Perpetual Motion?

[hcap]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=287qd4uI7-E

[HUSKER55]

THAT was interesting. thanks for the post!

[Greyfox]

Yes. That was interesting and informative.
Overcoming friction has always been a problem for those who've sought perpetual motion machines.
Then again boxcar should enjoy your post.
The Universe is in perpetual motion.

[boxcar]

Then again boxcar should enjoy your post.
The Universe is in perpetual motion.

BINGO! And if those puny, but precision-made machines in the video required intelligent design, how much more, then, the infinitely more complex universe?

Boxcar

[hcap]

What is apparent is how convincing these machines appear. Of course if you stuck around a bit longer it soon becomes obvious that all are slowing and it is only a matter of time until they come to a dead stop.

That is the problem with a lot of simplistic theories. Short term observation tricks one into believing into a faulty cause and a non sequitur effect. In fact the only cause in all these cases is the initial push or input of energy into the system. The only thing that varies is the different forms of friction that stops them all.

Not quite so "intelligent" a design.

[boxcar]

What is apparent is how convincing these machines appear. Of course if you stuck around a bit longer it soon becomes obvious that all are slowing and it is only a matter of time until they come to a dead stop.

That is the problem with a lot of simplistic theories. Short term observation tricks one into believing into a faulty cause and a non sequitur effect. In fact the only cause in all these cases is the initial push or input of energy into the system. The only thing that varies is the different forms of friction that stops them all.

Not quite so "intelligent" a design.

Even if what you say is true, it too took intelligent design to get just that far; therefore, you actually bolster my argument about ID for the universe, which does work non-stop. Thanks for the affirmation. :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

[hcap]

Are all man made designs intelligent?

And what about naturally occurring? crystalline forms Does God carve each individual snowflake before they melt

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/12/09/w041219b055.jpg

[boxcar]

Are all man made designs intelligent?

Apparently not. You're living proof. :lol:

And what about naturally occurring? crystalline forms Does God carve each individual snowflake before they melt

The belief in ID does not mean that all "features" of creation are directly designed; therefore there is room for natural, evolutionary processes. Snowflakes contain relatively little information and are probably designed by a series of secondary causes. Conversely, DNA is loaded with complex information. However, at the end of the day everything in the universe eventually has to be traced back to an Ultimate Cause -- including the lowly snowflake.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Perpetual motion - any thread that contains Boxcar, hcap, and GOD! :eek: :lol:

[Greyfox]

Perpetual motion - any thread that contains Boxcar, hcap, and GOD! :eek: :lol:

Only four posters have responded here.
Hcap, Boxcar, myself and you.
That must be you Tom, because I ain't He. :D

[hcap]

Perpetual motion - any thread that contains Boxcar, hcap, and GOD! :eek: :lol:My posting was simply about perpetual motion. In this case Greyfox invited boxcar-along with his baggage into the discussion.

Then again every ending of box's posts, in addition to repeating his name, has a saying about God. Did you honestly expect him to give us a treatise on the law of conservation of energy? No he veers it of into "Intelligent Design"

[hcap]

The belief in ID does not mean that all "features" of creation are directly designed; therefore there is room for natural, evolutionary processes. Snowflakes contain relatively little information and are probably designed by a series of secondary causes. Conversely, DNA is loaded with complex information. However, at the end of the day everything in the universe eventually has to be traced back to an Ultimate Cause -- including the lowly snowflake.You know you are simply establishing an infinite regress of first causes. It begins with "how can something this complex just pop into existence?" And assumes something with consciousness and intelligence must have created the complexity. It ends with how could God himself have just popped into existence? Did another bigger God create the smaller God who created the universe? And so on and so on. Ocam's Razor applys to this circular line of thought. The first cause explanation of God does not establish the existence of God.

Your so-called "secondary causes" just as easily can be logically reclassified as the a priori laws of the universe that govern all rules. Simple and complex. As I have said many times, this is not solely an intellectual debate. The feeling of awe produced by direct appreciation of the snowflake is enough to support both sides in the debate. But not in terms of pure logic Try again

[boxcar]

You know you are simply establishing an infinite regress of first causes. It begins with "how can something this complex just pop into existence?" And assumes something with consciousness and intelligence must have created the complexity. It ends with how could God himself have just popped into existence? Did another bigger God create the smaller God who created the universe? And so on and so on. Ocam's Razor applys to this circular line of thought. The first cause explanation of God does not establish the existence of God.

