On 18/04/2026 7:41 am, sticks wrote:
On 4/15/2026 3:56 PM, sticks wrote:
If you haven't read it, I would suggest "Did God Use
Evolution...Observations from a Scientist of Faith" by Dr. Werner
Gitt. It is a fairly quick read, and he does write a chapter on 'The
Consequences of Theistic Evolution' that explain the error in the ways
of people exactly like the Emperor.a It might also help you in your
understanding of things.a It's a solid book.
I wanted to add a couple things for you, Mark.a Saying he writes a
chapter on Theistic evolution is probably a mischaracterization of
sorts.a For me, the whole book lays out his beliefs in the problems
arising for the Christian in Theistic evolution.a But his process of
doing so, is similar to what I went through, which I'd like to explain
for you.
I've said before, three things are the most important for me in deciding
how to move forward in my daily life.a Dr. Gitt touches on all three.
The first is the origins of the universe.a I know the materialists have
rightly recognized they have to explain where the stuff that went bang
came from, and have moved into the quantum realm.a It's great science
and I love the thought of understanding how things might work.a Yet, for
me they've still not given a workable theory how it could have started
from truly nothing.a They've just made the parts smaller.a At least
we've gotten to what is believed to be the smallest particles there is.
It is a step the naturalist would deem absurd, but I am in the camp that
has decided it couldn't have happened on it's own.a To believe otherwise
one would have to give the property of being eternal to something,
something material in one way or another.a I could start the next step
here in moving forward it is so conclusive for me, but I use two others.
Steady state / eternal universe models have been largely rejected AFAIK. >Penrose attempts to solve the entropy problem of a cyclic model, but it >seems to involve mathematical gymnastics out of ideological desperation
to avoid a beginning (with the implication of a creator).
Second is the initial conditions and fine tuning of the universe, along
with our specific place in it and the properties of our planet.a The
Anthropic principle is what I would say if I was a naturalist, and I
would run from the Multiverse hypothesis.a Neither cuts it for me, and
the fine tuning actually rolls into the origin of the universe for me.
I wrote a computer program to solve the N-body problem, and then
graphically superimposed multiple "universes", each with a slightly >different gravitational constant G. Even varying that one physical
parameter highlighted that mechanism and and possibly design is required
to create a suitably varied multiverse. It shifts the problem rather
than solving it. (A First Cause is wrongly interpreted as doing the same >thing.)
Third, the origin of life, though most likely outside of complete
scientific exploration, is something that cannot be explained by natural
processes for me.a I love the research into it, as it keeps giving us
the amazing discoveries like the real complexity of the cell.a It would
be a much longer discussion than this post permits, but the origin of
DNA and the where the initial information came from alone for me is
evidence of intelligent design.a Again, the research is great.a It
continues to show just how powerful and intelligent the designer was.
OOL seems to me to be an area where science will (already does) point >compellingly to supernatural agency.
So after concluding these three things could not arise by natural means,
yes, I go looking for what could have caused them.a This is where we get
to that dirty word.....the Supernaturala <gasp!>
First, I look at how through our known history humanity has processed
thinking about a creator.a What were their beliefs and what religions
rose from them.a "Many Infallible Proofs" by Henry M. Morris III, aside
from being a great book, does exactly this and gives a relatively short,
but precise accounting of all the major religions we know today.a I have
chosen and am a Christian.a The Bible's historical accuracy, the widely
accepted correctness to known original manuscript, prophecy, and the way
the apostles lived after witnessing the resurrected Christ are all
powerful motivation for me.a But most important, obviously, are the
Messianic prophecies.a I have accepted all the above and truly belief
Jesus was resurrected and fulfilled these prophecies.
It's all a personal choice, and I don't care if anyone else has a
similar belief or not.a I'm not a preacher.a The only reason I am even
bringing this up is because I have said I would explain why people who
do things like what the Emperor does are wrong.a This is where it gets
to the point, I know, finally.a Once I accepted Christ, it came with the
realization that he himself supported the whole of Jewish scripture as
the direct word of God.a As Dr. Gitt put it in this book, oThe special
key to understanding Scripture is given by GodAs Son himself. Jesus
states that His words will never pass away (Matt. 24: 35). He guarantees
that everything that has been written will be fulfilled (Luke 18: 31).
He authorized all the meaningful elements of the text of the Bible
(e.g., Luke 16: 17) and confirmed that all biblical accounts described
real historical events, for example the creation of the first human
couple (Matt. 19: 4u5), the universality of the Flood and the
destruction of all air-breathing creatures (Matt. 24: 38u39), and the
history of Jonah (Matt. 12: 40u41).oa When people here claim we like
being lied to, I just laugh.a I have made my choice in who I believe.a I
believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.
Yet, while my faith does influence the things I'm willing to accept,
that does not mean I refuse to listen to science.a The difference
between someone like me and theistic evolutionists lies right here.
People like the Emperor demand others accept their interpretations of
everything, and he especially seems to revel in saying flat out that The
Bible is wrong.a I will never do that.a I may not understand things
completely, but I believe there will be a time I will, which is
obviously after my death.
Once you make the decisions like I have, yes, you look at things
completely differently.a The materialist cannot do this.a He has to
figure out things on the assumption that all this came about on its own,
and there was nothing supernatural involved.a I don't have to do that. I
don't have to accept geological uniformitarianism, I can question the
assumptions made in accepting Radiometric dating, I can consider
evidence along the lines of thousands of years instead of millions, and
yes, I can believe you can't get something from nothing, and that
includes not only the universe, but life itself.a I don't care if others
share my beliefs.a It is what I have to do to live with myself, and try
to honor my creator.
This is getting too long for the other thing about Dr. Gitt's book I
wanted to comment on.a I'll do that for you in another post.
Thanks for sharing. That is similar to own experience and position. As
I've mentioned here before, I have a strong leaning to an OEC timeline, >scepticism about macroevolution, and an incomplete reconciliation of >scientific data and the Bible, and therefore an openness to a range of >explanations (despite presumptions to the contrary).
