Austin Austin and Evolution

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, AustinAustin said:

I appreciate your reading what I've shared. The periodic table was corrected a few years ago, meaning it was wrong all along. science replaces one wrong answer with another one which will then be replaced -meaning the correct answer was never known.

 

 

If the periodic table was 'wrong' all along, then I wouldn't be too sure about the 2nd law of thermodynamics...I mean, it's ALSO that icky science stuff you dont like. Well, I guess you like it if it confirms your religious bias. 

 

In the spirit of Christian black and white thinking, if one science item is wrong, ALL SCIENCE must be wrong. Correct?

 

But of course common sense thinking tells us that there are 'degrees' of correctness. (not just right or wrong) Something can be mostly right. Something can also be 100% right to the best of our current knowledge. And yet be updated later on when we have more information.

 

The Christian bible, on the other hand contains information that has been wrong for 2000 years and foolish people lap it up.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 minutes ago, AustinAustin said:

with the goal of removing hindrances and obstacles in your relationships with God...

Why can't god remove those hindrances himself?  Most all of us prayed and asked him to before we deconverted.  And how is your false information, unsupported claims, refusal to answer questions, and scientific retardation going to do for us what god's almighty perfection couldn't do?

[walterpthefirst]

Austin,

 

For you to make the claim that the universe was created you first need to establish that it had a beginning.

 

Sure, you can believe that it did, by faith.

 

But there is currently no scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning.

 

So what is the basis of your claim, faith or evidence?

 

Please answer Austin.

 

This is the third time I've asked.

 

You say that you are being patient with us.

 

Well, I'm matching your patience and I am happy to keep on asking you this question until you answer.

 

Faith or evidence?

 

Which is it?

[pantheory]

38 minutes ago, AustinAustin said:

Google it. The numbers were wrong, and corrected a few years ago... Respectfully, google it.

 

I am a scientist. The periodic table numbers were not wrong. Apparently you cannot understand the links that I have posted. It is obvious  to me that you don't understand what you have said. Post a link that you think supports what you said, and I will explain it to you if you are really interested in your beliefs.

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, pantheory said:

 

I am a scientist. The periodic table numbers were not wrong. Apparently you cannot understand the links that I have posted. It is obvious  to me that you don't understand it at all. Post a link that you think supports what you said, and I will explain it to you if you are really interested in your beliefs.

 

Pantheory,

 

Austin doesn't like clicking on links.

 

You'll have to explain it to him at length, right here.

 

Good luck!

 

 

[AustinAustin]

23 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Here's a gentle hint, Austin.

 

You can't bluff me on this one.

 

I know what I'm talking about.

 

 

Friend, just google "Is our Universe a closed system?".

[AustinAustin]

12 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

I am a scientist. The periodic table numbers were not wrong. Apparently you cannot understand the links that I have posted. It is obvious  to me that you don't understand what you have said. Post a link that you think supports what you said, and I will explain it to you if you are really interested in your beliefs.

No, I won't... Google it. It's common knowledge, respectfully...

[pantheory]

Just now, walterpthefirst said:

 

Pantheory,

 

Austin doesn't like clicking on links.

 

You'll have to explain it to him at length, right here.

 

Good luck!

 

 

 

OK. I'll put quotes here from the links that I think are speaking in everyday language. His problem however is that he is coming from an elementary school understanding of science IMO -- which will mike it difficult for him to understand very little of general science.

[Astreja]

16 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Something can be mostly right. Something can also be 100% right to the best of our current knowledge. And yet be updated later on when we have more information.

 

Exactly.  When a new scientific discovery is found, or when we find a better way to group the elements in the Periodic Table, it's a highly desirable thing rather than an "oops."  We start with the tools and knowledge we have and make a rough draft of reality, and as we get better tools and more knowledge we can sketch a better version of reality.

 

We may never get something 100% right, but we don't have to -- if we can do useful things with partial knowledge, that's fine.  Perfection and absolutes are overrated, and not much use at all in the real world.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This whole "Here's an unsubstantiated claim; if you don't believe me, Google it" shtick is getting real fucking old.  Got any other tricks, there, Chimp?  

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, AustinAustin said:

Friend, just google "Is our Universe a closed system?".

 

Ok.

