Huge!

[Derek]

I can ask you all the same questions, but by swapping "religion" with "science."  Science hasn't answered anything either.  My point in this discussion is to try to convince the scientific thinkers to make the very clear distinction between "answers" / "explanations"  and  "laws" / "consistent behaviors."  Science gives us only the latter, and religion at least attempts to give us answers to the former.  Since science and religion have two separate goals, they are not even slightly mutually exclusive with one another.  But as you say, the vast majority of religious and scientific factions refuse to accept this obvious fact and continue to arrogantly assert either evolutionary theory or the bible to one another and declare the other is stupid, ignorant, or damned.

[prometheus]

I dont often get peeved BUT it so happens that I lodged with a masters level quantum physiscist who was a Christian and I happen to know several active scientists who do believe in 'creationism' so it isnt something I have just made up! These are highly intelligent people and ususally I drop out after the first 5 mins of conversation because I understand very little of science but they all conlude that there is no conlusive proof for the big band in fact they suggest that it is Highly unlikely and point out many inconsisencies in the theories.

Because of your past record I do not know if you are making this up or not. But let's say that you aren't.

At first I have the problem that I can't argue with anyone because you don't know anything and this person is not here.

I can tell you that at no university in the world it is taught that the big bang theory is highly unlikely. I have spoken with several astronomy professors and they all claim that the main idea of the big bang is rock solid and that they are at this point adjusting the small details. If you look at the history of the big bang theory, the christian friendly one and named 'big bang' by atheists to ridicule it, and its opponents, you will see why this is.
So you may claim the big bang theory is wrong. But that is just not the opinion of science. I am not saying the big bang theory is right becuase all of science says so. I say  it is right because based on observations of reality it is the best theory.

Yes, there is no conlusive proof. Science does not give conlusive proof, ever. No scientist can give me conlusive proof that if I release an apple it will drop to the ground and not fly up into the air.

You claim that you stop listening after 5 minutes. Then maybe you miss out this brainwashed, but intelligent, religious guy getting whiped around the room in argument. The fact that this person is religious and a student doesn't mean anything.

...they concur that it is much more rational to hold to a biblical view of Creation, which whilst not giving all the detail, gives a much more solid starting point for development - in their view.

Their view is wrong. And if you can give me their arguments I can say why. If you can't then your comment is useless. I don't know if this is a discussion tactic or not.

So before you go calling folks ignorant you should check your sources a bit better.

Which sources do I need to check? Do you assume that because this guy says things you don't understand and don't even try to listen to for more than 5 minutes it must be right? There are no scientific sources that say the things you claim these people say.

And yes, they are ignorant. Or they are just saying something else then you claim they are saying. Observe how you fused stupid and ignorant. You claimed that they are intelligent and therefore they can't be ignorant. This guy isn't taking astronomy. And if he did take astronomy he failed to learn anything. Otherwise he wouldn't have said the things you claim he said.

As for creationism providing a more solid basis for science. That's just absurd. If creationism were true the world would be totally different. If Genesis 1 and 2 had really happened the world today would look different. Genesis 1 and 2 contradict reality.

It is in theory possible to propose an alternative theory of creation. Maybe the persons you describe have one. But I don't know about it. I don't know any alternative creation theory alternative from the bible. As long as I don't have this theory I can't say anything about it. It would be interesting to see how this theory would handle all the evidence that seem to make the big bang theory rock solid. Not to mention darwinistic evolution. Darwinistic evolution is true. Why would a creator create a world and then add evolution? How do they work together. Etc.

If you dont want Christians to put forward biblical views on topics the bible speaks clearly about then you need to organise the heading of your threads better. Like 'a secular discussion of the big bang theory - no fundaentalist Christians allowed' - is one possible title.  I was under the misapprehension that this was an open forum??!

Maybe you should assume that every person that wants to discuss or talk about a subject would like to do that in an intelligent way and with somewhat informed people. That's what I do. Bibical views are barbaric and uninformed and to assume they are allowed in a discussion about a subject within the field of science is silly. It was already been proven to be a bronze age myth.

[prometheus]

I can ask you all the same questions, but by swapping "religion" with "science."  Science hasn't answered anything either.

Science doesn't do that. You know that. Science creates models of reality. If science couldn't do that it would be impossible for you to read this. Science doesn't answer questions outside its own territory. Questions science answers are things like 'what is the charge of an electron'.

