Christians where are scientists correct and incorrect in each discipline?

[Olivianus]

Lucifer

You quote me saying, "I said he loved the boy and the boy loved him."

No, it is not what you said. Which is the whole point. What you said does not relate to what I asked.

I quote myself in detail above Today at 08:59:32 PM,

Do you then admit that it is ok for a 55 year old Man, an old pervert that lives across the street from you to be in love with your son? Are you ok with that? And for your son to be in love with him?

Don't expect me to reply to anything else you say. You belligerence is now habitual.

[One Above All]

Don't expect me to reply to anything else you say. You belligerence is now habitual.

Alright, I'm going to try one last time. See if this gets through your thick skull.
Your question does not relate to what I asked. It is a dodge, plain and simple. I asked about men and women loving other men and women (respectively), not about men loving boys or men loving girls or women loving boys or women loving girls or men loving women.

[kin hell]

Due to your repeated dismissals of what is before you, your insolent language and your devotion to nonsense do not expect for me to reply to any more of your posts.

I find your insolence disturbing.

Oilianus doesn't seem to understand the concept cause and effect, nor even the kitchen metaphor of pot/kettle.

One would have hoped that his god's bible's warning about being careful about what you sow, for so shall you reap, would've stayed his original baseless and ugly comments. (But given the contradictory and hilariously inconstant nature of his god's rules, I guess we shouldn't expect anything better.)

The fact that he supposedly wants me to not be insolent when he starts us off with "twisting atheists" in general and a specific accusation of "dishonesty" applied to me, and fails to even acknowledge or retract when I immediately prove his error regarding the slur, just gives further evidence of contradiction being a key tenet of his belief system.

Still it is fun to watch such an obvious wriggler wriggle.

 

[Olivianus]

Reply #43 by Lucifer reads and I quote:

"Why is it an abomination to love someone?"

This is not qualified by age. The last nail has sunk deep into the belligerent coffin. I will let him rest in peace.

[One Above All]

Reply #43 by Lucifer reads and I quote:

"Why is it an abomination to love someone?"

This is not qualified by age. The last nail has sunk deep into the belligerent coffin. I will let him rest in peace.

And then I specified it by referring to men loving other men and women loving other women. Yet you insisted on the unspecified version, rather than the more recent, accurate and correct(ed) one.

Intellectual dishonesty... Ah, who am I kidding? You probably don't even know what that means.

[Asmoday]

The prohibition against mixed fabrics was a ceremonial law, pertaining to the commonwealth of Israel which passed away with the Oblation of Christ, the fulfillment of all ceremonial types.

Unfortunately Jesus doesn't say that. All the laws are in effect until heaven and earth have passed away and you won't make it into heaven without being even more righteous than the pharisees (and they obtained their righteousness through following the complete law).


And since you seem to have forgotten to answer to the first part, let me repost it:

Second, what kind of slave trade? There are different types.

I'd be interested in what you'd classify as good slave trade.

[rickymooston]

Lucifer,

Homosexuality is not pedophilia. Try again.

Distinguishing two types of love is not an answer to my question. You justified homosexuality by appealing to love. It is now your task, not mine to show THE QUALITY of one type of love over another.

Hi. Pedophilia is a form of rape.

Homosexuality involves two adults in a concentual relationship.

I suppose one may have in theory cases where pedophilia involves actual consent on behalf of the child but the child is reasonably judged unfit.

While one may believe homosexualiry is against the rules of God, nobody is being hurt in saix relationship

[Olivianus]

Asmoday

The prohibition against mixed fabrics was a ceremonial law, pertaining to the commonwealth of Israel which passed away with the Oblation of Christ, the fulfillment of all ceremonial types.

Unfortunately Jesus doesn't say that. All the laws are in effect until heaven and earth have passed away and you won't make it into heaven without being even more righteous than the pharisees (and they obtained their righteousness through following the complete law).

