Creationists' theory in detail

[Porter Rockwell]

Anyone else notice?

28 pages and still no creation theory.

I noticed that there is no scientific evidence of the Big Bang theory.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.

What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.

What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.

First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.

You cannot get something from nothing

And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.

Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.

Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.

Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.

There is solid evidence, evidence you can see and check with your own eyes, and there is weak evidence, evidence that is second or third hand, unverifiable, and contradictory such as Jesus Christ and his miracles.

Believers and nonbelievers are free to decide that matter. You cannot make a definitive statement as to the value of any evidence presented that is any greater than your personal opinion.

I can and I did and I stand by it. If you think believing your own eyes is no better than believing what someone tells you to believe, then you have some issues you need to think about.

You seem to be talking to yourself in a mirror. I look at the evidence and see what you see and come to one conclusion: Either way, we believe what we believe based upon faith and NOT irrefutable science. And only one thing remains indisputable: You cannot get something from nothing. Time, space, matter... all of it had to have an origination point.

 

[ding]

So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described to you was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

I seems to me you've fallen into a semantic pit and made some rash assumptions. You assume "These laws existed before space and time" so there must have been an intelligence planning creation. I don't agree.

1 + 1 = 2 To me, that is a universal truth in any language, on any planet, in any universe. Even animals can grasp the concept. Did someone or something have to create this property of numbers or is it an intrinsic property? No, once you have created a number you have created this property. Poor as this analogy is it illustrates my view on creation. The creation of space-time, created the laws that space-time is governed by.

Here's another poor analogy. Imagine I was able to create a computer system where individual programs, each with slightly different properties, competed against each other to perform a task. At the end of each run then I copied the best performing programs and removed the worst competitors and reran the system. Under my selective pressure the programs would 'evolve' and become more and more efficient. I don't have to create the laws of evolution in my computer program, they are a by-product of the system.

The universe was created according to the laws of nature so of course they existed before the universe.

 

[ding]

what does it tell us about God? That God is beyond energy and matter, that God is no thing, that the best we say about the nature of God is that God is more like consciousness without form, that God is love, that God is truth, that God is existence and the material world is a contingent reality.

Your God is what you wish him to be. You have any evidence of consciousness or love or 'truth'? Neither Google nor I know what a 'contingent reality' is.

The reality is that it is you who wished there to be no God. I have evidence and reason for my beliefs. God isn't what I want God to be. God is. I just used reason to discover him.

The only argument you have for your belief is when you were 12 years old you noticed that there was more than one religion so you concluded there could be no God which is the preposterous argument of a child.

So tell me, who has more evidence and reasoning behind their beliefs? You or me?

Sorry but I stand behind my 12-year-old logic but your are misapplying it. It refers only to the God of the Bible and what I was told about Him:

• Why would one God have many conflicting messages?
• God will eventually judge us yet every religion has different rules for what is acceptable, which do we follow?
• Many people lived and died before Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, how can they be judged?
• Many babies and children die, how can they be judged?

Your logic isn’t improving.

You are equivocating man’s interpretation of God’s message with God’s message.

You are hung up on the form of religion when what we have been discussing is the form of God. Two different things.

 

[forkup]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.

What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.

What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.

First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.

You cannot get something from nothing

And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.

Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.

Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.

Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.

If I can prove all these things I can disprove the entire book of Genisis.

You don't seem to get that I never claimed something came from nothing. That is what you claim is my belief. I claim I don't know how we originated. I suspect a certain way but just like with God I feel that suspicion is not sufficiently proven for me to claim I know. On the other hand, the start of our universe is sufficiently proven for me to claim that I know. What happened before that I do not. See how it works? You on the other hand feel that God is a sufficient explanation. That's the difference between you and me.

There is absolutely no secular history that Jesus Christ existed. And even if there was, his claim he was speaking for God would not count as evidence. The lunatic asylum is full of people who claim they hear voices, and history is full of people who claimed they were speaking for some deity or another.