So you can ask these questions by swapping sciecne and religion. But that wouldn't be fair. You claim religion can answer questions about our world science can't. If you do you need to answer this question.

Science does not make exceptions. Science doesn't demand you to suspend disbelief.

So I really don't see how you could say that you don't have to answer the questions I asked because science has them as well. Science doesn't. I don't see how you could have made this claim and I suspect you just say this because you refuse to answer these points. Fine, but then just admit it.

My point in this discussion is to try to convince the scientific thinkers to make the very clear distinction between "answers" / "explanations"  and  "laws" / "consistent behaviors."  Science gives us only the latter, and religion at least attempts to give us answers to the former.

Science has more wisdom by realising one shouldn't attempt to answer questions you can't answer. Imagine being a witness in a murder case. and the prosecuter asks you a question you do not know the answer to. Would it be right to just make something up? Or to make an educated guess and present it as fact?

Since science and religion have two separate goals,

No, traditionally the goal of religion was to explain the mystery. Now you may view this goal of religion is no longer valid but it used to be a goal of religion. I think religion has becomes obselete the moment you realise religion can't do that what science can.

...they are not even slightly mutually exclusive with one another.  But as you say, the vast majority of religious and scientific factions refuse to accept this obvious fact and continue to arrogantly assert either evolutionary theory or the bible to one another and declare the other is stupid, ignorant, or damned.

The bible and science clearly contradict each other. If you think everyone in the world who has an opinion about this and, as you correctly say almost exclusively think they do contradict, is arrogant then I have to call you arrogant. People have very very valid reasons to think they contradict. The bible says the earth in 6000 years old. Science has observed it to be 4.6 billion years. Amazing difference. The bible claims that birds were created before reptiles. Science knows birds only evolved about 70-60 million years ago while reptiles already existed almost 300 million years earlier. These things clearly contradict each other.
The bible claims there was a global flood. Reality lacks the signs science predicts we should see if there was a global flood 4000 years ago. Science also tells us a global flood is impossible.
Etc, etc etc.

[Derek]

The bible and science only contradict one another if one decides to interpret the bible literally. To do so without any further research would be great folly.  C.S. Lewis, who did much research in medieval literature, can spot mythological writing and historical writing a mile off in old texts.  Much of the Old Testament is written like a myth, to reveal truths which cannot be revealed through mere history.  The New Testament is written as a historical account of events. Furthermore, the miracles which occur in the new testament are more plausible (according to Lewis )than the Old Testament.   I'd have to type out the entire contents of his book "Miracles" to explain fully...however..

my point was not to use C.S. Lewis to assert the validity of miracles but merely to suggest that the Bible cannot be taken literally at face value.  Therefore it only can contradict science if we look at the bible with a very narrow point of view---which I recognize is in fact held by many Christians  (or heck, take any old religion, its text, and its fundamentalist believers).

[prometheus]

But interpreting the bible either literal or allegorical as you see fit has all kinds of problems. Furthermore, if Genesis didn't happen than Christ died for nothing, which did happen according to you?

Fact is that by taking a stance like this you still betray reason. But you betray faith as well. I don't understand it.

And if you think the OT is a myth then how can you believe in a biblical God?

Also, the NT is clearly a story containing themes that are commen to myth, even if it is based on actual historical events. You yourself say it contains miracles. Those miracles aren't historical, they are mythological.

Recognising old stories are pure fictional mythology, legend, or historic fact based on a text alone is impossible. If Jewis claimed to have this magical ability then what did he say about other ancient texts? Illiad for example...

Also, can a modern person understand an allegorical story written by someone living in the bronze age? I think one cannot because one does not understand the cultural references and bases of the story. A scholar can. But even these people disagree, meaning some of them are wrong.

As for a modern religious person. This person will not only lack their cultural frame. They will also be biased towards their own dogmas.

I can't see how ancient texts can have any religious function.

[pianistimo]

historical writers often use the same attention to detail as the writers of the bible - from ot to new.  for one thing, accurate and detailed geneology - of which cannot be refuted (as prometheus pointed out - we didn't live then - so how can we refute it?)  but, dna testing will do that for us.  convincingly making the bible both plausible and scientific as well as historical.

specific locations of specific groups of people are mentioned everywhere in the bible.  and, as has been done previously but inaccurately - we will see that the cradle of civilization was not in africa but iraq.  exactly where the garden of eden was centered (between the four rivers at the time - which are now two or three - and have the exact same names as mentioned in genesis).  how could the names of these rivers be the same from genesis to now - without God being the author of these rivers in the first place? 

