Prove there's a god.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765427 Aug 6, 2014
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you ever get the feeling that abiogenesis is as strongly believed by scientists, as godly creation is strongly believed by Christians?
So far the score is:
Science...100%
Religion...0%
Science...100%?

Well,...not quite.

Triple Monster Black Hole Discovered
"Sometimes big, bad things comes in threes, including jumbo black holes"
Michael Lemonick for National Geographic
PUBLISHED JUNE 25, 2014

Stephen Hawking: "There are no black holes..."

Stephen J. Crothers: "There has been a deliberate suppression of scientific truth by the community of physicists and astronomers concerning the black hole and the big bang. I bring you free access to original papers in the hope that this fraud can be exposed and physics restored to a rational search for knowledge. The black hole has no foundation in theory whatsoever. Neither Newton's theory nor Einstein's theory predict it. In fact, both theories preclude it, contrary to what the relativists claim"

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765428 Aug 6, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> What are we supposed to do herewith the black hole's that do exist?
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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765429 Aug 6, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahaha.
I must confess that sometimes I do that.
It's lucrative and the client is satisfied, so I can't feel any guilt.
You denied guilt without it being suggested.

That's a "tell".

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765430 Aug 6, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The only thing you do is argue about the sky being blue.
That is exactly what I've been telling you too, that the reference frame of expansion beyond the cosmological event horizon is unobtainable, therefore it is at infinity.
I know that's what you told me. It's bull shit.

You imagine a reference frame, which is of course unobtainable, since it is imagined.

Then say it is "at infinity". It is "at" nowhere.

I can imagine two reference frames. Or three. Or four. To then call them a physical realized infinity would make me a liar, or insane.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#765431 Aug 6, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Not relevant. If you find a corpse with a bullet in the back of the head, you will never observe the execution, but can still proceed as if it happened. You can also assune that the corpse was once born even if you didn't and can't observe it.
<quoted text>
At one point, every attempt to build a flying machine had failed
One does not hae to observe the building of a flying machine to conclude intelligence was involved. The flying machine did not self assemble absent intelligence for no reason or an accident.
<quoted text>
Except the existence of life, and no evidence of a god.
Existence of life is evidence of Life or God. It certainly is not evidence of an accident. From life comes life. From intelligence comes intelligence. You say all life and intelligence are by products of non life and non intelligence for no reason. Since there is no intelligence there is no reason. Life and intelligence from a rock. Yeah sure.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#765432 Aug 6, 2014
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Swine will eat just about anybody...I mean anything. Bones and all.
I should probably say no more, counselor.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765433 Aug 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you could take it that way. From the point of view of our current science, abiogenesis is the only prediction we can make.
Yes, the Christians make the appeal you mention above.
"An appeal to consequences is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are clearly fallacious. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be. Belief that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be, absent other evidence, is therefore just as likely to be false as true."
Thanks for pointing that out!
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ap...
Glad I could help.

Any time I get you to put your scientific conclusion on par with Christian belief is a good day.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#765434 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a simple case of bald assertion with no evidence.
Thank you for the warning. Yes, after reading your post, I agree. You are just baldly asserting nothing without evidence.
It is not a hypothesis at all. It is a simple statement of hypothetical permisiveness - "might"; "allow"; "could have".
You posted a big fat "maybe", with window dressing.
It is not explanatory. It is not capable of producing knowledge.
Here is the competing hypothesis. Are you ready?
"Maybe not"
Sorry Buck. Science isn't dogma. That's what separates the most productive knowledge and new technology producing system from all the others. Science has to be honest. Dogma doesn't.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#765435 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad I could help.
Any time I get you to put your scientific conclusion on par with Christian belief is a good day.
You did no such thing. You just showed me one more fallacy of theistic reason.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#765436 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Science...100%?
Well,...not quite.
Triple Monster Black Hole Discovered
"Sometimes big, bad things comes in threes, including jumbo black holes"
Michael Lemonick for National Geographic
PUBLISHED JUNE 25, 2014
Stephen Hawking: "There are no black holes..."
Stephen J. Crothers: "There has been a deliberate suppression of scientific truth by the community of physicists and astronomers concerning the black hole and the big bang. I bring you free access to original papers in the hope that this fraud can be exposed and physics restored to a rational search for knowledge. The black hole has no foundation in theory whatsoever. Neither Newton's theory nor Einstein's theory predict it. In fact, both theories preclude it, contrary to what the relativists claim"
1. Hawking's paper isn't science yet. It's also just a suggestion for how we should model the phenomena classical physics labels black holes.