Yes, there has been evidence of Jesus. Denying it does little to disprove it. If you cannot tell us where matter originated, you've proven my premise.

Show me the evidence please than I'll be very interested.

As to me having to be able to tell you where matter comes from. Why? Does me not knowing something proves God? You do realize that's the God of the gaps argument? I know where elements come from. https://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3 - MATTER/nuclear synthesis.pdf Is that sufficient?

I looked at your link. It still presupposes that something exists. You have to take all that on faith. But, since you want to talk evidence, I'd like to share something I found (and I post stuff that makes you think - it has NOTHING to do with what I personally believe or disbelieve. It's just evidence to be considered):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

Read this please Mendel, Darwin and Evolution In it it states not only that Mendel's theories and Darwin's where not at odds but that Mendel's work helped with the biggest problem that Darwin's theory had. I also suggest you look at Darwin's biography, you will notice that before he published his theory of evolution he had published before and was already a member of a naturalist society. By the way, claiming he wasn't a scientist seems bizarre since most modern scientific fields where still being developed and darwin was a thoroughly educated man. Also, the author of your article has himself no degree in any field of science besides computer sciences yet he felt qualified to write a book that claimed to disprove evolution, hows that for irony?

As to the rest. It is a description of how elements came to be, nothing more nothing less. It is you who keeps presupposing matter had to come from nothing. I have said on multiple occasions that I don't know.

So tell me, in a court of law if the prosecutor keeps on bringing forth witnesses who refuse to be cross-examined as our astrophysicist or outright lies as our computer consultant. Or if the prosecution refuses to deliver documentation as you have when I asked you to produce proof Jesus existed. How much chance do you think that the prosecutor has to win their case?

 

[forkup]

Anyone else notice?

28 pages and still no creation theory.

I noticed that there is no scientific evidence of the Big Bang theory.

What Is The Evidence For The Big Bang?

Almost all astronomers agree on the theory of the Big Bang, that the entire Universe is spreading apart, with distant galaxies speeding away from us in all directions. Run the clock backwards to 13.8 billion years ago, and everything in the Cosmos started out as a single point in space. In an...

www.universetoday.com

You did ,did you?

 

[Hollie]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.

What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.

What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.

First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.

You cannot get something from nothing

And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.

I would be hesitant to use Lisle as a source for anything within a discussion of science matters. As a propagandist for the ICR, he has an explicit agenda to press and by his own admission, has already predefined an agenda that presumes a conclusion. He is not promoting science, he’s promoting Christian fundamentalism.

Foundational Principles

www.icr.org

• The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
• The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
• Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to “horizontal” changes (variations) within the kinds, or “downward” changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
• The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the “spiritual” nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.

It goes on with more paragraphs of this nonsense but there’s only so much intellectual bludgeoning one can take.

Until nonbelievers have definitive proof of the origination of matter, they are taking their beliefs on faith. There that does away with $50 words to get to the bottom line of a simple concept. You don't know where every molecule, every atom and every scintilla of matter came from, so lacking that knowledge, we all take our beliefs on faith.

That’s not at all true. It’s really an intellectual drop ten and punt used by the religious to allow their gods to cling to some measure of relevance.

Firstly, if you don’t understand the four states of matter, you have no business in a science discussion: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.

There is ample evidence that the various forms of “matter” are produced by the universe:Our Expanding Universe: Age, History & Other Facts

That is not evidence. My training is in law. I have taken many courses in evidence. If you cannot explain the origination of solid, liquid, gas and plasma, all you have is a theory about how existing substances somehow evolved into life. Your theory does NOTHING to tell me where matter originated. There is no scientific explanation for nothingness.

I have no idea if you have training in law.

Matter as we know it, was a product of the “Big Bang”. The Big Bang was not nothingness but a cataclysmic disruption to time and space. Further, It’s well understood that Supernova produce most of the heavy elements in the universe.