[prometheus]

(as prometheus pointed out - we didn't live then - so how can we refute it?) 

Did I say that? I said we, and you as well, can't understand the bible alligorically because we lack the cultural context. The story would speak through symbolism and assosiations we just don't have.

How could the names of these rivers be the same from genesis to now - without God being the author of these rivers in the first place? 

I could do it right now. I would just pick up a pencil and write down the their names...

Or do you mean why the names didn't change? Well, maybe because of the bible. The names were written down and people continued to use them.


You are assuming that God wrote the bible while trying to argue just that. It's circular reasoning.

[pianistimo]

there's nothing circular about history.  it is written down and transcribed for us through history.  the books of moses were written down for the israelites during the time of the pharoahs of the pyramids.  you don't doubt those - undoubtedly?  in one of the pyramids a hyroglyphics to joseph (who sojourned in egypt) showing the seven years of plenty and the seven years of famine. 

try this site to see where the four rivers of genesis are located scientifically  - and accurately as FOUR rivers that converge at the site of eden.  www.ldolphin.org/eden

biblical archeology IS science.  the sites of most of the areas spoken of in the bible are STILL honored sites in and around the state of israel.  the tombs of the patriarchs (back to abraham and sarah).  the geneology is probably kept through lineage of some of the people still living there today.  the claim that israel was given to a certain people (the israelites) is a fact and not myth. 

[prometheus]

You are making no sense plus you are going off topic, as usual.

[debussy symbolism]

Its obvious that Pianistimo is uncomfortable with this discussion and would try again her desultory method of posting to evade such discussions herein. Or is it that...........Pianistimo doesn't have an argument to support her thoughts. Surely someone so devoted to a particular aspect of a religion will at all costs try to support their reasoning.

[pianistimo]

prometheus, i beg to differ with you.  off topic means off of fact.  you, my dear, are just as off based to me -as i am to you.  there is no proof for anything you say - and everything that i say is proven by having an absolute location or origination.

what say you about the pyramids.  are they nothing to you?  then, how about what is written down inside them?  how about the reality that joseph was a real person that God brought to israel and from whom (being one of the twelve brothers) the israelites originated.

if you truly want to refute me, i suggest travelling to egypt, israel, iraq, iran and turkey and various places in between.  there is much historical evidence for everything from israel in egypt to noahs ark.

[debussy symbolism]

He has more proof than you, as far as I am concerned. And by the way, to support my opinion, you haven't replied to any of my arguments against yours, so if you want to talk proof, then provide some.

[pianistimo]

what IS the proof?  reading a textbook?  the bible is history that is older than textbooks written and continuously modified because of inaccuracies found freqently in this modern present lying age.

is archeology NOT science?  what proof do you have - without travelling and knowing what i am talking about?  if you were an archeologist who has studied biblical history - and knows more than i do - you would not be so positve that the bible is myth!

[debussy symbolism]

It doesn't matter what the script say about God sending Moses or the twelve brothers, or whomever. Unless you have met those people, then you can't argue of their existence.

I haven't read much of the last replies so am sorry if I may talk something of another topic.

[pianistimo]

i feel that i am not talking with people who can reason.  i stated that archeology proves the bible is true because locations, names of peoples, places, rivers, you name it has NOT been proved inaccurate. 

if you wish to convince me with logic - prove the bible is myth.

[debussy symbolism]

The 'corrections' of which you speak of are merely free emendations to the text in accordance to the wants of the Church, to have followers like you argue that the text is nevertheless the word of God.

Yeah, modified. You just said the answer to your own inquiry. Modified. Sure, with more discoveries, more modifications occur. The more we know, the greater the "correction" in the text. Word of God, or word of angry church members upset over the proof that the "textbooks" are offering?

[debussy symbolism]

Reason? How can you even speak of reason when all you do is follow a script as holy, just because of certain locations have been proven to exist.

So what? Did you read my previous reply? There is plenty of evidence that many ancient cultures could have written the Bible, or any religious text for that matter. They may use patterns and logic to corrolate with the text that we have today. I will again mention the crystal skulls unearthed in Peru. That is a far stretching idea, but with more substance than the argument that the Bible was written by God.