2. Crothers is a creationist idiot. He denies Einstein's general theory of relativity - a theory demonstrated correct at every turn. It's never been disproved.

And, no, Hawking's new model isn't a demonstration of disproof of Einstein. If you think that, you simply don't understand physics. Given how you've characterized the entire Hawking's paper on one sentence, though...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765437 Aug 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>

Evolution by natural selection destroyed special creation. It's gone. Only the most ignorant and religious of people could still adhere to that useless belief.
You are wrong.

You defined "evolution" as the change in allelic frequency with each generation.

That contains neither abiogenesis, or any other hypothesis about the origin of life. You materialists remind us constantly that evolution does not include abiogenesis.

Now you want it both ways. You can say that evolution refutes the literal history of creation in Genesis, but not special creation. Evolution can tell us how life came to be what it is, but not how or why life came to be.

It is excusable that you let your faith cause you to overstate your case. It happens all the time with people of faith.

But I will duly note your willingness to abandon your phony devotion to scientific rigor and override it with your philosophy.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#765438 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong.
You defined "evolution" as the change in allelic frequency with each generation.
That contains neither abiogenesis, or any other hypothesis about the origin of life. You materialists remind us constantly that evolution does not include abiogenesis.
Now you want it both ways. You can say that evolution refutes the literal history of creation in Genesis, but not special creation. Evolution can tell us how life came to be what it is, but not how or why life came to be.
It is excusable that you let your faith cause you to overstate your case. It happens all the time with people of faith.
But I will duly note your willingness to abandon your phony devotion to scientific rigor and override it with your philosophy.
I'm not overstating my case. Evolution demonstrates that deities don't create new lifeforms, that all life is descended from earlier life - hence no special creation.

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. Additionally, all evidence in biology, molecular biology, chemistry and geology suggest abiogenesis occurred. The details are being worked out via hypothesis testing.

It's amazing that, against all scientific progress, against all of the incorrect religious and dualism postulates that science has demonstrated false, you still suggest that a religious explanation of the beginning of life is more plausible. Sorry, Buck, none of the theoretical frameworks or hypotheses produced by science incorporate deities - none needed. Matter is self-organizing via energy.

Just because we don't have abiogenesis fully worked out isn't a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, toss our arms in the air and pick some fictional account of creation.

Well, nope. You're going to have to pony up some evidence for your claims. Otherwise, you're only spouting a mythological belief system.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#765439 Aug 6, 2014
"As an aside, I also find it interesting that Mr. Crothers has become aligned with the Electric Universe (EU) advocates. Mr. Crothers' understanding of physics seems to rely on some rather bizarre interpretations of mathematics that keep it disconnected with real physical theories. Yet comparison of mathematical models against observations and/or experiments is a key component of valid science. If Crothers chooses to dismiss such validation, he is admitting that he is not doing science."

Key point here - "Crothers...is not doing science."

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blog...

Buck, your heroes are mocked by scientists for their sloppy and religiously biased work.

Therefore your criticisms of me are fine praise. Thank you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765440 Aug 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Hawking's paper isn't science yet. It's also just a suggestion for how we should model the phenomena classical physics labels black holes.
2. Crothers is a creationist idiot. He denies Einstein's general theory of relativity - a theory demonstrated correct at every turn. It's never been disproved.
And, no, Hawking's new model isn't a demonstration of disproof of Einstein. If you think that, you simply don't understand physics. Given how you've characterized the entire Hawking's paper on one sentence, though...
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!"

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765441 Aug 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You did no such thing. You just showed me one more fallacy of theistic reason.
Which you utilized in your science conclusion.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#765442 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
As to tasks required of you, like separating whites and colors, you are on very unequal footing with Joyful. You exploited the inequality for gratuitous satisfaction, when it had nothing to do with the subject matter, so far as I know. Whether that reflects well or poorly, I'll leave to you.
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?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765443 Aug 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not overstating my case. Evolution demonstrates that deities don't create new lifeforms, that all life is descended from earlier life - hence no special creation.
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. Additionally, all evidence in biology, molecular biology, chemistry and geology suggest abiogenesis occurred. The details are being worked out via hypothesis testing.
It's amazing that, against all scientific progress, against all of the incorrect religious and dualism postulates that science has demonstrated false, you still suggest that a religious explanation of the beginning of life is more plausible. Sorry, Buck, none of the theoretical frameworks or hypotheses produced by science incorporate deities - none needed. Matter is self-organizing via energy.
Just because we don't have abiogenesis fully worked out isn't a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, toss our arms in the air and pick some fictional account of creation.
Well, nope. You're going to have to pony up some evidence for your claims. Otherwise, you're only spouting a mythological belief system.
Yammer, yammer,...

