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

[InDoctriNation]

So much for the B.S. you are spewing.

Astronomers discover 90 per cent more universe | Mail Online

How does this refute anything I've been saying?

Oh they found 90% of the universe.

How can they determine the age of the universe if it had no beginning ?

What caused the big bang ?

Why is the universe expanding and speeding up not decreasing in speed ?

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

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

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

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

 

[Youwerecreated]

By pond scum do you mean plant life in the ocean?

Can we avoid the 2nd grade terminology?

Well when you talking with second graders you got to use words they can understand
If life began as science would lead us to believe why haven't we seen life created like that anymore? Pond scum coming up and creating human life. Why can't science recreate the same effect?

No I don't understand what "pond scum" is scientically. To me that sounds like an ignorant science denier trying to mock science.

You keep using a strawman, and I see you'll never grow up enough to stop using them. Pond scum never became human.

Sea plants (which I'm guessing is what you mean by your childish term pond scum) evolved and branched out onto land becoming land plants.

Imagine only rock and water how would life begin in a natural means ?

Where did cells come from ?

Where did bacteria come from ?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

By pond scum do you mean plant life in the ocean?

Can we avoid the 2nd grade terminology?

Well when you talking with second graders you got to use words they can understand
If life began as science would lead us to believe why haven't we seen life created like that anymore? Pond scum coming up and creating human life. Why can't science recreate the same effect?

No I don't understand what "pond scum" is scientically. To me that sounds like an ignorant science denier trying to mock science.

You keep using a strawman, and I see you'll never grow up enough to stop using them. Pond scum never became human.

Sea plants (which I'm guessing is what you mean by your childish term pond scum) evolved and branched out onto land becoming land plants.

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

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

 

[Sky Dancer]

Littlereb--

You seem possessed. Contact the New Apostolic Reformation immediately. They can exorcise your demons.

Whats wrong dick slapper? can't answer the question?

I won't slap your dick no matter how little it is. You seem to be doing it well enough on your own. How about a decent post instead of this verbal masturbation?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Littlereb--

You seem possessed. Contact the New Apostolic Reformation immediately. They can exorcise your demons.

Whats wrong dick slapper? can't answer the question?

I won't slap your dick no matter how little it is.

Baby you would be surprised.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How does this refute anything I've been saying?

Oh they found 90% of the universe.

How can they determine the age of the universe if it had no beginning ?

What caused the big bang ?

Why is the universe expanding and speeding up not decreasing in speed ?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[InDoctriNation]

It was sarcasm but he was angrered by the discovery because he knew it presented a lot of problems for evolution and the origins of life. Which is a thing they have no answer for.

Do you really believe all scientist believe life came from non-life ? That is exactly why so many scientist believe in a creator.

No, I don't believe all scientists believe that life came from non-life. I believe that most scientists believe that life has arisen over time on this planet from natural processes. For whatever reason, it seems you creationists have an obsession with categorizing things into neat little distinct groups, like life and non-life. As I stated earlier in this thread, I think reality is quite a bit more nuanced then you would like to admit.

Explain these natural processes ? that is an answer almost like there maybe life out there with no data to support the view.

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

 

[Youwerecreated]

In an ignorance contest around this place you would place first or near it.

My degree say's otherwise you are out of your league.

I have three children and two of them have masters degrees. The one who only has an associate degree is a GS16 project director for the DOE with 30 years service. I have eight grandchildren and without exception two or three times a year one or more of them comes to me for advice. I don't have to tell you what I think about your degree.

There are people with degrees who have used up their unemployment compensation...thanks to George W. Bush and the rough riders, Bernanke and Paulson.

Well what does this have to do with our discussion ? I have 8 children, three have their masters in psychology. One has a dergree in molecular biology following me. Three still in college not sure what they want to be and one in high school.

My degree is in molecular biology from the University of Arizona.

Sir, the only reason i am not working at the moment is because of a stroke i suffered.Obama had nothing to do with it.

What are your credentials ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, I don't believe all scientists believe that life came from non-life. I believe that most scientists believe that life has arisen over time on this planet from natural processes. For whatever reason, it seems you creationists have an obsession with categorizing things into neat little distinct groups, like life and non-life. As I stated earlier in this thread, I think reality is quite a bit more nuanced then you would like to admit.

Explain these natural processes ? that is an answer almost like there maybe life out there with no data to support the view.

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

I'm wasting my time have a nice day.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well when you talking with second graders you got to use words they can understand
If life began as science would lead us to believe why haven't we seen life created like that anymore? Pond scum coming up and creating human life. Why can't science recreate the same effect?

No I don't understand what "pond scum" is scientically. To me that sounds like an ignorant science denier trying to mock science.

You keep using a strawman, and I see you'll never grow up enough to stop using them. Pond scum never became human.

Sea plants (which I'm guessing is what you mean by your childish term pond scum) evolved and branched out onto land becoming land plants.

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

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

Still waiting

 

[InDoctriNation]

Oh they found 90% of the universe.

How can they determine the age of the universe if it had no beginning ?

What caused the big bang ?

Why is the universe expanding and speeding up not decreasing in speed ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[InDoctriNation]

Explain these natural processes ? that is an answer almost like there maybe life out there with no data to support the view.

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

I'm wasting my time have a nice day.

That makes 2 of us then.

 

[InDoctriNation]

No I don't understand what "pond scum" is scientically. To me that sounds like an ignorant science denier trying to mock science.

You keep using a strawman, and I see you'll never grow up enough to stop using them. Pond scum never became human.

Sea plants (which I'm guessing is what you mean by your childish term pond scum) evolved and branched out onto land becoming land plants.

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

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

Still waiting

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

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

Still waiting

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

You keep repeating strawman ever since I asked you

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

Here is what a strawman is

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


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

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

I will await your timely response

 

[InDoctriNation]

Still waiting

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

You keep repeating strawman ever since I asked you

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

Here is what a strawman is

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


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

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

I will await your timely response

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

You keep repeating strawman ever since I asked you




Here is what a strawman is

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


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

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

I will await your timely response

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

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

 

[JScott]

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

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

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

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

There is no hell.

 

[InDoctriNation]

You keep repeating strawman ever since I asked you




Here is what a strawman is



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

I will await your timely response

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Position A is my position you got it all assbackwards. Try again

Your only reply since I have ask that set of questions is strawman you must present an argument and make your argument stick for my position to ba a strawman. Got it?

 

[InDoctriNation]

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

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

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

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

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

Position A is my position you got it all assbackwards. Try again

Your only reply since I have ask that set of questions is strawman you must present an argument and make your argument stick for my position to ba a strawman. Got it?

But you haven't even presented a position. My analysis remains correct, you are just having a very difficult time thinking today.