Jump to content
LostinParis

Blind chance or god

Recommended Posts

On ‎6‎/‎25‎/‎2020 at 2:40 AM, SilentVoice said:

Can you tell me, let's just say hypothetically for example that we all found out 100% for sure that the Earth was flat, would you still believe in abiogenesis and evolution?

 

You mean would I still accept the observed fact of evolution? Yes I would. A flat earth wouldn't overturn evolution... but some seriously wacky stuff would be going on with physics if the earth was flat... like all the engineering calculations that take into account the curvature of the earth actually working on a flat earth, the fact of eclipses, the fact the moon is upside down in different hemispheres, Venuse's weird orbit path. All things currently explained by a heliocentric model, none explained by a flat geocentric model.

 

Abiogenesis I don't accept as fact at this point. It hasn't been sufficiently demonstrated that that's how life started on the planet, but it is the most likely candidate at this point.

 

So when asked how did life start I answer honestly: I don't know at this point, but all my research points to abiogenesis being the most likely candidate at this point. If new information arises that overturns that I will reconsider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello LogicalFallacy.  :)

 

I realize that you probably aren't fazed by SilentVoice's claim to know more about the big bang than you do.

 

But, in case you had any nagging doubts, please let me assure that he really doesn't understand it.

 

For example...

 

Big bang; something (maybe a 'quantum wave fluctuation' causing nothing to explode out of a theoretical realm of potentiality that sent incomprehensible amounts of matter ever-expanding outwards from the size of a pin head in a hot dense state that took billions of years to cool down and form condensed pockets of matter which eventually turned in to stars and planets, and you just happen to live on one of them.

 

Here SV makes two errors.  First, the big bang was not an explosion of any kind.  Second, matter was not caused to expand outwards.  Space itself (or more precisely, space-time) expanded.  Matter did not expand through any pre-existing volume of space.

 

Why would a big bang send out trillions of galaxies and make a flat surface that doesn't move? 

 

Friedmann's 'flat' solution of the curvature of the space-time metric doesn't mean that the universe is a flat surface, like a table.  

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Not necessarily. Dr William Lane Craig is the foremost Christian apologist. He accepts the Big Bang and Evolution. But he believes God set the big bang in motion and started off the first life

I didn't know this. He's a really smart guy, very patient and reserved. But it sounds like he's far too interested in wandering away from the truth to defend it than standing on truth of scripture. The big bang theory is completely stupid, and I'm not just talking about the TV show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Hello LogicalFallacy.  :)

 

I realize that you probably aren't fazed by SilentVoice's claim to know more about the big bang than you do.

 

But, in case you had any nagging doubts, please let me assure that he really doesn't understand it.

 

For example...

 

Big bang; something (maybe a 'quantum wave fluctuation' causing nothing to explode out of a theoretical realm of potentiality that sent incomprehensible amounts of matter ever-expanding outwards from the size of a pin head in a hot dense state that took billions of years to cool down and form condensed pockets of matter which eventually turned in to stars and planets, and you just happen to live on one of them.

 

Here SV makes two errors.  First, the big bang was not an explosion of any kind.  Second, matter was not caused to expand outwards.  Space itself (or more precisely, space-time) expanded.  Matter did not expand through any pre-existing volume of space.

 

Why would a big bang send out trillions of galaxies and make a flat surface that doesn't move? 

 

Friedmann's 'flat' solution of the curvature of the space-time metric doesn't mean that the universe is a flat surface, like a table.  

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Don't worry, the big bang theory will change next year and you'll have to learn all the important buzzwords again to appear smarter than everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

Don't worry, the big bang theory will change next year and you'll have to learn all the important buzzwords again to appear smarter than everyone else.

 

Ah the old 'scientific knowledge gets updated with new information so its wrong' line again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Ah the old, scientific knowledge gets updated with new information so its wrong line again.

Yes, basing your life on the "truth" of an ever-changing lie seems very stupid to me.

 

Edit:

- Hey, look how cool this is, apparently light is a particle! Hey everyone look how smart I am, I posted on Facebook about how smart I am because I read a scientific text book, who wants to hear my explanation about [insert mumbo jumbo]?

