Bikerman

Check some of the quotes in previous messages and you will find the answer. I think you have a rather rose-tinted view of religions. Did you read: So kill unbelievers unless they change to believers?Have you ever read the Old Testament? I once estimated the killings at somewhere between 900,000 and 2.2 million....

I'm not hyper and I'm not irritated and I don't hate you. No, I was trying to clarify what you said, that is all. I did. Now consider, have I said that anyone should be stopped from doing anything? Have I suggested that any action (apart from illegal ones) should be restricted? Religion has a great deal to do with it. Would the threat to murder be there without it? Yes, to some extent that is correct. Religion is also a convenient label to classify people - so in Northern Ireland it is easy to say Protestant and Catholic, rather than 'those who with to stay in the Union with the UK, and those that wish to leave the UK and join with Southern Ireland. Sorry - I don't get the sentence above. Tolerance, live and let live, killing the bad? That is a bit ambiguous. You cannot kill the bad and at the same time live and let live....

OK, so the big issue is tolerance, yes? Tolerance means letting people do what they want to do and not interfering or nagging/moaning, yes?Now, think carefully, then answer this...a) Who, if anyone, is being intolerant? Me?b ) Is it tolerant to say 'don't do this or we will kill you?'?c) Is it tolerant to say 'I will speak as I like, and you speak as you like?'You see, I think you are actually supporting my position even if you don't mean to. Free speech and tolerance are part of the same thing - letting others, even the ones you don't like, say what they like.

So you half respect it and half don't? It is getting worse.... Also - beware weasel words like 'reasonable'. That is entirely subjective and essentially means - I will respect those beliefs which don't annoy me or which I can get along with...this, of course, leads to everyone respecting different things, which takes us back to saying wibble-wibble and dribling in the corner again. I do. Have you looked at the site? We are quite clear that the right to free speech and expression covers the right to believe what you want AND that this right of free expression applies to everyone - especially to those who you find offensive, or you strongly disagree with. This is all clearly set out on the site. Bye

The amount of wooly thinking in the last two postings is enough to knit a lifetime supply of sweaters.Why do you think people should respect and admire other people's beliefs? Should I respect the views of a paedophile about sex? Should I respect the views of a Satanist on religion? Should I admire those views? So who decides which beliefs get respect and admiration and which ones don't. Be clear about what you are suggesting. It is that: People should either defer to, or esteem and honour any religious viewpoint (that is the meaning of respect). Do you really defer to my lack of belief in God? Do you think it is a highly esteemed thing and something which you should honour? I would think you very confused if you answered yes to either of those. How can you esteem a view which you disagree with? Respect implies that those views are just as valid as yours but obviously if you thought my views were at least as worthy as yours then you would consider adopting them. Something tells me you are not thinking of becoming an atheist. This whole muddled mess is part of the problem with society. You are confused about what respect means and where it is due. It isn't due to a view, belief or action automatically. It would be stupid to respect the views of murderers, rapists, and psychopaths - I think everyone can possibly agree with that, yes? So from the start respect is only due to SOME beliefs or viewpoints. But take it further. Is your respect required for a view that is logically nonsense or scientifically disproved? Should you respect a belief that the eath is flat? I think not. So the group of beliefs worthy of respect is shrinking. But as you can surely see, the group will end up as that group which believe similar things to you. You have your own beliefs for a reason - you find them to be in some way truthful or special to you. Why, then, would you want to respect views which were opposed to that or which you did not find truthful or special? And now we are in the exact mess that the politically correct but hard of thinking get themselves into. It leads to mental unbalance and ultimately to a split personality. You are trying so hard to respect 20 different and opposing views at the same time that the brain gives up and you sit in a corner making wibble-wibble noises and dribbling. Be clear - respect is something that is earned because of merit. You don't throw it at everything - that is to devalue the whole concept. If everyone is worthy of respect then respect means nothing. You should not even try to respect views that you don't agree with. You should, instead, remind yourself that the other person has just as much right as you to believe and say what they wish. Respect the right to belief, not the belief itself. That way it actually makes sense and we can avoid mass psychosis.