That's the moral law he is referring to. The Ten Commandments and their moral inferences. The Westminster Confession says,

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[6]

4] (HEB 9) HEB 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. GAL 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. COL 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

[5] 1CO 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. 2CO 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, JUD 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

[6] COL 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. DAN 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. EPH 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

Mark 7:19 Jesus says, "Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and [g]is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) "

That's an abrogation of ceremonial law: the dietary law.

I'd be interested in what you'd classify as good slave trade.

First, the term "trade" may be applicable to some aspects of it but not many. Temporary Retributive (criminal) that  all societies have our present society included or for debt (voluntary). Nothing generational or hereditary.

 

[Anfauglir]

Let's says you had a young son, say 8 years old. Do you then admit that it is ok for a 55 year old Man, an old pervert that lives across the street from you to be in love with your son? Are you ok with that? And for your son to be in love with him?

Homosexuality is not pedophilia. Try again.  Distinguishing two types of love is not an answer to my question. You justified homosexuality by appealing to love. It is now your task, not mine to show THE QUALITY of one type of love over another.

EDIT: Just so there's no misunderstanding here, I'm going to use your logic to prove that heterosexuality is an abomination as well.
Let's say you had a young daughter, say 8 years old. Do you then admit that it is ok for a 55 year old Man, an old pervert that lives across the street from you to be in love with your daughter? Are you ok with that? And for your daughter to be in love with him?

Olivianus, you seem to have skipped over this point.  Lucifer's example here asks you why you chose to you a pedophiliac relationship, rather than a consenting adult one, to "show" homosexulaity was wrong. 

Can you explain please why your example is "bad" and his is "good" - or alternatively why they are both bad.

I would then be grateful if you would explain the difference (if any) between the following two scenarios:

A) Let's says you had a son, say 28 years old. Do you then admit that it is ok for a 55 year old Man, an old pervert that lives across the street from you to be in love with your son? Are you ok with that? And for your son to be in love with him?

B) Let's says you had a daughter, say 28 years old. Do you then admit that it is ok for a 55 year old Man, an old pervert that lives across the street from you to be in love with your daughter? Are you ok with that? And for your daughter to be in love with him?

[Anfauglir]

The prohibition against mixed fabrics was a ceremonial law, pertaining to the commonwealth of Israel which passed away with the Oblation of Christ, the fulfillment of all ceremonial types.

That's the moral law he is referring to. The Ten Commandments and their moral inferences. The Westminster Confession says,

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[6]

Okey-dokey.  So you claim that there are differences between moral laws (that last forever), and ceremonial laws (which apply only to a specific period or people or circumstance.  Fair enough.  But my question is this.

How can you differentiate between the two?

The various laws are intermingled (through Leviticus, for example), and are set down without division between the one and the other.  So how can you be sure that what man is saying is a transient ceremonial law, was not in fact intended by your god to be an eternal moral law? 

Your god, presumably, is far more than just a big old powerful human, a being that we can never fully comprehend.  So by what token can you presume to claim that the admonition not to trim one's beard was not intended by your god to be an eternal commandment?  Or that his admonition against homosexuality was not a transient law, made for the temporary purpose of expanding the tribe (and hence the faith) and which was intended to be waived once his religion became dominant?

[jaimehlers]

“So which parts do you believe and which parts dont you believe. ”

>>>Primarily I just don’t think Science is true, or is even in the category of demonstration. I am an Operationalist which means I believe that terms that scientists use in Laboratories reflect operations in a laboratory. They do not reflect the true nature of reality. My scriptural support for the  rejection of science: Ecc 8:17 and I saw every work of God, I concluded that man cannot discover the work which has been done under the sun Even though man should seek laboriously, he will not discover; and though the wise man should say, "I know," he cannot discover.

What if you created the entire universe and one of your creatures had the audacity to say that you didn’t exist?

In other words, this is special pleading.  With no proof, you state that science cannot be accurate; your argument that it only reflects conditions in a laboratory is wrong, because scientists can and do confirm their conclusions using conditions that hold in reality.  Yet you use scripture to "justify" your conclusion because you believe it has special significance and applies to reality despite the complete lack of evidence.