From my own study, the doctrines of Christianity are unique among world
religions: the incarnation, penal substitutionary atonement,
resurrection, salvation by grace alone. The historicity of Christianity
is contended in part, but is also surprisingly well-attested in many
areas. But, as you say, personal faith lies at the heart being a
Christian. Faith in this context is not belief in the absence of
evidence, but rather trust in the person of Jesus Christ to atone for my >sin, and a response to surrender my life to him and follow him in love
and obedience.
Science leads me to glimpse in a some small way the glory of God,
whether in the intricacies of a single cell or trillions of them
assembled into a human, bearing the image of our creator.
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 19:09:21 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2026 7:41 am, sticks wrote:
On 4/15/2026 3:56 PM, sticks wrote:
If you haven't read it, I would suggest "Did God Use
Evolution...Observations from a Scientist of Faith" by Dr. Werner
Gitt. It is a fairly quick read, and he does write a chapter on 'The
Consequences of Theistic Evolution' that explain the error in the ways >>>> of people exactly like the Emperor.-a It might also help you in your
understanding of things.-a It's a solid book.
I wanted to add a couple things for you, Mark.-a Saying he writes a
chapter on Theistic evolution is probably a mischaracterization of
sorts.-a For me, the whole book lays out his beliefs in the problems
arising for the Christian in Theistic evolution.-a But his process of
doing so, is similar to what I went through, which I'd like to explain
for you.
I've said before, three things are the most important for me in deciding >>> how to move forward in my daily life.-a Dr. Gitt touches on all three.
The first is the origins of the universe.-a I know the materialists have >>> rightly recognized they have to explain where the stuff that went bang
came from, and have moved into the quantum realm.-a It's great science
and I love the thought of understanding how things might work.-a Yet, for >>> me they've still not given a workable theory how it could have started
from truly nothing.-a They've just made the parts smaller.-a At least
we've gotten to what is believed to be the smallest particles there is.
It is a step the naturalist would deem absurd, but I am in the camp that >>> has decided it couldn't have happened on it's own.-a To believe otherwise >>> one would have to give the property of being eternal to something,
something material in one way or another.-a I could start the next step
here in moving forward it is so conclusive for me, but I use two others.
Steady state / eternal universe models have been largely rejected AFAIK.
Penrose attempts to solve the entropy problem of a cyclic model, but it
seems to involve mathematical gymnastics out of ideological desperation
to avoid a beginning (with the implication of a creator).
Eternal inflation has not been ruled out, and inflation (rather than Penrose's cyclic model) seems to have solved the entropy problem. And
you're confusing a commitment to *scientific explanations* with
desperation to avoid a creator (whatever that's supposed to entail).
Second is the initial conditions and fine tuning of the universe, along
with our specific place in it and the properties of our planet.-a The
Anthropic principle is what I would say if I was a naturalist, and I
would run from the Multiverse hypothesis.-a Neither cuts it for me, and
the fine tuning actually rolls into the origin of the universe for me.
I wrote a computer program to solve the N-body problem, and then
graphically superimposed multiple "universes", each with a slightly
different gravitational constant G. Even varying that one physical
parameter highlighted that mechanism and and possibly design is required
to create a suitably varied multiverse. It shifts the problem rather
than solving it. (A First Cause is wrongly interpreted as doing the same
thing.)
What language did you use? And did you think the well-documented "Fine-tuning" of the constants might not be true, leading to your simulations? And there is no need for need for anything to create a "suitably varied multiverse."
Third, the origin of life, though most likely outside of complete
scientific exploration, is something that cannot be explained by natural >>> processes for me.-a I love the research into it, as it keeps giving us
the amazing discoveries like the real complexity of the cell.-a It would >>> be a much longer discussion than this post permits, but the origin of
DNA and the where the initial information came from alone for me is
evidence of intelligent design.-a Again, the research is great.-a It
continues to show just how powerful and intelligent the designer was.
OOL seems to me to be an area where science will (already does) point
compellingly to supernatural agency.
Or it's compelling evidence for natural agency, as *both ideas per se*
are not very well-defined and for that reason have equal "explanatory"
power. Also, why should the laws of physics be required to avoid
producing large, stable universes? And scientists are interested in
moving beyond "a natural law did it" and do research to that end. How
does "a supernatural agency did it" go beyond that statement?
So after concluding these three things could not arise by natural means, >>> yes, I go looking for what could have caused them.-a This is where we get >>> to that dirty word.....the Supernatural-a <gasp!>
First, I look at how through our known history humanity has processed
thinking about a creator.-a What were their beliefs and what religions
rose from them.-a "Many Infallible Proofs" by Henry M. Morris III, aside >>> from being a great book, does exactly this and gives a relatively short, >>> but precise accounting of all the major religions we know today.-a I have >>> chosen and am a Christian.-a The Bible's historical accuracy, the widely >>> accepted correctness to known original manuscript, prophecy, and the way >>> the apostles lived after witnessing the resurrected Christ are all
powerful motivation for me.-a But most important, obviously, are the
Messianic prophecies.-a I have accepted all the above and truly belief
Jesus was resurrected and fulfilled these prophecies.
It's all a personal choice, and I don't care if anyone else has a
similar belief or not.-a I'm not a preacher.-a The only reason I am even >>> bringing this up is because I have said I would explain why people who
do things like what the Emperor does are wrong.-a This is where it gets
to the point, I know, finally.-a Once I accepted Christ, it came with the >>> realization that he himself supported the whole of Jewish scripture as
the direct word of God.-a As Dr. Gitt put it in this book, rCLThe special >>> key to understanding Scripture is given by GodrCOs Son himself. Jesus
states that His words will never pass away (Matt. 24: 35). He guarantees >>> that everything that has been written will be fulfilled (Luke 18: 31).
He authorized all the meaningful elements of the text of the Bible
(e.g., Luke 16: 17) and confirmed that all biblical accounts described
real historical events, for example the creation of the first human
couple (Matt. 19: 4rCo5), the universality of the Flood and the
destruction of all air-breathing creatures (Matt. 24: 38rCo39), and the
history of Jonah (Matt. 12: 40rCo41).rCY-a When people here claim we like >>> being lied to, I just laugh.-a I have made my choice in who I believe.-a I >>> believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.
Yet, while my faith does influence the things I'm willing to accept,
that does not mean I refuse to listen to science.-a The difference
between someone like me and theistic evolutionists lies right here.
People like the Emperor demand others accept their interpretations of
everything, and he especially seems to revel in saying flat out that The >>> Bible is wrong.-a I will never do that.-a I may not understand things
completely, but I believe there will be a time I will, which is
obviously after my death.
Once you make the decisions like I have, yes, you look at things
completely differently.-a The materialist cannot do this.-a He has to
figure out things on the assumption that all this came about on its own, >>> and there was nothing supernatural involved.-a I don't have to do that. I >>> don't have to accept geological uniformitarianism, I can question the
assumptions made in accepting Radiometric dating, I can consider
evidence along the lines of thousands of years instead of millions, and
yes, I can believe you can't get something from nothing, and that
includes not only the universe, but life itself.-a I don't care if others >>> share my beliefs.-a It is what I have to do to live with myself, and try >>> to honor my creator.
This is getting too long for the other thing about Dr. Gitt's book I
wanted to comment on.-a I'll do that for you in another post.
Thanks for sharing. That is similar to own experience and position. As
I've mentioned here before, I have a strong leaning to an OEC timeline,
scepticism about macroevolution, and an incomplete reconciliation of
scientific data and the Bible, and therefore an openness to a range of
explanations (despite presumptions to the contrary).
From my own study, the doctrines of Christianity are unique among world
religions: the incarnation, penal substitutionary atonement,
resurrection, salvation by grace alone. The historicity of Christianity
is contended in part, but is also surprisingly well-attested in many
areas. But, as you say, personal faith lies at the heart being a
Christian. Faith in this context is not belief in the absence of
evidence, but rather trust in the person of Jesus Christ to atone for my
sin, and a response to surrender my life to him and follow him in love
and obedience.
Uniqueness does not equal truth, Christian theology does not make
sense (it just uses emotionally laden terms to prop up its
conclusions), other religions have unique aspects, and you are unable
to explain why you continue to sin after accepting Jesus.
Science leads me to glimpse in a some small way the glory of God,
whether in the intricacies of a single cell or trillions of them
assembled into a human, bearing the image of our creator.
From a parody of that idea, we have:
"All things dull and ugly
All creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty
The Lord God made the lot"
Is that the image of your creator?
On 20/04/2026 1:36 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 19:09:21 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2026 7:41 am, sticks wrote:
On 4/15/2026 3:56 PM, sticks wrote:Steady state / eternal universe models have been largely rejected AFAIK. >>> Penrose attempts to solve the entropy problem of a cyclic model, but it
If you haven't read it, I would suggest "Did God Use
Evolution...Observations from a Scientist of Faith" by Dr. Werner
Gitt. It is a fairly quick read, and he does write a chapter on 'The >>>>> Consequences of Theistic Evolution' that explain the error in the ways >>>>> of people exactly like the Emperor.a It might also help you in your
understanding of things.a It's a solid book.
I wanted to add a couple things for you, Mark.a Saying he writes a
chapter on Theistic evolution is probably a mischaracterization of
sorts.a For me, the whole book lays out his beliefs in the problems
arising for the Christian in Theistic evolution.a But his process of
doing so, is similar to what I went through, which I'd like to explain >>>> for you.
I've said before, three things are the most important for me in deciding >>>> how to move forward in my daily life.a Dr. Gitt touches on all three.
The first is the origins of the universe.a I know the materialists have >>>> rightly recognized they have to explain where the stuff that went bang >>>> came from, and have moved into the quantum realm.a It's great science
and I love the thought of understanding how things might work.a Yet, for >>>> me they've still not given a workable theory how it could have started >>>> from truly nothing.a They've just made the parts smaller.a At least
we've gotten to what is believed to be the smallest particles there is. >>>> It is a step the naturalist would deem absurd, but I am in the camp that >>>> has decided it couldn't have happened on it's own.a To believe otherwise >>>> one would have to give the property of being eternal to something,
something material in one way or another.a I could start the next step >>>> here in moving forward it is so conclusive for me, but I use two others. >>>
seems to involve mathematical gymnastics out of ideological desperation
to avoid a beginning (with the implication of a creator).
Eternal inflation has not been ruled out, and inflation (rather than
Penrose's cyclic model) seems to have solved the entropy problem. And
you're confusing a commitment to *scientific explanations* with
desperation to avoid a creator (whatever that's supposed to entail).
Second is the initial conditions and fine tuning of the universe, along >>>> with our specific place in it and the properties of our planet.a The
Anthropic principle is what I would say if I was a naturalist, and I
would run from the Multiverse hypothesis.a Neither cuts it for me, and >>>> the fine tuning actually rolls into the origin of the universe for me.
I wrote a computer program to solve the N-body problem, and then
graphically superimposed multiple "universes", each with a slightly
different gravitational constant G. Even varying that one physical
parameter highlighted that mechanism and and possibly design is required >>> to create a suitably varied multiverse. It shifts the problem rather
than solving it. (A First Cause is wrongly interpreted as doing the same >>> thing.)
What language did you use? And did you think the well-documented
"Fine-tuning" of the constants might not be true, leading to your
simulations? And there is no need for need for anything to create a
"suitably varied multiverse."
C++. To "try out" all possible universes (or a some portion thereof),
you need a mechanism to not only generate all possible combinations, but
you need mechanism to generate universes full stop, and to do so while >varying the physical constants.
That's an explosion of additional
complexity with no empirical support,
rightly categorised as metaphysics
rather than science (interesting though it may be).
What is the origin of the universe-generating machine?
Third, the origin of life, though most likely outside of complete
scientific exploration, is something that cannot be explained by natural >>>> processes for me.a I love the research into it, as it keeps giving us
the amazing discoveries like the real complexity of the cell.a It would >>>> be a much longer discussion than this post permits, but the origin of
DNA and the where the initial information came from alone for me is
evidence of intelligent design.a Again, the research is great.a It
continues to show just how powerful and intelligent the designer was.
OOL seems to me to be an area where science will (already does) point
compellingly to supernatural agency.