Are you suggesting that various gods just whip up some magic and create heavy elements.

I'm not suggesting anything outside of the obvious. Supernova, Big Bang, etc. are no different than creation. You have to presume a starting point of which there is NO irrefutable scientific evidence that would hold up in a court of law IF you could find a jury that had no knowledge or bias either way.

Supernova, Big Bang clearly are different than creation. There is nothing supernatural about Supernova or the Big Bang. There is no presumption about the Big Bang being a starting point. There is clear evidence for it. And no, the Big Bang is not a matter of civil or criminal law that is going to court. Did you go to a law school that advertises in the supermarket tabloids?

Science does not operate on irrefutable evidence. It a process of discovery that flexes as new data is confirmed and meets the rigors of the Scientific Method.

 

[Hollie]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.

What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.

What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.

First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.

You cannot get something from nothing

And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.

Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.

Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.

Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.

If I can prove all these things I can disprove the entire book of Genisis.

You don't seem to get that I never claimed something came from nothing. That is what you claim is my belief. I claim I don't know how we originated. I suspect a certain way but just like with God I feel that suspicion is not sufficiently proven for me to claim I know. On the other hand, the start of our universe is sufficiently proven for me to claim that I know. What happened before that I do not. See how it works? You on the other hand feel that God is a sufficient explanation. That's the difference between you and me.

There is absolutely no secular history that Jesus Christ existed. And even if there was, his claim he was speaking for God would not count as evidence. The lunatic asylum is full of people who claim they hear voices, and history is full of people who claimed they were speaking for some deity or another.

Yes, there has been evidence of Jesus. Denying it does little to disprove it. If you cannot tell us where matter originated, you've proven my premise.

Show me the evidence please than I'll be very interested.

As to me having to be able to tell you where matter comes from. Why? Does me not knowing something proves God? You do realize that's the God of the gaps argument? I know where elements come from. https://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3 - MATTER/nuclear synthesis.pdf Is that sufficient?

I looked at your link. It still presupposes that something exists. You have to take all that on faith. But, since you want to talk evidence, I'd like to share something I found (and I post stuff that makes you think - it has NOTHING to do with what I personally believe or disbelieve. It's just evidence to be considered):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

Your link is from someone with a clear agenda. From the Jewish aPress: “Josh Greenberger is author of "Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt.”

As a blogger who criticizes Darwin as a non-scientist, this guy has no credentials for anything but opinion.

Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).

In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.

 

[Hollie]

Anyone else notice?

28 pages and still no creation theory.

I noticed that there is no scientific evidence of the Big Bang theory.

You find it at Harun Yahya.

Not surprisingly, it is scientists, not religious institutions, who are studying and learning about the beginnings of the universe.

By the way, the Big Bang has been measured, at least the cosmic background radiation resulting from it, which is the "glow" left over from the "explosion" itself. Confirmation of this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, two Bell Labs researchers, who later won the Nobel Prize for their discovery

 

[justinacolmena]

'god did it''
''it's in the bible ''
...
no theory, nothing

To "create" is to "appoint" as a destiny.

Every creature created by God was this appointed a destiny and course of existence in the universe.

The things created in the six days of Creation were perfected on the seventh day, when God completed His work and rested, even as a lawyer rests his case.

It is clear that the six days of Creation in the Bible are not natural literal days or periods of 24 hours: to wit, the spiritual light created on the first day, and the natural lights created on the fourth day.

God would have begun His work as soon as the sun set upon the primordial Sabbath, if there were at that time yet a sun. The Bible describes how the evening and the morning went by as God worked all night and all day, and what He had accomplished at the end of each day as He continued working without rest six nights and six days, and how the morning dew was falling as the Sabbath day began to dawn on the newly created Earth, and still God was not able to rest until He had formed the human beings and placed them in the Garden.

How man was formed, and all the animals appeared before him, but Adam was faithful to his wife.