- Hey, so apparently light is a wave! How cool is that? [insert mumbo jumbo about quantum physics]

- So turns out we were all wrong, it's actually a WAVE-ICLE! Haha! Let me explain how [insert mumbo jumbo metaphysics] happens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

I didn't know this. He's a really smart guy, very patient and reserved. But it sounds like he's far too interested in wandering away from the truth to defend it than standing on truth of scripture.

 

I am pretty sure Dr Craig would disagree with you wholeheartedly about wandering away from the truth. What was it he said? Oh yes "Those who hold to genesis as a literal interpretation do a disservice to the truth of Gods word and the message God wishes to convey." (Or something to that effect when asked what he thought about his fellow creationist Christians. In short he thought they brought reproach upon Gods word.)

 

5 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

The big bang theory is completely stupid, and I'm not just talking about the TV show.

 

The fact that you do not understand something, or do not like it does not mean it's stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

Yes, basing your life on the "truth" of an ever-changing lie seems very stupid to me.

 

The irony of that line from a guy who thinks Genesis is literal. I suppose you think the seven headed dragon in Revelation is real too? The talking donkey?

 

Silent, would you jump off a 10 story building? Why or why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I am pretty sure Dr Craig would disagree with you wholeheartedly about wandering away from the truth. What was it he said? Oh yes "Those who hold to genesis as a literal interpretation do a disservice to the truth of Gods word and the message God wishes to convey." (Or something to that effect when asked what he thought about his fellow creationist Christians. In short he thought they brought reproach upon Gods word.)

 

 

The fact that you do not understand something, or do not like it does not mean it's stupid.

And I'm sure he has a very interesting explanation about how "...Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" is a metaphor for something stupid. Looks like no matter how many books you read, what degree(s) you might have, or how many debates you claim to win, they are all essentially vanity when you are not walking in truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Hello LogicalFallacy.  :)

 

I realize that you probably aren't fazed by SilentVoice's claim to know more about the big bang than you do.

 

But, in case you had any nagging doubts, please let me assure that he really doesn't understand it.

 

My friend, by the time SV announced he was a flat earther all those pages ago I didn't only not doubt that he didn't understand any of the subjects, but I positively believed he is willingly ignorant of them. I haven't seen so many strawnmen built for a long time. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

The irony of that line from a guy who thinks Genesis is literal. I suppose you think the seven headed dragon in Revelation is real too? The talking donkey?

 

Silent, would you jump off a 10 story building? Why or why not?

There are many parables in the bible and poetry too. The creation story is literal. The talking donkey was real. They have a voice box, have you ever heard a donkey? Of course you have.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SilentVoice said:

There are many parables in the bible and poetry too. The creation story is literal. The talking donkey was real. They have a voice box, have you ever heard a donkey? Of course you have.

 

 

What method did you use to determine the creation story was literal, but then attributed other sections to be parables, poetry, or metaphors? Before you even say, "the Holy Spirit," I am going to get ahead of that. I have heard countless Christians claim the Holy Spirit was teaching them the meaning of scripture and they were all coming to vastly different conclusions.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

There are many parables in the bible and poetry too. The creation story is literal. The talking donkey was real. They have a voice box, have you ever heard a donkey? Of course you have.

 

 

The donkey literally spoke human words according to the story. Yes I've heard a donkey - they sound a bit like you!

 

 

Sorry couldn't resist. :lmao:

 

But in all that I couldn't quite make out what the bible claims the donkey said: Numbers 22:23 "Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”"

 

But How did this happen? Magic I guess. Big bang using known physics dumb, reportedly talking donkey using no known physics (Donkey voice boxes cannot form human language) yep that is a totally sane thing to believe. :banghead::Doh:

 

 

And how do you know what is literal, what is parable, what is poetry. When it says "God sits among the council of Gods and Judges" is it literal or poetry? By what standard do you arbitrarily judge what is literal and what is metaphor?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hierophant said:

 

What method did you use to determine the creation story was literal, but then attributed other sections to be parables, poetry, or metaphors? Before you even say, "the Holy Spirit," I am going to get ahead of that. I have heard countless Christians claim the Holy Spirit was teaching them the meaning of scripture and they were all coming to vastly different conclusions.

The knowledge that God doesn't lie

The Holy Spirit showing me certain things

The fact that the author of Genesis does not say 'hear the parable about how the Earth was created', i.e. it is not called a parable or the imagery explained.

The fact that whoever wrote Genesis 1 doesn't need to impress anyone or care about what gentiles might think or what scientific theories might ridicule it.

