's predicate logic.

Within Homo sapiens thought, the following often holds:

For all x, if x is a microstate of existence and f(x) is a mezostate of existence then x is defined to be another name for f(x).

[foggyb]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWe3cteDuBc


Scientific evidence presented by Dr. Don Patton, Ph.D.?, that humans walked with dinosaurs, and evidence disproving geologic column theory that evolution is based on.

[the joint]

Within Homo sapiens thought, the following often holds:

For all x, if x is a microstate of existence and f(x) is a mezostate of existence then x is defined to be another name for f(x).

Let me mull this one over a bit.  And thanks for the link.

[cooldgamer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWe3cteDuBc


Scientific evidence presented by Dr. Don Patton, Ph.D., that humans walked with dinosaurs, and evidence disproving geologic column theory that evolution is based on.

Since early 1989, Don Patton, a close associate of Carl Baugh and leader of Metroplex Institute of Origins Science (MIOS) near Dallas, has claimed a Ph.D. (or "Ph.D. candidacy") in geology from Queensland Christian University in Australia.[33] However, QCU is another unaccredited school linked to Clifford Wilson. [34] When questioned about this at a recent MIOS meeting, Patton indicated that he was aware of some problems relating to QCU, and was withdrawing his Ph.D. candidacy.[35]

However, the printed abstracts of the 1989 Bible-Science conference in Dayton, Tennessee (where Patton gave two talks) stated that he was a Ph.D. candidacy in geology, and implied that he has at least four degrees from three separate schools.[36] When I asked Patton for clarification on this during the conference, he stated that he had no degrees, but was about to receive a Ph.D. degree in geology, pending accreditation of QCU, which he assured me was "three days away."[37] Many days have since passed, and Patton still has no valid degree in geology. Nor is the accreditation of QCU imminent. Australian researcher Ian Plimer reported, "PCI, QPU, PCT, and PCGS have no formal curriculum, no classes, no research facilities, no calendar, no campus, and no academic staff....Any Ph.D. or Ph.D. candidacy at QPU by Patton is fraudulent."[38]

With surprising boldness, Carl Baugh recently appeared on a radio talk show in Texas claiming the same degrees discussed above, plus a new "Ph.D. candidacy in paleoanthropology from Pacific College." Baugh complained that critics were now attacking his credentials and those of other fine creationists, including "Dr. Don Patton."[39]

Just another guy trying to convince people that his bad science is real and evolution is a lie

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html

[bl4kjaguar]

What 2 people say =/= peer reviewed evidence.  Neither of those are evidence for a god either, you're just using the god of the gaps.

Try using an argument that doesn't rely on the notion of fallacy.

You would also do well to understand what Spencer is saying.

it is possible that someone created something Stegosaurus-like during the past few years as a joke.

Not possible based on overwhelming evidence; 6 reasons were given on bible.ca.
This article has discredited itself and shown its prejudice.

Fortunately, there is healthy discussion in the comments section; all the comments are great without exception; I really liked this rebuttal for example.

Recap of dinosaurs (in case you missed it)...

Is it not possible that there is a mode of being as much transcending Intelligence and Will, as these transcend mechanical motion? Doubtless we are totally unable to imagine any such higher mode of being. But this is not a reason for questioning its existence; it is rather the reverse. Have we not seen how utterly unable our minds are to form even an approach to a conception of that which underlies all phenomena? Is it not proved that we fail because of the incompetency of the Conditioned to grasp the Unconditioned ? Does it not follow that the Ultimate Cause cannot in any respect be conceived because it is in every respect greater than can be conceived?

And may we not therefore rightly refrain from assigning to it any attributes whatever?

[foggyb]

[
Just another guy trying to convince people that his bad science is real and evolution is a lie

Its science that you don't like, so you dismiss it because you can't deal with the facts. Nice try though. Problem is, I'm not interested so much in Patton's authority because I'm not appealing to authority (which is a clear fallacy). I'm interested in his SCIENCE. He might not have a PHD...fine lets pretend that's true for arguments sake. Talk about the evidence that he presents. Do you have a PHD? If not, do you believe others should just accept what you say? Isn't that a double standard and a logical fallacy?

