Why do so many Atheist and Christians misunderstand what Hell really is ?

[bigrebnc1775]

dude you need to chill you, he had a good point just accept it and move on

Dude how long have you been here?
Are you even allowed to post a link yet?

Oh and **** you and the horse you rode in on

oh wow way to get defensive. you look like such a jackass its funny

**** off *****

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hey shit stain tino I don't attack someone unless they attack me first or they are a shit stain of the board. I was very nice until the asshat dumber than a hick came along and start insulting me. So I pushed back. Don't be so ******* thinned skinned if you are leave this ******* board

 

[Photonic]

Hey shit stain tino I don't attack someone unless they attack me first or they are a shit stain of the board. I was very nice until the asshat dumber than a hick came along and start insulting me. So I pushed back. Don't be so ******* thinned skinned if you are leave this ******* board

I'm just going to put you on ignore, I can see we will have problems in the future if that is how you respond to people.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hey shit stain tino I don't attack someone unless they attack me first or they are a shit stain of the board. I was very nice until the asshat dumber than a hick came along and start insulting me. So I pushed back. Don't be so ******* thinned skinned if you are leave this ******* board

I'm just going to put you on ignore, I can see we will have problems in the future if that is how you respond to people.

Youur're going to have a very big ignore list if you're that thined skined, but I really don't give a shit what you do.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are obsessing over terminology. If you want to define the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe, then you are perfectly welcome to do that. However, the universe "existed" in a super dense, hot state just "before" the Big Bang, so the Big Bang was not technically the beginning. It was the beginning of the expanding universe.

I don't know what caused the big bang, and I don't even know if it makes sense to ask the question since it implies that you could place the Big Bang on a timeline.

The expansion of the universe is accelerating because of dark energy, which is essentially a place holder that refers to energy we just haven't discovered yet but we know must exist to explain our observations.

I still don't know what any of this has to do with the existence of a specific God.

What is your proof for this comment "the universe existed in a super dense, hot state just before the Big Bang"

CMB radiation and the expanding universe are two giant pieces of evidence that the universe was once in a very dense, hot state.

No it is not, do not try to prove a point with a theory. Let me give you my theory God Is still creating.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You asked me what I believe about the beliefs of scientists, and I told you. I am not a professional scientist, so you'll have to ask them about the natural processes that brought about life on this planet.

I'm wasting my time have a nice day.

That makes 2 of us then.

Yes you're, if you're gonna try and convince me life came through a natural process with no help of a creator.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let me give you my theory God Is still creating.

That’s not a ‘theory,’ it is a belief, an opinion, subjective and irrelevant.

 

[Youwerecreated]

OK pond scum will be known as sea plants from now on while we have this discussion

If life began as science would lead us to believe why haven't we seen life created like that anymore? sea plants coming up and creating human life. Why can't science recreate the same effect? Why didn't this happen over all the earth?

Still waiting

And you'll continue to wait until you represent the scientific viewpoint without straw manning the shit out of it.

Funny,you see perfectly legitimate questions and they are all strawmen questions. If you're gonna believe life came through a natural process don't you think you need to be able to explain and prove that non-life can bring about life ?

Now you will get some theories but nothing that is fully supported by the science community,only the hard core Ideologues.

 

[Photonic]

Still waiting

And you'll continue to wait until you represent the scientific viewpoint without straw manning the shit out of it.

Funny,you see perfectly legitimate questions and they are all strawmen questions. If you're gonna believe life came through a natural process don't you think you need to be able to explain and prove that non-life can bring about life ?

Now you will get some theories but nothing that is fully supported by the science community,only the hard core Ideologues.

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com

Just so happens that abiogenesis is being tested in representative lab environments of early Earth.

So...where is your experimental evidence?

 

[Youwerecreated]

And you'll continue to wait until you represent the scientific viewpoint without straw manning the shit out of it.

You keep repeating strawman ever since I asked you




Here is what a strawman is

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

I have continued to ask you the same question and your answer has been strawman. My question is not strawman until you answer and refute it.

