alreadyGone Posted July 8, 2022 Author Share Posted July 8, 2022 4 hours ago, Edgarcito said: Don't let them beat on you John....let's get together for a potluck and talk strategy.... And you can pray about it... "Wherever two or more are gathered... " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted July 8, 2022 Share Posted July 8, 2022 6 hours ago, Weezer said: Johnny, it looks like stalemate to me. Why do you drive people farther away by calling them names? Why do you stay around beating your head against the wall. What keeps you from doing as the bible says and shake the dust off your feet as you leave? I'm still waiting for SCIENCE that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable, that has evidence for creation and life happening on its own. I've said various times already, science fiction is not science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted July 8, 2022 Share Posted July 8, 2022 4 hours ago, midniterider said: I need either a personal visitation by God or forget it. Religious belief is a fraud. Hey, while you're waiting for an invitation.... I'm still waiting for SCIENCE that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable, that has evidence for creation and life happening on its own. I've said various times already, science fiction is not science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted July 8, 2022 Share Posted July 8, 2022 On 7/7/2022 at 12:11 PM, alreadyGone said: Why are you afraid to face the simple question I've asked of you repeatedly? Well, why doesn't someone answer what I've requested? What is the fear that you all have? I've given evidence why such things as creation and life can't happen naturally so why can't any of you provide science to show I'm wrong? I've only given a few of MANY but I can't even get a few shown that I'm not correct. Are you sure you go by science and do you know the difference between science fiction and science. I'm still waiting for SCIENCE that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable, that has evidence for creation and life happening on its own. I've said various times already, science fiction is not science. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted July 8, 2022 Share Posted July 8, 2022 My, my... aren't you the impatient one! Sit down and wait with the rest of us, Johnny. We don't need to know where life came from; we certainly don't need to know right this very minute; and we're not going to settle for a barmy hypothesis based on an ancient book of Middle Eastern mythology and the witterings of various philosophers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alreadyGone Posted July 8, 2022 Author Share Posted July 8, 2022 @Johnny Personally I've no clue where life comes from. It's a question I no longer bother asking. Simply, I do not believe there is a God, at least not the Yahweh of the Bible. I know where my life came from.... my mother met my father, they had a strong emotional affinity for each other, got a license and married, and then they had sex. I personally have not asked you about the origin of life.. I asked you if you have a definition for the word "spirit", as a noun. Clearly, you do not. I asked also if there is any objective evidence you may be able to cite that there is in existence any spirit, of any kind, whether human, divine, demonic, or angelic. Clearly, you have no such evidence to cite. So I suppose that you and I are done here. Carry on with your other discussion(s), live long and happy, and be well. Bear in mind please Johnny, like most here I once believed also. I was a Christian believer from childhood until about age 60. Then that belief evaporated. I wanted there to be a God. I wanted to believe in the possibility and the promise of eternal life. I no longer believe that there is any "spiritual" component of my being to take any place in an eternal life. I believe that I'll soon cease to be alive, and that I'll have no more conscious awareness then than I had prior to my birth. I could be wrong, and the truth remains to be seen.. or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 8, 2022 Share Posted July 8, 2022 1 hour ago, Johnny said: I'm still waiting for SCIENCE that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable, that has evidence for creation and life happening on its own. I've said various times already, science fiction is not science. And yet, the standard of observability, repeatability and falsifiability is one that you don't even hold to. So you have no grounds for demanding that we satisfy terms that you've already violated. Unless, of course, you can tell us how an imaginary thing can be observed? You use this imaginary thing as a basis for your argument that the universe is an isolated thermodynamic system. "If the Big Bang occurred, and all matter and energy in the Universe—everything that exists—was initially in that little imaginary sphere the size of the period at the end of this sentence (or much smaller, depending on which “expert” cosmologist you ask), by implication, the evolutionist admits that the Universe is of a finite size. That is a fact. A finite Universe is an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only true isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly. That is why some reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements in reputable textbooks like the following: Physician, heal