Evolution theory's most important evidence (the geologic column) is based on circular reasoning.

They date the fossils by the rock layers, and the rock layers by the fossils in them.

The complete geologic column exists nowhere on earth, only in textbooks.

[cooldgamer]

[
Just another guy trying to convince people that his bad science is real and evolution is a lie

Its science that you don't like, so you dismiss it because you can't deal with the facts. Nice try though. Problem is, I'm not interested so much in Patton's authority because I'm not appealing to authority (which is a clear fallacy). I'm interested in his SCIENCE. He might not have a PHD...fine lets pretend that's true for arguments sake. Talk about the evidence that he presents. Do you have a PHD? If not, do you believe others should just accept what you say? Isn't that a double standard and a logical fallacy?

Evolution theory's most important evidence (the geologic column) is based on circular reasoning.

They date the fossils by the rock layers, and the rock layers by the fossils in them.

The complete geologic column exists nowhere on earth, only in textbooks.

I actually just didn't feel like wasting an hour listening to a guy that has no idea what he's talking about.

The unfortunate part of the natural process of refinement of time scales is the appearance of circularity if people do not look at the source of the data carefully enough.  Most commonly, this is characterised by oversimplified statements like:

    "The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils."

Even some geologists have stated this misconception (in slightly different words) in seemingly authoritative works (e.g., Rastall, 1956), so it is persistent, even if it is categorically wrong (refer to Harper (1980), p.246-247 for a thorough debunking, although it is a rather technical explanation).

When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data.  Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others.  There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section.  Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences.

If an inconsistent data point is found, geologists ask the question: "Is this date wrong, or is it saying the current geological time scale is wrong?" In general, the former is more likely, because there is such a vast amount of data behind the current understanding of the time scale, and because every rock is not expected to preserve an isotopic system for millions of years.  However, this statistical likelihood is not assumed, it is tested, usually by using other methods (e.g., other radiometric dating methods or other types of fossils), by re-examining the inconsistent data in more detail, recollecting better quality samples, or running them in the lab again. Geologists search for an explanation of the inconsistency, and will not arbitrarily decide that, "because it conflicts, the data must be wrong."

If it is a small but significant inconsistency, it could indicate that the geological time scale requires a small revision. This happens regularly.  The continued revision of the time scale as a result of new data demonstrates that geologists are willing to question it and change it. The geological time scale is far from dogma.

If the new data have a large inconsistency (by "large" I mean orders of magnitude), it is far more likely to be a problem with the new data, but geologists are not satisfied until a specific geological explanation is found and tested.  An inconsistency often means something geologically interesting is happening, and there is always a tiny possibility that it could be the tip of a revolution in understanding about geological history. Admittedly, this latter possibility is VERY unlikely. There is almost zero chance that the broad understanding of geological history (e.g., that the Earth is billions of years old) will change. The amount of data supporting that interpretation is immense, is derived from many fields and methods (not only radiometric dating), and a discovery would have to be found that invalidated practically all previous data in order for the interpretation to change greatly.  So far, I know of no valid theory that explains how this could occur, let alone evidence in support of such a theory, although there have been highly fallacious attempts (e.g., the classic "moon dust", "decay of the Earth's magnetic field" and "salt in the oceans" claims).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

For any other arguments you'll come up with about the Geologic Column: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html

The fact of the matter is there is absolutely 0 evidence for young-earth creationism right now.  Even the pope is supporting evolution.  If there was solid scientific evidence that disproved evolution scientists would be shouting it from the rooftops (and then try to use the new data to figure out what really happened, because that's how science works).