I will await your timely response

Incorrect. My response to your question has absolutely no influence on whether or not your question is a straw man. Your question implies that science states that pond scum, or sea plants, created human life. This is not what science states, therefore you have created a weaker position that science does not claim to have, thus you are committing the straw man fallacy. I'm not going to answer the question because it is disingenuous, so you are correct that I am not going to allow you to follow through with your straw man argument. Now kindly amend your question, or we're done here.

Let me ask you a common sense question. Is it reasonable to assume since your side believes that life developed in water and evolved and came upon dry land ,that all the ingredients for life just so happened to be in the water and came together all at once forming life. would that not be a reasonable conclusion that life came from pond scum ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I see it all the time the threat of a loving and just God is literally gonna torment people in fire for the rest of eternity. Why can't people see that it is not literal torment. The torment is being cut off from God ,death cuts us off from God.

Hell is the world of the dead nothing is alive in Hell. I know you will post all your scriptures that make it look like that all people that go to Hell will be tormented but what about the scriptures that show otherwise ?

Do we need to keep the word of God free of contradiction ?

Warning if you post the scriptures that show torment i will post a key scripture that shows what Hell and the lake of fire truly are. So post if you must but what i am looking for is give me your reasons why you believe a loving and just God would torment his children for eternity ? show me how that view goes along with God being loving and just ?

There is no hell.

It's the grave my friend.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Incorrect. My response to your question has absolutely no influence on whether or not your question is a straw man. Your question implies that science states that pond scum, or sea plants, created human life. This is not what science states, therefore you have created a weaker position that science does not claim to have, thus you are committing the straw man fallacy. I'm not going to answer the question because it is disingenuous, so you are correct that I am not going to allow you to follow through with your straw man argument. Now kindly amend your question, or we're done here.

You have got to refute a position first and it hold for that position to be a strawman, you have not done that yet but keep trying. I like make you evolves dance.

Once again, you are hopelessly incorrect. From your own post, here is what a straw man is:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Person A = Science
Position X = The position that science holds on how human life arose on this planet
Person B = You
Position Y = The position that you have represented science to hold on how human life arose on this planet (in your words, pond scum created human life)

The position you present is ludicrous, so just by presenting that position as the position of science on the matter, you are attacking it and saying that science's position on the origin of human life is therefore incorrect. Nowhere in the straw man argument do I have to do any refuting at all, you have accomplished the straw man all by yourself. Congratulations on being a dishonest twit.

How is that accurate if all supposedly developed in a body of water ?

I'm still waiting to see how your side answers how the first cell developed itself with all it's intricate and needed parts so conveniently ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm pretty sure I've seen you dance around with this before, but how could you know whether or not there is life on other planets? Are you aware of the extraordinarily vast distances between our planet and the majority of others in the universe?

The big bang would have scattered the ingredients to create life throughout the universe no ?

So, what's your point exactly? That if the big bang occurred, and the ingredients for life were scattered throughout the universe, we'd somehow have the ability to see this life on planets light-years away from us? Or that every planet, regardless of circumstance, should contain life?

If you want to believe there is no other life in the universe, that's fine. If someone wants to believe there are myriad forms of life on other worlds, that's fine too. However, humanity does not have the ability at this point to check the vast majority of planets to determine whether or not they contain life.

Yes exactly life should be on most all planets why just one ? Why just one with water,sun,moon,gravity,seems like a major stretch of the imagination if you ask me.

Not only that there is no evidence to suggest it could of happened by chance ,none.

 

[Photonic]

The big bang would have scattered the ingredients to create life throughout the universe no ?

So, what's your point exactly? That if the big bang occurred, and the ingredients for life were scattered throughout the universe, we'd somehow have the ability to see this life on planets light-years away from us? Or that every planet, regardless of circumstance, should contain life?

If you want to believe there is no other life in the universe, that's fine. If someone wants to believe there are myriad forms of life on other worlds, that's fine too. However, humanity does not have the ability at this point to check the vast majority of planets to determine whether or not they contain life.

Yes exactly life should be on most all planets why just one ? Why just one with water,sun,moon,gravity,seems like a major stretch of the imagination if you ask me.

