# Evidence that universe created itself



## K9Buck

What ya got?


----------



## Mac1958

There are theories, such as String Theory.  There is a theory that White Holes exist - the opposite of Black Holes, and mathematically possible.  Instead of sucking in matter like Black Holes, White Holes shoot out matter.  So our particular universe could have simply exploded out of the ass end of one of those.

The brilliant Lawrence Krauss has a new book out on this, "A Universe From Nothing", https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468&tag=ff0d01-20

That's the beauty and fun of science:  You always get to be curious, challenge yourself, ask questions, think, experiment, and admit that you don't have all the answers.  Awesome!
.


----------



## K9Buck

Then what created the original universe?


----------



## Mac1958

K9Buck said:


> Then what created the original universe?


Don't know, yet!  Ain't that cool?
.


----------



## gipper

Well now...that is MAGICAL!!!


----------



## Toro

K9Buck said:


> Then what created the original universe?



Allah.

Is that the answer you wanted?


----------



## sealybobo

K9Buck said:


> What ya got?


The universe was created. What created it? We have scientific theories based on evidence. We don't know if "the universe created itself", whatever that means.

Have you ever considered our universe is just one bubble in an endless Sea of bubbles? Like a lava lamp.

So we don't know definitively.

But you do? Do you have evidence? The Bible doesn't count. I don't care what men said 1500 years ago


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Mac1958 said:


> There are theories, such as String Theory.  There is a theory that White Holes exist - the opposite of Black Holes, and mathematically possible.  Instead of sucking in matter like Black Holes, White Holes shoot out matter.  So our particular universe could have simply exploded out of the ass end of one of those.
> 
> The brilliant Lawrence Krauss has a new book out on this, "A Universe From Nothing", https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> That's the beauty and fun of science:  You always get to be curious, challenge yourself, ask questions, think, experiment, and admit that you don't have all the answers.  Awesome!
> .


Well, except when it comes to "climate chage", the "science" is settled


----------



## Mac1958

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are theories, such as String Theory.  There is a theory that White Holes exist - the opposite of Black Holes, and mathematically possible.  Instead of sucking in matter like Black Holes, White Holes shoot out matter.  So our particular universe could have simply exploded out of the ass end of one of those.
> 
> The brilliant Lawrence Krauss has a new book out on this, "A Universe From Nothing", https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> That's the beauty and fun of science:  You always get to be curious, challenge yourself, ask questions, think, experiment, and admit that you don't have all the answers.  Awesome!
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Well, except when it comes to "climate chage", the "science" is settled
Click to expand...

Well, once a topic becomes politicized it becomes polluted, polarized, simplified and essentially impossible to examine honestly.

There is certainly "settled science", but now that this particular issue is political we have to start parsing the term "settled".


.


----------



## frigidweirdo

K9Buck said:


> What ya got?



What I've got is a pack of playing cards. In this pack there are a trillion trillion different suits, and each suit has a trillion trillion different cards, or perhaps more.

And I ask you to pick one of the cards and tell me which card it is. 

You tell me it's the ace of spades (ie, you're saying God created the universe), the chances you are right is so small.

But here's what I've got.

If the universe is so complex it has to have been created by a being or god of some sort, then this being or god has to have been created by something, which in turn has to have been created by something, which in turn has to have been created by something. So, you can keep going back as far as you like. The logic that the universe was created by somebody or something doesn't wash.

If the universe couldn't have created itself, then the god who created the universe couldn't have created itself, and whoever created that god couldn't have created itself either.

So, you're really at a dead end.


----------



## BulletProof

frigidweirdo said:


> If the universe couldn't have created itself, then the god who created the universe couldn't have created itself, and whoever created that god couldn't have created itself either.



Poor little tailless and hairless monkey, no deist beliefs God is created.  But, you think the universe is created.  Does your little simian brain now see the problem with one of the problems with your attempt to deflect the question?


----------



## BulletProof

Stephen Hawking, a mentally and physically disabled man bizarrely regarded as a genius by tailless and hairless monkeys, cited gravity as proof the universe create itself.   "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." - Hawking.


----------



## frigidweirdo

BulletProof said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the universe couldn't have created itself, then the god who created the universe couldn't have created itself, and whoever created that god couldn't have created itself either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little tailless and hairless monkey, no deist beliefs God is created.  But, you think the universe is created.  Does your little simian brain now see the problem with one of the problems with your attempt to deflect the question?
Click to expand...


Deflect the question? You didn't respond to what I wrote, that's deflection.

If a god can appear out of nowhere, then the universe can appear out of nowhere. It's simple.


----------



## frigidweirdo

BulletProof said:


> Stephen Hawking, a mentally and physically disabled man bizarrely regarded as a genius by tailless and hairless monkeys, cited gravity as proof the universe create itself.   "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." - Hawking.



Yeah, and you think you know better than Steven Hawking, which shows more about you than Stephen Hawking.


----------



## K9Buck

I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have faith in such superstitions.


----------



## sealybobo

frigidweirdo said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ya got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I've got is a pack of playing cards. In this pack there are a trillion trillion different suits, and each suit has a trillion trillion different cards, or perhaps more.
> 
> And I ask you to pick one of the cards and tell me which card it is.
> 
> You tell me it's the ace of spades (ie, you're saying God created the universe), the chances you are right is so small.
> 
> But here's what I've got.
> 
> If the universe is so complex it has to have been created by a being or god of some sort, then this being or god has to have been created by something, which in turn has to have been created by something, which in turn has to have been created by something. So, you can keep going back as far as you like. The logic that the universe was created by somebody or something doesn't wash.
> 
> If the universe couldn't have created itself, then the god who created the universe couldn't have created itself, and whoever created that god couldn't have created itself either.
> 
> So, you're really at a dead end.
Click to expand...

No need for a creator. The universe is etenal.

Not this universe but the Cosmos. All the universes. Because there must be more beyond our universe. If not then you are putting god in a box. The box being our universe.

And no I don't believe there's another me in another universe. Each universe is like a snowflake. No two the same.

Our bubble/ universe is expanding? Maybe one day it will die. It's last stars burn out and our universe is obsorbed into the dark matter like a bubble in a lava lamp.

Who knows? No one. But it's funny when religious people mock our theories when they claim to have all the answers. They claim to know. Well they don't. Christianity is just another made up religion.


----------



## BulletProof

sealybobo said:


> No need for a creator. The universe is etenal.
> 
> Not this universe but the Cosmos.



So, you believe, without evidence, in an infinite "cosmos"?  

Maybe you can answer this:  If something as limited and insignificant as humans can have intelligence, why can't an infinite cosmos have intelligence?


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> What ya got?



Matter cannot be created or destroyed
The universe has always been here

Who created God?
I know


----------



## K9Buck

rightwinger said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ya got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> The universe has always been here
Click to expand...


So the Big Bang is bullshit?


----------



## Mac1958

K9Buck said:


> I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have faith in such superstitions.


Okay, so in what do you put your "faith"?
.


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ya got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> The universe has always been here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Big Bang is bullshit?
Click to expand...

The Big Bang blew out existing matter to spread across the universe


----------



## sealybobo

BulletProof said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for a creator. The universe is etenal.
> 
> Not this universe but the Cosmos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you believe, without evidence, in an infinite "cosmos"?
> 
> Maybe you can answer this:  If something as limited and insignificant as humans can have intelligence, why can't an infinite cosmos have intelligence?
Click to expand...

I don't believe in infinite cosmos the way you believe the Jesus myth.

And there could be an intelligent creator. Man contemplated that long before Moses first lied and said god visited. Remember they even imagined multiple gods. Then we all decided, or the churches decided, that there would be only one god.

So until it visits I guess you don't even have enough evidence to even have a theory. Certainly not a scientific one.

My theory makes sense. Put the universe in a box. Call it gods box if it helps. What's outside the box? Heaven? Lol


----------



## sealybobo

K9Buck said:


> I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have faith in such superstitions.


Translation. You're the sheep religion and politicians pray on. Or prey. Or both. Lol

But we already know people who believe fairytales have cognitive dissonance. The masses aren't that bright and you've exposed proof you're one of them. You laugh off or mock science and believe the mumbo jumbo your preacher and politicians spew


----------



## frigidweirdo

sealybobo said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ya got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I've got is a pack of playing cards. In this pack there are a trillion trillion different suits, and each suit has a trillion trillion different cards, or perhaps more.
> 
> And I ask you to pick one of the cards and tell me which card it is.
> 
> You tell me it's the ace of spades (ie, you're saying God created the universe), the chances you are right is so small.
> 
> But here's what I've got.
> 
> If the universe is so complex it has to have been created by a being or god of some sort, then this being or god has to have been created by something, which in turn has to have been created by something, which in turn has to have been created by something. So, you can keep going back as far as you like. The logic that the universe was created by somebody or something doesn't wash.
> 
> If the universe couldn't have created itself, then the god who created the universe couldn't have created itself, and whoever created that god couldn't have created itself either.
> 
> So, you're really at a dead end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need for a creator. The universe is etenal.
> 
> Not this universe but the Cosmos. All the universes. Because there must be more beyond our universe. If not then you are putting god in a box. The box being our universe.
> 
> And no I don't believe there's another me in another universe. Each universe is like a snowflake. No two the same.
> 
> Our bubble/ universe is expanding? Maybe one day it will die. It's last stars burn out and our universe is obsorbed into the dark matter like a bubble in a lava lamp.
> 
> Who knows? No one. But it's funny when religious people mock our theories when they claim to have all the answers. They claim to know. Well they don't. Christianity is just another made up religion.
Click to expand...


Well, the problem is you don't know, and I don't know, and nobody knows. However, if we use a little logic we can rule out the religious stuff.


----------



## Mac1958

Humans have always created and maintained deities to explain their existence, and to provide answers, strength, comfort, hope, organization and guidance.

That's fine, if that's what you're looking for.  But it's obviously not for everyone, including many who claim to be religious.


----------



## K9Buck

Mac1958 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have faith in such superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so in what do you put your "faith"?
> .
Click to expand...


Logical thought.


----------



## K9Buck

rightwinger said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ya got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> The universe has always been here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Big Bang is bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Big Bang blew out existing matter to spread across the universe
Click to expand...


So the universe made itself and then the universe made the matter that blew up and became known as the Big Bang.  What kind of sky-fairy nonsense is that?


----------



## Mac1958

K9Buck said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have faith in such superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so in what do you put your "faith"?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logical thought.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could be more specific.

Are you religious, for example?

Do you believe in a God?

If so, the God(s) of which religion?
.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Why does something or someone have to have "created" the universe? Maybe it has just "always been".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

"So the universe made itself and then the universe made the matter that blew up and became known as the Big Bang.  What kind of sky-fairy nonsense is that?"


It doesn't seem any less absurd than postulating a magical being acting on whimsy.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Dumb Dumbs.....

Everybody knows nothing we believe is real.......pfffft


----------



## BulletProof

K9Buck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ya got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> The universe has always been here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Big Bang is bullshit?
Click to expand...


It's amazing how stupid people can be, especially those who think they're hairless and tailless chimps.  

Chimp, "All the matter in the universe was created in the Big Bang, 14 million years ago."
Question, "Where did the universe come from?"
Chimp, "Matter cannot be created, the universe has always been here."


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ya got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> The universe has always been here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Big Bang is bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Big Bang blew out existing matter to spread across the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the universe made itself and then the universe made the matter that blew up and became known as the Big Bang.  What kind of sky-fairy nonsense is that?
Click to expand...

Matter cannot be created or destroyed
What is here has always been here

At one time it was all concentrated, Big Bang dispersed it throughout the universe


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

BulletProof said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ya got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> The universe has always been here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Big Bang is bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's amazing how stupid people can be, especially those who think they're hairless and tailless chimps.
> 
> Chimp, "All the matter in the universe was created in the Big Bang, 14 million years ago."
> Question, "Where did the universe come from?"
> Chimp, "Matter cannot be created, the universe has always been here."
Click to expand...


You have a pretty limited understanding of that idea.  While conservation of energy is a principle of the way we view our deterministic universe, it only holds in the "closed system" that is our OBSERVABLE universe. Our observable universe may not (and there is no reason to believe it is) be "all that there is", it may be simply "all that we can observe".

Put another way: it may appear to us that the universe "created itself from nothing" only because we lack the perspective to observe the universe being created.

BTW, evolution is a fact.


----------



## K9Buck

frigidweirdo said:


> However, if we use a little logic we can rule out the religious stuff.



When you say "religious stuff", what you mean is that there couldn't possibly be a higher intellect beyond us that was capable of creating us and our environment.  And you know that how?  You don't know shit.


----------



## K9Buck

rightwinger said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ya got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> The universe has always been here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Big Bang is bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Big Bang blew out existing matter to spread across the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the universe made itself and then the universe made the matter that blew up and became known as the Big Bang.  What kind of sky-fairy nonsense is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> What is here has always been here
> 
> At one time it was all concentrated, Big Bang dispersed it throughout the universe
Click to expand...


You're repeating yourself.  Your theory is that the universe created itself and created matter and then, somehow, it exploded by itself and from there life eventually created itself too.  LOL.


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> The universe has always been here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the Big Bang is bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Big Bang blew out existing matter to spread across the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the universe made itself and then the universe made the matter that blew up and became known as the Big Bang.  What kind of sky-fairy nonsense is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> What is here has always been here
> 
> At one time it was all concentrated, Big Bang dispersed it throughout the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself.  Your theory is that the universe created itself and created matter and then, somehow, it exploded by itself and from there life eventually created itself too.  LOL.
Click to expand...

I'm saying all matter was always here. You can't go....poof.....and create matter

You never explained who created God......I can tell you but I don't want to ruin it for you


----------



## BulletProof

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Put another way: it may appear to us that the universe "created itself from nothing" only because we lack the perspective to observe the universe being created.



You've confused your belief of self-creation with the appearance of self-creation.  And, you've confused your hypothesis pulled out of @ss with science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

BulletProof said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put another way: it may appear to us that the universe "created itself from nothing" only because we lack the persp
> 
> 
> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put another way: it may appear to us that the universe "created itself from nothing" only because we lack the perspective to observe the universe being created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've confused your belief of self-creation with the appearance of self-creation.  And, you've confused your hypothesis pulled out of @ss with science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've confused your belief of self-creation with the appearance of self-creation.  And, you've confused your hypothesis pulled out of @ss with science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> I think you missed my point. I didn't confuse those two concepts. In fact, I delineated them. And it's not a hypothesis I pulled out from anywhere. It's a working hypothesis in the scientific community, and they are, right now, devising ways to test it.
Click to expand...


----------



## K9Buck

rightwinger said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Big Bang is bullshit?
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang blew out existing matter to spread across the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the universe made itself and then the universe made the matter that blew up and became known as the Big Bang.  What kind of sky-fairy nonsense is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> What is here has always been here
> 
> At one time it was all concentrated, Big Bang dispersed it throughout the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself.  Your theory is that the universe created itself and created matter and then, somehow, it exploded by itself and from there life eventually created itself too.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying all matter was always here. You can't go....poof.....and create matter
> 
> You never explained who created God......I can tell you but I don't want to ruin it for you
Click to expand...


I'm saying there is a super-intellect out there that is NOT confined to this universe and who created this universe and the life that inhabits it.  What you're saying is that IT'S NOT POSSIBLE for there to be such a super-intellect.  
To believe you is to believe that the 1) the universe created itself 2) the universe created matter 3) the matter, for reasons unknown, exploded by itself and 4) life also, somehow, created itself.  

Nah.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang blew out existing matter to spread across the universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the universe made itself and then the universe made the matter that blew up and became known as the Big Bang.  What kind of sky-fairy nonsense is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> What is here has always been here
> 
> At one time it was all concentrated, Big Bang dispersed it throughout the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself.  Your theory is that the universe created itself and created matter and then, somehow, it exploded by itself and from there life eventually created itself too.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying all matter was always here. You can't go....poof.....and create matter
> 
> You never explained who created God......I can tell you but I don't want to ruin it for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying there is a super-intellect out there that is NOT confined to this universe and who created this universe and the life that inhabits it.  What you're saying is that IT'S NOT POSSIBLE for there to be such a super-intellect.
> To believe you is to believe that the 1) the universe created itself 2) the universe created matter 3) the matter, for reasons unknown, exploded by itself and 4) life also, somehow, created itself.
> 
> Nah.
Click to expand...


I , fot one, am not calling it, "impossible". But I will argue that it's possible that no such higher intellect exists.


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang blew out existing matter to spread across the universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the universe made itself and then the universe made the matter that blew up and became known as the Big Bang.  What kind of sky-fairy nonsense is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> What is here has always been here
> 
> At one time it was all concentrated, Big Bang dispersed it throughout the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself.  Your theory is that the universe created itself and created matter and then, somehow, it exploded by itself and from there life eventually created itself too.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying all matter was always here. You can't go....poof.....and create matter
> 
> You never explained who created God......I can tell you but I don't want to ruin it for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying there is a super-intellect out there that is NOT confined to this universe and who created this universe and the life that inhabits it.  What you're saying is that IT'S NOT POSSIBLE for there to be such a super-intellect.
> To believe you is to believe that the 1) the universe created itself 2) the universe created matter 3) the matter, for reasons unknown, exploded by itself and 4) life also, somehow, created itself.
> 
> Nah.
Click to expand...

Who created the super intellect?
Did he materialize out of thin air?

1. The universe was always there. It was not an empty space waiting for someone to create matter. The matter was always there

2. Matter cannot be created or destroyed

3  Explosions continually happen in the universe. Some big, some small

4. Life is a combination of Hydrocarbons.  The basic elements have always been the same. The right conditions combined to create living organisms

Do we get to talk evolution now?


----------



## K9Buck

rightwinger said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the universe made itself and then the universe made the matter that blew up and became known as the Big Bang.  What kind of sky-fairy nonsense is that?
> 
> 
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> What is here has always been here
> 
> At one time it was all concentrated, Big Bang dispersed it throughout the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself.  Your theory is that the universe created itself and created matter and then, somehow, it exploded by itself and from there life eventually created itself too.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying all matter was always here. You can't go....poof.....and create matter
> 
> You never explained who created God......I can tell you but I don't want to ruin it for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying there is a super-intellect out there that is NOT confined to this universe and who created this universe and the life that inhabits it.  What you're saying is that IT'S NOT POSSIBLE for there to be such a super-intellect.
> To believe you is to believe that the 1) the universe created itself 2) the universe created matter 3) the matter, for reasons unknown, exploded by itself and 4) life also, somehow, created itself.
> 
> Nah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who created the super intellect?
> Did he materialize out of thin air?
> 
> 1. The universe was always there. It was not an empty space waiting for someone to create matter. The matter was always there
> 
> 2. Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> 3  Explosions continually happen in the universe. Some big, some small
> 
> 4. Life is a combination of Hydrocarbons.  The basic elements have always been the same. The right conditions combined to create living organisms
> 
> Do we get to talk evolution now?
Click to expand...


In our universe everything has a beginning and an end, including the universe itself.  The evidence shows that the universe along with time and space had a beginning.  There is ZERO evidence to support your claims.  

I believe that super-intellect from beyond this universe created everything, including us.  Now, from where it came and who created it is not the topic of this thread.  

Look at it this way.  Computer programmers frequently create universes when they make video games such as Grand Theft Auto.  What programmers have been unable to do is to give the characters in the game their own consciousness wherein they could have independent thoughts and actions.  If a programmer could do that, undoubtedly, there would be characters in the that "computer universe" claiming that the "programmer" cannot exist.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> What is here has always been here
> 
> At one time it was all concentrated, Big Bang dispersed it throughout the universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself.  Your theory is that the universe created itself and created matter and then, somehow, it exploded by itself and from there life eventually created itself too.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying all matter was always here. You can't go....poof.....and create matter
> 
> You never explained who created God......I can tell you but I don't want to ruin it for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying there is a super-intellect out there that is NOT confined to this universe and who created this universe and the life that inhabits it.  What you're saying is that IT'S NOT POSSIBLE for there to be such a super-intellect.
> To believe you is to believe that the 1) the universe created itself 2) the universe created matter 3) the matter, for reasons unknown, exploded by itself and 4) life also, somehow, created itself.
> 
> Nah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who created the super intellect?
> Did he materialize out of thin air?
> 
> 1. The universe was always there. It was not an empty space waiting for someone to create matter. The matter was always there
> 
> 2. Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> 3  Explosions continually happen in the universe. Some big, some small
> 
> 4. Life is a combination of Hydrocarbons.  The basic elements have always been the same. The right conditions combined to create living organisms
> 
> Do we get to talk evolution now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In our universe everything has a beginning and an end, including the universe itself.  The evidence shows that the universe along with time and space had a beginning.  There is ZERO evidence to support your claims.
> 
> I believe that super-intellect from beyond this universe created everything, including us.  Now, from where it came and who created it is not the topic of this thread.
> 
> Look at it this way.  Computer programmers frequently create universes when they make video games such as Grand Theft Auto.  What programmers have been unable to do is to give the characters in the game their own consciousness wherein they could have independent thoughts and actions.  If a programmer could do that, undoubtedly, there would be characters in the that "computer universe" claiming that the "programmer" cannot exist.
Click to expand...


The evidence does NOT necessarily show the universe had a beginning. That is an error on your part. And we have known how to sum infinite series for a long time. Doing this allows us to mathematically reconcile that, while the universe may have indeed originated from a singularity (which, to an outside observer would appear to be 'the beginning' of our own observable universe), we would nevertheless never arrive at the beginning, should we travel backwards in time. To us, the beginning simply would not exist, and we could travel back in time literally forever.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself.  Your theory is that the universe created itself and created matter and then, somehow, it exploded by itself and from there life eventually created itself too.  LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying all matter was always here. You can't go....poof.....and create matter
> 
> You never explained who created God......I can tell you but I don't want to ruin it for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying there is a super-intellect out there that is NOT confined to this universe and who created this universe and the life that inhabits it.  What you're saying is that IT'S NOT POSSIBLE for there to be such a super-intellect.
> To believe you is to believe that the 1) the universe created itself 2) the universe created matter 3) the matter, for reasons unknown, exploded by itself and 4) life also, somehow, created itself.
> 
> Nah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who created the super intellect?
> Did he materialize out of thin air?
> 
> 1. The universe was always there. It was not an empty space waiting for someone to create matter. The matter was always there
> 
> 2. Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> 3  Explosions continually happen in the universe. Some big, some small
> 
> 4. Life is a combination of Hydrocarbons.  The basic elements have always been the same. The right conditions combined to create living organisms
> 
> Do we get to talk evolution now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In our universe everything has a beginning and an end, including the universe itself.  The evidence shows that the universe along with time and space had a beginning.  There is ZERO evidence to support your claims.
> 
> I believe that super-intellect from beyond this universe created everything, including us.  Now, from where it came and who created it is not the topic of this thread.
> 
> Look at it this way.  Computer programmers frequently create universes when they make video games such as Grand Theft Auto.  What programmers have been unable to do is to give the characters in the game their own consciousness wherein they could have independent thoughts and actions.  If a programmer could do that, undoubtedly, there would be characters in the that "computer universe" claiming that the "programmer" cannot exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence does NOT necessarily show the universe had a beginning. That is an error on your part. And we have known how to sum infinite series for a long time. Doing this allows us to mathematically reconcile that, while the universe may have indeed originated from a singularity (which, to an outside observer would appear to be 'the beginning' of our own observable universe), we would nevertheless never arrive at the beginning, should we travel backwards in time. To us, the beginning simply would not exist, and we could travel back in time literally forever.
Click to expand...


I'd like to believe you, but I just don't have your faith.


----------



## Slyhunter

K9Buck said:


> I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have faith in such superstitions.


But it's not a superstition believing a entity, calling itself God, created itself?


----------



## K9Buck

Slyhunter said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have faith in such superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a superstition believing a entity, calling itself God, created itself?
Click to expand...


I think the evidence indicates that a power not confined to this universe or its laws caused everything in this universe to happen.  Perhaps you believe that the universe caused itself to happen.  If so, how did the universe cause itself to come into existence?


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> What is here has always been here
> 
> At one time it was all concentrated, Big Bang dispersed it throughout the universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself.  Your theory is that the universe created itself and created matter and then, somehow, it exploded by itself and from there life eventually created itself too.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying all matter was always here. You can't go....poof.....and create matter
> 
> You never explained who created God......I can tell you but I don't want to ruin it for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying there is a super-intellect out there that is NOT confined to this universe and who created this universe and the life that inhabits it.  What you're saying is that IT'S NOT POSSIBLE for there to be such a super-intellect.
> To believe you is to believe that the 1) the universe created itself 2) the universe created matter 3) the matter, for reasons unknown, exploded by itself and 4) life also, somehow, created itself.
> 
> Nah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who created the super intellect?
> Did he materialize out of thin air?
> 
> 1. The universe was always there. It was not an empty space waiting for someone to create matter. The matter was always there
> 
> 2. Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> 3  Explosions continually happen in the universe. Some big, some small
> 
> 4. Life is a combination of Hydrocarbons.  The basic elements have always been the same. The right conditions combined to create living organisms
> 
> Do we get to talk evolution now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In our universe everything has a beginning and an end, including the universe itself.  The evidence shows that the universe along with time and space had a beginning.  There is ZERO evidence to support your claims.
> 
> I believe that super-intellect from beyond this universe created everything, including us.  Now, from where it came and who created it is not the topic of this thread.
> 
> Look at it this way.  Computer programmers frequently create universes when they make video games such as Grand Theft Auto.  What programmers have been unable to do is to give the characters in the game their own consciousness wherein they could have independent thoughts and actions.  If a programmer could do that, undoubtedly, there would be characters in the that "computer universe" claiming that the "programmer" cannot exist.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge...I have seen that dance before

Hold others to standards your "super intellect/God" does not have to meet

If everything has a beginning and an end as you claim...what was the beginning of your super intellect?


----------



## K9Buck

rightwinger said:


> what was the beginning of your super intellect?



The topic of this thread is evidence for how the universe created itself, not the origins of a theoretical super-intellect.


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> what was the beginning of your super intellect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of this thread is evidence for how the universe created itself, not the origins of a theoretical super-intellect.
Click to expand...


Hit a sore spot didn't I?

You are claiming a "super intellect God" did the creating so his own origins are up for discussion


----------



## K9Buck

rightwinger said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> what was the beginning of your super intellect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of this thread is evidence for how the universe created itself, not the origins of a theoretical super-intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hit a sore spot didn't I?
> 
> You are claiming a "super intellect God" did the creating so his own origins are up for discussion
Click to expand...


You're the one trying to hijack the thread to change the topic.  I'm trying to stay focused.  There's already an active thread called "Evidence for God".  Why don't you ask that question there?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying all matter was always here. You can't go....poof.....and create matter
> 
> You never explained who created God......I can tell you but I don't want to ruin it for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying there is a super-intellect out there that is NOT confined to this universe and who created this universe and the life that inhabits it.  What you're saying is that IT'S NOT POSSIBLE for there to be such a super-intellect.
> To believe you is to believe that the 1) the universe created itself 2) the universe created matter 3) the matter, for reasons unknown, exploded by itself and 4) life also, somehow, created itself.
> 
> Nah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who created the super intellect?
> Did he materialize out of thin air?
> 
> 1. The universe was always there. It was not an empty space waiting for someone to create matter. The matter was always there
> 
> 2. Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> 3  Explosions continually happen in the universe. Some big, some small
> 
> 4. Life is a combination of Hydrocarbons.  The basic elements have always been the same. The right conditions combined to create living organisms
> 
> Do we get to talk evolution now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In our universe everything has a beginning and an end, including the universe itself.  The evidence shows that the universe along with time and space had a beginning.  There is ZERO evidence to support your claims.
> 
> I believe that super-intellect from beyond this universe created everything, including us.  Now, from where it came and who created it is not the topic of this thread.
> 
> Look at it this way.  Computer programmers frequently create universes when they make video games such as Grand Theft Auto.  What programmers have been unable to do is to give the characters in the game their own consciousness wherein they could have independent thoughts and actions.  If a programmer could do that, undoubtedly, there would be characters in the that "computer universe" claiming that the "programmer" cannot exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence does NOT necessarily show the universe had a beginning. That is an error on your part. And we have known how to sum infinite series for a long time. Doing this allows us to mathematically reconcile that, while the universe may have indeed originated from a singularity (which, to an outside observer would appear to be 'the beginning' of our own observable universe), we would nevertheless never arrive at the beginning, should we travel backwards in time. To us, the beginning simply would not exist, and we could travel back in time literally forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd like to believe you, but I just don't have your faith.
Click to expand...



Ah yes, the old 'Alamo" of the faith-y types: Accuse everyone else of having faith.  Instead of elevating your own ideas (since you can't), you must attempt to drag evidence-based knowledge down into the intellectual  muck where your faith-y ideas reside.  Better check the scoreboard, friend... that hasn't worked, is not working, and will not work.

you misused the word "faith" anyway.  i didn't say with any certainty that anything was true.  Just that we cannot rule it out.  Same thing you have been saying.  But, when I say it, you go on the offensive.  Strange...


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> what was the beginning of your super intellect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of this thread is evidence for how the universe created itself, not the origins of a theoretical super-intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hit a sore spot didn't I?
> 
> You are claiming a "super intellect God" did the creating so his own origins are up for discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one trying to hijack the thread to change the topic.  I'm trying to stay focused.  There's already an active thread called "Evidence for God".  Why don't you ask that question there?
Click to expand...

Topic is origin of the universe

It is you who moved the bar by inserting a God into it

Why don't you hold your God to meeting the same scientific standards you apply to others?


----------



## K9Buck

There is no scientific PROOF for how the universe or life came into existence so, in the end, we base our beliefs on FAITH.  You and I are no different in that regard.


----------



## K9Buck

rightwinger said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> what was the beginning of your super intellect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of this thread is evidence for how the universe created itself, not the origins of a theoretical super-intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hit a sore spot didn't I?
> 
> You are claiming a "super intellect God" did the creating so his own origins are up for discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one trying to hijack the thread to change the topic.  I'm trying to stay focused.  There's already an active thread called "Evidence for God".  Why don't you ask that question there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Topic is origin of the universe
> 
> It is you who moved the bar by inserting a God into it
> 
> Why don't you hold your God to meeting the same scientific standards you apply to others?
Click to expand...


There is no "winning" this debate.  In the end it comes down to faith.


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> what was the beginning of your super intellect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic of this thread is evidence for how the universe created itself, not the origins of a theoretical super-intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hit a sore spot didn't I?
> 
> You are claiming a "super intellect God" did the creating so his own origins are up for discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one trying to hijack the thread to change the topic.  I'm trying to stay focused.  There's already an active thread called "Evidence for God".  Why don't you ask that question there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Topic is origin of the universe
> 
> It is you who moved the bar by inserting a God into it
> 
> Why don't you hold your God to meeting the same scientific standards you apply to others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "winning" this debate.  In the end it comes down to faith.
Click to expand...


Typical dodge in moving from science to faith when pressed to explain your theory


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> There is no scientific PROOF for how the universe or life came into existence so, in the end, we base our beliefs on FAITH.  You and I are no different in that regard.



You and I are 100% different in that regard, as i am not stating, with any authority whatsoever, that any one origin account is the absolutely correct one. I am arguing for the assertion that there is more than one possible story, which could include an Intelligent Designer.  Please stop misrepresenting me.  If you want to wield that poor argument, you will have to find someone who is stating, with 100% certainty and origin story of the universe.  guess what?  the ONLY people you will find doing so will be religious people.  you guys can then "compare faith" all day, if you like.


----------



## MarkDuffy

LOL, I see you made a new thread



K9Buck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ya got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> The universe has always been here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Big Bang is bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Big Bang blew out existing matter to spread across the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the universe made itself and then the universe made the matter that blew up and became known as the Big Bang.  What kind of sky-fairy nonsense is that?
Click to expand...


It's a far more cool story than yours.

Now explain the age of the earth & the fossil record you ignored in the other thread.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why does something or someone have to have "created" the universe? Maybe it has just "always been".


Only the believers are allowed this excuse, according to them.


----------



## MarkDuffy

rightwinger said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the universe made itself and then the universe made the matter that blew up and became known as the Big Bang.  What kind of sky-fairy nonsense is that?
> 
> 
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> What is here has always been here
> 
> At one time it was all concentrated, Big Bang dispersed it throughout the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself.  Your theory is that the universe created itself and created matter and then, somehow, it exploded by itself and from there life eventually created itself too.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying all matter was always here. You can't go....poof.....and create matter
> 
> You never explained who created God......I can tell you but I don't want to ruin it for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying there is a super-intellect out there that is NOT confined to this universe and who created this universe and the life that inhabits it.  What you're saying is that IT'S NOT POSSIBLE for there to be such a super-intellect.
> To believe you is to believe that the 1) the universe created itself 2) the universe created matter 3) the matter, for reasons unknown, exploded by itself and 4) life also, somehow, created itself.
> 
> Nah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who created the super intellect?
> Did he materialize out of thin air?
> 
> 1. The universe was always there. It was not an empty space waiting for someone to create matter. The matter was always there
> 
> 2. Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> 3  Explosions continually happen in the universe. Some big, some small
> 
> 4. Life is a combination of Hydrocarbons.  The basic elements have always been the same. The right conditions combined to create living organisms
> 
> Do we get to talk evolution now?
Click to expand...

You forget point #1

Science has SEX

Believers are not allowed that


----------



## sealybobo

K9Buck said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have faith in such superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a superstition believing a entity, calling itself God, created itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the evidence indicates that a power not confined to this universe or its laws caused everything in this universe to happen.  Perhaps you believe that the universe caused itself to happen.  If so, how did the universe cause itself to come into existence?
Click to expand...

There is a natural explanation for it and if science figured out the answer to your question you would simply move your goal post or ask another question that can never be answered. There are some things we will never know like what happened 13 billion years before the big bang. Or are there other universes? So you can settle on an ancient religion your ancestors invented or keep looking for the truth


----------



## Mac1958

Mac1958 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have faith in such superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so in what do you put your "faith"?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logical thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you could be more specific.
> 
> Are you religious, for example?
> 
> Do you believe in a God?
> 
> If so, the God(s) of which religion?
> .
Click to expand...

Will you answer my question(s)?
.


----------



## sealybobo

Mac1958 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have faith in such superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so in what do you put your "faith"?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logical thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you could be more specific.
> 
> Are you religious, for example?
> 
> Do you believe in a God?
> 
> If so, the God(s) of which religion?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Will you answer my question(s)?
> .
Click to expand...

My father uses the same logical thought. Won't listen to a word, mocks scientific answers because he doesn't understand.

Even though the clock maker argument is no good he uses it constantly. He asks me, how could it be that..." And when I explain he doesn't listen.

Even though science has filled those gaps my dad's still struggling with god of the gaps.


----------



## rightwinger

sealybobo said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have faith in such superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a superstition believing a entity, calling itself God, created itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the evidence indicates that a power not confined to this universe or its laws caused everything in this universe to happen.  Perhaps you believe that the universe caused itself to happen.  If so, how did the universe cause itself to come into existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a natural explanation for it and if science figured out the answer to your question you would simply move your goal post or ask another question that can never be answered. There are some things we will never know like what happened 13 billion years before the big bang. Or are there other universes? So you can settle on an ancient religion your ancestors invented or keep looking for the truth
Click to expand...


Until we can recreate a universe in the laboratory, they will not accept it


----------



## BulletProof

rightwinger said:


> Until we can recreate a universe in the laboratory, they will not accept it



Until you can come up with better than "In the beginning nothing created the universe", you don't even have anything to consider.


----------



## rightwinger

BulletProof said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until we can recreate a universe in the laboratory, they will not accept it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can come up with better than "In the beginning nothing created the universe", you don't even have anything to consider.
Click to expand...


I don't believe anything "created" the universe
Matter cannot be created or destroyed. All the matter we have today has always been here....none has been created out of nothingness
You cannot "create" an atom out of thin air

If it is possible to create matter...Why hasn't any been created in the last billion years?
Why can't an atom be created in a lab?


----------



## BulletProof

rightwinger said:


> I don't believe anything "created" the universe
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed. All the matter we have today has always been here....none has been created out of nothingness
> You cannot "create" an atom out of thin air
> 
> If it is possible to create matter...Why hasn't any been created in the last billion years?
> Why can't an atom be created in a lab?



That's right, you believe in something infinity greater than humans, and infinity greater than the universe, but it's still as simple as a rock.  That's not really any better than saying nothing created the universe.

Implicit in the Big Bang model is the continued creation of matter/energy.  Expansion of the universe pulls apart gravitational bound bodies, and therefor requires a constant supply of energy that didn't previously exist.


----------



## rightwinger

BulletProof said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe anything "created" the universe
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed. All the matter we have today has always been here....none has been created out of nothingness
> You cannot "create" an atom out of thin air
> 
> If it is possible to create matter...Why hasn't any been created in the last billion years?
> Why can't an atom be created in a lab?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, you believe in something infinity greater than humans, and infinity greater than the universe, but it's still as simple as a rock.  That's not really any better than saying nothing created the universe.
> 
> Implicit in the Big Bang model is the continued creation of matter/energy.  Expansion of the universe pulls apart gravitational bound bodies, and therefor requires a constant supply of energy that didn't previously exist.
Click to expand...