[BADecker]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

For any other arguments you'll come up with about the Geologic Column: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html

The fact of the matter is there is absolutely 0 evidence for young-earth creationism right now.  Even the pope is supporting evolution.  If there was solid scientific evidence that disproved evolution scientists would be shouting it from the rooftops (and then try to use the new data to figure out what really happened, because that's how science works).

Most of the sciences might work like that. But political science, the one controlled by the money, works any old way it wants. And if a scientist doesn't toe the line, he doesn't get funded by big money, who just might want him/her to lie. If he doesn't get funded, his work gets lost among all the publications that GET published, because it isn't published for long if it is published at all.

Young-earth creationism has lots of evidence while old-earth has very little. It's just not evidence that is in the best interests of big money right now. So, political science makes old-earth to be published in a big way, while young-earth is downplayed... by science - political science.

[cooldgamer]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

For any other arguments you'll come up with about the Geologic Column: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html

The fact of the matter is there is absolutely 0 evidence for young-earth creationism right now.  Even the pope is supporting evolution.  If there was solid scientific evidence that disproved evolution scientists would be shouting it from the rooftops (and then try to use the new data to figure out what really happened, because that's how science works).

Most of the sciences might work like that. But political science, the one controlled by the money, works any old way it wants. And if a scientist doesn't toe the line, he doesn't get funded by big money, who just might want him/her to lie. If he doesn't get funded, his work gets lost among all the publications that GET published, because it isn't published for long if it is published at all.

Young-earth creationism has lots of evidence while old-earth has very little. It's just not evidence that is in the best interests of big money right now. So, political science makes old-earth to be published in a big way, while young-earth is downplayed... by science - political science.

How can you bribe a peer-reviewed paper?  Science is science, people make it political.  Nobody is paying to keep the evidence of your god under wraps.  Please, show me ANY evidence from a respectable source that supports young earth creationism.  Go ahead, I'm waiting.

We would need just one piece of evidence, we would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another; we would need evidence that the universe is not expanding, we need evidence that the stars appear to be far away, but they're not. We would need evidence that rock layers can somehow form in just four thousand years instead of the  extraordinary number. We need evidence that somehow that you can reset the atomic clock and keep the neutrons from becoming protons. Bring out any of those things, and you would change me immediately.

[BADecker]

Most of the sciences might work like that. But political science, the one controlled by the money, works any old way it wants. And if a scientist doesn't toe the line, he doesn't get funded by big money, who just might want him/her to lie. If he doesn't get funded, his work gets lost among all the publications that GET published, because it isn't published for long if it is published at all.

Young-earth creationism has lots of evidence while old-earth has very little. It's just not evidence that is in the best interests of big money right now. So, political science makes old-earth to be published in a big way, while young-earth is downplayed... by science - political science.

How can you bribe a peer-reviewed paper?  Science is science, people make it political.  Nobody is paying to keep the evidence of your god under wraps.  Please, show me ANY evidence from a respectable source that supports young earth creationism.  Go ahead, I'm waiting.

We would need just one piece of evidence, we would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another; we would need evidence that the universe is not expanding, we need evidence that the stars appear to be far away, but they're not. We would need evidence that rock layers can somehow form in just four thousand years instead of the  extraordinary number. We need evidence that somehow that you can reset the atomic clock and keep the neutrons from becoming protons. Bring out any of those things, and you would change me immediately.

"How can you bribe a peer-reviewed paper?"
Bribe the peers. Or, at least, find and publish the responses of sympathetic peers, but not the others.

"We would need just one piece of evidence... "
You don't need me to Google "young earth." Then research the points that the young-earth people bring up.

"Bring out any of those things, and you would change me immediately."
Bill won't believe the witness record of the Bible, anyway.



EDIT: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=801240.msg9466228#msg9466228 .

[Decksperiment]

Non-existance is conciousnous. (the thought that grew in the abyss)

I'm a current believer of the following: 

God:Universe :: Man:Thoughts

..And far off in space, constructed they, a planet..