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

[Youwerecreated]

The video was shredded by Photonic, I don't need to watch it. He stated the videos positions and continued to destroy them with science. The Grand Canyon strata is easily explained by science, and Photonic already provided the link if you're interested, which I doubt you are.

Depends what you call creating life. Some call creating life cloning, man's done that, some call it the experiment I provided earlier where life was created through a synthetic process, man's done that, man can aid in pregnancies that wouldn't be possible in nature without medical science involvement.

How do you know that the continents were not separated by God instead of plate tectonics ?

How do you know that the global flood is not the reason for the earth breaking up and forming separate continents ?

It definitely was caused by a catastrophic event. So what was the method that caused this event ?

1.) Because plate tectonics is easily verifiable by science and it's observable.
2.) Because there's no scientific evidence of a global flood, and I will ignore the kooky link you post in reply to this from some fundamentalist religious website.
3.) It definitely wasn't caused by a single catastrophic event.

Plate tectonics was not due to a catastrophic event,how do you figure ?

Yes we can see that the continents broke apart but how and why did it happen ?

Sure there is evidence of a global flood by considering all the layers of strata around the world.

There is no way strata that is solid rock and formed over millions of years could have mixed in with the strata above it unless both layers were soft. A global flood would have caused destruction and as it destroyed soil it would have formed new layers of strata and that would explain how a lower strata could have mixed with the layer above it.

Are you also forgetting trees found fossilized upside down in strata. How bout fossilized whales found to far inland suspened in two different layers of strata ?

There is plenty of evidence for the global flood that you simply ignore or take some very weak explanation over simple common sense and reasoning from the evidence.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You're dreaming.

Let me ask you the questions he avoided.

How come only the top layer of strata shows erosion ?

Why is a lower layer of strata that is solid rock mixed in with the layer above it if it took millions of years to lay down that layer of strata ?

Why are planets turning the opposite direction of the rest of the universe if the big bang occurred ?

He already answered all those questions. If you'd like I can cut and paste his answers.

This is what's annoying about your threads YWC, is you just ask people to repeat themselves over and over again and then once they grow tired of repeating themselves you declare yourself the winner.

Please do so i did not see them.

1.)

Moving on, he makes mention of movement in a particular direction, and given this the opposite direction is improbable because of the frame of reference (conservation of angular momentum). What he makes no mention of is that these events ARE quite improbable but mathematically likely to happen given the inclination of energy conservation in proper or retrograde rotation. Successive inclinations of retrograde directive energetic stimulus could easily explain these admittedly extremely rare events.

2.)

He begins this section with geological evolution, that is, the formation of the earths crust over time.


Unconformity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you wish to educate yourself as this man clearly avoided doing on this topic (among others) this is enough material to explain just about any inconsistent argument he brings up.

I want to make sure everyone knows this is from Phototonic, he clearly put effort into this and I don't want to try to take any credit from his excellent breakdown. Number 1 deals with the planets rotation, number 2 deals with the strata discussion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where has anyone on this thread said there's zero chance of a creator?

Let's start with you, is there a chance that there is a creator God?

Yes, I've never stated there's zero chance, not until science can disprove a god, which I doubt ever happens.

However I think the chance of a creator is very, VERY, VERY slim.

Why ?

 

[InDoctriNation]

Yes, I'm open to the possibility of a creator God, or Gods for that matter, but I will base my belief on the veracity of the evidence that is available to me. For instance, if I was to be convinced that there was a creator God, you'd have all your work still ahead of you to convince me that this entity is conscious, has any vested interest whatsoever in "his" creation, or even knows that we exist. Now let's see if you're as open minded. Is there a chance that there is no creator God?

 

[Youwerecreated]

He already answered all those questions. If you'd like I can cut and paste his answers.

This is what's annoying about your threads YWC, is you just ask people to repeat themselves over and over again and then once they grow tired of repeating themselves you declare yourself the winner.

Please do so i did not see them.

1.)

Moving on, he makes mention of movement in a particular direction, and given this the opposite direction is improbable because of the frame of reference (conservation of angular momentum). What he makes no mention of is that these events ARE quite improbable but mathematically likely to happen given the inclination of energy conservation in proper or retrograde rotation. Successive inclinations of retrograde directive energetic stimulus could easily explain these admittedly extremely rare events.