All the basic elements of the universe have remained the same for billions of years. Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon.........
They are our "God"

Nothing in the Big Bang claims a creation of matter
Einstein defined it best
E=mc2


----------



## sealybobo

rightwinger said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have faith in such superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a superstition believing a entity, calling itself God, created itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the evidence indicates that a power not confined to this universe or its laws caused everything in this universe to happen.  Perhaps you believe that the universe caused itself to happen.  If so, how did the universe cause itself to come into existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a natural explanation for it and if science figured out the answer to your question you would simply move your goal post or ask another question that can never be answered. There are some things we will never know like what happened 13 billion years before the big bang. Or are there other universes? So you can settle on an ancient religion your ancestors invented or keep looking for the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until we can recreate a universe in the laboratory, they will not accept it
Click to expand...


Funny you say that because yesterday I was watching something about how they did create a little universe.  This isn't what I was listening to but I googled the subject and

'A Big Bang In A Little Room' Explores How Scientists Could Create A New Universe

Physicists create world's first multiverse of universes in the lab - ExtremeTech


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have faith in such superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a superstition believing a entity, calling itself God, created itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the evidence indicates that a power not confined to this universe or its laws caused everything in this universe to happen.  Perhaps you believe that the universe caused itself to happen.  If so, how did the universe cause itself to come into existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a natural explanation for it and if science figured out the answer to your question you would simply move your goal post or ask another question that can never be answered. There are some things we will never know like what happened 13 billion years before the big bang. Or are there other universes? So you can settle on an ancient religion your ancestors invented or keep looking for the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until we can recreate a universe in the laboratory, they will not accept it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny you say that because yesterday I was watching something about how they did create a little universe.  This isn't what I was listening to but I googled the subject and
> 
> 'A Big Bang In A Little Room' Explores How Scientists Could Create A New Universe
> 
> Physicists create world's first multiverse of universes in the lab - ExtremeTech
Click to expand...

Dont youtube "The Mandela Effect," lol. Its kooky but it can make ya pause a few times.


----------



## BulletProof

rightwinger said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> 
> Implicit in the Big Bang model is the continued creation of matter/energy.  Expansion of the universe pulls apart gravitational bound bodies, and therefor requires a constant supply of energy that didn't previously exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the basic elements of the universe have remained the same for billions of years. Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon.........
> They are our "God"
> 
> Nothing in the Big Bang claims a creation of matter
> Einstein defined it best
> E=mc2
Click to expand...


Too bad what I said went over your head.


----------



## MarkDuffy

BulletProof said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until we can recreate a universe in the laboratory, they will not accept it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can come up with better than "In the beginning nothing created the universe", you don't even have anything to consider.
Click to expand...

So you suggest that any talk of God should be thrown out of the discussion as nothing to consider

We agree


----------



## rightwinger

BulletProof said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> 
> Implicit in the Big Bang model is the continued creation of matter/energy.  Expansion of the universe pulls apart gravitational bound bodies, and therefor requires a constant supply of energy that didn't previously exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the basic elements of the universe have remained the same for billions of years. Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon.........
> They are our "God"
> 
> Nothing in the Big Bang claims a creation of matter
> Einstein defined it best
> E=mc2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad what I said went over your head.
Click to expand...


Big bangs create energy
Lots of it


----------



## BulletProof

rightwinger said:


> Big bangs create energy
> Lots of it



That's nonsense.  I wish one of your fellow apes would try to educate you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rightwinger said:


> BulletProof said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe anything "created" the universe
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed. All the matter we have today has always been here....none has been created out of nothingness
> You cannot "create" an atom out of thin air
> 
> If it is possible to create matter...Why hasn't any been created in the last billion years?
> Why can't an atom be created in a lab?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, you believe in something infinity greater than humans, and infinity greater than the universe, but it's still as simple as a rock.  That's not really any better than saying nothing created the universe.
> 
> Implicit in the Big Bang model is the continued creation of matter/energy.  Expansion of the universe pulls apart gravitational bound bodies, and therefor requires a constant supply of energy that didn't previously exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the basic elements of the universe have remained the same for billions of years. Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon.........
> They are our "God"
> 
> Nothing in the Big Bang claims a creation of matter
> Einstein defined it best
> E=mc2
Click to expand...


To clarify:

Energy is conserved, but not necessarily matter. Matter can be "created" and "destroyed", but the net energy is conserved. And, due to fusion and fission, the proportions of the elements  in the universe are constantly changing.


----------



## rightwinger

BulletProof said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big bangs create energy
> Lots of it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nonsense.  I wish one of your fellow apes would try to educate you.
Click to expand...


----------



## IsaacNewton

A universe arising out of nothing is supported by math and physics.


----------



## Political Junky

K9Buck said:


> Then what created the original universe?


What created "the creator"?


----------



## Chuz Life

sealybobo said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have faith in such superstitions.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so in what do you put your "faith"?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logical thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you could be more specific.
> 
> Are you religious, for example?
> 
> Do you believe in a God?
> 
> If so, the God(s) of which religion?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Will you answer my question(s)?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My father uses the same logical thought. Won't listen to a word, mocks scientific answers because he doesn't understand.
> 
> Even though the clock maker argument is no good he uses it constantly. He asks me, how could it be that..." And when I explain he doesn't listen.
> 
> Even though science has filled those gaps my dad's still struggling with god of the gaps.
Click to expand...



And when the scientific facts don't don't suite your agenda?

Then what?


----------



## sealybobo

Chuz Life said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so in what do you put your "faith"?.
> 
> 
> 
> Logical thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you could be more specific.
> 
> Are you religious, for example?
> 
> Do you believe in a God?
> 
> If so, the God(s) of which religion?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Will you answer my question(s)?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My father uses the same logical thought. Won't listen to a word, mocks scientific answers because he doesn't understand.
> 
> Even though the clock maker argument is no good he uses it constantly. He asks me, how could it be that..." And when I explain he doesn't listen.
> 
> Even though science has filled those gaps my dad's still struggling with god of the gaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And when the scientific facts don't don't suite your agenda?
> 
> Then what?
Click to expand...

Toss that theory out


----------



## Muhammed

K9Buck said:


> Then what created the original universe?


Nothing.


----------



## sealybobo

Muhammed said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what created the original universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing.
Click to expand...

What did the eternal god live in before he created the universe?

Theists need to wake up. They have no problem believing God and their own souls are eternal but not the Cosmos? Stupid


----------



## Chuz Life

sealybobo said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logical thought.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could be more specific.
> 
> Are you religious, for example?
> 
> Do you believe in a God?
> 
> If so, the God(s) of which religion?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Will you answer my question(s)?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My father uses the same logical thought. Won't listen to a word, mocks scientific answers because he doesn't understand.
> 
> Even though the clock maker argument is no good he uses it constantly. He asks me, how could it be that..." And when I explain he doesn't listen.
> 
> Even though science has filled those gaps my dad's still struggling with god of the gaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And when the scientific facts don't don't suite your agenda?
> 
> Then what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Toss that theory out
Click to expand...


Scientifically, can something *begin* after it has already began?


----------



## Chuz Life

Yes? No?


----------



## skye

Chuz Life said:


> Yes? No?





your avatar Chuz Life


----------



## Mac1958

_we _

_don't_

_know._


_It's okay to admit you don't know._

_holy crap._

_._


----------



## rightwinger

There is no evidence that the universe creates matter

Poof...theres the sun
Poof....just made Jupiter
Poof....here comes Saturn
Poof.....here is the earth

There is no physical process that creates matter out of nothing


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rightwinger said:


> There is no evidence that the universe creates matter
> 
> Poof...theres the sun
> Poof....just made Jupiter
> Poof....here comes Saturn
> Poof.....here is the earth
> 
> There is no physical process that creates matter out of nothing



Matter was created from energy, not from "nothing". Energy is conserved, not matter.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

K9Buck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ya got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> The universe has always been here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Big Bang is bullshit?
Click to expand...

*All Is Lava*

It was a continuous eruption from the 4th spatial dimension.  The original substance transformed into light, matter, energy, and even space itself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> What ya got?


Well, what makes it a still intriguing idea first is that the net energy of our universe may be exactly zero.

We also know that Quantum states can evolve through time so that they pass through different phases where they may appear as nothing and then later appear as something.


----------



## ChemEngineer

frigidweirdo said:


> If the universe is so complex it has to have been created by a being or god of some sort, then this being or god has to have been created by something, which in turn has to have been created by something, which in turn has to have been created by something. So, you can keep going back as far as you like. The logic that the universe was created by somebody or something doesn't wash.
> If the universe couldn't have created itself, then the god who created the universe couldn't have created itself, and whoever created that god couldn't have created itself either.
> So, you're really at a dead end.



You simply regurgitate the nonsense of other atheists, chiefly Richard Dawkins, who doesn't even understand statistics which you too abused so terribly with your opening deck.

Watch A Matter of Gravity by Professor John Lennox.  He slices and dices Richard Dawkins and your jejune pretend argument.   "If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?" - John Lennox

It's just that simple to dismiss the "Who made God" giggle.  Not everything is comprehensible, particularly Nature's God.  Nobody reading this can begin to explain thoroughly the nuances of the electromagnetic spectrum, and how so many different wavelengths can pass through air, each other, and solids, without the slightest bit of interference and maintain their fidelity and strength, just for starters.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

John Lennox is a christian apologist quack. When he sticks to purely mathematics, he is a genius.


----------



## ding

K9Buck said:


> What ya got?


Consciousness without form. 

Because logically no thing can be eternal. Consciousness without form is no thing.


----------



## sealybobo

ChemEngineer said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the universe is so complex it has to have been created by a being or god of some sort, then this being or god has to have been created by something, which in turn has to have been created by something, which in turn has to have been created by something. So, you can keep going back as far as you like. The logic that the universe was created by somebody or something doesn't wash.
> If the universe couldn't have created itself, then the god who created the universe couldn't have created itself, and whoever created that god couldn't have created itself either.
> So, you're really at a dead end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You simply regurgitate the nonsense of other atheists, chiefly Richard Dawkins, who doesn't even understand statistics which you too abused so terribly with your opening deck.
> 
> Watch A Matter of Gravity by Professor John Lennox.  He slices and dices Richard Dawkins and your jejune pretend argument.   "If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?" - John Lennox
> 
> It's just that simple to dismiss the "Who made God" giggle.  Not everything is comprehensible, particularly Nature's God.  Nobody reading this can begin to explain thoroughly the nuances of the electromagnetic spectrum, and how so many different wavelengths can pass through air, each other, and solids, without the slightest bit of interference and maintain their fidelity and strength, just for starters.
Click to expand...

You’re smarter than Richard Dawkins?


----------



## james bond

Mac1958 said:


> There are theories, such as String Theory.  There is a theory that White Holes exist - the opposite of Black Holes, and mathematically possible.  Instead of sucking in matter like Black Holes, White Holes shoot out matter.  So our particular universe could have simply exploded out of the ass end of one of those.
> 
> The brilliant Lawrence Krauss has a new book out on this, "A Universe From Nothing", https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> That's the beauty and fun of science:  You always get to be curious, challenge yourself, ask questions, think, experiment, and admit that you don't have all the answers.  Awesome!
> .



That's not science.  That's made up stuff by the atheist religion.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I haven't a single doubt that the Universe was created and there there is a Creator. It's just completely beyond human potential to try to understand or explain; like an ant walking on Giza Pyramid and pretending to understand the architecture


----------



## ChemEngineer

CrusaderFrank said:


> I haven't a single doubt that the Universe was created and there there is a Creator. It's just completely beyond human potential to try to understand or explain; like an ant walking on Giza Pyramid and pretending to understand the architecture



I often liken humans trying to understand God, to worms trying to understand humans.

If our brains are oh so powerful due to "evolutionary progress," then why:
1.  Can salmon find the stream where they spawned without our sophisticated navigation systems, and without chemical laboratories which in any event could not BEGIN to differentiate one stream effluent, diluted by billions of gallons of sea water, from another stream effluent?
2.  Can newborn animals run moments after birth when it takes humans months to learn how to walk?
3.  Can spiders spin elegant webs and catch prey through very clever means when NOBODY taught them?
4.  Can thousands of different animals navigate thousands of miles every season, many of them for the first time?

You could continue this line of questioning indefinitely and never get an adequate answer. The best Darwinists can do is say "It's better that way" or "They inherited it."  Yeah, right.  Why don't humans inherit all this wonderfulness, hmmm?


----------



## abu afak

K9Buck said:


> What ya got?


Evidence that a 'god' created itself?

Another 'God of the Gaps' post
(making up one for what you don't understand.. yet)

`


----------



## esalla

Mac1958 said:


> There are theories, such as String Theory.  There is a theory that White Holes exist - the opposite of Black Holes, and mathematically possible.  Instead of sucking in matter like Black Holes, White Holes shoot out matter.  So our particular universe could have simply exploded out of the ass end of one of those.
> 
> The brilliant Lawrence Krauss has a new book out on this, "A Universe From Nothing", https://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> That's the beauty and fun of science:  You always get to be curious, challenge yourself, ask questions, think, experiment, and admit that you don't have all the answers.  Awesome!
> .


Was play dough there


----------



## esalla

ChemEngineer said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't a single doubt that the Universe was created and there there is a Creator. It's just completely beyond human potential to try to understand or explain; like an ant walking on Giza Pyramid and pretending to understand the architecture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I often liken humans trying to understand God, to worms trying to understand humans.
> 
> If our brains are oh so powerful due to "evolutionary progress," then why:
> 1.  Can salmon find the stream where they spawned without our sophisticated navigation systems, and without chemical laboratories which in any event could not BEGIN to differentiate one stream effluent, diluted by billions of gallons of sea water, from another stream effluent?
> 2.  Can newborn animals run moments after birth when it takes humans months to learn how to walk?
> 3.  Can spiders spin elegant webs and catch prey through very clever means when NOBODY taught them?
> 4.  Can thousands of different animals navigate thousands of miles every season, many of them for the first time?
> 
> You could continue this line of questioning indefinitely and never get an adequate answer. The best Darwinists can do is say "It's better that way" or "They inherited it."  Yeah, right.  Why don't humans inherit all this wonderfulness, hmmm?
Click to expand...

Can salmon catch and eat humans


----------



## CrusaderFrank

ChemEngineer said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't a single doubt that the Universe was created and there there is a Creator. It's just completely beyond human potential to try to understand or explain; like an ant walking on Giza Pyramid and pretending to understand the architecture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I often liken humans trying to understand God, to worms trying to understand humans.
> 
> If our brains are oh so powerful due to "evolutionary progress," then why:
> 1.  Can salmon find the stream where they spawned without our sophisticated navigation systems, and without chemical laboratories which in any event could not BEGIN to differentiate one stream effluent, diluted by billions of gallons of sea water, from another stream effluent?
> 2.  Can newborn animals run moments after birth when it takes humans months to learn how to walk?
> 3.  Can spiders spin elegant webs and catch prey through very clever means when NOBODY taught them?
> 4.  Can thousands of different animals navigate thousands of miles every season, many of them for the first time?
> 
> You could continue this line of questioning indefinitely and never get an adequate answer. The best Darwinists can do is say "It's better that way" or "They inherited it."  Yeah, right.  Why don't humans inherit all this wonderfulness, hmmm?
Click to expand...


The conflict arises because we're so vastly limited, but our EGO tells us, "You're the greatest! You don't need any stinking "Creator!"  Who's the smartest little shoe-wearing monkey in the Universe? Yes, you are!"


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't a single doubt that the Universe was created and there there is a Creator. It's just completely beyond human potential to try to understand or explain; like an ant walking on Giza Pyramid and pretending to understand the architecture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I often liken humans trying to understand God, to worms trying to understand humans.
> 
> If our brains are oh so powerful due to "evolutionary progress," then why:
> 1.  Can salmon find the stream where they spawned without our sophisticated navigation systems, and without chemical laboratories which in any event could not BEGIN to differentiate one stream effluent, diluted by billions of gallons of sea water, from another stream effluent?
> 2.  Can newborn animals run moments after birth when it takes humans months to learn how to walk?
> 3.  Can spiders spin elegant webs and catch prey through very clever means when NOBODY taught them?
> 4.  Can thousands of different animals navigate thousands of miles every season, many of them for the first time?
> 
> You could continue this line of questioning indefinitely and never get an adequate answer. The best Darwinists can do is say "It's better that way" or "They inherited it."  Yeah, right.  Why don't humans inherit all this wonderfulness, hmmm?
Click to expand...


I often liken religionists fashioning their gods to children who have never lost their fear of the dark.

It’s comical to see religionists claim their gods are incomprehensible (like worms trying to understand humans), yet, these religionists slather their gods with human frailties and emotions and such as love, anger, retribution, vengeance, etc., etc.

Religionists will screech, “you can’t understand the mind of the gods”, but then immediately describe what these gods have done to, and will do, to humanity.

Religionism; make it up as you go and when questioned on any of it respond with “prove its wrong”.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't a single doubt that the Universe was created and there there is a Creator. It's just completely beyond human potential to try to understand or explain; like an ant walking on Giza Pyramid and pretending to understand the architecture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I often liken humans trying to understand God, to worms trying to understand humans.
> 
> If our brains are oh so powerful due to "evolutionary progress," then why:
> 1.  Can salmon find the stream where they spawned without our sophisticated navigation systems, and without chemical laboratories which in any event could not BEGIN to differentiate one stream effluent, diluted by billions of gallons of sea water, from another stream effluent?
> 2.  Can newborn animals run moments after birth when it takes humans months to learn how to walk?
> 3.  Can spiders spin elegant webs and catch prey through very clever means when NOBODY taught them?
> 4.  Can thousands of different animals navigate thousands of miles every season, many of them for the first time?
> 
> You could continue this line of questioning indefinitely and never get an adequate answer. The best Darwinists can do is say "It's better that way" or "They inherited it."  Yeah, right.  Why don't humans inherit all this wonderfulness, hmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I often liken religionists fashioning their gods to children who have never lost their fear of the dark.
> 
> It’s comical to see religionists claim their gods are incomprehensible (like worms trying to understand humans), yet, these religionists slather their gods with human frailties and emotions and such as love, anger, retribution, vengeance, etc., etc.
> 
> Religionists will screech, “you can’t understand the mind of the gods”, but then immediately describe what these gods have done to, and will do, to humanity.
> 
> Religionism; make it up as you go and when questioned on any of it respond with “prove its wrong”.
Click to expand...


Who the fuck said that about tacking on human emotions to the Creator?  Neither Chem Engineer nor I!

Who's the smartest shoe-wearing monkey in the Universe? Yes, you are!


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't a single doubt that the Universe was created and there there is a Creator. It's just completely beyond human potential to try to understand or explain; like an ant walking on Giza Pyramid and pretending to understand the architecture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I often liken humans trying to understand God, to worms trying to understand humans.
> 
> If our brains are oh so powerful due to "evolutionary progress," then why:
> 1.  Can salmon find the stream where they spawned without our sophisticated navigation systems, and without chemical laboratories which in any event could not BEGIN to differentiate one stream effluent, diluted by billions of gallons of sea water, from another stream effluent?
> 2.  Can newborn animals run moments after birth when it takes humans months to learn how to walk?
> 3.  Can spiders spin elegant webs and catch prey through very clever means when NOBODY taught them?
> 4.  Can thousands of different animals navigate thousands of miles every season, many of them for the first time?
> 
> You could continue this line of questioning indefinitely and never get an adequate answer. The best Darwinists can do is say "It's better that way" or "They inherited it."  Yeah, right.  Why don't humans inherit all this wonderfulness, hmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I often liken religionists fashioning their gods to children who have never lost their fear of the dark.
> 
> It’s comical to see religionists claim their gods are incomprehensible (like worms trying to understand humans), yet, these religionists slather their gods with human frailties and emotions and such as love, anger, retribution, vengeance, etc., etc.
> 
> Religionists will screech, “you can’t understand the mind of the gods”, but then immediately describe what these gods have done to, and will do, to humanity.
> 
> Religionism; make it up as you go and when questioned on any of it respond with “prove its wrong”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck said that about tacking on human emotions to the Creator?  Neither Chem Engineer nor I!
> 
> Who's the smartest shoe-wearing monkey in the Universe? Yes, you are!
Click to expand...

Do I need to teach you your bible’ology?



Everyone who loves has been born of *God* and knows *God*. Whoever does not *love*does not know *God*, because *God* is *love*. This is how *God* showed his *love* among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.

*Bible Gateway 1 John 4 :: NIV*


----------



## ChemEngineer

Frank my Friend, please don't waste your time on these hateful individuals.   You may as well argue with a salmon, or a worm.   Your replies only encourage them to continue spewing nonsense.  Talk to the sensible people here.  We listen.  We think. The hateful only emote.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't a single doubt that the Universe was created and there there is a Creator. It's just completely beyond human potential to try to understand or explain; like an ant walking on Giza Pyramid and pretending to understand the architecture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I often liken humans trying to understand God, to worms trying to understand humans.
> 
> If our brains are oh so powerful due to "evolutionary progress," then why:
> 1.  Can salmon find the stream where they spawned without our sophisticated navigation systems, and without chemical laboratories which in any event could not BEGIN to differentiate one stream effluent, diluted by billions of gallons of sea water, from another stream effluent?
> 2.  Can newborn animals run moments after birth when it takes humans months to learn how to walk?
> 3.  Can spiders spin elegant webs and catch prey through very clever means when NOBODY taught them?
> 4.  Can thousands of different animals navigate thousands of miles every season, many of them for the first time?
> 
> You could continue this line of questioning indefinitely and never get an adequate answer. The best Darwinists can do is say "It's better that way" or "They inherited it."  Yeah, right.  Why don't humans inherit all this wonderfulness, hmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I often liken religionists fashioning their gods to children who have never lost their fear of the dark.
> 
> It’s comical to see religionists claim their gods are incomprehensible (like worms trying to understand humans), yet, these religionists slather their gods with human frailties and emotions and such as love, anger, retribution, vengeance, etc., etc.
> 
> Religionists will screech, “you can’t understand the mind of the gods”, but then immediately describe what these gods have done to, and will do, to humanity.
> 
> Religionism; make it up as you go and when questioned on any of it respond with “prove its wrong”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck said that about tacking on human emotions to the Creator?  Neither Chem Engineer nor I!
> 
> Who's the smartest shoe-wearing monkey in the Universe? Yes, you are!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I need to teach you your bible’ology?
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who loves has been born of *God* and knows *God*. Whoever does not *love*does not know *God*, because *God* is *love*. This is how *God* showed his *love* among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.
> 
> *Bible Gateway 1 John 4 :: NIV*
Click to expand...


We're not speaking the same language.  You EGO won't let anything in


----------



## CrusaderFrank

ChemEngineer said:


> Frank my Friend, please don't waste your time on these hateful individuals.   You may as well argue with a salmon, or a worm.   Your replies only encourage them to continue spewing nonsense.  Talk to the sensible people here.  We listen.  We think. The hateful only emote.



Once upon a time when I used to walk through Grand Central, there was a young Hassidic who asked me, "Are you Jewish?" and I could tell that he was slightly deflated as I must have been like the 5th in a row who said No.  I thought later that people like him are a lighthouse, they point out the Light. You and I and these other are ships passing in the night.  Maybe we'll take note that there is a Light and be guided toward it, or we can choose to navigate in darkness.


----------



## ChemEngineer

CrusaderFrank said:


> Maybe we'll take note that there is a Light and be guided toward it, or we can choose to navigate in darkness.



You and I are indeed guided by the Light.  Atheists are not.
Their massive egos misguide them.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we'll take note that there is a Light and be guided toward it, or we can choose to navigate in darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I are indeed guided by the Light.  Atheists are not.
> Their massive egos misguide them.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you don't see the absurdity of your silly ''ego'', comment. 

Here you are proclaiming how special you are because you're ''guided'' by the gods flashlight.

Talk about ego!


----------



## Hollie

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't a single doubt that the Universe was created and there there is a Creator. It's just completely beyond human potential to try to understand or explain; like an ant walking on Giza Pyramid and pretending to understand the architecture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I often liken humans trying to understand God, to worms trying to understand humans.
> 
> If our brains are oh so powerful due to "evolutionary progress," then why:
> 1.  Can salmon find the stream where they spawned without our sophisticated navigation systems, and without chemical laboratories which in any event could not BEGIN to differentiate one stream effluent, diluted by billions of gallons of sea water, from another stream effluent?
> 2.  Can newborn animals run moments after birth when it takes humans months to learn how to walk?
> 3.  Can spiders spin elegant webs and catch prey through very clever means when NOBODY taught them?
> 4.  Can thousands of different animals navigate thousands of miles every season, many of them for the first time?
> 
> You could continue this line of questioning indefinitely and never get an adequate answer. The best Darwinists can do is say "It's better that way" or "They inherited it."  Yeah, right.  Why don't humans inherit all this wonderfulness, hmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I often liken religionists fashioning their gods to children who have never lost their fear of the dark.
> 
> It’s comical to see religionists claim their gods are incomprehensible (like worms trying to understand humans), yet, these religionists slather their gods with human frailties and emotions and such as love, anger, retribution, vengeance, etc., etc.
> 
> Religionists will screech, “you can’t understand the mind of the gods”, but then immediately describe what these gods have done to, and will do, to humanity.
> 
> Religionism; make it up as you go and when questioned on any of it respond with “prove its wrong”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck said that about tacking on human emotions to the Creator?  Neither Chem Engineer nor I!
> 
> Who's the smartest shoe-wearing monkey in the Universe? Yes, you are!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I need to teach you your bible’ology?
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who loves has been born of *God* and knows *God*. Whoever does not *love*does not know *God*, because *God* is *love*. This is how *God* showed his *love* among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.
> 
> *Bible Gateway 1 John 4 :: NIV*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not speaking the same language.  You EGO won't let anything in
Click to expand...

What is it I won't let in? I'm supposed to unquestioningly accept your unsupported claims?

Why won't you let in Allah or Vishnu? 

It must be that your ego gets in the way.


----------



## ding

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't a single doubt that the Universe was created and there there is a Creator. It's just completely beyond human potential to try to understand or explain; like an ant walking on Giza Pyramid and pretending to understand the architecture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I often liken humans trying to understand God, to worms trying to understand humans.
> 
> If our brains are oh so powerful due to "evolutionary progress," then why:
> 1.  Can salmon find the stream where they spawned without our sophisticated navigation systems, and without chemical laboratories which in any event could not BEGIN to differentiate one stream effluent, diluted by billions of gallons of sea water, from another stream effluent?
> 2.  Can newborn animals run moments after birth when it takes humans months to learn how to walk?
> 3.  Can spiders spin elegant webs and catch prey through very clever means when NOBODY taught them?
> 4.  Can thousands of different animals navigate thousands of miles every season, many of them for the first time?
> 
> You could continue this line of questioning indefinitely and never get an adequate answer. The best Darwinists can do is say "It's better that way" or "They inherited it."  Yeah, right.  Why don't humans inherit all this wonderfulness, hmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I often liken religionists fashioning their gods to children who have never lost their fear of the dark.
> 
> It’s comical to see religionists claim their gods are incomprehensible (like worms trying to understand humans), yet, these religionists slather their gods with human frailties and emotions and such as love, anger, retribution, vengeance, etc., etc.
> 
> Religionists will screech, “you can’t understand the mind of the gods”, but then immediately describe what these gods have done to, and will do, to humanity.
> 
> Religionism; make it up as you go and when questioned on any of it respond with “prove its wrong”.
Click to expand...

You mean like the Jews?


----------



## ChemEngineer

K9Buck said:


> What ya got?





BulletProof said:


> Poor little tailless and hairless monkey, no deist beliefs God is created.  But, you think the universe is created.  Does your little simian brain now see the problem with one of the problems with your attempt to deflect the question?


*
"If someone created God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?" - Professor John Lennox in **A Matter of Gravity*

Should be required attendance for name-calling atheists who think they are the smartest things in the universe.





__





						Proof There Is No God
					






					ProofThereIsNoGod.blogspot.com


----------



## ChemEngineer

Thank you for your footnotes CrusaderFrank.  They are enlightening and important.


----------



## rightwinger

ChemEngineer said:


> *"If someone created God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?" - Professor John Lennox in **A Matter of Gravity*
> 
> Should be required attendance for name-calling atheists who think they are the smartest things in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof There Is No God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ProofThereIsNoGod.blogspot.com


If something always is…….then matter could always be


----------



## Quasar44

K9Buck 
Nobody knows what happened in the pre-big bang world . It does look like our bang was one of infinite and string theory is the only thing we have right now


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rightwinger said:


> If something always is…….then matter could always be


Right. And why not? We don't have to abide by these arbitrary rules set by theists. Like:

1) nothing can come from nothing, except my favorite god
2) everything must have a beginning, except my favorite god

These rules are just there to rig the game.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right. And why not? We don't have to abide by these arbitrary rules set by theists. Like:
> 
> 1) nothing can come from nothing, except my favorite god
> 2) everything must have a beginning, except my favorite god
> 
> These rules are just there to rig the game.


Lol, it's the atheist scientists who stole singularity from the creationists and claimed singularity of infinite temperature and infinite density came from nothing.  Then quantum mechanics somehow popped up and the universe and everything in it ended up just where they are.  What kind of koo koo are you?  Oh, the hypocrite kind.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Lol, it's the atheist scientists who stole singularity from the creationists and claimed singularity of infinite temperature and infinite density came from nothing.  Then quantum mechanics somehow popped up and the universe and everything in it ended up just where they are.  What kind of koo koo are you?  Oh, the hypocrite kind.


Yet you religious nutsacks had your little iron age handbook for 1000s of years, and scientists still had to do all the work of learning these things quite in spite of you crusading fools. You dicks literally sat and pointed and laughed until you had no choice but to accept what scientists have learned. You are a salient example of this childish, idiotic behavior. The world has accepted evolution as fact...yet here we are, waiting for the last YEC jackasses to die off.


----------



## zaangalewa

Mac1958 said:


> Don't know, yet!  Ain't that cool?



This is "hot" - because energy is not able to be created or to be destroyed within the universe (while an outside not exists). So if energy is not able to be created - howelse is it able to be "here" although the sum of all positive and negative energy of the universe seems to be nil?


----------



## zaangalewa

Toro said:


> Allah.
> 
> Is that the answer you wanted?



That's the answer you like to give because you like to see in religious people "nuts". Nuts produce by the way nice trees with much more nuts - very nourishing.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> The universe was created. What created it? We have scientific theories based on evidence. We don't know if "the universe created itself", whatever that means.



In the end of the universe time could restart for example.



sealybobo said:


> Have you ever considered our universe is just one bubble in an endless Sea of bubbles? Like a lava lamp.



That's a myth.



sealybobo said:


> So we don't know definitively.



What do we not know? We know our unverse is observable - we don't know whether other universes are real.



sealybobo said:


> But you do? Do you have evidence? The Bible doesn't count. I don't care what men said 1500 years ago



If  the Catholic philosopher Aristotle and others had not said what they said modern universities for natural science would not exist.


----------



## zaangalewa

frigidweirdo said:


> What I've got is a pack of playing cards. In this pack there are a trillion trillion different suits, and each suit has a trillion trillion different cards, or perhaps more.
> 
> And I ask you to pick one of the cards and tell me which card it is.
> 
> You tell me it's the ace of spades (ie, you're saying God created the universe), the chances you are right is so small.
> 
> But here's what I've got.
> 
> If the universe is so complex it has to have been created by a being or god of some sort, then this being or god has to have been created by something, which in turn has to have been created by something, which in turn has to have been created by something. So, you can keep going back as far as you like. The logic that the universe was created by somebody or something doesn't wash.
> 
> If the universe couldn't have created itself, then the god who created the universe couldn't have created itself,



You seem not to be familiar with Christian thoughts or paradigmas:

_... The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. ..._
*Athanasian creed*

And god created everything out of nothing. So time was created. Augustinus called the creating word of god a timeless word. Timeless and eternal are often synonyms - in a simple way how 1/oo -> 0.

But this all says for example nothing about that god is not able to create himself if he is not existing.



frigidweirdo said:


> and whoever created that god couldn't have created itself either.
> 
> So, you're really at a dead end.



You are at an end with your intuition. God was always what he is since ever - and he will always be new forever.  But this all is not what physicists speak about. The spirituality of physics is mathematics and the "god" of physics is the experiment. (That's now another word "god" and means not really god but "deciding criterion"). I personally don't see anything what seperates the belief in god and the natural science physics. All problems in this context are political problems.


----------



## zaangalewa

BulletProof said:


> Stephen Hawking, a mentally and physically disabled man bizarrely regarded as a genius by tailless and hairless monkeys, cited gravity as proof the universe create itself.   "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." - Hawking.



I guess Mr. Stephen Hawking used here a wrong word. This "nothing" seems to be an empty space with quantum fluctuations - that's what physically comes most near to the expression "nothing". And someone found out that a complete universe is able to expand from a single quantum fluctuation. That's not impossible.


----------



## sear

zaangalewa said:


> That's not impossible.


But rare.
If it can happen at all, why only once? Why doesn't a cosmos spring up brand new from my coffee table?

Final Exam. Question:
Define "universe".
Cite 3 examples.


----------



## zaangalewa

sear said:


> But rare.



What is "rare" in case of a unique event?



sear said:


> If it can happen at all, why only once?



In case an empty space with quantum fluctuations had existed we would not know how this could had been because the theory of relativity (and somehow philosophically also Augustinus about 1700 years ago) tells us that there was was no space, no time, no energy and nothing else what we are able to say anything about "before" the universe was (although there was no before) and started to expand.



sear said:


> Why doesn't a cosmos spring up brand new from my coffee table?



If the sum of all energy of a hypothetic universe would be 0 and you could take a look from outside to this universe then you would see nothing because you are not able to make a difference between "no energy" (= not in interaction with anything) and "no existence". So in every point of your coffee table could be an infinite number of universes - but you would never be able to know this from "outside" (if a universe had an outside).



sear said:


> Final Exam. Question:
> Define "universe".



Everything all around what's in interaction with us = "We are the universe <-> the universe is us"



sear said:


> Cite 3 examples.



3 examples for what?


----------



## Turtlesoup

K9Buck said:


> Then what created the original universe?


Basic building blocks smaller than elements----come to together and build up to create elements that then make matter.   Once energy is added, then the possibility of life also emerges.


----------



## Mac1958

zaangalewa said:


> This is "hot" - because energy is not able to be created or to be destroyed within the universe (while an outside not exists). So if energy is not able to be created - howelse is it able to be "here" although the sum of all positive and negative energy of the universe seems to be nil?


We don't know yet!  Ain't that cool!


----------



## Blues Man




----------



## zaangalewa

Turtlesoup said:


> Basic building blocks smaller than elements----come to together and build up to create elements that then make matter.   Once energy is added, then the possibility of life also emerges.



But there seems to be something wrong with the idea of self-organisation of matter which "automatically" leads to living stuctures. To remember: Our planet is full of matter but in percentage of the matter of our planet the mass of the biosphere is not big. Compared with the mass of the solar system or the galaxy the mass of living matter is much less in relation. But on the other side needs life the natural laws which lead to this gigantic universe all around us. If this is a life-preserving system then we are less than an atom of a needle in a very complex haystack.
On the other side: What is so damned seldom has a very high value. Living matter is the most valueable matter of the whole universe. Sometimes I feel pain when people do not respect life, because they don't understand this unbelievable present of god. We are his very rich children - and I fear we are also much too often spoiled brats.


----------



## sear

> zaangalewa said:
> This is "hot" - because energy is not able to be created or to be destroyed within the universe (while an outside not exists). So if energy is not able to be created - howelse is it able to be "here" although the sum of all positive and negative energy of the universe seems to be nil?





Mac1958 said:


> We don't know yet!  Ain't that cool!


We know.
Einstein explained that while in our terrestrial (Newtonian) experience matter & energy are two separate things, that they can be converted, one to the other. That's what:  E=M*C e 2     is all about.
When we detonate an atom bomb, or an H-bomb, we convert matter into energy.
Yet at particle accelerators like CERN, we've converted energy into matter. So Einstein's equation works both ways.

zw used the term "created". The process Einstein & I described is rather more a conversion than a creation.


----------



## sear

zaangalewa said:


> But there seems to be something wrong with the idea of self-organisation of matter which "automatically" leads to living stuctures. To remember: Our planet is full of matter but in percentage of the matter of our planet the mass of the biosphere is not big. Compared with the mass of the solar system or the galaxy the mass of living matter is much less in relation. But on the other side needs life the natural laws which lead to this gigantic universe all around us. If this is a life-preserving system then we are less than an atom of a needle in a very complex haystack.
> On the other side: What is so damned seldom has a very high value. Living matter is the most valueable matter of the whole universe. Sometimes I feel pain when people do not respect life, because they don't understand this unbelievable present of god. We are his very rich children - and I fear we are also much too often spoiled brats.


Not clear to me what utility the ratio has.
Dr. Carl Sagan said: * "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." *

Thank you for not being an ingrate. I amn't too.


> “The entire universe is a form of life.” astronomer / author / professor Bob Berman 19/04/04


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sear said:


> If it can happen at all, why only once? Why doesn't a cosmos spring up brand new from my coffee table?


It may have already.


----------



## sear

FI #132

Let's not overlook the point.

We've been perusing the heavens for millennia, and recently, in extraordinary detail. We scan in multiple spectra, visible light, X-ray, radio for example.

In the 3rd millennium it continues to appear there was but one big bang, and there is but one cosmos. The big bang explanation: once there was nothing. Suddenly it exploded.
Does that really make all that much more sense than the Holy Bible's _Genesis_?

No. I don't think so either.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Turtlesoup said:


> Basic building blocks smaller than elements----come to together and build up to create elements that then make matter.   Once energy is added, then the possibility of life also emerges.


