[mikeh]

I gather that the troll has made some posts that I haven't seen and don't plan on seeing anytime soon and that it has, in one or more of those posts, referred to my silence.

I just googled 'troll' to refresh my memory and realized that I owe the BBF community an apology, as do a number of others here.....all of whom are clearly well-meaning. The one object rule learned early in the days of discussion boards and fora is and should remain:

'DON'T FEED THE TROLL'

It was clear well before I put it on the ignore list, and I have to assume just as clear since, that the troll has no intention nor, probably, ability to actually engage in a constructive discussion. Every attempt to engage it merely acts as an incentive to post more drivel, which in turn acts as bait to us.

This thread long ago exhausted any novelty of argument or approach, yet it threatens to persist indefinitely for as long as the troll has sustenance.

I suspect that if we all put 325 on ignore, or at least never responded to a single post, it would eventually find somewhere else to go. I feel sorry for those in its vicinity when it does, but I won't say I would want it back

[onoway]

 Vampyr, on 2013-October-14, 11:11, said:

I didn't mean to sound hostile to religious moderates, but I do think that their beliefs are harmful; mainly because even moderates want their religious beliefs to form part of public life, public education, etc. And often they, by their silence (as noted in this thread, but of course this thread is only words) condone horrible acts of violence by fundamentalists.

sorry but I think this is an absurd, self congratulatory and totally unwarranted comment. Silence happens when it is clear that nobody is listening to any other pov so there isn't any point in continuing to be involved. What point is there is continuing to talk about something when it's going to achieve absolutely nothing? You think fundamentalists are going to listen to moderates any more than they are to anyone else not as fundamentalist as themselves? Seems better to use the energy to talk about something (or even better, try to do something, (and that something likely has nothing whatever to do with religion) that there is a possibility to achieving something productive out of it.

I think that people with closed minds on either side of the religious debate simply firm up the other side in their convictions. Neither really brings anything particularly interesting to the discussion because neither can tolerate anything which brings any part of their beliefs (on either end of the religious spectrum) into question, so why bother?

[32519]

 mikeh, on 2013-October-15, 11:32, said:

I gather that the troll has made some posts that I haven't seen and don't plan on seeing anytime soon and that it has, in one or more of those posts, referred to my silence.

I just googled 'troll' to refresh my memory and realized that I owe the BBF community an apology, as do a number of others here.....all of whom are clearly well-meaning. The one object rule learned early in the days of discussion boards and fora is and should remain:

'DON'T FEED THE TROLL'

It was clear well before I put it on the ignore list, and I have to assume just as clear since, that the troll has no intention nor, probably, ability to actually engage in a constructive discussion. Every attempt to engage it merely acts as an incentive to post more drivel, which in turn acts as bait to us.

This thread long ago exhausted any novelty of argument or approach, yet it threatens to persist indefinitely for as long as the troll has sustenance.

I suspect that if we all put 325 on ignore, or at least never responded to a single post, it would eventually find somewhere else to go. I feel sorry for those in its vicinity when it does, but I won't say I would want it back

Welcome back brother Mike! These forums will never be the same without all the drivel that you post. I was missing you already.

[WellSpyder]

 mikeh, on 2013-October-15, 11:32, said:

I suspect that if we all put 325 on ignore, or at least never responded to a single post, it would eventually find somewhere else to go. I feel sorry for those in its vicinity when it does, but I won't say I would want it back

Not for the first time, I have been enormously impressed by the sheer goodwill of the BBF community in attempting to engage constructively with posters who sometimes display a degree of incoherence, ignorance or rudeness in their postings. Not everyone is equally knowledgeable or helpful on every topic, of course, but it seems possible to get a thoughtful and useful response to almost any question.

However, I must admit I have been contemplating going against that tradition and following your approach here of ignoring 325 in future. I have been waiting to see whether there may be a response to the latest round of comments suggesting 325 actually explains what he is trying to get at rather than posting apparently semi-random and relatively meaningless questions, but I suspect I will be joining you soon...

[ArtK78]

I will now join MikeH and put 32519 on my ignore list. That increases the number of posters on my ignore list to one.

[Vampyr]

 WellSpyder, on 2013-October-15, 11:55, said:

I have been waiting to see whether there may be a response to the latest round of comments suggesting 325 actually explains what he is trying to get at rather than posting apparently semi-random and relatively meaningless questions, but I suspect I will be joining you soon...

I am also curious, but I guess I will have to follow mikeh's lead sometime too... how do you put a user on ignore?

[32519]

 32519, on 2013-October-14, 23:05, said:

How many theories are we dealing with? I know of –
1. The BIG BANG Theory
2. The Theory of Evolution
What are the others?

