EvC Forum: Creationist model

quote:
you ignore the evidence i do show you

The thing is, you consistently fail to show evidence to anyone. You merely assert you are correct and bulldoze on. I am sorry, but that is simply not how providing evidence works. I do not believe I am alone in saying even unsourced evidence is preferable to the mishmash you have offered thus far.

quote:
and throw words around saying i am ignorant of anything i say

I did not call you ignorant, but you rightly assumed that I think it. In fact, if may be the only correct assumption you have made in the long sad history of this thread.

quote:
because of your unwillingness to understand?

No, because of my unwillingness to accept tripe and nonsense passed as assertions from a person who is either being a very cleverly satirical facetious or is truly genuinely in need of a high school equivalency degree.

quote:
energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, but changed from form to form.

I have yet to see anyone here dispute Conservation of Mass or Conservation of Energy. What I would like to see, though, is how that applies to any of the arguments you have attempted to make. And when you elaborate, make sure you do so in a detailed manner instead of the punch drunk half attempts we have seen. You will get further that way.

quote:
it is not a trick law, and the observer of it hard fought before it was accepted. or do you disagree that Einstein has had any relevance with what he has observed

Let me get this straight. You are saying you have no idea what the difference between General Relativity and the Lomonosov-Lavoisier law is?

Let me give you a hint, what you described was not Einstein's brain child.

I have an honest question. Do you actually think before you post or do you just type the first inanity that comes to mind. Before you try educating a single person in here on what you think energy is, please do us all a favor and find out what it actually is. The concepts for this stuff is nothing one would not find in a high school physics class. It is not difficult so go read.

quote:
i show you by the definitions of the words you can find in the dictionary the full proof by observation of what is "real".

And would you be discussing reality as observed by empiricism or vague philosophical arguments on relativism and gods forbid post-modernism. If you wish to get into the subjective vs. intersubjective views of reality, I would greatly love to break out the Kant with you in another thread. But this is not the thread for that discussion.

What you *are* attempting to do is play word games built upon vagaries to prove some imaginary point which exists nowhere but within your own mind. Wow, now how is that for relative?

quote:
you choose to speak a lot but say little.

Says the person yet to form a single coherent sentence.

quote:
i wish for all to agree

I am sure you do. It would boost your already overlarge ego. The problem is, we will not agree on the simple assertions of a person unable to present *any* reason to accept those assertions.

quote:
with what i have observed.

Well that is the problem isn't it. All you have is your observation to convince you and nothing else to support it. Yet any manner of mental illness or intoxicant can effect your observations. Indeed, your observations can be affected when you are in sound health and sober. So what you must then do is provide us with a reason to support you built upon evidence not the anecdotes of a person who confuses Einstein with being the discoverer of the Laws of Conservation of Mass and of Energy.

quote:
but can any man see any more than he chooses too?

William Blake wrote, "the eye altering alters all". Our eyes are indeed very biased. We want fact. We want veracity. And we want supporting evidence for those things. What you want, is for us to believe you simply because you say something is so. Who's eyes are most affected?

quote:
if you choose to admit to all that you "might" not really exist, am i to blame for your blindness?

Are you by chance a solipsist?

quote:
here is the law.

Definitely a solipsist.

quote:
YOU dispute it.

And what is it I dispute? That you have yet to provide evidence? That the "laws" you attributed to Einstein are not his?

Tell me, the two laws you attempted to cite, do you know why they are called laws? Do you know why laws are no longer introduced in science? Or are you simply seeing the word law and mistaking it as something other than a theory? As we know, theories are grand ways of describing fact but are not immutable. Nor are "laws" the older precursors to theories.

quote:
what argument can i have with you?

You can have none because your knowledge is wanting. You will be shot down. Again and again for as long as it takes to sink in.

quote:
will you convince a master stonemason that you know more about his work, when you are a lawyer? will you tell the carpenter how to build his house, when you are a judge?

Fortunately I do not have to do those things. All I have to do is pelt a poor Punch and Judy puppeteer with rocks and tell him his show sucks, it is time to pack it up and go home.

quote:
you cannot blind me, because i have debated the law and see the truth in all observation, and not ONE has brought any evidence to show me this law is not sound accept by saying : it CANT be. because it should not be possible. but it is. and here is the law.

And which law is that? One of the two you mistakenly attributed to Einstein. It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about. You are merely posting to see your words on that magic screen box glowing in front of you.

quote:
The laws of science that prove God:

Under this basis: you are. not maybe are. not could be are. but do, exist:

Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, but changed from form to form.

No ordered form can exist on top of chaos without direction. (remember direction.)

Something cant come from nothing. (it can "appear" to, but impossible to "literally" not come from nothing.(because we are)

Tell me, does your bum still hurt from pulling this out of it?

Let's see what you mangle here.

First you give an exceedingly poor attempt at explaining cogito ergo sum. I am no fan of Descartes, but I do believe he would wish to flay you with the most rust razor he could find. May I recommend the book Philosophy East, Philosophy West, to help remedy your misunderstanding on the topic.

From there you lead into the Laws of Conservation of Energy and of Mass, which you have already established you haven't the foggiest about. Then you mangle the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which refers to heat transfer in a closed system and has nothing to do with order or chaos as you seem to understand it.

Finally you top it off with some inanity from gods only know where about something from nothing. Are you trying to describe abiogenisis or the origin of the Big Bang? If the later, I recommend you look into the words singularity and Hartle-Hawking Wavestate.

quote:
This means: although we cant see the energy of God, nothing outside of energy is real. that is reality.

Actually, what it means is that you are a hack philosopher with an exceedingly poor grasp on concepts basic to physics. But for what it is worth, you prove that very very well.

quote:
Existence had to be established, and all the elements are too ordered to have existed without direction.

You have made the claim, I would certainly love to see you back it up. Go on now, try providing something factual. Who knows, it may be fun.

quote:
So existence is a synonym for God, in that in the beginning, there was intelligent energy that existed singularly, and created all that is based on faith that it was/is.

If you wish to leave me an instant message I can give you a nice list of books that will rather thoroughly remedy every instance where you misunderstand basic physics. This post is already rather lengthy, so I would prefer not posting them here.

quote:
Debate the law.

You have yet to say which one. I am working on the assumption that you do not mean that list of crap you posted earlier.

quote:
its sound.

I assure you, it is every bit as sound as your mind.

quote:
Nice one Tesla, that is a lovely way to welcome a new member, accuse him of being too stupid to understand your argument. This is what you do when anyone has the temerity to disagree with you. Perhaps you might give thought to an alternative hypothesis, namely that people understand your argument perfectly well, and we understand it to be bollocks. You are no "master stonemason" my friend.

Don't worry, I am fine and have seen worse.

2 online now:	AZPaul3, PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,920 Year: 4,177/9,624 Month: 1,048/974 Week: 7/368 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/1