Prove there's a god.

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#765446 Aug 6, 2014
http://www.cfaith.com/index.php/article-displ ...

continued...

Five Ways to Hear from God = Written by Sandra Hughes

How does it feel in your spirit as you make steps in a certain direction? Is there joy and peace or is something saying, "this is not right." Having joy and peace doesn't mean it will always be easy but as you make steps He gives the strength and confidence to do what He is leading you to do.

Peace, or lack of it, is one of God's ways of speaking to you. Don't discount it because it is not a dramatic vision or prophecy. The Lord could be showing you that you are mature and spiritually developed enough to obey His gentle promptings. So, draw near to God and obey the inward witness.
Remember, You CAN hear from heaven! But you've got to have faith that He wants to talk to you. Keep a pure heart and obey the leading of the Great Shepherd - you will find yourself in the center of His will.

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#765447 Aug 6, 2014
Good morning all. May God be with you all throughout your day/night. Love, joy, peace, and happiness sent your way from God and I. Glory to God!!

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#765448 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't help you there.
Since they only exist in your head, maybe you can just leave them there.
I think you have infinite space for them.
You're such an idiot, you think because you believe black holes don't exist.
Coupled with your misunderstanding of a opinion piece paper written by Hawking makes your belief real? turbo doofus

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#765449 Aug 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
I'm not overstating my case. Evolution demonstrates that deities don't create new lifeforms,
Yeah, they create themselves for no reason.
that all life is descended from earlier life - hence no special creation.
All life all intelligence from non life for no reason. That's science?
You seem to be talking about the beginning of life here - and you're wrong there, too. There is no evidence for deities and not a single one of our sciences incorporate deities into their theories.
Then they assume non life and non intelligence? Sounds dogmatic to assume no intelligence. One can make distinctions between natural effects and intelligent effects in the macro world. Grand Canyon (natural) as opposed to Empire State Building (Intelligence). Everything in the micro is assumed unguided processes. Non intelligent and non life as th source no matter the obvious intricate design.
Additionally, all evidence in biology, molecular biology, chemistry and geology suggest abiogenesis occurred.
How did it occur. Why did it occur. What was the cause?
The details are being worked out via hypothesis testing.
LOL. Will be saying the same thing 10 years from now..........

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765450 Aug 6, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entering this in the middle, Buck.
As far as inequality does, she chose to target me. I tried to reason with her, but she would have none of it. If she can't take the blowback, then she made a tactical error, didn't she?
Do you think I should forgive her? Do you think I should give her a pass?
Admittedly, I have not followed the history. I don't mean to advise you.

I would not expect you to give her a pass. But utilizing the economic inequality in the matter presents what could strike the casual observer as elitism.

That's just my opinion.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765451 Aug 6, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You're such an idiot, you think because you believe black holes don't exist.
Coupled with your misunderstanding of a opinion piece paper written by Hawking makes your belief real? turbo doofus
Maybe I misunderstood "There are no black holes..."

Maybe he meant "There are black holes..."

It's Hawking's belief. But he doesn't understand his own belief, according to you.

Why don't you explain to Hawking what he believes, since he doesn't know?

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#765452 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't science yet?
What is it - Art? Music?
You have no idea how ridiculous you are.
Your comment about Crothers is outright falsehood.
You should have just said, "I Shun Thee!"
It's an opinion piece, it contains no math, it is also untestable.
Even if it had supporting calculus, it would only be "theoretical".
But this is just like Krauss, Universe from nothing.
So it's an appeal to authority for you, and a appeal to an audience for him.
He has your head spinning, you're dizzy and , you feel feint ....maybe you should lay down.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#765453 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't science yet?
What is it - Art? Music?
You have no idea how ridiculous you are.
Your comment about Crothers is outright falsehood.
You should have just said, "I Shun Thee!"
It's an unpublished paper. It's not science until it's been through the peer review process. Even then, it's speculative since it does not have hypothesis testing to back up its assertions.