 32519, on 2013-October-15, 05:42, said:

From MikeH's silence, is it safe to say that these are the only two theories that we are dealing with here?

 billw55, on 2013-October-15, 06:23, said:

For the sake of argument, yes, let's limit our discussion to just those two. What is your point?

 32519, on 2013-October-15, 07:12, said:

Can anyone spot the problem here? And I am not referring to the word “Theory.” That of itself is already a very thorny issue for the MikeH’s of the world. I am referring to the much bigger glaring issue at stake here?

You be the first one to answer.

 WellSpyder, on 2013-October-15, 07:45, said:

I think the problem here is that no-one else really knows what you mean by "dealing with", so cannot answer your question. If you tell us where you are trying to get to with this then we may be able to help or hinder you getting there!

 billw55, on 2013-October-15, 07:45, said:

I grow weary of vague hints and non-answers.

 Trinidad, on 2013-October-15, 07:46, said:

The answers to your questions are: 1) No. 2) That is not a question.

 Vampyr, on 2013-October-15, 08:31, said:

I don't think that anyone knows what the big glaring issue is. Why don't you tell us?

 kenberg, on 2013-October-15, 08:48, said:

Or not. It's ok either way.

 WellSpyder, on 2013-October-15, 11:55, said:

I have been waiting to see whether there may be a response to the latest round of comments suggesting 325 actually explains what he is trying to get at rather than posting apparently semi-random and relatively meaningless questions...

Can you really not see what’s at stake here? I think MikeH saw it immediately. I had a peek over the wall to see what he is up to. He is frantically working on all sorts of ideas TO ENSURE THAT THE LHC BRINGS IN THE DESIRED RESULT.

And therein lies your clue: Think LHC.

[Vampyr]

 32519, on 2013-October-15, 12:51, said:

Can you really not see what’s at stake here? I think MikeH saw it immediately. I had a peek over the wall to see what he is up to. He is frantically working on all sorts of ideas TO ENSURE THAT THE LHC BRINGS IN THE DESIRED RESULT.

I do not think that mikeh is a CERN employee, so he can have no influence on what data are collected by the LHC.

Quote

And therein lies your clue: Think LHC.

Why a clue? Nobody is going to play this guessing game.

[mikeh]

 Vampyr, on 2013-October-15, 12:50, said:

I am also curious, but I guess I will have to follow mikeh's lead sometime too... how do you put a user on ignore?

go to your name in the upper right and click on the down-pointing triangle: the menu lists manage ignored users as the last option. I am like Art: I now have a list of one

[Winstonm]

Belief cannot alter reality - which is why you never see an objective demonstration of the power of prayer. Missing limbs stay missing, regardless of who prays or how much he believes. When a claim is made that reality will respond to prayer from the faithful, and that claim is demonstrably false, it would seem that all other claims should be considered highly suspect.

I don't think most moderates really believe that human tissue can reanimate from death - yet that is the core contention of the resurrection belief - from the same source that claims prayers of the faithful will alter reality.

From that shaky basis, moderates and fundamentalists disagree only in details. One would think that someone along the way would stop and say, hey, this isn't working, what's up with that?

[mikeh]

 Vampyr, on 2013-October-15, 12:55, said:

I do not think that mikeh is a CERN employee, so he can have no influence on what data are collected by the LHC.

Waddya mean????? How the heck do you think you are dealing with????

I have already submitted my name to the Nobel Committee: I and I almost alone have been able to manipulate the unseen universe to generate the data 'proving' that the higgs boson exists.

I did slip up for a moment, when I inadvertently caused some information to be detected before it was created, thereby almost ruining the illusions I have been implanting in the minds of rational people everywhere, but I was able to cover it up as a technical glitch.

Frankly, the LHC was a bit of a digression for me. Most of my time is spent burying suitably 'aged' fossils in areas where naïve researchers think they have found evidence for evolution. More recently, I have had to change the DNA of all species to create the illusion that they are related by descent from common ancestors, but I developed a computer program to do that for me, since the analysis is all computerized anyway.

Next: I 'prove' that intelligent life exists on other planets. I was going to try for South Africa, but I gave up....some things are just too difficult for me.*


If you think the LHC was expensive just wait for the starship I am designing!










* My apologies to 99.9999999% of South Africans

[gwnn]

Don't feel bad about putting 32519 on your ignore list, he has already put us all on his.

[gwnn]

PS: mikeh's reputation is 666, need I say more?

[mikeh]

 gwnn, on 2013-October-15, 14:01, said:

PS: mikeh's reputation is 666, need I say more?