[pianistimo]

i have been to israel and have seen how people float in the dead sea.  did you know that it is salty beyond belief - and that sodom and gommorrah were at the southern end of it.  supposing that biblical story of sodom and gommorrah is correct - the salt in the sea was a possible volcanic reaction that both caused 'fire and brimstone' to deaden the entire area until TODAY.

[debussy symbolism]

Okay. Yes, I do know about the saltiness of the Dead Sea. How does that support that the Biblical text is holy?

[pianistimo]

this is one of the earliest interventions of God in the history of mankind besides the establishing of the covenant between abraham and God.  it is a sort of beginning and end.  if the world is said to end this way - in many places (1/3 of the earth literally burned up - with earthquakes - which tend to incite volcanos - in various places).  this is happening today.  a huge change in the tectonics of our planet.  science is merely watching what God does.

now, what people most likely would say - is  'natural phenomenon.'  has been going on since the beginning of time.  but, how does one explain the unnaturalness of what is happening to the planet as we speak.  do you not 'feel' the spiritualness of our era?  do you not have this strange feeling that we are about to experience something BIG.  the earth cannot sustain itself the way it is currently.  even the weather patterns, and animal migrations are confused. 

[debussy symbolism]

Pianistimo, what is God. You say that "that is one of God's inventions", but in order for him to invent something, he must exist. To restate my hypothesis that I mentioned earlier, but apparently you have not read, in order for something to exist he must be somewhere. Where is he?

[pianistimo]

He is the sustainer of the universe.  Therefore He is everywhere.  nothing can live without Him.  He is the breath of life.  He can read our thoughts.  He can ride upon the heights - and yet also see into the darkness and depths of the ocean.  How can this be?  I don't know.  i feel like i am explaining a dr. seuss book.  Dr. seuss was confused, too.  and, yet, if you believe that whatever a person creates is so - why not what God creates - as so?

[debussy symbolism]

You just said it. If he is a sustainer of the universe, then he is merely but a law, a concept known as physics. Salvador Dali has made a great deal of paintings just illustrating this concept.

[pianistimo]

God is beyond His own laws - and yet chooses to live within them.  i think that is what prompted king david to write 'what is man, that You are mindful of him?'  the fact that God sustains His own laws means that they are real.  just as the courts today try to uphold the law.  God is both judge and arbiter of His own court.

[debussy symbolism]

If you abide by this theory that God is just the laws of physics, then you have just contradicted your religion. I suppose that you would argue that God is indeed outside of the matter of physics, so I will need further argument from you or anyone else that wishes to support the idea.

[debussy symbolism]

Thats what I have thought. Okay, if he is outside of the preconceived laws of the universe, just where exactly does he prove his presence. In a little place known as your mind?

[pianistimo]

He existed before creation.  How can I prove this?  well, if we always existed- just as He did - the earth would have been destroyed because the sun has a limit.  actually, the earth does too.  it is finite.  physical.  it was made and will return to nothing.  and then, the kingdom of God will be beyond physical.  SPIRIT.

[debussy symbolism]

I do not entirely understand what you mean by concerning  Him existing before us, but are you aware that if you would argue about Him being as infinity, then the only infinity you will find is just outside of space. To again reinstate my hypothesis, the "nothingness" outside of space is in fact nothing. It qualifies as infinite, if you will. However, if that "nothing" is indeed God, then wouldn't God be infact nothing?

[pianistimo]

in psych 101 - we learn about brains.  but, there is nothing in a sheeps brain as compared to a human brain that shows beyond a doubt that there is any anomoly that much different in our brain wiring.  what makes us human?  the breath of God - and His SPIRIT sustains our ability to think as a man/woman.  this is nothing that science will FIND a substitute for God's sustaining our brains, our lives, our sustenance, and our earth and heavens. 

if we literally lived by chance - we would have been hit by meteors a million times.  God is what scientist probably understand better than we do - what has been keeping us from getting hit and wiped out.  we see meteors right and left in space.  how come they never hit earth with great magnitude?

[pianistimo]

How do you know for a fact that outside of space there is NOTHING.  what if there is a whole new world to explore?  perhaps a new heavens and a new earth (as the old will pass away - rolled up like a tent)?  and the heavenly jerusalem - from above will be the capital.  real stones are said to make up the wall (jasper) 'and the city was pure gold'...etc.  we know this is possible - because places in iraq and in jerusalem have gold temples, etc.  and of course, the incas had the same.  what temple are they mimicking?  God's own dwelling.  He has made a house for himself and He is sharing it with us at the end of themillenial reign on earth (1000 years).  every man/woman/child will have a chance to be preached the gospel.

