Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 669
- 140
- Banned
- #581
You are not making a lot of sense. Did you see that guy's admission in post # 542 or are you just stalking me personally?
Creationists' theory in detail
- Thread starter harmonica
- Start date
You are not making a lot of sense. Did you see that guy's admission in post # 542 or are you just stalking me personally?
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 669
- 140
- Banned
- #582
You are accusing me of what YOU are doing. Did you realize that?
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 122,790
- 132,361
- 3,645
"Stalking"
No, I post to a lot of people. Don't flatter yourself.
What admission? That makes no sense. I know they think say are exiting creation science, but, as we know, that's laughable, as there is no such thing.
So, basically, they are lying.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 122,790
- 132,361
- 3,645
False.
I ask again: what theory claims something from nothing? "No theory" is an acceptable answer, if that is your position. It's just two words. Very easy to post.
“Science of creation”? What exactly is that? None of the fundamentalist ministries (ICR, creation.com, etc), do research.
How does someone explore supernaturalism? Can you link to peer reviewed papers?
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 122,790
- 132,361
- 3,645
BreezeWood
VIP Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 21,746
- 1,962
- 85
.
your definition is an oxymoron, physiology exists for each individual metaphysical spirit verifying their supernatural origin, not of planet Earth.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 122,790
- 132,361
- 3,645
Sorry, but I can say "never", in this case, because what I am saying is inherent in the definition of "supernatural".
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"Jason Lisle
Jason P. Lisle 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
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.
What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.
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.
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 textwww.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.
I looked at the guys credentials and he identifies himself as a computer consultant. Maybe I misunderstood your intent but posters usually link to that which they believe supports their respective positions.
“...physiology exists for each individual metaphysical spirit verifying their supernatural origin, not of planet Earth.”
Somebody call security.
LittleNipper
Gold Member
- Jan 3, 2013
- 5,613
- 840
- 130
Encyclopedia of American Loons
It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.americanloons.blogspot.com
Jason lisle
So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.
Diagnosis: Confirmation bias run wild – über-crank Lisle is apparently blissfully unaware of the fact that he has made an art of arguing in circles. He is pretty vocal but important mostly as the scientific alibi of Ken Ham’s gang (and what an alibi).
The Bible in Genesis solves the starlight problem very easily (it would seem what atheists insist on calling "dumb sheepherders" were either very astute or GOD revealed what man at that time could have no clue of except by divine revelation. The Bible clearly states that God created the light first and later He created the stars. The Bible also states that the heavens were spread out like a curtain. In other words, GOD made the light reaching earth. GOD then made light sources for the light already existing. And then GOD spread out the entire Universe along with the already preexisting light. Thanks for providing yet another opportunity to demonstrate the often ignored or missed complexities revealed in GOD's Holy Word. Thanks also for providing an opportunity to demonstrate DIVINE REVELATION. For DIVINE REVELATION to exist there must be GOD. For life to exist there must be a designer. Life then also proves that GOD exists. Jesus Christ existed and said that HIS Father in heaven sent HIM. Here is yet another proof that GOD exists. How many more do you need?
I need something more than you insisting the Bible is true because you believe the Bible is true. Nothing in what you wrote moves beyond web based proselytizing. Religionists of differing beliefs and caliber of weapons will make similar claims to their religions, holy texts and their respective gods as counters to your claims.
BTW, life does not prove your gods exist. Stop the madness.
And nothing you say moves beyond Darwin's Theory. There is no religion except Christianity that believes that GOD paid the penalty of our sin/transgressions through a personal relationship with God through Jesus and the moving of the Holy Spirit. All other religions provide a list of thing their adherents must follow and do. The problem is, I've never met anyone who has explicitly and without error of any kind followed their own pathways by the letter of their own religious hypocrisy. And unfortunately, a perfect GOD needs a perfect follower. Only Christianity admits that man is not capable of perfection, and that is where Christ/Messiah comes into play.
Last edited:
BreezeWood
VIP Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 21,746
- 1,962
- 85
.
the definition of supernatural is being used by you for purposes not expressed in the post, the physicality is of supernatural origin - otherwise tell us where physiology originated and its metaphysical, spiritual component.
LittleNipper
Gold Member
- Jan 3, 2013
- 5,613
- 840
- 130
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"Jason Lisle
Jason P. Lisle was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]
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.
What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.
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.
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.
You are wrong. The New Testament was written by individuals who either met Jesus personally or who personally knew one of Jesus' Apostles. The last book of the New Testament was written about 95 AD and not centuries later.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 122,790
- 132,361
- 3,645
The problem with breezewood's philosophy...or, more specifically, the insistence that it is true and supported by the evidence ...
...is that NOTHING could possibly rule it out. Literally EVERYTHING you see and know of is evidence for it, according to Breezewood, and also anything you ever could see.
A frog? Metaphysics! Another frog...oh wait, look more closely, it's a rock....Metaphysics!
Add in the fact that it yields absolutely no useful predictions whatsoever and explains nothing at all, and really all is pretty useless, outside of one's own mind.
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"Jason Lisle
Jason P. Lisle was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]
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.
What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.
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.
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
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.
You took issue with me saying that there's no secular proof for the existence of Jesus. I simply asked you to provide such evidence since you took issue with it. That's what happens when someone questions something.
When you have said things I don't agree with I have provided evidence to support that objection. The fact that you are unwilling to extend me the same courtesy says everything about the strength of your position.
Ah, you have a problem with me not sustaining a critical analysis of something? Analyzing the available evidence on where matter came from leads me to only one conclusion. There are theories abound but none that have been proven. Wich makes "I don't know" the only valid response. I could guess but then I would be guilty of what you do. Assume stuff.
By the way, you are the one that has said that you believe God came from something. I would be very curious about what that something would be. The God of God? Aliens? And what you think would support such an assertion since I don't believe that it is supported in scripture. I rather suspect that you just said that because the existence of God means by your definition that God came from nothing but hey prove me wrong.
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"Jason Lisle
Jason P. Lisle was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]
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.
What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.
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.
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.
You are wrong. The New Testament was written by individuals who either met Jesus personally or who personally knew one of Jesus' Apostles. The last book of the New Testament was written about 95 AD and not centuries later.
I'd love for you to try to support this.
EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 96,174
- 72,221
- 3,645
The scientific term for the beginning of the universe is "A singular anomaly". God did it is similar.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 122,790
- 132,361
- 3,645
Until we know all about it, they are not just similar. "I don't know" and "god did it" are pretty much identical.
And you can point at anything and say, "god did that." Fine by me.
Try it:
Evolution? God did that.
Confirmation bias? Do you realize that so far you offered up 2 sources that you claimed should make you think. And that of these 2 sources one is a scientist refusing to subject himself to peer review. And the other a computer consultant who chooses to write a book trying to disprove a theory that hasn't been seriously challenged by any scientist in relevant fields in about a century.
In order to find these people and deem them credible, one literally has to go down in the bowls of the internet. And do absolutely no further research in checking their claims or credibility. And you accuse others of confirmation bias?
Last edited:
Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 669
- 140
- Banned
- #600
You think you have a monopoly on understanding. What you think I said is not what I was talking about. I have 9 responses, so can't do anything at this stage other than keep repeating myself until those with emotional issues just post once and wait for a response.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Vladimir Lenin, The German AGENT Who Created The Bolshevik empire- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
-
How is the pending deal any different than pre-war terms.
- Started by Jarod the Original
- Replies: 31
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
-
Karmelo Anthony gets 35 years for the murder of Austin Metcalf.- Latest: Superbadbrutha