The great apes have natural fur and are not ashamed of their nakedness, but at some point --- in evolutionary history --- human beings did eat of some fruit and (bye and bye) became more knowledgeable than the apes, and too ashamed to go anywhere without clothing.

Lot was a caveman, and his daughters' husbands were angels, but they made him "drink wine" and tell stories to use such a colorful figure of speech because they still had enemies from Sodom and Gomorrah despite the devastation of a volcanic eruption.

Almost all of these things can be explained one way or another by evolutionary science, but humans have souls, and certain spiritual and supernatural events take place in the great battle between good and evil, that cannot be explained by science.

 

[Hollie]

'god did it''
''it's in the bible ''
...
no theory, nothing

To "create" is to "appoint" as a destiny.

Every creature created by God was this appointed a destiny and course of existence in the universe.

The things created in the six days of Creation were perfected on the seventh day, when God completed His work and rested, even as a lawyer rests his case.

It is clear that the six days of Creation in the Bible are not natural literal days or periods of 24 hours: to wit, the spiritual light created on the first day, and the natural lights created on the fourth day.

God would have begun His work as soon as the sun set upon the primordial Sabbath, if there were at that time yet a sun. The Bible describes how the evening and the morning went by as God worked all night and all day, and what He had accomplished at the end of each day as He continued working without rest six nights and six days, and how the morning dew was falling as the Sabbath day began to dawn on the newly created Earth, and still God was not able to rest until He had formed the human beings and placed them in the Garden.

How man was formed, and all the animals appeared before him, but Adam was faithful to his wife.

The great apes have natural fur and are not ashamed of their nakedness, but at some point --- in evolutionary history --- human beings did eat of some fruit and (bye and bye) became more knowledgeable than the apes, and too ashamed to go anywhere without clothing.

Lot was a caveman, and his daughters' husbands were angels, but they made him "drink wine" and tell stories to use such a colorful figure of speech because they still had enemies from Sodom and Gomorrah despite the devastation of a volcanic eruption.

Almost all of these things can be explained one way or another by evolutionary science, but humans have souls, and certain spiritual and supernatural events take place in the great battle between good and evil, that cannot be explained by science.

I sure hope you can quickly publish your version of the Bible correcting the mistakes. If days don’t really mean days, let’s make that correction and add the true periods of time.

Sheesh, I sure wish you had come along sooner so we can finally, finally get a Bible with your final edits.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but humans have souls

No they don't

 

[Porter Rockwell]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.

What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.

What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.

First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.

You cannot get something from nothing

And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.

Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.

Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.

Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.

If I can prove all these things I can disprove the entire book of Genisis.

You don't seem to get that I never claimed something came from nothing. That is what you claim is my belief. I claim I don't know how we originated. I suspect a certain way but just like with God I feel that suspicion is not sufficiently proven for me to claim I know. On the other hand, the start of our universe is sufficiently proven for me to claim that I know. What happened before that I do not. See how it works? You on the other hand feel that God is a sufficient explanation. That's the difference between you and me.

There is absolutely no secular history that Jesus Christ existed. And even if there was, his claim he was speaking for God would not count as evidence. The lunatic asylum is full of people who claim they hear voices, and history is full of people who claimed they were speaking for some deity or another.

Yes, there has been evidence of Jesus. Denying it does little to disprove it. If you cannot tell us where matter originated, you've proven my premise.

Show me the evidence please than I'll be very interested.

As to me having to be able to tell you where matter comes from. Why? Does me not knowing something proves God? You do realize that's the God of the gaps argument? I know where elements come from. https://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3 - MATTER/nuclear synthesis.pdf Is that sufficient?