2.)

He begins this section with geological evolution, that is, the formation of the earths crust over time.


Unconformity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you wish to educate yourself as this man clearly avoided doing on this topic (among others) this is enough material to explain just about any inconsistent argument he brings up.

I want to make sure everyone knows this is from Phototonic, he clearly put effort into this and I don't want to try to take any credit from his excellent breakdown. Number 1 deals with the planets rotation, number 2 deals with the strata discussion.

He is using a theory to defy the evidence

Uh oh wiki is gonna refute what can clearly be seen with our eyes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

He already answered all those questions. If you'd like I can cut and paste his answers.

This is what's annoying about your threads YWC, is you just ask people to repeat themselves over and over again and then once they grow tired of repeating themselves you declare yourself the winner.

Please do so i did not see them.

1.)

Moving on, he makes mention of movement in a particular direction, and given this the opposite direction is improbable because of the frame of reference (conservation of angular momentum). What he makes no mention of is that these events ARE quite improbable but mathematically likely to happen given the inclination of energy conservation in proper or retrograde rotation. Successive inclinations of retrograde directive energetic stimulus could easily explain these admittedly extremely rare events.

2.)

He begins this section with geological evolution, that is, the formation of the earths crust over time.


Unconformity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you wish to educate yourself as this man clearly avoided doing on this topic (among others) this is enough material to explain just about any inconsistent argument he brings up.

I want to make sure everyone knows this is from Phototonic, he clearly put effort into this and I don't want to try to take any credit from his excellent breakdown. Number 1 deals with the planets rotation, number 2 deals with the strata discussion.

Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon , down in it where you can see this evidence ?

 

[InDoctriNation]

Please do so i did not see them.

1.)

Moving on, he makes mention of movement in a particular direction, and given this the opposite direction is improbable because of the frame of reference (conservation of angular momentum). What he makes no mention of is that these events ARE quite improbable but mathematically likely to happen given the inclination of energy conservation in proper or retrograde rotation. Successive inclinations of retrograde directive energetic stimulus could easily explain these admittedly extremely rare events.

2.)

He begins this section with geological evolution, that is, the formation of the earths crust over time.


Unconformity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you wish to educate yourself as this man clearly avoided doing on this topic (among others) this is enough material to explain just about any inconsistent argument he brings up.

I want to make sure everyone knows this is from Phototonic, he clearly put effort into this and I don't want to try to take any credit from his excellent breakdown. Number 1 deals with the planets rotation, number 2 deals with the strata discussion.

He is using a theory to defy the evidence

Uh oh wiki is gonna refute what can clearly be seen with our eyes.

He's not using a theory to defy the evidence, but to explain the evidence. But of course, in your view, explanation is on equal ground with defiance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes, I'm open to the possibility of a creator God, or Gods for that matter, but I will base my belief on the veracity of the evidence that is available to me. For instance, if I was to be convinced that there was a creator God, you'd have all your work still ahead of you to convince me that this entity is conscious, has any vested interest whatsoever in "his" creation, or even knows that we exist. Now let's see if you're as open minded. Is there a chance that there is no creator God?

Yes.

But when one study the scriptures as long as I have clearly there is information in there that at the time of the writing man had no ability to know.

When we ponder the reality of a natural process being the reason for life it is easy to assume all of this didn't happen by chance so what alternative are we left with ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

1.)

Moving on, he makes mention of movement in a particular direction, and given this the opposite direction is improbable because of the frame of reference (conservation of angular momentum). What he makes no mention of is that these events ARE quite improbable but mathematically likely to happen given the inclination of energy conservation in proper or retrograde rotation. Successive inclinations of retrograde directive energetic stimulus could easily explain these admittedly extremely rare events.

2.)

He begins this section with geological evolution, that is, the formation of the earths crust over time.


Unconformity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you wish to educate yourself as this man clearly avoided doing on this topic (among others) this is enough material to explain just about any inconsistent argument he brings up.

I want to make sure everyone knows this is from Phototonic, he clearly put effort into this and I don't want to try to take any credit from his excellent breakdown. Number 1 deals with the planets rotation, number 2 deals with the strata discussion.

He is using a theory to defy the evidence

Uh oh wiki is gonna refute what can clearly be seen with our eyes.