*Atheist Magic*
1.  These "basic building blocks" made themselves from *nothing*.  It's so easy to do.  Ask any atheist to show you how to make something from nothing.
2. The *energy was added* from Magic Nothing.  Ask any atheist.  Energy is cheap. I mean, except for gasoline.  And diesel fuel.  And electricity.  And batteries. 
3,  The "possibility of life" emerging from water dripping on rocks is impossible.

Ask any atheist to provide the biochemical mechanism and series of reactions producing the very first molecule of titin, the largest protein in your body as you read this.  It is 33,450 amino acid residues in length, each residue one of twenty we have in our bodies.  So 1/20 to the 33,450th power is what, students?  It is no different from zero.

Godless atheist Richard Dawkins has acknowledged that 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power is  "impossible."  1/20th to the 33,450th is somewhat more impossible than merely impossible.  But that is just for starters. 

Each amino acid is levorotary, not dextrorotary, so multiply the first impossibility by 1/2 to the 33,450th.

Each bond in a polypeptide is of course a peptide bond, as opposed to a non-peptide bond.  The probability of the former is roughly 1/2.  So raise another 1/2 to the 33,450th power and multiply that by the first two impossibilities.

Finally, every protein is exquisitely folded.  What determined how to fold these thousands of proteins? Why the atheists *Magic Nothing* did it!  How convenient.

It gets much more impossible than this.   Every step in the sequence of synthesis is supposed to make the organism more "fit".  So include the entire list of intermediate compounds and their uses for "selection".  If they were useful, they must certainly still be produced and functioning.  How?  Where?  Be scientific, atheists.  Explain your Magic Nothing.  Should be easy for people as *smart* as you claim to be.

Oh, by the way, there are 10,000 other proteins and enzymes for which you must also provide mechanisms and existing, useful intermediaries by the millions.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sear said:


> The big bang explanation: once there was nothing. Suddenly it exploded.


* nothing we could observe

And anything that follows determinism and natural law makes more sense than Genesis.


----------



## sealybobo

zaangalewa said:


> In the end of the universe time could restart for example.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a myth.
> 
> 
> 
> What do we not know? We know our unverse is observable - we don't know whether other universes are real.
> 
> 
> 
> If  the Catholic philosopher Aristotle and others had not said what they said modern universities for natural science would not exist.


it's not a myth.  No one has proven that hypothesis wrong.


----------



## ding

sear said:


> But rare.
> If it can happen at all, why only once? Why doesn't a cosmos spring up brand new from my coffee table?
> 
> Final Exam. Question:
> Define "universe".
> Cite 3 examples.


Because your coffee table isn't a false vacuum.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> The universe was created. What created it? We have scientific theories based on evidence. We don't know if "the universe created itself", whatever that means.
> 
> Have you ever considered our universe is just one bubble in an endless Sea of bubbles? Like a lava lamp.
> 
> So we don't know definitively.
> 
> But you do? Do you have evidence? The Bible doesn't count. I don't care what men said 1500 years ago


Cosmic background radiation is the evidence for the universe being created from nothing.


----------



## sear

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *


The *as·ter·isk *is traditionally used to conceptually connect two things that in print are separated.
Your disconnected asterisk is a puzzle.

And while I both welcome and vehemently endorse your mention of natural law, I'm not aware of any definitive scientific tie of big bang to known physics. Nothing is not an explosive.


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> I guess Mr. Stephen Hawking used here a wrong word. This "nothing" seems to be an empty space with quantum fluctuations - that's what physically comes most near to the expression "nothing". And someone found out that a complete universe is able to expand from a single quantum fluctuation. That's not impossible.


Why isn't it possible?  With God all things are possible.


----------



## ding

sear said:


> The *as·ter·isk *is traditionally used to conceptually connect two things that in print are separated.
> Your disconnected asterisk is a puzzle.
> 
> And while I both welcome and vehemently endorse your mention of natural law, I'm not aware of any definitive scientific tie of big bang to known physics. Nothing is not an explosive.


It is when there are 1 billion anti-matter particles for every 1 billion and 1 matter particles.


----------



## sear

ding said:


> your coffee table isn't a false vacuum.


And the nothing the big bang exploded in was "a false vacuum"?

What's the difference between a "false vacuum" and a real vacuum"? Bissell vs Hoover?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sear said:


> The *as·ter·isk *is traditionally used to conceptually connect two things that in print are separated.


Those two things being your post and mine. 

You should be aware. It has been posted to you in this thread: the theoretical demonstration of quantum fluctuation in empty space being able to give rise to a universe. 

And scientists dont insist there was nothing before the big bang. The big bang is strictly a period of rapid inflation from an earlier state.


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> This is "hot" - because energy is not able to be created or to be destroyed within the universe (while an outside not exists). So if energy is not able to be created - howelse is it able to be "here" although the sum of all positive and negative energy of the universe seems to be nil?


It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.


----------



## sear

ding said:


> With God all things are possible.


Indeed, substitute "fantasy" for "god", and the assertion applies equally. What proof is there of any supernatural anything?


----------



## ding

sear said:


> And the nothing the big bang exploded in was "a false vacuum"?
> 
> What's the difference between a "false vacuum" and a real vacuum"? Bissell vs Hoover?


Yes.  The universe began as a false vacuum; a runaway false vacuum.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yet you religious nutsacks had your little iron age handbook for 1000s of years, and scientists still had to do all the work of learning these things quite in spite of you crusading fools. You dicks literally sat and pointed and laughed until you had no choice but to accept what scientists have learned. You are a salient example of this childish, idiotic behavior. The world has accepted evolution as fact...yet here we are, waiting for the last YEC jackasses to die off.


YEC will be here forever.  Better to die a natural death of old age than to be burned by global fire and suffer.  The worst is seeing your spiritually perfect self be destroyed in the lake of fire.  I think Newton was right and it will come around 2060 since you think the atheists have taken over.


----------



## ding

sear said:


> Indeed, substitute "fantasy" for "god", and the assertion applies equally. What proof is there of any supernatural anything?


If we assume that everything is 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 believe your problem lies in your fairy tale perception of God.  If you had a non-fairy tale perception of God, this might make more sense to you.


----------



## sear

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And scientists dont insist there was nothing before the big bang. The big bang is strictly a period of rapid inflation from an earlier state.


No need.
No astronomer or astrophysicist I've ever read has referred to matter, energy, or other that a human has observed, that isn't a direct descendant of BB.
It's not like there was some flotsam & jizzum wafting though the nothingness, and suddenly BB blasted it to the recesses.

Though BB is a practical scientific consensus, there may be some differences regarding particular details. No authority on the subject I've ever read has identified two separate groups of matter / energy. Big Bang is the only game in town.


----------



## ding

sear said:


> Indeed, substitute "fantasy" for "god", and the assertion applies equally. What proof is there of any supernatural anything?


Unless you believe it's just a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence, everything is proof of God.


----------



## sear

ding said:


> If we assume that everything is 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 believe your problem lies in your fairy tale perception of God.  If you had a non-fairy tale perception of God, this might make more sense to you.


a) I'm not disputing your assertions. But in all my lay research of it I don't recall any recognized authority or author making such claims.

b) You have no practical grasp of my perception of gods. Please do not presume me. It can only lead you astray. If you want to know my position, all you need do is ask.


----------



## sear

ding said:


> Unless you believe it's just a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence, everything is proof of God.


Even if so, meaningless without a specific definition of "god". I don't recall one in this thread.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The big bang is strictly a period of rapid inflation from an earlier state.


Can you describe this earlier state and explain how it was responsible for the cosmic background radiation?  

Because the only explanation I have ever heard for the cosmic background radiation is from paired production annihilation (the kind of annihilations that occur in a false vacuum).  The current belief is that it was a massively disproportionate amount of paired production annihilation relative to the remaining matter.  For every one particle of matter in the universe there were 1 billion annihilations of matter and anti-matter paired particle annihilations.  And all of this occurred in the space of a single proton.  At least that's what Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equation shows.


----------



## ding

sear said:


> a) I'm not disputing your assertions. But in all my lay research of it I don't recall any recognized authority or author making such claims.
> 
> b) You have no practical grasp of my perception of gods. Please do not presume me. It can only lead you astray. If you want to know my position, all you need do is ask.


Here is the paper which has the elegant equations I mentioned in my post.



			https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf
		


Here is short video of a world renowned cosmologist discussing what I wrote.


----------



## ding

sear said:


> You have no practical grasp of my perception of gods. Please do not presume me. It can only lead you astray. If you want to know my position, all you need do is ask.


If I got that wrong, I apologize.

Please share with me your perception of God.


----------



## ding

sear said:


> Even if so, meaningless without a specific definition of "god". I don't recall one in this thread.


So you have no perception of God that you can use?

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sear said:


> It's not like there was some flotsam & jizzum wafting though the nothingness, and suddenly BB blasted it to the recesses.


Actually yes, that is precisely what big bang theory is. There existed stuff, that we cannot ever observe more than 10E-33 s before the big bang and the big bang happened to it. The stuff expanded rapidly.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> Cosmic background radiation is the evidence for the universe being created from nothing.


You don't understand what that means.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> You don't understand what that means.


How do you know that?


----------



## ding

sear 

To follow up on God is mind here is an excerpt from George Wald, a Noble Laureate discussing mind and matter.

It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> How do you know that?


We've had this discussion before.  You don't know what you don't know.


----------



## my2¢

When our cartoon characters know more than us:


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Actually yes, that is precisely what big bang theory is. There existed stuff, that we cannot ever observe more than 10E-33 s before the big bang and the big bang happened to it. The stuff expanded rapidly.


So this stuff occupied a space of a proton according to Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, right?

Can you provide a theory on how it got there other than the leading theory which says it was created from nothing and explain how all of that cosmic background radiation got there?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> We've had this discussion before.  You don't know what you don't know.


I know you can't answer the question I asked you about the cosmic background radiation.  Any explanation for the origin of the universe must begin there.  Can you tell me anything at all about the cosmic background radiation other than you just don't know?

What don't I know?


----------



## ding

C'mon sealybobo do some research into the origin of the cosmic background radiation and get back to me.  The key things to research is what created that massive amount of radiation and just how massive is that radiation.  

Anyone who is serious about understanding the origin of the universe would look this up on their own.

While you are at it you might research the universe being created with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.  And you might want to research paired particle production and how that relates to the quantum mechanics of false vacuums.  Because all of this relates to the origin of the universe.


----------



## zaangalewa

sealybobo said:


> it's not a myth.  No one has proven that hypothesis wrong.



This mathematical plausible idea is not able to be proven in an experiment or any form of observation. Ignoramus. Ignorabimus. It's a wonderful idea - I love it - but we don't know. We never will know. What we are able to see is the part of the universe, which is observable.


----------



## zaangalewa

sear said:


> Not clear to me what utility the ratio has.
> Dr. Carl Sagan said: * "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." *



I remember Albert Einstein said this:  _"Das Universum erkennt sich im Menschen selbst" - "The universe recognizes itself in the human being"_ (my own verbally translation). Another man of his time,  [the] Mahatma  Gandhi, said something like: "Recognize yourselve and you will recognize the universe". Both ideas are somehow combined in the "anthropic principle". Short: If someone has a mathematical idea  about the universe, where he himself is not able to be born, then something is wrong with this idea.

But this is not only a system for research and mathematics. Ever thought about how blue eyed, blond and with muscles like the god "Thor" the Nazi-Toren (=the Nazi-insanes) had been? If they had taken serios their own totally idiotic Aryan concept then they had to do suicide on their own  ... hmmm ... what they somehow had done - in the greatest extended suicide the world ever had seen.



sear said:


> Thank you for not being an ingrate. I amn't too.



Ingrate? ... I have not really a good idea what you like say with this word to me. Sounds not as if this would be a characteristicum of my own person.


----------



## zaangalewa

sear said:


> We know.
> Einstein explained that while in our terrestrial (Newtonian) experience matter & energy are two separate things, that they can be converted, one to the other. That's what:  E=M*C e 2     is all about.
> When we detonate an atom bomb, or an H-bomb, we convert matter into energy.
> Yet at particle accelerators like CERN, we've converted energy into matter. So Einstein's equation works both ways.
> 
> zw used the term "created". The process Einstein & I described is rather more a conversion than a creation.



We don't know "where from" the energy of our universe comes (wherein some energy froze out to matter) because as far as we are able to know it existed no "where from" (=space) and "come"(=time) in the beginning. As stupid as this might sound in the ears of many people: The most plausible idea in this context is in my eyes still the idea "god made the universe out of nothing" - what has by the way not any relevance for the Christian faith - because if god made it in another way, why not? We say with this idea that even in the nothing which was in the beginning existed something what is described in the bible with the sentence "In the beginning was the word ..."


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero.



So it not exists. <=> ¿division by zero in our thoughts? Afterwards is everything plaiusible. The question in this case is: "What ripped the nothing into a uninverse?"



ding said:


> So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created.



Spontanous? How - if it has no energy?



ding said:


> Because the net energy is always zero.



Aha. What do you do "spontanous" if you have nearly no energy?



ding said:


> The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter.



Mass curves the space - it is not the curvature of the space - it causes the curvature. The space is flat (what's proven).



ding said:


> There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe.



¿Which formation?



ding said:


> In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability.



Erhaltungssätze? Quantenamechanik? ... Wha do you say here? What is not "forbidden" (and what means "forbidden" in this context at all?) What do you say here?



ding said:


> So a closed universe can spontaneously appear



Space is flat, so the universe is not closed.



ding said:


> - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing.



If space exists then it is mathematically possible that a universe is able to create a whole universe. But when we say the universe expands then we think that the space itselve expands. So if we go back in time then the space becomes more little and little and little and approximates to zero size. And if in this little space exist as many quantum fluctuations as it are existing in the same amount of space all around - did we anywhere in the titanic universe see a quantum fluctuation which creates the positive and negative energies of a new universe?



ding said:


> And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description



Is it? Did you read it? Did you understand it?



ding said:


> which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.



Exaclty. A circle was always a circle and never evolved. Since the universe is. But "before", where no before was - and no "where"? What to say about???


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> Why isn't it possible?  With God all things are +possible.



I said "That's not impossible." = "This is possible". Many Germans love double negations as for example "this is not ungreat" for the best we ever had seen.


----------



## sear

ding said:


> Can you provide a theory on how it got there other than the leading theory which says it was created from nothing and explain how all of that cosmic background radiation got there?


from sear's notes, according to author Simon Winchester:

Irish Bishop James Ussher claimed that the 6 Biblical days of creation began 9:AM Monday the 23rd of October 4004 BC.
And while this may be regarded by some as religious (Christian) doctrine, there is some contradictory evidence, including the fossil record. And because the fossil evidence refutes the 6 day creation idea, the doctrinal solution of "vis plastica" (plastic force) was created. This divine plastic force supposedly inserted fossils into rock to remind us of the omniscience and omnipotence of god. The fossils therefore were not, according to vies plastica (sp?), evidence of life in general or evolution [more gradual than 6 days] in particular. Instead they were claimed to simply be evidence of god’s presence in the universe.


----------



## sear

zaangalewa said:


> We don't know "where from" the energy of our universe comes (wherein some energy froze out to matter) because as far as we are able to know it existed no "where from" (=space) and "come"(=time) in the beginning.


BUT !!
To consider it a valid question we must interpret this question as an issue of chronology, of time, of sequence of events. Right?
If we consider time as something other than a continuum, then the concept of where did the material from the big bang come from is undefined, to the layman, meaningless.

Considered another way, the notion of the big bang is sudden change.
If the big bang was a change in space, nothing was there, not even nothing was there, and suddenly there was something where there hadn't been anything.
If a change in time?


----------



## zaangalewa

sear said:


> BUT !!
> To consider it a valid question we must interpret this question as an issue of chronology, of time, of sequence of events. Right?
> If we consider time as something other than a continuum, then the concept of where did the material from the big bang come from is undefined, to the layman, meaningless.
> 
> Considered another way, the notion of the big bang is sudden change.



A change of a nothing into a universe with space, time, energy, natural laws ...



sear said:


> If the big bang was a change in space,



The space itselve expands! So it was no space "before", where also no before was.



sear said:


> nothing was there, not even nothing was there,



And that's now the problem. What is a nothing if not even a nothing is in the nothing? What to do with this damned word? What we know is that we don't know anything about this what we are not able to say anything about.



sear said:


> and suddenly there was something where there hadn't been anything.
> If a change in time?



There was no time. Time started with the universe. Your - and everyones - problem is that we use structures from the universe to try to describe what is not universe. Imagine you could find a way to find out only with the methods within your own body that you had once been a cell and you ask yourselve now what you was before you was this cell. An eye - a foot - a mouth - some hairs ... or nothing?


----------



## ding

sear said:


> from sear's notes, according to author Simon Winchester:
> 
> Irish Bishop James Ussher claimed that the 6 Biblical days of creation began 9:AM Monday the 23rd of October 4004 BC.
> And while this may be regarded by some as religious (Christian) doctrine, there is some contradictory evidence, including the fossil record. And because the fossil evidence refutes the 6 day creation idea, the doctrinal solution of "vis plastica" (plastic force) was created. This divine plastic force supposedly inserted fossils into rock to remind us of the omniscience and omnipotence of god. The fossils therefore were not, according to vies plastica (sp?), evidence of life in general or evolution [more gradual than 6 days] in particular. Instead they were claimed to simply be evidence of god’s presence in the universe.


That doesn't address the formation of the cosmic background radiation but thanks for trying.  I'm sure you gave it your best.  

Do some research into the origin of the cosmic background radiation and get back to me. The key things to research is what created that massive amount of radiation and just how massive is that radiation.

Anyone who is serious about understanding the origin of the universe would look this up on their own.

While you are at it you might research the universe being created with nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. And you might want to research paired particle production and how that relates to the quantum mechanics of false vacuums. Because all of this relates to the origin of the universe.


----------



## ding

sear said:


> BUT !!
> To consider it a valid question we must interpret this question as an issue of chronology, of time, of sequence of events. Right?
> If we consider time as something other than a continuum, then the concept of where did the material from the big bang come from is undefined, to the layman, meaningless.
> 
> Considered another way, the notion of the big bang is sudden change.
> If the big bang was a change in space, nothing was there, not even nothing was there, and suddenly there was something where there hadn't been anything.
> If a change in time?





			[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
		




			https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> So it not exists. <=> ¿division by zero in our thoughts? Afterwards is everything plaiusible. The question in this case is: "What ripped the nothing into a uninverse?"
> 
> 
> 
> Spontanous? How - if it has no energy?
> 
> 
> 
> Aha. What do you do "spontanous" if you have nearly no energy?
> 
> 
> 
> Mass curves the space - it is not the curvature of the space - it causes the curvature. The space is flat (what's proven).
> 
> 
> 
> ¿Which formation?
> 
> 
> 
> Erhaltungssätze? Quantenamechanik? ... Wha do you say here? What is not "forbidden" (and what means "forbidden" in this context at all?) What do you say here?
> 
> 
> 
> Space is flat, so the universe is not closed.
> 
> 
> 
> If space exists then it is mathematically possible that a universe is able to create a whole universe. But when we say the universe expands then we think that the space itselve expands. So if we go back in time then the space becomes more little and little and little and approximates to zero size. And if in this little space exist as many quantum fluctuations as it are existing in the same amount of space all around - did we anywhere in the titanic universe see a quantum fluctuation which creates the positive and negative energies of a new universe?
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? Did you read it? Did you understand it?
> 
> 
> 
> Exaclty. A circle was always a circle and never evolved. Since the universe is. But "before", where no before was - and no "where"? What to say about???





			[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
		




			https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> [1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf



The title is wrong. It should be "Spontanous creation of the universe from vacuum." A vacuum is not nothing, that's why they are able to calculate this. What I don't understand is what they understand under a "false vacuum" in which a bubble of "true vacuum" appears thanks of Heisenberg.
Physicists use often an since ever existing and never ending space in their calculations. But this is not what the theory of relativity tells us. It tells us the space expands on its own. Everything started about 13.8 billion years ago ... from nothing = not from anything what we are able to say (or calculate) anything about.


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> The title is wrong. It should be "Spontanous creation of the universe from vacuum." A vacuum is not nothing, that's why they are able to calculate this. What I don't understand is what they understand under a "false vacuum" in which a bubble of "true vacuum" appears thanks of Heisenberg.
> Physicists use often an since ever existing and never ending space in their calculations. But this is not what the theory of relativity tells us. It tells us the space expands on its own. Everything started about 13.8 billion years ago ... from nothing = not from anything what we are able to say (or calculate) anything about.


As near as I can tell the distinction is that in a false vacuum paired particles pop into existence, annihilate each other and leave behind radiation as per E=mc^2.

Relativity can only describe what happens to the universe after it appears.  

Are you sure relativity tells us that space expands on it's own?


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> As near as I can tell the distinction is that in a false vacuum paired particles pop into existence, annihilate each other and leave behind radiation as per E=mc^2.
> 
> Relativity can only describe what happens to the universe after it appears.
> 
> Are you sure relativity tells us that space expands on it's own?



As far as I am able to be sure: Yes. I don't know why the space expands - but if I think about then it means we live in an universe where we always will see an expanding universe - independent where we are. So if we will travel through the universe we are always in the middle and the universe will still expand from all points into all directions. This means the universe is without edge or border and all points are always in the middle - totally independent where we are. When I understood this the first time my spontanous reaction had been to say: "Typically god".


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> I don't know why the space expands - but if I think about then it means we live in an universe where we always will see an expanding universe - independent where we are. So if we will travel through the universe we are always in the middle and the universe will still expand from all points into all directions. This means the universe is without edge or border and all points are always in the middle - totally independent where we are. When I understood this the first time my spontanous reaction had been to say: "Typically god".


Space expands because the paired production annihilations released tremendous amounts of energy and set the remaining matter particles in motion which resulted in the universe expanding.

Yes, space time is curved.  

I marvel at God's creation every day.


----------



## sear

zaangalewa said:


> a) I remember Albert Einstein said this:  _"Das Universum erkennt sich im Menschen selbst" - "The universe recognizes itself in the human being"_ (my own verbally translation). Another man of his time,  [the] Mahatma  Gandhi, said something like: "Recognize yourselve and you will recognize the universe". Both ideas are somehow combined in the "anthropic principle". Short: If someone has a mathematical idea  about the universe, where he himself is not able to be born, then something is wrong with this idea.
> 
> b) Ingrate? ... I have not really a good idea what you like say with this word to me. Sounds not as if this would be a characteristicum of my own person.


 a) Thank you. I spent some time in Rheinland Pfaltz (spelling?) in the mid-1970's. I wasn't there long enough to learn much German, just long enough to appreciate the culture. I haven't been back since "The Wall" fell, and the Germanys reunited.

 b) An ingrate is one who is deficient in appreciation. What's the point in living if you don't appreciate it? You seem to appreciate your own good fortune. Excellent.


----------



## sear

zaangalewa said:


> I don't know why the space expands - but if I think about then it means we live in an universe where we always will see an expanding universe


I'm baffled by it. And it seems to me the pseudo astrophysics used to explain it is grasping at straws.
Might accelerating expansion be a universal standard? Why would that make less sense than something else?

But it's so odd, I'd be wary of any assumption.


----------



## justoffal

K9Buck said:


> What ya got?





Mac1958 said:


> Okay, so in what do you put your "faith"?
> .


So far every intelligent in-depth analysis device of spontaneous self-creation. There are just too many happy coincidences out there.

Jo


----------



## sear

#183
and
I know of no evidence for any supernatural anything.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

justoffal said:


> There are just too many happy coincidences out there.


Is that your gut feeling? It kinda sorta FEELS like too many?


----------



## LittleNipper

sear said:


> and
> I know of no evidence for any supernatural anything.


And life from dirt is a daily occurrence?  You travel from work/school to home on a daily bases, and you never were concerned that you might not make it?  And yet here you are ------ a miracle!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> And life from dirt is a daily occurrence?  You travel from work/school to home on a daily bases, and you never were concerned that you might not make it?  And yet here you are ------ a miracle!


Why would that be a miracle? What is thia nonsense? Your unevidenced magic doesn't go on the same shelf with science.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> And life from dirt is a daily occurrence?  You travel from work/school to home on a daily bases, and you never were concerned that you might not make it?  And yet here you are ------ a miracle!


Wow. "'Miracles'' used to be extra-special tricks attributed to the gods. Surviving the drive to work being a ''miracle" tends to cheapen the god's brand.


----------



## ChemEngineer

justoffal said:


> So far every intelligent in-depth analysis device of spontaneous self-creation. There are just too many happy coincidences out there.
> 
> Jo


That isn't right.  It isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

You have no concept whatsoever of insuperable statistics.   Zero.
You couldn't even formulate a sentence in your first inane comment.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why would that be a miracle? What is thia nonsense? Your unevidenced magic doesn't go on the same shelf with science.


PROVE that life can naturally develop from a rock, dirt, or some primordial soup.  If you cannot then the supernatural is the only viable explanation. YOUR, or any scientist's opinion, that such is possible is a matter of FAITH and a BELIEF that is UNSUBSTANTIATED.  Faith in a theory without substance is dogma. This is not science. For any evolutionist (who must also accept that life originated from rock) to decry a creationist as a religious fanatic and not scientific ----- is a pot trying to label a kettle black.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> PROVE that life can naturally develop from a rock, dirt, or some primordial soup


See, right there. You don't even understand the most basic precepts of science. "Proof" is for mathematics. Your professor would correct this nonsense on your first day of class, if you had ever had any education in any science. Which you have not.

But, as always, here is where i shut you right up and you slither off:

What would convince you of "abiogenesis without magical miracles"? Be specific. Tell us what the evidence would look like. 

Keep in mind, abiogenesis without miracles would not preclude the existence of your favorites gods. It would simply be how they did things.

So, your answer? Be clear. Be specific.


----------



## ChemEngineer

The once touted Miller-Urey Experiment has been totally discredited.  It pretended that lightning striking primordial ooze made four or five simple  amino acids, all racemic, all dilute.

Humans are composed of 20 different amino acids, all levorotary. 
Chains of 1 out of 20 different amino acids in a sequence 10,000 amino acid residues in length represent 1 chance in 1/20 to the 10,000th power, which is effectively zero probability.
That is just for ONE protein out of 10,000 or so, and it is not particularly large.

So science and statistics effectively refute Darwinism, materialism, and nothing making everything, which is the absurd pretense of every atheist.


----------



## sear

LittleNipper said:


> And life from dirt is a daily occurrence?


Dr. Carl Sagan and others have observed, once a primordial breeding community occurs, it's off to the races. Next stop: Trilobite. 
It's probably not common LN.
But we wouldn't know if it happens daily in the ocean.     

*one "teaspoon [of ocean water] will contain millions of bacteria, and 10's of millions of viruses. ... when we try to culture these organisms only about a tenth of a percent of them have ever grown in the laboratory. ...

Every 200 miles, 85% of the organisms and sequences were unique to the region.

... each site differs from each other. But the diversity and the amount of organisms is extremely high everywhere. There's different ones that grow in the cold water of the North Atlantic, than in the South Atlantic. The Atlantic ocean is different than the Pacific ocean. ... The most important thing we found is these photo-receptors see the color of light in the region reflected by the sea water.

In the Sargasso Sea, it's a deep indigo blue. The photo-receptors, it's like having one eye, only see blue light. You get into coastal waters, say see green light reflected off the chlorophyll. And a single letter change in the genetic code changes one amino acid in this protein, that changes the wavelength of light that these receptors see." Craig Venter, from his Global Ocean Sampling Expedition*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sear said:


> Dr. Carl Sagan and others have observed, once a primordial breeding community occurs, it's off to the races. Next stop: Trilobite.
> It's probably not common LN.
> But we wouldn't know if it happens daily in the ocean.
> 
> *one "teaspoon [of ocean water] will contain millions of bacteria, and 10's of millions of viruses. ... when we try to culture these organisms only about a tenth of a percent of them have ever grown in the laboratory. ...
> 
> Every 200 miles, 85% of the organisms and sequences were unique to the region.
> 
> ... each site differs from each other. But the diversity and the amount of organisms is extremely high everywhere. There's different ones that grow in the cold water of the North Atlantic, than in the South Atlantic. The Atlantic ocean is different than the Pacific ocean. ... The most important thing we found is these photo-receptors see the color of light in the region reflected by the sea water.
> 
> In the Sargasso Sea, it's a deep indigo blue. The photo-receptors, it's like having one eye, only see blue light. You get into coastal waters, say see green light reflected off the chlorophyll. And a single letter change in the genetic code changes one amino acid in this protein, that changes the wavelength of light that these receptors see." Craig Venter, from his Global Ocean Sampling Expedition*


Mind blowing.

Once we came to understand the concept of selection and how nonrandom it is, the idea of "apparent design" was explained. Given selection, of course polar bears are white. Given selection, of course birds can follow complex migration patterns. Else, that species would not exist. or it would be a different species that does different things. Their sensitivity and socialization was "selected for" at some point, and now the entire population exhibits this trait. The ones that don't, die. they do not pass on their genes. 

Given selection, life will always try to form, by its inherent property of persistence of successful models. Local order, when it successfully maintains itself. Inherently this is "selected for", as the definition of "to select for" is to choose one model to persist. It is fair to believe that in any environment that can maintain lots of amino acids at a moderate temp, given enough time, they will combine in new, interesting ways and form persistent models of larger structures that are "selected for" by the environment and physics.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> Space expands because the paired production annihilations released tremendous amounts of energy and set the remaining matter particles in motion which resulted in the universe expanding.



Eh? Sometimes it is better to know nothing. How big is the hammer which I need to expand 1 gallon space to 2 gallons space and how do I have to smash it?



ding said:


> Yes, space time is curved.



No! Space is flat what's proven up to the time when light came free. Mass curves the spacetime only locally. Because space is flat we don't live in a closed universe.



ding said:


> I marvel at God's creation every day.



Hmm ...


----------



## zaangalewa

sear said:


> I'm baffled by it. And it seems to me the pseudo astrophysics used to explain it is grasping at straws.
> Might accelerating expansion be a universal standard? Why would that make less sense than something else?
> 
> But it's so odd, I'd be wary of any assumption.



You are in the middle of the universe because this is so. So why to be frustrated? What could be a better position? It is what it is - and what we still don't know, we still don't know. Our understanding of truth and reality is growing. Every day we are learning more - but never we will know everything - and sometimes we will have to correct some mistakes. And sometimes we will also have to correct mistakes which we made when we were correcting mistakes. Perfection in this world here means always to be ready to correct mistakes and to continue to stay in everything what's really true. Nothing is so absurde as the "new" truth it exists no truth.



*Ich bring Dich durch die Nacht*

_Die Schatten werden länger
Der graue, grame Grillenfänger
Streicht um das Haus
Der Tag ist aus
Die Ängste kommen näher
Sie stell‘n sich größer, krall‘n sich zäher
In der Seele fest
In deinem Traumgeäst
Manchmal ist es bis zum anderen Ufer der Nacht
Wie ein lichtloser Tunnel, ein nicht enden wollender Schacht

Ich bring dich durch die Nacht
Ich bring dich durch die rauhe See
Ich bring dich durch die Nacht
Ich bringe dich von Luv nach Lee
Ich bin dein Lotse, ich bin dein Mann
Bin deine Schwester, lehn dich an
Ich bin der Freund, der mit dir wacht
Ich bring dich durch die Nacht

Alles erscheint dir schwerer
Bedrohlicher und hoffnungsleerer
Mit der Dunkelheit
Kommen aus dunkler Zeit
Ferne Erinnerungen
Die Nacht wispert mit tausend Zungen:
"Sie sind alle aus
Du bist allein zuhaus!"
Mit deiner stummen Verzweiflung und dem Knistern im Parkett
Und als einzigem Trost das warme Licht des Radios an deinem Bett

Ich bring dich durch die Nacht..._

_[Laß los, versuch zu schlafen
Ich bring dich sicher in den Hafen
Dir kann nichts gescheh‘n
Wolfsmann und böse Feen
Sind nur ein Blätterreigen
Vorm Fenster, der Wind in den Zweigen
Im Kastanienbaum
Ein böser Traum
Der‘s nicht wagt, wiederzukommen, bis der neue Tag beginnt
Laß los, ich halt dich fest, ich kenn den Weg aus dem Labyrinth

Ich bring dich durch die Nacht...]_

*Reinhard Mey*


----------



## Colin norris

Mac1958 said:


> There are theories, such as String Theory.  There is a theory that White Holes exist - the opposite of Black Holes, and mathematically possible.  Instead of sucking in matter like Black Holes, White Holes shoot out matter.  So our particular universe could have simply exploded out of the ass end of one of those.
> 
> The brilliant Lawrence Krauss has a new book out on this, "A Universe From Nothing",
> That's the beauty and fun of science:  You always get to be curious, challenge yourself, ask questions, think, experiment, and admit that you don't have all the answers.  Awesome!
> .



All the godbotherers believe that everything they will ever encounter is explained in the bible. 
Those immaculate conception and virgin births etc seem to have disrupted that theory.


----------



## zaangalewa

LittleNipper said:


> PROVE that life can naturally develop from a rock, dirt, or some primordial soup.  If you cannot then the supernatural is the only viable explanation.



You are the same matter as the floor under your feet and after your death you will become dust like this again. And if you would use the greek word meta-physics instead of the Latin word super-natural then you would understand more easy what's really important in this context. Meta-physics were the books "meta" the books about physics in a Christian liberary. Mathematics or music for example is meta-physics in such a context. Sure are instruments "physics" - nut not so the music which is made with instruments - although the sound itselve is also physics again. A meta-physical question in such a context could for example be "Is a song dead while it is not sung?" or "Where was a formula before it was discovered the first time?"

_Miracles are not contrary to nature but only contrarary to what we know about_
Augustinus from Hippo



LittleNipper said:


> YOUR, or any scientist's opinion, that such is possible is a matter of FAITH and a BELIEF that is UNSUBSTANTIATED.  Faith in a theory without substance is dogma. This is not science. For any evolutionist (who must also accept that life originated from rock) to decry a creationist as a religious fanatic and not scientific ----- is a pot trying to label a kettle black.



Nearly no Christian in the world - except the rest of the world which is called USA - has any problem to accept evolution and to believe in creation. I never understood the discussion in the English speaking world "creation vs evolution". Nevertheless I have to say it is better not to accept evolution instead to accept racisms or biological nonsense like Aryan races, alpha wolves in human societies and other nonsense. Nevertheless refers the real scientific theory of evolution to a real evolution in nature which is created from god. The important thing: You and your dog for example have a common  ancestors. You are somehow "brothers" (see also Saint Francis).


----------



## sear

zaangalewa said:


> You are in the middle of the universe because this is so.


If it is so, it's purely coincidental.

Instead we are in the perceived middle, because of the accelerating expansion.
The more distant the object we observe regardless of direction (azimuth), the faster it appears to recede.

Therefore what some refer to as the edge of the universe is instead merely the core of the universe that's receding from us at less than the speed of light (SOL).
We can't see what is beyond that, because it recedes from us faster than light, so its light (if any) never reaches us.

Let us not, particularly in relativistic astrophysics, fail to distinguish between perception & reality.
We don't know what's beyond what we can see. The best we can do is extrapolate from what we can see. But the reliability of such extrapolation probably tapers off with distance beyond the observable limit. If we call that observable limit, then might what we perceive as our cosmos also be what others in an adjacent universe might perceive as a singularity? A black hole?

What surrounds a black hole in our universe is an event horizon.
So if the perimeter of our observable cosmos is an event horizon, then we're in a black hole. Right?


----------



## zaangalewa

sear said:


> If it is so,



It is so because the universe epands from all points into all directions. So everywhere in the universe exist only central points.



sear said:


> it's purely coincidental.



Sure, universe.



sear said:


> Instead we are in the perceived middle, because of the accelerating expansion.



Ahem - seems to me you did not read what I said before. And not to trust in measurements ("perceived") and logic ("mathematics") is not the philosophy of natural philosophy = natural science.



sear said:


> The more distant the object we observe regardless of direction (azimuth), the faster it appears to recede.



While a mosquito far away seem to be slower than a mosquito in an head orbit. A mystery.



sear said:


> Therefore what some refer to as the edge of the universe is instead merely the core of the universe that's receding from us at less than the speed of light (SOL).



There is no edge. Wherever you will travel with your starship Mosquito - always will the universe expand from all points into all directsions.



sear said:


> We can't see what is beyond that, because it recedes from us faster than light, so its light (if any) never reaches us.



The most far objects which we can see travel with 3 times lightspeed.



sear said:


> Let us not, particularly in relativistic astrophysics, fail to distinguish between perception & reality.



?



sear said:


> We don't know what's beyond what we can see.



Sure - that's why America not exists from my point of view here. No way to see it. 



sear said:


> The best we can do is extrapolate from what we can see.



Under the paradigma "all over the universe exist always the same natural laws"



sear said:


> But the reliability of such extrapolation probably tapers off with distance beyond the observable limit. If we call that observable limit, then might what we perceive as our cosmos also be what others in an adjacent universe might perceive as a singularity? A black hole?



A strange idea. If a ray of light (or any other electromagnetic wave) not reaches us we see just simple nothing because it never arrives



sear said:


> What surrounds a black hole in our universe is an event horizon.
> So if the perimeter of our observable cosmos is an event horizon, then we're in a black hole. Right?



No. What we don't see is like a kind of horizon. Light not reaches us. Here on Earth reaches us no light from the USA because the world is round and a ray of light is straight. That's why America is not existing. If we are in a black hole we see everything - but we cannot send anything. A ray of light is too heavy.