 

 

https://cnewhall.substack.com/p/is-the-universe-a-closed-system 

 

"Perhaps not..."

 

Which confirms what I said earlier.  Nobody really knows.

 

 

 

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2012/07-08/is-the-universe-a-closed-system/

 

"Our universe is not a closed system."

 

They know this by faith, which is plays no part in science. So their claim is scientifically invalid.

 

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1lbdmt/is_our_universe_a_closed_system/

 

You can't define the thermodynamic type of the universe as you can't define neither its region, boundaries, surroundings nor thermodynamic parameters such as total energy.

There is no external reference frame to determine the region of the universe, there is no thermodynamically defnable boundaries between the universe and something else and there is no surroundings where heat, work or mass could be exchanged with. Depending who you ask, the volume and total energy of the universe is either zero, infinite or undefined, and the concept of volume and energy are in themselves hard to define in a changing space-time.

 

Which confirms what I said earlier.  Nobody really knows.  And you don't know either, Austin.

 

Now, I've just done what you wanted.

 

So, please do what I want and answer my question.

 

Where is the boundary that closes the universe, making it a closed system?

 

Please answer.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Getting ready Prof?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

4 hours ago, AustinAustin said:

The bible doesn't give a verse with a specific age of Existence. You use your own calculations and then claim that God is wrong...

 

I didn't even use my own calculations. Thos were calculations by highly respected Christians during their time. 

 

 

These short pathetic answers aren't even worth me making the effort of replying to. I feel like I gave well thought out answers for my stance and all you have to offer is two sentences? 

 

I mean I'm no scholar by any means. Typos galore. Run on sentences in abundance. And A.D.D. trips me up a good bit when typing as well. But atleast I tried to give you a well rounded explanation and even a lot of testimony to show you why I am here today. 

 

I even offered an olive branch and gave you the option that I would watch any video from any person you suggested if you would watch a video of my chosing. 

 

Unless you can form a reply worthy of further response. Then I'm gonna call this one a win in my favor. And I'm done. 

[walterpthefirst]

I know that you are there, Austin.

 

Here is a list of the members who are currently logged into this forum.

 

• walterpthefirst
•  
• TheRedneckProfessor
•  
• alreadyGone
•  
• nontheistpilgrim
•  
• ◊ Krowb ◊
•  
• ☆ pantheory ☆
•  
• ☆ DarkBishop ☆
•  
• AustinAustin
•  
• midniterider

 

Please answer my question.

 

Where is the boundary that closes the universe, making it a closed system?

[walterpthefirst]

Oh look, there he is.

 

Gone!

 

•  DarkBishop ☆
•  
• Call_me_Lex
•  
• ◊ Krowb ◊
•  
• walterpthefirst
•  
• ☆ pantheory ☆
•  
• TheRedneckProfessor
•  
• alreadyGone

[TheRedneckProfessor]

39 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Getting ready Prof?

Warning shot.

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Warning shot.

 

Gotcha.

 

Well, its getting late on this side of the pond, so I'll leave AA to your tender mercies.

 

Bye!

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, AustinAustin said:

Friend, just google "Is our Universe a closed system?".

 

He did. And we all know the answer. We know the only answer googling can give you. 

 

Roger Penrose's singularity theory was falsified before WLC started trying to make his Kalam arguments. Answers in Genesis led you down an extremely wrong path, AA.

 

There's no evidence for a fixed beginning of the universe. For all anyone knows, there never was a beginning.

 

But even if there was, it wouldn't work out to be a literal beginning. Naturalistic explanations don't abruptly stop there. Whatever could have appeared to begin, would have been something that already existed previously. Nulling the idea that any such beginning was literal. 

 

 

The whole idea that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, falls flat when whatever does exist has always had some pre-existence behind it all the time, no matter what. Matter here, had to come from source material previous. It's all explained by naturalistic explanations, all of it. 

 

There's no reason whatsoever in this day and age, with the knowledge of the contemporary world at hand, to resort to claiming a supernatural being had to create everything in order for it to be here... 

[walterpthefirst]

Wot?  No Austin Austin?

 

That's a pity.

 

He could have hung in there with 'The edge of the universe is the boundary that closes it up, making it a closed universe.'

 

Then I could have asked him where the receding galaxies go to when they reach this 'edge'.