Never said it does. Only that an Uncaused Cause makes imminently good sense -- much, much better than Something popped out of Nothing Once Upon a Time, and here we are... :rolleyes: If it takes a watchmaker to make a watch, an automaker to make cars, a shipbuilder to make ships, an aircraft company to make planes and even an amateur scientist to build his puny little perpetual motion machines, and the Universe is infinitely more complex than all these man-made things combined, then surely it must have been put together by an infinitely brilliant and wise mind. The Universe is precision-made -- made just exactly right so that this puny little planet we call Earth can produce and sustain life. Yet, you believe in a regression of coincidences -- anyway you want to slice it or dice it -- that's what it boils down to -- coincidences.

By the way, Creationism works much better with Ocam's Razor -- far less convoluted than Evolution, which requires even more faith than faith in an Eternal Creator.

Meditate on this link:

http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/intro.html

Boxcar

[BlueShoe]

I think that the whole thing is a very subtle Communist plot.:rolleyes: Examine the theory carefully and you will find the hidden promotion of the ideology of Dialectical Materialism, one of very basic planks of Marxist belief. ;)

[hcap]

The first cause explanation of God does not establish the existence of God.Never said it does. Only that an Uncaused Cause makes imminently good sense -- much, much better than Something popped out of Nothing Once Upon a Time, and here we are... Damn! box, no wonder LS thinks you are a proven liar.

Let's see here bunky, let me dissect your latest dance. Ok, you can not argue proof of God. I have convinced you that is a non-starter logically and philosophically, so you argue instead here for the support for the existence of God by a so-called first cause argument.

(Although we all know you really meant proof and you are fudging it over now knowing you will be out on a limb and subject to my quick dismissal.)

So you would have us a belief we now have a new humbler fanatic? With a reformed could be instead of the ole' "has-to-be

(and if you disagree with me you are evil and ant-God)

Are you telling us after all these years and 14 quadrillion posts proclaiming from on high that all you really meant in between telling me and others, we are the spawns of satan and we will be damned to an eternity in hell, is that the evidence only supports your royal proclamations? And not that you know for sure that all the babble you have posted is an absolute, and further that ALL the crap you have uttered with all the extreme vehemence and hate you could muster, is only a mild philosophical advisory for our consideration and edification?



.................................................. ...............

I see why you practice Christian Apologetics. It obviously requires no knowledge of facts, schools of philosophical thought or science, and is, as you have shown, without inner consistency and a shred of logic thought.

Btw, you also totally misunderstand Ocam's razor.

PS: it's me hcap

hcap

[TJDave]

Come to think of it, Religion is the perfect perpetual motion machine. ;)

[hcap]

I think that the whole thing is a very subtle Communist plot.:rolleyes: Examine the theory carefully and you will find the hidden promotion of the ideology of Dialectical Materialism, one of very basic planks of Marxist belief. ;)

First we have box

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Tin_foil_hat_2.jpg

And now some insightful political socio-economic perspective from a master of economics and an astute observer (part time) of the Bilderbergs and Illuminati

http://mygaming.co.za/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/tin-foil-hat-530x298.jpg

:) :) :)

[boxcar]

Come to think of it, Religion is the perfect perpetual motion machine. ;)

You forgot Politics.

But you're right about Religion. Even Atheists make a perpetual stink about it, probably because they feel so threatened by it.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Damn! box, no wonder LS thinks you are a proven liar.

Let's see here bunky, let me dissect your latest dance. Ok, you can not argue proof of God. I have convinced you that is a non-starter logically and philosophically, so you argue instead here for the support for the existence of God by a so-called first cause argument.

Although we all know you really meant proof and you are fudging it over now knowing you will be out on a limb and subject to my quick dismissal.)

You know very well that I have maintained that God cannot be proved, just like the Big Bang cannot be proved. Or evolution cannot be proved. All of these views are built on a host of presuppositions. All I have ever maintained is that the evidence for a Creator is far stronger and makes imminently more sense than any other nonsense put forth by the philosophy of Materialism. This latter philosophy cannot keep up with all the unanswered questions because at every turn a new theory or hypothesis is found to beg the question. And this is precisely why Theism conforms so much better to Occam's Razor.