Evolution does not demonstrate that all life descended from earlier life. In fact, it could not have, because there was a period of no life on the planet. 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.

Now you treat us to a different tale, contradicting your earlier one.

"No evidence for deities" does not aid your thesis at all. You're just yammering. 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.

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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#765444 Aug 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
"As an aside, I also find it interesting that Mr. Crothers has become aligned with the Electric Universe (EU) advocates. Mr. Crothers' understanding of physics seems to rely on some rather bizarre interpretations of mathematics that keep it disconnected with real physical theories. Yet comparison of mathematical models against observations and/or experiments is a key component of valid science. If Crothers chooses to dismiss such validation, he is admitting that he is not doing science."
Key point here - "Crothers...is not doing science."
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blog...
Buck, your heroes are mocked by scientists for their sloppy and religiously biased work.
Therefore your criticisms of me are fine praise. Thank you.
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...

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#765445 Aug 6, 2014
http://www.cfaith.com/index.php/article-displ...

Five Ways to Hear from God = Written by Sandra Hughes

You CAN Hear From Heaven!
If you don't think someone wants to talk to you then you probably won't go near them. God created you in His image. He started out in the Garden of Eden fellowshipping with His creation, and He wants your fellowship too. Scripture says that He thinks good thoughts toward you that He wants to give you a hope and peace for your outcome.

Throughout the Bible, He says words like hearken diligently to My voice; listen to these words I'm speaking to you today; and hear Me now in this…. He wouldn't say things like that and then not give us the ability to do it.

It amazes me how many people don't believe that God would ever have anything to say to them. The very One that created you and gave you the breathe of life has so much he wants to share with you so draw near and listen.
He Gives Us Ears to Hear!
If you want to hear from God - you can but you've got to have faith that He wants to talk to you. Next, look at the word heart - you'll notice that e-a-r is in the center - that's the ear of your heart.

Have you ever had your ears stopped up, making it difficult to hear? It's the same thing with your heart. If your heart is cluttered, you may not be able to hear from God like you should.

Psalm 24 talks about being in a place of contact with God, "who shall go up to the mountain of the Lord? Or who shall stand in His holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart…."

It's not difficult to maintain a pure heart. If you confess your sin He is faithful and just to forgive you of your sin and cleanse you from all unrighteousness. So, dig out the ears of your heart and you'll be amazed at how clearly you'll hear God's voice.
We Are Sons of God
The Word says that as many as are lead by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God. As a born-again believer, you have been equipped with an inside leader called the Holy Ghost. He will show you those things to come and teach you those things you don't yet know.

Daniel describes Him as "He who reveals the profound and hidden things, He knows what is in the darkness and the light dwells in Him." This same light is in you! It is the light of revelation that can only come by the Spirit of God dwelling in you.

It is the Lord's will for you to hear from heaven so that you have the wisdom and insight needed to be successful in life. Go to God in faith knowing that He wants to speak to you. Find scriptures like John 16:13 - "He will disclose to you what is to come…He will guide you in all truth." God has something to say to you - so draw near to Him!
It Is God's Will
It is God's will for you to hear from heaven. Have you ever had a scripture jump out at you while reading your Bible? Or have you ever had the Word that is stored in your heart "come to light"? That's God speaking to you.

When the Lord speaks to you in these ways - His word is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword. It brings the exact answer or direction you need.

From your soul comes your mind, will and emotions. From your born-again spirit comes the "God" part of you. This living word divides the soul and spirit. It clears the path between what God is saying and what your own will or emotions are saying - revealing the thoughts, intents and purposes of your heart and you'll know with confidence when God really speaking to you. Draw near to God, listening to His Word in your heart.
We Are Spirit Led
The Lord is our shepherd and He leads His sons by the Spirit. You may be in a place where His voice is not booming down from heaven but He can still be leading and guiding you. Isaiah says - you'll go out with joy and be lead forth with peace.

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.

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 Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 11 min Anthony MN 654,034
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 22 min PELE78 64,067
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 23 min DebraE 106,509
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Neville Thompson 281,870
What is your most embarrassing photo? 1 hr Aliciasilver 5
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr Neville Thompson 45,238
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 3 hr Prestige times ten 3,810
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 9 hr Clive 80
More from around the web