Izzy

The egg where the chicken hatched from. I don't actually know (and couldn't find) the exact animal the chicken evolved from, but whatever that animal was, it laid an egg, which had a gene mutation, and from that egg came the chicken.

It says Adam ate the apple, and God said he would die. A few verses later, it said God sent him to the ground, where he was taken. 'Taken' sounds like 'taken away/killed' to me.

[My emphasis..] Similes, what fun. My interpretation: 1000 years feels like a day to God, because as I said, he's outside space and time. However, omniscient-god should be aware of time on human-land, and kill people as he said he would. Apparently he's either forgetful, lazy, or doesn't know everything. He should also have known, when the bible was being written, that I would one day raise this point, and have adjusted it to be literal and not a figure of speech. You could say this is a test of my faith. I'll say this is why I have no faith. He doesn't give us much choice, really, if he's constantly contradicting himself and taking away from his 'perfection'. 1. Perfect beings do not make mistakes. 2. God has apparently made mistakes. 3. Therefore God isn't perfect. 4. To exist, God has to be perfect. 5. God isn't perfect, and therefore doesn't exist.

Reference please? *edit* Actually, you know what? If God is claimed to exist outside of time and space, and he's omni-everything and hence past, present, and future, there should be no such thing as a 'day' to God. He could calculate days the same way we do, for simplicity reasons, but if we weren't here, there would be no need for a calender-system for God. The '1000 years is a day to God' was probably made exactly for this purpose and ones like it. Either way, reference would be nice.

Nope, you were spied on. Man, I was so tempted to send you a "Hehehe, still want to know what spy I claim to be? Why, the Oracle of course. " PM, but I was scared that there could be some bring back the dead/talk to the dead/etc. secret ability.

In response to No1slight's counterargument: 1. The point is, it's said that when Adam eats from the tree, he will die that day. 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. [...] 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. So um, I don't actually know how old Adam was at that point, but I skimmed chapters one and two (have to admit, this is slightly interesting), and apparently he was created right after God finished making the Earth. So, I'm going to guess not a lot of time has passed, certainly not 900+ years before they eat from the tree. However... 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. 2. Actually, I'm not liking the second argument on that site. Mind, I didn't write them, and didn't bother to check through all of them. This one was pretty much two verses taken completely out of context. I apologize for it's crappy-ness. However, I have noticed God asking a lot of questions. Particularly this: 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. . I suppose you could say this is some sort of "confession" thing, but Cain pretty clearly lied to God (4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? ), so I expected something a bit more God-of-the-old-testament-y, ie, vicious, cruel, and foul. Any response to the Young Earth creationism thing?

Umm... Like Genesis and Matthew and er... yeah, those books. Just look at the site I linked to. It should clear things up.

I actually looked at that as God either really just being a 'God of the gaps' or his way of saying God doesn't exist, because space is pretty much nothing. I guess it was cleverly disguised in poem-ish form?

Okay, looking at the website and skipping over the anti-proofs Octopuppy has already done, here we go. To be honest, I think the rest of the 'arguments' fall apart with what I've included in the spoiler. It's essentially just all 'the bible is true' stuff, and we can clearly see it's not. It's not even consistent with all the books.

Heh, I have a pretty funny one that got me an extra three days to write an essay. It probably won't sound that funny, but it was hilarious in class today. So, we had a 2000 word essay due today, on a topic of our choice, which I totally forgot about because I've been out the last three days. The teacher, annoyed, said I could hand it in tomorrow. At the end of class, I was all, "Er.. can I have an extension?" She said definitely not. Then I was like "Meh, fine. I could go home and write something terribly long, on a topic that wouldn't interest you at all, it being pretty much crap for my standards, but still get an A. Orrr, you could give me until Monday so I have the weekend to write it, it of course, being epic. But yeah, I'll hand it in tomorrow. *walks away*" She calls for me. Then says not to let her down, and gives me until Monday.

Not quite though. By 'always been here', I pretty much mean since the start of the universe. Math wasn't floating around in soul-form before we got here. Eh. In a figurative sense, it's really no different from comparing Bush to a clown, because they're both juggling stuff and making people laugh, while leading sad and depressive lives, both in too much denial to realize it.

The laws of nature are constant, and we didn't invent anything. We just studied those laws and split them up into different groups, each specific to certain laws. Math would generally be all these constants, expressed mathematically (we did make the numbers up, but not that values, so even if they were to be presented differently, they'd be the same), and applied to physics, biology, chemistry, etc. So basically physics etc. are the sciences, math is just the underlying framework. Math is the ultimate science, the rest are just little sub-sciences, using math to get along. For biology, we studied things related to each other, in this case all life, and gave it a name. As you said, the biology would remain the same whether studies or given a name or not. But yeah, basically, math wasn't created for science, all science just deal with math because they're math in other forms. Which is why math > everything, except maybe the universe itself. I still don't think we've come to the agreement that math > everything, but let's pretend we have. Just because the math is possible, doesn't mean it'll work in the universe. The trees in my yard could grow infinitely tall if we were just looking at the math. But you have to take gravity, lack of resources, lack of space, etc. into account, which makes it impossible. According to the math, I could grow infinitely old. The math doesn't consider my death. If you look to the model to exclude the end, what's the point? It's like saying I'll live infinitely long, because once I die, who cares, the model held 'til the end. Too be fair, this is more of a biology question than something I'd consider a riddle. It was merely put into riddle form. The answer was cell division, but the OP/answer ignored real-life constraints. Because these were not taken into account, I'm not going to accept the answer. This isn't just some mind game or thought experiment. Of course it could work in my head. I walk through space in jeans and a t-shirt in my head. The answer is fallacious, and therefore wrong.

Math wasn't created for science! Math wasn't even created! Read my above post.. Exactly. The OP argued that cells could divide infinitely. This is clearly wrong. Therefore, I was right.

Go to a search engine of your choice. Find me a compelling argument. Post it here.

^I suppose the generalization 'science' would include all divisions of science, math apparently being among these. As long as we can agree math pwns the rest, I'm not too bothered.

Is this better?

Newton didn't invent calculus, he discovered it. The same way pi, i, e, etc. were discovered. The math has always been here, we've just created a language out of it to make it more understandable. 'Only recently did it become its own entity' is like going back to when the electrons were discovered and blowing them off completely, because 'only recently did they become their own entity'.

Hey now, goodness is in the eye of the beholder.

What do you mean what's the point? Math isn't a tool for scientists, math is greater than all science, just scientists use a small portion of it. Math isn't "for" anything, it's the only pure intellectual endeavor. If some physicist/biologist wants to come along and use our system then fine, but it wasn't derived for that, nor is it maintained or changed for that. Math is pure, perfect, and proven. It's not just some scientific model. Math pwns everything.

But that's what I was trying to point out earlier. We don't live in some some picture-perfect artificial universe with magical circumstances fine-tuned to support life. The only way that you could get an infinite amount of people is if the human race bred unchecked, and was sufficiently supplied with food, space etc, for an infinite amount of time. None of that is going on. I suppose for food, cannibalism could take place, but the Earth doesn't have enough water (seeing as it's a fixed amount) to support an infinite amount of people. Humans take up a finite amount of space, and the amount of space that is habitable for a living person is finite. Even if we extend our species to Mars, and other 'Goldilocks Zone Planets', eventually we'll overpopulate them, and not have any more places to retreat to because we don't have the technology/whatever to get there. It's the same with cells, except cells aren't conscious, and can't go anywhere else when there isn't any room for them. So even theoretically, no, it could never happen. A model is just an approximation of what the real thing is, and since this model couldn't happen in the real-world, it's irrelevant.

2+2=5 For very large quantities of 2.

Sorry Brandon. Yeah, it was a weird conspiracy, but we really did think you were a double-agent. >_>

Cheers.

Pssh, I'm an excellent liar.