On the subject of Hell and Salvation

[MilesAbbott81]

Fair enough, I'm asking for proof now, do you have any to support your original claim that dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago ?

Do you really believe that the finds of soft tissues support your case,  no one doing the research into this has has revised the age that Dinosaurs lived in, why are you ?  Even Mary Schweitzer a devout christian and leader in this research is disgusted by the way that YEC's have used this information.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a palaeontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”

What makes you think I care what Schweitzer claims or thinks? She has no definitive explanation, either.

Leviathan
(in biblical use) a sea monster, identified in different passages with the whale and the crocodile (e.g. Job 41, Ps. 74:14), and with the Devil (after Isa. 27:1).

Behemoth
an animal, perhaps the hippopotamus, mentioned in Job 40:15–24.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/behemoth

Not dinosaur like at all, where are you getting your descriptions from ?

I'm getting my descriptions from the Bible, not dictionary.com.

Correct, my bad they are described like everyday animals we recognise today.

Not necessarily. Besides, I never said these were definitely referring to dinosaurs, just that they could be. Perhaps you should read the descriptions in the Bible.

The belief in huge creatures that inhabited the deep was widespread throughout the ancient world. In the Old Testament there are several allusions to a primordial combat between God and a monstrous adversary variously named Leviathan or Rahab. Although the references to Leviathan usually indicate a dragon-like creature, the name has also been used to denote a sea monster in general
https://www.britannica.com/topic/sea-serpent#ref280397

Psalm 74:14

Again, you're just speaking ignorantly here. The Scripture referenced here has nothing to do with some silly mythical sea-battle. It's once again a metaphorical reference, this time to the destruction of Pharoah in the Red Sea in the book of Exodus.

Then why have them at all ? what are they a metaphor for exactly, they are ridiculous creatures. Why not just speak plainly, you are after claiming a god inspired the writers, why all the nonsense. ?

Is this supposed to be an argument? Complaining about something you have absolutely no understanding of?

Well the bible quotes them, is that reliable enough ?
Won't your god give at least one of you wisdom to interpret it ?  

No, certain translations translate certain words in certain ways. The Hebrew word was obviously not referring to unicorns, it was simply translated that way because someone chose to translate it that way. God gives understanding for these things when and where needed, and He also gives faultfinders such as yourself plenty of rope with which to hang themselves.

Well I would start with accredited scientific institutions, and then the scientific consensus perhaps, To say that a person must be an expert in a particular field to see who university's and accredited scientific institutions listen to is silly.
I actually work in aerodynamics, and work for a major sports car company designing Formula race cars.

As I wrote before:

You say idiotic things like "look at the consensus of all of these smart people." It's really a consensus of people with the same agenda, who are not only fully invested intellectually in their theories and thus ensnared by their pride (which won't allow them to admit they're wrong), but often they are also financially invested in their theories because they receive funding for research based upon them.

-----

Why should I trust "accredited scientific institutions" when I have evidence (I cited Climategate as just one example) that men from such institutions are untrustworthy?

Hang on you believe that a society that is dedicated (by it's own admission) to deny scientific knowledge, no matter the source or the expertise or credibility of its proposers, if it disagrees with the bible as a reliable source.

Show me those considered the leaders in their fields in the scientific community who work there perhaps, have you any names and their work ?

Again, who are you to determine that they're not leaders or at the very least credible? Who's to say those claiming to be leaders are? You take these people at their word, on faith? Not very wise, at least if you're going to out of hand dismiss everything from men who have the same kinds of degrees from the same institutions. 

I agree, and this does not give you pause for thought ?

No. In fact, it makes me wonder why men with doctorates from prestigious institutions are so readily dismissed while others are listened to unquestioningly. And this from people who the vast majority of the time know next to nothing of the discipline in question, such as yourself. This is why I ask you and basically everyone else here why you think you're qualified to judge the veracity of your side's claims while dismissing out of hand the other side. It's actually totally ridiculous that you do so.

Well as i say, I would have to look at any particular claim and test it against the claims of other scientists and accredited university studies perhaps, then at least I could get an idea.

