Jump to content
LostinParis

Blind chance or god

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

You you know what the words "context" and "comprehension" mean?

 

If not then we are wasting time. You don't have the full video, you don't know the context, you've merely taken one video with one short quote (Which we assume actually is Bill Nye) and because it fits with your belief you think it agrees with you. You really need to study critical thinking.

Said the guy who thinks rocks magically came alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
18 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

Said the guy who thinks rocks magically came alive.

 

:lmao::scratch::Doh::banghead::Doh::banghead::lmao:

 

I think that expresses my current range of emotions.

Share this post


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

 

:lmao::scratch::Doh::banghead::Doh::banghead::lmao:

 

I think that expresses my current range of emotions.

Brain damage from hitting your head a lot?

 

Also can anyone theorize how in a meaningless existence, any biological creature would find an evolutionary benefit of feeling emotions?

 

Some creatures just lay eggs and leave. They don't stay and raise their offspring. They don't feel emotions towards their offspring. Why do other creatures feel emotions?

 

Why would a creature that doesn't feel emotions and has no problem passing on its genes evolve in to a creature that needs to invest emotions to care for its offspring to encourage them to survive?

 

🕳️💥💫✨🪐🌋🦠🐛🦈🐒👨‍👩‍👦🥱

Share this post


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

Last night I came across a bunch of funny videos about NASA. One of them was an engineer or something, explaining that we 'can't leave low Earth orbit'. Another video of an 'astronaut' saying she's excited for the possibility of NASA being able to leave low earth Orbit and go to the moon. Another video of Neil Armstrong admitting to a little kid that they didn't go to the moon but he wants to know what it was that prevented it. Oh, and the video where they admitted that they lost the flight telemetry data and their technology was so old that they can't replicate it any more, so they no longer have the ability to go to the moon.

Have you tried looking into any of these already debunked claims or are you happy to accept them without checking both sides?  

NASA said we can't leave low Earth orbit - yes, because we don't have a rocket built to do so.  Not that we couldn't ever, but we couldn't right now.  

Neil admitted they didn't go to the moon - I couldn't find anything like this outside of satire sites, but give us a link if you have something that is actually what you claim.

NASA lost tapes - yes, quite true.  Except they lost the first tapes, they still have all the data from the other 5 moon landings.  As well as the tons of moon rocks collected, thousands of photos and hours of video.  The conspiracy theorists seem to like to pick on the oldest mission with the worst technology, when they repeated the mission multiple times with many improvements each time.  The loss of the first tapes has no bearing on their ability to return to the moon.

 

Its hard to know which of your conspiracy theories is weakest.  A young earth which flies in the face of every field of science, a flat earth which has no map, no model and for some strange reason no one has seen the edge or dome, and now the moon landing hoax which can't explain the reflectors left on the moon, the ability to fake such events using 1960's technology, the tons of moon rocks returned and donated to research institutes around the world or why communist Russia and China tracked their cold war enemy and agree the US succeeded.

 

Your magic beans comment is quite ironic considering you've accepted every bit of nonsense from every non-scientific source.  You seem gullible enough to accept the world of charlatans like Dubay and Hovind, yet don't bat an eye when its pointed out there isn't even a working flat earth map.  If the world is really flat, a map of how it really is should be the easiest thing to put together shouldn't it? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Brain damage from hitting your head a lot?

 

No, but thanks for the concern.

 

3 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

Also can anyone theorize how in a meaningless existence, any biological creature would find an evolutionary benefit of feeling emotions?

 

Who said existence is meaningless? We create meaning for ourselves. 

 

On the other hand, a universe with an all powerful God that has pre-determined your fate is truly meaningless. 

 

3 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

Why would a creature that doesn't feel emotions and has no problem passing on its genes evolve in to a creature that needs to invest emotions to care for its offspring to encourage them to survive?

 

Because in a social species emotions cause species to better look after their young, thus increasing survival.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

No, but thanks for the concern.

 

 

Who said existence is meaningless? We create meaning for ourselves. 

 

On the other hand, a universe with an all powerful God that has pre-determined your fate is truly meaningless. 

 

 

Because in a social species emotions cause species to better look after their young, thus increasing survival.

A species that lays thousands of eggs has no need to care about individual success, it passes on its genes more effectively and has no need of emotional attachment or social dynamics.

 

Your explanation does not address the emotions I asked about. Why do animals feel emotion when bacteria, the most successful living creature does not feel emotion, or need to.

Share this post


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

Have you tried looking into any of these already debunked claims or are you happy to accept them without checking both sides?  

NASA said we can't leave low Earth orbit - yes, because we don't have a rocket built to do so.  Not that we couldn't ever, but we couldn't right now.  

Neil admitted they didn't go to the moon - I couldn't find anything like this outside of satire sites, but give us a link if you have something that is actually what you claim.

