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

[Dr.Drock]

I have asked the same question about 100 times sometimes in a different way. It's still the same question that you and your other three buddy's do not answer.

I'm simply asking you to cut and paste the specific question again or re-type it.

Thank you

Here's how you answered it the last time I asked

If I had so much faith in something as you do I could answer the question.


The set of questions is your basic yes or no question
The begining of human life would have a yes or no answer for the question. If life came from nothing Science should be able to be reproduced life from nothing. Yes or No

Surely human life can be reproduced without a human sperm cell and a human egg, if it happened once before it can happen again.

Science is working on reproducing life, and when they do you'll just move the goal posts anyways. We both know that.

Just because science can't recreate something doesn't mean it didn't happen, can science recreate the planet Earth? Since science can't, does Earth not exist?

Well it was a straw man, no scientist says life came from nothing.

But I'll humor you if you humor me, why "should" science be able to recreate everything that happens in nature?

Can scientists recreate the Himalayas?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Please re-ask it I'm not sure which one it was. But you did avoid my question, science's inability to recreate something doesn't mean you just assume it's done by the supernatural. That's not how science works.

I've seen a lot of straw man questions from you in this thread though.

tHATS WHAT i AM TALKING ABOUT YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION GO BACK THROUGH THIS HOW THREAD AND YOU WILL SEE THAT i HAVE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

Is the question you want answered where life came from?
Will you accept 'I don't know' as an answer, or do we for some reason have to have a firm belief about it?

Is the question should science be able to recreate life arising from non-life? The answer to that is no. There's no reason to assume science can replicate every event that has occurred in the universe or even just on this planet.

You haven't been paying attention here's the question one more time and this post goes out to anyone elese who will ask me to repeat the question or take it out of context to the way I ask it. I will not repeat it again.

The begining of human life would have a yes or no answer for the question. If life came from nothing Science should be able to be reproduced life from nothing. Yes or No

You must have a human sperm cell and a human egg to create human life. Yes or No

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'm posting a partial review of the presentation now. I haven't had time lately to finish it but I will at some point.

You have missed a very important part of the video that is irrefutable.

Your side say's strata was laid dowm over millions of years these are the two problems. Mind you I did take a trip in the Grand Canyon with many others with varying degrees in science.

We saw exactly what the gentlemen in the video described,layers of strata laying nicely on top of each other. They had flat surfaces with no signs of errosion,but the top layer of strata had plenty of errosion. Each layer of strata was solid rock.

How did one layer of strata get into the layer of strata above it ?

Why is it that none of the lower layers of strata show any errosion except on the outward wall that was exposed ?

"My side?"

You mean the side all scientists are on? The same side that allows you to type here, and lays the foundation for the future of humanity?

That "side?"

I'm not sure where you get your information on erosion but I have conveniently linked the solution to your "irrefutable" hypothesis.

It sounds like he's denying the theory of plate tectonics.

I'm getting the feeling that he thinks all science is the tool of the devil, and he was put on this earth to fight his god's battle against it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm simply asking you to cut and paste the specific question again or re-type it.

Thank you

Here's how you answered it the last time I asked

Science is working on reproducing life, and when they do you'll just move the goal posts anyways. We both know that.

Just because science can't recreate something doesn't mean it didn't happen, can science recreate the planet Earth? Since science can't, does Earth not exist?

Well it was a straw man, no scientist says life came from nothing.

But I'll humor you if you humor me, why "should" science be able to recreate everything that happens in nature?

Can scientists recreate the Himalayas?

No you started off with "Science is working on reproducing life" my reply was if science produces life it will become a creator. Thanks for playing.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Here's how you answered it the last time I asked

Well it was a straw man, no scientist says life came from nothing.

But I'll humor you if you humor me, why "should" science be able to recreate everything that happens in nature?

Can scientists recreate the Himalayas?

No you started off with "Science is working on reproducing life" my reply was if science produces life it will become a creator. Thanks for playing.

Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life | Wired Science | Wired.com

Scientist: 'We didn't create life from scratch' - CNN

Some call this creating life, some don't, but it's far closer than science had been before.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well it was a straw man, no scientist says life came from nothing.

But I'll humor you if you humor me, why "should" science be able to recreate everything that happens in nature?

Can scientists recreate the Himalayas?

No you started off with "Science is working on reproducing life" my reply was if science produces life it will become a creator. Thanks for playing.

Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life | Wired Science | Wired.com

Scientist: 'We didn't create life from scratch' - CNN

Some call this creating life, some don't, but it's far closer than science had been before.

It's still creating life
Parents a mother and father are creators.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No you started off with "Science is working on reproducing life" my reply was if science produces life it will become a creator. Thanks for playing.

Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life | Wired Science | Wired.com

Scientist: 'We didn't create life from scratch' - CNN

Some call this creating life, some don't, but it's far closer than science had been before.

It's still creating life
Parents a mother and father are creators.

I'm talking about creating life from non-life. That's what is in the works.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I thought when you were saying creator you were referring to a god.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life | Wired Science | Wired.com

Scientist: 'We didn't create life from scratch' - CNN

Some call this creating life, some don't, but it's far closer than science had been before.

It's still creating life
Parents a mother and father are creators.

I'm talking about creating life from non-life. That's what is in the works.

You can't create life from non life it's not possible

 

[Montrovant]

tHATS WHAT i AM TALKING ABOUT YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION GO BACK THROUGH THIS HOW THREAD AND YOU WILL SEE THAT i HAVE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

Is the question you want answered where life came from?
Will you accept 'I don't know' as an answer, or do we for some reason have to have a firm belief about it?

Is the question should science be able to recreate life arising from non-life? The answer to that is no. There's no reason to assume science can replicate every event that has occurred in the universe or even just on this planet.

You haven't been paying attention here's the question one more time and this post goes out to anyone elese who will ask me to repeat the question or take it out of context to the way I ask it. I will not repeat it again.

The begining of human life would have a yes or no answer for the question. If life came from nothing Science should be able to be reproduced life from nothing. Yes or No

You must have a human sperm cell and a human egg to create human life. Yes or No

This is more than one question.

You have been answered more than once about science being able to reproduce life from nothing. Once again, the answer is no.

Do you need a human sperm cell and egg to create human life? So far as I know, yes. I'm guessing you ask this question as a way to show evolution wrong; if you need a human sperm and egg cell to create a human, how did we come from some previous primate? The answer, from my layman's understanding, is that the collection of small changes (or micro-adaptations, as the creationists seem to prefer) eventually leads to enough changes to equal a change in species. As such, I suppose it would be possible to have a non-human egg and sperm cell create a human; it would be along the lines of a very human-like primate giving birth to a neanderthal, or cro-magnon, or whatever the earliest form of humanity is believed to be.

I'm not even sure if 'the beginning of human life would have a yes or no answer for the question' is meant to be it's own question.

So you've been answered (again), are you satisfied yet? Or are you going to continue to claim your questions have been ignored?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I thought when you were saying creator you were referring to a god.

Both parents and God have life in them both can create life.

 

[Montrovant]

It's still creating life
Parents a mother and father are creators.

I'm talking about creating life from non-life. That's what is in the works.

You can't create life from non life it's not possible

Didn't god do it? That would make it possible, wouldn't it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm talking about creating life from non-life. That's what is in the works.

You can't create life from non life it's not possible

Didn't god do it? That would make it possible, wouldn't it?

is he God? is science God? No both are just god but science cannot create human life without a human sperm cell and a human egg.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm simply asking you to cut and paste the specific question again or re-type it.

Thank you

Here's how you answered it the last time I asked

Science is working on reproducing life, and when they do you'll just move the goal posts anyways. We both know that.

Just because science can't recreate something doesn't mean it didn't happen, can science recreate the planet Earth? Since science can't, does Earth not exist?

Well it was a straw man, no scientist says life came from nothing.