Salman Rushdie wrote a book which had Mohammed in it (it was magic realism and Rushdie is a very literary author). A Fatwa was declared in 1990 and he is still in hiding to this day. There have been several attempts on his life, which is why he has to stay in hiding in his own country. Yes, I often see this confusion. Why do you think people should respect other beliefs? Seems a bit silly to me. Go and look up the word respect in a dictionary before we continue. Now, if I believe I am a small green tadpole called Nigel, is that worthy of respect? Should you defer to that belief and treat it as seriously worthy of consideration? That is what the word means.Surely respect is earned not given freely to any and all beliefs, even the ones you disagree with? If you saying that you respect Muslim beliefs then they include the bit about murder. I hope you don't really mean that you respect that view, because that would make you no better than the zealots who do believe that. I think what you mean is that we should respect anyone's right to HAVE their own beliefs. That is the proper way to look at respect here and it is part of my argument. I absolutely respect everyones right to believe what they like - that is a big part of what freedom of expression is all about. OK - Mary Whitehouse was a campaigner for 'decency on TV'. She was offended by any swearing at all. So should swearing be banned from the TV? If not then why make an exception? Surely that would be imoral? Who is going to decide which beliefs can be offended against and which cannot? You cannot avoid offending someone at sometime and to call it immoral is both incorrect and rather silly. Who decides which is moral and which immoral? People have all sorts of weird beliefs, none of which are necessarily worthy of respect and it is no duty of mine to avoid offending against those beliefs. My sister used to believe in the wardrobe monster. Obviously that belief was something she was better without. Likewise the belief that killing people who write books, draw cartoons or otherwise offend is a belief that everyone would be better without. Oh yes it does, all the time. What power? Do you think drawing a cartoon is an exercise of power? You have it backwards. Power is control. The real power is controlling people like you so that you will not draw or write what the zealot does not want written, and you don't even know why not, judging from your writing this far - that is proper power. The sort of power that leads people to turn a blind eye to atrocity and 'respect' bigotry. You are still using respect in a confused manner, which makes the rest invalid. Oh, and the fact that Islam has a billion followers is completely irrelevant - we call that a fallacy...as follows...Not too long ago most people on earth thought the stars were pinpricks in a globe surrounding the earth. Does the fact that a lot of people believed it make it somehow special or truer or more worthy of respecy? Nope. It is called the fallacy ad-populum - the fallacy of appealing to large numbers as evidence or significance. Nothing subjective about it. We are drawing cartoons of Christianity as well - cartoons of Jesus etc. I don't see what is naive about it - we all had to think about this, and the possible consequences, very hard before we agreed to go ahead. You are really going into la-la land now. My beliefs are not something I splash everywhere - largely because atheism isn't a belief. If you think atheism is a belief then presumably you think that not believing in Santa claus is a belief? It makes as much sense.Do you believe in the Gods Jupiter? Thor? Odin? Mars? Ra? So does that mean you have 5 beliefs ? We are all atheists - I just believe in one less God than most people. As for expressing beliefs in public..see those posters proclaiming the Lord is coming? See the Church signs telling us the hour is nigh? I get insulted and preached at about twice a week on average - mostly by people belonging to one of the Christian sects. Are you going to tell them that they are hypocrites for spreading the word? If not then you have just realised what hypocrisy actually means. I don't knock on peple's doors and tell people not to believe. In fact the only place my atheism generally gets mentioned is in forums like this: which is actually what the forum is for.... I repeat, there is nothing hypocritical about my actions. I am doing exactly what I said I would - the opposite of hypocrisy. No, I've dealt with that already. I never said beliefs were personal - you did. I don't have any beliefs in religion - you think I do. So what am I preaching? Free speech? That is written into your constitution and preached by schools, presidents and authority figures throughout your country. You are getting yourself into quite a lather about something that most people regard as not only a good thing but actually a vital thing for any democracy. well since you mention it...did anyone ask you? As I have shown, you have a fundamental problem with your definitions and that leads to nonsense like this. You see I think that YOU are part of the problem. You have a confused understanding of respect, beliefs etc and you convince yourself that doing what religions tell you to do is somehow respecting their beliefs. So you give up one more freedom in the name of respect. Next time Jehovas Witnesses will tell you that they find mention of Jesus offensive unless it is to praise him. Then, because you have to respect their beliefs, another bit of free speech disappears. And we wait long enough and find that you have happily let freedom of speech become a distant memory - and all for some misguided notion of respect. Can you think of any periods in history where this has happened. I can, and it is frightening that you either never learned, or forgot so quickly. I apologised because I was genuinely sorry that he was offended. i do not like offending people even when it is necessary. The apology was sincere but it carried no suggestion that I would change the central part of the protest. I offered to compromise, by which I meant I would have considered making the Mohammed cartoon a very friendly looking chap, or a stern but fair image, or a tall, or short image - anything to lessen the offence and make it plain that Mohammed was not being portrayed as a loonatic or a creep. I did not offer to stop the project. Learn what the word hypocrite means. Learn that not believing something is not itself a belief. Learn that respecting beliefs is both impossible and undesirable - respecting the right to hold them is what you should be doing. Learn those 3 basics and have another try because this is simply a rant based on misunderstanding and mistakes.

Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. They knew that over a millenium ago - Check Aquinas for example. He is quite clear about the matter. No, you mean you would like them to be, but they certainly are not. When you insist that a myth is the truth then I insist that science says otherwise. You obviously don't know anything about Hebrew. The fact that the word Yom is used repeatedly is highly significant. Hebrew scholars are quite clear about that so unless you want to show me your Hewbrew qualifications then I think I'll stick with those who actually know what the words mean....For example:- Good enough for me. So you think it is possible to have the sun present but no light? How does that work then? A photonic shield? And you think you don't need the sun for night and day? What causes it then? Does God have a big torch which he keeps turning on and off? You keep saying things are not biblical as though that meant anything...the biblical account is wrong, so the fact that it is not biblical doesn't say anything about the validity... God does not do the impossible - another basic item of theology that seems to have passed you by. Or can God create a weight that he cannot lift? The only way around the paradox of omnipotence is to accept that God does not do illogical things. Again this has been known since the time of Aquinas and a thousand years later you still don't seem to have got it.... And to top it all you think the sun was created before the rest of the stars? What a wacky world you live in. Not only do you not understand the Hebrew, you don't understand basic English. You cannot have something prehistoric to the creation. How could any animals exist before the Genesis account. The fact that the Genesis account says ALL means ALL - since you insist it is literal. Look it up in a dictionary and you will find that it means all, without exception, each single one, every item.Anything else is not literal and just something you are making up. Complete and utter rubbish. How could prehistoric events occur before the creation of the sun, stars and planets? You are starting to gibber now. How could animals exist before there is a universe for them to exist in.There are no biblical explanations, and inventing them is very naughty... This isn't a theory, it is a mad nonsensical ramble. You invent the story that the earth already existed before genesis (despite that fact that it is clearly created in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ". But aside from being 'not biblical' your invention doesn't work, so you now have to invent some whole backstory about annihilating and rebuilding. None of this has nothing to do with the bible - you are just inventing things as you go along and saying it is literal. When it is apparent to the meanest intellect that it is neither literal not logical. You are just stringing words together into random sentences with no comprehension of what the sentences mean. Since the earth survived previous existences? Pure science fiction. Nothing to do with any words in the actual account. You cannot account for a 3 billion year spread of fossils in that manner anyway...unless you think that God had some really really long creative sessions. God would have to be constantly creating new species for about 3 billion years. His arm would get tired and I'm sure he'd get grumpy with that much loss of sleep... As for your reference to Genesis 2 - that simply destroys the case (as if it were not already destroyed). [b]Chapter 2.[/b][b]1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.[/b]So, from Chapter 1 God has already created insects, cattle, sea life, man, woman etc. [b]2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.[/b]Fair enough - health and safety legislation would indicate a break was needed. [b]3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.[/b]Well, we all like our days off. [b]4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,[/b]YOM again - the day referred to is day 1 in Genesis 1. [b]5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.[/b]So the trees and grasses existed as seeds up to this point...OK, but this contradicts Genesis 1. The earth is supposed to be covered in water....odd but let's go with it. [b]6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.[/b]OK so now we get rain. After the trees and grasses and herbs...odd because this again contradicts Genesis 1...but let's progress... [b]7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.[/b]Now I thought that he created man and woman on day 6 in Genesis 1 ? [b]8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.[/b]OK..so this 'other' man is put in a garden. Presumably the previous men and women were not the 'chosen people' but this 'Adam' is? [b]9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.[/b]So we have an orchard. Nice. [b]10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.[/b]OK - an early example of irrigation. [b]11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;[/b]So the river Pison surrounds Havilah and Havilah is mineral rich...OK... [b]12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.[/b]So we have Gold, Gum trees and onyx..OK.. [b]13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.[/b]Hmm...this is a problem - the geography is all wrong. [b]14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.[/b]This is presumably the Tigris and Euphrates. [b]15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.[/b]So Adam is in fact a tennant farmer or serf? [b]16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:[/b]Vegan? [b]17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.[/b]Hmm...remember this threat for later - it will prove to be a lie. [b]18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.[/b]But he already created man and woman in Genesis 1 so presumably this is a 'chosen' woman? [b]19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.[/b]So these would be different to the animals already created in Genesis 1? How long did it take Adam to name them all, I wonder, given that there are several million species...? [b]20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.[/b]Internet dating? Oops...a bit early for that... [b]21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;[/b]An early example of abdominoplasty? Perhaps this is where Cher got the idea? [b]22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.[/b]So here we have the first clone? Genetically modified 'sex-wise'... [b]23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.[/b]Incest? Tricky point of ethics here... [b]24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.[/b]What father and mother would that be? [b]25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.[/b]Early naturists? Notice from truefusion: If not of yourself, then in BB code. If you run out of quote BB code, then use code BB code.