thyself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted July 8, 2022 Share Posted July 8, 2022 On 7/7/2022 at 2:43 AM, walterpthefirst said: I've demonstrated that science does not prove things. What I wrote, "Well, do you expect me to apologize for what the evidence proves? Wow, so the evidence done by experimentation that followed repeatability, falsification, and observation, was not proof life only comes from life. It was CLEAR, but somehow I'm not supposed to say it proved anything. The laughs I get in this forum are so nice." What you claimed I wrote is something I didn't write... You, "I've demonstrated that science does not prove things." Science is the study of the natural world through the collection and analysis of empirical data. It's a process that leads us to a better understanding of the world. A scientific investigation is how scientists use the scientific method to collect the data and evidence that they plan to analyze. Evidence is a body of facts and information showing whether a hypothesis is true or untrue. from: https://study.com/academy/lesson/scientific-investigations-data-evidence-reasoning.html So evidence IS used to show what is TRUE and UNTRUE. YOU put in "science" where I put "evidence." AGAIN, Me, "Well, do you expect me to apologize for what the evidence proves? Wow, so the evidence done by experimentation that followed repeatability, falsification, and observation, was not proof life only comes from life. It was CLEAR, but somehow I'm not supposed to say it proved anything. The laughs I get in this forum are so nice." Don't worry, I know you don't apologize for anything. Dare I bring up your error and at least from what I've seen, you still haven't apologized to that other member you wrote it to.... ---------------------------------------------- I'd like to draw your attention to the example of a scientist who re-interprets scientific evidence as he sees fit, so that it only supports what he feels it must. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony Michael Behe is a biochemist and was called to the stand in the 2005 case of Dover versus Kitzmiller. He is an advocate of Intelligent Design theory. "In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." You are well aware of the evidence supporting the LCDM model, but I submit that like Behe, you do not find it "good enough" to persuade you from your long-held beliefs. Therefore, I must ask you another question, Pantheory. Will any amount of evidence for the LCDM model ever be "good enough" for you? (Please note that this question carries no implication or inference of my support for the LCDM model. I have no axe to grind here. I neither support it nor reject it.) Please answer the question succinctly and directly. Thank you. Walter. Now me showing the rest of the story since you are deceitful.... The real story..... https://evolutionnews.org/2009/07/ken_millers_only_a_theory_atta_1/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, people do use the statement scientifically proven. Still you jump on me for misquoting me. Examples: "This has been scientifically proven by the latest studies on ovulation and genetic sex determination." Giving another example, Sheikh Akbar said the Prophet (PBUH) was reported as saying 'If the mother's substance was dominant, the child would have behavioural influence of the maternal uncles and if the father's substance was dominant, the child would have the behavioural influence of the paternal uncles. 'Quran and Hadith guide humanity to the truth' "But unfortunately these studies haven't been carried out on a broad scale so there is no scientifically proven data globally, which is what makes this product so dangerous for public health," said Kanari. At a loss over what to do about e-cigs Murad was recognized for pioneering the Inclusive Health approach to comprehensive health and well-being that tackles cellular restoration through a three-pronged process (topical care, internal care and emotional self-care), for creating one of the first medically supervised spas, and for developing innovative technologies and scientifically proven formulas for complete skin and body wellness. Dr. Howard Murad receives 2011 Legend of the Year Award Yet it gives.... scientific method the way of approaching a problem by drawing up a hypothesis based on a series of observations, and then testing the hypothesis by means of experiments designed in such a way as to support or invalidate the hypothesis. On the basis of the experimental evidence a theory is proposed to account for the initial observations. If subsequently the theory is found to be wanting in some respect, new hypotheses are sought and tested experimentally, so the process is a successive refinement which in science never leads to an absolute truth, but to a more reliable knowledge. And look who's calling the kettle black as YOUR side uses science has proven... A Definition of Scientific TruthScientific truths are based on clear observations of physical reality and can be tested through observation. from: https://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/scimethd.html ----------- ---Science is a system of knowledge: knowledge about the physical and natural world, knowledge gained through observation and experimentation, knowledge organised systematically. It is knowledge gained using the scientific method, commonly involving