And for you info I have forgotten more about this Law of Parsimony than you'll ever know. The hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions also offers the simplest explanations of the effect. So, when dealing with competing hypotheses, the one that best conforms to this principle of logic is probably the truth.

So you would have us a belief we now have a new humbler fanatic? With a reformed could be instead of the ole' "has-to-be

(and if you disagree with me you are evil and ant-God)

Do a rewrite of this gibberish. I can't understand what you're trying to say.

Are you telling us after all these years and 14 quadrillion posts proclaiming from on high that all you really meant in between telling me and others, we are the spawns of satan and we will be damned to an eternity in hell, is that the evidence only supports your royal proclamations? And not that you know for sure that all the babble you have posted is an absolute, and further that ALL the crap you have uttered with all the extreme vehemence and hate you could muster, is only a mild philosophical advisory for our consideration and edification?

I thought we were talking about a universe that screams design? Now you're off on one of your non sequitur tangents about the fallen condition of man? Take a few deep breaths. Slow down. Your incoherent ramblings are resembling that of an asylum inmate.

Boxcar


.................................................. ...............

I see why you practice Christian Apologetics. It obviously requires no knowledge of facts, schools of philosophical thought or science, and is, as you have shown, without inner consistency and a shred of logic thought.

Btw, you also totally misunderstand Ocam's razor.

PS: it's me hcap

hcap[/QUOTE]

[BlueShoe]

And now some insightful political socio-economic perspective from a master of economics and an astute observer (part time) of the Bilderbergs and Illuminati

http://mygaming.co.za/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/tin-foil-hat-530x298.jpg

:) :) :)
You left out the Council On Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.:eek:

[HUSKER55]

and to think ....all this started over some perpetual motion machines develovped several hundred years ago. Why can't everyone just enjoy them for what they are?

[Greyfox]

Friction prevents man from building perpetual motion machines on earth.
Laws of Entropy may some day seal the fate of the physical universe.

[hcap]

Friction prevents man from building perpetual motion machines on earth.
Laws of Entropy may some day seal the fate of the physical universe.There are 2 distinct types of perpetual motion devices on file in the US Patent office. The predominant type attempts to supply just enough energy to overcome friction. The ones in the video I posted are of those kind. However there are quite a few
"free energy" devices that attempt to keep things moving by tapping into so-called ambient energy fields all around us. i.e. "Zero Point Energy" So not only do these overcome friction, but can be a source of free power for other machines and energy needs such as providing free electricity.

I believe the closest we have come to perpetual motion is supercooling electrical circuits. At very low temperatures an induced electrical current will flow in a closed loop for extremely long periods of time. Electrical friction of the closed loop material at those temperatures show zero friction. Unless there is a grand conspiracy by the auto and energy companies to cover up zero point free energy devices, no free energy inventions have ever worked.

BlueShoe?

[hcap]

You know very well that I have maintained that God cannot be proved, just like the Big Bang cannot be proved. Or evolution cannot be proved. All of these views are built on a host of presuppositions. All I have ever maintained is that the evidence for a Creator is far stronger and makes imminently more sense than any other nonsense put forth by the philosophy of Materialism. This latter philosophy cannot keep up with all the unanswered questions because at every turn a new theory or hypothesis is found to beg the question. And this is precisely why Theism conforms so much better to Occam's Razor.

And for you info I have forgotten more about this Law of Parsimony than you'll ever know. The hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions also offers the simplest explanations of the effect. So, when dealing with competing hypotheses, the one that best conforms to this principle of logic is probably the truth.
As usual you bluster your way thru' involved issues by pretending to understand concepts way beyond your pay grade. Yes, Ocam's Razor recommends one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect. The key word is EXPLANATION The Big Bang, evolution, and other modern theories and hypothesis offer evidence supported EXPLANATIONS that are sorely lacking in Creationism.

Mr. Physicist/Philosopher, why is it that this fairly simple creation story does not qualify under Ocam's Razor as a competing hypothesis to the Big Bang and Evolution?