But I'll humor you if you humor me, why "should" science be able to recreate everything that happens in nature?

Can scientists recreate the Himalayas?

They do say non-living matter created life

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm posting a partial review of the presentation now. I haven't had time lately to finish it but I will at some point.

You have missed a very important part of the video that is irrefutable.

Your side say's strata was laid dowm over millions of years these are the two problems. Mind you I did take a trip in the Grand Canyon with many others with varying degrees in science.

We saw exactly what the gentlemen in the video described,layers of strata laying nicely on top of each other. They had flat surfaces with no signs of errosion,but the top layer of strata had plenty of errosion. Each layer of strata was solid rock.

How did one layer of strata get into the layer of strata above it ?

Why is it that none of the lower layers of strata show any errosion except on the outward wall that was exposed ?

"My side?"

You mean the side all scientists are on? The same side that allows you to type here, and lays the foundation for the future of humanity?

That "side?"

I'm not sure where you get your information on erosion but I have conveniently linked the solution to your "irrefutable" hypothesis.

I didn't see anything you posted that answered my two questions I asked to you.

 

[Photonic]

Here's how you answered it the last time I asked

Well it was a straw man, no scientist says life came from nothing.

But I'll humor you if you humor me, why "should" science be able to recreate everything that happens in nature?

Can scientists recreate the Himalayas?

They do say non-living matter created life

So because we don't have the technology to do it now, it can never be done?
That makes little sense.

With that philosophy, I guess we can do away with scientific advancement forever.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Is the question you want answered where life came from?
Will you accept 'I don't know' as an answer, or do we for some reason have to have a firm belief about it?

Is the question should science be able to recreate life arising from non-life? The answer to that is no. There's no reason to assume science can replicate every event that has occurred in the universe or even just on this planet.

You haven't been paying attention here's the question one more time and this post goes out to anyone elese who will ask me to repeat the question or take it out of context to the way I ask it. I will not repeat it again.

The begining of human life would have a yes or no answer for the question. If life came from nothing Science should be able to be reproduced life from nothing. Yes or No

You must have a human sperm cell and a human egg to create human life. Yes or No

This is more than one question.

You have been answered more than once about science being able to reproduce life from nothing. Once again, the answer is no.

Do you need a human sperm cell and egg to create human life? So far as I know, yes. I'm guessing you ask this question as a way to show evolution wrong; if you need a human sperm and egg cell to create a human, how did we come from some previous primate? The answer, from my layman's understanding, is that the collection of small changes (or micro-adaptations, as the creationists seem to prefer) eventually leads to enough changes to equal a change in species. As such, I suppose it would be possible to have a non-human egg and sperm cell create a human; it would be along the lines of a very human-like primate giving birth to a neanderthal, or cro-magnon, or whatever the earliest form of humanity is believed to be.

I'm not even sure if 'the beginning of human life would have a yes or no answer for the question' is meant to be it's own question.

So you've been answered (again), are you satisfied yet? Or are you going to continue to claim your questions have been ignored?

What came first the chicken or the egg ?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well it was a straw man, no scientist says life came from nothing.

But I'll humor you if you humor me, why "should" science be able to recreate everything that happens in nature?

Can scientists recreate the Himalayas?

They do say non-living matter created life

So because we don't have the technology to do it now, it can never be done?
That makes little sense.

With that philosophy, I guess we can do away with scientific advancement forever.

Who had the technology to do it the first time?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm talking about creating life from non-life. That's what is in the works.

You can't create life from non life it's not possible

Didn't god do it? That would make it possible, wouldn't it?

Yes he did.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well it was a straw man, no scientist says life came from nothing.

But I'll humor you if you humor me, why "should" science be able to recreate everything that happens in nature?

Can scientists recreate the Himalayas?

They do say non-living matter created life

So because we don't have the technology to do it now, it can never be done?
That makes little sense.

With that philosophy, I guess we can do away with scientific advancement forever.

If man figures out how to create life it was through an intelligent process, not a natural process, that does sound like intelligent design to me which is what I believe in.