(November 17, 2014 at 3:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yeah, if they don't just die they'll kill each other (and to an extent I keep them precisely because they do). I refer to them as my freshwater wolves. I used to have a 150 gal salt tank but when I moved up here to kentucky just keeping it warm was too much of an investment for me. I left it in St. Pete. My little sister says all that's left are the shrimp...lol.

True, true. I used to have a 55 gal cichlid tank, and I carefully selected by sex and species, jumped through all the hoops to try and keep 'em all docile. Despite all that, there still were a few killings. For plankton-eaters, they certainly can be piscacidal.

(One bit of advice that I did not follow was to overcrowd them in order to prevent them from establishing territory. I resorted to rearranging the structure every couple of weeks instead.)

I'd love to fill up the 90 gal tank I have now and put something interesting in it, but the property manager would have kittens over that. (I came to learn that "Aquariums OK" means "Aquariums up to 15 gallons OK").

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 12, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: No, it isn't,

Ok, so our universe popped in to existed from non-space, yet, it is expanding in preexisting space? Makes no sense.

The standard for something being true isn't whether it makes sense to you, but as usual you are not representing the hypothesis accurately anyway. No matter, because the actual one is just as hard to wrap your head around, and if something being hard to believe is the criteria for rejecting a proposition, consider the God hypothesis rejected on the same grounds if you like.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: What?

Since your assertion is unsupported, I can reject it on those grounds alone.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: It is a comparison of how things would be if the past is eternal and infinite regression is possible. I summed up the analogy by asking you a very simple question that I would expect you to be able to answer should it be true..you were unable to do so...so just accept defeat in that regard and lets move on.

Do you know what over-extending an analogy is? That two things are similar in one way does not prove that they are similar in other ways. What you are trying to prove can't be proven by analogy.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Right, it is so poor that you can't answer the question which topped it off. I knew you wouldn't be able to answer it, you just didn't know. Well, now you know, and "knowing is half the battle".

If that stupid reply isn't good enough for you, why the hell do you think I should think it adequate when it comes from you? I gave you the same answer you gave me on another point. If you think it's stupid, I agree.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Denial of defeat.

Brute fact. It seems to matter a lot to you to get someone to concede defeat. It's rather unseemly and immature for a civil discussion. I've conceded defeat many times, and adjusted my views accordingly. If you've 'defeated' me, I honestly don't see how, and the most charitable course for you to take is that I'm sincere on the matter. For my end, I wouldn't consider you being right a defeat. It would be an opportunity to discard a notion I'm wrong about, and I would be grateful for the service. There's really not much more you can do for someone over the internet than to educate them.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Then they are wrong, too. Christians are not immune to erraneous thinking.

No one is.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Apparently you don't know what atemporal/timeless means.

It means a state in which nothing can happen, because events require time. Perhaps a better word for what you are trying to convey would be 'omnitemporal'.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: So what is the number right before infinity?

Infinity minus one.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Think again.

Too bad. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Stick to the analogy.

Stick it in your ear.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The future is infinite, but the past is finite.

That's the claim, and I think it's probably true, but it remains unproven.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Wow.

That is a proper attitude to have towards the magnitude of the future.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: If you don't care then why are we having this discussion?

Because you imagine you know the unknowable, and I disagree.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Well, how?

There must be over a thousand articles on the topic online. Bother to educate yourself if you want to know.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: If it can't happen in an analogy, it can't happen in reality. If it can happen in reality, it can happen in a analogy.

Thanks. We have a thread to record such spectacularly inane statements.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Unfortunately for you, you can't explain how it could happen in either reality, OR analogy. Not my problem.

Not mine either. You're the last person I want to convince. You're way too useful for my purposes as you are.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Ok, constructing a syllogism is easy...but it is pointless given the fact that I would have to explain why each premises is true...but since I am already doing that with the analogies, no need for a syllogism.

Argument from 'analogies ARE my argument!'.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Looking it up in the dictionary? I find it funny that you are requesting that I look the terms up in the dictionary, but yet in the same paragraph where you are giving such good advice, you are showing your ignorance of the terms definitions. If something is objective, then its objectivity is independent of who has what nature

ob·jec·tive/əbˈjektiv/
adjective
1.(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

u·ni·ver·sal/ˌyo͞onəˈvərsəl/
adjective
of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: This has been at least the second time (and counting) time you've questioned my intelligence only to showcase your own ignorance in the process.

I don't think YOU are unintelligent. Many of your posts are, but that's despite your intelligence, not because of it. A little humility would prevent many of your mistakes.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: So a slave master, who from birth always experienced the slavery of Africans to be a good thing, since that was his experience, that makes it right?

No, that means the subtleties of English are going over your head. No one's personal experience trumps another's. Our collective experience is what matters. And collectively, we've realized that slavery is an institution that is counter to human thriving.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: SMH. No need to discuss the subject of morality with you any further.

Certainly not if you're so determined to misunderstand everything I have to say about it.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: I repeat, on judgement day, God doesn't give a damn what kind of atheist you are..and since he don't, then I don't.

Argument from 'you'll be sorry you didn't admit I was right after you're dead' again?

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: But your belief that reptiles came from birds does.

I absolutely don't believe reptiles came from birds.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: It can all be revised with more false interpretations lol.

The correct term would be 'more evidence'.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The lengths people will go to not believe in God lol.

The lengths people will go to not believe in more that two possibilities, lol.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Maybe he wanted to show his engineering skills.

You can 'maybe' anything. Maybe he wanted black holes and we're a side effect. Maybe he doesn't exist.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: If the low entropy is getting high and will run out in a finite proper time, that must mean it couldn't have been running for an infinite amount of time, now doesn't it?

Nope, and it hasn't. It's only been running since the initial expansion. What went on before that is unknown, but clearly it didn't prevent at least one universe from forming. If you think entropy must apply to anything that exists, it must apply to God, and you run into the same problem. If it doesn't apply to God, it can not apply to other things, like conditions before the expansion.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: I will ask again; how will the level of chaos be that low if it started from a singularity point with no guided hand to orchestrate the process??

And I will say again, that we can't say it was low in the first place. It could have been the maximum entropy possible for the conditions. If you want to know how order can come from chaos, there's a whole branch of mathematics devoted to it.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Right, a mathematically precise system/order of events from a mindless and blind process. Would you trust a mentally handicap person that is blind to do your math homework for you? No? But you trust it to create life, intelligence, and consciousness?

More argument from incredulity. The evidence we have is MORE mysterious if someone was running the show. What kind of moron would come up with a process that has a 98% failure rate and call it intelligent?

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: What does that have to do with a low entropy singularity?? Nothing.

What low entropy singularity?

(November 16, 2014 at 8:11 pm)Stimbo Wrote: You missed the crucial part: how do you recognise what is science and what isn't?

If your end conclusion cannot be verified based on observation or repeated experiment, then it isn't science...neither macroevolution nor abiogenesis have been observed and/or experimented on...so it isn't science.

Now sure, evolutionists would LIKE to associate it with science...but it isn't science.

"Macroevolution", for the umpteenth time, has been observed. sigh.

(November 16, 2014 at 8:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote: fossil record, mostly.

When you find a fossil, why are you determining anything other than "this once living thing has now died". Why are you bringing extra stuff in to it??

See, evolutionists already presuppose evolution, so when they find a fossil, they let their presupposition interpret the finding.

(November 16, 2014 at 8:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Attacking?
oh, the poor Christians... short memory, huh?

[quote='pocaracas' pid='797648' dateline='1416183148']
Let's pretend as if religion doesn't have history of being mocked and its followers mocked,
it's only the fundamentalists, the extremists, the uneducated that refuse to accept all the evidence for evolution.

Jonathen Wells is educated, and he don't believe in evolution.

(November 16, 2014 at 8:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Have you ever been to a Natural History Museum?

Nope.

---

(November 16, 2014 at 8:23 pm)pocaracas Wrote: dogs and hamsters are different species.

They are different kinds of animals, too.

(November 16, 2014 at 8:23 pm)pocaracas Wrote: But let me see if I understand you... you are a different kind of human than me.

If you aren't African American, then we are different varieities of the same "kind"..mankind.

(November 16, 2014 at 8:23 pm)pocaracas Wrote: oh, oh, oh...
My kids are a different kind of human, too. There you go. I've successfully presented new kinds of humans being born every day.
Now, I wonder if my wife was Asian...our kids would be an even different kind!

Knock it off.

(November 17, 2014 at 6:30 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 8:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote: fossil record, mostly.

When you find a fossil, why are you determining anything other than "this once living thing has now died". Why are you bringing extra stuff in to it??

See, evolutionists already presuppose evolution, so when they find a fossil, they let their presupposition interpret the finding.

(November 16, 2014 at 8:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Attacking?
oh, the poor Christians... short memory, huh?

[quote='pocaracas' pid='797648' dateline='1416183148']
Let's pretend as if religion doesn't have history of being mocked and its followers mocked,
it's only the fundamentalists, the extremists, the uneducated that refuse to accept all the evidence for evolution.

Jonathen Wells is educated, and he don't believe in evolution.

(November 16, 2014 at 8:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Have you ever been to a Natural History Museum?

Nope.

---

---

(November 16, 2014 at 8:23 pm)pocaracas Wrote: dogs and hamsters are different species.

They are different kinds of animals, too.

(November 16, 2014 at 8:23 pm)pocaracas Wrote: But let me see if I understand you... you are a different kind of human than me.

If you aren't African American, then we are different varieities of the same "kind"..mankind.

(November 16, 2014 at 8:23 pm)pocaracas Wrote: oh, oh, oh...
My kids are a different kind of human, too. There you go. I've successfully presented new kinds of humans being born every day.
Now, I wonder if my wife was Asian...our kids would be an even different kind!

Knock it off.

---