[debussy symbolism]

"Never hit Earth with great magnitude"? Perhaps if you'd open a different book aside the Bible, you would remember an incident known as The extinction of dinosaurs. Will never hit? Just wait. It is proven that it is very unlikely to hit, but will eventually do so unless we devote the money to built something that would deflect the meteor. Are you aware about our Earth's magnetic lines? Do you know what happens rougly every 100-200 thousand of years. The north and south poles switch, as one side burns out, the other steps in. We haven't had one for nearly 700 hundred years, which means that soon it will occur, as the magnetic poles are getting weak. Do you know what that would mean? That would mean that the poles will no longer absorb the sun's radiation, and that we will all be bombarded by it, thus increasing the rates of cancer. Has the Bible said anything about that? If it has, I am sure you were to busy reading it and not actually looking outside for what is really going on, with both the meteors and magnetic poles.

[debussy symbolism]

Maybe if you picked up another book you would know if there is a new world to explore or not. Who knows, maybe there is, but not knowing anything about it will surely not improve you chances of actually realizing anything.

[pianistimo]

very interesting what you say, debussy symbolism.  i respect your scientific knowledge.  i think it proves the parts of revelations that speak of the sun increasing intensity and mankind cursing God for it.  rev. 16:8 'and men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues; and they did not repent, so as to give Him glory.'

because you are among the people who understand the theories behind WHY the sun will scorch with intensity - it doesn't discredit that God created this phenomenon in the first place.  merely, that the time has come for the poles to shift and this to occur.

there is also, according to revelations, a storehouse of hail (comets, meteors?) 'and huge hailstones, about one hundred pounds each, came down from heaven upon men; and men blasphemed God becuase of the plague of hail (i think it's called hail - because the prophet John didn't know anything similar to it BUT hail), because it's plague was extremely severe.

islands are said to flee away and 'mountains were not found.'  this is a huge shift in our earth as we know it.  that is because 'every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain made a plain'  in preparation for the return of our God.

[phil13]

OMG

ALL OF YOU

SHUT UP
SHUT UP
SHUT UP
SHUT UP
SHUT UP
SHUT UP
SHUT UP
SHUT UP
SHUT UP



I HAVE NOT READ A SINGLE THING BESIDES THE *** PRO-GOD/ANTI-GOD ARGUMENT FOR THE LAST 50 POSTS!

You people make me sick, spewing argument after argument after argument and making ridiculously off-topic tangents that go for miles without saying anything that hasn't been said 50,000 TIMES in some form or another. If you go back to post ZERO, you will realize that this thread, in fact, is NOT about religion (GASP what a surprise!) and should not involve God, or the lack thereof, or whatever the hell you believe or don't believe.

SO PLEASE SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!

Phil

[debussy symbolism]

The Bible's explanations are very equivocal and thus devoid of true meaning. The "were scorced with fiece heat" might just, if not more likely, mean solar flares. Solar flares are mearly energy given off of the Sun at certain points, thus appearing as the aurora bourealis, or the "Northern lights". These solar flares can scorch our satelites, thus rendering all of our communication useless and driving us back a century. With our primal dependancy on technology, we would be helpless, as our society isn't as self efficient as it was some time ago. That poses a bigger problem than the Earth's magnetic poles shifting, as we will have no food, no electricity, no communication. The Bible isn't so sure here now is it?

[pianistimo]

if you are not interested, why are you reading this?  is it because you know that you are among those on planet earth that might be affected and it bothers you?

debussysymbolism - just because i cannot predict HOW God will do something - doesn't mean that it can't happen in one or another or several ways at once.

if we are finite (born to die) and we only live 80 some years at best - how can we know much of anything.  of course there are scientific advancements and they are becoming more and more rapid -but at the same time - war and disillusionment of the human capacity to create peace on the earth.  why the dichotomy?  so much knowledge, so little peace?

[debussy symbolism]

OMG

ALL OF YOU

SHUT UP
SHUT UP
SHUT UP
SHUT UP
SHUT UP
SHUT UP
SHUT UP
SHUT UP
SHUT UP



I HAVE NOT READ A SINGLE THING BESIDES THE *** PRO-GOD/ANTI-GOD ARGUMENT FOR THE LAST 50 POSTS!