 

No violations of the laws of thermodynamics, please!

 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

31 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Wot?  No Austin Austin?

 

That's a pity.

 

He could have hung in there with 'The edge of the universe is the boundary that closes it up, making it a closed universe.'

 

Then I could have asked him where the receding galaxies go to when they reach this 'edge'.

 

No violations of the laws of thermodynamics, please!

 

 

 

Yeah one of his last posts said he didn't have much more time. Maybe God called him away to "witness " to someone else.

[alreadyGone]

Edge of the universe, center of the galaxy, it's a matter of perspective really, isn't it?

 

 

[alreadyGone]

To my thinking, this matter of insisting that all of existence came to be at the hand of a supernatural creator is really the beginning of the anthropomorphism of God.

 

As if we see or understand nearly enough about the nature of temporal existence to proclaim "it all had to come from somewhere, therefore...."

 

My my my, the folly of humankind.

 

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Wot?  No Austin Austin?

 

That's a pity.

 

He could have hung in there with 'The edge of the universe is the boundary that closes it up, making it a closed universe.'

 

Then I could have asked him where the receding galaxies go to when they reach this 'edge'.

 

No violations of the laws of thermodynamics, please!

 

 

 

 

He was trying to railroad people here to his twitter his account. Which I considered spam. He also tried giving out personal contact info, which is determined as not allowed. 

 

So he's likely gone. A short attempt at a hit and run. Comes here, hit's a brick wall. Doesn't know what to do so repeats a mantra again and again then takes off. Not unlike the string of apologist's preceding him. 

 

1 hour ago, alreadyGone said:

To my thinking, this matter of insisting that all of existence came to be at the hand of a supernatural creator is really the beginning of the anthropomorphism of God.

 

As if we see or understand nearly enough about the nature of temporal existence to proclaim "it all had to come from somewhere, therefore...."

 

My my my, the folly of humankind.

 

 

Indeed! 

 

Besides, DB had his number with the graphic illustration of the cosmology of Genesis 1. There's zero about other planets. Certainly zero about the possibility of life on other planets. Neither of which are mentioned at all. It's an anthropomorphic and geocentric image of the universe. 

 

It all had to come from somewhere but god didn't have to come from somewhere as well???

 

Carl Sagan nailed it to the wall in Cosmos when he said, 'why not save a step and conclude that the universe could be eternal?" 

 

What they are arguing is that something has to be eternal and not-created. So they plug in the concept of an eternal being, deity, or god. But if that's true, and existence has to have some eternal and uncreated factor involved, why not default to concluding that the natural universe and greater existence beyond our perceptions is 1) natural and 2) necessarily eternal in and of itself? 

 

We've explored this philosophically many times over the years. Like Aron Ra said in the video, the source material is eternal. It has to be. Because of the fact that existence is currently taking place, there's a past eternal situation to face in order for any of this to be. Leading to such naturalistic conclusions as 'existence, exists, because the absolute non-existence of anything at all is impossible.

 

And the mind can get lost in trying comprehend how existence could have just always been in one form or another. If you hold focus and get really zeroed in on the issue. That's why people like to find a place in an sea of an eternal past and declare, 'aha! It all started right there!' 

 

But when they do that, these other factors come up which bite them in the ass. The mind wants to rest easy and have a sense of beginning and end to settle into. When the deeper reality tends to show that there's no beginnings or ends in any literal sense.

 

A mind can then mature into accepting the deeper issue of no beginnings or ends from a completely 'naturalistic' perspective and leave it be. That's where I've gone with it. My mind has matured beyond the place that Austin is currently experiencing. When Austin was 8 years old, I was having the sudden realization that god is imaginary and a human made concept. And I've only firmed that up over the last 30 years since. 

 

And it makes me immune to that sort of proselytizing. I know too much about it to get caught up in claims that an eternal god must exist in order to explain existence. The claim is demonstrably false. Which is where he's trying to lead everyone. As he's desperately spamming us with links to twitter.....

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Wot?  No Austin Austin?

 

That's a pity.

Well, he has not been banned (yet).  Perhaps he is just spending some time in prayer and will come back with the power and wisdom of the holy spirit flowing through him.  Hopefully he hasn't completely r-u-n-n-o-f-t.