From the Bantu tribe of Central Africa:

In the beginning there was only darkness, water, and the great god Bumba. One day Bumba, in pain from a stomachache, vomited up the sun. The sun dried up some of the water, leaving land. Still in pain, Bumba vomited up the moon, the stars, and then some animals: the leopard, the crocodile, the turtle, and, finally, some men, one of whom, Yoko Lima was white like Bumba.

I think you would agree it is certainly much simpler than all them nasty mathematical equations and tons of scientific research one must muddle thru' in order to grasp the intricacies of the Big Bang. Or for that matter the the equally complex concepts of evolution as compared to a very neat and tidy SIMPLE ....

Bumba vomited up the moon, the stars, and then some animals: the leopard, the crocodile, the turtle, and, finally, some men,

Hey Mr Physicist/Philosopher, evolution and the Big Bang according to your misunderstanding of Ocam's Razor apparently would be tossed aside as compared to this simple creation story from these people of Africa.

BTW, everyone refers to it as Ocam's Razor. We all know you did a google search to come up with the less known AND rarely used high-falutin "Law of Parsimony" Impressive but as transparent as most of your babble.

PS: it's me hcap

hcap

[boxcar]

You must hate Occam's Razor. You write so much, yet say so little. :rolleyes:

And "explanations" with scientific evidence? You mean like backfitting the evidence to try to make it square with the hypotheses? :D

The circumstantial evidence[/b] very strongly suggests that a super intellect designed a very precise universe.

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

[i]George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

And there are numerous other scientists who can only conclude the same thing from the evidence.

[i]"I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."(1)

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html

Now, these scientists SEE (and this is operative word here) -- "see" as in UNDERSTAND (albeit imperfectly) the eternal power and divine nature of God by his very creation -- just as scripture teaches that we all do!

Rom 1:19-20
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
NASB

Numerous scientists, therefore, bear witness to the truth of this above passage. The Universe is not an accident. Chaos does not beget Order. The Universe isn't a result of an infinite stream of Coincidences. The Universe is an extremely well designed, high precision, finely tuned "machine" that was made to support and sustain life here on Earth.

Boxcar

[Robert Fischer]

The overbalanced wheel seems like a natural as an improvement on the windmill turbine.

[Actor]

I believe the closest we have come to perpetual motion is supercooling electrical circuits. At very low temperatures an induced electrical current will flow in a closed loop for extremely long periods of time.Actually forever. At least that was the claim of one of my college professors.Electrical friction of the closed loop material at those temperatures show zero friction.And they do not heat up the conductor. In the 1970s there was a lot of research into finding a room temperature superconductor. I don't know if this research is still going on. The biggest boon to finding a room temperature superconductor would be the transmission of electric power over long distances without loss, meaning that solar farms in sunny Arizona could sell their product in cloudy New York.

[hcap]

You must hate Occam's Razor. You write so much, yet say so little. :rolleyes:

And "explanations" with scientific evidence? You mean like backfitting the evidence to try to make it square with the hypotheses? :D

The [i]circumstantial evidence[/b] very strongly suggests that a super intellect designed a very precise universe.......

You are an idiot.

You deflected this thread. You brought up the old infinite regress of "who created the universe, well God did because you can't get something from nothing etc." I pointed out Ocam's Razor if applied properly cuts out the necessity of God from that infinite logical regress..

No where did I say I don't believe in God. Many of us do, but not your heartless vengeful God who's name you take in vain every chance you get. There is a difference between scientists who believe in God and you.

http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god

In the table below, the full wording of Gallup's question 1 is, "Humans were created pretty much in their present form about 10 000 years ago." The difference between scientists and other Americans is striking. Scientists also respond quite differently to the third question, "Man evolved over millions of years from less developed forms. God had no part in this process." But scientists' responses to Gallup's "theistic evolution" question—"Man evolved over millions of years from less developed forms of life, but God guided the process, including the creation of Man"—directly mirrors that of the general public. The "middle ground" is apparently equally attractive to scientists as it is to the general public.

GALLUP EVOLUTION QUESTIONS

Question ............................ Scientists Public
1. Special Creation, 10 000 years.. 5% 46%
2. Evolution, God Guided............. 40% 40%
3. Evolution, God had no part....... 55% 9%

In other words no dinosaurs and man playing together in the garden of eden.