What is more scary is that my ACBL number ends with 666.

And what would be even more scary is if NOBODY EVER UPVOTES ME AGAIN!!!!!!

[ArtK78]

 mikeh, on 2013-October-15, 14:12, said:

What is more scary is that my ACBL number ends with 666.

And what would be even more scary is if NOBODY EVER UPVOTES ME AGAIN!!!!!!

It doesn't matter if you get anymore upvotes. Your upvote meter will be stuck on 666 forever!

[eerie music in the background]

[billw55]

 ArtK78, on 2013-October-15, 14:17, said:

It doesn't matter if you get anymore upvotes. Your upvote meter will be stuck on 666 forever!

[eerie music in the background]

Rod Serling said:

There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call ... the Twilight Zone.

[Fluffy]

 mikeh, on 2013-October-15, 14:12, said:

What is more scary is that my ACBL number ends with 666.

And what would be even more scary is if NOBODY EVER UPVOTES ME AGAIN!!!!!!

It would imply that you are dead, but don't worry, if you are right on a finite number of universe big bans you will be born again and upvoted by your fellow atheists

[Fluffy]

 kenberg, on 2013-October-14, 20:06, said:

If anyone told me that he had changed from believer to non-believer or from non-believer to to believer as a result of reading the postings on bbf I would be even more skeptical of that than I am of virgin birth. For me, dealing with religious threats of punishment in hell was a matter of emotional survival..I did it as best I could as a fourteen year old and that's that. I really can't see why anyone puts up with that sort of browbeating, but to each his own. Anyway, it's been sixty years now, I think that's long enough to say that I won't be changing my mind. I don't expect my religious friends will be changing theirs either, at least not on the basis of some wc posting of mine or of anyone.

No need to get that radical.

My views on religion have evolved reading bbf, but that's logical since I don't believe on anything for sure, I consider almost everything as possible, just that some things are more likelly than others.

[Vampyr]

 Fluffy, on 2013-October-15, 17:17, said:

I consider almost everything as possible, just that some things are more likelly than others.

An open mind is a most precious possession.

[32519]

Ok, let me put you out of your misery (or maybe put you into real misery). Science has put ALL THEIR EGGS INTO ONE BASKET with the LHC. They have rejected outright the existence of a super-natural being as the creator of the universe and everything that is in it. So they need to come up with an alternative. No one knows but the current CONSENSUS is the BIG BANG theory.

The flaw in the BIG BANG theory is really quite simple:
1. How or with what do you create the BIG BANG when there is in existence a big fat nothing; no light, no air, no wind, no water, no material of any kind whatsoever, no gravity, etc. Absolutely nothing!
2. But an even worse flaw in this theory is this: How can this BIG BANG suddenly bring into existence all the elements in 1 above. Yet scientists have convinced themselves that this bizarre theory of theirs is more credible than the existence of a super-natural being who did it all.
3. Another flaw in the theory: As posted higher up in this thread, all known BIG BANGS destroy. Any BIG BANG of this size and nature would quite simply have vaporised the material (the starting point) which the scientists so desperately need to find to give this bizarre theory any plausibility. Once you have found the material so desperately needed, you can start making whatever calculation you desire to prove whatever you want to.
Example:
A 9-year old was asked, “How much is 2 + 2?” He answered 4.
A lawyer was asked the same question and immediately he rounded up as many witnesses he could find to test the accuracy of the 9-year olds answer.
A scientist was asked the same question and he answered, “What do you want the answer to be?” Which pretty much sums up the BIG BANG theory and all the further underlying calculations.

If you still haven’t seen it, let me take it a step further. Once the LHC fails to produce the desired result (and it will fail), both the BIG BANG theory AND the theory of EVOLUTION go up in smoke. It was much easier to put together the theory of EVOLUTION. Scientists knowledge of the diversity of every kind of living thing steadily increased over the years. Plotting all these living things into a plausible theory about EVOLUTION became easier as our knowledge increased.

But once the BIG BANG theory fails, the scientists have nothing as to how the universe originated, let alone a theory on the EVOLUTION of all life. No BIG BANG, no miraculous appearance of the material so desperately needed, no universe, no earth, no life whatsoever on earth, and therefore no EVOLUTION. Both have collapsed.

Cut this post out and stick it on your fridge. You heard it first in the BBO Forums. With EVERY FAILURE of the LHC, science (and like thinking governments) are going to throw more and more money at it. What is the current budget? 9 Billion? (I never bothered to look up the actual figure again). Revisit the article on Wikipedia every year on the 16th of October (the date of this post), and follow the progress made with the LHC. More importantly – take note of the steadily rising costs, and still they got nothing!