You people make me sick, spewing argument after argument after argument and making ridiculously off-topic tangents that go for miles without saying anything that hasn't been said 50,000 TIMES in some form or another. If you go back to post ZERO, you will realize that this thread, in fact, is NOT about religion (GASP what a surprise!) and should not involve God, or the lack thereof, or whatever the hell you believe or don't believe.

SO PLEASE SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!

Phil

Ah I was waiting for one of those.

[phil13]

if you are not interested, why are you reading this? is it because you know that you are among those on planet earth that might be affected and it bothers you?

Uh, let me put it this way...

I AM INTERESTED, BUT IN THE ORIGINAL TOPIC, NOT IN YOUR INTERNET CRUSADES NOR IN THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST YOU.

Phil

[debussy symbolism]

Hey, Pianistimo has started it.

[pianistimo]

as i see it - revelations is being fulfilled right now.  did you know babylon was prophecied to fall?  it is in rev. 18:8 'for this reason in one day her plagues will come, pestilence and mourning (after the bombings - disease and mourning), and she will be burned up with fire; for the Lord God who judges her  is strong.  and the kings of the earth, who committed acts of immorality and lived sensuously with her, will weep and lament over her when they see the smoke of her burning (obvously losing oil), standing at a distance because of the fear of her torment, saying 'woe woe the great city, Babylon, the strong city! for in one hour your judgement has come.'

it is interesting at the same hour (or slightly before) our own system of babylon fell. the one that held monetary interest for the world. 

these things may seem as insignificant as WWI and WWII - but if they precede WWIII - we have something to worry about.  unless, of course, Christ cuts the time short and returns to His people.  the people that trust and look to Him for safety.  science cannot save you.  therefore -you should be interested.

[debussy symbolism]

Phil, you find this forum repetitive. How about having to scroll down the association thread and have to see you contributing every 3rd post.

[phil13]

How about when I come onto THIS post and see you and Pianistimo basically duking it out to see whether God rules over all or Science rules over all? At least in the word association thread all my posts are different to some degree.

Phil

[pianistimo]

.

[debussy symbolism]

Pianistimo, the holy text is most likely also science, primarily developed by ancient civilizations. I have some evidence that may assure you in my hypothesis. Along side the crystal skulls, it has been understood that they would guide the humanity in hard times. What makes you think that the Bible isn't just an offspring of such a civilization. It might as well be a crystal skull on paper.

[pianistimo]

crystal skulls don't equal HOLY SPIRIT.

[debussy symbolism]

How about when I come onto THIS post and see you and Pianistimo basically duking it out to see whether God rules over all or Science rules over all? At least in the word association thread all my posts are different to some degree.

Phil

And aren't you a bit curious to see the outcome, should it be one? Personaly, I am not too excited to see random words be toggled back and forth guided with no meaning. At least our argument here has a meaning that has desputed for quite some time now, much like the association thread I guess.

[debussy symbolism]

Oh and the Bible does? For all you know, the crystal skulls might contain the same information that the Bible contains. Are the crystal skulls holy then?

[phil13]

And aren't you a bit curious to see the outcome, should it be one? Personaly, I am not too excited to see random words be toggled back and forth guided with no meaning. At least our argument here has a meaning that has desputed for quite some time now, much like the association thread I guess.

To be PERFECTLY honest, I don't really give a damn.

Personally, I would rather restrict my posts to the word association thread than have to sit through another religious debate. The only reason I don't do so is because I've got to support my claim that this is absolutely pointless, completely off-topic, and furthermore, it will be the end of time before either of you reaches a suitable conclusion for one another.

You are familiar with science, yes? Surely you know then, what happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object.

Phil

[debussy symbolism]

As serious this thread may seem, there is no reason the malign others Phil. In any case, no one is forcing you to look at this thread. No one is forcing you to not restrict yourself to only the association thread. If you indeed "not give a (censored)", then why post in this thread at all. You could just ignore it. Unless, you do in fact give that (censored) and are interested in the outcome or the thread in general.

[debussy symbolism]

Irresistable force and an immovable object? That is fascinating. Much like the "can God create a stone that he himself cannot lift" idea. Would you like to go into that debate? I would think not. That question has no answer as far as I know, and its pretty evident. However, we are yet to reach a conclusion in this debate so that future debates may not suffer similar fates or such. It is curious as to the opinions of others.