He's not using a theory to defy the evidence, but to explain the evidence. But of course, in your view, explanation is on equal ground with defiance.

You tell me in your own words his rebuttal.

 

[InDoctriNation]

Yes, I'm open to the possibility of a creator God, or Gods for that matter, but I will base my belief on the veracity of the evidence that is available to me. For instance, if I was to be convinced that there was a creator God, you'd have all your work still ahead of you to convince me that this entity is conscious, has any vested interest whatsoever in "his" creation, or even knows that we exist. Now let's see if you're as open minded. Is there a chance that there is no creator God?

Yes.

But when one study the scriptures as long as I have clearly there is information in there that at the time of the writing man had no ability to know.

When we ponder the reality of a natural process being the reason for life it is easy to assume all of this didn't happen by chance so what alternative are we left with ?

Followers of many different faiths say the same thing about their scriptures.

I can imagine a human exclaiming the following before we fully understood the roll of electricity in a thunderstorm: When we ponder the reality of a natural process being the reason for lightning it is easy to assume this phenomena does not happen by chance, so what alternative are we left with? I believe you are making the same argument from ignorance when it comes to the origins of life.

 

[Dr.Drock]

How do you know that the continents were not separated by God instead of plate tectonics ?

How do you know that the global flood is not the reason for the earth breaking up and forming separate continents ?

It definitely was caused by a catastrophic event. So what was the method that caused this event ?

1.) Because plate tectonics is easily verifiable by science and it's observable.
2.) Because there's no scientific evidence of a global flood, and I will ignore the kooky link you post in reply to this from some fundamentalist religious website.
3.) It definitely wasn't caused by a single catastrophic event.

Plate tectonics was not due to a catastrophic event,how do you figure ?

Yes we can see that the continents broke apart but how and why did it happen ?

Sure there is evidence of a global flood by considering all the layers of strata around the world.

There is no way strata that is solid rock and formed over millions of years could have mixed in with the strata above it unless both layers were soft. A global flood would have caused destruction and as it destroyed soil it would have formed new layers of strata and that would explain how a lower strata could have mixed with the layer above it.

Are you also forgetting trees found fossilized upside down in strata. How bout fossilized whales found to far inland suspened in two different layers of strata ?

There is plenty of evidence for the global flood that you simply ignore or take some very weak explanation over simple common sense and reasoning from the evidence.

Plate Tectonics

"These plates are continually shifting because the surface beneath them - the hot, soft mantle - is moving slowly like a conveyor belt, driven by heat and other forces at work in the Earth's core. The plates are moving about a centimeter (0.5 in) to 15 centimeters (6 in) per year in different directions."

You can deny science and invent your own science, just don't expect anyone to believe it.

If you can provide a link to a SCIENCE based website, not a kooky fundamentalist religious website, that provides SCIENTIFIC evidence of a global I'll take it seriously.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Let's start with you, is there a chance that there is a creator God?

Yes, I've never stated there's zero chance, not until science can disprove a god, which I doubt ever happens.

However I think the chance of a creator is very, VERY, VERY slim.

Why ?

Science+Math

 

[Youwerecreated]

1.)

Moving on, he makes mention of movement in a particular direction, and given this the opposite direction is improbable because of the frame of reference (conservation of angular momentum). What he makes no mention of is that these events ARE quite improbable but mathematically likely to happen given the inclination of energy conservation in proper or retrograde rotation. Successive inclinations of retrograde directive energetic stimulus could easily explain these admittedly extremely rare events.

2.)

He begins this section with geological evolution, that is, the formation of the earths crust over time.


Unconformity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you wish to educate yourself as this man clearly avoided doing on this topic (among others) this is enough material to explain just about any inconsistent argument he brings up.

I want to make sure everyone knows this is from Phototonic, he clearly put effort into this and I don't want to try to take any credit from his excellent breakdown. Number 1 deals with the planets rotation, number 2 deals with the strata discussion.

He is using a theory to defy the evidence

Uh oh wiki is gonna refute what can clearly be seen with our eyes.

He's not using a theory to defy the evidence, but to explain the evidence. But of course, in your view, explanation is on equal ground with defiance.

You didn't notice who he quoted and the theory that they used trying to explain this phenomenon ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

1.) Because plate tectonics is easily verifiable by science and it's observable.
2.) Because there's no scientific evidence of a global flood, and I will ignore the kooky link you post in reply to this from some fundamentalist religious website.
3.) It definitely wasn't caused by a single catastrophic event.

Plate tectonics was not due to a catastrophic event,how do you figure ?

Yes we can see that the continents broke apart but how and why did it happen ?

Sure there is evidence of a global flood by considering all the layers of strata around the world.

There is no way strata that is solid rock and formed over millions of years could have mixed in with the strata above it unless both layers were soft. A global flood would have caused destruction and as it destroyed soil it would have formed new layers of strata and that would explain how a lower strata could have mixed with the layer above it.

Are you also forgetting trees found fossilized upside down in strata. How bout fossilized whales found to far inland suspened in two different layers of strata ?

There is plenty of evidence for the global flood that you simply ignore or take some very weak explanation over simple common sense and reasoning from the evidence.

Plate Tectonics

"These plates are continually shifting because the surface beneath them - the hot, soft mantle - is moving slowly like a conveyor belt, driven by heat and other forces at work in the Earth's core. The plates are moving about a centimeter (0.5 in) to 15 centimeters (6 in) per year in different directions."

You can deny science and invent your own science, just don't expect anyone to believe it.

If you can provide a link to a SCIENCE based website, not a kooky fundamentalist religious website, that provides SCIENTIFIC evidence of a global I'll take it seriously.

Ignored my questions again hmm.

 

[InDoctriNation]

He is using a theory to defy the evidence

Uh oh wiki is gonna refute what can clearly be seen with our eyes.

He's not using a theory to defy the evidence, but to explain the evidence. But of course, in your view, explanation is on equal ground with defiance.

You tell me in your own words his rebuttal.

No. I'm not going to waste my time needlessly paraphrasing his rebuttal.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes, I've never stated there's zero chance, not until science can disprove a god, which I doubt ever happens.

However I think the chance of a creator is very, VERY, VERY slim.

Why ?

Science+Math

If you used science +math you would see the impossibility of everything we see happening by chance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

He's not using a theory to defy the evidence, but to explain the evidence. But of course, in your view, explanation is on equal ground with defiance.

You tell me in your own words his rebuttal.

No. I'm not going to waste my time needlessly paraphrasing his rebuttal.

You know why ? because what i said was true.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Please do so i did not see them.

1.)

Moving on, he makes mention of movement in a particular direction, and given this the opposite direction is improbable because of the frame of reference (conservation of angular momentum). What he makes no mention of is that these events ARE quite improbable but mathematically likely to happen given the inclination of energy conservation in proper or retrograde rotation. Successive inclinations of retrograde directive energetic stimulus could easily explain these admittedly extremely rare events.

2.)

He begins this section with geological evolution, that is, the formation of the earths crust over time.


Unconformity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you wish to educate yourself as this man clearly avoided doing on this topic (among others) this is enough material to explain just about any inconsistent argument he brings up.

I want to make sure everyone knows this is from Phototonic, he clearly put effort into this and I don't want to try to take any credit from his excellent breakdown. Number 1 deals with the planets rotation, number 2 deals with the strata discussion.

He is using a theory to defy the evidence

Uh oh wiki is gonna refute what can clearly be seen with our eyes.

I dunno how to say this nicely, but I dunno how to dumb it down enough. It's basic middle school level science that teaches us about plate tectonics and how the ground is shifted and levels are moved.

If you want to say it's the devil punching the ground from his lair in Hell that's fine, but just please don't try to pretend there's any science backing any of your crazy theories.

I dunno why it's so important for you to try and mesh science in with your dogma, when someone states a scientific principle you say "nuh uh, that's wrong cuz the Bible says so" and move along. I dunno why you get into the discussion at all.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where has anyone on this thread said there's zero chance of a creator?

Let's start with you, is there a chance that there is a creator God?

Yes, I've never stated there's zero chance, not until science can disprove a god, which I doubt ever happens.

However I think the chance of a creator is very, VERY, VERY slim.

Since science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God why doesn't scincecall it the God Theory instead of just saying God does not exist?

After all isn't that what all theory's in science about, all theory's?

Who come up with the idea of a God in the first place?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Why ?

Science+Math

If you used science +math you would see the impossibility of everything we see happening by chance.

There's no science explanation or mathematical equation that ends in god(s).