Very true, and exactly my point. If you haven't done so yet, then how are you currently qualified to judge anything at all? How are any of you?

What's humble about accepting something that you know you cannot give consideration because of your pre conceived beliefs, you tak as though that should be a credit to them.

Why, creationism ( I mean Y.E.C in this case) really does seem to be nonsense, there are so many ways it fails and why so many do not believe it. what makes you assert it's the word of a god, wouldn't a divinely inspired account of the earth fit in with what we find ?
There really is no reason at all why the findings of science and a truth declared by god would be any different in a world that god created.

Sounds to me like we've well established that you have no business calling anything about YEC nonsense until you're qualified to judge the science for yourself, which by your own admission you're not.

You might say the same thing of me. How am I qualified? I'm not qualified, either, at least to judge the science itself. I believe the Word of God. The difference between us is that you put your faith in men, who are corrupt. I put my faith in the righteous and perfect Almighty God.

And really, many of the scientific arguments I cite as proof, such as the astronomical implausibility of evolution, aren't even contradicted by your side. But if there IS a contradiction, it virtually always boils down to who you're going to believe.

Of course, that's for the scientific arguments. Logical arguments are a different story altogether.

Actually no, finding 'hanging flesh' and 'tissues' are very different things, one is on the outside of the body the other found in the inside of the bones and in very rare cases, hopefully more will be found to allow us to increase our knowledge of the past.  As already noted even the scientists finding this have not revised their age that dinosaurs lived in as a result of this.

I never said "hanging flesh." I said "attached." So I was a bit incorrect, who cares? You're splitting hairs and ignoring the point I was making, which is that no one knows how the tissues have survived. The ages not being revised merely means they're choosing to ignore the problem, from what I can tell. Can you prove otherwise?

I see your 'Peace which passeth all understanding'' is a bit shaky here, lets try and help each other out a bit and go back to your original claim and see if I'm correct, how's that sound?  Let's see if we can clear this up instead of getting all upset.

I understood you claimed that Yahweh or your god is the earliest god mentioned in archaeology,  that in your claim is that all other gods come after (in archaeological finds) , is this in fact correct ?

If not then please correct me.

You still changed your argument, regardless of what I said. You made an assertion, then claimed you were saying assertions shouldn't be made concerning the thing you originally asserted.

I'm not doing the work for you on this one. Find it yourself.

---

How do you know this ? Why do you assume it was created ?

1. According to natural laws, existence is impossible.
2. We exist.
3. Therefore, the source of existence is supernatural (God).

[The Grand Nudger]

Which natural laws make existence impossible?  What is the purpose of equivocating between the supernatural and god?

[MilesAbbott81]

Which natural laws make existence impossible?  What is the purpose of equivocating between the supernatural and god?

It isn't so much that there are laws that make existence possible, but that there are laws which preclude the possibility of existence, particularly in the case of the Big Bang. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed (1st law of thermodynamics), therefore existence is impossible, unless you  want to argue that the universe isn't a closed system, which the folks on your side would take issue with.

Then the 2nd law of thermodynamics completely nullifies the possibility of the Big Bang.

Of course, I have no doubt in my mind that these arguments aren't new here. I made them myself some time ago.

And I don't really see that I'm equivocating between the supernatural and God. You can call Him what you like; the bottom line is that existence can't be explained by anything other than a supernatural source. There is simply no way, and any attempt to argue the point is an effort in absolute futility.

[The Grand Nudger]

Which natural laws make existence impossible?  What is the purpose of equivocating between the supernatural and god?

It isn't so much that there are laws that make existence possible, but that there are laws which preclude the possibility of existence, particularly in the case of the Big Bang. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed (1st law of thermodynamics), therefore existence is impossible, unless you  want to argue that the universe isn't a closed system, which the folks on your side would take issue with.

 
This explanation is factually incorrect, doesn't follow, and is inconsistent with the position that you espouse.  Since we're on the subject of impossibility, it's impossible for an assertion to be more wrong than that.