The fact that light existed before the Sun, etc. Everybody can see naturally that the Sun gives light so why would the book about God/truth say otherwise if it wasn't true? It would just say something like God created the sun so that it gave light.


Also I haven't looked at these for a long time but there were some amazing bible codes found in the Torah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth

You mean the God of the bible can't put words in an animals mouth? You're asking how a supernatural event could happen, without believing the supernatural. It's kind of stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

The knowledge that God doesn't lie

 

That doesn't help you distinguish between Gods literal and Gods metaphor. Therefore this point is irrelevant.

 

Quote

The Holy Spirit showing me certain things

 

What is the holy spirit. How does it differ from God. How did it show you things and can you demonstrate it?

 

Quote

The fact that the author of Genesis does not say 'hear the parable about how the Earth was created', i.e. it is not called a parable or the imagery explained.

 

No, the ancient writers didn't necessarily start off their metaphors by saying this is a metaphor. They assumed their readers were smarter than that. 

 

Quote

The fact that whoever wrote Genesis 1 doesn't need to impress anyone or care about what gentiles might think or what scientific theories might ridicule it.

 

WTF? This point is gibberish.

 

Quote

The fact that light existed before the Sun, etc. Everybody can see naturally that the Sun gives light so why would the book about God/truth say otherwise if it wasn't true? It would just say something like God created the sun so that it gave light.

 

Yeah... this is one of the reasons we know that Genesis is horseshit. We know about the properties of light, we know light can't exist without a source. You mock the big bang for "coming from nothing", (a misunderstanding on your part), but then say light appeared before a light source (the sun)

 

Quote

Also I haven't looked at these for a long time but there were some amazing bible codes found in the Torah.

 

Yeah I went through those in my Christian days. It's all horseshit. Seriously look into how the algorithm works and what inputs are used to get the results. You can get similar results out of any sufficiently large piece of writing.

 

So after all that you haven't given us any reason to believe that you have any justification for declaring what is and isn't literal in the bible other than your says so because some spirit thingy... which you cannot demonstrate. (How do you know its not Satan deceiving you? Hmm?)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

There are many parables in the bible and poetry too. The creation story is literal. The talking donkey was real. They have a voice box, have you ever heard a donkey? Of course you have.

 

We're certainly hearing an ass speak in this thread.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

You mean the God of the bible can't put words in an animals mouth? You're asking how a supernatural event could happen, without believing the supernatural. It's kind of stupid.

 

See here is your problem, anytime you want to explain anything you simply invoke magic.

 

The time to believe something is when it is demonstrated. You've failed quite miserably to demonstrate anything you say.

 

Let me demonstrate the stupidity of your sentence by altering a few words in it - hopefully this will help you understand why your reasoning here is fallacious:

 

You're asking how an abiogenesis event could happen, without believing in abiogenesis. It's kind of stupid.

 

If you can change just the terms used in a sentence and it sounds stupid, that's because the original sentence was stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

We're certainly hearing an ass speak in this thread.

You'd be hearing God speak if you weren't allowing Satan to piss on your brain.

 

27 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

See here is your problem, anytime you want to explain anything you simply invoke magic.

 

The time to believe something is when it is demonstrated. You've failed quite miserably to demonstrate anything you say.

 

Let me demonstrate the stupidity of your sentence by altering a few words in it - hopefully this will help you understand why your reasoning here is fallacious:

 

You're asking how an abiogenesis event could happen, without believing in abiogenesis. It's kind of stupid.

 

If you can change just the terms used in a sentence and it sounds stupid, that's because the original sentence was stupid.

God doesn't use magic.

You were once Christian, it was demonstrated to you how God had grace for you and gave you holy gifts, and yet you do not believe. Therefore you are a hypocrite.

Abiogenesis cannot and does not happen. I used the scientific method to prove why. Amino acids are the building blocks of life which broken down by hydrochloric acid, the early Earth atmosphere in an abiogenesis model would be highly toxic consisting of an atmosphere of hydrochloric acid and lakes of it. Your stomach (yes, YOURS) uses hydrocholoric acid to break down amino acids). Life cannot come in to existence in an environment that is antithetical to it.

 

I just proved that Abiogenesis is false. You still believe it. You are lost.