a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved, or a question that can be answered. ---Scientists do not often use the word ‘proven’ to describe a current level of understanding. This is reserved for the well-tested laws of nature. (Me, I've given laws of nature by the way. I've shown by evidence what they conclude) ----This process of testing, contesting and reviewing is what gives scientists confidence in the state of knowledge at a particular time; it is what they use to explain the physical world. The knowledge that we retain and build on (‘systematised knowledge’ ) can explain phenomena robustly. ---This feature article from the Australian Academy of Science is part of the ‘Science for Australians’ series where experts are asked to shed light on how science benefits all Australians and how it can be used to inform policy. from: https://www.science.org.au/curious/policy-features/how-does-science-work ---Formulate hypotheses in such a way that you can prove or disprove them by direct experiment. from: https://blogs.stjude.org/progress/hypothesis-must-be-falsifiable.html Evolutionist say they can prove things by science... Look how the evolutionist use prove One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved from: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317215626.htm Theory by Darwin is proven 150 years after his deat\ https://www.zmescience.com/science/darwin-subspecies-research-13521342/ 7 Ways Science Has Proven The Theory Of Evolution from: https://www.goliath.com/tech/7-ways-science-has-proven-the-theory-of-evolution/ March 18 (UPI) -- An evolution theory espoused 161 years ago by naturalist Charles Darwin has finally been proven, University of Cambridge researchers reported on Wednesday. from: https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2020/03/18/Darwin-theory-confirmed-161-years-after-conception/9691584555584/ Scientists say they've finally proven a Charles Darwin theory that says the small animal groups that make up a species are critical to the evolution and survival of mammals https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8124123/Scientists-prove-Darwin-s-survival-fittest-theory.html https://sciencesensei.com/35-ways-evolution-is-proven-all-around-us/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 8, 2022 Share Posted July 8, 2022 I can do walls of text, too. How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 8, 2022 Share Posted July 8, 2022 How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you reproduce an imaginary thing, Johnny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 8, 2022 Share Posted July 8, 2022 How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? How do you falsify an imaginary thing, Johnny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted July 8, 2022 Share Posted July 8, 2022 2 hours ago, Johnny said: I'm still waiting for SCIENCE that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable, that has evidence for creation and life happening on its own. I've said various times already, science fiction is not science. You may not live that long. How much effort and time have you spent researching the various abiogenesis hypotheses, utilizing the actual work done and papers written by the relevant scientists and not just creationist babble? None? One hour? Is there anything you can write (using your own works) which demonstrates you have any inkling of what has happened or what the current state of that research actually is? I suspect not. The science of abiogenesis is relatively young and no scientific theory has yet emerged from the hard work of the numerous researchers and the significant time they have spent in the discipline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 8, 2022 Share Posted July 8, 2022 I'm logging off now, Johnny. My Parthian Shot to you is this. The moment you contradicted your own standard you lost the right to demand that we satisfy that standard. An imaginary thing cannot be observed, reproduced or falsified. Physician, heal thyself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 4 hours ago, Johnny said: Hey, while you're waiting for an invitation.... I'm still waiting for SCIENCE that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable, that has evidence for creation and life happening on its own. I've said various times already, science fiction is not science. I'm waiting for the evidence that God did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said: How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny? Times a whole lot. Who can blame you trying to hide you can't read the difference between "evidence" and "science"? That is something to be embarrassed about. Then again, you put other things to be embarrassed about but you just go on as if nothing happened. You give a quote about Behe that is not the truth. Sure, he said that but to not give the whole story behind it was REALLY low. Then you go lecturing me on what science does and you must have felt so proud listing those sites never even bothering to look at what I actually wrote. What I wrote, "Well, do you expect me to apologize for what the evidence proves? Wow, so the evidence done by experimentation that followed repeatability, falsification, and observation, was not proof life only comes from life. It was CLEAR, but somehow I'm not supposed to say it proved anything. The laughs I get in this forum are so nice." What