Or it's compelling evidence for natural agency, as *both ideas per se*
are not very well-defined and for that reason have equal "explanatory"
power. Also, why should the laws of physics be required to avoid
producing large, stable universes? And scientists are interested in
moving beyond "a natural law did it" and do research to that end. How
does "a supernatural agency did it" go beyond that statement?
Many of my posts (and others) here address this.
So after concluding these three things could not arise by natural means, >>>> yes, I go looking for what could have caused them.a This is where we get >>>> to that dirty word.....the Supernaturala <gasp!>
First, I look at how through our known history humanity has processed
thinking about a creator.a What were their beliefs and what religions
rose from them.a "Many Infallible Proofs" by Henry M. Morris III, aside >>>> from being a great book, does exactly this and gives a relatively short, >>>> but precise accounting of all the major religions we know today.a I have >>>> chosen and am a Christian.a The Bible's historical accuracy, the widely >>>> accepted correctness to known original manuscript, prophecy, and the way >>>> the apostles lived after witnessing the resurrected Christ are all
powerful motivation for me.a But most important, obviously, are the
Messianic prophecies.a I have accepted all the above and truly belief
Jesus was resurrected and fulfilled these prophecies.
It's all a personal choice, and I don't care if anyone else has a
similar belief or not.a I'm not a preacher.a The only reason I am even >>>> bringing this up is because I have said I would explain why people who >>>> do things like what the Emperor does are wrong.a This is where it gets >>>> to the point, I know, finally.a Once I accepted Christ, it came with the >>>> realization that he himself supported the whole of Jewish scripture as >>>> the direct word of God.a As Dr. Gitt put it in this book, oThe special >>>> key to understanding Scripture is given by GodAs Son himself. Jesus
states that His words will never pass away (Matt. 24: 35). He guarantees >>>> that everything that has been written will be fulfilled (Luke 18: 31). >>>> He authorized all the meaningful elements of the text of the Bible
(e.g., Luke 16: 17) and confirmed that all biblical accounts described >>>> real historical events, for example the creation of the first human
couple (Matt. 19: 4u5), the universality of the Flood and the
destruction of all air-breathing creatures (Matt. 24: 38u39), and the
history of Jonah (Matt. 12: 40u41).oa When people here claim we like
being lied to, I just laugh.a I have made my choice in who I believe.a I >>>> believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.
Yet, while my faith does influence the things I'm willing to accept,
that does not mean I refuse to listen to science.a The difference
between someone like me and theistic evolutionists lies right here.
People like the Emperor demand others accept their interpretations of
everything, and he especially seems to revel in saying flat out that The >>>> Bible is wrong.a I will never do that.a I may not understand things
completely, but I believe there will be a time I will, which is
obviously after my death.
Once you make the decisions like I have, yes, you look at things
completely differently.a The materialist cannot do this.a He has to
figure out things on the assumption that all this came about on its own, >>>> and there was nothing supernatural involved.a I don't have to do that. I >>>> don't have to accept geological uniformitarianism, I can question the
assumptions made in accepting Radiometric dating, I can consider
evidence along the lines of thousands of years instead of millions, and >>>> yes, I can believe you can't get something from nothing, and that
includes not only the universe, but life itself.a I don't care if others >>>> share my beliefs.a It is what I have to do to live with myself, and try >>>> to honor my creator.
This is getting too long for the other thing about Dr. Gitt's book I
wanted to comment on.a I'll do that for you in another post.
Thanks for sharing. That is similar to own experience and position. As
I've mentioned here before, I have a strong leaning to an OEC timeline,
scepticism about macroevolution, and an incomplete reconciliation of
scientific data and the Bible, and therefore an openness to a range of
explanations (despite presumptions to the contrary).
From my own study, the doctrines of Christianity are unique among world >>> religions: the incarnation, penal substitutionary atonement,
resurrection, salvation by grace alone. The historicity of Christianity
is contended in part, but is also surprisingly well-attested in many
areas. But, as you say, personal faith lies at the heart being a
Christian. Faith in this context is not belief in the absence of
evidence, but rather trust in the person of Jesus Christ to atone for my >>> sin, and a response to surrender my life to him and follow him in love
and obedience.
Uniqueness does not equal truth, Christian theology does not make
sense (it just uses emotionally laden terms to prop up its
conclusions), other religions have unique aspects, and you are unable
to explain why you continue to sin after accepting Jesus.
Well, there it is.
Science leads me to glimpse in a some small way the glory of God,
whether in the intricacies of a single cell or trillions of them
assembled into a human, bearing the image of our creator.
From a parody of that idea, we have:
"All things dull and ugly
All creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty
The Lord God made the lot"
Is that the image of your creator?
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:27:24 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2026 1:36 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 19:09:21 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2026 7:41 am, sticks wrote:
On 4/15/2026 3:56 PM, sticks wrote:Steady state / eternal universe models have been largely rejected AFAIK. >>>> Penrose attempts to solve the entropy problem of a cyclic model, but it >>>> seems to involve mathematical gymnastics out of ideological desperation >>>> to avoid a beginning (with the implication of a creator).
If you haven't read it, I would suggest "Did God Use
Evolution...Observations from a Scientist of Faith" by Dr. Werner
Gitt. It is a fairly quick read, and he does write a chapter on 'The >>>>>> Consequences of Theistic Evolution' that explain the error in the ways >>>>>> of people exactly like the Emperor.-a It might also help you in your >>>>>> understanding of things.-a It's a solid book.
I wanted to add a couple things for you, Mark.-a Saying he writes a
chapter on Theistic evolution is probably a mischaracterization of
sorts.-a For me, the whole book lays out his beliefs in the problems >>>>> arising for the Christian in Theistic evolution.-a But his process of >>>>> doing so, is similar to what I went through, which I'd like to explain >>>>> for you.
I've said before, three things are the most important for me in deciding >>>>> how to move forward in my daily life.-a Dr. Gitt touches on all three. >>>>> The first is the origins of the universe.-a I know the materialists have >>>>> rightly recognized they have to explain where the stuff that went bang >>>>> came from, and have moved into the quantum realm.-a It's great science >>>>> and I love the thought of understanding how things might work.-a Yet, for >>>>> me they've still not given a workable theory how it could have started >>>>> from truly nothing.-a They've just made the parts smaller.-a At least >>>>> we've gotten to what is believed to be the smallest particles there is. >>>>> It is a step the naturalist would deem absurd, but I am in the camp that >>>>> has decided it couldn't have happened on it's own.-a To believe otherwise >>>>> one would have to give the property of being eternal to something,
something material in one way or another.-a I could start the next step >>>>> here in moving forward it is so conclusive for me, but I use two others. >>>>
Eternal inflation has not been ruled out, and inflation (rather than
Penrose's cyclic model) seems to have solved the entropy problem. And
you're confusing a commitment to *scientific explanations* with
desperation to avoid a creator (whatever that's supposed to entail).
Second is the initial conditions and fine tuning of the universe, along >>>>> with our specific place in it and the properties of our planet.-a The >>>>> Anthropic principle is what I would say if I was a naturalist, and I >>>>> would run from the Multiverse hypothesis.-a Neither cuts it for me, and >>>>> the fine tuning actually rolls into the origin of the universe for me. >>>>I wrote a computer program to solve the N-body problem, and then
graphically superimposed multiple "universes", each with a slightly
different gravitational constant G. Even varying that one physical
parameter highlighted that mechanism and and possibly design is required >>>> to create a suitably varied multiverse. It shifts the problem rather
than solving it. (A First Cause is wrongly interpreted as doing the same >>>> thing.)
What language did you use? And did you think the well-documented
"Fine-tuning" of the constants might not be true, leading to your
simulations? And there is no need for need for anything to create a
"suitably varied multiverse."
C++. To "try out" all possible universes (or a some portion thereof),
you need a mechanism to not only generate all possible combinations, but
you need mechanism to generate universes full stop, and to do so while
varying the physical constants.
All possible combinations of universes are not needed, and varying
physical constants isn't thought to get in the way of universe
formation.
That's an explosion of additional
complexity with no empirical support,
The same could be said about God. And most versions of inflation (a
very well-supported addition to the standard Big Bang model for the
origin of the universe) lead naturally to a multiverse.
rightly categorised as metaphysics
rather than science (interesting though it may be).
What is the origin of the universe-generating machine?
It's always been there, just like your alleged god.
Third, the origin of life, though most likely outside of completeOOL seems to me to be an area where science will (already does) point
scientific exploration, is something that cannot be explained by natural >>>>> processes for me.-a I love the research into it, as it keeps giving us >>>>> the amazing discoveries like the real complexity of the cell.-a It would >>>>> be a much longer discussion than this post permits, but the origin of >>>>> DNA and the where the initial information came from alone for me is
evidence of intelligent design.-a Again, the research is great.-a It >>>>> continues to show just how powerful and intelligent the designer was. >>>>
compellingly to supernatural agency.
Or it's compelling evidence for natural agency, as *both ideas per se*
are not very well-defined and for that reason have equal "explanatory"
power. Also, why should the laws of physics be required to avoid
producing large, stable universes? And scientists are interested in
moving beyond "a natural law did it" and do research to that end. How
does "a supernatural agency did it" go beyond that statement?
Many of my posts (and others) here address this.
I must've missed that. Could you re-post it?
So after concluding these three things could not arise by natural means, >>>>> yes, I go looking for what could have caused them.-a This is where we get >>>>> to that dirty word.....the Supernatural-a <gasp!>
First, I look at how through our known history humanity has processed >>>>> thinking about a creator.-a What were their beliefs and what religions >>>>> rose from them.-a "Many Infallible Proofs" by Henry M. Morris III, aside >>>>> from being a great book, does exactly this and gives a relatively short, >>>>> but precise accounting of all the major religions we know today.-a I have >>>>> chosen and am a Christian.-a The Bible's historical accuracy, the widely >>>>> accepted correctness to known original manuscript, prophecy, and the way >>>>> the apostles lived after witnessing the resurrected Christ are all
powerful motivation for me.-a But most important, obviously, are the >>>>> Messianic prophecies.-a I have accepted all the above and truly belief >>>>> Jesus was resurrected and fulfilled these prophecies.
It's all a personal choice, and I don't care if anyone else has a
similar belief or not.-a I'm not a preacher.-a The only reason I am even >>>>> bringing this up is because I have said I would explain why people who >>>>> do things like what the Emperor does are wrong.-a This is where it gets >>>>> to the point, I know, finally.-a Once I accepted Christ, it came with the >>>>> realization that he himself supported the whole of Jewish scripture as >>>>> the direct word of God.-a As Dr. Gitt put it in this book, rCLThe special >>>>> key to understanding Scripture is given by GodrCOs Son himself. Jesus >>>>> states that His words will never pass away (Matt. 24: 35). He guarantees >>>>> that everything that has been written will be fulfilled (Luke 18: 31). >>>>> He authorized all the meaningful elements of the text of the Bible
(e.g., Luke 16: 17) and confirmed that all biblical accounts described >>>>> real historical events, for example the creation of the first human
couple (Matt. 19: 4rCo5), the universality of the Flood and the
destruction of all air-breathing creatures (Matt. 24: 38rCo39), and the >>>>> history of Jonah (Matt. 12: 40rCo41).rCY-a When people here claim we like >>>>> being lied to, I just laugh.-a I have made my choice in who I believe.-a I
believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.
Yet, while my faith does influence the things I'm willing to accept, >>>>> that does not mean I refuse to listen to science.-a The difference
between someone like me and theistic evolutionists lies right here.
People like the Emperor demand others accept their interpretations of >>>>> everything, and he especially seems to revel in saying flat out that The >>>>> Bible is wrong.-a I will never do that.-a I may not understand things >>>>> completely, but I believe there will be a time I will, which is
obviously after my death.