As for the last question, who cares?  This is nothing more than an appeal to egotism.

Second, induction is a logical fallacy. Bertrand Russell said,
 
“All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: 'If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.' If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.” The Scientific Outlook By Bertrand Russell (Publisher: Routledge; New edition (July 18, 2001)

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_scientific_outlook.html?id=eLe1Bav9NBcC

The stones and bread example is indeed an example of how induction can be a fallacy.  However, it is in no way an example of how induction is actually used in science.  I can easily confirm that bread is not a stone; I can easily confirm that stones are not nourishing.  This example is based on two things which can easily be demonstrated as false, so naturally the induction is itself false.  Induction, as used by science, more appropriately fits the following form:  "I only see brown squirrels in this area; therefore, (as far as I know) there are only brown squirrels in this area."  If a contradiction is later discovered, i.e., I see a black squirrel or a white squirrel in the same area, then the induction is proved false.  It is only a fallacy if I continue to make the inductive claim despite easily being able to confirm otherwise (for example, someone else saw a different-colored squirrel and could show me where it was, but I refused to go look and continued to claim that there were only brown squirrels).

Third,  Zeno’s Paradox.

Zeno's paradoxes do not describe reality.  I cannot write an infinite series of numbers no matter how long I spend at the task (I could not even do so if I had an infinite amount of time, because there will always be additional numbers to write no matter how many I write).  Therefore, "infinity" is not a concept that can exist in reality, and any paradox that attempts to use infinity to prove or disprove concepts in reality is irrelevant.  In other words, it is impossible to prove or disprove something that exists in reality with something that cannot exist in reality.

Fourth, Mary Louise Gills’ refutation of Aristotle’s Metaphysics which basically makes all attempts at empirical individuation impossible.

http://books.google.com/books?id=4__8kPBMnMMC&dq=unity+identity+and+explanation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WRpPT4TUF8P6ggeBzbG-DQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA

If you were to take two water molecules and were able to distinguish that they were separate molecules, you would thus demonstrate that they are individual (molecules).  It would not matter if you later lost track of those water molecules, as that would not stop them from being individuals, nor would they not have been individuals before you distinguished them as such.  In short, this is a false conclusion.

Fifth, the earth is not in uniform motion to qualify it for the laws of modern physics.

The laws of modern physics do not depend on something being in uniform motion.

Sixth, the splitting of the atom which pretty much refuted the entire scientific theory that usurped Christianity.

Atomism was not and is not a scientific theory.  Atomic theory has nothing to do with Christianity one way or the other.

Seventh, Alfred Russell Wallace’s rejection of natural selection after writing the foundational work on the subject and inspiring Darwin to write his.

This is irrelevant.  The fact that a person involved in something changed their mind because they disliked the philosophical implications on it does not disprove the thing itself.

Eighth, it has yet to cash out into a complete, consistent, human philosophy of reality, epistemology, ethics and politics that has unified and established a free civilization of people.

Nor will it.  And this is a good thing.  Because there is no such thing as a complete and consistent philosophy, and to pretend otherwise is an error.

[Olivianus]

Anfauglir

Okey-dokey.  So you claim that there are differences between moral laws (that last forever), and ceremonial laws (which apply only to a specific period or people or circumstance.  Fair enough.  But my question is this.

I wouldn't say forever. The sabbath command, for instance is typical of the new heavens and New Earth and even heaven itself and will be abrogated at the commencement of that. The issue is between natural law and positive law. Rutherford, in Lex Rex when he is laying out the Protestant Christian idea of Popular sovereignty in the face of the English Divine Right of Kings, deals with this in detail.

How can you differentiate between the two? The various laws are intermingled (through Leviticus, for example), and are set down without division between the one and the other.  So how can you be sure that what man is saying is a transient ceremonial law, was not in fact intended by your god to be an eternal moral law? 