you claimed I wrote is something I didn't write... You, "I've demonstrated that science does not prove things." Science is the study of the natural world through the collection and analysis of empirical data. It's a process that leads us to a better understanding of the world. A scientific investigation is how scientists use the scientific method to collect the data and evidence that they plan to analyze. Evidence is a body of facts and information showing whether a hypothesis is true or untrue. from: https://study.com/academy/lesson/scientific-investigations-data-evidence-reasoning.html So evidence IS used to show what is TRUE and UNTRUE. YOU put in "science" where I put "evidence." AGAIN, Me, "Well, do you expect me to apologize for what the evidence proves? Wow, so the evidence done by experimentation that followed repeatability, falsification, and observation, was not proof life only comes from life. It was CLEAR, but somehow I'm not supposed to say it proved anything. The laughs I get in this forum are so nice." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 3 hours ago, sdelsolray said: How much effort and time have you spent researching the various abiogenesis hypotheses, utilizing the actual work done and papers written by the relevant scientists and not just creationist babble? None? One hour? And you know my life that well, how? Give me the evidence you know that. Oh, but you truly don't know that but since you can make things up, you like to show that. You must so proud of that 'talent.' "...not just creationist babble?" If you have looked at what I gave, you'd have seen many evolutionists do admit there is an 'issue' and some are honest enough to admit that, and even some of them still go along with believing abiogenesis nonetheless. I could have gave a longer list of quotes but would that have made a difference? 3 hours ago, sdelsolray said: Is there anything you can write (using your own works) which demonstrates you have any inkling of what has happened or what the current state of that research actually is? I suspect not. Why should I write it since you already know my life....somehow. BTW, you're strongly alluding to me not having looked at what the other side has to offer. If it was so great to show that life can come about on its own, what stopped you or anyone else giving it? 3 hours ago, sdelsolray said: The science of abiogenesis is relatively young and no scientific theory has yet emerged from the hard work of the numerous researchers and the significant time they have spent in the discipline. Wow, I think I've read that before. Can you mix it up a bit so that doesn't get so boring especially since I addressed that already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 1 hour ago, midniterider said: I'm waiting for the evidence that God did it. What would you call a supernatural creator? Would you title it, "Cracker Jack Box"? So let me get so basic, when laws of nature conclusively show beyond any reasonable doubt, life can't come from non-life, what would you title the winner as? By the dictionary...God-(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Again, you are free to give reasonable evidence that life happened on its own with no God involved. I'm not holding anyone back from doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 11 hours ago, Johnny said: What would you call a supernatural creator? Would you title it, "Cracker Jack Box"? So let me get so basic, when laws of nature conclusively show beyond any reasonable doubt, life can't come from non-life, what would you title the winner as? By the dictionary...God-(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Again, you are free to give reasonable evidence that life happened on its own with no God involved. I'm not holding anyone back from doing that. I liked your video Johnny explaining how complicated the simplest life on Earth realty is. That's why I prefer Panspermia theory. That possibility provides many billions of years longer for the first life on Earth to have evolved somewhere else, Maybe it evolved inside a large comet whose inside was hot enough for liquid water to exist, with no water currents to stop the formation of complex organic molecules. Your answer that such molecules would have burned up on its entry into our atmosphere was wrong. Our atmosphere is always filled with asteroid dust, the largest particles of which we see every night as meteorites. When comets come close to Earth they have a tail of water vapor that accompanies them that can enter our atmosphere, and could fall down on Earth as rain with time. Some could have brought the original life on Earth with it. This is panspermia theory. The big advantage of this theory is the many billions of years additional time that could allow complicated life to have formed elsewhere in space long before our sun began its growth from its original planetary vortex. As you know, over the entire history of mankind whenever something couldn't be explained, then the gods did it. The same thing happened with the one-God idea of Judaism, anything that couldn't be explained, God did it. As you know, nothing invisible can be disproved like invisible pink unicorns. The God-did-it religions of the world are ridiculous explanation for mostly the uneducated in science IMO, which was my major in college along with math. The God did it explanation for the beginning of life is laughingly ridiculous concerning the Bible version of it and the Book of Genesis. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freshstart Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 35 minutes ago, Johnny said: 4 hours ago, sdelsolray said: How much effort and time have you spent researching the various abiogenesis hypotheses, utilizing the actual work done and papers written by the relevant scientists and not just creationist babble? None? One hour? And you know my life that well, how? Give me the evidence you know that. Oh, but you truly don't know that but since you can make things up, you like to show that. You must so proud of that 'talent.' @Johnny, that seems like a pretty defensive response to a sincere question about how much time you have spent studying the science that you claim supports your belief in a creator-god, "source of all moral authority." Why so defensive? Also, if god is the source of all moral authority and yet he murdered all men, women, and children on the planet (except Noah's family) in a fit of torrential rage, it seems to me he set a terrible example for good moral behavior. I'm also genuinely curious as to why a Christian would come to an ex-Christian website hurling insults at strangers. Do you have a particular agenda or something you hope to achieve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alreadyGone Posted July 9, 2022 Author Share Posted July 9, 2022 3 hours ago, Johnny said: What would you call a supernatural creator? Would you title it, "Cracker Jack Box"? So let me get so basic, when laws of nature conclusively show beyond any reasonable doubt, life can't come from non-life, what would you title the winner as? .... How did god come from non-God? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 3 hours ago, Johnny said: What would you call a supernatural creator? Would you title it, "Cracker Jack Box"? Christians can't really think past more than one possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 You're not following, Johnny. All of your claims about thermodynamics rest on you being able to say something meaningful about thermodynamics. But by basing your thermodynamic arguments on an imaginary thing, your arguments fail from get go. So, it doesn't matter if you use science or evidence in your argument. The foundation they rest on (that imaginary thing) cannot make them stand. Here' I'll let Jesus explain it to you. 24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” You've built your house of thermodynamics on a foundation of sand. Imaginary things are your foundation of sand. Get your own house in order and stop using imaginary things as the basis for your arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 4 hours ago, Johnny said: What would you call a supernatural creator? Would you title it, "Cracker Jack Box"? So let me get so basic, when laws of nature conclusively show beyond any reasonable doubt, life can't come from non-life, what would you title the winner as? By the dictionary...God-(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Again, you are free to give reasonable evidence that life happened on its own with no God involved. I'm not holding anyone back from doing that. You can't claim that the laws of nature do that because your own thermodynamic-based argument is flawed. The laws of nature aren't based upon imaginary things. Put your own house in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 4 hours ago, Johnny said: And you know my life that well, how? Give me the evidence you know that. Oh, but you truly don't know that but since you can make things up, you like to show that. You must so proud of that 'talent.' "...not just creationist babble?" If you have looked at what I gave, you'd have seen many evolutionists do admit there is an 'issue' and some are honest enough to admit that, and even some of them still go along with believing abiogenesis nonetheless. I could have gave a longer list of quotes but would that have made a difference? Why should I write it since you already know my life....somehow. BTW, you're strongly alluding to me not having looked at what the other side has to offer. If it was so great to show that life can come about on its own, what stopped you or anyone else giving it? Wow, I think I've read that before. Can you mix it up a bit so that doesn't get so boring especially since I addressed that already. No Johnny, the length of your list of quotes makes no difference at all. That's because the thermodynamic foundation they rest upon cannot support them. Your thermodynamic argument relies on a foundation of imaginary things. Therefore, whatever rests on that foundation (quotes, evidence, science, etc.) is irrelevant. Get the foundations of your own house in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 15 hours ago, pantheory said: That's why I prefer Panspermia theory. Great, now supply evidence that happened AND how creation happened too to give you something that allows you for your Panspermia theory. Give SCIENCE that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable, that has evidence for creation and life happening on its own. I've said various times already, science fiction is not science. Just saying "Panspermia theory" really does not meet the science I stated. I gave science to meet those qualifications so you do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts