zapatos

That is fine if that is what you wish to do. However, you should recognize that if you start with an invalid premise, then you will not have a sound argument.

What evidence do you have that this is true?

A Higgs Boson particle walks into a church. The priest says, "Hey, we don't like your kind around here." The particle replies, "But without me, you can't have mass"

Okay, listen and watch.

Look, pal. Victimless crime is a well understood and frequently used term. Try the link I gave you or a Google search of 'victimless crime'. You'll get 650,000 hits.

That's the only difference? Seems to me like a robot wouldn't do much of what I listed. Sure, life on another planet would not need DNA to be considered living.

Probably not as life is generally considered to consist of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

People believe aliens travel by flying saucer due to numerous claims, so that is how they are depicted in the movies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_saucer

But you are the one who is making them equivalent.

Perhaps we are just not able to communicate clearly. Why don't you have someone else explain it to me who is not bothered by your statement that as you "propulse it far away, you are throwing the object into the past".

I think the problem is that you are using 'into the past' differently than everyone else uses it. If I tell one person (other than you) that I am going to travel 'into the past', and I tell another person that I am going to travel 'back in time', they will both take that to mean the same thing. As far as I can tell, when you say 'into the past', you mean what everyone else would call 'in the distance'. One of the problems is that you sound as if distance and time are the same thing. For example, if something is one light day away, then information about that thing is one day in the past. But if my wife wrote me a note and I am not allowed to open it until tomorrow, then the information in that note is also traveling one day into the past, even though it is not physically moving away from me. I still don't get why you are using terms that can be so confusing. Why not just say that when you throw something away from you it is moving to a place where information from that things takes longer to get to you? I think you need another term other than 'past' to describe what you are saying.

But you did say: Perhaps you can explain the difference between 'backwards in time' and 'into the past'.

I don't. This is clearly the problem.

Who granted that right to the rabbit? Who is enforcing it? What about the hawk's need to eat to live? Who are you to say he doesn't get to eat? People are killing everyday, presumably even you. Ever wash your hands with anti-bacterial soap? Ever swat a fly or eat lettuce? And yet civilization has grown during these activities. It is unreasonable to make the jump from "living things deserve to live" to "Without that basic principle everybody would be killing as they see fit". Your statements are much too broad, and you refer to rights and morals as if everyone accepts them, instead of just you.

Who gave the cows the right to live? Does a rabbit have the right not to be eaten by a hawk? How is this different? Obvious to whom? Certainly not to me.

If this is a centimeter... Then what is this? Answer here. (Hope I did this right!)

An object observed from a distance is a view of the object as it was in the past. The object itself is not in the past. It is still there right now. Just because I can't see how it looks today until tomorrow arrives does not mean it is in the past. I don't believe there are multiple copies of everything, one that exists now, one that exists yesterday, etc.

At one time there were no religious beliefs and now there are. So except for some of the details, I'd say this experiment has already been done.

Can you explain these two statements? I don't understand how something thrown into the past (from the present) did not travel in time. Are you saying that when you throw it into the past it also remains in the present? If so, that is even more confusing.

I don't understand why you want to equate time and space. You can describe everything by only discussing space. Overlaying space with time only confuses things. This is only true if space and time are the same. I guess I need to understand why you belive that. It just seems to add complexity with no benefit, and requires time to have properties that cannot be shown to exist. For example, if I throw a ball to you, it seems as if you are saying that it moves into the past (from my perspective), into the future (from your perspective) and not all through time (from the ball's perspective), all at the same time. Very confusing to me why it is true, and why you want to connect them in this way.

First, it makes the past sound like a place you can go. Second, it did not go to a 'time' you are not in. It simply moved in space. Third, it is not going to a different time (the past), it is simply moved in space to a location where photons take longer to reach you than they did before you threw it.

I can't speak to everything you mention, but for the most part it seems you are not describing what we know about time, but what things have time as a component. 1. we know that motion requires time: nothing can move from one spatial coordinate to another in zero time, it would be a transgression of the Speed Of Light. This is something we know about motion. 2. we know that the rate of time is related to gravity: where gravity is stronger Time flows slower. This is something we know about the model of Relativity. 5. we know that time is linked to space: time alone has no physical meaning, only the spacetime continuum "exists". This is something we know about the model of Relativity. 7. we know that information needs time to travel, it's an extension of point 1 of the OP. As a direct consequence we know that any observation is observation of the past. This tells us about information. 8. we know that distance is related to time: to more an object is far away, the more he is observed in the past (another consequence of point 1) This is something we know about the the speed of light. 9. so we know that if you take a close object, then propulse it far away, you are throwing the object into the past (and not in the future as comonly believed). And that is coherent with point 8. because the object is continuously observable along its path. As the distance increases the object falls into the past. I am not sue what this is.

Victimless crimes often come about when people try to legislate morals. Some example include: http://www.ldp.org.au/policies/1166-victimless-crimes

The question is invalid, a lot of plants aren't green at all What does the fact that some plants are not green, have to do with whether or not aliens would interpret green the same as we would?

You make me think that. You believe God did all of this, but you aren't even trying to find out just what it is He did. The universe is a masterpiece and you act like there is something wrong with looking at and admiring all the details. God gave you your senses, your brain, and this absolutely phenomenal place to live in and explore. And your response seems to be to cover your eyes and ears, refusing to experience it. Understanding the universe is not a betrayal of God. That is what makes me think you are wasting your view. Life is a wonder. Don't squander it.