Again, the term eternal is a bit misplaced. The time period would pertain to the administration of the Covenant of Grace. Another issue is, an endless future is not something eternal. Only the divine persons are eternal. An endless series is not something eternal. The distinction being made by Rutherford is the difference between natural law and positive law.  This distinction is defined by Webster’s Dictionary: “In laws, that which is natural, bindeth universally; that which is positive, not so.  Although no laws but positive are mutable, yet all are not mutable which are positive.”  Again the Westminster Confession says,

"III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament."

So whatever pertains to the sacrificial system of the Jews (fulfilled by Christ), the distinction between Jew and Gentile, leading to the laws that pertained to Israel considered as a commonwealth (judicial), because God, s religion at that time terminated upon  the administration of one ethnic group of people distinct from the nations of the world. Westminster believed that the judicial law of Moses was part of the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles (Eph 2:14). The only elements of the judicial law that continue are found in the general moral teaching of scripture: given at creation, republished in the ten commandments and strengthened under the gospel.

Your god, presumably, is far more than just a big old powerful human, a being that we can never fully comprehend.  So by what token can you presume to claim that the admonition not to trim one's beard was not intended by your god to be an eternal commandment?

Jew gentile distinction: JFB says, "It seems probable that this fashion had been learned by the Israelites in Egypt, for the ancient Egyptians had their dark locks cropped short or shaved with great nicety, so that what remained on the crown appeared in the form of a circle surrounding the head, while the beard was dressed into a square form. This kind of coiffure had a highly idolatrous meaning; and it was adopted, with some slight variations, by almost all idolaters in ancient times. ( Jeremiah 9:25 Jeremiah 9:26 , 25:23 , where "in the utmost corners" means having the corners of their hair cut.) Because other nations had and still have policies on these issues." Calvin speaks on this issue here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc04/cc04017.htm

Or that his admonition against homosexuality was not a transient law, made for the temporary purpose of expanding the tribe (and hence the faith) and which was intended to be waived once his religion became dominant?

Prospering and taking dominion over the earth was a creation mandate before the Jewish Commonwealth. Jesus also in the gospels appeals to the fact that God coupled male and female (Mat 19) as a creation ordinance before the Jewish Commonwealth.

[Olivianus]

I am going to have to make a request to the forum. Since there is no uniformity on how my questions are being answered I am going to have to ask that unless you can quote the works of professional scientists who have a uniform answer to these things from the time of the splitting of the atom, you have not answered my questions.

[jaimehlers]

I am going to have to make a request to the forum. Since there is no uniformity on how my questions are being answered I am going to have to ask that unless you can quote the works of professional scientists who have a uniform answer to these things from the time of the splitting of the atom, you have not answered my questions.

In other words, you're trying to cop out of addressing the rebuttals by pretending they have nothing to do with anything.  No dice.

If you choose not to answer the rebuttals, that is your business, but you do not then get to claim that the rebuttals did not address your questions.

[Olivianus]

jaimehlers,

You make me yawn. I have so many unanswered replies here things are getting quite boring. Still waiting for someone to answer my reply, that if there are no infinite series in reality how that doesn't imply a creation and an annihilation. Your atheistic view of the eternality of the universe itself requires a substantial infinite series.


Asserting that my request is unreasonable is not sufficient evidence that it is an unreasonable request. I already have several of you contradicting each other and not a single word on how science develops after the splitting of the atom.

[MadBunny]

I am going to have to make a request to the forum. Since there is no uniformity on how my questions are being answered I am going to have to ask that unless you can quote the works of professional scientists who have a uniform answer to these things from the time of the splitting of the atom, you have not answered my questions.

A scientist applies the scientific method, yes?
The scientific method, by it's very design is subject to change.

Where is the problem here?
We are not the ones pretending that our information, rules, laws, or whatever you'd like to refer to them as are set in stone. 