Nope completely wrong.a) Hypocrites do one thing and say another. There is nothing hypocritical. b ) The fact that I am an atheist is completely irrelevant (unless this prohibition doesn't apply to atheists, but I think it does). c) My beliefs don't matter a damn. I state them on the site only so that there is no misunderstanding, not to make any specific point. If you read what the site says the only belief that is important is whether you believe in free speech or not. I do. d) I'm not trying to start a conflict, I am challenging an attempt to stifle free speech. e) You are entitled to your own beliefs but I think you should read and seriously consider the following poem: "THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. THEN THEY CAME for me and by that time no one was left to speak up." Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) When they came for Salman Rusdhie I'm proud to say I did speak up. When they went for the danish cartoonists I'm proud to say I did speak up. Whenever they go for anyone I will speak up.

No, it remains impossible (or unknown) to pass through a BH - you would spaghettify as the gravity differential grew and be fragmented before you hit the singularity. You are also accelerating at a huge rate which would itself kill you. There is no passing between the universes under current physics - thats why it is an hypothesis - we currently have no way to test it. It could be called science-philosophy I suppose, but it contradicts no laws so I call it an hypothesis. Basically as each universe is 'born' it will have the same or similar values for the fundamental constants as the universe that is the 'parent'. The child universe will then either develop black holes (which is the same as becoming a parent) or it won't - in which case it will evolve as universes evolve and die, if that word can be used, childless. This process will then favour universes with black holes so they become the norm - though others may still form is the constant still vary a bit... There are many values possible for the fundamental constants (there are 6 of them) :- e (elementary charge) = 1.602177×10-19 C εo (permitivity of free space) = 8.85418782×10-12 F/m µo (perm liability of free space) = 4π×10-7 N/A2 ћ (Planck constant)=1.05457×10-34 Js G (gravitational constant) = 6.6726×10-11 Nm2/kg2 c (speed of light) 3*10^8 m/s