 

Maybe this is why the moderator deleted all my posts which demonstrated using logic that God's wrath on Sodom was literally real. Too close for comfort. Lions are supposed to eat their prey, not whine about them. This place is a joke, you are all incompetent and cannot hide the glory of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

You'd be hearing God speak if you weren't allowing Satan to piss on your brain.

 

God doesn't use magic.

You were once Christian, it was demonstrated to you how God had grace for you and gave you holy gifts, and yet you do not believe. Therefore you are a hypocrite.

Abiogenesis cannot and does not happen. I used the scientific method to prove why. Amino acids are the building blocks of life which broken down by hydrochloric acid, the early Earth atmosphere in an abiogenesis model would be highly toxic consisting of an atmosphere of hydrochloric acid and lakes of it. Your stomach (yes, YOURS) uses hydrocholoric acid to break down amino acids). Life cannot come in to existence in an environment that is antithetical to it.

 

I just proved that Abiogenesis is false. You still believe it. You are lost.

 

Maybe this is why the moderator deleted all my posts which demonstrated using logic that God's wrath on Sodom was literally real. Too close for comfort. Lions are supposed to eat their prey, not whine about them. This place is a joke, you are all incompetent and cannot hide the glory of God.

 

You have not demonstrated anything. You are using circular reasoning and assumptions to draw conclusions. Your arguments are based around God of the gaps logic. Essentially, if science cannot fully explain certain details, right now, then science is bunk and a miracle happened. You are a science denier. If there was a breakthrough and we could fully explain abiogensis, you would find a way to deny it, just as you deny common knowledge cosmology.

 

 

Miracle.jpg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

 

You have not demonstrated anything. You are using circular reasoning and assumptions to draw conclusions. Your arguments are based around God of the gaps logic. Essentially, if science cannot fully explain certain details, right now, then science is bunk and a miracle happened. You are a science denier. If there was a breakthrough and we could fully explain abiogensis, you would find a way to deny it, just as you deny common knowledge cosmology.

 

 

Miracle.jpg

"Your arguments are based around God of the gaps logic."

 

Amino acids are the building blocks of life which broken down by hydrochloric acid.

The early Earth atmosphere in an abiogenesis model would be highly toxic consisting of an atmosphere of hydrochloric acid and lakes of it.

Your stomach (yes, YOURS) uses hydrocholoric acid to break down amino acids).

Life cannot come in to existence in an environment that is antithetical to it.

 

God wasn't mentioned in this proof. Just logic. Oh and did you forget the science? Science proves that abiogenesis is not real. Guess I'm a scientist now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SilentVoice said:

 

Amino acids are the building blocks of life which broken down by hydrochloric acid.

The early Earth atmosphere in an abiogenesis model would be highly toxic consisting of an atmosphere of hydrochloric acid and lakes of it.

Your stomach (yes, YOURS) uses hydrocholoric acid to break down amino acids).

Life cannot come in to existence in an environment that is antithetical to it.

 

God wasn't mentioned in this proof. Just logic. Oh and did you forget the science? Science proves that abiogenesis is not real. Guess I'm a scientist now.

 

You're really playing fast and loose with the terms "proof", "logic", and "science". The Earth may not be flat, but my forehead is becoming increasing so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool. Haven't seen one of these in awhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

"Your arguments are based around God of the gaps logic."

 

Amino acids are the building blocks of life which broken down by hydrochloric acid.

The early Earth atmosphere in an abiogenesis model would be highly toxic consisting of an atmosphere of hydrochloric acid and lakes of it.

Your stomach (yes, YOURS) uses hydrocholoric acid to break down amino acids).

Life cannot come in to existence in an environment that is antithetical to it.

 

God wasn't mentioned in this proof. Just logic. Oh and did you forget the science? Science proves that abiogenesis is not real. Guess I'm a scientist now.

 

I recommend heading to this website: www.talkorigins.org/

 

It full of information arguing from the creationist side and from the scientific side. At the end of the day, I read both sides of the argument and I ultimately found the scientific side more convincing. The answers they provided were thoughtful, studied, and provided explanatory power.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ancient Greek Philosopher Epicurus taught that Atoms were the basic building blocks of all else, and cannot come into existence, but have always existed. Therefore the universe has no beginning, but has always existed, and will always exist.

 

The Catholic Church tried to wipe out these ideas as an eternal universe does not require a creator, it just "is."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.