There is a whole spectrum of beliefs out there. Most religious people also accept science and yes many scientists accept God. But NO scientists worth their credentials believe in a 6,000 year old earth and a universe contrary to valid evidence supporting it's age of 14 BILLION years, ONLY APPEARING that old, because God plays games with the evidence as you have stupidly claimed over and over again.

BTW, The "Law of Parsimony" also knocks that shit-assed coclamamie klug of a theory, out with one shot.

PS: it's me hcap

hcap

[Actor]

But you're right about Religion. Even Atheists make a perpetual stink about it, probably because they feel so threatened by it.

BoxcarWhy should atheists feel threatened by something that they believe does not exist?

[hcap]

Actually forever. At least that was the claim of one of my college professors.And they do not heat up the conductor. In the 1970s there was a lot of research into finding a room temperature superconductor. I don't know if this research is still going on. The biggest boon to finding a room temperature superconductor would be the transmission of electric power over long distances without loss, meaning that solar farms in sunny Arizona could sell their product in cloudy New York.Forever is a long word :lol:

Yes it appears that way, and no room temperature super conductors yet but the phenomena has been observed at much higher temperatures each year

From The Physics Factbook

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/MichaelNg.shtml

Don't mention Solar here. Green technologies are part of the International Bilderberg/Illuminati/Al Gore/ClimateChange Conspiracy.

Boxcar knows all about how these evildoers back fit data to convince the God-Fearing good folk to surrender their souls to the anti-Christ and never buy non-incandescent light bulbs.

[boxcar]

Why should atheists feel threatened by something that they believe does not exist?

You tell me. This country has its fair share of very militant atheists. You haven't noticed the war against religion (most especially Christianity) these kinds of atheists have been fighting for decades now?

Boxcar

[hcap]

You tell me. This country has its fair share of very militant atheists. You haven't noticed the war against religion (most especially Christianity) these kinds of atheists have been fighting for decades now?

What a crock!!


You have outdone yourself. And that ain't easy. Congratulations!!

PS: it's me hcap

hcap

[boxcar]

You are an idiot.

You deflected this thread. You brought up the old infinite regress of "who created the universe, well God did because you can't get something from nothing etc." I pointed out Ocam's Razor if applied properly cuts out the necessity of God from that infinite logical regress..

No where did I say I don't believe in God. Many of us do, but not your heartless vengeful God who's name you take in vain every chance you get. There is a difference between scientists who believe in God and you.
(emphasis mine)

Thank you. You have made a long-standing point of mine that Man is open rebellion against God. The non-necessity of God is the goal of Materialism. If God isn't necessary then who needs to love, honor, worship and obey an unnecessary thing or entity? Where is the moral necessity or obligation on our part to do these kinds of things with an unnecessary being or thing?

And here again, you have deflected the subject of the design of the universe that calls for a Designer to morality -- not your own morality, of course -- but God's! What arrogance! And this is your real reason for rejecting Creationism -- not for any lack of very strong and solid evidence for it, as Romans 1 points out!

And I have never understood your objection to the God of the bible who has graciously revealed himself to mankind. Where is the "heartless, vengeful" God in this text:

John 3:16-17
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.
NASB

Or in this text:

Rom 5:8-9
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
NASB

But you spurn God's love and gracious offer of salvation because you love your sin much more. As it is written:

John 3:19
19 "And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.
NASB

Because you love the darkness, you belligerently shake your fist at The Light who has come into world. And, yet, you foolish man, you blame God for condemning people like yourself to hell for eternity? How? How can you blame Him? You have made a conscious decision to reject Him and his offer of salvation. Therefore, how would it be unjust for God to tell you on the last day that your presence in heaven with Him for all eternity isn't necessary!? or that you're as unnecessary to Him in the eternal Kingdom as He was to you in this world? Since you find God to be an unnecessary entity -- something who/that people can casually take or leave like some frivolous item on a store shelf, then how could you complain when God returns the favor? As Overlay once said, God doesn't send anyone to hell -- Heaven or Hell, Mr. Hcap, is a personal choice we all make. Further, since you want nothing to do with the God of the bible in this world, why do you think you would want anything to do with him in the next age? Would you not be more at home with your own kind in Hell for all eternity?