I didn't say I wanted violence - that would be stupid and I'm not stupid. I don't think there will be any violence. The aim is to point out that intimidation doesn't work, not to incite violence. Sure there is a risk of violence but nobody in their right mind wants it. It is up to the person proposing the violence, not me. If you are saying that violence is inevitable then you need to ask yourself why you think that is - and a middle-aged bloke giving an opinion and showing some pretty benign pictures of Mohammed really won't do as a justification...a bit weak really... Anyway, I am not going to persuade you so I will leave you to your views, but please don't start threads proposing world peace after this display, or I might come back to haunt you if your 'brothers' do turn nasty. We decided in the end to do it as a website blog so if you can bring yourself to look, I'll give you the address. WARNING.CONTAINS SCENES OF A MUSLIM NATURE...PARENTAL GUIDANCE NOT NEEDED, BUT MUSLIMS OF A SENSITIVE NATURE HAD BETTER CHECK WITH THE IMAM http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ (It is only just being built so there is much more to go up yet....including my cartoon when I get it properly drawn...the mach 1 version is no good...)

or do you think...maybe....just possibly...it might be a spoof....? I think Plasma shield/window is the closest we have or are likely to have for a while

Like this you mean?

I find the whole thing a bit childish - sorry but there it is.Why would you bother to invest a powerful emotion like hate in a consumer product? Are you forced to use one?As it happens, Macs were revolutionary - they had a windows GUI when I was still struggling with a 512K IMB PC mark 1 with a 5.25 floppy and crappy PC-DOS on the command line.Macs are more expensive because they have a different business model. IBM quickly decided that they didn't want to make the hardware so they franchised it out and now anyone can make PC stuff. Apple didn't. Both approaches have merits. The merit for apple is that by keeping control you make sure (or try to) than no incompatible stuff gets made that will crash your machine. The disadvantage is that it will inevitably be more expensive because there is no market driving the cost down.Many professionals use Macs - anyone in professional graphics/art, most recording studios, most writers etc. It is a bit of a generalisation but Macs tend to be used by creative types who are not interested in how a computer works - they are a tool.I am a PC person but that is mostly because I am in IT and know quite a bit about it. Therefore I can make my PC stable and useful. Many people cannot.

OK - there is no 'air molecule'. Air is a mix, not a chemical compound. It has molecules of oxygen which look a bit like this: Nitrogen, CO2, Helium and so on. What is between the molecules is other molecules. Where they do not fit together exactly there is nothing* *This is a simplistic picture of course. What we know at the more cutting-edge level is that molecules, atoms, particles - they are all 'ripples' in a quantum field (similar to a magnetic field). These ripples sometimes are curled-up into things we call particles. This is the advanced level picture, though, and it requires a knowledge of quantum physics....