I looked at your link. It still presupposes that something exists. You have to take all that on faith. But, since you want to talk evidence, I'd like to share something I found (and I post stuff that makes you think - it has NOTHING to do with what I personally believe or disbelieve. It's just evidence to be considered):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

Read this please Mendel, Darwin and Evolution In it it states not only that Mendel's theories and Darwin's where not at odds but that Mendel's work helped with the biggest problem that Darwin's theory had. I also suggest you look at Darwin's biography, you will notice that before he published his theory of evolution he had published before and was already a member of a naturalist society. By the way, claiming he wasn't a scientist seems bizarre since most modern scientific fields where still being developed and darwin was a thoroughly educated man. Also, the author of your article has himself no degree in any field of science besides computer sciences yet he felt qualified to write a book that claimed to disprove evolution, hows that for irony?

As to the rest. It is a description of how elements came to be, nothing more nothing less. It is you who keeps presupposing matter had to come from nothing. I have said on multiple occasions that I don't know.

So tell me, in a court of law if the prosecutor keeps on bringing forth witnesses who refuse to be cross-examined as our astrophysicist or outright lies as our computer consultant. Or if the prosecution refuses to deliver documentation as you have when I asked you to produce proof Jesus existed. How much chance do you think that the prosecutor has to win their case?

The existence of Christ is not on trial. We can cover that later. If 100 witnesses came forward to tell you about Darwin, you'd dismiss it. You want to be judge, jury and executioner because you cannot sustain a critical analysis of the bottom line regarding YOUR position: Can't get something from nothing.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.

What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.

What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.

First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.

You cannot get something from nothing

And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.

I would be hesitant to use Lisle as a source for anything within a discussion of science matters. As a propagandist for the ICR, he has an explicit agenda to press and by his own admission, has already predefined an agenda that presumes a conclusion. He is not promoting science, he’s promoting Christian fundamentalism.

Foundational Principles

www.icr.org

• The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
• The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
• Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to “horizontal” changes (variations) within the kinds, or “downward” changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
• The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the “spiritual” nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.

It goes on with more paragraphs of this nonsense but there’s only so much intellectual bludgeoning one can take.

Until nonbelievers have definitive proof of the origination of matter, they are taking their beliefs on faith. There that does away with $50 words to get to the bottom line of a simple concept. You don't know where every molecule, every atom and every scintilla of matter came from, so lacking that knowledge, we all take our beliefs on faith.

That’s not at all true. It’s really an intellectual drop ten and punt used by the religious to allow their gods to cling to some measure of relevance.

Firstly, if you don’t understand the four states of matter, you have no business in a science discussion: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.

There is ample evidence that the various forms of “matter” are produced by the universe:Our Expanding Universe: Age, History & Other Facts

That is not evidence. My training is in law. I have taken many courses in evidence. If you cannot explain the origination of solid, liquid, gas and plasma, all you have is a theory about how existing substances somehow evolved into life. Your theory does NOTHING to tell me where matter originated. There is no scientific explanation for nothingness.

I have no idea if you have training in law.

Matter as we know it, was a product of the “Big Bang”. The Big Bang was not nothingness but a cataclysmic disruption to time and space. Further, It’s well understood that Supernova produce most of the heavy elements in the universe.

Are you suggesting that various gods just whip up some magic and create heavy elements.

I'm not suggesting anything outside of the obvious. Supernova, Big Bang, etc. are no different than creation. You have to presume a starting point of which there is NO irrefutable scientific evidence that would hold up in a court of law IF you could find a jury that had no knowledge or bias either way.

Supernova, Big Bang clearly are different than creation. There is nothing supernatural about Supernova or the Big Bang. There is no presumption about the Big Bang being a starting point. There is clear evidence for it. And no, the Big Bang is not a matter of civil or criminal law that is going to court. Did you go to a law school that advertises in the supermarket tabloids?

Science does not operate on irrefutable evidence. It a process of discovery that flexes as new data is confirmed and meets the rigors of the Scientific Method.