Once you make the decisions like I have, yes, you look at things
completely differently.-a The materialist cannot do this.-a He has to >>>>> figure out things on the assumption that all this came about on its own, >>>>> and there was nothing supernatural involved.-a I don't have to do that. I >>>>> don't have to accept geological uniformitarianism, I can question the >>>>> assumptions made in accepting Radiometric dating, I can consider
evidence along the lines of thousands of years instead of millions, and >>>>> yes, I can believe you can't get something from nothing, and that
includes not only the universe, but life itself.-a I don't care if others >>>>> share my beliefs.-a It is what I have to do to live with myself, and try >>>>> to honor my creator.
This is getting too long for the other thing about Dr. Gitt's book I >>>>> wanted to comment on.-a I'll do that for you in another post.
Thanks for sharing. That is similar to own experience and position. As >>>> I've mentioned here before, I have a strong leaning to an OEC timeline, >>>> scepticism about macroevolution, and an incomplete reconciliation of
scientific data and the Bible, and therefore an openness to a range of >>>> explanations (despite presumptions to the contrary).
From my own study, the doctrines of Christianity are unique among world >>>> religions: the incarnation, penal substitutionary atonement,
resurrection, salvation by grace alone. The historicity of Christianity >>>> is contended in part, but is also surprisingly well-attested in many
areas. But, as you say, personal faith lies at the heart being a
Christian. Faith in this context is not belief in the absence of
evidence, but rather trust in the person of Jesus Christ to atone for my >>>> sin, and a response to surrender my life to him and follow him in love >>>> and obedience.
Uniqueness does not equal truth, Christian theology does not make
sense (it just uses emotionally laden terms to prop up its
conclusions), other religions have unique aspects, and you are unable
to explain why you continue to sin after accepting Jesus.
Well, there it is.
There what is?
Science leads me to glimpse in a some small way the glory of God,
whether in the intricacies of a single cell or trillions of them
assembled into a human, bearing the image of our creator.
From a parody of that idea, we have:
"All things dull and ugly
All creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty
The Lord God made the lot"
Is that the image of your creator?
On 20/04/2026 5:37 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:[...]
All possible combinations of universes are not needed, and varying
physical constants isn't thought to get in the way of universe
formation.
That's an explosion of additional
complexity with no empirical support,
The same could be said about God. And most versions of inflation (a
very well-supported addition to the standard Big Bang model for the
origin of the universe) lead naturally to a multiverse.
rightly categorised as metaphysics
rather than science (interesting though it may be).
What is the origin of the universe-generating machine?
It's always been there, just like your alleged god.
A few comments:
Even inflationary spacetimes are not past-eternal, i.e. they require a >beginning boundary, and therefore do not resolve the causation problem.
Any mechanism that generates universes is presumably non-trivial
(there's an understatement),
in that it must itself (i) exist (ii) have
specific properties; and (iii) produce the right distribution of
constants, i.e. the mechanism itself is potentially fine-tuned.
Belief in eternally self-generating universes is an act of faith on par
with belief in a First Cause.
Finally, only some forms of eternal inflation potentially explain fine >tuning, e.g. (with help from AI) false-vacuum eternal inflation with
bubble diversity; eternal inflation plus a string/landscape-style vacuum >ensemble that scans relevant constants. Not included are, for example, >slow-roll eternal inflation alone, topological eternal inflation alone,
and ordinary inflation, even if eternal somewhere, when it does not vary
the relevant low-energy physics.
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 11:42:00 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2026 5:37 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:[...]
All possible combinations of universes are not needed, and varying
physical constants isn't thought to get in the way of universe
formation.
That's an explosion of additional
complexity with no empirical support,
The same could be said about God. And most versions of inflation (a
very well-supported addition to the standard Big Bang model for the
origin of the universe) lead naturally to a multiverse.
rightly categorised as metaphysics
rather than science (interesting though it may be).
What is the origin of the universe-generating machine?
It's always been there, just like your alleged god.
A few comments:
Even inflationary spacetimes are not past-eternal, i.e. they require a
beginning boundary, and therefore do not resolve the causation problem.
In quantum mechanics, some things happen without being caused by
anything.
Any mechanism that generates universes is presumably non-trivial
(there's an understatement),
LOL! You're too intimidated by the word "universe," it seems.
in that it must itself (i) exist (ii) have
specific properties; and (iii) produce the right distribution of
constants, i.e. the mechanism itself is potentially fine-tuned.
We don't know where the physical constants came from, and if they can
be derived from first principles or even just theoretical
considerations, a multiverse wouldn't be necessary to explain them.
Belief in eternally self-generating universes is an act of faith on par
with belief in a First Cause.
No, it has a solid mathematical foundation, unlike your philosophical
First Cause.
Finally, only some forms of eternal inflation potentially explain fine
tuning, e.g. (with help from AI) false-vacuum eternal inflation with
bubble diversity; eternal inflation plus a string/landscape-style vacuum
ensemble that scans relevant constants. Not included are, for example,
slow-roll eternal inflation alone, topological eternal inflation alone,
and ordinary inflation, even if eternal somewhere, when it does not vary
the relevant low-energy physics.
So some explain it and some don't. Failing to explain fine-tuning is
not necessarily the same thing as not producing a multiverse. And
what was the supernatural research program you said you had posted
about elsewhere?
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 11:42:00 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
Even inflationary spacetimes are not past-eternal, i.e. they require a
beginning boundary, and therefore do not resolve the causation problem.
In quantum mechanics, some things happen without being caused by
anything.
On 4/20/2026 11:06 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 11:42:00 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
Even inflationary spacetimes are not past-eternal, i.e. they require a
beginning boundary, and therefore do not resolve the causation problem.
In quantum mechanics, some things happen without being caused by
anything.
Ignoring the wave/particle duality does not answer Mark's statement.
"Electrons and photons behave like waves until they interact (or >"decohere"), at which point they appear as particles. Ignoring this wave >nature leads people to treat particle interactions as magical, when in
fact they are governed by the underlying wave behavior."
14 Billion years since the Big Bang occurred is a small fraction on the >timeline of infinity going back in time. For all the rest of that time
the wave happily just existed eternally.
I understand some people
accept this brute fact. I just find it odd they are unable to process
that there are those who cannot. That because of their personal >unwillingness to consider the supernatural, they give those same
God-like properties to quantum waves. That's religion.
Since Parmenides, most philosophers have agreed that nothing comes from >nothing and everything must have a cause. Darwin excited those who
could now see a way to eliminate the supernatural from the equation, and
the push has been on to keep it that way since. Unfortunately, they
keep hitting the same roadblocks. This is one of them.
On 21/04/2026 2:06 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 11:42:00 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2026 5:37 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:[...]
All possible combinations of universes are not needed, and varying
physical constants isn't thought to get in the way of universe
formation.
That's an explosion of additional
complexity with no empirical support,
The same could be said about God. And most versions of inflation (a
very well-supported addition to the standard Big Bang model for the
origin of the universe) lead naturally to a multiverse.
rightly categorised as metaphysics
rather than science (interesting though it may be).
What is the origin of the universe-generating machine?
It's always been there, just like your alleged god.
A few comments:
Even inflationary spacetimes are not past-eternal, i.e. they require a
beginning boundary, and therefore do not resolve the causation problem.
In quantum mechanics, some things happen without being caused by
anything.
Any mechanism that generates universes is presumably non-trivial
(there's an understatement),
LOL! You're too intimidated by the word "universe," it seems.
The observable universe is ~93 billion light-years across, 13.8 billion >years old, consisting of ~100u200 billion galaxies, ~10##u10#? stars,
and ~10?| kg of total baryonic matter. That's just the patch we know.
We are discussing the creation of virtually an *infinite number* of such >entities *from nothing*.
I categorised the mechanism for this as "non-trivial", and (in view of
the extent of matter/energy/structure creation described) suggested that >that label is an "understatement".
Your response? "LOL! You're too intimidated by the word 'universe,' it >seems."
Okay. I offer you the opportunity to reconsider your response.
in that it must itself (i) exist (ii) have
specific properties; and (iii) produce the right distribution of
constants, i.e. the mechanism itself is potentially fine-tuned.
We don't know where the physical constants came from, and if they can
be derived from first principles or even just theoretical
considerations, a multiverse wouldn't be necessary to explain them.
Belief in eternally self-generating universes is an act of faith on par
with belief in a First Cause.
No, it has a solid mathematical foundation, unlike your philosophical
First Cause.
Finally, only some forms of eternal inflation potentially explain fine
tuning, e.g. (with help from AI) false-vacuum eternal inflation with
bubble diversity; eternal inflation plus a string/landscape-style vacuum >>> ensemble that scans relevant constants. Not included are, for example,
slow-roll eternal inflation alone, topological eternal inflation alone,
and ordinary inflation, even if eternal somewhere, when it does not vary >>> the relevant low-energy physics.
So some explain it and some don't. Failing to explain fine-tuning is
not necessarily the same thing as not producing a multiverse. And
what was the supernatural research program you said you had posted
about elsewhere?
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 15:24:34 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/04/2026 2:06 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 11:42:00 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2026 5:37 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:[...]
In quantum mechanics, some things happen without being caused byAll possible combinations of universes are not needed, and varying
physical constants isn't thought to get in the way of universe
formation.
That's an explosion of additional
complexity with no empirical support,
The same could be said about God. And most versions of inflation (a >>>>> very well-supported addition to the standard Big Bang model for the
origin of the universe) lead naturally to a multiverse.
rightly categorised as metaphysics
rather than science (interesting though it may be).
What is the origin of the universe-generating machine?
It's always been there, just like your alleged god.
A few comments:
Even inflationary spacetimes are not past-eternal, i.e. they require a >>>> beginning boundary, and therefore do not resolve the causation problem. >>>
anything.
Any mechanism that generates universes is presumably non-trivial
(there's an understatement),
LOL! You're too intimidated by the word "universe," it seems.
The observable universe is ~93 billion light-years across, 13.8 billion
years old, consisting of ~100rCo200 billion galaxies, ~10-#-#rCo10-#? stars, >> and ~10?-| kg of total baryonic matter. That's just the patch we know.
It seems also that you're intimidated by large numbers.
We are discussing the creation of virtually an *infinite number* of such
entities *from nothing*.
How about "from a false vacuum"?
I categorised the mechanism for this as "non-trivial", and (in view of
the extent of matter/energy/structure creation described) suggested that
that label is an "understatement".
Your response? "LOL! You're too intimidated by the word 'universe,' it
seems."
Okay. I offer you the opportunity to reconsider your response.
Sure. Energy would probably precede inflation, so you don't have to
include the origin energy in explanations for the origin of 'the
universe."
in that it must itself (i) exist (ii) have
specific properties; and (iii) produce the right distribution of
constants, i.e. the mechanism itself is potentially fine-tuned.
Existing, having properties, and constant distribution are not
examples of fine-tuning.
We don't know where the physical constants came from, and if they can
be derived from first principles or even just theoretical
considerations, a multiverse wouldn't be necessary to explain them.
Belief in eternally self-generating universes is an act of faith on par >>>> with belief in a First Cause.
No, it has a solid mathematical foundation, unlike your philosophical
First Cause.
Finally, only some forms of eternal inflation potentially explain fine >>>> tuning, e.g. (with help from AI) false-vacuum eternal inflation with
bubble diversity; eternal inflation plus a string/landscape-style vacuum >>>> ensemble that scans relevant constants. Not included are, for example, >>>> slow-roll eternal inflation alone, topological eternal inflation alone, >>>> and ordinary inflation, even if eternal somewhere, when it does not vary >>>> the relevant low-energy physics.
So some explain it and some don't. Failing to explain fine-tuning is
not necessarily the same thing as not producing a multiverse. And
what was the supernatural research program you said you had posted
about elsewhere?
On 22/04/2026 12:35 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 15:24:34 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/04/2026 2:06 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 11:42:00 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 20/04/2026 5:37 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:[...]
In quantum mechanics, some things happen without being caused byAll possible combinations of universes are not needed, and varying >>>>>> physical constants isn't thought to get in the way of universe
formation.
That's an explosion of additional
complexity with no empirical support,
The same could be said about God. And most versions of inflation (a >>>>>> very well-supported addition to the standard Big Bang model for the >>>>>> origin of the universe) lead naturally to a multiverse.
rightly categorised as metaphysics
rather than science (interesting though it may be).