Actually quite the opposite. We would simply be the result of a BH in another universe (our parent) and there would be nothing special about this universe at all. Each universe exists in a separate 4-D spacetime and the blackhole punctures that spacetime and brings into existence another universe in its own 4=d spacetime. I didn't say it was a fact. I said it was an hypothesis - big difference. It is underpinned by some theory and does not contradict current theory, so it is not pseudo-science. Smolin is a respected physicist so it is not nonsense. There would be no purpose - that is the whole point. This theory says we are here because we just happen to be here - no special reason other than we evolved in a universe that has black holes.... No, you are confused about a couple of things. 1st - science makes no claim to truth. The most we ever claim is that we have a good model (theory) which seems to work for all the observations and tests we can throw at it. 2nd - using your 'own head' is not a great idea in science. Science works by collaboration and each person builds on, or uses, the result of others. You cannot expect to apply common-sense and understand the universe - who said the universe had to be built according to the common sense of a brain evolved to shout at other apes about food and sex? 3rd - Scientific theory rarely changes. Hypothesis (scientific estimates or best guesses) do change - but that is the whole point. Science works by opening up the current theory and saying OK - Prove I am wrong. It is the only human world view that does this and that is the great strength of it - which is why the scientific method is so staggeringly successful. It means that weak or silly theories never make it. Only theories which have fought against the best of the rest actually make it from being a hypothesis to a proper scientific theory.

Of course it is false if you apply it literally, just as Shakespeare's plays are false in that sense. I don't take either the bible or Shakespeare literally therefore it doesn't arise. Argument from ignorance is a basic fallacy. No fact can be proven absolutely but in so far as we know anything, these estimates are pretty good - to within about 1% either way in the case of the age of the earth and a little more leeway with the BB (+/- 3%) They are scientific statements so no belief is necessary. You do the maths and you get the answer. simple. Try reading what I wrote. I said at least once that the actual unit of time - expressed in the hebrew as 'yaum' (or Yom) can be any value you like and it still won't work. The same word is used for each of the six time intervals. The Hebrew has perfectly good words for era and epoch so we know that the writer meant to write 6 equal time intervals (Yaum [Yom] normally IS used to mean 'day' but it can mean 'period'). Six uses of the word clearly means 6 equal periods. No matter how you slice it you cannot come up with 6 periods of time - be it a day or a billion years - which will allow the story to work. It should be: Day 1 - Universe created. Day 2....nothing Day 3....Sun, earth, planets, moon created. Primitive algae appear Day 4....Multicellular life in the oceans. First plants on land Day 5....everything else with man coming just short of midnight. (there would be no days 6&7 because this is as close as it can be done using this model - assuming a day is around 2.5 billion years and allowing a generous margin of error because of the unit system chosen.). I was being generous. If you want a more precise account sticking closely to the original Hebrew (or later greek/coptic version) then I can do that as well, but it gets even sillier...Anyway...let's be generous and go with your interpretation. So we have the earth preceding the sun..(the sun cannot be in existence because all is formless and void at the start and the sun isn't mentioned until later - when I said). If the sun is there then it is light...if not then dark. Simple statement of fact, no interpretation of maths needed.... Nice try. What does appoint mean? To charge with a role, to assign a role. What do the verses actually say? So no, your attempted reinterpretation just doesn't work. Err it is you that is inventing things here. Where does Genesis say that 'prehistoric' creatures are excluded? That doesn't even make sense. How can there be a 'prehistory' to the creation? This IS prehistory.Clearly the notion that Genesis deals with that subset of creatures we see today is simply made up since we are told All the creatures, not a subset which is to be determined empirically at a later date. Even if we allow you to rewrite the verses in this way it simply ignores the objections already raised - that life could not possibly have appeared in that sequence. The fallacy of argumentum ad ignoramntium doesn't really help. No rewrite from me, but I suggest you look at your own 'creative interpretations'....

Physicist Lee Smolin has a rather beautiful hypothesis (beautiful in terms of the symmeries involved and the neat way it extends evolutionary concepts). Basically, Smolin says, imagine that a Black Hole is the birth of another universe. So there are a huge number of universes and any universe with black holes can be regarded as the 'parent' of other universes. Now you apply evolutionary theory. Obviously universes that produce black holes will be 'selected for' because those that don't will not reproduce. Run this for a few trillion years and you end up with what we see - a universe which appears to have the fundamental constants (like the speed of light) set to such a perfect value to support life. Change any of the fundamental numbers and no life can evolve because the universe would either collapse or not form suns. With Smolin's theory this is explained. It isn't that the universe is 'fine tuned' to support life. It is evolved to produce black holes and it just so happens that any universe that produces black holes must have the same value of the fundamental numbers - which also allows it to support life. Lovely theory......