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> Eh? Sometimes it is better to know nothing. How big is the hammer which I need to expand 1 gallon space to 2 gallons space and how do I have to smash it?
> 
> 
> 
> No! Space is flat what's proven up to the time when light came free. Mass curves the spacetime only locally. Because space is flat we don't live in a closed universe.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm ...


The universe is flat.  Space time is curved as it is distorted by matter.  We live in an isolated universe which means it is essentially closed.  Not sure how you can believe the universe is without edge or border and still think it is an open system.


----------



## sear

ding said:


> Not sure how you can believe the universe is without edge or border and still think it is an open system.


That's what open means.
I don't have enough data to declare right or wrong. But without border means open.


----------



## sear

* "Precision & clarity in the use of language leads to precision & clarity of thought."  G. Gordon Liddy *


> " the universe expands from all points into all directions. So everywhere in the universe exist only central points. " za #200


Expansion rate is a separate parameter from cosmological location within the expansion.
 True, to ANY observer, at ANY location, space appearing to expand surrounding the observer may promote the illusion the observer's location is the center.
 It's the perceived center of the expansion.
 It is not NECESSARILY the geometric center.


> "There is no edge." za #200


What there is is a limit beyond which we cannot observe. That limit is sometimes referred to as an edge, rightly or wrongly.


> "The most far objects which we can see travel with 3 times lightspeed." za


If they receed from us at 3 x SOL then we can NOT "see" them. SOL is our observational limit.

Light doesn't leave a black hole, because the gravity is so powerful that light isn't fast enough to reach escape velocity.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> The universe is flat.  Space time is curved as it is distorted by matter. We live in an isolated universe



Whatever "isolated" could mean in this case: How do you know this?



ding said:


> which means it is essentially closed.



The universe is flat - so it is not closed. Even a triangle in the size of billions of lightyears up to the background radiation has a sum of angles of 180°.






positive curvature  - without curvature - negative curvature



ding said:


> Not sure how you can believe the universe is without edge or border and still think it is an open system.



If it had an edge or border it would not be open.


----------



## sear

zaangalewa said:


> If it had an edge or border it would not be open.


The waste basket under my desk has a border, or rim. It's open.
 An edge or border might be prerequisite for being closed. But even the most secure bank vault in the country has a door on hinges. It can be opened, or closed.


----------



## zaangalewa

sear said:


> The waste basket under my desk has a border, or rim. It's open.



Good grief - how that? Make a waste paper basket without any material - this could perhaps be a good analogy.



sear said:


> An edge or border might be prerequisite for being closed.



A border is something what someone is able to overstep. When we overstepped the Atlantic we found America. If we overstep the intergalacticv space between Andromeda and the Milky Way faster than Andromeda will reach us then we will find a new galaxy. But we never will find any border of the universe in whatever direction independent how many billions or trillions of years we will fly.



sear said:


> But even the most secure bank vault in the country has a door on hinges. It can be opened, or closed.



Aha. And how do you shield this tresor from gravity? Or how are you able to move it only a nano-milimeter out of the centre of a universe, which has only centres?


----------



## ding

sear said:


> That's what open means.
> I don't have enough data to declare right or wrong. But without border means open.


Open or closed or isolated systems relates to thermodynamic systems.


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> Whatever "isolated" could mean in this case: How do you know this?
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is flat - so it is not closed. Even a triangle in the size of billions of lightyears up to the background radiation has a sum of angles of 180°.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> positive curvature  - without curvature - negative curvature
> 
> 
> 
> If it had an edge or border it would not be open.


Because it is the general consensus within the cosmology community that the universe is an isolated system but at creation it was a closed system.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sear said:


> But without border means open.


A universe can be both closed and boundless. Like the surface of a sphere is.


----------



## sear

ding said:


> Open or closed or isolated systems relates to thermodynamic systems.


It can.
In this case I believe / hope you are right.


> "A border is something what someone is able to overstep." za #206


And when they can / do overstep that border, it is considered an "open" border.

If we assume our cosmos has no exterior, whatever.
If instead we assume at the portion of time the big bang singularity had expanded to the size of a grape, that it had an inside, an outside, and a roughly defined border, why then but not now? Since then it's gotten bigger. But would the interior vs exterior have substantially intrinsically changed?

The Point:
When a nova explodes near the center of our cosmos, the shrapnel goes from one part of our cosmos, to a slightly different part of our cosmos.
When a nova explodes on the edge of our cosmos, some shrapnel is hurled inward, some is hurled outward.
And so it is with the flash of energy from that explosion. Can you guarantee none of it leaves our cosmos?

Our cosmos may be mostly closed. I dare not pretend we can state as a certitude that it is absolutely closed.


ding said:


> Because it is the general consensus within the cosmology community that the universe is an isolated system but at creation it was a closed system.


Well stated.


----------



## sear

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> A universe can be both closed and boundless. Like the surface of a sphere is.


I've never seen a sphere with a boundless surface.


----------



## Flash

Mac1958 said:


> There are theories, such as String Theory.  There is a theory that White Holes exist - the opposite of Black Holes, and mathematically possible.  Instead of sucking in matter like Black Holes, White Holes shoot out matter.  So our particular universe could have simply exploded out of the ass end of one of those.
> 
> The brilliant Lawrence Krauss has a new book out on this, "A Universe From Nothing",
> That's the beauty and fun of science:  You always get to be curious, challenge yourself, ask questions, think, experiment, and admit that you don't have all the answers.  Awesome!
> .


LOL

Theories like this silliness are a dime a dozen.  You can't make something out of nothing.


----------



## ding

sear said:


> It can.
> In this case I believe / hope you are right.
> 
> And when they can / do overstep that border, it is considered an "open" border.
> 
> If we assume our cosmos has no exterior, whatever.
> If instead we assume at the portion of time the big bang singularity had expanded to the size of a grape, that it had an inside, an outside, and a roughly defined border, why then but not now? Since then it's gotten bigger. But would the interior vs exterior have substantially intrinsically changed?
> 
> The Point:
> When a nova explodes near the center of our cosmos, the shrapnel goes from one part of our cosmos, to a slightly different part of our cosmos.
> When a nova explodes on the edge of our cosmos, some shrapnel is hurled inward, some is hurled outward.
> And so it is with the flash of energy from that explosion. Can you guarantee none of it leaves our cosmos?
> 
> Our cosmos may be mostly closed. I dare not pretend we can state as a certitude that it is absolutely closed.
> 
> Well stated.


It never ceases to amaze me how people will cling to almost anything which might prevent them from accepting the science behind the big bang.  

The universe being created from nothing scares the shit out of atheists.


----------



## Mac1958

Flash said:


> LOL
> 
> Theories like this silliness are a dime a dozen.  You can't make something out of nothing.
> 
> View attachment 524393


So what is YOUR theory?


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> Open or closed or isolated systems relates to thermodynamic systems.



I spoke not about thermodynamics but about the dynamic geometry of the universe. What you speak about is the constancy of energy <=> no one is able to create or to destroy energy. That's a totally different thing.


----------



## zaangalewa

sear said:


> I've never seen a sphere with a boundless surface.



For a two dimensional object the Earth is a boundless surface.


----------



## sear

zaangalewa said:


> For a two dimensional object the Earth is a boundless surface.


In two spacial dimensions the surface of a sphere is either a point, or a ring, a circle. The boundary is the 3rd spacial dimension.


ding said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how people will cling to almost anything which might prevent them from accepting the science behind the big bang.
> The universe being created from nothing scares the shit out of atheists.


Spectacular.
No idea why you juxtapose such comment with my post. I don't recall ever rejecting science. I've smirked at pseudo-science. I don't celebrate Ponds & Fleishman day.


----------



## Flash

Mac1958 said:


> So what is YOUR theory?


Intelligent design.

Makes a lot more sense than this stupid idea of sumptin outta nutin.


----------



## Mac1958

Flash said:


> Intelligent design.
> 
> Makes a lot more sense than this stupid idea of sumptin outta nutin.


Where is the intelligence coming from?


----------



## ChemEngineer

"My thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not your ways." - Nature's God

The incredible ignorance of arrogant atheists demanding theories and proofs and examinations of the Mind of God are eternally doomed to failure, and the atheists haven't a clue.  Your dog or cat has no idea of what you are doing, but it gets along with you just fine. It has food, shelter, and love. Atheists could take a lesson from their pets, but they won't.  They don't want to learn since they claim that they already know it all.


----------



## Flash

Mac1958 said:


> Where is the intelligence coming from?


I don't know.

However, I went to Engineering School.  Got an advanced degree.  Took a lot of science, math and engineering course.  Learned a lot about practical physics. Never was taught that something could be made out of nothing.

This moron Krass is an avid atheist and he has been trying for a long time to prove that something can be made out  of nothing but he has nothing of substance.   Just an unproven silly ass theory.


----------



## zaangalewa

sear said:


> In two spacial dimensions the surface of a sphere is either a point, or a ring, a circle. The boundary is the 3rd spacial dimension. ...



The surface of a sphere (2 dimensions on a 3 dimensional object) is for a 2 dimensional object boundless. One of the first modells of the universe in context of the theory of relativity uses a similar model - the Minkowski space (today called "spacetime"). A 3 dimensional object on the 3D-surface (=space) of the 4 dimensional spacetime is in a similar situation. Someone (=3D-object) is able to travel through the Minkowski-space in one straight line and arrives after he travelled through the whole universe in the same position from back where he had started once into the other direction. Same is a 2 dimensional   object able to do on the surface of a sphere. Both (a sphere and the Minkowski space) are a closed system = systems with a positive curvature <=> a triangle has more than 180°.


----------



## Leo123

Deep question there OP.  Scientists have yet to quantify that.   The Euro Space Agency Planck created a map of the oldest light in the universe which is 13.8 billion years.  
*"Because of the connection between distance and the speed of light, this means scientists can look at a region of space that lies 13.8 billion light-years away. Like a ship in the empty ocean, astronomers on Earth can turn their telescopes to peer 13.8 billion light-years in every direction, which puts Earth inside of an observable sphere with a radius of 13.8 billion light-years. The word "observable" is key; the sphere limits what scientists can see but not what is there." *








						How Big is the Universe?
					

How big is the universe around us? What we can observe gives us an answer, but it's likely much bigger than that.




					www.space.com
				



We are in infancy in studying the universe.   If one accepts the above then the next question is...Where does this 'sphere' exist?   Beyond that, is it really a sphere?   We cannot assume that our vantage point (Earth) will give us an accurate representation.  Not only that, one has to consider there may be other dimensions we do not have the capability of observing.   Of course, another question is:  What came before the Big Bang?   How about:  What is inside a black hole?  OR is a wormhole a connection to another parallel universe?    

Time to practice a little Zen maybe.....Maybe the universe just "is"......


----------



## zaangalewa

Flash said:


> I don't know.
> 
> However, I went to Engineering School.  Got an advanced degree.  Took a lot of science, math and engineering course.  Learned a lot about practical physics. Never was taught that something could be made out of nothing.



The idea "god made everything out of nothing" is about 1700 years old. Augustinus from Hippo found this solution on theological reasons.  He said the mighty creating word of god is a timeless word. And he said it makes not any sense to ask what was before time was created, because there was no before. And there is also another nice question in this context - no idea who asked this first - but the idea is simple: Was god existing when he created existence?



Flash said:


> This moron Krass is an avid atheist and he has been trying for a long time to prove that something can be made out  of nothing but he has nothing of substance.   Just an unproven silly ass theory.


----------



## Flash

zaangalewa said:


> The idea "god made everything out of nothing" is about 1700 years old. Augustinus from Hippo found this solution on theological reasons.  He said the mighty creating word of god is a timeless word. And he said it makes not any sense to ask what was before time was created, because there was no before. And there is also another nice question in this context - no idea who asked this first - but the idea is simple: Was god existing when he created existence?



After you cut through all the bullshit and after you boil all the berries there are really only two possibilities:

1.  The universe created itself out of nothing.

2.  There is some intelligent design to the universe.

The first ones make no sense whatsoever given our understanding of the Laws of Physics.

At least not the Laws of Physics as I was taught at an accredited university.

The second possibility is much more feasible given that the first one is impossible.


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> I spoke not about thermodynamics but about the dynamic geometry of the universe. What you speak about is the constancy of energy <=> no one is able to create or to destroy energy. That's a totally different thing.


It can't be destroyed after it is created but it was created when space and time was created.  The creation of energy was what created space and time.


----------



## ding

sear said:


> In two spacial dimensions the surface of a sphere is either a point, or a ring, a circle. The boundary is the 3rd spacial dimension.
> 
> Spectacular.
> No idea why you juxtapose such comment with my post. I don't recall ever rejecting science. I've smirked at pseudo-science. I don't celebrate Ponds & Fleishman day.


Because you seem to be arguing against the universe being created from nothing.


----------



## Leo123

Flash said:


> After you cut through all the bullshit and after you boil all the berries there are really only two possibilities:
> 
> 1.  The universe created itself out of nothing.
> 
> 2.  There is some intelligent design to the universe.
> 
> The first ones make no sense whatsoever given our understanding of the Laws of Physics.
> 
> At least not the Laws of Physics as I was taught at an accredited university.
> 
> The second possibility is much more feasible given that the first one is impossible.


OR the universe always was and The Big Bang was an intra universe event which could be a cyclical whose time frame is uncomprehendable.


----------



## Flash

Leo123 said:


> OR the universe always was and The Big Bang was an intra universe event which could be a cycle.



"Always was" is a subset of #1.


----------



## Leo123

Flash said:


> "Always was" is a subset of #1.


Since we really don't know the size and scope of the Universe it could be that the Big Bang was an event that occurred within a larger, yet unknown Universe that has always been.  If we accept that the Universe we know, and can scientifically measure, had it's beginning with the Big Bang, then you are correct.   Remember though, science is the on-going pursuit of facts all of which we may not yet know exist with regard to the Universe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sear said:


> I've never seen a sphere with a boundless surface.


You have only seen spheres with boundless surfaces. Remember, we are scaling down a dimension. You are the 2D stickman living in the surface of the sphere. Your universe is closed and finite, yet boundless.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac1958 said:


> Where is the intelligence coming from?


Oh boy. You apparently dont know the rules of the rigged game:

1) Nothing can come from nothing. Except your favorite gods. So ALMOST nothing can come from nothing. And you get to decide what can and can't, but only if you believe in gods. 

2) Everything has to have a beginning, except your favorite gods. Refer to rule one for how this is handled.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Flash said:


> Theories like this silliness are a dime a dozen


You understand less than nothing about any of those theories and so are not qualified or entitled to have an opinion on any of them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Flash said:


> Took a lot of science, math and engineering course. Learned a lot about practical physics. Never was taught that something could be made out of nothing


Yes, the theoretical evidence for this is fairly new.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> See, right there. You don't even understand the most basic precepts of science. "Proof" is for mathematics. Your professor would correct this nonsense on your first day of class, if you had ever had any education in any science. Which you have not.
> 
> But, as always, here is where i shut you right up and you slither off:
> 
> What would convince you of "abiogenesis without magical miracles"? Be specific. Tell us what the evidence would look like.
> 
> Keep in mind, abiogenesis without miracles would not preclude the existence of your favorites gods. It would simply be how they did things.
> 
> So, your answer? Be clear. Be specific.


Create a living biological organism from a rock (your choice).  If no one can do it intentionally, such could not have occurred naturally accidentally ------ that is my hypothesis. If nature (and we are a part of "nature") cannot with intent create a biological organism, it must be the result of the supernatural. Prove me wrong! 

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:



Make an observation or observations.
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
*Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.*
Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."


----------



## Mac1958

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh boy. You apparently dont know the rules of the rigged game:
> 
> 1) Nothing can come from nothing. Except your favorite gods. So ALMOST nothing can come from nothing. And you get to decide what can and can't, but only if you believe in gods.
> 
> 2) Everything has to have a beginning, except your favorite gods. Refer to rule one for how this is handled.


That was definitely my assumption.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Create a living biological organism from a rock (your choice).


*which nobody but creationist goobers who dont understand anything about any of this say

You simply are not even remotely qualified or entitled to have an opinion on any of this, my man. If you are going to continue to make failed attempts to argue against Evolution or abiogenesis, you have to at least know something about either of them.


----------



## Leo123

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *which nobody but creationist goobers who dont understand anything about any of this say
> 
> You simply are not even remotely qualified or entitled to have an opinion on any of this, my man. If you are going to continue to make failed attempts to argue against Evolution or abiogenesis, you have to at least know something about either of them.


First of all, define 'nothing' with regard to the Universe and space.   We used to think of space as nothingness or a vacuum.  Today scientific thinking and theories seem to point to 'dark' or 'black' matter as having some kind of mass.  More and more it appears that what we once thought of as 'nothing' is really something.  I do not discount abiogenesis either and we all know that evolution in biological forms does take place however, stating that is how humans came into their present form is yet to be proven, but we are close.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> "My thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not your ways." - Nature's God
> 
> The incredible ignorance of arrogant atheists demanding theories and proofs and examinations of the Mind of God are eternally doomed to failure, and the atheists haven't a clue.  Your dog or cat has no idea of what you are doing, but it gets along with you just fine. It has food, shelter, and love. Atheists could take a lesson from their pets, but they won't.  They don't want to learn since they claim that they already know it all.


The incredible anger of the religious extremist. 

No one is allowed to question the veracity of claims made by the angry religionist. They have certainty regarding their gods and to question them is to question their gods. There are certainly *many *things for which it matters whether they are true or not, because they *actually do *impact the way we behave. Questions of various, competing religions are not among them. Angry religious extremists insisting their gods are to be unquestioned is merely an excuse for impotent but self absorbed extremists to stay that way.

Certainty is a crutch for the insecure. It has no utility to people who wish to innovate, to create, to improve. This is why certainty plays such a role in that most intellectually flaccid of human enterprises: organized religion. Such structures serve only the purpose of allowing a component of the population to stop thinking and abdicate authority to the more ambitious.

You are welcome to it. It suits you.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *which nobody but creationist goobers who dont understand anything about any of this say
> 
> You simply are not even remotely qualified or entitled to have an opinion on any of this, my man. If you are going to continue to make failed attempts to argue against Evolution or abiogenesis, you have to at least know something about either of them.


Evolutionists ignore the fact that THEY need to hold themselves accountable to the very same proofs they throw at Creationists.  Just because evolutionists seem to have corned the market of controlling public education and governmental grants, doesn't mean that they are not simply supporting each other and attacking people because they believe in something higher and eternal...

You can attack what I believe all you wish; however, that doesn't make your beliefs anymore scientific even if you are a genius.  You are simply using the bate and switch routine ---- which is as old as Satan himself...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Evolutionists ignore the fact that THEY need to hold themselves accountable to the very same proofs they throw at Creationists.


Every time you demand evidence you are buried in evidence. Any time anyone asks you for evidence you disappear. Get the fock out of here with this bullshit. 

What evidence do you need to see? Every time i ask you this question you slither off and disappear. Ready to step up?


----------



## zaangalewa

Flash said:


> After you cut through all the bullshit and after you boil all the berries there are really only two possibilities:
> 
> 1.  The universe created itself out of nothing.



Empty phrase.  I said somehow: We don' t know. The only thing we know is nothing. But what about if this is true and it is really nothing ... and god made it - as a Christian philosopher - said about 1700 years ago? (Who made by the way also sometimes very big mistakes - specially his anti-Judaism is totally unbearable - and the "attacks" aginst Epicurus, whose philosophy had been the second best alternative for him before he became a Christian. I don't like it if people don't respect their roots.)



Flash said:


> 2.  There is some intelligent design to the universe.



This is now a word of a very special discussion in the English speaking world about a lot of nonsense. Whatelse than natural laws - here specially: the use of mathematics in physics - is "intelligent design"? What about if evolution made us fit to use mathematics - mathematics is a never ending game and a "universal" language for all human beings - perhaps also for ETs - which needs enculturation, socialisation and education.



Flash said:


> The first ones make no sense whatsoever given our understanding of the Laws of Physics.



Specially the growing of entropy makes not a big sense if the universe would be a system with a positive curvature and would be closed in circles of neverending rebirths. How to reset entropy?



Flash said:


> At least not the Laws of Physics as I was taught at an accredited university.
> 
> The second possibility is much more feasible given that the first one is impossible.



A universe without any mathematics (=music) would be for us for sure a kind of absolute hell. So the question is perhaps: Where comes the music from before the band begins to play? From the instruments? Is materialism really plausible?


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Every time you demand evidence you are buried in evidence. Any time anyone asks you for evidence you disappear. Get the fock out of here with this bullshit.
> 
> What evidence do you need to see? Every time i ask you this question you slither off and disappear. Ready to step up?


Most of the Fossils found originated from the FLOOD.  How they are found and where they are found has as much to do with hydro sorting as what type of creatures they were.  Most of the animals killed by the FLOOD largely became the fossils we discover everywhere.  In other words, it is likely that a large percentage of the fossils found represent nearly every animal that died to a high degree. Evolutionists see them as spread over 100's of 1000's of years and with missing transitional fossils, that either never formed or were lost to erosion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Most of the Fossils found originated from the FLOOD.


What a ridiculous, stupid lie. Why oh why did you come to the science section and embarrass yourself like this?


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> It can't be destroyed after it is created but it was created when space and time was created.  The creation of energy was what created space and time.



If so: How creates energy space and time? How much space is 1g mass. How much time is this? How to convert time and/or space in energy? ... Sounds in my ears not plausible what you say here.


----------



## zaangalewa

Leo123 said:


> OR the universe always was and The Big Bang was an intra universe event which could be a cyclical whose time frame is uncomprehendable.



What was since ever and what was new?


----------



## Leo123

zaangalewa said:


> What was since ever and what was new?


That’s my point.


----------



## zaangalewa

Leo123 said:


> Since we really don't know the size and scope of the Universe



The universe was created 13.8 billion years ago - and the size of the observable universe is now 46.6 billion lightyears.


----------



## zaangalewa

Leo123 said:


> That’s my point.


¿Your point?


----------



## sear

According to author Simon Winchester:
Irish Bishop James Ussher claimed that the 6 Biblical days of creation began 9:AM Monday the 23rd of October 4004 BC.
The eminent Bishop Ussher determined this by meticulously back-tracking events recounted in the bible, and adding up the time to arrive at a grand total.


----------



## Leo123

zaangalewa said:


> The universe was created 13.8 billion years ago - and the size of the observable universe is now 46.6 billion lightyears.


As far as we know from our vantage point.


----------



## Leo123

zaangalewa said:


> ¿Your point?


The universe could be 'since ever' and 'what is' could be a new cycle.


----------



## zaangalewa

Leo123 said:


> As far as we know from our vantage point.



I don't have any idea what to do with this what you say.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> I don't have any idea what to do with this what you say.


He is saying that all we can ever observe is not necessarily all that is was or will be.


----------



## zaangalewa

Leo123 said:


> The universe could be 'since ever'



If "since ever" means 13.8 billion years, because the first planktime of the universe had been about 13.8 billion years ago.



Leo123 said:


> and 'what is' could be a new cycle.



No, because entropy grows. How should a tea-cup be anti-destroyed and filled again with tea - so it is in a new cycle able to fall down and to be destroyed again? Such a process is not fully reversible.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> No, because entropy grows.


Surely you dont think the brilliant theoretical physicists did not think of that before you did. If you don't understand, that's because you dont understand. Not because you outsmarted them.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> He is saying that all we can ever observe is not necessarily all that is was or will be.



What is not "observable" has in case of the universe not any chance to have an influence on us.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Surely you dont think



Do I?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> the brilliant theoretical physicists did not think



Did they?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> of that before you did.



?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> If you don't understand,



Do I?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> that's because you dont understand.



¿I do?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not because you outsmarted them.



Why for heavens sake do you say anything to me? I'm an idiot. You should not waste your time with idiots.


----------



## zaangalewa

sear said:


> According to author Simon Winchester:
> Irish Bishop James Ussher claimed that the 6 Biblical days of creation began 9:AM Monday the 23rd of October 4004 BC.



Was he the first who tried to quantify the age of the universe in a concretet number of years?



sear said:


> The eminent Bishop Ussher determined this by meticulously back-tracking events recounted in the bible, and adding up the time to arrive at a grand total.



That nearly the same what we do today - but we use not then reports from the bible about god's creation - we use directly god's creation to find out when it started. First approximation was 23rd of October 4004 BC - last approximaion was in Cern it had started 13.8 billion years ago.


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> If so: How creates energy space and time? How much space is 1g mass. How much time is this? How to convert time and/or space in energy? ... Sounds in my ears not plausible what you say here.


The presence of energy and matter creates gravity.  

All of your questions are answered here....



			https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> What is not "observable" has in case of the universe not any chance to have an influence on us


Well...maybe. Probably. Echoes of collisions with other universes, possibly.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Do I?
> 
> 
> 
> Did they?
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> Do I?
> 
> 
> 
> ¿I do?
> 
> 
> 
> Why for heavens sake do you say anything to me? I'm an idiot. You should not waste your time with idiots.


Youre not an idiot. Not having outsmarted lifetime theoretical physicists does not make one an idiot.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> The presence of energy and matter creates gravity.



Yes and no.



ding said:


> All of your questions are answered here....
> 
> 
> 
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf



Do me the favor to answer "my" questions on your own with "your" answers.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well...maybe. Probably. Echoes of collisions with other universes, possibly.



Which other universes? Wherein has to happen such a collusion? In a nothing? ... And what from such a collusion could reach us far from the observable part of the universe as long as the highest signal speed is the speed of light in a vacuum?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Which other universes? Wherein has to happen such a collusion? In a nothing?


No, in a larger space. Maybe a higher dimensional space. This is where the word "universe" gets ambiguous. We have no good reason to think there is nothing outside our universe. It also may not be true that nothing outside our universe can affect any stage of our universe.  Basically, we just know squat about it.

What is the geometry of our universe? What is the net energy of our universe (is it zero?)? Does it go on forever, or is it a closed space? Is it truly boundless, as we assume --for expedience -- that it is? Is our universe eternal? Are white holes real? Are there other universes? These are all scientific questions.


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> Yes and no.


The presence of energy and matter creates gravity can not be disputed.  


zaangalewa said:


> Do me the favor to answer "my" questions on your own with "your" answers.


So you don't want to see the scientific paper on the universe being spontaneously created from nothing?

Maybe if you had something that actually backed up whatever silly thing that comes to your mind I could take you more seriously.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Youre not an idiot.



Not? That's new to me. Every time I make somethgin wrong I call me an idiot. Should I be more respectful? Whatever. I may life with the idiot, who calls me from time to time an idiot.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not having outsmarted lifetime theoretical physicists does not make one an idiot.



Makes this sentence any sense?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Not? That's new to me. Every time I make somethgin wrong I call me an idiot. Should I be more respectful? Whatever. I may life with the idiot, who calls me from time to time idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes this sentence any sense?


To say you you have not outsmarted the experts is not to say you are an idiot.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, in a larger space.



You seem to think nothing and space are the same. I said here something about -  I don't likle to repeat it now.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe a higher dimensional space.



I - and as far as I know everyone else - never saw something what was crossing our spacetime from a higher dimension of spacetime.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This is where the word "universe" gets ambiguous.



Get's what? ¿ambigous? ... "Vielschichtig" would be an interesting translation ... "mehrdeutig" not. It is what it is. In the end it is unimportant how we call the mathematical construct "universe" in natural science. Pippi Longstocking found a word which is still not used. This we also could use - if Pippi allows us to do so. Not to do what she likes to do could cause a problem.




Fort Fun Indiana said:


> We have no good reason to think there is nothing outside our universe.



Yea - but is this nothing a real nothing or are we only able to say nothing about? This is the point. I think there's (where no there is) is a real nothing. And everyone who says "there" is something has to explain wher this there could be and what it is what is there. Until now I share "only" the idea that god transcends the nothing.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It also may not be true that nothing outside our universe can affect any stage of our universe.  Basically, we just know squat about it.



But nowhwere is an outside of the universe!



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What is the geometry of our universe?



It is flat.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What is the net energy of our universe (is it zero?)?



If  trust in this what I read up to now than this seems to be true. The problem: Not to have energy (for interactions) and not to exist is the same. You could stand in a sun but if this sun not interacts with you then nothing happens. This sun is [for you] not existing. So "outside" of the universe (which has no outside) we are not existent, if the universe has no energy.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Does it go on forever, or is it a closed space?



It is flat. So it is not closed. Read what the people said here.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Is it truly boundless, as we assume --for expedience -- that it is? Is our universe eternal? Are white holes real?



White holes are nonsense. Everything what falls into a black hole makes black holes fatter. They lose energy only via Hawking radiation. And looks like the existence of the Hawking radiation is meanwhile proven.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Are there other universes? These are all scientific questions.



The existence of other universes is an unproven - and even an unprovable - idea. We don't know - we never will know. The only bridge to other universes is mathematics. Who thinks this is enough thinks somehow beyond the nothing is information. But what really exists behind a not existing ocean of nothing and a not existing "behind" in this nothing which is nowhere - that's not easily to say.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> To say you you have not outsmarted the experts is not to say you are an idiot.



But I am. And I am also an asshole. And a bear ... but that's another theme.


----------



## Colin norris

Mac1958 said:


> There are theories, such as String Theory.  There is a theory that White Holes exist - the opposite of Black Holes, and mathematically possible.  Instead of sucking in matter like Black Holes, White Holes shoot out matter.  So our particular universe could have simply exploded out of the ass end of one of those.
> 
> The brilliant Lawrence Krauss has a new book out on this, "A Universe From Nothing",
> That's the beauty and fun of science:  You always get to be curious, challenge yourself, ask questions, think, experiment, and admit that you don't have all the answers.  Awesome!
> .



I have never heard a thing about white holes. 

Anyone can have any theory they like about  it's origin. One thing is certain, It was not created by some hideous ridiculous God. There's was no six days of glorious happenings etc.  It's rubbish. 

There is little doubt and can be proven the most plausible and possibly the only
Theory is the big bang. 

Any evidence science has plus the addition of physics etc points to it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> You seem to think nothing and space are the same


You said "nothing". I replied, "No, in a larger space.". So you are either mistaken or lying.




zaangalewa said:


> It is flat.


Maybe I was not clear. I was referring to the geometry of our universe, not to the flatness of space contained within. We don't really know if the geometry of our universe is flat.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> You seem to think nothing and space are the same


You said "nothing". I replied, "No, in a larger space.". So you are either mistaken or lying. 




zaangalewa said:


> It is flat.


You do not know that. You keep doing that. 


Colin norris said:


> I have never heard a thing about white holes


You should look it up. Cool stuff.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> White holes are nonsense. Everything what falls into a black hole makes black holes fatter. They lose energy only via Hawking radiation. And looks like the existence of the Hawking radiation is meanwhile proven.


The scientists who describe the theoretical possibility of white holes actually know all that. Since they, you know, discovered it. So your confident assertion seems theatrical.


----------



## sear

zaangalewa said: 
 It is flat.        


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You keep doing that. Please stop pretending you know the answers


Thanks FF. I share your preference for precision.
But this is not the first time I've encountered the "flat" assertion.

Sphere would make more sense to me. But I'm not an astrophysicist. I'll go easy on za for that, as he may merely be sharing a (consensus?) idea from those that are astrophysicists. Enjoy your weekend.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You said "nothing". I replied, "No, in a larger space.". So you are either mistaken or lying.



What about to let it be to speak with me any longer? People who have no manners need not to discuss about natural science.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe I was not clear. I was referring to the geometry of our universe, not to the flatness of space contained within.



It is an object with only centers and no outside.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> We don't really know if the geometry of our universe is flat.



We know this. It is proven more than one time that a the sum of the angles of a triangle in the size of millions and billions of lightyears has 180°. I will not repeat this any longer. Short: The universe is flat.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You said "nothing". I replied, "No, in a larger space.". So you are either mistaken or lying.
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know that. You keep doing that.
> 
> You should look it up. Cool stuff.


no comment


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The scientists who describe the theoretical possibility of white holes actually know all that. Since they, you know, discovered it. So your confident assertion seems theatrical.



Asides that never anyone saw a white hole: Where from comes a white hole as long as a black hole is not losing energy (except by Hawking radiation, which has nothing do with white holes)? So it exists for sure not any wormhole which connects black and white holes. And the idea to replace future with past and the direction of time is just simple a film which runs backward. In this case everything flies out of a black whole - but this means nothing. No need to call this "white hole". If you smash a cup on the floor then you never will see in reality how the broken pieces will find together again - independent how often you are able to watch this in a backward playing film.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> People who have no manners need not to discuss about natural science.


You misrepresented me. That was poor manners. I still gave you the courtesy of saying you may be mistaken. You are very sensitive.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What a ridiculous, stupid lie. Why oh why did you come to the science section and embarrass yourself like this?


So, you say. You've really revealed why what I said is wrong and unscientific...  Actually, I'm being facetious.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> He is saying that all we can ever observe is not necessarily all that is was or will be.


However, real science is limited to only that which is observable and repeatable. If it isn't, it is just as scientific to believe that  GOD did it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> So, you say


So says the entirescientific community. Which doesn 't matter to you, because you rely on ignorant, superstitious iron aged people for your science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> However, real science is limited to only that which is observable and repeatable.


Like fossils. We observe them. We find the same ones in the same rock layers. I know you think you sound smart right now, but you don't. You sound very stupid and would get laughed out of science class.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You misrepresented me.



I did do what?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That was poor manners.



Slowly you make me angry. You called me a liar. I was so nice not to scalp you because you said so.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I still gave you the courtesy



 - I don't remember any US-American in the moment who ever knew what is courtesy. I did not even know that such a word exists in your culture and language.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> of saying you may be mistaken.



It is not my problem if you don't like to understand what others say.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You are very sensitive.



Sure, asshole. It's everyone's right to be sensitive. I understand very well why the Catholic canon Nicolaus Copernicus published after his death what he found out, although his sisters and brothers tried to convince him to publish during his lifetime. I have a similar problem. I have to tell something about a relativelly unimportant theme which combines arts, psychology and physics - but I fear the reactions of all the uneducated idiots, like you are one. Let it be to speak with me furthermore.


----------



## zaangalewa

LittleNipper said:


> However, real science is limited to only that which is observable and repeatable. If it isn't, it is just as scientific to believe that  GOD did it.



More easy: God did it. But this is not the question of natural science. The question for natural philosophers is how god did it. I was for example very astonished to find the character of god in the expansion of the universe - what somehow shows everywhere we are able to find god.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So says the entirescientific community. Which doesn 't matter to you, because you rely on ignorant, superstitious iron aged people for your science.


There are most certainly CHRISTIAN Scientists who would disagree with you. And whose to say that you're not superstitious believing life originated from rock.


----------



## LittleNipper

zaangalewa said:


> More easy: God did it. But this is not the question of natural science. The question for natural philosophers is how god did it. I was for example very astonished to find the character of god in the expansion of the universe - what somehow shows everywhere we are able to find god.


The Bible says that GOD spoke and it happened.  I have no problem with discovering what elements are found in various things. I do have a problem with people who theoretically make things up in order to circumvent GOD ---- because they wish to, and then label those who believe in GOD as idiots, morons, superstitious, and unscientific. And then work to exclude the "morons" from their club.


----------



## zaangalewa

LittleNipper said:


> There are most certainly CHRISTIAN Scientists who would disagree with you.



In the USA everyone disagrees with me. I'm a German. In Germany I would understand under "Christian scientists" people who are very correct, friendly and engaged in social problems. In your country I imagine people who cry loud and aggressive. By The way : The pope is somehow a Christian scientist.



LittleNipper said:


> And whose to say that you're not superstitious believing life originated from rock.



¿Rock? ... A big corn of dust from the stars. And dust is the same matter as you are, isn't it? And one day your body will be dust again - will be most little particles. And the rock which you are now was 20 years ago a totally other rock. Your rock flows. Everything flows.


----------



## zaangalewa

LittleNipper said:


> The Bible says that GOD spoke and it happened.



And the physicist Anton Zeilinger said in the beginning of the third millenium _"In the beginning was the word"_ and added some more words, why he said so. Very interesting.



LittleNipper said:


> I have no problem with discovering what elements are found in various things. I do have a problem with people who theoretically make things up in order to circumvent GOD ---- because they wish to, and then label those who believe in GOD as idiots, morons, superstitious, and unscientific. And then work to exclude the "morons" from their club.



So you have what problem exactly?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> You called me a liar.


*or mistaken. Probably mistaken? Language barrier maybe? Dunno.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *or mistaken. Probably mistaken? Language barrier maybe? Dunno.



Let it be to try to speak with me any longer. Go and play with your dirt anywhere else. The Sahara could be a good place. Greatest sandbox of the world. A lot of place to "write in the sand" = "to think". Same to you ding.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Let it be to try to speak with me any longer. Go and play with your dirt anywhere else. The Sahara could be a good place. Greatest sandbox of the world. A lot of place to "write in the sand" = "to think". Same to you ding.


Good grief. Cry it all out, man.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Good grief. Cry it all out, man.


no comment


----------



## ChemEngineer

"Nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - The Late Carl Sagan

Tell that to a pretentious, condescending, know-it-all atheist.

"To anger a conservative, lie to him.  To anger a liberal, tell him the truth." - Teddy Roosevelt

So true.  So incredibly true.  Leftists/atheists project their bitterness, their hatefulness, their anger on those of us they relentlessly call "religious extremists" and "anti-scientific."  Lies all, but lies are their métier.  Lies are their sine qua non.  Debate with them is pointless because of *Brandolini's Law.

"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it."

"The universe has always existed."  B.S.

"We're smarter than you."  B.S.

"We're always right because we're always smarter than you." - B.S.