That's theist business.
If you want to pretend that there are some sort of universal moral laws which are clearly understandable between all cultures and times on earth, it's your job to present it.  Most atheists are skeptics rather than what you could call a strict 'denial of all gods'.  If you can show, empirically that something exists then as a skeptic we will likely accept it with the caveat that what is proven may be disproven.

[Olivianus]

MadBunny

You still don't get what you are admitting to. You are admitting that atomism has been refuted, which eliminates the possibility that you have a theory. Second, you are admitting that you can never attain any other theory. All you have is operation and that is not demonstration. You don't have a theory, you never have had one and you never will.

[jaimehlers]

My view of the universe in no way requires an infinite series.  It simply requires a finite, unbounded series.  Count forward from this moment on, and you will never reach "infinity", because it is impossible to reach infinity by counting.  Your count will always be finite, but unbounded.  The same applies to counting backwards.

I also did not assert that your request was unreasonable.  I asserted that you could not cop out of addressing the rebuttals and then claim that the rebuttals were irrelevant or contradictory to justify not answering them.  You must show that they are irrelevant or contradictory, and you cannot do this if you do not address the rebuttals; this is essentially the fallacy of circular logic, in that you state that the rebuttals were inappropriate and use that to justify not answering them, which incidentally means that you have not actually shown that they were inappropriate.

Modern science was never dependent on the philosophy of "atomism" as you seem to think.  This is essentially the same fallacy as claiming that a scientific theory is no more reliable than the common definition of "theory".  It uses the superficial similarity of the words and ignores the fundamental differences in their meanings.

[Olivianus]

Again, you just assert your opinion and make distinctions without a difference. So you are saying that a series with no last term is different from a series with no last term. That is what you have to do to defend your nonsensical bs. Not following THIS thread anymore.

[MadBunny]

MadBunny

You still don't get what you are admitting to. You are admitting that atomism has been refuted, which eliminates the possibility that you have a theory. Second, you are admitting that you can never attain any other theory. All you have is operation and that is not demonstration. You don't have a theory, you never have had one and you never will.

Care to actually address my post instead of that straw-man you're talking to this time?

[jaimehlers]

Again, you just assert your opinion and make distinctions without a difference. So you are saying that a series with no last term is different from a series with no last term. That is what you have to do to defend your nonsensical bs. Not following THIS thread anymore.

This just shows that your understanding of these things is deficient.  An infinite series is not the same thing as a finite unbounded series.  A finite series has a defined beginning and end; the fact of it being unbounded just means you can redefine the beginning or end to different values, but it does not stop being finite because of that.

In short, a finite series by definition has a first and last term.  If it is unbounded, that simply means that one or both terms can be redefined.  For example, if you take the series of all whole numbers from -100 to 100, that is a finite series.  Yet, there is no boundary at -100 or at 100.  You can progress past those values and define a new finite series.  By a similar token, the Earth is clearly finite, yet it is also unbounded; you can fly around the Earth an unlimited number of times without reaching "the end", yet no matter how far you fly, the beginning and end points are defined and finite values.

So, what you said is incorrect.  A finite series, by definition, always has a last term.  It stays finite even if you pass the "last" term and thus generate a new one.  An infinite series, however, has no last term.  The distinction is very real and is a critical difference between a finite series and an infinite series.

[kin hell]

Again, you just assert your opinion and make distinctions without a difference. So you are saying that a series with no last term is different from a series with no last term. That is what you have to do to defend your nonsensical bs. Not following THIS thread anymore.

Oilianus you are a pitiful joke

.....no really   ......pitiful

So now you have banned three posters in one thread, an entire thread elsewhere of your design, and now this thread.

Soon the only conversation you'll be engaged in (that you haven't banned) will be that sad internal dialogue that you've been condemned to since birth.


Well that particular personal curse of yours can be blamed purely on your sad and silly religion, they're the ones banning abortion.

Can't help bad luck eh?

Hey I see you there Oilianus, .........what? can't keep away?   

See what I mean,    .............pitiful.