If a Christian wants to believe that which is not possible then yes, it is possible to hold such a belief. I sort of assumed we were talking about belief which had a possibility of being true...? Well it is a myth - it is the Hebrew creation myth which the Christians later adopt. There is no falsehood implied by me. I don't think Shakespeare was a liar but I don't take his plays as literal truth either. OK..very quickly... 1. Chronology. BB is 13,7 billion years ago. Earth is 4.55 billion years old. The Genesis account cannot, whatever interval you assume between 'days' accomodate that basic ratio of times. 2. A brief summary of genesis in chronological order gives us: Day 1 Creation of Day and Night Day 2 Creation of Heaven Day 3 Creation of the Earth, the Seas, and the Plants Day 4 Creation of the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars Day 5 Creation of Fishes and Birds [beginning of Sexual Reproduction] Day 6 Creation of Land Animals (Cattle, Insects, Reptiles, Man) It does not take a genius to realise that day and night are effects of the earth spinning around an axis whilst orbiting the sun, and therefore to talk of day and night on day 1 is nonsensical. Nor does it take much intelligence to Realise that you don't create plants on day 3 and then create their source of energy on day 4 - t'other way around. Then we have the earth and seas and planets before the creation of the sun and moon...nope...that doesn't fly. Then we have a silly appearance of life. Fishes is good - that at least corresponds in a sort of way to reality. But not birds...way WAY too early. They should be on day 6. Of course we know that first life appeared around 3.5 billion years ago and was a small green organism - an algae. This lasted for probably a billion years with nothing else, aside from primitive bateria. Genesis misses out this important step which means non of the rest can work because this period of time is needed to actually put the oxygen into the atmosphere (the earth did not form with an oxygen atmosphere - oxygen is given out by life generally, so you need photosynthesis to have been going for a long long time before you have anything that animals can breathe.... I could go on, but it isn't really necessary. The account bears so little relation to anything that actually happened that it would take all night to highlight each individual inconsistency... There is a good rule in science. You can confirm something as many times as you like but you can never say it is absolutely positively true. It only takes one fact, however, to say it is absolutely positively false. (Thus we can watch the sun rise millions of times in the morning, but never say 100% that it will always do so - and indeed it is certain that one 'day' it won't).

Charming. And thus reason vanishes and we see what lies beneath. Rather a shame, but not entirely surprising. I, on the other hand, wish you no ill and hope you live a long and happy life. I do find it interesting that this type of convesation, whether with Muslim or fundamentalist Christian, normally ends in one party sticking to peaceful persuasion, without threat and entirely non-violent in both word and wish. The sad thing is that it is almost never the theist, but the atheist who does so...

Because I have studied science and I know what radiometric dating is, amongst other things. Because I know people do not live to 900 years and beyond. Because I know that you cannot build a wooden boat over 400ft long. Because I know that genetic lineage can trace back mankind's history and show directly where we branched from common ancestors. Because I know that radiometric dating is accurate plus or minus a couple of percent and I know that the fossil record plus the geological record clearly demonstrate that evolutionary theory is beyond reasonable doubt. These and another few hundred reasons would be the main thing... No you have it completely backwards. There are creationists - YECs and OECs, and a few in between which I won't go into but involve various levels of 'literality'; then there is the rest of Christianity - Catholics, most Protestant denominations, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox etc etc. The creationists are mostly in the US, though we have quite a few in the UK. The Catholics alone hugely outnumber creationists (by about half a billion). Rewriting the Genesis account is something that is not needed - you interpret it as it is meant - the Jewish creation myth. You don't need to re-write T.S Elliot or Shakespeare, but you also know it is not describing history. Same thing. Yes, it is. I could take it apart verse by verse if you like and show you each impossibility. We could start with Genesis 1 and show why the sequence of creation is completely impossible and actually silly if you read it literally - no matter whether you believe a Yaum (period of time) is a day or a million years. It simply cannot work as a literal explanation. I understand it pretty well thanks. 12 years of education by various Jesuit and Salesian monks means I know the bible better than most...