Wow, Buck. If you don't understand this level of science, I understand why you believe in intelligent design - based on the above, you are unable to differentiate what is and is not science, and choose what to believe by cherry picking what agrees with your worldview.

Sorry baby, that's weak sauce.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#765454 Aug 6, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
What makes you think I go to my Bible to answer science questions?... Why do atheists always seem to revert to that lame argument of assuming that the Bible is referred to as a science textbook?
Perhaps because theist treat their bible stories as science. They have been trying for decades to insert them in science books. Those stories were taught as the literal truth about the natural history, structure, and workings of the cosmos - i.e, scientific fact - for centuries.

Didn't you compile this list?

"Creation and abiogenesis aren't the only two hypotheses, theories or guesses as to where life came from. There's Panspermia, Biopoesis, Cosmogeny, Endosymbiosis, Spontaneous Generation, Clay Theory, Materialistic Theory, Organic Evolution and Creation Theory."

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#765455 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Which you utilized in your science conclusion.
No I did not.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#765456 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe I misunderstood "There are no black holes..."
Maybe he meant "There are black holes..."
It's Hawking's belief. But he doesn't understand his own belief, according to you.
Why don't you explain to Hawking what he believes, since he doesn't know?
I don't have a belief , in Hawking or black holes.
But we all know what you're full of..lol

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#765457 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Yammer, yammer,...
Yes, I agree. Your post consists entirely of the above. For example:
Evolution does not demonstrate that all life descended from earlier life.
Yes it does, but don't let reality stop you. Please support your statement above with evidence.
In fact, it could not have, because there was a period of no life on the planet.
Wow, seriously? The above is the most ignorant statement you have uttered. There was no period where life was not on the planet, huh? After it formed, it was utterly inhospitable to life.

Are you espousing a young earth view here?
Evolution demonstrates how life progressed, i.e., change in allelic frequency - your definition. It says nothing about the origin of life - as you yourself have stated on Topix.
Yes. You've got that one bit right! Woohooo! Nice.
Now you treat us to a different tale, contradicting your earlier one.
Uh...you can't just state that without also demonstrating where I contradict myself.

Sorry, I made no claim to evolution also explaining abiogenesis - except in the fact that evolutionary processes in non-life chemistry, i.e., organic chemistry, i.e., the non-life replicators, eventually led to life.

However, the evolution of life - no, had nothing to do with abiogenesis.
"No evidence for deities" does not aid your thesis at all. You're just yammering.
So far you haven't backed up a thing you have claimed. Yammer-yammer, sir Buck.
Your thesis was that evolution destroys special creation, not that it supplies no evidence. That is a far cry from "no evidence", as you are claiming disproof.
Yes, evolution demonstrates that no species was created. In other words, it destroys special creation.
You are first and foremost a philosopher, and you like the science that agrees with your philosophy. If it does not agree, you will twist it, distort it, or flatly contradict yourself to make it agree.
You can't have it both ways - deny that evolution addresses origins, then utilize evolution to address origins.
No to both accounts. I'm not a philosopher. I'm a social scientist. And you are a writer.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#765458 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You can copy and paste anti-creationist blogs.
How brilliant.
You neglected to include Crothers' reply to that very criticism you copied.
Unlike what you copied, which is inuendo, guilt by association, and opinion, Crothers' reply is scientific, detailed, and reflects an advanced understanding of mathematics and physics.
Here it is. Enjoy at your leisure.
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/REP...
Sorry baby, Crother's reply is not scientific. I understand that you believe that but, once again, science is determined by consensus of professionals working in the field. Ergo, nothing Crother's writes is scientific - he was booted out of his PhD program for being a quack.

It's like you are telling me that one guy who refuses to use modern medicine, and repeatedly fails to learn about the germ theory of disease, and so subsequently is kicked out of medical school is actually a doctor.