Not only that there is no evidence to suggest it could of happened by chance ,none.

Not by chance, just given the mathematical probabilities is was almost certain to occur.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Only to the hopelessly biased it does.

If life began as science would lead us to believe why haven't we seen life created like that anymore? Pond scum coming up and creating human life. Why can't science recreate the same effect?

Are you aware that life is believed to have been on this planet for millions of years?

Do you really think scientists believe humans evolved directly from pond scum?

Let's go ahead and stick with your silly question, and assume that through evolution, eventually the life in pond scum led to humanity as it is today. How long do you think that process would be believed to have taken? Given the length of time, the extremely large number of changes, the many different circumstances, why would you expect the same thing to have happened in the small span of time humans have been around, and why would you expect science to be able to recreate it?

All life had to originate from a body of water no ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you aware that life is believed to have been on this planet for millions of years?

Do you really think scientists believe humans evolved directly from pond scum?

Let's go ahead and stick with your silly question, and assume that through evolution, eventually the life in pond scum led to humanity as it is today. How long do you think that process would be believed to have taken? Given the length of time, the extremely large number of changes, the many different circumstances, why would you expect the same thing to have happened in the small span of time humans have been around, and why would you expect science to be able to recreate it?

That does not explain why evolution stop producing humans from sea life. If it happen onceit should still happen at least once in 50 million years.

And you continue to give the impression that you haven't read a single word about what the theory of evolution actually entails. If we were to find a humanoid in the fossil record dated to 50 million years ago, the theory of evolution would be completely tossed on it's head. You seem to think that humans are some sort of goal of evolution, instead of simply a result of the process of natural selection on biological organisms over millions and millions of generations. I am not all that knowledgeable of the theory of evolution, but I know enough to know that it does not allow for sea life to continually evolve into human life.

That is only theory must i remind you ?

You say our dating methods can accurately date something to 50 million years ago but you can't answer his simple question ?

First no one was around to verify anything past early man back in the early days of Egypt. They try to but they can't and it's the bible leading them to answers.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And who claims that there is torment forever?

the guy who said it was wrong. duh.

That does not explain why evolution stop producing humans from sea life. If it happen onceit should still happen at least once in 50 million years.

You don't understand evolution. You should probably stop typing things about it as if you do.

Look ,where did life originate ?

 

[InDoctriNation]

The big bang would have scattered the ingredients to create life throughout the universe no ?

So, what's your point exactly? That if the big bang occurred, and the ingredients for life were scattered throughout the universe, we'd somehow have the ability to see this life on planets light-years away from us? Or that every planet, regardless of circumstance, should contain life?

If you want to believe there is no other life in the universe, that's fine. If someone wants to believe there are myriad forms of life on other worlds, that's fine too. However, humanity does not have the ability at this point to check the vast majority of planets to determine whether or not they contain life.

Yes exactly life should be on most all planets why just one ? Why just one with water,sun,moon,gravity,seems like a major stretch of the imagination if you ask me.

Not only that there is no evidence to suggest it could of happened by chance ,none.

Water appears to be an important ingredient to life on this planet. So does the sun, obviously. The moon? Not really a unique feature of this planet. Gravity? Seriously? That's a pretty common trait of planets in general. If we were to discover liquid water on another planet, we would expect to find at least bacterial life on that planet. If we didn't, that would be interesting. I find the fact that most of the universe appears to be devoid of life to be evidence of a random "creation," and certainly not "intelligent design." If this universe was the result of intelligent design, I would expect it to look much, much different than it does.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And who claims that there is torment forever?

the guy who said it was wrong. duh.

That does not explain why evolution stop producing humans from sea life. If it happen onceit should still happen at least once in 50 million years.

You don't understand evolution. You should probably stop typing things about it as if you do.

OH since you know so much about it why don't you explain to me junior?
Why did sea life stop coming from the water with the end process being human life?

uh oh another tuffy.

Yep, new creatures should be popping up all the time since there is so much bacteria everywhere.

 

[Photonic]

I find it odd that I have not received a single argument from you.

Can you honestly not think of anything to respond with?