People are always learning new things about the Bible and biblical interpretations.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Can't get something from nothing

Says who? You keep saying this, yet you haven't defined "nothing" or produced any conclusive evidence. And again: who is claiming we got something from nothing? What theory? What scientist?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Every once in a while, a thread needs to be restarted. There is one guy that got my attention on this subject. If you REALLY want a well thought out answer:





A more critical view is that all sides live their beliefs by faith. The atheists / nonbelievers have to come to grips with the fact that they cannot explain getting something from nothing. Ever atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter comes from somewhere. So, evolutionists have a theory that has no more scientific weight than creationism. Watch Dr. Lisle. If he don't offer some things to consider, then maybe you've pursued the subject and will never get the answer you want.

Jason Lisle

Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

rationalwiki.org

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?

I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.

I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time.

What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.

What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition.

First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.

You cannot get something from nothing

And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.

By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.

1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that

2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line

3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.

Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.

I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.

Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.

Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.

If I can prove all these things I can disprove the entire book of Genisis.

You don't seem to get that I never claimed something came from nothing. That is what you claim is my belief. I claim I don't know how we originated. I suspect a certain way but just like with God I feel that suspicion is not sufficiently proven for me to claim I know. On the other hand, the start of our universe is sufficiently proven for me to claim that I know. What happened before that I do not. See how it works? You on the other hand feel that God is a sufficient explanation. That's the difference between you and me.

There is absolutely no secular history that Jesus Christ existed. And even if there was, his claim he was speaking for God would not count as evidence. The lunatic asylum is full of people who claim they hear voices, and history is full of people who claimed they were speaking for some deity or another.

Yes, there has been evidence of Jesus. Denying it does little to disprove it. If you cannot tell us where matter originated, you've proven my premise.

Show me the evidence please than I'll be very interested.

As to me having to be able to tell you where matter comes from. Why? Does me not knowing something proves God? You do realize that's the God of the gaps argument? I know where elements come from. https://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3 - MATTER/nuclear synthesis.pdf Is that sufficient?

I looked at your link. It still presupposes that something exists. You have to take all that on faith. But, since you want to talk evidence, I'd like to share something I found (and I post stuff that makes you think - it has NOTHING to do with what I personally believe or disbelieve. It's just evidence to be considered):

Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist

Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the text

www.jewishpress.com

Your link is from someone with a clear agenda. From the Jewish aPress: “Josh Greenberger is author of "Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt.”

As a blogger who criticizes Darwin as a non-scientist, this guy has no credentials for anything but opinion.

Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).

In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.

Did you look at the guy's credentials? Since I'm not Jewish and NOT a true believer of a 6 "day" creation, I don't agree with every statement that everybody makes. I used the opinions of others and what are those on your side doing? They are inferring I believe everything I read and should be held accountable for the statements of everybody on the face of the earth that disagrees with you.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Anyone else notice?

28 pages and still no creation theory.

I noticed that there is no scientific evidence of the Big Bang theory.

You find it at Harun Yahya.

Not surprisingly, it is scientists, not religious institutions, who are studying and learning about the beginnings of the universe.

By the way, the Big Bang has been measured, at least the cosmic background radiation resulting from it, which is the "glow" left over from the "explosion" itself. Confirmation of this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, two Bell Labs researchers, who later won the Nobel Prize for their discovery

You should research the term confirmation bias. Of course religious people are exploring the science of creation. It's just that secularists don't acknowledge their work. Why would they?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Can't get something from nothing

Says who? You keep saying this, yet you haven't defined "nothing" or produced any conclusive evidence. And again: who is claiming we got something from nothing? What theory? What scientist?

If nobody is claiming it, then be the first to enlighten us.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course religious people are exploring the science of creation.

There is no such thing. Are they also exploring the favorite color of unicorns?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If nobody is claiming it, then be the first to enlighten us.

That would also mean I am not claiming it. You might want to slow down.

Your dodge didn't work. What theory claims it? Go ahead, let's hear it ... Surely you aren't just inventing strawmen, right?