Nah those were just warm-ups...Soon have you solving the schroedinger equation :-)

Thanks to all for the kind welcome.Tackles in the forum? Well, I'm currently playing extra time in one thread that has become very serious, but when that is over I'm always willing to put my foot in for any tackling required :-)

No it would be very easy for me to do that, because I don't generally insult people anyway. But there are two reasons why not: a) What do I then say to the Christian who asks me not to talk about, or draw jesus? I wish to talk about Jesus and I wish to debate his existence and even assert that he probably didn't exist. If you think drawing an inoffensive picture of Mohammed is bad, how bad is telling someone their God is probably made-up? Then when the person next door joins the Christian Scientists do I then stop talking about L Ron Hubbard - the 'prophet' of that religion? Just how many things will I end up not being able to talk about or draw? And it is no good saying that these other religions do not have the same rules. Some Christians thnk they do, and if they think they can get away with it, more will follow. It angers me that you think you have some right to tell others what they may not write or draw. There is no injury to you - that is in your mind - you chose to invent injury. Neither is there injury to Mohammed since he is long dead and either at peace or whatever you believe his is doing. He certainly isn't going to be looking at a fairly innofensive man in a turban on a screen or piece of paper. It is the fact that you think you have this right, which is at least as troubling as the issue itself. It is the most ridiculous and pernicious, not to say malign form of censorship I can imagine. You invent a harm - (even if you actually believe a cartoon you will never see does you harm, I can easily prove otherwise, so there is no question that the harm is your invention, not a physical reality) - and then insist that others desist from causing this imaginery harm. So, here's an analogy. I don't like pictures of spiders - never liked them, they give me the creeps. So please do not ever draw another spider or anything that could be taken as a spider, because if you do I will be harmed - even if I don't see it, the knowledge that someone is drawing a spider will discomfort me. Is that reasonable? In fact the harm here is much more real than with Mohammed. I really do get the shivvers, there is no pretence. Clearly, though, it would be ridiculous of me to make that demand - let alone go to war with anyone who did draw a spider. That is how ridiculous and how unreasonable I think this is. You (muslims) ruined the life of one of my countrymen because he wrote a book that you didn't read, but decided was not acceptible. 15 years in hiding. It makes me angry just to think about it. Unreasonable is too mild a word for it. Incidentally I notice that the 'creep' has already started. It was just Mohammed before. Now it is Mohammed, Allah and companions? So already we have restricted more things that can be said or drawn..What happens if a senior cleric decides tomorrow that images of animals should not be drawn - you know the quran & hadiths better than I so you know that is actually what it says in some parts. In fact it goes even further - no images allowed at all according to some hadith.. No, I am sorry but I will not change my position on this, and the more I think on it, the more certain I am that it is the right thing to do.

Not pointless at all. Do animals go around mumbling that it is all pointless? No they just get on with living. The point is the journey, not the destination. Working it all out is a constant challenge and when you have done your best and arrived at some conclusions, well then the game is over, so why hang around? Rather than seeing it as pointless I like to consider the amazingly infinitely tiny probability that I am here at all. Of all the times in history I could have existed this is the best. There were trillions, gazillions of other people that could be sitting here, but its me! That is way better than any lottery win, and way more unlikely. Then again I have lived nearly 50 years without too much pain and loss, but with enough to experience those properly...I mean, how lucky is that? I haven't gone hungry for more than a few days, and most of the death I have seen has been non-violent. How many people on earth can say the same?

Why not simply add another dimension to the array and use that as your marker/flag ? Why do you need to stick to a single dimension?