NASA lost tapes - yes, quite true.  Except they lost the first tapes, they still have all the data from the other 5 moon landings.  As well as the tons of moon rocks collected, thousands of photos and hours of video.  The conspiracy theorists seem to like to pick on the oldest mission with the worst technology, when they repeated the mission multiple times with many improvements each time.  The loss of the first tapes has no bearing on their ability to return to the moon.

 

Its hard to know which of your conspiracy theories is weakest.  A young earth which flies in the face of every field of science, a flat earth which has no map, no model and for some strange reason no one has seen the edge or dome, and now the moon landing hoax which can't explain the reflectors left on the moon, the ability to fake such events using 1960's technology, the tons of moon rocks returned and donated to research institutes around the world or why communist Russia and China tracked their cold war enemy and agree the US succeeded.

 

Your magic beans comment is quite ironic considering you've accepted every bit of nonsense from every non-scientific source.  You seem gullible enough to accept the world of charlatans like Dubay and Hovind, yet don't bat an eye when its pointed out there isn't even a working flat earth map.  If the world is really flat, a map of how it really is should be the easiest thing to put together shouldn't it? 

 

Sorry, I was mistaken it was Buzz Aldrin that said it.

 

 

Share this post


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

A species that lays thousands of eggs has no need to care about individual success, it passes on its genes more effectively and has no need of emotional attachment or social dynamics.

 

Do you know what a social species is?

 

Just now, SilentVoice said:

 

Your explanation does not address the emotions I asked about. Why do animals feel emotion when bacteria, the most successful living creature does not feel emotion, or need to.

 

Because bacteria lack the necessary nervous system and brain for emotions to emerge. If you were observant you would notice that the more complex an animal is, and the higher its brain function, the higher the emotive states it can express? Which is why jellyfish have no emotion that we are aware of, but dogs are highly emotive to the degree that we can successfully interact with them.

Share this post


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

Do you know what a social species is?

Yes, a species you believe evolved from another species that evolved to have no need for social dynamics or emotions, which evolved from a rock through detrimental chemical processes.

3 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Because bacteria lack the necessary nervous system and brain for emotions to emerge. If you were observant you would notice that the more complex an animal is, and the higher its brain function, the higher the emotive states it can express? Which is why jellyfish have no emotion that we are aware of, but dogs are highly emotive to the degree that we can successfully interact with them.

If a species developed a more complex nervous system and brain, surely they would better understand the advantages of large-scale reproduction and spend less time caring for their offspring.

Share this post


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

Sorry, I was mistaken it was Buzz Aldrin that said it.

 

I wonder why the Chinese and the Russians don't say much about this?

 

I wonder what our local Rocket Lab company is doing sending stuff into space.

 

I wonder what Space X is doing shipping people to the ISS.

Share this post


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

 

I wonder why the Chinese and the Russians don't say much about this?

 

I wonder what our local Rocket Lab company is doing sending stuff into space.

 

I wonder what Space X is doing shipping people to the ISS.

 

Maybe the ISS is real and simply held in place with balloons. The amateur rocket launch video posted earlier showed an altitude of 255,000~ feet to the firmament. With outside temperatures in excess of -350 degrees.

Share this post


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

Maybe the ISS is real and simply held in place with balloons. 

 

Ok now we know you are either a troll or sadly lacking in brain capacity. (The second of which is no fault of your own.)

 

At this point even my perseverance has reached its limit. Good day to you sir, I see no point in continuing. Thanks for the dialogue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


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

Let me know if you see any insects buzzing around the cameras, or bubbles escaping from helmets. That would be funny.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZEdApyi9Vw

 

Nice bubble!  (but clearly a computer generated fake)

Share this post


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

The Earth doesn't have to be any particular shape for me to point out the stupidity of believing NASA. By refusing to acknowledge the deceit and stupidity you aren't in a position to come to truth. Neil Armstrong is struggling to live with the guilt of deceiving people. He's telling people they didn't go to the moon while comforting himself with the hope that one day they might, and that they pretended for 'the greater good'.

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system#Closed_system

 

A classic example of out-of-context quote mining.

Share this post


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

 

I wonder why the Chinese and the Russians don't say much about this?

 

I wonder what our local Rocket Lab company is doing sending stuff into space.

 

I wonder what Space X is doing shipping people to the ISS.

 

I wonder what flatearthers are going to once the SLS starts putting the units of the Lunar Gateway together?

 

Shouldn't be too many years off now.

 

After all, it's easy enough to re purpose and misuse a few old videos, but when there's a permanent human presence on the Moon, the sheer volume of physical evidence will just be too much for them to cope with.

 

But hey, I suppose that's just evolution at work for you.

 

Organisms that can't adapt to big, new changes in their environments don't survive.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

When attempting to make a point or to refute the point made by someone else, it always helps to read the first line of the article you're citing.

 

A balloon satellite (also occasionally referred to as a "satelloon", which is a trademarked name owned by Gilmore Schjeldahl's G.T. Schjeldahl Company) is inflated with gas after it has been put into orbit.