To violate the first law of thermodynamics bb cosmology would have to make claims that it doesn't make.  It would still be the case that we exist, and thus, that existence is possible by definition, and if something about the first law of thermodynamics -did- make existence impossible, then it would be equally impossible for a god to have created the universe.  

Then the 2nd law of thermodynamics completely nullifies the possibility of the Big Bang.

Can you explain why you think so?  

Of course, I have no doubt in my mind that these arguments aren't new here. I made them myself some time ago.

OFC they aren't..these arguments aren't new anywhere.  Neither are the reasons that they are malformed.  

And I don't really see that I'm equivocating between the supernatural and God. You can call Him what you like; the bottom line is that existence can't be explained by anything other than a supernatural source. There is simply no way, and any attempt to argue the point is an effort in absolute futility.

You actually wrote "supernatural" and then directly behind in parenthesis "god".  You've done it again here. A "supernatural source" is not equivalent to "a god". That's equivocation.   In any case, this assertion is an argument from ignorance.  You can't explain it, but you can't explain it by reference to the supernatural or god, either, if you hold to these misconceptions.  Broadly, if you're going to assert (rightly or wrongly) that some x makes y impossible, the use case for this assertion cannot be it's immediate contradiction by the invocation of some z. If z can do it, then y isn't impossible nor does x make it so.

Meanwhile, others can and have explained the thing you think is impossible to explain. I think that you have a huge problem with the concept of impossibility. By all means, believe in a tinkergod if that's what floats your fancy, but understand that the constraints you place on the universe will influence this tinkers creative efficacy regardless of whether or not it impacts it's creative capacity. If it's impossible for y in this universe, then a god couldn't do y in this universe. Maybe in some other universe it could..because this is not gods personal limitation, but in this universe that path is blocked. As a thoroughly mundane example...I'm perfectly capable of typing this response to you, but this potential is moot if I'm in a room with no computers.

In sum, you've accidentally closed the door on your god in a failed attempt to discredit natural explanations.

*TLDR version: don't you think someone might have noticed if your assertions regarding the laws of thermodynamics and bb cosmology were true, and made both their careers and a credible run at a nobel? Do you appreciate the unavoidable implications of your position wholly apart from any consideration of gods?

[tackattack]

Did someone say unicorns. I believe unicorns exist because they're referenced in the bible somewhere around 7 times.

clarifying, ... not sarcasm

[possibletarian]

What makes you think I care what Schweitzer claims or thinks? She has no definitive explanation, either.

I'm getting my descriptions from the Bible, not dictionary.com.

Not necessarily. Besides, I never said these were definitely referring to dinosaurs, just that they could be. Perhaps you should read the descriptions in the Bible.

Again, you're just speaking ignorantly here. The Scripture referenced here has nothing to do with some silly mythical sea-battle. It's once again a metaphorical reference, this time to the destruction of Pharoah in the Red Sea in the book of Exodus.

1) no explanation does not mean a default faith position is therefore true.
2) How do you determine what is metaphorical and what is not, I'm happy with the claim that metaphor is used in the bible, but where is your personal cut-off ?

Is this supposed to be an argument? Complaining about something you have absolutely no understanding of? (actually miles it was a question I asked, hence the ?

Actually miles it was a question not an argument, so no it's not meant to be an argument at all, but i would love an answer. People who ask questions learn more, wouldn't you agree ?

You say idiotic things like "look at the consensus of all of these smart people." It's really a consensus of people with the same agenda, who are not only fully invested intellectually in their theories and thus ensnared by their pride (which won't allow them to admit they're wrong), but often they are also financially invested in their theories because they receive funding for research based upon them.

Well actually i say accredited and peer reviewed, smart people can believe stupid things which is why we have peer review. If I should come up with a theory there are many more scientists looking at it trying to look through it, find a flaw in it.

Why should I trust "accredited scientific institutions" when I have evidence (I cited Climategate as just one example) that men from such institutions are untrustworthy?