*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ChemEngineer said:


> "Nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - The Late Carl Sagan
> 
> Tell that to a pretentious, condescending, know-it-all atheist.


Or to a wailing religious dumbfuck like you, who insists on absolute knowledge of things for which they have not a shred of evidence.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So says the entirescientific community. Which doesn 't matter to you, because you rely on ignorant, superstitious iron aged people for your science.


Doctors once all believed washing one's hands to deliver a baby was entirely unnecessary. As a result many mothers died needlessly, and a doctor who suspected the obvious had his career ruined by the "scientific" establishment.  GOD isn't ignorant and even IF you could prove ignorant, superstitious, iron aged people wrote the Bible.  They certainly seem to have a whole lot insight than much of what evolutionists living today call "proof".


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> "Nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - The Late Carl Sagan
> 
> Tell that to a pretentious, condescending, know-it-all atheist.
> 
> "To anger a conservative, lie to him.  To anger a liberal, tell him the truth." - Teddy Roosevelt
> 
> So true.  So incredibly true.  Leftists/atheists project their bitterness, their hatefulness, their anger on those of us they relentlessly call "religious extremists" and "anti-scientific."  Lies all, but lies are their métier.  Lies are their sine qua non.  Debate with them is pointless because of *Brandolini's Law.
> 
> "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it."
> 
> "The universe has always existed."  B.S.
> 
> "We're smarter than you."  B.S.
> 
> "We're always right because we're always smarter than you." - B.S.
> 
> View attachment 525628*


In your case, "religious extremist'' seems entirely appropriate.

"I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough – I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche


----------



## ChemEngineer

LittleNipper said:


> Doctors once all believed washing one's hands to deliver a baby was entirely unnecessary. As a result many mothers died needlessly, and a doctor who suspected the obvious had his career ruined by the "scientific" establishment.  GOD isn't ignorant and even IF you could prove ignorant, superstitious, iron aged people wrote the Bible.  They certainly seem to have a whole lot insight than much of what evolutionists living today call "proof".



I clicked on Nipper's post, curious as what he was replying to because the moron he replied to is on my Ignore List due to his inability to contribute anything but vulgarity, hatefulness, and ignorance.  It is a disgrace to this forum that they allow such filth to spew their lunacy.

I have credentials, money, worldwide travel, and successes that the filth could only dream about.

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."  Nipper, please do not respond to him again.  If you do, I will add you to my Ignore List.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Doctors once all believed washing one's hands to deliver a baby was entirely unnecessary.


Due to abject ignorance, not due to science. Science is how we learned that is a bad idea, and we did so quite in spite of fools like you. You would have been the jackass saying, "Bacteria? Then why can't I see them? This is atheist delusion!"....


----------



## Colin norris

LittleNipper said:


> There are most certainly CHRISTIAN Scientists who would disagree with you. And whose to say that you're not superstitious believing life originated from rock.



Where has anyone said life began from a rock? I'll bet there is no one.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Colin norris said:


> Where has anyone said life began from a rock? I'll bet there is no one.


He has no idea. He read it on creation.com once and his little pecker got hard. So now we get to hear it 20 times a day in the science section.


----------



## Clyde 154

Mac1958 said:


> There are theories, such as String Theory.  There is a theory that White Holes exist - the opposite of Black Holes, and mathematically possible.  Instead of sucking in matter like Black Holes, White Holes shoot out matter.  So our particular universe could have simply exploded out of the ass end of one of those.
> 
> The brilliant Lawrence Krauss has a new book out on this, "A Universe From Nothing",
> That's the beauty and fun of science:  You always get to be curious, challenge yourself, ask questions, think, experiment, and admit that you don't have all the answers.  Awesome!
> .


Theories are not facts.  And to suggest that there was a CAUSE to the effect known as the physical universe by "kicking the can down the road" to another level or supposed "alternate cause" that is yet to be determined is nothing but CIRCULAR LOGIC.  Regardless of how many alternate universes, i.e., theorized causes.........at some point in this circular logic, there was the first...that is yet to be explained via application of the laws of physics.  Not knowing something is not a cause for anything except ignorance.   The entire supposed science of cosmology is nothing but PHILOSOPHY dressed up as science as its all based upon conjecture, speculation, and unprovable assumptions.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Clyde 154 said:


> Theories are not facts.


Sometimes theories are facts. Some theories are true. True things are facts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Clyde 154 said:


> ..at some point in this circular logic, there was the first..


Sorry, but you do not know the truth of that. You tried to sneak that in there.


----------



## ChemEngineer

More recently a physician rose at an AMA meeting to announce that he discovered the bacterium which caused human ulcers.  The doctors laughed at him.  But he was right.  So was the Jesuit Priest who told Einstein that Einstein's theories led to the Primordial Atom (The Big Bang).
Einstein did not want there to be a beginning as announced in Genesis 1:1 and replied to Father Geoges Lemaitre, "Your mathematics is correct but your physics is terrible."  

It took years for Einstein and other scientists to accept The Big Bang, after it was demonstrated to be correct when Red Shift was detected.


----------



## Stann

K9Buck said:


> What ya got?


Popcorn, instantaneous, full of chaos and irregularities. Best example in your world.


----------



## Mac1958

Clyde 154 said:


> Theories are not facts.  And to suggest that there was a CAUSE to the effect known as the physical universe by "kicking the can down the road" to another level or supposed "alternate cause" that is yet to be determined is nothing but CIRCULAR LOGIC.  Regardless of how many alternate universes, i.e., theorized causes.........at some point in this circular logic, there was the first...that is yet to be explained via application of the laws of physics.  Not knowing something is not a cause for anything except ignorance.   The entire supposed science of cosmology is nothing but PHILOSOPHY dressed up as science as its all based upon conjecture, speculation, and unprovable assumptions.


So, do you know how we got here?


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> More recently a physician rose at an AMA meeting to announce that he discovered the bacterium which caused human ulcers.  The doctors laughed at him.  But he was right.  So was the Jesuit Priest who told Einstein that Einstein's theories led to the Primordial Atom (The Big Bang).
> Einstein did not want there to be a beginning as announced in Genesis 1:1 and replied to Father Geoges Lemaitre, "Your mathematics is correct but your physics is terrible."
> 
> It took years for Einstein and other scientists to accept The Big Bang, after it was demonstrated to be correct when Red Shift was detected.


More recently, a religious extremist cut and pasted something he read on a fundie website even though it was wrong. 

Firstly, your fraudulent ''quote'' attributed to Einstein is incorrect. It's another instance of religious extremists trolling fundie websites and mindlessly stealing fraudulent ''quotes''. 

Secondly, nothing about Einstein's work suggests he ''did not want there to be a beginning as announced in Genesis 1:1". Literally nothing about the expansion of the universe is consistent with your gods magic tricks.


----------



## zaangalewa

Clyde 154 said:


> Theories are not facts.



A theory of evolution say something about the facts in context biological evolution.

The theory of relativity includes for example the fact that the absolute speed of light in vacuum is always measured with the same value - independent how fast the observer flies who measures the lightspeed. And as a result of this fact for example the flow of time is realtivelly less or more fast - depending on the speed of an observer.



Clyde 154 said:


> And to suggest that there was a CAUSE to the effect known as the physical universe by "kicking the can down the road" to another level or supposed "alternate cause" that is yet to be determined is nothing but CIRCULAR LOGIC.



Perhaps you misunderstand what the people in former times said. They said god is the first cause, what means god is uncaused because a first cause is always uncaused. A cause has an effect, which we are able to imagine as flow of energy from the cause to the effect. So the first cause had all energy and got it from nothing.

Now take out the word "god" and we have today the same model about the universe. A first cause (the big bang) was the reason for the universe. Because it is the first cause we are not able to ask for a cause of this first cause. It is uncaused.

Nevertheless believe Christians god made it.



Clyde 154 said:


> Regardless of how many alternate universes,



Alternate universes are an idea - a belief.



Clyde 154 said:


> i.e., theorized causes.........at some point in this circular logic, there was the first...that is yet to be explained via application of the laws of physics.  Not knowing something is not a cause for anything except ignorance.



Sokrates said: "My authority bases on the fact that I am able to say what I don't know on rational reasons." Or did he say something else? .. Whatever ...



Clyde 154 said:


> The entire supposed science of cosmology is nothing but PHILOSOPHY



Science is also always philosophy - but what you call philosophy seems not to be philosophy.



Clyde 154 said:


> dressed up as science as its all based upon conjecture, speculation, and unprovable assumptions.



Such as "alternate universes"? Or "white holes"?


----------



## zaangalewa

ChemEngineer said:


> More recently a physician rose at an AMA meeting to announce that he discovered the bacterium which caused human ulcers.  The doctors laughed at him.  But he was right.  So was the Jesuit Priest who told Einstein that Einstein's theories led to the Primordial Atom (The Big Bang).
> Einstein did not want there to be a beginning as announced in Genesis 1:1 and replied to Father Geoges Lemaitre, "Your mathematics is correct but your physics is terrible."



Sure it was terrible for Einstein, because this showed he made a very big mistake when he had installed a so called 'cosmological constant' in his theory, because he had been convinced the universe is static and not dynamic. And Lemaitre was a priest - what was for Einstein also a big problem, because he had the totally stupid prejudice religious people - specially Catholics - are enemies of science and rationality. And Einstein never forgave Lemaitre the own mistakes and the own prejudices (he indeed had nearly none) - that's why he used for everything what Lemaitre had found out the wrong label "Hubble".



ChemEngineer said:


> It took years for Einstein and other scientists to accept The Big Bang, after it was demonstrated to be correct when Red Shift was detected.


----------



## LittleNipper

Colin norris said:


> Where has anyone said life began from a rock? I'll bet there is no one.


The implications are unsurmountable.  If life can ONLY originate from another living thing, there is no possible way life could have spontaneous appeared "naturally". However, if biological life was a natural process then the only ingredients available are actually STATIC ELECTRICITY, WATER, and ROCK/STONE. Evolutionists are far too slick to fall into that trap.  They ignore this issue --- call it something else, and pretended it isn't their problem...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> However, if biological life was a natural process then the only ingredients available are actually STATIC ELECTRICITY, WATER, and ROCK/STONE.


Well that's just stupid and wrong. Amino acids are the basic building blocks.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well that's just stupid and wrong. Amino acids are the basic building blocks.


I'm so stupid and so wrong. What are evolutionists saying? 
Where did amino acids originate from?







A new study finds that when certain rocks below the seafloor interact with seawater and undergo serpentinization, they can create amino acids. These serpentinizing rocks were common in *early Earth's crust*, and may have provided the chemical precursors that formed before the origin of life


----------



## LittleNipper

Now, I'm not saying that I agree with you. I'm saying that evolutionists inevitably have to believe life originated from rock.  The reality is that amino acids exists, but no one has created life from amino acid. They may manufacture amino acids; however, still no life.


----------



## Captain Caveman

K9Buck said:


> What ya got?


Well, matter and energy cannot be destroyed, so, a big bang of energy created matter, it was loud. But, to get the energy for the big bang, there was a big bang of matter. And to get that matter, there was a big bang of energy. Now, to get that energy there was a big bang of........

Come back to me in a few billion years time to see if I'm getting closer to these wacko scientist's theory.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> I'm so stupid and so wrong. What are evolutionists saying?


What a stupid question. This has been explained to you a million times.: Abiogenesis and evolution are separate topics.

Any rational person whose mind is not addled by iron aged myths believes life formed by deterministic, physical processes. You claim to know otherwise, without any good reason or shred of evidence. Just a book of iron aged myths.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Captain Caveman said:


> Well, matter and energy cannot be destroyed, so, a big bang of energy created matter, it was loud. But, to get the energy for the big bang, there was a big bang of matter. And to get that matter, there was a big bang of energy. Now, to get that energy there was a big bang of........
> 
> Come back to me in a few billion years time to see if I'm getting closer to these wacko scientist's theory.


Well that willl never happen, since you cle3arly do not understand any of the theory at all, and I doubt you have any interest in understanding it..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> I'm saying that evolutionists inevitably have to believe life originated from rock.


No, that's just so stupid and wrong and has been explained to you.. You are a shameless little liar. All you religious jihadists turn into shameless little liars, when your magical beliefs are on the line.


----------



## Colin norris

LittleNipper said:


> The implications are unsurmountable.  If life can ONLY originate from another living thing, there is no possible way life could have spontaneous appeared "naturally". However, if biological life was a natural process then the only ingredients available are actually STATIC ELECTRICITY, WATER, and ROCK/STONE. Evolutionists are far too slick to fall into that trap.  They ignore this issue --- call it something else, and pretended it isn't their problem...



I won't be debating you. Clearly you don't understand anything about the process. 
If youre so smart you should have researched what science is saying but I suspect a religion or other ridiculous 
reason is forbidding that. 
Enjoy your ignorant bliss


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Now, I'm not saying that I agree with you. I'm saying that evolutionists inevitably have to believe life originated from rock.  The reality is that amino acids exists, but no one has created life from amino acid. They may manufacture amino acids; however, still no life.


Evolutionists don't believe that life originated from rocks. That's a falsehood that religious extremists promote. Promoting falsehoods is a common tactic of religionists.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> The implications are unsurmountable.  If life can ONLY originate from another living thing, there is no possible way life could have spontaneous appeared "naturally". However, if biological life was a natural process then the only ingredients available are actually STATIC ELECTRICITY, WATER, and ROCK/STONE. Evolutionists are far too slick to fall into that trap.  They ignore this issue --- call it something else, and pretended it isn't their problem...


There is no evidence that life can ONLY originated from living matter. As we obviously have abundant life on the planet with no reason to accept your various gods being responsible for that life, we can proceed on obvious indications that life clearly can arise from non-life.

I should first point out that you may have difficulty resolving anything claimed to be naturally occurring as you proceed from a position that all of existence is the result of supernaturalism at the hands of various magical gods. 

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

As we have nothing to indicate that the four states of matter were supernaturally created by your various gods, we can proceed to examine how all matter shares common connections to those elemental four states of matter. 

Acknowledging your fascination with rocks, I believe you may be a Moslem. They have a god rock that is the focus of much attention.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> There is no evidence that life can ONLY originated from living matter.


Sure, we do, bupkis.  The Bible says so and creation science finds proteins do not just form because of having loose amino acids.  Thus, no abiogenesis.  The atheists fail to get over themselves and accept the truth.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Sure, we do, bupkis.  The Bible says so and creation science finds proteins do not just form because of having loose amino acids.  Thus, no abiogenesis.  The atheists fail to get over themselves and accept the truth.


The hyper-religious do have some really silly conspiracy theories.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> The hyper-religious do have some really silly conspiracy theories.


Maybe you're including the atheists among that group?  They believe Christians are out to get them saved...


----------



## Dadoalex

K9Buck said:


> What ya got?


What do you want?


----------



## LittleNipper

Evolutionists certainly get upset when they are shown to be WRONG!   
I'm so stupid and so wrong. What are evolutionists saying?
Where did amino acids originate from?

A new study finds that when certain rocks below the seafloor interact with seawater and undergo serpentinization, they can create amino acids. These serpentinizing rocks were common in *early Earth's crust*, and may have provided the chemical precursors that formed before the origin of life

Quote Reply LittleNipper


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Maybe you're including the atheists among that group? They believe Christians are out to get them saved...


They believe the Christians -- who send 10s of 1000s of proselytizers all over the world every year to prey on desperate people and convert them to Christianity -- are doing that? I WONDER WHY


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Evolutionists certainly get upset when they are shown to be WRONG!


haha, you poor little guy. You embarrass yourself with this dancing and prancing and preening, when you couldn't pass a 6th grade science quiz.


----------



## Dadoalex

K9Buck said:


> I'd like to believe that the universe created itself, but I just don't have faith in such superstitions.


"Created" implies intent.
What then, was the "creator's intent?"

And if you cannot clearly define the "creator's intent" then there is no "creator"


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Maybe you're including the atheists among that group?  They believe Christians are out to get them saved...


Atheists are not religious, so no, I don't see atheists worshipping rocks as you folks want to do.


----------



## Flash

It is one thing to look an elusive milisecond electron trace in a collider  and come to the conclusion that matter can be created out of nothing and quite another thing to claim that the universe made itself out of nothing.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Evolutionists certainly get upset when they are shown to be WRONG!
> I'm so stupid and so wrong. What are evolutionists saying?
> Where did amino acids originate from?
> 
> A new study finds that when certain rocks below the seafloor interact with seawater and undergo serpentinization, they can create amino acids. These serpentinizing rocks were common in *early Earth's crust*, and may have provided the chemical precursors that formed before the origin of life
> 
> Quote Reply LittleNipper


Who was shown to be wrong? You have this odd notion about rocks and abiogenesis. That's a nonsense idea that is not supported by science. Thats a nonsense idea you stole from a creation ministry. 

It seems you are upset about being challenged for promoting nonsense claims.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Flash said:


> It is one thing to look an elusive milisecond electron trace in a collider  and come to the conclusion that matter can be created out of nothing and quite another thing to claim that the universe made itself out of nothing.


Well nobody claims that. Only that it is theoretically possible, given what we know about the physical world.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Where did amino acids originate from?


Uh...dumbass... That is not the only way they form. You seem to have the critical thinking skills of a gerbil.


----------



## LittleNipper

Dadoalex


Hollie said:


> Atheists are not religious, so no, I don't see atheists worshipping rocks as you folks want to do.


I'm not the one worshiping material things religiously, nor do I waste my time trying to make light of atheists.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Evolutionists certainly get upset when they are shown to be WRONG!
> I'm so stupid and so wrong. What are evolutionists saying?
> Where did amino acids originate from?
> 
> A new study finds that when certain rocks below the seafloor interact with seawater and undergo serpentinization, they can create amino acids. These serpentinizing rocks were common in *early Earth's crust*, and may have provided the chemical precursors that formed before the origin of life
> 
> Quote Reply LittleNipper


The verbiage in your post was taken from something that used to be called ''Deepcarbon.net''. Which is a dead link.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Who was shown to be wrong? You have this odd notion about rocks and abiogenesis. That's a nonsense idea that is not supported by science. Thats a nonsense idea you stole from a creation ministry.
> 
> It seems you are upset about being challenged for promoting nonsense claims.


It was not stolen from a Creation Ministry. You have the odd belief that one can believe in evolution and reject adiogenesis. And you are absolutely correct. Very little of what atheists believe can be supported by science.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Dadoalex
> 
> I'm not the one worshiping material things religiously, nor do I waste my time trying to make light of atheists.


Rocks and fundamentalist kooks seem to be the exceptions to things you claim not to worship.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Very little of what atheists believe can be supported with science


The religious goobers think it is normal to make bold, extraordinary claims without a shred of evidence or reason to support them. Because that is all religious dogma is. So they get outside of their little prayer circle and don't know how to act normal.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> It was not stolen from a Creation Ministry. You have the odd belief that one can believe in evolution and reject adiogenesis. And you are absolutely correct. Very little of what atheists believe can be supported by science.


Why would anyone reject abiogenesis? We know it happened at some time in the distant past. Life on the planet supports the event of abiogenesis.

There is no requirement for 'belief' in science. Biological organisms evolve, the planet is globular in shape, (not flat), animals that roamed the planet millions of years ago are not a conspiracy theory as presumed by religious extremists, medicine cures disease, there are no fat, naked babies playing harps in the clouds and contrary to the Noah fable, we know that familial, incestuous relations are medically risky. All of the above is supported by various, complimentary fields of science.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Flash said:


> It is one thing to look an elusive millisecond electron trace in a collider  and come to the conclusion that matter can be created out of nothing and quite another thing to claim that the universe made itself out of nothing.



This is why YOU are "The Flash."


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Rocks and fundamentalist kooks seem to be the exceptions to things you claim not to worship.


You are a biased individual --- but at least you are not vulgar as was the individual I finally blocked. I will debate anyone except with one who only knows 4 letter expletives. Do believe me when I say that fundamentalism is not simply found among religious believers ------- and that goes double for kooks!


----------



## Flash

ChemEngineer said:


> This is why YOU are "The Flash."




One of these days I will tell you how I got the moniker Flash.  It has to do with a Vietnamese whorehouse.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> You are a biased individual --- but at least you are not vulgar as was the individual I finally blocked. I will debate anyone except with one who only knows 4 letter expletives. Do believe me when I say that fundamentalism is not simply found among religious believers ------- and that goes double for kooks!


Oh no, i wont get to make fun of the one trick pony doing his one trick. Wait yes i will.


----------



## Dadoalex

LittleNipper said:


> Dadoalex
> 
> I'm not the one worshiping material things religiously, nor do I waste my time trying to make light of atheists.


Not sure what this has to do with anything I posted.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> You are a biased individual --- but at least you are not vulgar as was the individual I finally blocked. I will debate anyone except with one who only knows 4 letter expletives. Do believe me when I say that fundamentalism is not simply found among religious believers ------- and that goes double for kooks!


Well, yes, I'm biased. Facts and evidence will suggest a bias not in favor of rumor and superstition. In the case of humans writing the bible, no evidence has yet been offered which substantiates the claims to supernaturalism. To say that the bible is true because the bible says it's true (and because you want to believe it to be true),  is circular reasoning, and proves nothing.

Do you think that biblical fables are enough to convince scientists to abandon the search for our origins? (apparently so). But that's not good enough. You have to provide hard evidence as to why evolution is not true, not just claiming science is false because it contradicts biblical fables. All the creationer ministries and all the screeching preachers have failed to offer a viable alternative to science.  Nothing in any rebuttal to science offered by creationers and lD'iot advocates has yet provided ANY evidence that disproves evolution. Creationers have to come up with a viable, scientific alternative to evolution. Creationers (and let's identify the culprits as fundamentalist Christian creationers) have been unable to do so... all they can do is quote bible verses. We're looking for a viable argument here.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Well, yes, I'm biased. Facts and evidence will suggest a bias not in favor of rumor and superstition. In the case of humans writing the bible, no evidence has yet been offered which substantiates the claims to supernaturalism. To say that the bible is true because the bible says it's true (and because you want to believe it to be true),  is circular reasoning, and proves nothing.
> 
> Do you think that biblical fables are enough to convince scientists to abandon the search for our origins? (apparently so). But that's not good enough. You have to provide hard evidence as to why evolution is not true, not just claiming science is false because it contradicts biblical fables. All the creationer ministries and all the screeching preachers have failed to offer a viable alternative to science.  Nothing in any rebuttal to science offered by creationers and lD'iot advocates has yet provided ANY evidence that disproves evolution. Creationers have to come up with a viable, scientific alternative to evolution. Creationers (and let's identify the culprits as fundamentalist Christian creationers) have been unable to do so... all they can do is quote bible verses. We're looking for a viable argument here.


Galatians 5:16-26

 16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Can a person walk by the SPIRIT if the SPIRIT doesn't exist? And can a person be a prisoner of flesh if the flesh isn't an issue to contend with? Will a non-believer see his shortcomings and have the hope of not having to be perfect and yet see a value for being Christlike?

Can a scientist also be a Creationist? I would have to say that both believers and nonbelievers alike would have to say such is very possible. Anyone who thinks otherwise is merely trying to make science their own bedfellow and nothing more. Such are certainly not being honest in their evaluation.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> haha, you poor little guy. You embarrass yourself with this dancing and prancing and preening, when you couldn't pass a 6th grade science quiz.


You and the atheists still fail as we need PROTEINS to form from the 23 different amino acids.  However, this doesn't happen unless you have a living cell.  This is what you are suppose to be watching for billions and billions of years.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> In the case of humans writing the bible, no evidence has yet been offered which substantiates the claims to supernaturalism.


I just gave you the evidence on a silver platter.  One needs life to produce life.  Thus, abiogenesis doesn't just happen from loose amino acids.


----------



## Flash

james bond said:


> I just gave you the evidence on a silver platter.  One needs life to produce life.  Thus, abiogenesis doesn't just happen from loose amino acids.




If all we needed to created life was water, the right temperature and a few chemicals then every Jr High science class in the country would be doing it as a lab assignment.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You and the atheists still fail as we need PROTEINS to form from the 23 different amino acids.


We find them in asteroids and meteorites...but you dumbasses think they cant form without a magical sky daddy who cares what we do with our weiners. So keep flapping your gums numbnuts... You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Flash said:


> If all we needed to created life was water, the right temperature and a few chemicals then every Jr High science class in the country would be doing it as a lab assignment


Well that might be the dumbest post of the thread. We also need millions of years with trillions of reactions every second. But someone who knows less than nothing about any of this would probably not think of that.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Curious as to what my Friend Flash was responding to (which he should not have), I clicked on the link to read the ignored material (which I should not have).  All that the Ignorees had to say was insult and pretend that they have science credentials which they never EVER demonstrate.

Here is what I mean.  Humans are made of about 10,000 proteins.  The largest of these is 33,450 amino acid residues in length.  Do any of the pretentious atheists know what an amino acid residue is?  If so, please elaborate.
Do any of the atheist pretenders know about the issue of chirality?  If so, please elaborate.
Do any of the atheist pretenders know of the insuperable statistics of original synthesis, much less the requirement of useful intermediary proteins REQUIRED for the Darwinian Magic of *Selection*?  If so, please elaborate.
How about folding these extremely long proteins?  

What is Richard Dawkins' statistical definition of "impossible"?  
How does it compare with the probability of original synthesis of titin?
Elaborate or else stop lying about how much YOU pretend to know, and how little everyone else knows about science.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> We find them in asteroids and meteorites...but you dumbasses think they cant form without a magical sky daddy who cares what we do with our weiners. So keep flapping your gums numbnuts... You are embarrassing yourself.


That's why I brought up PROTEINS.  You need a living cell to form them and organic life.  You're still stuck on amino acids which are found in outer space.  It also means no aliens.  No wonder abiogenesis and atheism are such a fail.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Curious as to what my Friend Flash was responding to (which he should not have), I clicked on the link to read the ignored material (which I should not have).  All that the Ignorees had to say was insult and pretend that they have science credentials which they never EVER demonstrate.
> 
> Here is what I mean.  Humans are made of about 10,000 proteins.  The largest of these is 33,450 amino acid residues in length.  Do any of the pretentious atheists know what an amino acid residue is?  If so, please elaborate.
> Do any of the atheist pretenders know about the issue of chirality?  If so, please elaborate.
> Do any of the atheist pretenders know of the insuperable statistics of original synthesis, much less the requirement of useful intermediary proteins REQUIRED for the Darwinian Magic of *Selection*?  If so, please elaborate.
> How about folding these extremely long proteins?
> 
> What is Richard Dawkins' statistical definition of "impossible"?
> How does it compare with the probability of original synthesis of titin?
> Elaborate or else stop lying about how much YOU pretend to know, and how little everyone else knows about science.


Of course, the religious extremist is copying and pasting the ''proteins'' slogans directly from any of the quack fundie ministries. 

Do any of the hyper-religious know about the issue of chirality?

What is Jimmy Swaggert's statistical definition of ''it's too complicated''?


----------



## Hollie

Flash said:


> If all we needed to created life was water, the right temperature and a few chemicals then every Jr High science class in the country would be doing it as a lab assignment.


On the other hand, if all we needed to create gods were ignorance of the natural world, fear of the unknown and a subset of people willing to exploit fear and ignorance, we would have human history literally drenched in thousands of gods. 

Oh, wait. We do.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> That's why I brought up PROTEINS.  You need a living cell to form them and organic life.  You're still stuck on amino acids which are found in outer space.  It also means no aliens.  No wonder abiogenesis and atheism are such a fail.


Religious extremists would be best advised to let scientists deal with science matters. No wonder slaughtering livestock in the hopes of satiating angry gods is timewasting and messy.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Galatians 5:16-26
> 
> 16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
> 19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
> 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
> 
> Can a person walk by the SPIRIT if the SPIRIT doesn't exist? And can a person be a prisoner of flesh if the flesh isn't an issue to contend with? Will a non-believer see his shortcomings and have the hope of not having to be perfect and yet see a value for being Christlike?
> 
> Can a scientist also be a Creationist? I would have to say that both believers and nonbelievers alike would have to say such is very possible. Anyone who thinks otherwise is merely trying to make science their own bedfellow and nothing more. Such are certainly not being honest in their evaluation.


Cutting and pasting bible verses about spirits and witchcraft didn't address anything I wrote earlier. Proselytizing is not appropriate in the Science and Technology forum.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Cutting and pasting bible verses about spirits and witchcraft didn't address anything I wrote earlier. Proselytizing is not appropriate in the Science and Technology forum.


You are not a scientific person. If proselytizing is not appropriate in the "Science and Technology Forum" then you should also stick to that which is observable, testable, and repeatable ----- leave opinions, hypothesis, and educated guesses to Philosophy Classes.  Don't imagine that your values and opinions are anymore valuable than anyone else's and that others should remain quiet so that you may spread YOUR views uninhibited.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> You are not a scientific person.


These religious fundies have spent so much time being gaslit and gaslighting each other that they say things like this without batting an eye. They have no understanding that this childish gaslighting is not only not effective but also just embarrasses them.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Religious extremists would be best advised to let scientists deal with science matters. No wonder slaughtering livestock in the hopes of satiating angry gods is timewasting and messy.


Then you should know that Charles Darwin stole his origin of species ideas of natural selection from Matthew.  What a thieving and lying scumbag he was.  He should be knocked down from the position he holds among atheist scientists today.  









						Darwin’s Lies?
					

Sutton’s case Mike Sutton claims that he has “100% proven” that Darwin lied in some of his statements regarding Matthew. Sutton uses this claim as part of his broader claim that it is “more likely …




					patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com
				




No religious extremists here except for those atheists who proselytize evolution.  I would not call Darwin's book a science book, but a plagiarist one.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> These religious fundies have spent so much time being gaslit and gaslighting each other


Haha.  Isn't "gaslit" and "gaslighting" a term from the 1940s and 60s, grandpa?


----------



## percysunshine

K9Buck said:


> What ya got?


Oprah Winfrey.

Your turn.


----------



## ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer said:


> Curious as to what my Friend Flash was responding to (which he should not have), I clicked on the link to read the ignored material (which I should not have).  All that the Ignorees had to say was insult and pretend that they have science credentials which they never EVER demonstrate.
> 
> Here is what I mean.  Humans are made of about 10,000 proteins.  The largest of these is 33,450 amino acid residues in length.  Do any of the pretentious atheists know what an amino acid residue is?  If so, please elaborate.
> Do any of the atheist pretenders know about the issue of chirality?  If so, please elaborate.
> Do any of the atheist pretenders know of the insuperable statistics of original synthesis, much less the requirement of useful intermediary proteins REQUIRED for the Darwinian Magic of *Selection*?  If so, please elaborate.
> How about folding these extremely long proteins?
> 
> What is Richard Dawkins' statistical definition of "impossible"?
> How does it compare with the probability of original synthesis of titin?
> Elaborate or else stop lying about how much YOU pretend to know, and how little everyone else knows about science.



Not even an attempt to answer one question from any of the know-it-all atheists.
Zero.   Even these questions are over their pretentious, mendacious heads.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Not even an attempt to answer one question from any of the know-it-all atheists.
> Zero.   Even these questions are over their pretentious, mendacious heads.


Not even an attempt on your part to address responses to your ignorant nonsense. Such intellectual Sloth leaves you to commenting on your own cut and paste posts.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Then you should know that Charles Darwin stole his origin of species ideas of natural selection from Matthew.  What a thieving and lying scumbag he was.  He should be knocked down from the position he holds among atheist scientists today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin’s Lies?
> 
> 
> Sutton’s case Mike Sutton claims that he has “100% proven” that Darwin lied in some of his statements regarding Matthew. Sutton uses this claim as part of his broader claim that it is “more likely …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No religious extremists here except for those atheists who proselytize evolution.  I would not call Darwin's book a science book, but a plagiarist one.


Jimmy Swaggert groupies would not be expected to understand science or technical matters.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Jimmy Swaggert groupies would not be expected to understand science or technical matters.


Jimmy Swaggert?  I had to google him.  Man, Hollie, you are old.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Jimmy Swaggert?  I had to google him.  Man, Hollie, you are old.


Don’t be shy, You can confess to being one of his groupies.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

So this is the "Alamo": "Who created the universe?"

"What if it created itself.."...i.e., just happened. No intelligence needed.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So this is the "Alamo": "Who created the universe?"
> 
> "What if it created itself.."...i.e., just happened. No intelligence needed.



Why exist natural laws and why needs it fantasy, intuition and intelligence to discover them?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> Why exist natural laws and why needs it fantasy, intuition and intelligence to discover them?


I don't know why natural laws exist, or why determinism exists. But they do, and both concepts eliminate the space for and need for imaginary gods to explain things. So thanks for asking.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So this is the "Alamo": "Who created the universe?"
> 
> "What if it created itself.."...i.e., just happened. No intelligence needed.


The universe could not create itself because it needed the light.  Energy cannot be created nor destroyed in our universe.  Once light and dark was separated and matter present, then spacetime could start with the big bang.

Atheists keep saying they want the evidence and here it is .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The universe could not create itself because it needed the light.  Energy cannot be created nor destroyed in our universe.  Once light and dark was separated and matter present, then spacetime could start with the big bang.
> 
> Atheists keep saying they want the evidence and here it is .


Shaman Bond has spoken! I wonder why your evidence- and logic-free incantations don't make it into textbooks? Could it be they explain nothing whatsoever?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The universe could not create itself because it needed the light.  Energy cannot be created nor destroyed in our universe.  Once light and dark was separated and matter present, then spacetime could start with the big bang.
> 
> Atheists keep saying they want the evidence and here it is .


You provided no evidence, just ID'iot creationer babble.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shaman Bond has spoken! I wonder why your evidence- and logic-free incantations don't make it into textbooks? Could it be they explain nothing whatsoever?


The evidence has been provided, but you cannot accept it.  OTOH, you give me organic molecules being synthesized in the early atmosphere or in primordial soup when experiments show it doesn't happen.  It can happen only when organisms are already present.  It takes life to make life.  Science backs up creation.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I don't know why natural laws exist, or why determinism exists. But they do, and both concepts eliminate the space for and need for imaginary gods to explain things. So thanks for asking.



This question had been a real question and you was not able to give a philosophically satisfying answer - what means you accept something without any will to try to find out what it really is what you prefer to believe instead to prefer to believe in god. Or with other words: what you say is tautological. You "say" you do not like to believe in god because you do not like to believe in god. That's all. That the existence of natural laws and determinism eliminates the belief in god is pure nonsense.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You provided no evidence, just ID'iot creationer babble.


You just do not understand real science .  You are too liberal and fell for the lies of atheism and evolution.  OTOH, the creationists have the language of the genetic code to show design with intelligence -- Genetic Code.  This shows atheist science and atheism is farked up beyond belief.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You just do not understand real science . You are too liberal and fell for the lies of atheism and evolution. OTOH, the creationists have the language of the genetic code to show design with intelligence -- Genetic Code.  This shows atheist science and atheism is farked up beyond belief.


Religious extremists have only fantastic tales and fables.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Religious extremists have only fantastic tales and fables.


Look.  Even your boy Darwin had his doubts.  OTOH, creation science is on solid ground.

"That many and serious objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, — that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind, — that all organs are, in ever so slight degree, variable, — and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed."









						In Darwin, the Descent of a PR Man | Evolution News
					

Darwin’s reiteration here and elsewhere of the phrase “we may confidently believe” veils the tenuous truth-value of what he proposes.




					evolutionnews.org


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Look.  Even your boy Darwin had his doubts.  OTOH, creation science is on solid ground.
> 
> "That many and serious objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, — that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind, — that all organs are, in ever so slight degree, variable, — and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Darwin, the Descent of a PR Man | Evolution News
> 
> 
> Darwin’s reiteration here and elsewhere of the phrase “we may confidently believe” veils the tenuous truth-value of what he proposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evolutionnews.org


Yours is more of the typical, creationer tactic of "quote mining". It's dishonest and fraudulent but that typifies the actions of the religious extremist. You simply cut and pasted an edited "quote" from a creationer website. 

You're a proud Jimmy Swaggert groupie.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Look.  Even your boy Darwin had his doubts.  OTOH, creation science is on solid ground.
> 
> "That many and serious objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, — that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind, — that all organs are, in ever so slight degree, variable, — and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Darwin, the Descent of a PR Man | Evolution News
> 
> 
> Darwin’s reiteration here and elsewhere of the phrase “we may confidently believe” veils the tenuous truth-value of what he proposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evolutionnews.org





Flat Earth'ers. Leave it to the xtian extremists.






						Catholic flat-Earthers-almost anyway - U.S. Catholic
					

From the pages of the you-cannot-be-serious in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune: There is a group of Catholics–actually members of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X–who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, contrary to all demonstrable scientific fact. I mean, for God’s sake, there are...




					uscatholic.org
				




U.S. Catholic magazine - Faith in Real Life
ABOUT
MAGAZINE
SECTIONS
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
Catholic flat-Earthers–almost anyway
 Published July 5, 2011
From the pages of the you-cannot-be-serious in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune: There is a group of Catholics–actually members of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X–who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, contrary to all demonstrable scientific fact. I mean, for God’s sake, there are astronauts in the space station who can actually confirm centuries after Galileo that the earth indeed revolves around the sun. Thank God for Guy Consolmagno, curator of meteorites for the Vatican Observatory, who offers this bit of comic relief: “I have no idea who these people are. Are they sincere, or is this a clever bit of theater?”