[Jake]

MadBunny

You still don't get what you are admitting to. You are admitting that atomism has been refuted, which eliminates the possibility that you have a theory. Second, you are admitting that you can never attain any other theory. All you have is operation and that is not demonstration. You don't have a theory, you never have had one and you never will.

So, just what are you trying to do here, Olivianus?     Are you trying to...prove god exists?   I think you know that's silly.      Are you...trying to get people to agree with you?      Still terrible at persuasive argumentation, so you can't seriously be trying to do that; you're just as condescending and conceited in your presentation as any other smug pseudo-intellectual tends to be when they think they've got some manner of ultimate proof.

Hmm.   What ARE you trying to do here then?      Told you I'd keep asking.     Think you can ignore the question longer than I can find it entertaining to keep asking it?

[Anfauglir]

I am going to have to make a request to the forum. Since there is no uniformity on how my questions are being answered I am going to have to ask that unless you can quote the works of professional scientists who have a uniform answer to these things from the time of the splitting of the atom, you have not answered my questions.

It is indeed a terrible thing when questions are not answered - glad you agree.

Let's says you had a young son, say 8 years old. Do you then admit that it is ok for a 55 year old Man, an old pervert that lives across the street from you to be in love with your son? Are you ok with that? And for your son to be in love with him?

Homosexuality is not pedophilia. Try again.  Distinguishing two types of love is not an answer to my question. You justified homosexuality by appealing to love. It is now your task, not mine to show THE QUALITY of one type of love over another.

EDIT: Just so there's no misunderstanding here, I'm going to use your logic to prove that heterosexuality is an abomination as well.
Let's say you had a young daughter, say 8 years old. Do you then admit that it is ok for a 55 year old Man, an old pervert that lives across the street from you to be in love with your daughter? Are you ok with that? And for your daughter to be in love with him?

Olivianus, you seem to have skipped over this point.  Lucifer's example here asks you why you chose to you a pedophiliac relationship, rather than a consenting adult one, to "show" homosexulaity was wrong. 

Can you explain please why your example is "bad" and his is "good" - or alternatively why they are both bad.

I would then be grateful if you would explain the difference (if any) between the following two scenarios:

A) Let's says you had a son, say 28 years old. Do you then admit that it is ok for a 55 year old Man, an old pervert that lives across the street from you to be in love with your son? Are you ok with that? And for your son to be in love with him?

B) Let's says you had a daughter, say 28 years old. Do you then admit that it is ok for a 55 year old Man, an old pervert that lives across the street from you to be in love with your daughter? Are you ok with that? And for your daughter to be in love with him?

[velkyn]

I am going to have to make a request to the forum. Since there is no uniformity on how my questions are being answered I am going to have to ask that unless you can quote the works of professional scientists who have a uniform answer to these things from the time of the splitting of the atom, you have not answered my questions.

oh my, it's so fun to watch someone who has nothing to support his claims, no evidence, no mathematics, make claims like this.  Oliv, you do such a good job at showing how a someone with a sophomore's pseudo understanding of philosophy, can make so many fallacious claims.  All the above says is that "if this, then goddidit".  You have not shown that your god exists at all.  You have essentially presented a false dichotomy, a very very basic logical fallacy.   

[Anfauglir]

I am going to have to make a request to the forum. Since there is no uniformity on how my questions are being answered I am going to have to ask that unless you can quote the works of professional scientists who have a uniform answer to these things from the time of the splitting of the atom, you have not answered my questions.

Olivianus,

I am going to have to make a request to you.  I am going to have to ask that unless you can quote the works of ordained priests who have a uniform answer to these things from the time of the creation of the earth, you have not answered my questions.

I will require absolute uniformity by the way, no matter what religion they profess to be from.  If two devout and holy men differ over (for example) whether Christ was divine, whether Mohammed was a prophet, or whether women may be ordained, then I'm afraid you will not have answered our questions.

Or do you accept what a ridiculous request you have made?