What is the origin of the universe-generating machine?
It's always been there, just like your alleged god.
A few comments:
Even inflationary spacetimes are not past-eternal, i.e. they require a >>>>> beginning boundary, and therefore do not resolve the causation problem. >>>>
anything.
Any mechanism that generates universes is presumably non-trivial
(there's an understatement),
LOL! You're too intimidated by the word "universe," it seems.
The observable universe is ~93 billion light-years across, 13.8 billion
years old, consisting of ~100u200 billion galaxies, ~10##u10#? stars,
and ~10?| kg of total baryonic matter. That's just the patch we know.
It seems also that you're intimidated by large numbers.
I'm calling you out, Vincent. You've chosen to double-down, as I
suspected you would. This confirms that you are so locked-in to >automatically disagreeing that it leads you make absurd statements, >apparently without realising it.
Or are you gaslighting?
Neither appeals to me.
We are discussing the creation of virtually an *infinite number* of such >>> entities *from nothing*.
How about "from a false vacuum"?
I categorised the mechanism for this as "non-trivial", and (in view of
the extent of matter/energy/structure creation described) suggested that >>> that label is an "understatement".
Your response? "LOL! You're too intimidated by the word 'universe,' it
seems."
Okay. I offer you the opportunity to reconsider your response.
Sure. Energy would probably precede inflation, so you don't have to
include the origin energy in explanations for the origin of 'the
universe."
in that it must itself (i) exist (ii) have
specific properties; and (iii) produce the right distribution of
constants, i.e. the mechanism itself is potentially fine-tuned.
Existing, having properties, and constant distribution are not
examples of fine-tuning.
We don't know where the physical constants came from, and if they can
be derived from first principles or even just theoretical
considerations, a multiverse wouldn't be necessary to explain them.
Belief in eternally self-generating universes is an act of faith on par >>>>> with belief in a First Cause.
No, it has a solid mathematical foundation, unlike your philosophical
First Cause.
Finally, only some forms of eternal inflation potentially explain fine >>>>> tuning, e.g. (with help from AI) false-vacuum eternal inflation with >>>>> bubble diversity; eternal inflation plus a string/landscape-style vacuum >>>>> ensemble that scans relevant constants. Not included are, for example, >>>>> slow-roll eternal inflation alone, topological eternal inflation alone, >>>>> and ordinary inflation, even if eternal somewhere, when it does not vary >>>>> the relevant low-energy physics.
So some explain it and some don't. Failing to explain fine-tuning is
not necessarily the same thing as not producing a multiverse. And
what was the supernatural research program you said you had posted
about elsewhere?
On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 07:18:32 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2026 12:35 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 15:24:34 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/04/2026 2:06 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 11:42:00 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 20/04/2026 5:37 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:[...]
In quantum mechanics, some things happen without being caused byAll possible combinations of universes are not needed, and varying >>>>>>> physical constants isn't thought to get in the way of universe
formation.
That's an explosion of additional
complexity with no empirical support,
The same could be said about God. And most versions of inflation (a >>>>>>> very well-supported addition to the standard Big Bang model for the >>>>>>> origin of the universe) lead naturally to a multiverse.
rightly categorised as metaphysics
rather than science (interesting though it may be).
What is the origin of the universe-generating machine?
It's always been there, just like your alleged god.
A few comments:
Even inflationary spacetimes are not past-eternal, i.e. they require a >>>>>> beginning boundary, and therefore do not resolve the causation problem. >>>>>
anything.
Any mechanism that generates universes is presumably non-trivial
(there's an understatement),
LOL! You're too intimidated by the word "universe," it seems.
The observable universe is ~93 billion light-years across, 13.8 billion >>>> years old, consisting of ~100rCo200 billion galaxies, ~10-#-#rCo10-#? stars,
and ~10?-| kg of total baryonic matter. That's just the patch we know.
It seems also that you're intimidated by large numbers.
I'm calling you out, Vincent. You've chosen to double-down, as I
suspected you would. This confirms that you are so locked-in to
automatically disagreeing that it leads you make absurd statements,
apparently without realising it.
There are approximately as many carbon atoms in a lump of coal as
there are stars in the universe. So what stupefies you depends on
your point of view.
Or are you gaslighting?
No.
Neither appeals to me.
So go find something that does.
We are discussing the creation of virtually an *infinite number* of such >>>> entities *from nothing*.
How about "from a false vacuum"?
I categorised the mechanism for this as "non-trivial", and (in view of >>>> the extent of matter/energy/structure creation described) suggested that >>>> that label is an "understatement".
Your response? "LOL! You're too intimidated by the word 'universe,' it >>>> seems."
Okay. I offer you the opportunity to reconsider your response.
Sure. Energy would probably precede inflation, so you don't have to
include the origin energy in explanations for the origin of 'the
universe."
in that it must itself (i) exist (ii) have
specific properties; and (iii) produce the right distribution of
constants, i.e. the mechanism itself is potentially fine-tuned.
Existing, having properties, and constant distribution are not
examples of fine-tuning.
We don't know where the physical constants came from, and if they can >>>>> be derived from first principles or even just theoretical
considerations, a multiverse wouldn't be necessary to explain them.
Belief in eternally self-generating universes is an act of faith on par >>>>>> with belief in a First Cause.
No, it has a solid mathematical foundation, unlike your philosophical >>>>> First Cause.
Finally, only some forms of eternal inflation potentially explain fine >>>>>> tuning, e.g. (with help from AI) false-vacuum eternal inflation with >>>>>> bubble diversity; eternal inflation plus a string/landscape-style vacuum >>>>>> ensemble that scans relevant constants. Not included are, for example, >>>>>> slow-roll eternal inflation alone, topological eternal inflation alone, >>>>>> and ordinary inflation, even if eternal somewhere, when it does not vary >>>>>> the relevant low-energy physics.
So some explain it and some don't. Failing to explain fine-tuning is >>>>> not necessarily the same thing as not producing a multiverse. And
what was the supernatural research program you said you had posted
about elsewhere?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:27:55 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
120 files (276M bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,444 |