The geocentrists claim that they are defending “original church teaching.” I am not sure the position of the sun in relation to the earth was ever properly “church teaching,” but about 1,600 years ago St. Augustine warned that believers who say stuff like this impede the spread of the gospel. Honestly, who would want to join a group who, in effect, insist that the moon is made out of Swiss cheese, as if the facts of science (evolution, anyone?) are open to interpretation. St. Augustine went as far as to say that if scripture contradicts human scientific knowledge, we must seek another understanding of scripture, which, after all, is a source of religious truth rather than scientific explanation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> what means you accept something without any will


That is not what "I dont know" means. That is yet another in a long series of you misrepresenting me rudely. So go diddle yourself.


----------



## LittleNipper

elevantmagazine.com/culture/movies/how-lee-strobel-tried-to-disprove-god-and-failed/


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> elevantmagazine.com/culture/movies/how-lee-strobel-tried-to-disprove-god-and-failed/








						#377: Lee Strobel
					

Lee Strobel is a popular Christian apologetics speaker, creationist, newspaper writer, intelligent design panderer, forme...




					americanloons.blogspot.com
				




Lee Strobel is a popular Christian apologetics speaker, creationist, newspaper writer, intelligent design panderer, former legal editor at the Chicago Tribune television host (“Faith under Fire”), and author of several books, all with titles starting with “The case for …”. In his publications and interviews Strobel’s approach is to claim to assume the role of an investigative reporter but take anything that agrees with his position at face value (regardless of how vague, foggy, or unsupported it is; examples here and here). His tactic against people he disagrees with is to take a quote out of context and use it to erect a strawman. Note that his point is not to argue that faith is compatible with science - he does indeed perceive a conflict between science and religion; fortunately, his armchair arguments for God are supposedly good enough to refute the parts of science he doesn't fancy.

So for instance his collection “The Case for A Creator” (mild critique of some of it here), which was supposed to have an unbiased, critical approach to the question of whether there is, you know, a designer, contained one rant against evolution by Discotute fellow Jonathan Wells, a discussion of the relationship between science and religion (and abiogenesis) by Discotute fellow Stephen Meyer, a discussion of the Big Bang and the cosmological argument by William Lane Craig, Robin Collins using the anthropic principle to argue for design, Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay Richards using Rare Earth to argue for design, Michael Behe discussing irreducible complexity, and J.P. Moreland arguing that out-of-body experiences near death is good evidence for dualism (seriously). You see where this is going – to make the scientific case for the Creator, use the hardcore science denialists. Some of the “The case for …” books also exist in kids’ versions (“The case for a Creator for kids”), which is also entirely expectable for these people, whose goal is not truth but converting as many people as possible. 

You can find balanced assessment of The Case for Christ here; of The Case for Easter here; of The Case for Faith here; and of the Case for a Creator here.

Strobel’s own arguments against evolutionary theory are mostly based on ignorance and distortion, for instance “Evolution is defined as a random, undirected process” [no, it isn’t], and “Darwinism offers no explanation for human consciousness. The gaps in science point to a creator.” It is followed by “700 scientists of impeccable credentials signed the Dissent from Darwinism statement. Believing in evolution requires a leap of fatih. This isn't faith versus science it's science versus science.” Right.

As with so many of these people, Strobel claims to be a former atheist who was converted by the gaps in and failures of science.

Diagnosis: One of the central figures of the Dishonest Apologists movement. He is enormously influential (example: Oklahoma legislator Josh Brecheen used Strobel’s rant in defense of introducing creationism in Oklahoma schools), and one of the most dangerous threats to science alive in the US.


----------



## 22lcidw

Hollie said:


> Flat Earth'ers. Leave it to the xtian extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catholic flat-Earthers-almost anyway - U.S. Catholic
> 
> 
> From the pages of the you-cannot-be-serious in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune: There is a group of Catholics–actually members of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X–who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, contrary to all demonstrable scientific fact. I mean, for God’s sake, there are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscatholic.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Catholic magazine - Faith in Real Life
> ABOUT
> MAGAZINE
> SECTIONS
> SUBSCRIBE
> DONATE
> Catholic flat-Earthers–almost anyway
> Published July 5, 2011
> From the pages of the you-cannot-be-serious in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune: There is a group of Catholics–actually members of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X–who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, contrary to all demonstrable scientific fact. I mean, for God’s sake, there are astronauts in the space station who can actually confirm centuries after Galileo that the earth indeed revolves around the sun. Thank God for Guy Consolmagno, curator of meteorites for the Vatican Observatory, who offers this bit of comic relief: “I have no idea who these people are. Are they sincere, or is this a clever bit of theater?”
> 
> 
> The geocentrists claim that they are defending “original church teaching.” I am not sure the position of the sun in relation to the earth was ever properly “church teaching,” but about 1,600 years ago St. Augustine warned that believers who say stuff like this impede the spread of the gospel. Honestly, who would want to join a group who, in effect, insist that the moon is made out of Swiss cheese, as if the facts of science (evolution, anyone?) are open to interpretation. St. Augustine went as far as to say that if scripture contradicts human scientific knowledge, we must seek another understanding of scripture, which, after all, is a source of religious truth rather than scientific explanation.


So what is it to you? You spout all of these flat earth and other spews of Christianity and still the Euro Race has invented damn near everything and advanced the world. Other Races were not so encumbered by your words and what? Asians did not do so bad themselves.


----------



## LittleNipper

THE EVIDENCE OF GOD by Lee Strobel (a former Atheist).
_*An excerpt from his writing:*_
POSSIBILITY #1 --- DARWIN
As I considered the evidence afresh, I tried to honestly weight which hypothesis--- Darwinism or Design--- best account for the most current data of science. Looking at the doctrine of Darwinism, which under-girded my atheism for so many years, it didn't take me long to conclude that it was simply too far-fetched to be credible.  I would have to believe:

>Nothing produces everything
>Non-life produces life
>Randomness produces fine-tuning
>Chaos produces information
>Non-reason produces reason

Based on this, I was forced to conclude that Darwinism would require a blind leap of faith that I was not willing to make.  The central pillars of evolutionary theory quickly rotted away when exposed to scrutiny.  For example, naturalistic processes have utterly failed to explain how non-living chemicals could somehow self-assemble into the first living cell.

In addition,the overall fossil record has stubbornly refused to confirm the grand claim of Darwinian transitions. The majority--or, according to some experts, all---of the world's forty phyla, the highest in the animal kingdom, virtually sprang forth with unique body plans more than five hundred million years ago.  The sudden appearance of these radically new life forms, devoid of prior transitions, has turned Darwin's Tree of Life on its head.

POSSIBILITY #2 ---- DESIGN

One has to consider many different issues and see whether they point toward or away from the existence of an intelligent designer.  Consider some of the evidence that was adduced in my investigation:

THE EVIDENCE of COSMOLOGY
As described by William Lane Craig, the argument is simple yet elegant: first, whatever begins to exist has a cause.....second, the universe had a beginning.....therefore, the universe has a cause,  Even  once-agnostic  astronomer Robert Jastrow conceded the essential elements of Christianity and modern cosmology are the same: "The chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply....."

THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICS
One of the most striking discoveries of modern science has been that the laws and constants of physics unexpectedly conspire in an extraordinary way to make the universe habitable for life. For instance, physicist-philosopher Robin Collins has said, "gravity is fine-tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion."

THE EVIDENCE OF ASTRONOMY
Similar to the fine tuning of physics, Earth's position in the universe and its intricately choreographed geological and chemical processes work together with exquisite efficiency to create a safe place for humans to live.  "If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision, we could never have come into existence." said Harvard-educated astrophysicist John A. O'Keefe of NASA.  "It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

THE EVIDENCE OF BIOCHEMISTRY
Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Biochemist Michael Bebe has demonstrated exactly that through his description of "irreducibly complex" molecular machines.
These complicated, microscopic contraptions, such as cilia and bacterial flagella, are extremely unlikely to have been built piece-by-piece through Darwinian processes because they had to be fully present in order to function. Other examples include the incredible system of transporting proteins within cells and the intricate process of blood clotting.

THE EVIDENCE OF BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION
The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made. Whenever we find a sequential arrangement that's complex and corresponds to an independent pattern or function (books, computer code, DNA), this kind of information always implies an intelligent source.

THE EVIDENCE OF CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
Many scientists are concluding that the laws of chemistry and physics cannot explain our experience of consciousness.  Professor J. P. Moreland defined consciousnesses  as our introspection, sensations, thoughts, emotions etc. that make us alive and aware. He said, "You can't get something from nothing." If the universe began with dead matter having no conscience, "how then, do you get something totally different----conscious, living, thinking, feeling creatures--- from material that don't have that?'


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Flat Earth'ers. Leave it to the xtian extremists.


You are stuck on flat Earth Flattie Hollie.  I never seen anyone try so hard to prove a flat Earth .  There must be something in your life that keeps reminding you of flatness instead of spherical.  What do you think it is?


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> THE EVIDENCE OF GOD by Lee Strobel (a former Atheist).
> _*An excerpt from his writing:*_
> POSSIBILITY #1 --- DARWIN
> As I considered the evidence afresh, I tried to honestly weight which hypothesis--- Darwinism or Design--- best account for the most current data of science. Looking at the doctrine of Darwinism, which under-girded my atheism for so many years, it didn't take me long to conclude that it was simply too far-fetched to be credible.  I would have to believe:
> 
> >Nothing produces everything
> >Non-life produces life
> >Randomness produces fine-tuning
> >Chaos produces information
> >Non-reason produces reason
> 
> Based on this, I was forced to conclude that Darwinism would require a blind leap of faith that I was not willing to make.  The central pillars of evolutionary theory quickly rotted away when exposed to scrutiny.  For example, naturalistic processes have utterly failed to explain how non-living chemicals could somehow self-assemble into the first living cell.
> 
> In addition,the overall fossil record has stubbornly refused to confirm the grand claim of Darwinian transitions. The majority--or, according to some experts, all---of the world's forty phyla, the highest in the animal kingdom, virtually sprang forth with unique body plans more than five hundred million years ago.  The sudden appearance of these radically new life forms, devoid of prior transitions, has turned Darwin's Tree of Life on its head.
> 
> POSSIBILITY #2 ---- DESIGN
> 
> One has to consider many different issues and see whether they point toward or away from the existence of an intelligent designer.  Consider some of the evidence that was adduced in my investigation:
> 
> THE EVIDENCE of COSMOLOGY
> As described by William Lane Craig, the argument is simple yet elegant: first, whatever begins to exist has a cause.....second, the universe had a beginning.....therefore, the universe has a cause,  Even  once-agnostic  astronomer Robert Jastrow conceded the essential elements of Christianity and modern cosmology are the same: "The chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply....."
> 
> THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICS
> One of the most striking discoveries of modern science has been that the laws and constants of physics unexpectedly conspire in an extraordinary way to make the universe habitable for life. For instance, physicist-philosopher Robin Collins has said, "gravity is fine-tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion."
> 
> THE EVIDENCE OF ASTRONOMY
> Similar to the fine tuning of physics, Earth's position in the universe and its intricately choreographed geological and chemical processes work together with exquisite efficiency to create a safe place for humans to live.  "If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision, we could never have come into existence." said Harvard-educated astrophysicist John A. O'Keefe of NASA.  "It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
> 
> THE EVIDENCE OF BIOCHEMISTRY
> Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Biochemist Michael Bebe has demonstrated exactly that through his description of "irreducibly complex" molecular machines.
> These complicated, microscopic contraptions, such as cilia and bacterial flagella, are extremely unlikely to have been built piece-by-piece through Darwinian processes because they had to be fully present in order to function. Other examples include the incredible system of transporting proteins within cells and the intricate process of blood clotting.
> 
> THE EVIDENCE OF BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION
> The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made. Whenever we find a sequential arrangement that's complex and corresponds to an independent pattern or function (books, computer code, DNA), this kind of information always implies an intelligent source.
> 
> THE EVIDENCE OF CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
> Many scientists are concluding that the laws of chemistry and physics cannot explain our experience of consciousness.  Professor J. P. Moreland defined consciousnesses  as our introspection, sensations, thoughts, emotions etc. that make us alive and aware. He said, "You can't get something from nothing." If the universe began with dead matter having no conscience, "how then, do you get something totally different----conscious, living, thinking, feeling creatures--- from material that don't have that?'


That's a catalog of all the failed religious claims for supernatural design.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You are stuck on flat Earth Flattie Hollie.  I never seen anyone try so hard to prove a flat Earth .  There must be something in your life that keeps reminding you of flatness instead of spherical.  What do you think it is?


I'll take the above as your inability to support your Flat Earth claims.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

22lcidw said:


> So what is it to you? You spout all of these flat earth and other spews of Christianity and still the Euro Race has invented damn near everything and advanced the world. Other Races were not so encumbered by your words and what? Asians did not do so bad themselves.


Yes, recall the sioentific enlightenment happened quite in spite of religion. When the european world colonized much of africa and asia, these riches allowed more people to spend their time in universities and laboratories and studios, leading to more art and scientific discoveries. So thank the aggressive and violent colonization by europeans for much of the renaissance and enlightenment.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> That's a catalog of all the failed religious claims for supernatural design. Nope, it's everything atheists have no logical answer for.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:;Nope, it's everything atheists have no logical answer for.

That long cut and paste had no logical proposal. “Quoting” William Lane Craig is not a logical argument. Religionism is not a position of logical steps. Magic and supernaturalism do not make the case for logical arguments. 

Religionism is, at best, a "philosophical argument" that has no utility for proofs or validation and ultimately has no requirement to be true. Belief in Bibles and Korans and Books of the Dead filled with supernatural events is a retreat to the safe zone of religionism when reason and dogma conflict. We choose to embrace _either _reason _or _dogma. Religioners find it less stressful to follow dogma, to believe what they’re told and to do what they're told by authority figures, especially religious figures. I am certain that ignoring the obvious is much more comforting to you than doubting that certain absurdities are true. You may want to believe that the planet is 6,000 years old, that Noah’s Ark is real, that snakes talk and that the earth is the center of the universe but wanting to believe in such absurdities doesn’t make those absurdities real.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That is not what "I dont know" means. That is yet another in a long series of you misrepresenting me rudely. So go diddle yourself.


Make correct quotes and stop it to make senseless monologues tarned as dialogues.


----------



## zaangalewa

Hollie james bond

Keeps the problem that all the "flat Earth" nonsense is only an US-American myth. Columbus was not clever when he started. He made a big miscalculation about the distance to India. What he made was wrong - but he was lucky.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, recall the sioentific enlightenment happened quite in spite of religion.



The enlightenment amd humanism is without renaissance and the Christian religion not thinkable.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> When the european world colonized much of africa and asia,



... and specially America - the greatest colony at all ...



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> these riches allowed more people to spend their time in universities and laboratories and studios, leading to more art and scientific discoveries.



That's now an absolutelly stupid anglocentristic nonsense.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So thank the aggressive and violent colonization by europeans for much of the renaissance and enlightenment.



You are totally weird. It were not the kings, nobles and soldiers who made a better world. It was their misuse of knowledge and techniques which leaded to mass-murder all over the world. Renaissance and enlightenment found their next step in industrialisation. And all this steps are parts of the "information age" which started with a wide spread printing of books (first with mass printings of the bible) - and which is not over yet. Meanwhile we evolved machines which are able to simulate all thinkable machines. But this all never was inspired from colonialisation and slavery. It was inspired from division of work, education and free speech.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You may want to believe that the planet is 6,000 years old, that Noah’s Ark is real, that snakes talk and that the earth is the center of the universe but wanting to believe in such absurdities doesn’t make those absurdities real.


You've been told the correct and true answers so many times, but still don't get it .


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You've been told the correct and true answers so many times, but still don't get it .


ID'iot creationer nonsense is neither true or correct.


----------



## frigidweirdo

LittleNipper said:


> >Nothing produces everything
> >Non-life produces life
> >Randomness produces fine-tuning
> >Chaos produces information
> >Non-reason produces reason


Problem is we don't know what the rules are. 

Science is the study of the rules that govern our part of the universe at our time. 

Beyond this we have no idea. The rules outside of the universe could be totally different. The rules of the universe as it chances might change. 

We have no idea. 

Trying to say "this is what happens here, so it must happen everywhere" is like saying "It's not raining here, so it's raining nowhere."


----------



## frigidweirdo

james bond said:


> You are stuck on flat Earth Flattie Hollie. I never seen anyone try so hard to prove a flat Earth . There must be something in your life that keeps reminding you of flatness instead of spherical. What do you think it is?





Hollie said:


> I'll take the above as your inability to support your Flat Earth claims.




It's difficult to follow your conversation, because you both seem to be accusing the other of being a flat earther.


----------



## zaangalewa

Hollie said:


> Flat Earth'ers. Leave it to the xtian extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catholic flat-Earthers-almost anyway - U.S. Catholic
> 
> 
> From the pages of the you-cannot-be-serious in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune: There is a group of Catholics–actually members of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X–who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, contrary to all demonstrable scientific fact. I mean, for God’s sake, there are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscatholic.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Catholic magazine - Faith in Real Life
> ABOUT
> MAGAZINE
> SECTIONS
> SUBSCRIBE
> DONATE
> Catholic flat-Earthers–almost anyway
> Published July 5, 2011
> From the pages of the you-cannot-be-serious in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune: There is a group of Catholics–actually members of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X–who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, contrary to all demonstrable scientific fact. I mean, for God’s sake, there are astronauts in the space station who can actually confirm centuries after Galileo that the earth indeed revolves around the sun. Thank God for Guy Consolmagno, curator of meteorites for the Vatican Observatory, who offers this bit of comic relief: “I have no idea who these people are. Are they sincere, or is this a clever bit of theater?”
> 
> 
> The geocentrists claim that they are defending “original church teaching.” I am not sure the position of the sun in relation to the earth was ever properly “church teaching,” but about 1,600 years ago St. Augustine warned that believers who say stuff like this impede the spread of the gospel. Honestly, who would want to join a group who, in effect, insist that the moon is made out of Swiss cheese, as if the facts of science (evolution, anyone?) are open to interpretation. St. Augustine went as far as to say that if scripture contradicts human scientific knowledge, we must seek another understanding of scripture, which, after all, is a source of religious truth rather than scientific explanation.



The teaching of the church had been the model of the natural philosopher Claudius Ptolemaeus. The Earth was in this model in the center. When the Catholic canon Nicolaus Copernicus found out that the world turns arond the sun no one of his Christian friends had any problem. Reason: The Earth turns around the sun (=the light) like a human being turns around god. Very nice picture. Indeed a much more "Christian" picture than to see the Earth in the center.

But Copernicus feared the discussions in the academic world of his time, so he decided to let publish this after his death. When and where this what he said leaded to a conflict I don't know now. But if this caused conflicts at all then I guess it had been political conflicts. When Galileo Galilei had been young - a scientific superstar, who earned an unbelievable amount of money with science in the Catholic world - in all Catholic universities all over Europe had been taught the model from Nicolaus Copernicus, because it was much more easy to calculate what happens in the sky with this modell.

Copernicus, Galilei and Kepler (a Protestant who got only jobs from Catholics) were essential for the ideas of Newton. But Galileo Galilei for example had been against the teachings of Johannes Kepler - what was absurde for a scientist. Einstein had been a little frustrated, when he found this out. But this shows very well that always all models and ideas were under heavy critics. The ideas of Newton about gravity - Newton had been by the way also a very special meta-physicist - were very popular, because they explained the beautiful laws of Johannes Kepler.

All this stories around the birth of physics as a new form of natural science are used today from many people to show that the ugly powerful Catholic church fought the underdogs who made this birth - but indeed she had been more a kind of midwife, because she had created the whole structure in which such discussions were possible - with universities which were organized in the structure of the philosophy of Aristotle. All universities in the world come somehow from this root. And for this all another name is also important: Averroes. He was the "Catholic" Muslim - who had been called "the interpreter" of the philosophy of the "Catholic" Pagan Aristotle.


----------



## Hollie

frigidweirdo said:


> It's difficult to follow your conversation, because you both seem to be accusing the other of being a flat earther.


I find it hilarious that a religious extremist (im)poster uses the drinking, smoking, womanizing James Bond character as an avatar. I guess those lurid fantasies suggest a personality malfunction.


----------



## james bond

frigidweirdo said:


> It's difficult to follow your conversation, because you both seem to be accusing the other of being a flat earther.


She thinks all believers are flat earthers.  In fact, she's obsessed that we are.  It's the opposite.  Those without creation may as well live wherever they could get.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> She thinks all believers are flat earthers.  In fact, she's obsessed that we are.  It's the opposite.  Those without creation may as well live wherever they could get.


There obviously is a certain element of religious extremists who fit the label of Flat Earther. You qualify. Embrace the horror.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> There obviously is a certain element of religious extremists who fit the label of Flat Earther. You qualify. Embrace the horror.


I'm not like you who keep making up stuff like the universe came from an invisible point and humans from ape-humans.  Thus, you end up going berserk and believing their creationist opponents are "flat Earthers."  It does _expose _your doubts about evolution.  Your beliefs in the wacko atheism religion and evolution have driven you mad.  Is it any wonder that you are stuck in the infinite loop of wacko atheism?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I'm not like you who keep making up stuff like the universe came from an invisible point and humans from ape-humans.  Thus, you end up going berserk and believing their creationist opponents are "flat Earthers."  It does _expose _your doubts about evolution.  Your beliefs in the wacko atheism religion and evolution have driven you mad.  Is it any wonder that you are stuck in the infinite loop of wacko atheism?


Another of your silly, emotional outbursts using all your usual, worn, tired slogans.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Another of your silly, emotional outbursts using all your usual, worn, tired slogans.


Are you having another Flat Earth anxiety attack?  Think you're going to fall off the edge?

You are the only one here who keeps bringing it up over and over again.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Are you having another Flat Earth anxiety attack?  Think you're going to fall off the edge?
> 
> You are the only one here who keeps bringing it up over and over again.


You're one of a very few who hold such extremist beliefs.

Are you having another Jimmy Swaggert episode?


----------



## james bond

frigidweirdo said:


> It's difficult to follow your conversation, because you both seem to be accusing the other of being a flat earther.


My posts have to do with God creating the universe, a SPHERICAL Earth, and life as we know it as written in the Bible.  It's a valid scientific view of how we are today compared to the atheist science view of quantum physics and evolution.  It's one religion and science's view vs another religion and science's view (creation science vs atheist science).  Yet, Hollie has gone off the edge and continues to make extreme accusations against me and creation such as being a flat earther or insult to the Christian religion.


----------



## james bond

The basic argument against atheists and evolutionists starting the universe and Earth are the laws of thermodynamics.  There is no way they could have the EMS, for example, just come into existence.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> My posts have to do with God creating the universe, a SPHERICAL Earth, and life as we know it as written in the Bible.  It's a valid scientific view of how we are today compared to the atheist science view of quantum physics and evolution.  It's one religion and science's view vs another religion and science's view (creation science vs atheist science).  Yet, Hollie has gone off the edge and continues to make extreme accusations against me and creation such as being a flat earther or insult to the Christian religion.


Your posts have everything to do with proselytizing and don't belong in the Science and Technology forum.. There is no science in any of the Bibles. Selective interpretation of Bible verses leads to a clown show of bad analogies and false representation of science matters.

There is no science in a Flat Earth, talking snakes, a 6,000 year old planet, etc. 

Creationer claims about bible science is simply their need to excuse the absurdities in Biblical tales and fables. Creationers press a nonsense claim that the purpose of the Bible is to document scientific data. There is not the slightest indication that the Bible was ever intended as a scientific textbook. It is intended to teach people about three partisan gods. Even those creationers who cant identify a single scientific fact use the bible with that intent. For the Bible's tales and fables, scientific accuracy is unnecessary and even counterproductive. If the value of the Bible is made to depend on scientific accuracy, it becomes valueless when there is no science to be found.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The basic argument against atheists and evolutionists starting the universe and Earth are the laws of thermodynamics.  There is no way they could have the EMS, for example, just come into existence.


Copy and pasting nonsense claims from creationer websites is pointless.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Copy and pasting nonsense claims from creationer websites is pointless.


Science is not made up "naturalistic" theories designed to exclude the existence of a Creator.  We do not need atheistic stories.  Stick to medicine, biology, chemistry, astronomy, and archaeology.  Leave "Billions and Billions and Billions", of years ago to the fanatical atheists that have nothing better to accomplish but write fiction and call it science.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Science is not made up "naturalistic" theories designed to exclude the existence of a Creator.  We do not need atheistic stories.  Stick to medicine, biology, chemistry, astronomy, and archaeology.  Leave "Billions and Billions and Billions", of years ago to the fanatical atheists that have nothing better to accomplish but write fiction and call it science.


"science is all made up stories'' is a rather frantic defense mechanism to protect your gods. It's not as though the science-minded don't see the creationer dilemma. If the creation'istas accept that common descent is even a remote possibility, their gods are no longer a requirement because natural mechanisms define nature. The discussion of evolution, which is among the most well documented theories in science, literally terrifies the fundamentailists.  The very possibility challenges their bible stories so it is a direct assault on their certainty about the existence of their gods. 

Literalist bible belief is the theme in creationer dogma. A rigid talking point is set up: either you are absolutely certain about the efficacy of bible stories and the gods or you are doomed to the most awful tortures that the men who wrote the bibles could create in their most vivid imaginations.. The writers of the bible stories understood the fear they could introduce and thus the power they wielded. Bible'ists will sometimes admit doubts about their own salvation and will admit to their fear of angry gods. It's really a sad existence to live in trembling fear of angry, capricious gods.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Stick to medicine, biology, chemistry, astronomy, and archaeology.


All of which support evolution. Every observation in all those fields. You know less than nothing about any scientific topic and should shut up immediately.


----------



## frigidweirdo

james bond said:


> My posts have to do with God creating the universe, a SPHERICAL Earth, and life as we know it as written in the Bible.  It's a valid scientific view of how we are today compared to the atheist science view of quantum physics and evolution.  It's one religion and science's view vs another religion and science's view (creation science vs atheist science).  Yet, Hollie has gone off the edge and continues to make extreme accusations against me and creation such as being a flat earther or insult to the Christian religion.



Well, you don't know whether a god or God or gods created the universe. You can BELIEVE as much as you like. Nobody knows. Which is the only thing we do know. 

The Earth isn't spherical, by the way. It's an oblate spheroid.

Religion is NOT a valid scientific view. Science is about understanding the rules of the universe.

Religion is about trying to find comfort by hiding away from reality. Creating a fantasy reality. Which is fine, in some senses, better than using drugs or alcohol.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> All of which support evolution. Every observation in all those fields.


There is nothing in those field that support evolution.  Evolution didn't happen in billions of years because billions of years hasn't happened.


----------



## james bond

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, you don't know whether a god or God or gods created the universe. You can BELIEVE as much as you like. Nobody knows. Which is the only thing we do know.
> 
> The Earth isn't spherical, by the way. It's an oblate spheroid.
> 
> Religion is NOT a valid scientific view. Science is about understanding the rules of the universe.
> 
> Religion is about trying to find comfort by hiding away from reality. Creating a fantasy reality. Which is fine, in some senses, better than using drugs or alcohol.


Man, you haven't been paying attention to the Bible and creation science. 

The Earth being described as _spherical_ is fine unless you want to be nerdy about it.


frigidweirdo said:


> Religion is NOT a valid scientific view.


Then evolution which assumes the atheist religion isn't a valid scientific view either.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Man, you haven't been paying attention to the Bible and creation science.
> 
> The Earth being described as _spherical_ is fine unless you want to be nerdy about it.
> 
> Then evolution which assumes the atheist religion isn't a valid scientific view either.


Fraud Alert!

There is no science associated with religious fundamentalism which you fraudulently title creationer science. Christian creationers have spent decades fraudulently rebranding their dogma from "Biblical Creationism" to "Scientific Creationism," to "Intelligent Design'' to ''Intelligent Design Creationism'' to ''Creation Science''. 

It's a bad joke.


----------



## Clyde 154

K9Buck said:


> Then what created the original universe?


Whatever created the known universe bound by the Laws of Physics by necessity had to be of "Super (superior to) Natural (nature)".  Why?  Because the laws that govern the universe can't explain their own origins, as there is a Logical Law of Causality:  In essence this law states that for every effect there must be an "explainable" superior cause.  This very principle is the foundation of all scientific inquiry.  Natural Science deals with the material universe and correctly looks for causes to natural events.  Example:  Science determines that earthquakes and tremors are due to movement of the tectonic plates that cover the surface of the earth.

Natural Science is limited and can explain just so much.  Eventually science must address the "uncaused" first CAUSE......or the CREATION.  Of whatever nature this cause is........its far superior to the natural universe, by necessity of the process of elimination.......the effect known as the physical universe was caused by a greater power.   One can begin to reason in "Circular Logic" and declare, maybe there are parallel universes.......but in chasing that circle, there must have been a first, as energy can neither be created or destroyed.....it can change as per the first law of thermodynamics.

Then who created God? God is eternal with no beginning and no ending. (Genesis 21:33, Deut 33:27).  The God explained in scripture is pure spirit (John 2:24)....and, has no material existence. (Luke 24:39).  God is invisible to man (1 Tim. 6:16).  I, nor anyone can demonstrate via observation and experimentation that God exists, unless one has a super-natural-0-meter that can quantify or measure that which nature cannot.  The same logical principle applies to the agnostics and atheists of the world.........they can no more disprove the existence of God than I can prove it.

So it takes faith........This does not mean an "unreasonable"  unexplainable faith absent from nature and the laws that govern it....but faith as explained in scriptures.  A faith based upon "prima facie" truth.   "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." -- Heb. 11:1   The word is translated from the Greek into English as Conviction, but in the literal Greek it means "EVIDENCE".   So......biblical faith is based upon evidences.

Example:  Consider Christopher Columbus.......I believe (have faith) that he saw of the Islands of the West Indies on or about Oct. 12, 1492.  I did not see that first hand (observe), and it can't be demonstrated via scientific experiment (repeated).  Thus my faith rests on EVIDENCE found to exist in historical records.   Today it has become the latest PROGRESSIVE in vogue claim that makes Columbus into a murderer and liar in an attempt to rewrite history its became politically correct to make history more INCLUSIVE of all minorities........they have taken a day once dedicated to Columbus and presidents and given SPECIAL DAYS and even months to minorities, declaring them special because the sins of the fathers.....such as Columbus, and bigoted founding father presidents...etc.,   Its the in vogue thing to do.

As as the new "progressive" one world order is attempting to rewrite history (actually they are nothing but secular humanists who worship the created instead of the creator money and power is their god, with a little 'g') ...........some calling themselves "scientists" are attempting to rewrite the laws of the known universe where SOMETHING can be CREATED FROM NOTHING.   Go figure.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> into heaven."science is all made up stories'' is a rather frantic defense mechanism to protect your gods. It's not as though the science-minded don't see the creationer dilemma. If the creation'istas accept that common descent is even a remote possibility, their gods are no longer a requirement because natural mechanisms define nature. The discussion of evolution, which is among the most well documented theories in science, literally terrifies the fundamentailists.  The very possibility challenges their bible stories so it is a direct assault on their certainty about the existence of their gods.
> 
> Literalist bible belief is the theme in creationer dogma. A rigid talking point is set up: either you are absolutely certain about the efficacy of bible stories and the gods or you are doomed to the most awful tortures that the men who wrote the bibles could create in their most vivid imaginations.. The writers of the bible stories understood the fear they could introduce and thus the power they wielded. Bible'ists will sometimes admit doubts about their own salvation and will admit to their fear of angry gods. It's really a sad existence to live in trembling fear of angry, capricious gods.


We do know that scientists cannot reproduce the CREATION of biological life. We do know that scientists have not been able to evolve the fruit fly ----  they've been trying for many, many years.  We do know that Jesus historically walked the earth and claimed to be divine. We do know that many people witnessed HIS healing abilities, HIS death on the cross and saw HIM arise, walk around and ascend.  We know that many of HIS disciples gave their lives convinced that JESUS was the MESSIAH. I know of no one willing to die having faith in Harry Potter. I feel that it is far sadder to worry that the environment is going to fall apart, that coastal cities are going to be drowned, that an asteroid could at any moment destroy our civilization, that the Stock Market is about to collapse, the Taliban might set off a dirty nuclear bomb anywhere at anytime, and that a pandemic could wipe out the human race.

I know that according to the Bible God has a timetable, and that there will yet be a catching away of the saints, 7 years of tribulation upon this earth, and a 1000 year Millennial Kingdom (NONE OF WHICH HAS OCCURRED AS YET). So don't insult me, it would seem you have far more to worry about than I do, including where you will send your eternity.


----------



## frigidweirdo

james bond said:


> Man, you haven't been paying attention to the Bible and creation science.
> 
> The Earth being described as _spherical_ is fine unless you want to be nerdy about it.
> 
> Then evolution which assumes the atheist religion isn't a valid scientific view either.



No, I don't need to pay much attention to the Bible. It's contradictory and very much human made. Convenient for humans. What can I say? 

Atheism and religion are the same, people believing something. I don't believe, I'm just waiting for evidence and proof.


----------



## james bond

frigidweirdo said:


> Atheism and religion are the same, people believing something. I don't believe, I'm just waiting for evidence and proof.


There's no evidence and proof of evolution.  They claim natural selection.  However, that's _survival of the fittest_ and first mentioned in the Bible as a God-given process where the animal's genotype was given at birth and then gradually adapted to its particular environment.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> There is no science associated with religious fundamentalism which you fraudulently title creationer science. Christian creationers have spent decades fraudulently rebranding their dogma from "Biblical Creationism" to "Scientific Creationism," to "Intelligent Design'' to ''Intelligent Design Creationism'' to ''Creation Science''.








What about this guy?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> There is no science in a Flat Earth, talking snakes, a 6,000 year old planet, etc.


Maybe you'll be living on a flat Earth after you die.  Don't fall off the edge!!!


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> What about this guy?


As I wrote, there is no science associated with bible science. 

No matter how much you believe it to be true, the earth is not flat.


----------



## frigidweirdo

james bond said:


> There's no evidence and proof of evolution.  They claim natural selection.  However, that's _survival of the fittest_ and first mentioned in the Bible as a God-given process where the animal's genotype was given at birth and then gradually adapted to its particular environment.



There's no evidence or proof that we even exist.

There certainly is no evidence that God exists.

There's no evidence the Bible was written by anyone other than human beings.

So.... you can continue to believe whatever you like, no matter how made up it is. 

Some people look at what is around them, try and see things for what they are, and others make things up that are convenient for themselves.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> We do know that scientists cannot reproduce the CREATION of biological life. We do know that scientists have not been able to evolve the fruit fly ----  they've been trying for many, many years.  We do know that Jesus historically walked the earth and claimed to be divine. We do know that many people witnessed HIS healing abilities, HIS death on the cross and saw HIM arise, walk around and ascend.  We know that many of HIS disciples gave their lives convinced that JESUS was the MESSIAH. I know of no one willing to die having faith in Harry Potter. I feel that it is far sadder to worry that the environment is going to fall apart, that coastal cities are going to be drowned, that an asteroid could at any moment destroy our civilization, that the Stock Market is about to collapse, the Taliban might set off a dirty nuclear bomb anywhere at anytime, and that a pandemic could wipe out the human race.
> 
> I know that according to the Bible God has a timetable, and that there will yet be a catching away of the saints, 7 years of tribulation upon this earth, and a 1000 year Millennial Kingdom (NONE OF WHICH HAS OCCURRED AS YET). So don't insult me, it would seem you have far more to worry about than I do, including where you will send your eternity.


People beside de hesus have claimed to be devine. When has de hesus ever cured disease? Can you identify a single instance?

We have no indication that anyone saw DE HESUS strolling around after HIS death. Such fables make for lovely stories but we expect grownups to behave like grownups. Although, Capt. Ahab being dragged off the boat by Moby Dick is certainly true. It says so in the book.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> When has de hesus ever cured disease? Can you identify a single instance?


You don't read the Bible, so you don't know.  I doubt you know much about evolution either, but it's a lie so doesn't matter as much.  It's why you usually can't answer other people's questions nor mine.  You can't participate in discussions here.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You don't read the Bible, so you don't know.  I doubt you know much about evolution either, but it's a lie so doesn't matter as much.  It's why you usually can't answer other people's questions nor mine.  You can't participate in discussions here.


Fortunately, science denying, ignorance promoting religioner extremists are a minority of the thinking human population.


----------



## LittleNipper

frigidweirdo said:


> No, I don't need to pay much attention to the Bible. It's contradictory and very much human made. Convenient for humans. What can I say?
> 
> Atheism and religion are the same, people believing something. I don't believe, I'm just waiting for evidence and proof.


If the Bible is "human made," it certainly  spends much of the time demonstrating just how stupid humans are. Authors generally don't make fun of themselves.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> There's no evidence and proof of evolution.  They claim natural selection.  However, that's _survival of the fittest_ and first mentioned in the Bible as a God-given process where the animal's genotype was given at birth and then gradually adapted to its particular environment.


Sorry but there are literally mountains of evidence.  Seriously, go climb a mountain and you might see for yourself.


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> Sorry but there are literally mountains of evidence.  Seriously, go climb a mountain and you might see for yourself.


Literally...


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> Sorry but there are literally mountains of evidence.  Seriously, go climb a mountain and you might see for yourself.