You don't have to trust the institutions themselves, but trust the system of peer review, it's the best we have. Wether or not someone works at, or is accredited by a trusted university or body just means that more people will try and pull it apart, which is great for discovery

As regards climategate..

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/so...egate.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R...ontroversy
https://www.newsweek.com/factcheck-clima...ming-75749
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/sc...mary-cause
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/10-myths-...ate-change
https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-kn...ate-change

Again, who are you to determine that they're not leaders or at the very least credible? Who's to say those claiming to be leaders are? You take these people at their word, on faith? Not very wise, at least if you're going to out of hand dismiss everything from men who have the same kinds of degrees from the same institutions.

Having a degree from an institution is not the same as producing good peer-reviewed work, even if it's exactly the same degree.
Let's just say for instance we went and got exactly the same mathematics degree, later I join a religion that believes that 2+2 make 6, and that 4 is simply a lie. Do you think people would take me as seriously as the consensus of mathematicians ?

The same is happening with people who say that any science that does not match my religious beliefs, is wrong because i believe god told me different. Put simply to have a standard outside of science that your findings must fit within is simply not science.

No. In fact, it makes me wonder why men with doctorates from prestigious institutions are so readily dismissed while others are listened to unquestioningly.

Because of peer review, and 'science' that has to fit some claim outside of the remit, having a doctorate does not mean of itself your science is good if you abandon all you have learnt to make it fit with religious beliefs, it's simply not science if I am defining my findings in a religious context.

And this from people who the vast majority of the time know next to nothing of the discipline in question, such as yourself. This is why I ask you and basically everyone else here why you think you're qualified to judge the veracity of your side's claims while dismissing out of hand the other side. It's actually totally ridiculous that you do so.

Very true, and exactly my point. If you haven't done so yet, then how are you currently qualified to judge anything at all? How are any of you?

No i'm not qualified to judge most scientific findings, as indeed you are not but what i do is open myself up to discovery, to go where the evidence suggests rather than dismiss clearly demonstrated things on the basis of a religion.

How do you judge the truth of the websites you favour for instance, If it agree's with the bible and what you pre-believe ?

Sounds to me like we've well established that you have no business calling anything about YEC nonsense until you're qualified to judge the science for yourself, which by your own admission you're not.

You might say the same thing of me. How am I qualified? I'm not qualified, either, at least to judge the science itself. I believe the Word of God. The difference between us is that you put your faith in men, who are corrupt. I put my faith in the righteous and perfect Almighty God.

By the same measure you are not qualified to attest to it's truth, the only reason you do is not because you are read on the matter, but because it agree's with your religious beliefs, that simply is not scientific enquiry or discovery  at all.

And really, many of the scientific arguments I cite as proof, such as the astronomical implausibility of evolution, aren't even contradicted by your side.

Honestly I've not seen that argument from you, I've heard assertions. If you believe you have a valid case then that is very important to the whole of humanity, why not start a thread an d present it ?

But if there IS a contradiction, it virtually always boils down to who you're going to believe.

Oh I'll go with the science everyday, but let's see what your argument is first perhaps.. maybe take me up on my suggestion and start a new thread.

Of course, that's for the scientific arguments. Logical arguments are a different story altogether.

Bring either a good argument is a good argument  

I never said "hanging flesh." I said "attached." So I was a bit incorrect, who cares? You're splitting hairs and ignoring the point I was making, which is that no one knows how the tissues have survived. The ages not being revised merely means they're choosing to ignore the problem, from what I can tell. Can you prove otherwise?

What problem do you believe it presents, and why ?

You still changed your argument, regardless of what I said. You made an assertion, then claimed you were saying assertions shouldn't be made concerning the thing you originally asserted.

Naw, i simply presented it badly in the first place, like I have already said 'my bad'

I'm not doing the work for you on this one. Find it yourself.

You could simply say 'yes' or 'no' or perhaps clarify, if you are not willing to stand by your claim, that's fine. Instead you wrote a whole sentence when a 'yes' would suffice and say you are not doing my work for me.

