Fallacies of Evolution Require Extreme Faith

AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Fallacies of Evolution Require Extreme Faith

The doctrines of a "no God" crowd require more faith than to believe in God. I will demonstrate this throughout this forum.

The Bigbang Doctrine


#1 I call it “doctrine” because it is a theory based on faith. It is not science nor does it adhere to the scientific method.  It is not observable, nor repeatable.

#2 This doctrine teaches that the whole universe came from a dot smaller than this one => .

#3 This dot came from absolutely nothing. Basically, “nothing exploded”. lol

The existence of the universe cannot come from nothing. Something must have been there and from that something it all came to be. If there was “absolutely nothing” in the past, then today we would have absolutely nothing.

Atheists criticize Christians for believing in miracles when in fact they are the ones who believe in extreme miracles. When I ask God to do something for me, it is like asking a friend for a hand to do something that otherwise would be impossible for me to do. The help of my friend is referred to by atheists as a miracle when in fact IT IS NOT a miracle.

Believing that the whole universe came from absolute nothing is IN FACT a miracle.

Nothing cannot produce something. This a fallacy and to believe this you need EXTREME FAITH.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10137
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:My

AtheistsNightmare wrote:
My friend, you sound very arrogant. Please indulge me.

Pot, meet kettle. It never fails to amaze me just how arrogant theists are about something they can't prove. Sure I'm arrogant. But not so much as a proselytizing(sp? I'm not fully awake yet..) theist. Please don't think I'm trying to insult you, I'm just stating the facts. I'm quite comfortable in admitting I don't know if there's a god. Something most theists are incapable of reciprocating.

Quote:
I challenge you to layout in this forum your best evidence that the universe came from a “primeval atom

Ugh. How do we even know the universe came from anything? See, we know the big bang happened because we can still see the aftershock. Literally. What we don't know is anything else. Like why or how or what, if anything, was before. I'm not going to make unjustified/able assumptions. Maybe a god made it. Maybe a quantum ripple tore nothing into something. Maybe the universe is just a holographic 2D structure.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Scientific Method (in layman’s terms)

#1 The event has to be observable.
#2 Predictions (theories, hypothesis) are made as of why the event happens.
#3 Test the predictions by experimentation to confirm the cause or result of an event.
#4 If the experiment confirms the theory, then the theory is no longer a theory. It is a FACT.  

Example:

#1 Bunch of fish found dead near the coast of Australia (this is observable and repeatable. It happens often)
#2 Theory:  bacteria near the coast is killing them.
#3 Get small a sample of water and test for bacteria. If bacteria are found, dump a fish in it and observe if it dies. If it dies, grab another portion of water and remove the bacteria in it and dump another fish.
#4 When you see that the fish does not die the theory at point #2 has been confirmed. If it still dies, the theory has been falsified.

 

Going back to the BigBang, It is NOT OBSERVABLE nor does it repeat itself. You cannot experiment with something that you cannot reproduce. The whole doctrine is a theory that is far from being confirmed. It is totally based on assumptions (believes).

To me, the whole thing smells as much bullshit as the theory of “earth is flat and mounted on four elephants”. Hey, but what can you expect? Both fallacies came from the Catholic Church. Yes my friend, your doctrine of BigBand came from a catholic priest.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

 

The only observable fact they have is that the universe is expanding. This fact doesn’t mean that it came from a => . (dot) or a “primeval atom” or however you want to call it. You NEED EXPREME FAITH to believe this.

An expanding universe is a phenomenon revealed a long time ago by God to the prophets:

Zechariah 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens...

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

 

This whole thing of the BigBang from nothing is useless garbage and sorry, I DO NOT believe such garbage.

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

This is the end of "evolution of nothing into something". My next post will be about evolution of ???.

What is the mathematical probability of multiplying 0 x 0 and the result being 1? That is your bigbang.

Really, the Bible for science. That's a good. one.

OK. God stretches the heavens out as a curtain and out as a tent.

I have hung curtains and also enjoy camping. So your scientific method would show that curtains get larger and larger after they are hung.  No curtain I have ever hung got any bigger. I can tell you after camping for a week the tent didn't get one inch bigger. So you have stretched the meaning of the text. It was only til recently that people began to realize the universe is expanding at an incredible rate in all direction. Back in your bible days everything was created instantly and on the spot. The dome over the earth was essentially fixed, like a pheasant under glass.

Isaiah 40:22 wrote:

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Go out tonight and look up at the sky. You will see the dome above the earth. God is sitting right there on the dome. It doesn't say the earth is a sphere. It refers to god sitting on the dome and it is like a canopy, a tent. Again above. No reference to the shape of the earth.

 

This is further verified in the a couple of more texts.

Matthew 4:8 wrote:

Again, the devil took (Jesus) to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

(See also Daniel 4:10-11)

 

The devil could not take Jesus up on a mountain so he could she all the kingdoms unless the earth was essentially flat and he took him up high enough like the dome over the earth to see such a thing.

 

 

How about these text?

 

Psalm 104:5 wrote:

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

(See also Psalm 93:1; Psalm 96:10; 1 Chronicles 16:30)

Job 9:6 wrote:

He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.

  How can Job 26:7 be reconciled with such a thing? Pillars and nothing in the same book. The ancients were confused. Not sure why you want to hang on to their views.

 

  If you believe the bible then you must not believe that the earth is moving. Also you must believe earthquakes are caused by god and not plate teutonics.   

 

Science has learned that depending where you are on the earth you probably are spinning right now at about 750mph. And to boot you are going around the sun at about 20 miles a second. And of course our galaxy is spinning at an incredible rate. So the bible hasn't a clue nor its god about cosmology, thus man-made. The interesting thing is it took us so long to learn this because it is counter-intuitive. It was Christians who were looking at nature to see the handy work of their god. But that kept them back from discovery these things sooner. Religion has continued to hold back mankind from learning what is versus, like you, what you want to see. But so it goes. You are only a nightmare in that you cling on to ideas held by a primitive desert religion. You will be yet another drag on progress being part of the problem.       