That was sarcasm.
There was zero chance a male/female pair appeared simultaneously as a fluke.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Clyde 154 said:


> Whatever created the known universe bound by the Laws of Physics by necessity had to be of "Super (superior to) Natural (nature)".  Why?  Because the laws that govern the universe can't explain their own origins, as there is a Logical Law of Causality:  In essence this law states that for every effect there must be an "explainable" superior cause.  This very principle is the foundation of all scientific inquiry.  Natural Science deals with the material universe and correctly looks for causes to natural events.  Example:  Science determines that earthquakes and tremors are due to movement of the tectonic plates that cover the surface of the earth.
> 
> Natural Science is limited and can explain just so much.  Eventually science must address the "uncaused" first CAUSE......or the CREATION.  Of whatever nature this cause is........its far superior to the natural universe, by necessity of the process of elimination.......the effect known as the physical universe was caused by a greater power.   One can begin to reason in "Circular Logic" and declare, maybe there are parallel universes.......but in chasing that circle, there must have been a first, as energy can neither be created or destroyed.....it can change as per the first law of thermodynamics.
> 
> Then who created God? God is eternal with no beginning and no ending. (Genesis 21:33, Deut 33:27).  The God explained in scripture is pure spirit (John 2:24)....and, has no material existence. (Luke 24:39).  God is invisible to man (1 Tim. 6:16).  I, nor anyone can demonstrate via observation and experimentation that God exists, unless one has a super-natural-0-meter that can quantify or measure that which nature cannot.  The same logical principle applies to the agnostics and atheists of the world.........they can no more disprove the existence of God than I can prove it.
> 
> So it takes faith........This does not mean an "unreasonable"  unexplainable faith absent from nature and the laws that govern it....but faith as explained in scriptures.  A faith based upon "prima facie" truth.   "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." -- Heb. 11:1   The word is translated from the Greek into English as Conviction, but in the literal Greek it means "EVIDENCE".   So......biblical faith is based upon evidences.
> 
> Example:  Consider Christopher Columbus.......I believe (have faith) that he saw of the Islands of the West Indies on or about Oct. 12, 1492.  I did not see that first hand (observe), and it can't be demonstrated via scientific experiment (repeated).  Thus my faith rests on EVIDENCE found to exist in historical records.   Today it has become the latest PROGRESSIVE in vogue claim that makes Columbus into a murderer and liar in an attempt to rewrite history its became politically correct to make history more INCLUSIVE of all minorities........they have taken a day once dedicated to Columbus and presidents and given SPECIAL DAYS and even months to minorities, declaring them special because the sins of the fathers.....such as Columbus, and bigoted founding father presidents...etc.,   Its the in vogue thing to do.
> 
> As as the new "progressive" one world order is attempting to rewrite history (actually they are nothing but secular humanists who worship the created instead of the creator money and power is their god, with a little 'g') ...........some calling themselves "scientists" are attempting to rewrite the laws of the known universe where SOMETHING can be CREATED FROM NOTHING.   Go figure.


Thank goodness for progressives now and throughout history, who have made this world a much better place quite in spite of the primitive iron aged religions and their codified immorality.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> If the Bible is "human made," it certainly spends much of the time demonstrating just how stupid humans are


Yes, that's how you control people.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> As I wrote, there is no science associated with bible science.
> 
> No matter how much you believe it to be true, the earth is not flat.


Christians don't believe the world is flat ------- some cults do.


----------



## frigidweirdo

LittleNipper said:


> If the Bible is "human made," it certainly  spends much of the time demonstrating just how stupid humans are. Authors generally don't make fun of themselves.



Well, the whole thing is so convenient for humans. And yes, humans are exceedingly stupid. We're more educated than ever, and yet people are turning to conspiracy theories and all sorts of nonsense.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> That was sarcasm.
> There was zero chance a male/female pair appeared simultaneously as a fluke.


You're correct.  If you knew more about ToE you wouldn't have to state the obvious like it is an inspiration of yours.


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> You're correct.  If you knew more about ToE you wouldn't have to state the obvious like it is an inspiration of yours.


My daughter has a hard science degree and thinks you’re an idiot.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> My daughter has a hard science degree and thinks you’re an idiot.


And eschews evolution? Then your daughter is a moron.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> My daughter has a hard science degree and thinks you’re an idiot.


My daughter has a hard science degree and thinks I'm smarter than an idiot.  And she actually knows me.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And eschews evolution? Then your daughter is a moron.


Do you have a PhD in Chemistry and Biology?
Didn't think so.
Evolution is a convoluted ball of bullshit designed for atheists.


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> My daughter has a hard science degree and thinks I'm smarter than an idiot.  And she actually knows me.


She's sucking up to you and is probably an atheist.
I want to know how a 1 in several trillion chance of 2 asexual organisms became one male and one female within the same living time frame.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Do you have a PhD in Chemistry and Biology?
> Didn't think so.


How stupid. Hey weirdo...pretty sure the overwhelming majority of PhDs know evolution is a fact, your silly madeup anecdotes notwithstanding.

And if your daughter rejected evolution in a room of science PhDs, they would laugh her out of the room.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> I want to know how a 1 in several trillion chance of 2 asexual organisms became one male and one female within the same living time frame.


Oh look, making up numbers to support a fantasy. Wait that sounds about right.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How stupid. Hey weirdo...pretty sure the overwhelming majority of PhDs know evolution is a fact, your silly madeup anecdotes notwithstanding.


No, they don't, unless they're getting paid to teach it.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh look, making up numbers to support a fantasy. Wait that sounds about right.


Google the odds of the universe *existing*, schmuck.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> No, they don't, unless they're getting paid to teach it.


Yes they do,and now we have reached the point in the evening where you lie out loud to yourself to soothe yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Google the odds of the universe *existing*, schmuck.


Why? That would be pretty stupid. Anyone who pretends to know that is lying. Your kind of people.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes they do,and now we have reached the point in the evening where you lie out loud to yourself to soothe yourself.


How many have you met in your slum?
Do you know how they mock their LibBot students?
Anything for a paycheck and benefits.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why? That would be pretty stupid. Anyone who pretends to know that is lying. Your kind of people.


Cool..
So when a scientist disagrees with *you*, they're lying.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> How many have you met


Lots! Haha, listen to yourself... Listen to the desperate, idiotic things you are saying. If your fake daughter with the fake PhD eschews evolution, then she is fake retarded.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> She's sucking up to you and is probably an atheist.
> I want to know how a 1 in several trillion chance of 2 asexual organisms became one male and one female within the same living time frame.


You're not the first to ask that question so you could do your own homework but, if you really wanted to know:
Evolution of sexual reproduction​From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Sexual reproduction* is an adaptive feature which is common to almost all multi-cellular organisms (and also some single-cellular organisms) with many being incapable of reproducing asexually. Prior to the advent of sexual reproduction, the adaptation process whereby genes would change from one generation to the next (genetic mutation) happened very slowly and randomly. Sex evolved as an extremely efficient mechanism for producing variation, and this had the major advantage of enabling organisms to adapt to changing environments. Sex did, however, come with a cost. In reproducing asexually, no time nor energy needs to be expended in choosing a mate. And if the environment has not changed, then there may be little reason for variation, as the organism may already be well adapted. Sex, however, has evolved as the most prolific means of species branching into the tree of life. Diversification into the phylogenetic tree happens much more rapidly via sexual reproduction than it does by way of asexual reproduction.
Evolution of sexual reproduction describes how sexually reproducing animals, plants, fungi and protists could have evolved from a common ancestor that was a single-celled eukaryotic species.[1][2][3] Sexual reproduction is widespread in the Eukarya, though a few eukaryotic species have secondarily lost the ability to reproduce sexually, such as Bdelloidea, and some plants and animals routinely reproduce asexually (by apomixis and parthenogenesis) without entirely having lost sex. The evolution of sex contains two related yet distinct themes: its _origin_ and its _maintenance_.
The origin of sexual reproduction can be traced to early prokaryotes, around two billion years ago (Gya), when bacteria began exchanging genes via conjugation, transformation, and transduction.[4] Though these processes are distinct from true sexual reproduction, they share some basic similarities. In eukaryotes, true sex is thought to have arisen in the Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor (LECA), possibly via several processes of varying success, and then to have persisted (compare to "LUCA").[5]
Since hypotheses for the origin of sex are difficult to verify experimentally (outside of evolutionary computation), most current work has focused on the persistence of sexual reproduction over evolutionary time. The maintenance of sexual reproduction (specifically, of its dioecious form) by natural selection in a highly competitive world has long been one of the major mysteries of biology, since both other known mechanisms of reproduction – asexual reproduction and hermaphroditism – possess apparent advantages over it. Asexual reproduction can proceed by budding, fission, or spore formation and does not involve the union of gametes, which accordingly results in a much faster rate of reproduction compared to sexual reproduction, where 50% of offspring are males and unable to produce offspring themselves. In hermaphroditic reproduction, each of the two parent organisms required for the formation of a zygote can provide either the male or the female gamete, which leads to advantages in both size and genetic variance of a population.
Sexual reproduction therefore must offer significant fitness advantages because, despite the two-fold cost of sex (see below), it dominates among multicellular forms of life, implying that the fitness of offspring produced by sexual processes outweighs the costs. Sexual reproduction derives from recombination, where parent genotypes are reorganized and shared with the offspring. This stands in contrast to single-parent asexual replication, where the offspring is always identical to the parents (barring mutation). Recombination supplies two fault-tolerance mechanisms at the molecular level: _recombinational DNA repair_ (promoted during meiosis because homologous chromosomes pair at that time) and _complementation_ (also known as heterosis, hybrid vigor or masking of mutations).


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Cool..
> So when a scientist disagrees with *you*, they're lying.


Haha, changing lanes to an idiotic non sequitur because you are all kinds of blubbering angry. Embarrassing to watch.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Lots! Haha, listen to yourself... Listen to the desperate, idiotic things you are saying. If your fake daughter with the fake PhD eschews evolution, then she is fake retarded.


Cool..
So when a scientist disagrees with *you*, they're lying.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alang1216 said:


> You're not the first to ask that question so you could do your own homework


BUt mY fAkE dAuGhTer sAyS


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> You're not the first to ask that question so you could do your own homework but, if you really wanted to know:
> Evolution of sexual reproduction​From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Sexual reproduction* is an adaptive feature which is common to almost all multi-cellular organisms (and also some single-cellular organisms) with many being incapable of reproducing asexually. Prior to the advent of sexual reproduction, the adaptation process whereby genes would change from one generation to the next (genetic mutation) happened very slowly and randomly. Sex evolved as an extremely efficient mechanism for producing variation, and this had the major advantage of enabling organisms to adapt to changing environments. Sex did, however, come with a cost. In reproducing asexually, no time nor energy needs to be expended in choosing a mate. And if the environment has not changed, then there may be little reason for variation, as the organism may already be well adapted. Sex, however, has evolved as the most prolific means of species branching into the tree of life. Diversification into the phylogenetic tree happens much more rapidly via sexual reproduction than it does by way of asexual reproduction.
> Evolution of sexual reproduction describes how sexually reproducing animals, plants, fungi and protists could have evolved from a common ancestor that was a single-celled eukaryotic species.[1][2][3] Sexual reproduction is widespread in the Eukarya, though a few eukaryotic species have secondarily lost the ability to reproduce sexually, such as Bdelloidea, and some plants and animals routinely reproduce asexually (by apomixis and parthenogenesis) without entirely having lost sex. The evolution of sex contains two related yet distinct themes: its _origin_ and its _maintenance_.
> The origin of sexual reproduction can be traced to early prokaryotes, around two billion years ago (Gya), when bacteria began exchanging genes via conjugation, transformation, and transduction.[4] Though these processes are distinct from true sexual reproduction, they share some basic similarities. In eukaryotes, true sex is thought to have arisen in the Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor (LECA), possibly via several processes of varying success, and then to have persisted (compare to "LUCA").[5]
> Since hypotheses for the origin of sex are difficult to verify experimentally (outside of evolutionary computation), most current work has focused on the persistence of sexual reproduction over evolutionary time. The maintenance of sexual reproduction (specifically, of its dioecious form) by natural selection in a highly competitive world has long been one of the major mysteries of biology, since both other known mechanisms of reproduction – asexual reproduction and hermaphroditism – possess apparent advantages over it. Asexual reproduction can proceed by budding, fission, or spore formation and does not involve the union of gametes, which accordingly results in a much faster rate of reproduction compared to sexual reproduction, where 50% of offspring are males and unable to produce offspring themselves. In hermaphroditic reproduction, each of the two parent organisms required for the formation of a zygote can provide either the male or the female gamete, which leads to advantages in both size and genetic variance of a population.
> Sexual reproduction therefore must offer significant fitness advantages because, despite the two-fold cost of sex (see below), it dominates among multicellular forms of life, implying that the fitness of offspring produced by sexual processes outweighs the costs. Sexual reproduction derives from recombination, where parent genotypes are reorganized and shared with the offspring. This stands in contrast to single-parent asexual replication, where the offspring is always identical to the parents (barring mutation). Recombination supplies two fault-tolerance mechanisms at the molecular level: _recombinational DNA repair_ (promoted during meiosis because homologous chromosomes pair at that time) and _complementation_ (also known as heterosis, hybrid vigor or masking of mutations).


You can post any bullshit that pleases you but you didn't answer the question.
The spontaneous existence of at least one male and at least one female...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Cool..
> So when a scientist disagrees with *you*, they're lying.


Whatever you have to tell yourself not to run into traffic.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Whatever you have to tell yourself not to run into traffic.


You are boring...have fun playing with yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> The spontaneous existence of at least one male and at least one female...


Only a fool who doesn't understand evolution would say something so stupid. This is like asking when a monkey gave birth to a human. I would expect this sort of stupid question from a child learning about all of this for the first time. But you have no excuse.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

BulletProof said:


> Poor little tailless and hairless monkey, no deist beliefs God is created.


Yes, that was half his point. It shows how the game is rigged in this made up fantasy of a creator.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Sorry but there are literally mountains of evidence.  Seriously, go climb a mountain and you might see for yourself.


I've already explained natural selection as evidence for God.  As for the rest, stop lying or stop BELIEVING in lies.  You're ridiculous.  We still have apes and none of them are bipedal.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> You're not the first to ask that question so you could do your own homework but, if you really wanted to know:


Your copy and paste is a lie and ridiculous.  We know you don't have a hard science degree.

The creationists know asexual reproduction provides up to twice as much reproductive success.  This is fitness as in survival of the fittest compared to  sexual reproduction.  Based on natural selection, how could the latter ever gain enough advantage if evolution is true?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Your copy and paste is a lie and ridiculous.  We know you don't have a hard science degree.
> 
> The creationists know asexual reproduction provides up to twice as much reproductive success.  This is fitness as in survival of the fittest compared to  sexual reproduction.  Based on natural selection, how could the latter ever gain enough advantage if evolution is true?


The religious extremists you call creationers know nothing of what you claim. As we know, religious extremists do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I've already explained natural selection as evidence for God.  As for the rest, stop lying or stop BELIEVING in lies.  You're ridiculous.  We still have apes and none of them are bipedal.


So... we are to accept that extinctions of entire populations is evidence for your gods? 

Wouldn't that be evidence of incompetent, supernatural designer gods? Your gods being a consortium of polytheistic gods suggests they need to hire a few specialized gods. The appropriate model may be the many Greek gods who had specific tasks.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> You can post any bullshit that pleases you but you didn't answer the question.
> The spontaneous existence of at least one male and at least one female...


"Spontaneous"?  That is creationism not evolution.  We see today that many bacteria exchange snippets of their DNA with each other.  Is it such a stretch to envision this evolving into a more elaborate system?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Your copy and paste is a lie and ridiculous.  We know you don't have a hard science degree.


You're right about me not having a hard science degree, I actually have two.


james bond said:


> The creationists know asexual reproduction provides up to twice as much reproductive success.  This is fitness as in survival of the fittest compared to  sexual reproduction.  Based on natural selection, how could the latter ever gain enough advantage if evolution is true?


First off, I doubt creationists "know" asexual reproduction provides up to twice as much reproductive success, they just take it on faith.  Sexual reproduction evolved to unleash a species' genetic diversity by mixing genes.  The species that didn't are mostly now extinct.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I've already explained natural selection as evidence for God.  As for the rest, stop lying or stop BELIEVING in lies.  You're ridiculous.  We still have apes and none of them are bipedal.


Was being bipedal their goal?  Most mammals are quadrupeds and can out run us with ease.


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> "Spontaneous"?  That is creationism not evolution.  We see today that many bacteria exchange snippets of their DNA with each other.  Is it such a stretch to envision this evolving into a more elaborate system?


Yes.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> Yes.


You seem like a devout person but you refuse to accept how God does his job.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> You're right about me not having a hard science degree, I actually have two.


Then, why do you need to c&p from liberal wikipedia?


alang1216 said:


> First off, I doubt creationists "know" asexual reproduction provides up to twice as much reproductive success, they just take it on faith. Sexual reproduction evolved to unleash a species' genetic diversity by mixing genes. The species that didn't are mostly now extinct.


No.  I learned that one find's God with faith just like you learned to take atheism and evolution upon "faith."  With my faith, I find evidence for God from reading the Bible.  It has the prophecy of evolution as exchanging a lie for the truth.  Throughout history, creationists have always had the greatest scientists.  From there, we find asexual reproduction is 2x better than sexual reproduction in terms of _fitness_.  Or we know apes today are not bipedal.  It means evolution's _natural selection_ is a LIE.  Even radiometric years do not have anything to do with calendar years.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> You seem like a devout person but you refuse to accept how God does his job.


We know how God does his job and it isn't through evolution .


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> You seem like a devout person but you refuse to accept how God does his job.


No religion respects science nearly as much as Judaism.
Why do you think so many Jews are MDs and scientists?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Then, why do you need to c&p from liberal wikipedia?


They did a good job summarizing the science


james bond said:


> No.  I learned that one find's God with faith just like you learned to take atheism and evolution upon "faith."


I learned my evolution on evidence I can see with my own eyes.  I don't consider a single source as convincing evidence, especially when it conflicts with my own eyes.


james bond said:


> With my faith, I find evidence for God from reading the Bible.  It has the prophecy of evolution as exchanging a lie for the truth.


I have no clue what that means.


james bond said:


> Throughout history, creationists have always had the greatest scientists.  From there, we find asexual reproduction is 2x better than sexual reproduction in terms of _fitness_.


Who said asexual reproduction is 2x better than sexual reproduction in terms of _fitness?_


james bond said:


> Or we know apes today are not bipedal.  It means evolution's _natural selection_ is a LIE.


Are you saying chimps would be better able to climb trees if they were bipedal like we are?  How good is your tree climbing?


james bond said:


> Even radiometric years do not have anything to do with calendar years.


Yet it has been confirmed many times.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> No religion respects science nearly as much as Judaism.
> Why do you think so many Jews are MDs and scientists?


So you're not a very good Jew then?  All the Jews I know accept evolution.


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> They did a good job summarizing the science
> 
> I learned my evolution on evidence I can see with my own eyes.  I don't consider a single source as convincing evidence, especially when it conflicts with my own eyes.
> 
> I have no clue what that means.
> 
> Who said asexual reproduction is 2x better than sexual reproduction in terms of _fitness?_
> 
> Are you saying chimps would be better able to climb trees if they were bipedal like we are?  How good is your tree climbing?
> 
> Yet it has been confirmed many times.


What evolution have you seen with your own eyes.


----------



## Blues Man

Indeependent said:


> What evolution have you seen with your own eyes.


It is quite a slow process but there are documented instances of speciation in both birds and plants that has happened in a relatively short time span.





						Speciation in real time
					






					evolution.berkeley.edu


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> What evolution have you seen with your own eyes.


I hiked the Grand Canyon and the fossils in the older rock layers were very different from those of the younger layers.  Species appeared and disappeared.  Either God is continually creating new species or they evolved naturally.


----------



## Blues Man

It's possible that one of the reasons we see little evolutionary changes in humans is that we have become so adept at adapting the environment to suit us that we are largely unaffected by environmental factors unlike our early ancestors..


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> I hiked the Grand Canyon and the fossils in the older rock layers were very different from those of the younger layers.  Species appeared and disappeared.  Either God is continually creating new species or they evolved naturally.


That issue was resolved in the 60s and you full well know that was caused by volcanic activity.
Give me something that hasn’t been debunked.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> That issue was resolved in the 60s and you full well know that was caused by volcanic activity.
> Give me something that hasn’t been debunked.


None of what I wrote was ever debunked or attributed to volcanic activity.  Furthermore, the example I gave can be repeated in a large number of areas and always with the same result.  Species appear and disappear over time.  It really is that simple.


----------



## alang1216

Blues Man said:


> It's possible that one of the reasons we see little evolutionary changes in humans is that we have become so adept at adapting the environment to suit us that we are largely unaffected by environmental factors unlike our early ancestors..


Partially true.  We evolved in Africa but as we went north our skin became paler to better absorb vitamin D.


----------



## boedicca

Something cannot arise from nothing:

Descartes’ First Proof of the Existence of God in Meditation III:

_Axiom: _There is at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in the effect of that cause.

_Axiom: _Something cannot arise from nothing.

_Axiom: _What is more perfect cannot arise from what is less perfect.

_Definition: _The nature of an idea is such that, of itself, it requires no formal reality except what it derives from my thought.

_Definition: _Objective mode of being belongs to ideas by their nature; formal mode of being belongs to the causes of ideas.

_Definition: _God is a substance that is infinite, independent, omniscient, omnipotent...

(1) In order for a given idea to contain such and such objective reality, it must surely derive it from some cause which contains at least as much formal reality as there is objective reality in the idea.

(2) There must be a cause which contains formally all the reality which is present objectively in the idea.

(3) If the objective reality of an idea cannot come from me, it must come from something else.

(4) The attributes of God are such that they could not have come from me.

(5) They must have come from God; therefore, God exists.



			https://www.uky.edu/~look/Descartes2.pdf


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> None of what I wrote was ever debunked or attributed to volcanic activity.  Furthermore, the example I gave can be repeated in a large number of areas and always with the same result.  Species appear and disappear over time.  It really is that simple.


Stop embarrassing yourself.
The problem is that LibBots are emotionally disturbed and never research what happened after a “find” was made.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> Stop embarrassing yourself.
> The problem is that LibBots are emotionally disturbed and never research what happened after a “find” was made.


Since you are not a LibBot you should have no problem providing some evidence that what I wrote about species appearing and disappearing "was resolved in the 60s and you full well know that was caused by volcanic activity".


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> Since you are not a LibBot you should have no problem providing some evidence that what I wrote about species appearing and disappearing "was resolved in the 60s and you full well know that was caused by volcanic activity".


Whatever I give you will be pseudo intellectualized by you so I won’t bother.
The issue is that you claim to be a scientist.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> Whatever I give you will be pseudo intellectualized by you so I won’t bother.
> The issue is that you claim to be a scientist.


No the issue is you make up stuff and when called out you deflect.


----------



## Blues Man

alang1216 said:


> Partially true.  We evolved in Africa but as we went north our skin became paler to better absorb vitamin D.


and there has been no change in skin tone even though for the most part people are getting their vitamin D via supplemented foods


----------



## alang1216

Blues Man said:


> and there has been no change in skin tone even though for the most part people are getting their vitamin D via supplemented foods


Really?  Seems to me Danes generally have fairer complections than say Arabs, not surprising since we've had vitamin D supplements for less 100 years or so.


----------



## Blues Man

boedicca said:


> Something cannot arise from nothing:
> 
> Descartes’ First Proof of the Existence of God in Meditation III:
> 
> _Axiom: _There is at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in the effect of that cause.
> 
> _Axiom: _Something cannot arise from nothing.
> 
> _Axiom: _What is more perfect cannot arise from what is less perfect.
> 
> _Definition: _The nature of an idea is such that, of itself, it requires no formal reality except what it derives from my thought.
> 
> _Definition: _Objective mode of being belongs to ideas by their nature; formal mode of being belongs to the causes of ideas.
> 
> _Definition: _God is a substance that is infinite, independent, omniscient, omnipotent...
> 
> (1) In order for a given idea to contain such and such objective reality, it must surely derive it from some cause which contains at least as much formal reality as there is objective reality in the idea.
> 
> (2) There must be a cause which contains formally all the reality which is present objectively in the idea.
> 
> (3) If the objective reality of an idea cannot come from me, it must come from something else.
> 
> (4) The attributes of God are such that they could not have come from me.
> 
> (5) They must have come from God; therefore, God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.uky.edu/~look/Descartes2.pdf





alang1216 said:


> Really?  Seems to me Danes generally have fairer complections than say Arabs, not surprising since we've had vitamin D supplements for less 100 years or so.


Like most things the evolution of skin colors was not so simple and there seems to be many more factors involved

Inuits for example have darker skin than Scandinavians despite living in similar climates









						Here’s How Europeans Quickly Evolved Lighter Skin
					

Darker skinned people lived in Europe until fairly recently




					www.smithsonianmag.com


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Yet it has been confirmed many times.


Your side is still using the findings by a nerd from 1956, so you just lied.


----------



## alang1216

Blues Man said:


> Like most things the evolution of skin colors was not so simple and there seems to be many more factors involved
> 
> Inuits for example have darker skin than Scandinavians despite living in similar climates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here’s How Europeans Quickly Evolved Lighter Skin
> 
> 
> Darker skinned people lived in Europe until fairly recently
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smithsonianmag.com


Inuits’ vitamin D intake wasn’t dependent upon the sun. They get all that they need from their diet, heavy on types of fatty fish that are naturally rich in vitamin D.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Blues Man said:


> It's possible that one of the reasons we see little evolutionary changes in humans is that we have become so adept at adapting the environment to suit us that we are largely unaffected by environmental factors unlike our early ancestors..


Another reason is that we just have not been around very long.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Your side is still using the findings by a nerd from 1956, so you just lied.


That's a lie!  Carbon-14 dating has been confirmed by dating things we know the age of from other sources.   Link


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> That's a lie!  Carbon-14 dating has been confirmed by dating things we know the age of from other sources.   Link


You are too funny!
If everything needs something that needs something else how do you know it’s accurate!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> You are too funny!
> If everything needs something that needs something else how do you know it’s accurate!


Gee, you stumped all the physicists! Welp, i guess the earth is 6000 years old after all.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Your side is still using the findings by a nerd from 1956, so you just lied.


That, of course is false but the religious extremist has no problem with falsehoods and misrepresentation.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Gee, you stumped all the physicists! Welp, i guess the earth is 6000 years old after all.


It’s called seeking out the truth when the mechanism you are working with is not giving an objective result.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> You are too funny!
> If everything needs something that needs something else how do you know it’s accurate!


If one tells you the time is 10 PM maybe they're right maybe not, if one person, a tv show, and your smartphone tells you the time is 10 PM they're probably right.  You can cover your eyes and ears and choose not to believe the multiple sources but then you have to believe something else.

Kind of like james bond, he believes the Bible and closes his eyes to everything else.  I'm sure his God is laughing at him.


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> If one tells you the time is 10 PM maybe they're right maybe not, if one person, a tv show, and your smartphone tells you the time is 10 PM they're probably right.  You can cover your eyes and ears and choose not to believe the multiple sources but then you have to believe something else.
> 
> Kind of like james bond, he believes the Bible and closes his eyes to everything else.  I'm sure his God is laughing at him.


I believe in science which is why my daughter is a physician.
Carbon dating is subjective.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> I believe in science which is why my daughter is a physician.
> Carbon dating is subjective.


Nothing subjective about it or can you explain why it is?  

If that is what your daughter believes I'm amazed she made it through med school.


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> Nothing subjective about it or can you explain why it is?
> 
> If that is what your daughter believes I'm amazed she made it through med school.


If you state that carbon dating is objective you should be fired from your position as a teacher.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> If you state that carbon dating is objective you should be fired from your position as a teacher.


If you state that carbon dating is subjective you should be able to back it up.  I'm still waiting...


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> If you state that carbon dating is subjective you should be able to back it up.  I'm still waiting...


I just watched videos on YouTube and it’s based on the supposed subjective, non-observable, 5,000+ Year deterioration of a molecule.
Even the videos that don’t overtly point out the flaws admit it’s subjective and you should be fired.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> I just watched videos on YouTube and it’s based on the supposed subjective, non-observable, 5,000+ Year deterioration of a molecule.
> Even the videos that don’t overtly point out the flaws admit it’s subjective and you should be fired.


Interesting, it isn't only science you don't understand, it is also math.  If you're talking about a single molecule, it is impossible to know when it will decay.  If you're talking about trillions of molecules, it is quantitatively objective to determine the rate of decay.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Carbon dating is subjective.


You have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> I just watched videos on YouTube


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> Interesting, it isn't only science you don't understand, it is also math.  If you're talking about a single molecule, it is impossible to know when it will decay.  If you're talking about trillions of molecules, it is quantitatively objective to determine the rate of decay.


Which is why every scientist on these videos says it's subjective.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about.


You may visit YouTube and leave that post for the scientists who are explaining Carbon Dating.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> Which is why every scientist on these videos says it's subjective.


Which video, I'd like to watch it?


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> Which video, I'd like to watch it?


Any...you won't be able to accuse me of cherry picking.
Most of them have titles that indicate "problems" and all the explanations are based on the old 5,000+ year Carbon-14 degeneration theory.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Which is why every scientist on these videos says it's subjective.


Such nonsense. Creationer pap.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Such nonsense. Creationer pap.


You have got to be the stupidest piece of shit on this site.
YouTube has non-religious scientists saying it's subjective and you can't control your emotions.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> You have got to be the stupidest piece of shit on this site.
> YouTube has non-religious scientists saying it's subjective and you can't control your emotions.


Nobody gives a shit what was said on the fake youtube videos you are lying about.

.You are a shameless creationer liar and you are trying to imply that it is subjective, therefore not accurate or bounded. This is nonsense, and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Colin norris

BulletProof said:


> Stephen Hawking, a mentally and physically disabled man bizarrely regarded as a genius by tailless and hairless monkeys, cited gravity as proof the universe create itself.   "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." - Hawking.



He never said that but  used by nuts dismissing facts. 
It's not uncommon for people to not understand  physics but simultaneously tell me God is real. 

Neil Dr grasse Tyson had some wonderful books about astrophysics and are in no way being critical of religions belief.  That's not his portfolio. 
The problem still remains how godbotherers feel they are sinning to read anything contrary to the bible. 
There are people who have read, never changed their God view and surprise surprise weren't struck dead by God.  How did is that?


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> Any...you won't be able to accuse me of cherry picking.
> Most of them have titles that indicate "problems" and all the explanations are based on the old 5,000+ year Carbon-14 degeneration theory.


All the videos I found were by non-scientists so I think you've already cherry picked.  Would you respect the views on religion of an atheist?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> That's a lie!  Carbon-14 dating has been confirmed by dating things we know the age of from other sources.   Link


C-14 is only good for 50,000 years so are you saying we live on a young Earth?

It doesn't track back to calendar years either.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Gee, you stumped all the physicists! Welp, i guess the earth is 6000 years old after all.


You believe that radiocarbon dating is accurate to calendar years.  It isn't.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> C-14 is only good for 50,000 years so are you saying we live on a young Earth?
> 
> It doesn't track back to calendar years either.


A $5.00 Casio calculator will provide basic math functions. 50k years is more than 6k years. So there's that.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nobody gives a shit what was said on the fake youtube videos you are lying about.
> 
> .You are a shameless creationer liar and you are trying to imply that it is subjective, therefore not accurate or bounded. This is nonsense, and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


I see your logic...
If it's on the web and it agrees with you, it's good.
If it's on the web and it doesn't agree with you, it's stupid.
Translation...You're a ProgBot.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> I see your logic...
> If it's on the web and it agrees with you, it's good.
> If it's on the web and it doesn't agree with you, it's stupid.


No, that is the non sequitur (not that you have any idea what that is) you just invented to soothe yourself, because you know less than nothing about any of this and have no tools in your toolbox to make any valid points. You probably should not even be commenting in the science section of the board at all.


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> All the videos I found were by non-scientists so I think you've already cherry picked.  Would you respect the views on religion of an atheist?


You're trying to crawl your way out of a hole.
Every word and sentence must be examined and what id not stated must be explored as to why not.
I searched for Carbon Dating and everyone of them explained that the half-life of Carbon-144 is over 5,000 years.
What kind of bullshit is that?
Most of them stated that it was subjective and the rest did not mention that it was objective.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> C-14 is only good for 50,000 years so are you saying we live on a young Earth?


It's way older than 6,000 I have no doubt.


james bond said:


> It doesn't track back to calendar years either.


Not sure what that means?  It gives a range of time before the present that tracks to a specific span of years.


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> I searched for Carbon Dating and everyone of them explained that the half-life of Carbon-144 is over 5,000 years.
> What kind of bullshit is that?


That 'bullshit' is called physics.  There are several methods to determine half-life, you don't have to wait 5,000 years to measure it.


----------



## Blues Man

alang1216 said:


> Inuits’ vitamin D intake wasn’t dependent upon the sun. They get all that they need from their diet, heavy on types of fatty fish that are naturally rich in vitamin D.


It isn't just one thing that is responsible for the difference in skin shades among humans.

And as the Smithsonian article explained Europeans were darker skinned for much longer than previously thought.


----------



## Blues Man

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Another reason is that we just have not been around very long.


2 to 3 hundred thousands years isn't a long time when you consider the earth is over 4 billion years old


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> It's way older than 6,000 I have no doubt.
> 
> Not sure what that means?  It gives a range of time before the present that tracks to a specific span of years.


About how old?  Or how young?

Radiometric dating has assumptions that no one can know.  Do you need to know what they are (meaning you don't know radiometric dating)?


----------



## Innocynioc

As I understand it at first there was absolutely nothing.  Then something happened to nothing that caused it to become something.  That something became everything.  I'm hoping that Santa Claus will bring me a book that will explain this in more detail.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> About how old?  Or how young?
> 
> Radiometric dating has assumptions that no one can know.  Do you need to know what they are (meaning you don't know radiometric dating)?


It makes the same assumptions as all sciences make: the physical laws we observe today are the same laws that existed from the beginning.  If your God changed these laws in the past, radiometric dating would be useless.  Fortunately there is no evidence (outside of religions) that this has happened.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Blues Man said:


> 2 to 3 hundred thousands years isn't a long time when you consider the earth is over 4 billion years old


Yep. And what is that...maybe 10,000 generations?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Innocynioc said:


> As I understand it at first there was absolutely nothing.


Wow... Have you published your work on this? Scientists arent sure this was the case...but surely you could convince them with your research.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> About how old?  Or how young?
> 
> Radiometric dating has assumptions that no one can know.  Do you need to know what they are (meaning you don't know radiometric dating)?



 Not surprisingly, you can't identify any of the 'assumptions' you claim. Neither can the charlatans at AIG.


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> That 'bullshit' is called physics.  There are several methods to determine half-life, you don't have to wait 5,000 years to measure it.


The Science of Chemistry....

Let's call out the bullshit using real life examples that you will, as a LibBot, dismiss without a thought...

Medications...
They are the result of *science*!
But they come with 1,000 warnings that will kill you or cause permanent disabilities.
Yep!  *That's* science!
Because the results of Organic Chemistry are *subjective*.

Medical Procedures...
They are the result of *science*!
But you have to sign papers that if you die or suffer permanent disabilities from the Medical Procedure, you can stuff your complaints up your ass.
Yep!  *That's* science!
Because the results of playing with the Organic Chemistry of a living being are *subjective*.

Did you know that there's not one scientist working on a medication who knows why the medications works?
I'm related to one and I know 2 people in town who worked for 40 years each for well known pharmaceutical companies.

Viagra for instance, was intended to help people with low pressure and it was a massive 15 year failure.
Then a subject who took it for low pressure reported that he had the best sex of his life.

Then every other pharmaceutical company paid to use variants and and industry grew from a mistake.

Lipitor...
Pure fucking poison for 100% of people who take it.
It causes arthritis, and MDs, you know, scientists, prescribe it like candy; almost everyone I meet who complains about sudden toe, finger or limb paralysis just started taking Lipitor.
Because, well...science. 

So the next time I hear about the half life of a molecule being thousands of years long I have to laugh my ass off.

Because...*science*!

What is it really called?
An *Agenda*.
Individuals spend millions of not so hard earned money to push an agenda.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Medications...
> They are the result of *science*!
> But they come with 1,000 warnings that will kill you or cause permanent disabilities.
> Yep! *That's* science!
> Because the results of Organic Chemistry are *subjective*


That's the dumbest thing i have ever read. That's as objective as objective gets.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's the dumbest thing i have ever read. That's as objective as objective gets.


That's because you're an idiot with an agenda.
I see you didn't address any of my specific points because you would never have an erection ever again.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> That's because you're an idiot with an agenda.
> I see you didn't address any of my specific points because you would never have an erection ever again.


I sure did. I directly addressed your very stupid and wrong comments about medicine and organic chemistry. The scientific process of analyzing the benefits and side effects of medicine is as objective as objective gets. Modern scientific medicine is one of the top triumphs of the human race. Precisely because of the objectivity of scientific process.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent is just performing iteration number 5 billion of the same, tired religioner exercise:

Unable to elevate his own faith based beliefs above "because I said so", he is trying to drag hard-earned, objective knowledge into the shitty muck where his faith-based belief resides. He wants them to go on the same shelf, but he has no evidence or good argument for his faith based beliefs. So he is left no choice but to prop up garbage like, "science is all subjective", etc. He is just trying to vandalize his neighbor's house, in order to make his own house look better.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I sure did. I directly addressed your very stupid and wrong comments about medicine and organic chemistry. The scientific process of analyzing the benefits and side effects of medicine is as objective as objective gets. Modern scientific medicine is one of the top triumphs of the human race. Precisely because of the objectivity of scientific process.


You're a fucking idiot who obviously doesn't listen to commercials or pay attention to the forms you have to sign before a medical procedure and you obviously have never met a chemist or physicist who actually worked for a drug company, so stuff your idiocy up your ass.