1. According to natural laws, existence is impossible.
2. We exist.
3. Therefore, the source of existence is supernatural (God).

Someone else is already dealing with this nonsense.


Mike seriously dude believing the bible takes precedence above good scientific discovery simply is not science. You claim not to trust men or their findings, yet benefit every day from what science has discovered. Science is not something to fear.

[Deesse23]

What do you think of C14 dating and Dendrochonology?

Absolutely everything that purports to date the earth older than 6,000 years is totally wrong.

Ah, how could i have been so ignorant.    Of course everything "not 6k" is wrong, because.......

....yeah, why?  
What is wrong with C14 and Dendrochronology, particularly since their results are matching (and matching other methods as well).  

And here is the problem that you atheists in particular have. It doesn't matter how many creationist scientists with doctorates make their case against every single one of your claims

C14 dating and Dendrochronology has nothing to do with atheism. Its all science. Please demonstrate how its not reliable, and why it has been delivering reliable results nevertheless.
There are also no "creationist scientists". There are scientists who support theories that are in accordance with experimeants and data, and there are those who dont.
Am also not an atheist for starters i am a sceptic. Atheism is a result of my scepticism. I am not making claims, you and "creationist scientists" are making claims. Please leave it to me to find the claims compelling or not. This is not a church where people are taught what and how to think.
Its rich of you to accuse others of having biases after starting your rant by defining the people backing up your position as biased (towards creationism).  

You assume that just because one is a creationist that he or she isn't a true scientist because you don't want to believe what they have to say.

No i dont, but you do assume that i assume. Stop telling me what i think. Stop being so fucking arrogant and pretentious, it doesnt support your argument well. I have already told you, that i want to believe what can be demonstrated as being true, aka. in accordance with reality.

because I doubt even 10% of you have a truly solid understanding of the science of astrophysics, geology, or biology.

I am an electronics engineer since ca. 1995, have done 3 semesters math, 2 physics, including relativity ("what can you see when a teapot approaches you with speeds faster than light"). I have been taught the background of Maxwells equations. I have hacked countless linear, surface and volumetric integrals. I have made countless calculations within the realm of imaginary numbers. I have made fourier transformations back and forth and on top of that some Laplace- and Z-Transformations (you may want to google this one, pilgrim). I have been engaged in high frequency electronics, where stuff like ohms law simply doesnt work anymore, and where you have to go back to Matrices/Arrays in order to get any meaningful results. I took part in a R&D project to measure EEG live in a NMR. Do you have the slightest clue what measuring 50µV in a 1T environment means? I have been part of doing basic research for an electronic device enabling people with spinal chord injury to be able to measure the fluid level in their bladder (with ultrasound) and be able to relieve themselves with a simple click (a "bladder stimulator"), instead to have to rely on catheters. The same device was used to help people with chronic pain to be able to switch off their pain instead of becoming opioid users (by having the device attached to their spinal nerve). I have seen countless Beagles being sacrificed on the altar of human health, and the test persons with the pain relief devices begging us to leave them one, which we werent allowed for legal reasons of course (we were still in early R&D)
I ended up being in the top 30% performers of my university, which is one of the more renowed ones in my country, which is a leading country in central europe in science for at least 200 years. My personal interests include astrophysics and astronomy.

How about you, pilgrim?

I am not saying that any of this makes any of my claims correct, but i am tired of being told how ignorant i am by people who are so scientifically illiterate (on the very top of Dunning Kruger´s Olympus Mons) that they havent the slightest clue how utterly ignorant they are.
I am confident i have forgotten more science $hit that you can ever dream of to ever learn to know in your life. I say "dream of", since you obviously have no interest to get a solid education at all, probably dont know how to if you wanted.

But you have to gall to come to a random www forum and post BS 24/7. Fucking poser.

But more than all of this, the real problem is hubris. The truth is that we know very little about geology (we're still theorizing about the earth's core), astronomy (we can hardly see objects in our own solar system), and biology (we can't cure viruses or cancer, at least through man-made solutions). We hardly understand dieting, which has constantly changing theories, yet we think to date the universe to the point where we can confidently declare that it's 13.8 BILLION years old, a number that has changed several times over the last century?