 

oh, there are a number of other areas the bible gets an F in science but you probably don't see those either.

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
That's pretty awesome amout

That's a pretty awesome amout of speed.

Why don't I feel the inertia, even at 15° rotation an hour???

(no, not antiscience... just haven't been able to figure this one out even with web browsing)

 

edit; grammar&spelling

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4157
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Kapkao wrote:That's a pretty

Kapkao wrote:

That's a pretty awesome amout of speed.

Why don't I feel the inertia, even at 15° rotation an hour???

(no, not antiscience... just haven't been able to figure this one out even with web browsing)

 

Because you have not had enough to drink.

 

 

Prozac, check your PM settings.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I'd rather have a bottle in

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

Unlike you, I have very good replies to your questions, however, since you ignore our questions I will ignore yours.  

If you think I have no good replies to your questions, look at the title of this forum. Then, analize the points I'm getting across. Some of you are already comparing them with the bible. I will ignore every dumb question that derails me from the topic. I will destroy your faith which has become an idol. Like I said, I'm just getting started.

Aside from the fact that the tile contains the word evolution, the OP mentions the Big Bang, and then goes on to talk about the origins of the primordial singularity; these are the unfocused rantings of someone that has a very poor understanding of science, and has no idea what any of these concepts mean.  Evolution, The Big Bang theory and the origins of the singularity are completely unrelated concepts, the fact that you mishmash them together shows how ignorant you are.

I believe that you have NO good replies to any of my questions.  You make absolutely no points, just idiotic and senseless rambling.  I really doubt that you are able to judge whether a question is "smart" or "dumb" and you don't have a focused topic.  You have no freaking clue what you are talking about.  I am more then willing to have a one on one discussion with you where we can focus on every point in depth.  This willingness is of not out of some respect that I have for your intelligence, but to show you how uninformed your really are.  Indulge me 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ргцfе оf сгедтїопїѕm!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3500
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote: Interesting

Kapkao wrote:

 

Interesting graphic.  Looks like some mushroom tripping version of "Uncle Joe" meets Mario.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
biblical cosmology

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

I challenge you to post a single verse from the Bible stating it is the center of the universe. You have nothing.

Joshua 10 talks about God stopping the sun from moving so Joshua could get some killing done for the big guy. You wouldn't stop the sun you would stop the earth from rotating. And since the earth rotates depending on your location up to 1000mph everything would be smeared west to east. 

 

Ps 19:4-6 wrote:

In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,

which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion,

like a champion rejoicing to run his course.

It rises at one end of the heavens

and makes its circuit to the other;

nothing is hidden from its heat.

The sun is running the circuit and not the earth.  The bridegroom, the sun, is coming to meet his bride, the earth.

  

The Genesis creation story shows the universe was created first and on down until god create man and then took out a rib and created woman. The easy assumption is the earth and man in particular is at the center of the universe. Its important is quite highlighted. God was even willing to commit suicide for his creatures who broke his rules because he simply couldn't just say we are forgiven. His word is so powerful he can create a universe so vast we are only just finding some boundaries.

Knowing how vast the universe is today I would suspect the genesis story rewritten would frame it as a rebellious outpost that needs attention. It takes about 250 million years for our galaxy to make one rotation and even it is just a spec in the universe. That is far a better story for humans who have massive egos to think they know the mind of god.

 

So you combine the above texts and others noted in my prior post with the fact that primitive men believed the earth was like a flat plate with a dome on top where god and the angels watched and it becomes irrational to conclude anything different.  Cherry picking and twisting text into modern concepts is what you are left with.

 

biblical cosmology

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 So is the atheist

 So is the atheist nightmare over? I didn't lose any sleep over it.

quite the yawn fest. Guess he ran away with his tail tucked under his butt.

another one bites the dust. meh!

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus wrote:Vastet

Philosophicus wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Funny. Yet another ignorant theist makes a total fool of himself.

He sounds like a fan of Kent Hovind.  I wish young earth creationism would die...

Yeah... I just had read a magazine of Apostolic Church. Turns out, it contains arguments against evolution and old Earth on the back pages and looks like ALL of them are Hovind's and all of them are refuted by talkorigins.org. I wrote something about that on Facebook. Maybe I did that for a second time already, which would explain why local Christians stopped inviting me to their friday gatherings Smiling

But I want them to invite me, so I can tell them "I'll gladly come for a while, if you'll reserve me 20 minutes for a short video and commentary." Nothing heavy on them, I'd probably bring and translate some light stuff like on motives of Carl Sagan. I'd step lightly on their dreams. I promise. But I definitely refuse just sit there every time and swallow dozens of factual objections, that's not healthy on my nerves.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 357
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

Talking to AtheistsNightmare is what it would be like to travel back in time and debate a flat earther.  They would quote Bible verse after Bible verse trying to prove the earth was flat. 

You are very wrong. First you have to learn what the Bible actually says before you go try to refute it. You hear a dumb ass say “the Bible says that cows fly” and then you jump very fast to refute that cows don’t fly. I agree with you. You can very easily refute that earth is not flat. The question is: Did you refute the Bible or the dumb ass?

Your Bible does say the earth is flat, if you take it literally.  Here are some verses: 

Job 28:24 "For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven..."  AtheistsNightmare, the earth doesn't have ends; it's a sphere.  A sphere, not a disc. 

Job 37:2-3 "Hear attentively the noise of his voice, and the sound that goeth out of his mouth.  He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth." 

Job 38:12-13 "Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?"

 

Let's move on from Job, and see what Deuteronomy has to say about the shape of the earth.  Remember, if the Bible is literally true, then these verses that I'm quoting must be true too.

Deuteronomy 33:17 "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."  Apparently there were unicorns in those days.  You see?  You learn something new every day. 

Explain to me how there can be ends to a spherical earth.  Your choice is to accept that the Bible is wrong about the shape of the earth and is therefore fallible, or to accept that the Bible is figurative in parts.   

 

 


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

       Does your God know the difference between a circle and a sphere ?  A circle exists on a two dimensional plane.  A circle being two dimensional is by definition flat.  A sphere exists in three dimensions which is coincidentally exactly the number of dimensions the planet Earth is.  Which term accurately describes the planet Earth,   a circle  ....or a sphere ?       Funny you should mention that.  I was going to say the same thing to you.

Wow, I think you are right. You have refuted God!!!... NOOOT!! Jejeje, lol

The word “sphere” was coined in the 1250 – 1300’s. That is about 2000 years after Isaiah wrote that verse. To the ancients, a circle was a circle regardless of dimension. Besides, don’t accuse God. Accuse the writer. God just showed him a vision.

Learn your facts before you post your fallacious garbage.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@Vastet

Vastet wrote:

Ugh. How do we even know the universe came from anything? See, we know the big bang happened because we can still see the aftershock. Literally. What we don't know is anything else. Like why or how or what, if anything, was before. I'm not going to make unjustified/able assumptions. Maybe a god made it. Maybe a quantum ripple tore nothing into something. Maybe the universe is just a holographic 2D structure.

We know the universe came from something because we have something in the present. “Absolute Nothing” CANNOT produce anything.  Therefore, it is very rational to believe that there is something out there. I personally believe that whatever started the universe is not bound to time, space, or matter.

Trying to comprehend God as if he is made of this creation is the wrong way to go about this problem. We are like ants in the middle of Africa dip in the jungle trying to prove the existence of humans.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@ex-minister

ex-minister wrote:

Joshua 10 talks about God stopping the sun from moving so Joshua could get some killing done for the big guy. You wouldn't stop the sun you would stop the earth from rotating. And since the earth rotates depending on your location up to 1000mph everything would be smeared west to east.
Ps 19:4-6 wrote:
    In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,
    which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion,
    like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
    It rises at one end of the heavens
    and makes its circuit to the other;
    nothing is hidden from its heat.
 


I am surprised that you even attempted to respond to my challenge. You are not showing me anything new. I see that you can be a very good Catholic Priest. You have very good misinterpretation capabilities.

Psalms 19 nowhere says that earth is the center of the universe, nor Joshua 10. You have failed the challenge. You assume it is the center. Well, your fallacious catholic assumptions from the Middle Ages are not what the bible says.

A writer only reports what he sees. The sun comes out from one end and moves towards the other end.  This is what I see every morning. This is what King David wrote in that verse. Accept what is written and don’t include your assumptions.

Joshua reported also what he saw. The sun stopped and did not move until the fight was over. This is what is written. Accept what he wrote and don’t make extra biblical assumptions like the earth is the center of the universe. If you were Joshua, you would have reported the same incident.

Today, we know that indeed what stopped was earth. Earth rotates in its own axis and this is perceived as the sun moving. If the earth stops rotating, the sun appears as if it stopped.

Give the writers some slack, they didn’t have google earth. Their writings are not scientific articles. They just are reports of what they saw.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

Deuteronomy 33:17 "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."  Apparently there were unicorns in those days.  You see?  You learn something new every day.


Ohh, come on! Are you for real? The word “unicorn” is just a mistranslation. You can find it in the King James Version. Did you even bother to look at other translations before you posted your idiotic argument?

The original word Hebrew word was “reh-ame', reh-ame', rame, rame”. This is just a wild bull. It has more than one horn. It is NOT a uni-corn. Uni = one. Corn = Horn. Actually, the same verse that you just posted refutes YOU showing YOU it is NOT a uni-corn. Read carfully:

Deuteronomy 33:17 "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people

It was off topic but I thought that it needed an answer. Get your facts straight.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

       Does your God know the difference between a circle and a sphere ?  A circle exists on a two dimensional plane.  A circle being two dimensional is by definition flat.  A sphere exists in three dimensions which is coincidentally exactly the number of dimensions the planet Earth is.  Which term accurately describes the planet Earth,   a circle  ....or a sphere ?       Funny you should mention that.  I was going to say the same thing to you.

Wow, I think you are right. You have refuted God!!!... NOOOT!! Jejeje, lol

The word “sphere” was coined in the 1250 – 1300’s. That is about 2000 years after Isaiah wrote that verse. To the ancients, a circle was a circle regardless of dimension. Besides, don’t accuse God. Accuse the writer. God just showed him a vision.

Learn your facts before you post your fallacious garbage.

Know your facts moron spharia is alot older than 1250 CE, the english word sphere come from that era, which is derived from the greek word sphaira which comes from ancient greek. The era for ancient greek is from 800 to 600 BCE, which is around the time that the events in Isaiah occur. So yes we can accuse god who apparently cannot tell his followers the differences between a flat circular disk and a spherical ball or globe, again a concept already in use in that era. So apparently either god is a really bad teacher and cannot convey simple concepts and ideas or a more likely option, a man made up deity in which his followers make mistakes in common for an era of ignorance. Because you would think that god would be able to make these concepts and ideas easy enough for his followers to understand for all of time, not just for the period of the writer. However it show the ignorance of the writer.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Mormon or Seventh Day Adventist?

Hey OP,

the picture for your thing there is in the mormon temple in the visiting center in Salt Lake. They stole it from the Seventh Day Adventists. So are you mormon or SDA? Or just ignorant about art?

Oh, and also you have yet to define faith. I'm trying to help you. Define faith so these numb nuts can have a framework to start with.

But yes, evolution does take faith just as  math takes faith. Every first principle is an assumption so for an evolutionist to argue evolution, they must use the rules of logic that are found in reality thus causing faith.

However the faith evolutionists use are not the same faith as found in Scripture that I use. They use a kind of Existential Faith via Kirkengaard. so while faith is in play, it is a pagan faith for a pagan system. Makes sense via consistency.

Keep at it whoever you are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3500
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

       Does your God know the difference between a circle and a sphere ?  A circle exists on a two dimensional plane.  A circle being two dimensional is by definition flat.  A sphere exists in three dimensions which is coincidentally exactly the number of dimensions the planet Earth is.  Which term accurately describes the planet Earth,   a circle  ....or a sphere ?       Funny you should mention that.  I was going to say the same thing to you.

Wow, I think you are right. You have refuted God!!!... NOOOT!! Jejeje, lol

The word “sphere” was coined in the 1250 – 1300’s. That is about 2000 years after Isaiah wrote that verse. To the ancients, a circle was a circle regardless of dimension. Besides, don’t accuse God. Accuse the writer. God just showed him a vision.

Learn your facts before you post your fallacious garbage.

                         

 

    I've learned the fact that your all powerful God who can do anything is still somehow a half wit who has to have his followers make excuses for his surprising inability to overcome the limitations of human language.  You worship a God who is incapable of expressing himself in a precise, clear and understandable way.  He's too weak, just like your excuses.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Nightmare, I cut them lots

Nightmare, I cut them lots of slack. Their knowledge of science was close to nil. I don't try and twist the words to fit our knowledge of the universe nor should you. You clearly stated the bible is not a science book. Good for you. Stick with that.
The earth moves...contrary to what the bible says.
I said the bible leads you to believe the earth is at the center of the universe. What did god create last, then rested? Where else did god kill himself? What species did god kill himself for? Has god done more for anyone else? who has his attention more?

I am not now or ever have been a member of the catholic church. The church I used to be a member of believed the pope is the antichrist. I am still inclined to agree.

So now that we agree the bible is NOT a science book we can go to a new topic. What do you suggest?

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Apostate

Hi Apostate,

Oh, the religion you were part of was a cult. You didn't apostasise but simple moved to a cult to atheism. I'm good, you were a Seventh Day Adventist Preacher. lol.

Yeah, i've studied a lot of E.G. White literature. She was absolutely a false prophet. Her doctrine of secret vice said that if you eat meat, you will masterbate to death and go to hell. And if you don't worship on sunday, you have a 666 mark across your body.

lol, pretty wacky relgion. You have always and still remain as a pagan. Good consistentency, you're growing.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I can't believe

 

 

Atheist's WetDream compared himself to IpMan up-thread. IpMan is way cool. Instead this guy is like Lin's silly robber brother, too terrified of the challenges of personal integrity to admit his choices are utterly mistaken. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

Atheist's WetDream compared himself to IpMan up-thread. IpMan is way cool. Instead this guy is like Lin's silly robber brother, too terrified of the challenges of personal integrity to admit his choices are utterly mistaken. 

 

 

hehe, I had to Google IpMan I thought he was referring to Internet Protocol as IP.  I didn't get the reference but just chucked it up to the rest of nonsense he was puking.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 357
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

Deuteronomy 33:17 "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."  Apparently there were unicorns in those days.  You see?  You learn something new every day.


Ohh, come on! Are you for real? The word “unicorn” is just a mistranslation. You can find it in the King James Version. Did you even bother to look at other translations before you posted your idiotic argument?

The original word Hebrew word was “reh-ame', reh-ame', rame, rame”. This is just a wild bull. It has more than one horn. It is NOT a uni-corn. Uni = one. Corn = Horn. Actually, the same verse that you just posted refutes YOU showing YOU it is NOT a uni-corn. Read carfully:

Deuteronomy 33:17 "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people

It was off topic but I thought that it needed an answer. Get your facts straight.

Now address the relevent parts of my post.  The unicorns in that verse are irrelevent to the part that implies the earth is flat, if taken literally.  Go back to post #62 if you forgot everything else I wrote, and respond when you have a relevant answer.  Your dodge tells me that you know I'm right.  (Cognitive dissonance?)

 


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Philosphical Guy

Hey Phil,

Phil is it? look you're arguing over crap. They're messing with you. Should you need advice and instructions on how to debate email me and I will assist you.

institutio@gmail.com.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Yes, Jean, I gave up one

Yes, Jean, I gave up one more fairy tale than you have. Time for you to realize it all is man made. The only evidence for god is the shadow cast by those who don't want to grow up

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:

Know your facts moron spharia is alot older than 1250 CE, the english word sphere come from that era, which is derived from the greek word sphaira which comes from ancient greek. The era for ancient greek is from 800 to 600 BCE, which is around the time that the events in Isaiah occur…

Jackass, always assuming. Just because Greek is from one era doesn’t mean every greek word is from that era. KNOW YOUR FACTS JACK ASS and stop making an ass out yourself by assuming.

The greek word sphere comes from the 13 or 14 century. Source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sphere

Another point to shut your mouth up is that Isaiah wrote and spoke Hebrew, NOT GREEK. The original hebrew word was ‘khoog’ which means something round regardless of dimension. The word ‘khoog’ does NOT come from greek.

Keep your mouth shut.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:
Now address the relevent parts of my post. The unicorns in that verse are irrelevent to the part that implies the earth is flat, if taken literally. Go back to post #62 if you forgot everything else I wrote, and respond when you have a relevant answer. Your dodge tells me that you know I'm right. (Cognitive dissonance?)

I’m not dodging anything. Don’t kid yourself. You have absolutely NO BIBLICAL verse stating the earth is flat. Those are just your fallacies and misinterpretations of the Bible so you can feel good refuting things that the Bible doesn’t say.

A challenge for you:

Post your BEST Bible verse and underline the phrase “earth is flat” or “the planet is flat”. If you can’t find it, then move on and don’t make assumptions.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Continuation of Original Post

This is my third post and continuation of my topic “Fallacies of Evolution Require Extreme Faith”.

After nothing miraculously evolved into the present universe and spheres were formed out of nothing, then, life MIRACULOUSLY appeared on earth. There are many theories but I will lay out the one almost all of them derive from.

In layman’s terms, this is what the stupid atheist’s doctrine says:

#1 inanimate matter miraculously formed life.

Again, never been observed, not repeatable. NOT SCIENCE. This is worse than alchemy. This is an old doctrine that was refuted by Luis Pasteur via scientific experimentations after Charles Darwin published his fallacies in 1859. Allow me to quote Pasteur:

Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Pasteur called it “doctrine”. Until today, the process of “pasteurization” is used in almost all foods. No scientist has disproven Pasteur. On the other hand, Darwin and company “fixed” the problem by just throwing millions of years at it. Ha ha ha ha, lol.

Spontaneous Generation of life DOES NOT happen. It does not matter how many years you throw at it. It is a fallacy, a DOCTRINE, never happened, never will, not observable, not repeatable, not science, NOT RATIONAL.

You need EXTREME faith to believe that a pile of dirt miraculously formed life. You want to debate science with me. Don’t call your stupid garbage wishful assumptions “science”. IT IS NOT.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:#1

AtheistsNightmare wrote:
#1 Energy converted into subatomic particles. 

NO SINGLE human being has ever seen energy turn into particles. This is RIDICULOUS. This is NOT observable, NOT repeatable, it is NOT science. It is a doctrine, a FALLACY. EXTREME FAITH is needed to believe this. The old trick of throwing thousands of years at it will not make it happen.

As I posted previously, and to which you ignored, you are ignorant of the all that is true concerning your original post. I'm not an expert, but I already know we can make energy in to particles.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html

 

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

#2 These particles formed atoms and the first atom to be formed was hydrogen.

  Lord of Hosts! These people are eating crack. Again, no single human being has seen this happen nor it can be repeated.  Extreme faith is needed. Not science!!!

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html

   
AtheistsNightmare wrote:

#3 From hydrogen we get all the matter in the universe we can see and touch. 

This is where we enter in the old fallacies of ALCHEMY. Somehow, we can turn gas into gold if we throw enough years at it. Again, NO ONE has seen hydrogen turn into something else than hydrogen. This is NOT observable, and NOT repeatable. I wish I could turn hydrogen into gold. Please indulge me and teach me how. You atheists know how to do this. You are wise! Lol

Turning hydrogen in to gold would be very complex and would require more energy than what gold is worth... but I give you the following.

During the Hindenburg explosion rain was created from the hydrogen it carried. The air-ship carried over 7 million cubic feet of hydrogen. When it exploded the heat caused a reaction which fused the hydrogen to oxygen thus creating water.

 

http://hydrogentwo.com/hindenburg.html

 

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

#4 Hydrogen combined with ??? to form stars. Please don’t miss the part where heavier elements synthesized within the stars.

I can’t believe the amount of garbage found in just ONE paragraph. Extreme faith needed at multiple steps. I call this THE MIRACULOUS ORIGIN.

A true Christian only needs to believe that a super energy power with rational capabilities created ALL things and continues to create things. This is the only faith needed. Everything else falls into place by natural laws of physics. 

An atheist, on the other hand, has to believe in the same super energy but WITHOUT rational capabilities. Then, EXTREME FAITH is needed at multiple points of their story. But it is not even their story!!! They had to borrow one from a Catholic Priest; a religion that has almost two thousand years of experience in manipulating and deceiving people.

Get a story of your own!! 

 

You obviously failed in every aspect of school. You have the very basic of an educated mind or even less. You are ignorant and your comments lead me to believe you are either lazy or ignorant (or possibly both).

http://www.space.com/58-the-sun-formation-facts-and-characteristics.html

I dismiss you from needing to post any further on this subject.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:
As I posted previously, and to which you ignored, you are ignorant of the all that is true concerning your original post. I'm not an expert, but I already know we can make energy in to particles.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html


You obviously don’t know what you are talking about. You think just because you posted a couple links you are going to impress anybody? Look at your arguments. They are empty of logic. No explanation, no examples, no reason, just links. Lol.

That link is talking about turning energy into matter. I’m not talking about that. Dude, you are clueless.

Read carefully, this comes from your link:

Quote:
Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles, for example by colliding electrons and positrons. Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html


In other words, kinetic energy obtained from collision is transformed into particles. Where did the “kinetic energy” come from? Ahhh!!! It came from accelerating and colliding two other particles. This is perfectly normal. Particles are accelerated. Speed is a form of energy. The accelerator is basically super charging the particles adding energy to them so when they crash, that energy is transformed into other particles. All this is science but unfortunately is not what I’m talking about.

In the theory of BigBang, THERE WAS NO PARTICLE. Did you get that? Let me help you chew it. If there is no particle, what is energy?

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Turning hydrogen in to gold would be very complex and would require more energy than what gold is worth... but I give you the following.

During the Hindenburg explosion rain was created from the hydrogen it carried. The air-ship carried over 7 million cubic feet of hydrogen. When it exploded the heat caused a reaction which fused the hydrogen to oxygen thus creating water.


Dude, people are laughing at you  right now. Hydrogen is an element. Oxygen is another element. When you combine two atoms of hydrogen with one atom of oxygen you form what is called a MOLECULE. In your example, one molecule of water. The hydrogen atoms in the vessel were combined with the oxygen in the air thus forming water. This is called a “chemical reaction”.