*objective as it gets*
Do you know what a *lethal %* is that prevent a medication or procedure from reaching market?
I bet you don't.
Answer *right now* so we'll all know you know *nothing*.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> You're a fucking idiot who obviously doesn't listen to commercials or pay attention to the forms you have to sign before a medical procedure and you obviously have never met a chemist or physicist who actually worked for a drug company, so stuff your idiocy up your ass.
> 
> *objective as it gets*
> Do you know what a *lethal %* is that prevent a medication or procedure from reaching market?
> I bet you don't.
> Answer *right now* so we'll all know you know *nothing*.


None of that argues the science is objective. What are you smokin', old man?


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> None of that argues the science is objective. What are you smokin', old man?


The definition of *Objective* in the medical world is *>50% of people don't get ill or die*.

And *that* is the real world definition of *Scientific Objective* in the world of how products produced via the science Organic Chemistry get to market.

I know you're too stupid to accept why half of scientific theories are proven within a decade or 2 to be bullshit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> The definition of *Objective* in the medical world is *>50% of people don't get ill or die*.


Hahaha


 what the fuck

Are you having a stroke


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hahaha
> 
> 
> what the fuck
> 
> Are you having a stroke


I took a class given by someone I know who has 4 medical degrees.

You are a waste of bandwidth.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> I took a class given by someone I know who has 4 medical degrees


Aaaand here we go..... Did you also watch a youtube video? Heh heh


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> It makes the same assumptions as all sciences make: the physical laws we observe today are the same laws that existed from the beginning.  If your God changed these laws in the past, radiometric dating would be useless.  Fortunately there is no evidence (outside of religions) that this has happened.


What does God have to do with it?  You didn't know the assumptions of 1) when the rock or meteor formed, 2) there was no contamination, and 3) whether the decay rate was consistent.  It's why you still base in on the age found in 1956.  You don't even know the name of the atheist scientist.  He's long forgotten.  The atheist scientists are comparing laboratory rates today to Earth and space rocks and still making the same assumptions.  This is why they're billions of years wrong.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Not surprisingly, you can't identify any of the 'assumptions' you claim. Neither can the charlatans at AIG.


I just did, so you will get...






trying to understand any type of real science.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> What does God have to do with it?  You didn't know the assumptions of 1) when the rock or meteor formed, 2) there was no contamination, and 3) whether the decay rate was consistent.  It's why you still base in on the age found in 1956.  You don't even know the name of the atheist scientist.  He's long forgotten.  The atheist scientists are comparing laboratory rates today to Earth and space rocks and still making the same assumptions.  This is why they're billions of years wrong.


What a laughable joke. You stole your silly creationer 'assumptions' nonsense directly from the charlatans at AIG.









						Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old?
					

Radiometric dating cannot not prove that the earth is millions or billions of years old. The process lies heavily on three unprovable assumptions.




					answersingenesis.org


----------



## alang1216

Indeependent said:


> The Science of Chemistry....
> 
> Let's call out the bullshit using real life examples that you will, as a LibBot, dismiss without a thought...
> 
> Medications...
> They are the result of *science*!
> But they come with 1,000 warnings that will kill you or cause permanent disabilities.
> Yep!  *That's* science!
> Because the results of Organic Chemistry are *subjective*.


Wrong.  Chemistry, organic or otherwise, is not subjective.  If you mix two chemicals together under the same circumstances, they will *ALWAYS *react exactly the same.  Nothing subjective about it.  What is confusing you is the fact that there is such variation in living being that adverse reactions to medications will happen in a very few individuals.  There are unknowns in science.


----------



## Indeependent

alang1216 said:


> Wrong.  Chemistry, organic or otherwise, is not subjective.  If you mix two chemicals together under the same circumstances, they will *ALWAYS *react exactly the same.  Nothing subjective about it.  What is confusing you is the fact that there is such variation in living being that adverse reactions to medications will happen in a very few individuals.  There are unknowns in science.


La La La La La...
You are comparing chemistry in a vacuum to chemistry in an unstable environment.
Give it up.
We can't even get things to work 100% in 2021 and your ego won't let you see or hear what's right in front of your face.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> What does God have to do with it?  You didn't know the assumptions of 1) when the rock or meteor formed,


That is not assumed, it is the goal of the research.


james bond said:


> 2) there was no contamination, and


It is never assumed there was no contamination of other extraneous factors, but if there is no evidence for any they cannot be considered in the calculations.


james bond said:


> 3) whether the decay rate was consistent.  It's why you still base in on the age found in 1956.  You don't even know the name of the atheist scientist.  He's long forgotten.  The atheist scientists are comparing laboratory rates today to Earth and space rocks and still making the same assumptions.  This is why they're billions of years wrong.


If there is no evidence for and no reason to believe decay rates have changed why would anyone assume they did change

It appears it is you making assumptions in the absence of evidence.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> What a laughable joke. You stole your silly creationer 'assumptions' nonsense directly from the charlatans at AIG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old?
> 
> 
> Radiometric dating cannot not prove that the earth is millions or billions of years old. The process lies heavily on three unprovable assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org


If you could read and understand what they're saying, then you would be on your way to becoming _smarter_.  Anyway, it means MORE pain and suffering for you and realizing how stupid you were in the short time we are here.  No one can understand how long one million years let alone one billion years are.  We do not have anything to judge or compare it with.  Evolution makes it sound like NOTHING, but it isn't.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> You didn't know the assumptions of 1) when the rock or meteor formed


As Alang already mentioned it is the goal of the research.


james bond said:


> 2) there was no contamination


That is why zircon crystals are used in uranium/lead dating. Uranium can exist in the zircon crystal lattice. Lead is strongly rejected. So contamination is very unlikely. The daughter isotope of lead is very specific and not the most abundant in nature. 


james bond said:


> 3) whether the decay rate was consistent.


The decay rate depends on very specific forces and constants in nature. If they were significantly different in the past, then all physics and astronomy would have failed. Galaxies could not exist. What AIG is proposing would ironically undermine our very existence.

.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> That is not assumed, it is the goal of the research.


No, it isn't.  You believe in lies.  The goal of the research is to back evolution or lies backing lies.  The Bible stated as much.



alang1216 said:


> It is never assumed there was no contamination of other extraneous factors, but if there is no evidence for any they cannot be considered in the calculations.


Then, just admit that radiometric dating is wrong.



alang1216 said:


> If there is no evidence for and no reason to believe decay rates have changed why would anyone assume they did change
> 
> It appears it is you making assumptions in the absence of evidence.


Wrong again.  Why don't you check out the radioactive decay of uranium in New Mexico granite?  It gives an age of 1.5 billion years.  The same "uniform" decay also produced abundant helium.  However, only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> As Alang already mentioned it is the goal of the research.
> 
> That is why zircon crystals are used in uranium/lead dating. Uranium can exist in the zircon crystal lattice. Lead is strongly rejected. So contamination is very unlikely. The daughter isotope of lead is very specific and not the most abundant in nature.
> 
> The decay rate depends on very specific forces and constants in nature. If they were significantly different in the past, then all physics and astronomy would have failed. Galaxies could not exist. What AIG is proposing would ironically undermine our very existence.
> 
> .


This is all you have -- _belief in lies_.  I hope you aren't an atheist scientist (an accountant maybe?) because they will _suffer the most_ and immediately.  It is after judgment that you receive your final resting place.

What's interesting is I just learned the atheists and the wicked will see the righteous in a happy state, while they themselves are in torment.  I thought it was the opposite.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> This is all you have -- _belief in lies_. I hope you aren't an atheist scientist (an accountant maybe?) because they will _suffer the most_ and immediately. It is after judgment that you receive your final resting place.


This is a science forum, but all you have is a bible thumping argument. Basic physics is not a lie. Radiological dating is just that: to find a date. Evolution is not a motivation for a scientist in dating the earth. You are confusing the science with YEC where evolution is exactly the issue. 
.


----------



## Indeependent

Wuwei said:


> This is a science forum, but all you have is a bible thumping argument. Basic physics is not a lie. Radiological dating is just that: to find a date. Evolution is not a motivation for a scientist in dating the earth. You are confusing the science with YEC where evolution is exactly the issue.
> .


Basic physics is not a lie.
Basic physics outside the laboratory is a subjective estimation game.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Basic physics is not a lie.
> Basic physics outside the laboratory is a subjective estimation game.


*as said by the iron age faither on his quantum mechanical device


----------



## Wuwei

Indeependent said:


> Basic physics is not a lie.
> Basic physics outside the laboratory is a subjective estimation game.


Basic physics like quantum mechanics and the Standard Model of particles has been verified in the lab to one part per million or trillion. That is definitely not an "estimate". Radiological physics for dating is based on quantum mechanics.

.


----------



## Indeependent

Wuwei said:


> Basic physics like quantum mechanics and the Standard Model of particles has been verified in the lab to one part per million or trillion. That is definitely not an "estimate". Radiological physics for dating is based on quantum mechanics.
> 
> .


That's why medications and medical procedures only need a >50% non-lethal result.


----------



## Wuwei

Indeependent said:


> That's why medications and medical procedures only need a >50% non-lethal result.


That's not relevant to this topic. But where did you get that?

.


----------



## Indeependent

Wuwei said:


> That's not relevant to this topic. But where did you get that?
> 
> .


Carbon Dating is subjective.


----------



## Wuwei

Indeependent said:


> Carbon Dating is subjective.


Again, that is not relevant to the dating of the earth because it is only good to a few tens of thousand years.


----------



## Indeependent

Wuwei said:


> Again, that is not relevant to the dating of the earth because it is only good to a few tens of thousand years.


I suggest you start with the OP.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> If you could read and understand what they're saying, then you would be on your way to becoming _smarter_.  Anyway, it means MORE pain and suffering for you and realizing how stupid you were in the short time we are here.  No one can understand how long one million years let alone one billion years are.  We do not have anything to judge or compare it with.  Evolution makes it sound like NOTHING, but it isn't.


I can read. That is why when reading your comments, it was obvious your comments were nothing more than what you cribbed from a crank, fundie website.   

Why the need to hurl your gods at me?  Do you feel better about yourself using your gods a bloody truncheon?

Understanding the time span of one million years is difficult for you because you are limited to a time span of 6,000 years. I don't have your limitations.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> I suggest you start with the OP.


I suggest you thank him for correcting your idiotic mistake.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> No, it isn't.  You believe in lies.  The goal of the research is to back evolution or lies backing lies.  The Bible stated as much.


Where in the Bible do they talk about radiometric dating?


james bond said:


> Then, just admit that radiometric dating is wrong.


Nope.  Solid physics behind it and independent confirmations.


james bond said:


> Wrong again.  Why don't you check out the radioactive decay of uranium in New Mexico granite?  It gives an age of 1.5 billion years.  The same "uniform" decay also produced abundant helium.  However, only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals.


I checked out the study and there was apparently a serious procedural error in that there is no distinction in the amount of Helium diffused that separates 3Helium from 4Helium. One may wonder why such a detail would matter; after all, Helium is Helium, right? Most of the 3Helium would not have been caused by decay while most-if not all-of the 4Helium would be the result of decay, so to simply state that a certain amount of Helium diffused from the rock would be inaccurately representing the facts.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> This is a science forum, but all you have is a bible thumping argument. Basic physics is not a lie. Radiological dating is just that: to find a date. Evolution is not a motivation for a scientist in dating the earth. You are confusing the science with YEC where evolution is exactly the issue.
> .


Not Bible thumping, but getting creation science FROM the Bible.  I can't help it that you are incapable of doing that because of your belief in the atheism religion.  Many atheists think theirs is the only science.

I don't think you know basic physics.  Radiometric dating is based on false assumptions and they lead one to erroneous results.  It has nothing to do with calendar dates.  Why don't you admit that C14 remains in all of the rocks that we have and dino fossils still have soft tissue?  To the contrary, the creation scientists use radiocarbon dating on organic fossils such as dinosaur ones.

I see you're still hung up on YEC because you thought the Bible discussed the age of the Earth.  You were WRONG!  Evolution and atheism are exactly the issue because they contradicts EVERYTHING in the Bible.  This cannot be a coincidence.  It takes intelligence behind it to do that from the sǐguǐ (devil).


----------



## Indeependent

james bond said:


> Not Bible thumping, but getting creation science FROM the Bible.  I can't help it that you are incapable of doing that because of your belief in the atheism religion.  Many atheists think theirs is the only science.
> 
> I don't think you know basic physics.  Radiometric dating is based on false assumptions and they lead one to erroneous results.  It has nothing to do with calendar dates.  Why don't you admit that C14 remains in all of the rocks that we have and dino fossils still have soft tissue?  To the contrary, the creation scientists use radiocarbon dating on organic fossils such as dinosaur ones.
> 
> I see you're still hung up on YEC because you thought the Bible discussed the age of the Earth.  You were WRONG!  Evolution and atheism are exactly the issue because they contradicts EVERYTHING in the Bible.  This cannot be a coincidence.  It takes intelligence behind it to do that from the sǐguǐ (devil).


I just can't stand that atheists think everything in the universe is actually happening in a lab under perfect conditions.
WTF is wrong with these people.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Where in the Bible do they talk about radiometric dating?


The Bible doesn't talk about what Satan says, but what God stated in regards to creation taking six days in Genesis.  The separation of light and darkness lead to spacetime starting and the EMS being created.  The Bible discusses about changing the truth for a lie and this has to do with what happened in the 1800s with evolution and it's beliefs.



alang1216 said:


> Nope. Solid physics behind it and independent confirmations.


That's not even true.  I think condensed physics has to do with C14 dating only.  The long time dating has problems --* More Bad News for Radiometric Dating. * Thus, you have been trapped by your lies.



alang1216 said:


> I checked out the study and there was apparently a serious procedural error in that there is no distinction in the amount of Helium diffused that separates 3Helium from 4Helium. One may wonder why such a detail would matter; after all, Helium is Helium, right? Most of the 3Helium would not have been caused by decay while most-if not all-of the 4Helium would be the result of decay, so to simply state that a certain amount of Helium diffused from the rock would be inaccurately representing the facts.


You should have found the decay of uranium to helium in the NM granite was not constant from the past to now.

Anyway, your link doesn't work -- https://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/helium.html.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Not Bible thumping, but getting creation science FROM the Bible. I can't help it that you are incapable of doing that because of your belief in the atheism religion. Many atheists think theirs is the only science.


No science in the bible. Just allegory.


james bond said:


> Radiometric dating is based on false assumptions and they lead one to erroneous results. It has nothing to do with calendar dates. Why don't you admit that C14 remains in all of the rocks


You have not named any false assumptions. The AIG errors were shot down by many people many times. C14 may seem to be in rocks because of contamination by exposure to air, and the noise floor of the measuring instruments.


james bond said:


> You were WRONG! Evolution and atheism are exactly the issue because they contradicts EVERYTHING in the Bible.


The bible is not an issue for a scientist. It's just an allegory.

.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> The Bible doesn't talk about what Satan says, but what God stated in regards to creation taking six days in Genesis.  The separation of light and darkness lead to spacetime starting and the EMS being created.  The Bible discusses about changing the truth for a lie and this has to do with what happened in the 1800s with evolution and it's beliefs.


Easy to call something the 'truth' or a 'lie' when you don't have to prove either.  Your book just tells you so.



james bond said:


> That's not even true.  I think condensed physics has to do with C14 dating only.  The long time dating has problems --* More Bad News for Radiometric Dating. * Thus, you have been trapped by your lies


Sorry but I don't buy creationist clocks and I'm not the only one.



james bond said:


> You should have found the decay of uranium to helium in the NM granite was not constant from the past to now.
> 
> Anyway, your link doesn't work -- https://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/helium.html.


Sorry, it is http, not https:
The Age of the Earth - Helium Diffusion as a Creationist Clock: Michael Ward


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> No science in the bible. Just allegory.
> 
> You have not named any false assumptions. The AIG errors were shot down by many people many times. C14 may seem to be in rocks because of contamination by exposure to air, and the noise floor of the measuring instruments.
> 
> The bible is not an issue for a scientist. It's just an allegory.
> 
> .


I've said it many times and provided the evidence.  Science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book.  However, your atheism won't let you believe it since the ancient Greeks and later the Darwin days.  You should look up Balaam’s ass.  

The long time evolved into radiometric dating in 1956 and creationists responded by giving evidence for a young Earth.  It was the atheists who needed billions of years old universe and Earth which you were tricked into believing the opposite.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Easy to call something the 'truth' or a 'lie' when you don't have to prove either. Your book just tells you so.


Our faith and the Bible guides us, but we find out the truth for ourselves.  However, the atheists don't do that.  They just follow what the ancient Greeks, Darwin's buddies, Darwin, atheist scientists and whatever tells them.

As for your links, they do not work.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> The long time evolved into radiometric dating in 1956 and creationists responded by giving evidence for a young Earth. It was the atheists who needed billions of years old universe and Earth which you were tricked into believing the opposite.


1956? You are living in the past. Todays physicists are simply not interested in YEC and are not "tricked" by the well established results of radiology. The ancient stars and galaxies also show billions of years of existence in the universe. 
.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> 1956? You are living in the past. Todays physicists are simply not interested in YEC and are not "tricked" by the well established results of radiology. The ancient stars and galaxies also show billions of years of existence in the universe.
> .


Your reply just goes to show how hung up you are with creation scientists replying to OE evolutionists with YEC.  It's your side who uses radiometric dating from 1956.  Do I need to provide the link so you'll be embarrassed in front of all these people?  You don't know anything about what atheist scientists believe which is typical of the atheists who post here.  What a joke !

From wikipedia:
"An age of 4.55 ± 0.07 billion years, very close to today's accepted age, was determined by Clair Cameron Patterson using uranium–lead isotope dating (specifically lead–lead dating) on several meteorites including the Canyon Diablo meteorite and published in 1956."


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Your reply just goes to show how hung up you are with creation scientists replying to OE evolutionists with YEC.  It's your side who uses radiometric dating from 1956.  Do I need to provide the link so you'll be embarrassed in front of all these people?  You don't know anything about what atheist scientists believe which is typical of the atheists who post here.  What a joke !
> 
> From wikipedia:
> "An age of 4.55 ± 0.07 billion years, very close to today's accepted age, was determined by Clair Cameron Patterson using uranium–lead isotope dating (specifically lead–lead dating) on several meteorites including the Canyon Diablo meteorite and published in 1956."


 ID'iot creationers get their science information from wiki and AIG, because it relieves them of any requirement to be accurate and correct.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Your reply just goes to show how hung up you are with creation scientists replying to OE evolutionists with YEC.  It's your side who uses radiometric dating from 1956.  Do I need to provide the link so you'll be embarrassed in front of all these people?  You don't know anything about what atheist scientists believe which is typical of the atheists who post here.  What a joke !
> 
> From wikipedia:
> "An age of 4.55 ± 0.07 billion years, very close to today's accepted age, was determined by Clair Cameron Patterson using uranium–lead isotope dating (specifically lead–lead dating) on several meteorites including the Canyon Diablo meteorite and published in 1956."


My response was a sort of "so what?" post. I have no idea why you think I should be embarrassed. That should embarrass you and all YECs. I have seen that site over a ago. Yes, Patterson was first and should be lauded for his work. The phrase "_very close to today's accepted age_" refers to the fact that the dating was repeated many times using different radiological methods on different substances. You have mentioned Patterson many times I don't understand why you are so obsessed with that early 1956 work. Everyone who has had some education is aware that the earth is around 4 and a half billion years old.
Again. So what about Patterson?
.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> ID'iot creationers get their science information from wiki and AIG, because it relieves them of any requirement to be accurate and correct.


Which means you and the atheists lose as you all believe in lies.  I even found the name of the forgotten guy (he'll be soon forgotten tomorrow).

AIG tells the truth and provides creation science which annoys you to no end, i.e. forever.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> My response was a sort of "so what?" post. I have no idea why you think I should be embarrassed. That should embarrass you and all YECs. I have seen that site over a ago. Yes, Patterson was first and should be lauded for his work. The phrase "_very close to today's accepted age_" refers to the fact that the dating was repeated many times using different radiological methods on different substances. You have mentioned Patterson many times I don't understand why you are so obsessed with that early 1956 work. Everyone who has had some education is aware that the earth is around 4 and a half billion years old.
> Again. So what about Patterson?
> .


I'm not the one obsessed with an "old" Earth.  It's you.  For punishment, you'll prolly get to see what happens to an Earth that becomes so old in the afterlife.  It could explode, become unlivable, or worse.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> I'm not the one obsessed with an "old" Earth.  It's you.  For punishment, you'll prolly get to see what happens to an Earth that becomes so old in the afterlife.  It could explode, become unlivable, or worse.


Bible thumper, again why are you so obsessed with Patterson? You keep bringing him up.
.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> I just can't stand that atheists think everything in the universe is actually happening in a lab under perfect conditions.


As if that has any effect on the half life of isotopes. Face it, you just don't know what you are talking about. You never have. You know nothing about physics, radiometric dating, radiation, chemistry, or anything science-related at all. So you sit there and cackle and point at all the "nerds", because they make you feel stupid.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Our faith and the Bible guides us, but we find out the truth for ourselves.  However, the atheists don't do that.  They just follow what the ancient Greeks, Darwin's buddies, Darwin, atheist scientists and whatever tells them.


Can you name one truth you found out for yourself?


james bond said:


> As for your links, they do not work.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Which means you and the atheists lose as you all believe in lies.  I even found the name of the forgotten guy (he'll be soon forgotten tomorrow).
> 
> AIG tells the truth and provides creation science which annoys you to no end, i.e. forever.


Your frantic tirades are really disturbing. 

AIG announces in their 'statement of faith' that facts and the truth are secondary to their fundamentalist agenda. They provide no science, they promote dogma. 

You found the name of 'the forgotten guy'. Fascinating. What about the 'forgotten guy' is your conspiracy theory all about?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I'm not the one obsessed with an "old" Earth.  It's you.  For punishment, you'll prolly get to see what happens to an Earth that becomes so old in the afterlife.  It could explode, become unlivable, or worse.


You have a lot in common with Marshall Applewhite.


----------



## Indeependent

*physics, radiometric dating, radiation, chemistry*

It's amazing how every atheist is an expert at *all these fields*.
Yes, the world of YouTube contains very old videos of obnoxious scientists who insist that they know all of these scientific realms and anyone who disagrees with them is an asshole.
Then I get to watch the cartoons they present containing very a old, very debunked series of discovered fossils.
Did you you that tyrannosaurus rex walked on 2 legs?
That's right, it *didn't*.
For over 100 years archeologists were jerking off over themselves having proved that man evolved from dinosaurs because tyrannosaurus rex wore a tuxedo, until, I think about 10 years ago, they realized they didn't know what the fuck they were talking about.

On the other hand, I probably come from the most scientifically educated population on earth which has produced an outrageous percentage of Nobel Prize Winners, not to mention medical professionals that people from all over the world come to when all else has failed.
But because I'm not convinced that evolution is anything more than contrived bullshit, I am an uneducated Neanderthal.

What's comforting, though, is that fact that people who believe in evolution are, thanks to videos, demonstrably the rudest mother fuckers in the universe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> It's amazing how every atheist is an expert at *all these fields*.


It would seem that way to someone who knows less than nothing about any of it. But really we just read and learn about it from credible sources. Stop getting your science from people mentally handicapped by childish religious belief and join us in the endeavor.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It would seem that way to someone who knows less than nothing about any of it. But really we just read and learn about it from credible sources. Stop getting your science from people mentally handicapped by childish religious belief and join us in the endeavor.


*we just read and learn about it from credible sources*

You absorb what is pleasing to your ego.
I see credible sources being crushed in YouTube videos because credible sources don't post what others point out to them that makes them not credible.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> You absorb what is pleasing to your ego.


Yet I have college degrees and you would fail a 6th grade science quiz. Must be a conspiracy. Just a big conspiracy across every field of science, all to get one over on the iron aged faithers.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yet I have college degrees and you would fail a 6th grade science quiz. Must be a conspiracy. Just a big conspiracy across every field of science, all to get one over on the iron aged faithers.


I’m sure you have several hard science degrees since you have until now refused to be explicit concerning your credentials.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Indeependent said:


> I’m sure you have several hard science degrees since you have until now refused to be explicit concerning your credentials.



My dear Indeependent, Lord Acton had fantastic credentials as a university professor and president of the Royal Society, the oldest science organization there is.  He proclaimed in 1895 "Heavier than air flight is impossible."  Not a decade later, two bicycle mechanics who never graduated from high school...... flew in the heavier than air airplane that they brilliantly designed and built by themselves.  So credentials are quite meaningless, as is intellect.  I give you the Unabomber.  I have compiled dozens of quotes from credentialed experts but Lord Acton's is the most compelling refutation of credentialism.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> My dear Indeependent, Lord Acton had fantastic credentials as a university professor and president of the Royal Society, the oldest science organization there is.  He proclaimed in 1895 "Heavier than air flight is impossible."  Not a decade later, two bicycle mechanics who never graduated from high school...... flew in the heavier than air airplane that they brilliantly designed and built by themselves.  So credentials are quite meaningless, as is intellect.  I give you the Unabomber.  I have compiled dozens of quotes from credentialed experts but Lord Acton's is the most compelling refutation of credentialism.


Quite an interesting comment as it is standard practice for religioners to cut and paste "quotes" from so-called credentialed creationers as they hope to vilify science.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Quite an interesting comment as it is standard practice for religioners to cut and paste "quotes" from so-called credentialed creationers as they hope to vilify science.


The pursuit of excellence has created incredible inventions but often take lots of mistakes to get to.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> The pursuit of excellence has created incredible inventions but often take lots of mistakes to get to.


Expecting objective analysis from those who adhere to a statement of faith which predefines conclusions will ignore mistakes.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Expecting objective analysis from those who adhere to a statement of faith which predefines conclusions will ignore mistakes.


Because I don’t put my entire faith in non-observable, non-provable claims?
You have that faith.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Because I don’t put my entire faith in non-observable, non-provable claims?
> You have that faith.


Non-observable, non-provable claims like magic and supernaturalism?

What part of the natural world is governed by non-observable, non-provable gods, demons, djinn, fairies, etc.? 

What part of the natural world is not observable or provable (demonstrable)?


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Non-observable, non-provable claims like magic and supernaturalism?
> 
> What part of the natural world is governed by non-observable, non-provable gods, demons, djinn, fairies, etc.?
> 
> What part of the natural world is not observable or provable (demonstrable)?


I’m not pushing religion, I’m casting doubts on carbon dating.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Marshall Applewhite


I'm closer to JB.  You remind me of Luce Irigaray who was against the speed of light among other wacky feminist ideas:

"French feminist Luce Irigaray calls “E=mc2“ a “sexed equation.” She claims that it is sexist because “privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us.” Irigaray thinks its sexist for the formula to “privilege that which goes faster.”

Irigaray believes that all of physics is sexist. She sees a massive male conspiracy in physics that has made fluid mechanics, which she associates with the feminine, less developed than solid mechanics. She thinks male physicists are deliberately not studying fluid mechanics because men’s bodies don’t have a particular fluid in them: menstrual fluid.

Since 1964, she has been employed as a researcher at the French National Centre for Scientific Research and is currently France’s director of research in philosophy."

Or...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> I’m not pushing religion, I’m casting doubts on carbon dating.


Hahahahaha

No son, you aren't. You are basically just failing the class. You are not presenting any actual challenge to carbon dating any more than a dog could challenge calculus. The slow kid in the back row who cant grasp the material isn't "casting doubt". He is just failing the class.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hahahahaha
> 
> No son, you aren't. You are basically just failing the class. You are not presenting any actual challenge to carbon dating any more than a dog could challenge calculus. The slow kid in the back row who cant grasp the material isn't "casting doubt". He is just failing the class.


I didn’t cast doubt on carbon dating, moron, the videos on YouTube did that.
You think you are coming off as intelligent by throwing ad hominems at me and by ignoring the YouTube explanations of why it’s flawed.
It’s not such a big deal because almost everyone here knows you’re a frustrated, non-credentialed “scientist”.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> I didn’t cast doubt on carbon dating, moron, the videos on YouTube did that.


Then use your big boy words and say that the first time.

And this is even dumber. No, youtube videos you never watched and would not understand anyway are not casting doubt on carbon dating. This is science, not America's Got Talent. How hilariously dumb of you.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Then use your big boy words and say that the first time.
> 
> And this is even dumber. No, youtube videos you never watched and would not understand anyway are not casting doubt on carbon dating. This is science, not America's Got Talent. How hilariously dumb of you.


Did I hurt your feelings?
Either post Links to the YouTube videos you watched or eat shit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Did I hurt your feelings?
> Either post Links to the YouTube videos you watched or eat shit.


I didn't watch any videos. And neither did you. You know less than nothing about any of this.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> I’m not pushing religion, I’m casting doubts on carbon dating.


I understand why you want to push doubt.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> I understand why you want to push doubt.


No, you don't.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I'm closer to JB.  You remind me of Luce Irigaray who was against the speed of light among other wacky feminist ideas:
> 
> "French feminist Luce Irigaray calls “E=mc2“ a “sexed equation.” She claims that it is sexist because “privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us.” Irigaray thinks its sexist for the formula to “privilege that which goes faster.”
> 
> Irigaray believes that all of physics is sexist. She sees a massive male conspiracy in physics that has made fluid mechanics, which she associates with the feminine, less developed than solid mechanics. She thinks male physicists are deliberately not studying fluid mechanics because men’s bodies don’t have a particular fluid in them: menstrual fluid.
> 
> Since 1964, she has been employed as a researcher at the French National Centre for Scientific Research and is currently France’s director of research in philosophy."
> 
> Or...


You seem to share the conspiracy theories.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> No, you don't.


Of course I do.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I didn't watch any videos. And neither did you. You know less than nothing about any of this.


I think we all want to know your science credentials.

You see, I can watch a 15 minute lecture on algebra, geometry, calculus, biology and chemistry and get the gist.
Carbon Dating...not so much as it's all agenda driven.

I think we all want to know your science credentials.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Of course I do.


I have nothing against evolution in and of itself.
There's just no evidence.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> I have nothing against evolution in and of itself.
> There's just no evidence.


Except for the overwhelming evidence.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Except for the overwhelming evidence.


Carbon dating is falling *out* of favor.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Carbon dating is falling *out* of favor.


"... because I say so''.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> "... because I say so''.


It's obvious you don't watch videos or talk to people; a big problem with atheists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> It's obvious you don't watch videos or talk to people; a big problem with atheists.


Hahahaha

"Watch videos or talk to people"


So embarrassingly dumb


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> It's obvious you don't watch videos or talk to people; a big problem with atheists.



I don't watch the videos you watch or talk to the people you talk to. 

The planet is not 6,000 years old no matter what videos you watch or who you talk to.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hahahaha
> 
> "Watch videos or talk to people"
> 
> 
> So embarrassingly dumb



As opposed to listen blindly to FFI.
An hour and that's the best you can come up with.

Once again...your science credentials.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> As opposed to listen blindly to FFI.


Silly delusion. I would never demand you take my word for anything. But your dumb ass doesn't believe the experts either. So this is meaningless, self soothing pap on your part. Doing your little dance.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Silly delusion. I would never demand you take my word for anything. But your dumb ass doesn't believe the experts either. So this is meaningless, self soothing pap on your part. Doing your little dance.


Which experts, moron?
The experts that *you* agree with.
A number dwindling with the years.

Please give me 3 experts of which you approve.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I don't watch the videos you watch or talk to the people you talk to.
> 
> The planet is not 6,000 years old no matter what videos you watch or who you talk to.


How can you be so sure when we find C14 still remaining in dinosaur fossils?

And where's that Chinese man Wuwei to toss in his 2 yen about radiometric dating and how old the universe and Earth is?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> How can you be so sure when we find C14 still remaining in dinosaur fossils?
> 
> And where's that Chinese man Wuwei to toss in his 2 yen about radiometric dating and how old the universe and Earth is?


Who finds C14 remaining in dinosaur fossils? Are these the same dinosaurs that were on Noah's pleasure cruise?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Which experts, moron?


All of them. Every single one. All of the research. All of the evidence. All of it. Not that you know what any of them or it says, as you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Not sure I can be any more clear with you.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> All of them. Every single one. All of the research. All of the evidence. All of it. Not that you know what any of them or it says, as you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Not sure I can be any more clear with you.


That bullshit only took 24 hours.
I see you looked up some names and you didn't truly understand what they were saying so you fell back upon your usual ad hominem.
This will be my last reply.
As you can tell by the dwindling number of people who respond to you, you are probably one of the most ignored users here, and deservedly so.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> This will be my last reply.


Good. That's what you need to do: shut right up, because you have verbal diarrhea about something you clearly know nothing about.


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox

K9Buck said:


> What ya got?


Set is not boom. 
Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, King James Version." Racers would be blown apart had people say boom, instead of on your mark, get "set." There would be no "go."​


----------



## Stann

Iamartiewhitefox said:


> Set is not boom.
> Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, King James Version." Racers would be blown apart had people say boom, instead of on your mark, get "set." There would be no "go."​


This version was appropriate for primitive peoples. Our understanding has grown immensely since then; even now there are gaps in our knowledge. Scientists know " the Big Bang " occurred, but they do not know why, or what was before that. My firm belief is that there existed a parallel universe of light and energy, void of physical forms. Some would call that " Heaven ". The problem there lies within. Heaven may be bliss, but without physical forms, without time, that's all there is and after a while it gets very boring. Change and growth is why the physical universe was created. You can say " God " created the universe, but that would cheapen/ lessen the nature of the entity that did create the Universe. A being beyond human comprehension. The plan is far from complete, and yes " humans " do play a role. Not subservient but equals in the future, the ultimate plans cannot be completed without humans. So they are integral to the process. Until then we should follow the wisdom of Jesus and embark on a mission of peace and love for all of mankind, no personal exceptions allowed. Happy Halloween ! Have a good night, I've had a great one so far.


----------



## abu afak

Stann said:


> This version was appropriate for primitive peoples. Our understanding has grown immensely since then; even now there are gaps in our knowledge. Scientists know " the Big Bang " occurred, but they do not know why, or what was before that. My firm belief is that there existed a parallel universe of light and energy, void of physical forms. Some would call that " Heaven ". The problem there lies within. Heaven may be bliss, but without physical forms, without time, that's all there is and after a while it gets very boring. Change and growth is why the physical universe was created. You can say " God " created the universe, but that would cheapen/ lessen the nature of the entity that did create the Universe. A being beyond human comprehension. The plan is far from complete, and yes " humans " do play a role. Not subservient but equals in the future, the ultimate plans cannot be completed without humans. So they are integral to the process. Until then we should follow the wisdom of Jesus and embark on a mission of peace and love for all of mankind, no personal exceptions allowed. Happy Halloween ! Have a good night, I've had a great one so far.


Your "Firm beliefs" (along with "the Wisdom of Jesus") belong in the religion section.
Evidentiary ones in the Science section.
**** off.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Stann said:


> This version was appropriate for primitive peoples.


What version would NOT have been? These were a primitive, abjectly ignorant, superstitious people.

You could have told them god used rainbow unicorns to shart the Earth into existence, and they would have believed it.


----------



## Stann

abu afak said:


> Your "Firm beliefs" (along with "the Wisdom of Jesus") belong in the religion section.
> Evidentiary ones in the Science section.
> **** off.
> `


I fit in neither category, just as religion and science don't seem to fit the present. That will all change soon enough. As for you, I don't think you're going to get any treats tonight. Your attitude is deplorable. But if you think Trump is a fine,  outstanding person; then I guess you could delude yourself also. Hope that's enough to make you feel better.


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox

Stann said:


> This version was appropriate for primitive peoples. Our understanding has grown immensely since then; even now there are gaps in our knowledge. Scientists know " the Big Bang " occurred, but they do not know why, or what was before that. My firm belief is that there existed a parallel universe of light and energy, void of physical forms. Some would call that " Heaven ". The problem there lies within. Heaven may be bliss, but without physical forms, without time, that's all there is and after a while it gets very boring. Change and growth is why the physical universe was created. You can say " God " created the universe, but that would cheapen/ lessen the nature of the entity that did create the Universe. A being beyond human comprehension. The plan is far from complete, and yes " humans " do play a role. Not subservient but equals in the future, the ultimate plans cannot be completed without humans. So they are integral to the process. Until then we should follow the wisdom of Jesus and embark on a mission of peace and love for all of mankind, no personal exceptions allowed. Happy Halloween ! Have a good night, I've had a great one so far.


Thank you for your kind peacful words. Heaven is in you. Happy Halloween to you too, dear friend.
The church hopes and skips all around Genisis 1:17.  The church is a den of theives posing as being godly, raking in cash, not giving a damn about people. Our power is boom.  It would be a big bang had the Bible come from mans mind. The being who did what is seen, wants to stand on the earth fooling people into thinking that being is God. Muslims have been bowing to that unseen being for over1400 years. Jesus is heaven in our mind. That is nessissary to survive when he is seen,. That is nessissary before the body dies. Heaven that is seen is beyond our mind to comprehend. The saved will have bodies like unto Christs glorious body. Jesus is a male. We will still have our parts. The saved will judge angels.


----------



## abu afak

Stann said:


> I fit in neither category, just as religion and science don't seem to fit the present. That will all change soon enough. As for you, I don't think you're going to get any treats tonight. Your attitude is deplorable. But if you think Trump is a fine,  outstanding person; then I guess you could delude yourself also. Hope that's enough to make you feel better.


I hate the criminal sociopath Trump.
Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians support him.
Hmm.
`


----------