Nope. He's a quack. I understand that his belief system matches yours and that you want very badly for him to be correct, but the reality is he's just spouting nonsense. Clever, carefully articulated nonsense - just like the ID people - but nonsense all the same.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#765459 Aug 6, 2014
Joyful8118 wrote:
http://www.cfaith.com/index.ph p/article-display/21-articles/ holy-spirit/16678-five-ways-to -hear-from-god
Five Ways to Hear from God = Written by Sandra Hughes
You CAN Hear From Heaven!
Sorry baby, the only way to hear God is to listen to Buck. Or sleep with him.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#765460 Aug 6, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Yeah, they create themselves for no reason.
No, people like you create them via your imagination.
All life all intelligence from non life for no reason. That's science?
No, not for "no reason." Because all matter and energy obey the laws of physics and self-organize accordingly.
Then they assume non life and non intelligence? Sounds dogmatic to assume no intelligence.
Just produce a counter argument. Stop basing your entire belief system on my ignorance. Sure, it's flattering that I'm the sole reason for your worshiping your imaginary deity, but stop being a child and produce an argument.

Provide some evidence that your imagined creation is real - and please make it a powerful explanation that produces both new knowledge and technology.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765461 Aug 6, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It's an opinion piece, it contains no math, it is also untestable.
Even if it had supporting calculus, it would only be "theoretical".
But this is just like Krauss, Universe from nothing.
So it's an appeal to authority for you, and a appeal to an audience for him.
He has your head spinning, you're dizzy and , you feel feint ....maybe you should lay down.
The support for black holes was always "theoretical".

It only makes sense that Hawkings' dismissal of black holes would be "theoretical".

Mythologies die hard, huh?

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#765462 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The support for black holes was always "theoretical".
It only makes sense that Hawkings' dismissal of black holes would be "theoretical".
Mythologies die hard, huh?
No it isn't , not only were they a prediction as result of relativity there is evidence that they exist. You also have no idea what Hawking meant, in the first place.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765463 Aug 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
It's an unpublished paper. It's not science until it's been through the peer review process. Even then, it's speculative since it does not have hypothesis testing to back up its assertions.
Wow, Buck. If you don't understand this level of science, I understand why you believe in intelligent design - based on the above, you are unable to differentiate what is and is not science, and choose what to believe by cherry picking what agrees with your worldview.
Sorry baby, that's weak sauce.
You are wrong.

Publication and peer-review does not make something "science".

Apparently, I understand this level of science much better than you.

Peer review is an evaluation of a work to determine its plausibility. If a scientific work is peer-reviewed, it is science before it was reviewed:

Science is "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

Peer review might determine that "systematic study" to be flawed, tenous, or inconsistent.

But peer-review IS NOT what determines whether a work is "science".

A work can be science, peer-reviewed science, or science not peer reviewed.

I'll give you more free lessons in peer review if you wish.



Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765464 Aug 6, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No it isn't , not only were they a prediction as result of relativity there is evidence that they exist. You also have no idea what Hawking meant, in the first place.
It is not predicted by relativity.

There is evidence that "something" exists. That it was black holes is theoretical.

"There are no black holes..."

I have a somewhat clear understanding of what that means.

Do you know what this means?...

"The black hole is not predicted by General Relativity. In reality, the black hole is a meaningless entity, without basis in any theory or in any observation".

Mythology dies hard, huh?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765465 Aug 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>

No, not for "no reason." Because all matter and energy obey the laws of physics and self-organize accordingly.
All matter and energy "self-organize" according to the laws of physics??

That's a bizarre claim.

Could you please provide for me the law of physics that determines gene position on chromosomes?

And also, could you please include the law of physics that determines the self-referentiality of DNA topology, transcription, and ATP levels resulting in semantic and analog information content?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Homeowners lose Katrina insurance flood case (Aug '06) 4 min DBullock 12
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min truth 665,632
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 30 min crucifiedguy 284,739
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 33 min It aint necessari... 723
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 2 hr WildWeirdWillie 184,820
donald trump will not fulfill all campaign prom... 2 hr crucifiedguy 62
women watching men naked on webcam (Mar '12) 3 hr str8hairymarried 85
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 3 hr truth 88,545
The Future of Politics in America 6 hr River Tam 313
More from around the web