Hydrogen is an atom, gold is another atom. You CANNOT turn one atom into another atom. I just used gold as an example. The theory states that hydrogen evolved into every known element.

Using the water example to demonstrate that hydrogen can be turned into gold tells me that you need to go back to school. Atheists, please ban this jackass from this site. He is making you look very bad and wasting my time.

Unlike yours, my post contains RATIONAL and logical statements about the fallacies of the theory. Yours is empty of explanations with a bunch of links that you obviously don’t understand what they are talking about.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum you created multiple encoded spaces like:   in your previous post.
Therfore pushing the page to scroll sideways. Shame on you.
 

Also, the owner of this forum should fix it and prevent this kind of thing from happening.
Trim more than x times of consecutive spaces from posted posts or better, wrap individual posts in divs with
max-width:800px; overflow-x:auto. This way, only that particular post will scroll. That will do it.

 

 ## MOD edit. Thanks for identifying the problem.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Whatever, Nightmare.

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

This is my third post and continuation of my topic “Fallacies of Evolution Require Extreme Faith”.

After nothing miraculously evolved into the present universe and spheres were formed out of nothing, then, life MIRACULOUSLY appeared on earth. There are many theories but I will lay out the one almost all of them derive from.

In layman’s terms, this is what the stupid atheist’s doctrine says:

#1 inanimate matter miraculously formed life.

Again, never been observed, not repeatable. NOT SCIENCE. This is worse than alchemy. This is an old doctrine that was refuted by Luis Pasteur via scientific experimentations after Charles Darwin published his fallacies in 1859. Allow me to quote Pasteur:

Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Pasteur called it “doctrine”. Until today, the process of “pasteurization” is used in almost all foods. No scientist has disproven Pasteur. On the other hand, Darwin and company “fixed” the problem by just throwing millions of years at it. Ha ha ha ha, lol.

Spontaneous Generation of life DOES NOT happen. It does not matter how many years you throw at it. It is a fallacy, a DOCTRINE, never happened, never will, not observable, not repeatable, not science, NOT RATIONAL.

You need EXTREME faith to believe that a pile of dirt miraculously formed life. You want to debate science with me. Don’t call your stupid garbage wishful assumptions “science”. IT IS NOT.

 

Your brain is too dim to comprehend the open ended nature of the scientific method. A core element of this is being prepared to admit when you do not know. And as you have been repeatedly told in this docile thread of yours, science does not claim to know everything and does not claim anything miraculous. Every hypothesis is always open to being wrong. Get it through your thick skull, Mr Strawman. 

Now - I want to hear your explanation for the origins of the universe and the origins of life. And don't post some bullshit bible verse that can loosely be translated as 'god dunnit'. I want a coherent explanation of the underlying fundamentals of the nature of God's creation. You are not allowed to use any of the findings of corrupt and flawed science. They are all false so you will need to explain the ignition and nature of reality using your own findings. So - how does it work?

If you fail to reply or fail to explain how creation works at the systemic and molecular level every one else will know Fallacy Man's teleological Wing Chun is nothing but a mindless, proofless appeal to complexity. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Know your facts moron spharia is alot older than 1250 CE, the english word sphere come from that era, which is derived from the greek word sphaira which comes from ancient greek. The era for ancient greek is from 800 to 600 BCE, which is around the time that the events in Isaiah occur…

Jackass, always assuming. Just because Greek is from one era doesn’t mean every greek word is from that era. KNOW YOUR FACTS JACK ASS and stop making an ass out yourself by assuming. 

The greek word sphere comes from the 13 or 14 century. Source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sphere

Another point to shut your mouth up is that Isaiah wrote and spoke Hebrew, NOT GREEK. The original hebrew word was ‘khoog’ which means something round regardless of dimension. The word ‘khoog’ does NOT come from greek.

Keep your mouth shut.

oh look the fucking idiot is trying to be smart, wrong fuck face the word sphaira is found in ancient greek mythology in describing a ball given to zeus, plus mathematical formulas used in the 4 and 3rd centry BCE for figuring out the volume of a spharia object are found, dumb shit. Second the world sphaira is found in ancient greek text regarding some of the games they played like sphairomachina or ball battle, in greek mythology Apollonius Rhodius gave a baby zeus a beautiful globe or in ancient greek text a sphaira. Hence it does not come from the 13 or 14th century fucking idiot, if you even read the text you posted the it says unknown origin, however it is found in ancient greek text when describing a globe or ball. See what happens when your mind rots from religion, you get morons like you trying to tell everyone else they are wrong, when you can't even see that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. 


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 357
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Know your facts moron spharia is alot older than 1250 CE, the english word sphere come from that era, which is derived from the greek word sphaira which comes from ancient greek. The era for ancient greek is from 800 to 600 BCE, which is around the time that the events in Isaiah occur…

Jackass, always assuming. Just because Greek is from one era doesn’t mean every greek word is from that era. KNOW YOUR FACTS JACK ASS and stop making an ass out yourself by assuming.

The greek word sphere comes from the 13 or 14 century. Source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sphere

Another point to shut your mouth up is that Isaiah wrote and spoke Hebrew, NOT GREEK. The original hebrew word was ‘khoog’ which means something round regardless of dimension. The word ‘khoog’ does NOT come from greek.

Keep your mouth shut.

The Hebrew word חוּג or "chug" refers to a disk-like circle, making the ancient Hebrew's conception of the shape earth similar to the Babylonians of around 600 BCE.  The conception of a spherical earth didn't come until after 300 BCE when they adopted the Greek notion.


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 357
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

Now address the relevent parts of my post. The unicorns in that verse are irrelevent to the part that implies the earth is flat, if taken literally. Go back to post #62 if you forgot everything else I wrote, and respond when you have a relevant answer. Your dodge tells me that you know I'm right. (Cognitive dissonance?)

I’m not dodging anything. Don’t kid yourself. You have absolutely NO BIBLICAL verse stating the earth is flat. Those are just your fallacies and misinterpretations of the Bible so you can feel good refuting things that the Bible doesn’t say.

A challenge for you:

Post your BEST Bible verse and underline the phrase “earth is flat” or “the planet is flat”. If you can’t find it, then move on and don’t make assumptions.

I don't have to quote a line that says the earth is flat; we can infer that they thought the earth was flat from the talk of "ends of the earth," among other things, like some of the verses that ex-minister quoted.  There are no ends of the earth, unless it's flat.  The flat earth fits in with common beliefs of the time.  The Greeks got it right, the Hebrews got it wrong.  Are you prepared to accept that the "ends of the earth" is figurative? 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3500
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:


Jackass, always assuming. KNOW YOUR FACTS JACK ASS and stop making an ass out yourself by assuming.

 

Another point to shut your mouth up

Keep your mouth shut.

 

                                                   LOL !  


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3500
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  AtheistsNightmare wrote:I

 

AtheistsNightmare wrote:
I will destroy your faith which has become an idol.

 

                                                    I'm still waiting for you to fulfill this boastful proclamation.....

 

                                                          

 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:The

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

The word “sphere” was coined in the 1250 – 1300’s. That is about 2000 years after Isaiah wrote that verse. To the ancients, a circle was a circle regardless of dimension. Besides, don’t accuse God. Accuse the writer. God just showed him a vision.

Learn your facts before you post your fallacious garbage.

Oh as for the whole sphaira and circle that to the ancients it was all the same....no, why do the hebrew have a word for ball or sphere and one for circle? dun for ball, chuwg for circle? Isaiah 40:22 clearly says chuwg or circle and in Isaiah 22:18 is says dun or ball..... Nope seem your an idiot who doesn't know anything about the ancients other than trying to hide their mistakes and keep say duh science is for idiots cuz god dun didit fucking moron that can't comprehend shit all that your trying to disprove.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
You are a worthless troll. 

You are a worthless troll.


 


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 357
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

I forgot how simple-minded young earth creationists were.  Wow! 


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:
Now - I want to hear your explanation for the origins of the universe and the origins of life. And don't post some bullshit bible verse that can loosely be translated as 'god dunnit'. I want a coherent explanation of the underlying fundamentals of the nature of God's creation. You are not allowed to use any of the findings of corrupt and flawed science. They are all false so you will need to explain the ignition and nature of reality using your own findings. So - how does it work?
If you fail to reply or fail to explain how creation works at the systemic and molecular level everyone else will know Fallacy Man's teleological Wing Chun is nothing but a mindless, proofless appeal to complexity.

Ok, fair enough. You want to hear my point of view.

#1 Logic and rationality tells me that the present did not come from nothing. It is impossible. I believe that this entire universe came from an absolute power or energy that is rational. It thinks, calculates, and takes decisions.

#2 This power has always been. Where? There is no “where”. This power has no notion of time, matter, or space. This power just “is”.

#3 This intelligent energy created time, space, and matter by using his own energy. Unlike other cristians who believe that God can make things out of nothing, I believe that he created everything from his own energy. He DID NOT borrow or used someone else’s matter or energy for there was no “someone else”.

#4 Since we are made out of “him”, he knows everything. Every molecule that moves, it’s his own energy moving and therefore he will know of it.

#5 To God nothing is a miracle. Atoms just obey his commands the same way your arm obeys yours. This is simple logic if you accept that all atoms came from his energy.

#6 God created all things by forming systems and using them as building blocks like lego bricks. We have particles that form atoms, then we have atoms that form molecules, then we have molecules that form objects and matter, then we have “software based” systems and mechanical systems. Example: A tree is mechanical. A dog is “software based”.

Then we have bigger systems like planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc, and universe.

#7 All of these systems depend on each other. One cannot work without the other. This simple logic, and rationality tells me that everything was designed.
You can create a system on top of another system but a system by itself cannot get more complex unless it was designed to do so. This is what I observe in my everyday life and never seen anything different.

I don’t want to make this post too long. I will further explain in feature posts.


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:#1

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

#1 inanimate matter miraculously formed life.

Again, never been observed, not repeatable. NOT SCIENCE.

Um, there are actually several hypotheses on how life may have arisen from non-life; some of these have even been tested and verified in laboratory settings.

Just type "abiogenesis" into any search engine.

 

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Hydrogen is an atom, gold is another atom. You CANNOT turn one atom into another atom. I just used gold as an example. The theory states that hydrogen evolved into every known element.

Um, can I safely assume you're familiar nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, and radioactive decay?

Perhaps you mean it in a different way, but it is completely possible to "turn one atom into another atom" -- nuclear power plants and stars do it all the time.

 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I wonder why creationists

I wonder why creationists don't typically believe the earth is flat or stationary. Obviously it's possible to conclude both from a literal interpretation of the Bible since people have done it for centuries at least, and from a scientific perspective evolution isn't more controversial than heliocentrism or the earth's curvature . Though when it comes to the passages that imply the earth is flat and immovable they come up with interesting explanations and reasons why it shouldn't be taken literally.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:
Um, there are actually several hypotheses on how life may have arisen from non-life; some of these have even been tested and verified in laboratory settings. Just type "abiogenesis" into any search engine.


abiogenesis = doctrine, not science. Abiogenesis is a fallacy. Inanimate mater can never form life by itself. No laboratory has turned inanimate mater into life. Don’t just give your opinions. Post an example in your own words backed up by a source link.

blacklight915 wrote:
Um, can I safely assume you're familiar nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, and radioactive decay? Perhaps you mean it in a different way, but it is completely possible to "turn one atom into another atom" -- nuclear power plants and stars do it all the time.


Sure, in theory yes if you add or remove protons from the atom. Vast energy is needed and “intelligence” to guide the process. This kind of thing does not happen in nature, at least not in the order “preached” by the BigBanists followers of the Catholic Priest.

Hydrogen alone sitting out there cannot turn into anything. Remember, all this is THEORY. No one knows what the original elements were during the origin of the universe. No one was there. Whoever says that “energy” turned into particles, does not know what the scientific definition of “energy” is. The theory of hydrogen being the first element is dependent on this.

Discussing how we can turn one atom into another atom is a dead dog. The bigbang theory is a complete chain of believes one dependent on another. There is a better explanation. God (intelligent force) created the universe.

Here are three definitions of what you just mentioned. I’m going into biological now. I’m done with alchemy.

Nuclear fusion is the process by which two or more atomic nuclei join together, or "fuse", to form a single heavier nucleus. This is usually accompanied by the release or absorption of large quantities of energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, nuclear fission refers to either a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay process in which thenucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts (lighter nuclei), often producing free neutrons and photons (in the form of gamma rays), and releasing a very large amount of energy,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

In physical cosmology, Big Bang nucleosynthesis (or primordial nucleosynthesis, abbreviated BBN) refers to the production of nuclei other than those of H-1 (i.e. the normal, light isotope of hydrogen, whose nuclei consist of a single proton each) during the early phases of the universe. Primordial nucleosynthesis took place just a few moments after the Big Bang and is believed to be responsible for the formation of a heavier isotope of hydrogen known as deuterium (H-2 or D), the helium isotopes He-3 and He-4, and the lithium isotopes Li-6 and Li-7.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

Nucleosynthesis is the process of creating new atomic nuclei from pre-existing nucleons (protons and neutrons). It is thought that the primordial nucleons themselves were formed from the quark–gluon plasma from the Big Bang as it cooled below two trillion degrees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 357
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

AtheistsNightmare, why couldn't Yahweh have created the big bang?


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@Gauche

Gauche wrote:
I wonder why creationists don't typically believe the earth is flat or stationary. Obviously it's possible to conclude both from a literal interpretation of the Bible since people have done it for centuries at least, and from a scientific perspective evolution isn't more controversial than heliocentrism or the earth's curvature . Though when it comes to the passages that imply the earth is flat and immovable they come up with interesting explanations and reasons why it shouldn't be taken literally.

The reason is because nowhere in the bible says that earth is flat. Those are just interpretations. There are more than 2000 Christian organizations and they all interpret the bible differently. I have my own brain. I can use it and clearly see that NO WHERE the bible states earth is flat.

When the bible speaks about the earth being immovable, it is NOT talking about rotation. It is talking about being destroyed. Earth was made by God to be inhabited forever. This is clearly stated in multiple passages. You would see it if you took the time to read.

Example:

Psalms 93:1 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Is this verse talking about rotation? No. Is it talking about cheese? No. Well if you don’t see cheese, I neither see rotation. Now if you read the context which is found in multiple places then you would get a clear understanding. Example:

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.

Psalms 78:69 And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established for ever.

But, if you want to twist bible verses around, then I can do also. How about this? Earth is FIXED in its orbit around the sun. Have you ever seen it gone out of orbit? No.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
My point was that your

My point was that your interpretation of the passages suggesting the earth is flat and stationary

isn't literal but it may as well be. It doesn't hurt the credibility of a creationist to say the earth

is flat or stationary. In terms of scientific consensus they're all equally wrong. And If even the

figurative interpretation is wrong then why should it matter either way? Like what you're

saying about the earth's orbit for example; the astronomical unit can be measured precisely.

The earth is moving away from the sun at 15cm per year. Jacques Laskar discovered that the

orbits of the inner planets are chaotic, their orbital paths will probably cross eventually.

If you're going to be wrong anyway why not interpret it all literally?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 357
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

Um, there are actually several hypotheses on how life may have arisen from non-life; some of these have even been tested and verified in laboratory settings. Just type "abiogenesis" into any search engine.



abiogenesis = doctrine, not science. Abiogenesis is a fallacy. Inanimate mater can never form life by itself. No laboratory has turned inanimate mater into life.

The laws of physics and chemistry can produce life from non-life -- no agency required.

 

 

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:
Um, can I safely assume you're familiar nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, and radioactive decay? Perhaps you mean it in a different way, but it is completely possible to "turn one atom into another atom" -- nuclear power plants and stars do it all the time.


Sure, in theory yes if you add or remove protons from the atom. Vast energy is needed and “intelligence” to guide the process. This kind of thing does not happen in nature, at least not in the order “preached” by the BigBanists followers of the Catholic Priest.

Hydrogen alone sitting out there cannot turn into anything.

You sound like a Muslim occasionalist. They thought that God was required to explain everything. Nothing in nature was caused without God. If you threw a ball of cotton into the fire, it wasn't the fire that burned the cotton -- it was God. I sure hope you don't believe this, because you don't need God to explain causation. The laws of nature are enough to explain a leaf blowing in the wind, a tree growing, rain falling, crystals forming, fire burning, and life forming from non-life.

 

 

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Remember, all this is THEORY.

You're right, this is all explanation.

 

 

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

No one knows what the original elements were during the origin of the universe. No one was there.

I suppose this means you don't believe detectives can solve crimes, seeing how they weren't there and all. And you weren't there to see a seed grow into a large tree, so God must have made big trees in their present form. You can't see me, so God must be typing this.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:
AtheistsNightmare, why couldn't Yahweh have created the big bang?

The true evidence behind the bigbang is that the universe is expanding. This also validates what the bible says about God expanding the heavens.

I believe God designed all particles, imposed physics laws to establish how they should behave, assembled them together into atoms, and continue on creating the universe. He is still doing it at present.