The fact that you are ignorant about ca. anything doesnt mean that everyone else is too. Hybris is to assume exactly that, as you are doing.

BILLION makes you scared? Pretty big number, eh? Poor pilgrim.
I have measured timescales in the sub-ns range (laser rangefinder: 1ns = 30cm. If you want to be accurate, you have to be better than a nanosecond. Try to google "nano", pilgrim).
I have also measured electric capacitances in the sub-pF range, with self made circuitries. Try to google "piko" (hint: its 1/1000 of a billionth)

Reality (and [sometimes not so] humble me) dont give a fuck about your utter lack of imagination, and education.

[Drich]

Absolutely everything that purports to date the earth older than 6,000 years is totally wrong.

Ah, how could i have been so ignorant.    Of course everything "not 6k" is wrong, because.......

....yeah, why?  
What is wrong with C14 and Dendrochronology, particularly since their results are matching (and matching other methods as well).  

And here is the problem that you atheists in particular have. It doesn't matter how many creationist scientists with doctorates make their case against every single one of your claims

C14 dating and Dendrochronology has nothing to do with atheism. Its all science. Please demonstrate how its not reliable, and why it has been delivering reliable results nevertheless.
There are also no "creationist scientists". There are scientists who support theories that are in accordance with experimeants and data, and there are those who dont.
Am also not an atheist for starters i am a sceptic. Atheism is a result of my scepticism. I am not making claims, you and "creationist scientists" are making claims. Please leave it to me to find the claims compelling or not. This is not a church where people are taught what and how to think.
Its rich of you to accuse others of having biases after starting your rant by defining the people backing up your position as biased (towards creationism).  

You assume that just because one is a creationist that he or she isn't a true scientist because you don't want to believe what they have to say.

No i dont, but you do assume that i assume. Stop telling me what i think. Stop being so fucking arrogant and pretentious, it doesnt support your argument well. I have already told you, that i want to believe what can be demonstrated as being true, aka. in accordance with reality.

because I doubt even 10% of you have a truly solid understanding of the science of astrophysics, geology, or biology.

I am an electronics engineer since ca. 1995, have done 3 semesters math, 2 physics, including relativity ("what can you see when a teapot approaches you with speeds faster than light"). I have been taught the background of Maxwells equations. I have hacked countless linear, surface and volumetric integrals. I have made countless calculations within the realm of imaginary numbers. I have made fourier transformations back and forth and on top of that some Laplace- and Z-Transformations (you may want to google this one, pilgrim). I have been engaged in high frequency electronics, where stuff like ohms law simply doesnt work anymore, and where you have to go back to Matrices/Arrays in order to get any meaningful results. I took part in a R&D project to measure EEG live in a NMR. Do you have the slightest clue what measuring 50µV in a 1T environment means? I have been part of doing basic research for an electronic device enabling people with spinal chord injury to be able to measure the fluid level in their bladder (with ultrasound) and be able to relieve themselves with a simple click (a "bladder stimulator"), instead to have to rely on catheters. The same device was used to help people with chronic pain to be able to switch off their pain instead of becoming opioid users (by having the device attached to their spinal nerve). I have seen countless Beagles being sacrificed on the altar of human health, and the test persons with the pain relief devices begging us to leave them one, which we werent allowed for legal reasons of course (we were still in early R&D)
I ended up being in the top 30% performers of my university, which is one of the more renowed ones in my country, which is a leading country in central europe in science for at least 200 years. My personal interests include astrophysics and astronomy.

How about you, pilgrim?

I am not saying that any of this makes any of my claims correct, but i am tired of being told how ignorant i am by people who are so scientifically illiterate (on the very top of Dunning Kruger´s Olympus Mons) that they havent the slightest clue how utterly ignorant they are.
I am confident i have forgotten more science $hit that you can ever dream of to ever learn to know in your life. I say "dream of", since you obviously have no interest to get a solid education at all, probably dont know how to if you wanted.

But you have to gall to come to a random www forum and post BS 24/7. Fucking poser.

But more than all of this, the real problem is hubris. The truth is that we know very little about geology (we're still theorizing about the earth's core), astronomy (we can hardly see objects in our own solar system), and biology (we can't cure viruses or cancer, at least through man-made solutions). We hardly understand dieting, which has constantly changing theories, yet we think to date the universe to the point where we can confidently declare that it's 13.8 BILLION years old, a number that has changed several times over the last century?

The fact that you are ignorant about ca. anything doesnt mean that everyone else is too. Hybris is to assume exactly that, as you are doing.

BILLION makes you scared? Pretty big number, eh? Poor pilgrim.
I have measured timescales in the sub-ns range (laser rangefinder: 1ns = 30cm. If you want to be accurate, you have to be better than a nanosecond. Try to google "nano", pilgrim).
I have also measured electric capacitances in the sub-pF range, with self made circuitries. Try to google "piko" (hint: its 1/1000 of a billionth)

Reality (and [sometimes not so] humble me) dont give a fuck about your utter lack of imagination, and education.

 
So who's shmeckle is bigger?

because all I see is someone with a 'different' skill set avoiding the points made by trying to project a big red herring adorned with also sort of things indoctrinated people who are train to respect .. Here's your problem sport. you ability to calculate or measure you shmeckle with in a 'piko' doesn't actually answer the questions nor address the problem of 'hubris that was pointed out and you clearly demonstrated with your pomp and flourish of irrelevant material.

So despite your heavy resume you opponent here seems to have you by the short and curlies because you have failed to topically address anything he pointed out.. rather you seem to be under the idea that f you can flash enough resume/shmeckle about you do not have to answer those questions.

Here's the thing sport I'm not only a refrigeration engineer ( I have personally designed patented and pushed to manufacture , market and sell 13 different models of transport refrigeration systems. ( it is What keep s ice cream ice cream and not sludge from the factory to your supermarket/I know it is not building sensor to tell people when to pee, but never the less society/cities would not be possible without it.) I am also a salesman and a multiple business owner and I know from all side when someone is pouring down a shit storm to try and worm their way out of a situation. You are trying to sell something no one asked for. as a engineer I am ashamed at how you have represented your trade by not providing one ounce of the requested or relevant data. you shown nothing but hubris in displaying your own resume which was identified to you as your primary problem.. so what was your solution?!?! you pour more hubris like gas on an open flame... You fortify the original diagnosis... as an engineer how could yoube so short sighted as to not see yourself acting out in real time what someone has identified as your primary failing in comprehension? If you continue to self identify as an engineer and continue this path of foolishness i am going to have to change my own job description.


Anyway that is my two cents, my third cent would be try and use your research ability and answer a question or two before you move straight into dick measuring.

[possibletarian]

Did someone say unicorns. I believe unicorns exist because they're referenced in the bible somewhere around 7 times.

clarifying, ... not sarcasm

I think real unicorns would be awesome !!

[Abaddon_ire]

Which natural laws make existence impossible?  What is the purpose of equivocating between the supernatural and god?

It isn't so much that there are laws that make existence possible, but that there are laws which preclude the possibility of existence, particularly in the case of the Big Bang. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed (1st law of thermodynamics), therefore existence is impossible, unless you  want to argue that the universe isn't a closed system, which the folks on your side would take issue with.

False. Nobody claims the big bang created energy.

Then the 2nd law of thermodynamics completely nullifies the possibility of the Big Bang.

False. The second law depends on the big bang.

Of course, I have no doubt in my mind that these arguments aren't new here. I made them myself some time ago.

And the answers are the same.

And I don't really see that I'm equivocating between the supernatural and God. You can call Him what you like; the bottom line is that existence can't be explained by anything other than a supernatural source. There is simply no way, and any attempt to argue the point is an effort in absolute futility.

Argument from ignorance.

Bluntly, you present a reformed "god of the gaps" argument, but the gaps are all of your imagining.