As Jesus also taught, "Wherever YOUR treasure is, there your HEART will be also" (Mat 6:21). Your treasure are your sins that you love. These are what occupy your heart. And this is why you suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18). How ironic, you call me "Mr. Perfect" when by God's grace, he has shown me to be anything but -- yet, at the same time has shown me that I NEED to do the impossible and be that very thing in order to be pleasing to Him. But you, on the other hand, are in need of no salvation because you think you're good enough just as you are.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

What a crock!!


You have outdone yourself. And that ain't easy. Congratulations!!

PS: it's me hcap

hcap

You need to pull your head out of the sand. Just in the past month, there have been numerous stories on the web about atheists very aggressive war against religion and God. Do you really want me to openly embarrass you with the facts? Are you really this ignorant?

Boxcar

[hcap]

How about adding something to the subject of this thread? Other then your perpetual propensity for religious pomposity. And the frightening "OH MY GOD" dangers of militant atheists

The ratio of your understanding of physics and science as compared to what you think is physics and science is similar to the signal to noise ratio of you posting and you passing gas.

4 posts to 100 farts
1 to 25 in case you can't do the math

PS: it's me hcap

hcap


PPS:it's me hcap

hcap

[boxcar]

How about adding something to the subject of this thread? Other then your perpetual propensity for religious pomposity. And the frightening "OH MY GOD" dangers of militant atheists[/i]

I see you have come to your senses. Good thing. You saved yourself from being made a public spectacle.

The ratio of your understanding of physics and science as compared to what you think is physics and science is similar to the signal to noise ratio of you posting and you passing gas.

Does your royal proclamation include the numerous scientists who believe in Creationism, as well? Are they as ignorant as I am? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

How 'bout this physicist?:

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job.'"

Or this one?:

Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely."

Boxcar
P.S. Don't forget to deflea if you ever get around to pulling your head out of the sand. :lol:

[Greyfox]

Here's a perpetual motion clock.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[boxcar]

Here's a perpetual motion clock.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

And tell me this wasn't designed. :lol:

Boxcar

[TJDave]

You need to pull your head out of the sand. Just in the past month, there have been numerous stories on the web about atheists very aggressive war against religion and God. Do you really want me to openly embarrass you with the facts? Are you really this ignorant?


Silliness.

Are you suggesting that there would be anything an atheist could do that would cause the faithful to deny God?

Waring against God only works if he/she doesn't exist. ;)

[TJDave]

Does your royal proclamation include the numerous scientists who believe in Creationism, as well? Are they as ignorant as I am? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


A layperson believing in creationism is at best ignorant... A scientist, stupid.

[boxcar]

Silliness.

Are you suggesting that there would be anything an atheist could do that would cause the faithful to deny God?

Waring against God only works if he/she doesn't exist. ;)

Tell the militant atheists they are silly. They're the ones at war with a god they say doesn't exist. (And I have never accused man of being all there either, have I?) :rolleyes:

And while on the subject of silly, your post fits the bill perfectly. No, the atheists would never convince a true believer for the simple reason believers are protected by God's power through faith (1Pet 1:5). Believers aren't their objective, per se. But what these God-haters want to accomplish is to influence the non-believers in socieity as much as they can -- they want to keep them from giving serious consideration to the Christian faith. For example, just yesterday I had a lengthy discussion with my massage therapist (a non-believer) about the bible. He would be a prime target of this hate group because he's reading the bible every day, trying to understand its message.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

A layperson believing in creationism is at best ignorant... A scientist, stupid.

And that in turn would make you a fool. There are plenty of "stupid" scientists out there -- maybe many of them the same ones who have come to their senses about man-made global warming. :lol:

Boxcar

[TJDave]

But what these God-haters want to accomplish is to influence the non-believers in socieity as much as they can -- they want to keep them from giving serious consideration to the Christian faith.

Just as you would wish to influence them to become believers.

You don't think they have that right?

[HUSKER55]

do you guys understand that this started out as perpetual motion machines developed 900 years ago?

Yes they all quit working or they would still be working in a museum today,but considering when and how they were developed is neat.