 

If balloon satellites require gas to keep them in orbit, then why were they inflated after they were put there?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Said the guy who thinks rocks magically came alive.

 

Says the guy who maintains that the entire universe and everything in it magically poofed into existence when a supposedly pre-existing, uncreated Hebrew tribal god burped.  :49:

Share this post


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

 

Sorry, I was mistaken it was Buzz Aldrin that said it.

 

 

 

Buzz Aldrin is about 90 years old and has Alzheimers.

 

No matter:

 

Astronauts went to the moon: Still no Jesus present.

Astronauts didnt go to the moon: Still no Jesus present.

 

Round earth: Still no Jesus present.

Flat earth: Still no Jesus present.

 

6000 year old earth: Still no Jesus present. 

4.5 billion year old earth: Still no Jesus present.

 

Creation: Still no Jesus present.

Evolution: Still no Jesus present.

 

And no Satan present either. Jesus and Satan share those ever-absent, ever-silent qualities.  Probably because they are mythical.

 

Just people talking here in this thread. That's about it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Ok now we know you are either a troll or sadly lacking in brain capacity. (The second of which is no fault of your own.)

 

At this point even my perseverance has reached its limit. Good day to you sir, I see no point in continuing. Thanks for the dialogue. 

 

We havent even gotten to this yet, sir. :)

 

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

Are you guys sure you don't want to buy some magic beans? Real cheap.

 

 

The magic beans of Jesus Christ? No thanks. Been there, done that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system#Closed_system

 

Here's something for SV.  Please pay close attention.

 

I posted this link because I thought Bill Nye was referring to the Earth as a closed thermodynamic system.

 

But having thought about it, I now realize that I was wrong. The Earth receives light, heat and energy from the Sun, so it can't be closed system.

 

I was wrong.  When I'm wrong I freely admit it. When you are wrong, do you publicly admit? 

 

Yesterday you were wrong about the big bang.

 

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.

 

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

 

So, will you match me in terms of honesty and transparency?

 

Will you publicly admit you were wrong?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WalterP said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZEdApyi9Vw

 

Nice bubble!  (but clearly a computer generated fake)

You do realize they do practice runs in aeroplanes simulating zero gravity, right?

3 hours ago, WalterP said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system#Closed_system

 

A classic example of out-of-context quote mining.

The Earth isn't a mathematical formula. 'The Earth is a closed system, we cannot leave the Earth'.

3 hours ago, WalterP said:

When attempting to make a point or to refute the point made by someone else, it always helps to read the first line of the article you're citing.

 

A balloon satellite (also occasionally referred to as a "satelloon", which is a trademarked name owned by Gilmore Schjeldahl's G.T. Schjeldahl Company) is inflated with gas after it has been put into orbit.

 

If balloon satellites require gas to keep them in orbit, then why were they inflated after they were put there?

You're supposed to be arguing against my points, not making them for me.

 

Or to put it a way you can understand;

If a satellite is in orbit in space like you believe they are supposed to, why would it need any gas or balloon? Why are engineers and scientists attaching balloons to satellites, that supposedly don't need any assistance to stay up in the air?

 

The satellite balloons were inflated AFTER they were put "in orbit" because "in orbit" does not exist. The balloons are to keep things in the atmosphere, not orbit. Ergo, satellites are in atmosphere, not orbit. Like, imagine you have a little helium balloon in your house right now, you let go of it and it hits your ceiling. That's how satellites are kept stationary above the Earth, they are near the firmament and don't magically float once they reach a certain altitude.

2 hours ago, webmdave said:

 

Says the guy who maintains that the entire universe and everything in it magically poofed into existence when a supposedly pre-existing, uncreated Hebrew tribal god burped.  :49:

I don't believe in a universe. I look at the sky and see a few bright dots and a Sun that occasionally changes size. Some ancient tribes gave names to the dots but modern scientists lie to people to get them to dream about landing on them to escape the Earth. It's all fiction.

 

constellations.jpg

 

Share this post


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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system#Closed_system

 

Here's something for SV.  Please pay close attention.

 

I posted this link because I thought Bill Nye was referring to the Earth as a closed thermodynamic system.

 

But having thought about it, I now realize that I was wrong. The Earth receives light, heat and energy from the Sun, so it can't be closed system.

 

I was wrong.  When I'm wrong I freely admit it. When you are wrong, do you publicly admit? 

 

Yesterday you were wrong about the big bang.

 

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.

 

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

 

So, will you match me in terms of honesty and transparency?

 

Will you publicly admit you were wrong?

You could also find my quote where I said they probably updated the buzzwords and I don't care enough about fictional space magic to update my vocabulary of 'scientific terms'. But sure, the explanation that I gave could just be one of the several theories, or a mishmash of them. I'm not here to leave a trail of perfectly integral statements about science or its claims, I'm here to share truth and to ridicule the stupid claims that get publicized and offer alternatives.

 

Yes, my belief about what the big bang is claimed to be could be wrong.

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.