You guys are putting way too much into a machine.

[boxcar]

Just as you would wish to influence them to become believers.

You don't think they have that right?

To "influence" is one thing. To force one's views upon another is something else. They may have the legal right to speak out against anything they want, but when they adamantly deny the existence of God in one breath and then speak out so angrily and hatefully against this non-existent God in the next breath is wee bit moronic, isn't it?

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

To "influence" is one thing. To force one's views upon another is something else. They may have the legal right to speak out against anything they want, but when they adamantly deny the existence of God in one breath and then speak out so angrily and hatefully against this non-existent God in the next breath is wee bit moronic, isn't it?

Boxcar

Ah yes... those militant atheists!

Haven't you told me my judgment is at hand multiple times on here?

Telling someone that they are going to hell because they don't subscribe to your interpretation of a book seems pretty angry and hateful.

Just saying...

[hcap]

Ah yes... those militant atheists!

Haven't you told me my judgment is at hand multiple times on here?

Telling someone that they are going to hell because they don't subscribe to your interpretation of a book seems pretty angry and hateful.

Just saying...

I called him out on his propensity to cast us evildoers into the gates of hell. I simply asked after he reluctantly agreed there was no logical proof for the existence of God-and therefore any thing he says about what God intends to do with us heretics

"Box, have you become a milder fanatic? You seemed so sure in thousands of posts of the will of God. Have you just been giving us all along, a gentlemanly head's up and an advisory about burning in hell? And that the evidence simply suggests that we will burn? Are you now saying "not to worry yourself too much about damnation. Hey it is just my humble opinion only"

He never told me if in fact he is nowadays a "milder reformed fanatic"

[TJDave]

To "influence" is one thing. To force one's views upon another is something else.

It is impossible to force one's views on another. They have to be willing to accept them.

[boxcar]

Ah yes... those militant atheists!

Haven't you told me my judgment is at hand multiple times on here?

Telling someone that they are going to hell because they don't subscribe to your interpretation of a book seems pretty angry and hateful.

Just saying...

Only if the gospel ended there. What about the really Good News part of it that talks about basking in God's love and glory for all eternity in blissful heaven? Would that be "pretty angry and hateful", too?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I called him out on his propensity to cast us evildoers into the gates of hell. I simply asked after he reluctantly agreed there was no logical proof for the existence of God-and therefore any thing he says about what God intends to do with us heretics

No, I did not say any such thing. (Why do you have to lie so!?) What I said was that God cannot be proved -- anymore than Evolution or the Big Bang theories can be. But that's not the same thing as saying that God's existence cannot be logically inferred from the abundance of evidence that can be gleamed from his Natural and Special Revelations.

"Box, have you become a milder fanatic? You seemed so sure in thousands of posts of the will of God. Have you just been giving us all along, a gentlemanly head's up and an advisory about burning in hell? And that the evidence simply suggests that we will burn? Are you now saying "not to worry yourself too much about damnation. Hey it is just my humble opinion only"

As the Good Book says about God's will:

Mark 3:35
35 "For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother."
NASB

Unless Jesus Christ was a lunatic, who just escaped from some asylum, how would it be possible for him to expect people to do God's will if they had no way of kNOWING God's will? So, yes, I know God's revealed will -- fairly well.
But because you say that God's will cannot be known, then the really bad news is that you're not a brother of Christ. And he who has not the Son has not the Father either (1Jn 2:23). If you reject the Sent One, then you reject the Sender, as well.

Boxcar

[hcap]

So, yes, I know God's revealed will -- fairly well Just like you know how old the Universe is and that man co-existed with dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden? Or that magnets stick to refrigerator doors magically?

Suggestion, get the simple stuff right first.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Yes. That was interesting and informative.
Overcoming friction has always been a problem for those who've sought perpetual motion machines.
Then again boxcar should enjoy your post.
The Universe is in perpetual motion.

Too bad this didn't stay a thread about Pertetual Motion machines. The original post and the video was & still is quite interesting - thank you Hcap for that.

Not sure if this post was the invitation, but then Boxie slips in a statement of faith - nice, but may not have been needed, which some may consider thefirst, or others may consider one of the percursors to, the first fart in the fart fight the thread has mostly since become.

[Actor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell