(January 1, 2019 at 4:34 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: It's more problematic for atheist who explain nothing in terms of science.  The best they've been able to come up in "something from nothing" and "inorganic forming into organic, then increasing in complexity."  Modern science implies these ideas are nonsense and are not observable in light of the Law of Conservation of Mass, and Biogenesis.

Dear M4X.

Please stop.... doing what ever the above post is supposedly doing.

It's not working.
It's not clever.
It's becoming *Insert descriptive word here.

 

*Author suggestions: 'Trite', 'Boring', 'Repetitive', 'Assinine', 'Oafish', 'Poor character reflection',

Not at work.

(January 1, 2019 at 5:19 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(January 1, 2019 at 4:34 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: It's more problematic for atheist who explain nothing in terms of science.  The best they've been able to come up in "something from nothing" and "inorganic forming into organic, then increasing in complexity."  Modern science implies these ideas are nonsense and are not observable in light of the Law of Conservation of Mass, and Biogenesis.

Dear M4X.

Please stop.... doing what ever the above post is supposedly doing.

It's not working.
It's not clever.
It's becoming *Insert descriptive word here.

 

*Author suggestions: 'Trite', 'Boring', 'Repetitive', 'Assinine', 'Oafish', 'Poor character reflection',

Not at work.

Or you could just show a demonstration.  Once I see a rock exploding into existence from nothing I'll consider myself beaten.  Deal?

(January 1, 2019 at 5:37 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 1, 2019 at 5:19 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Dear M4X.

Please stop.... doing what ever the above post is supposedly doing.

It's not working.
It's not clever.
It's becoming *Insert descriptive word here.

 

*Author suggestions: 'Trite', 'Boring', 'Repetitive', 'Assinine', 'Oafish', 'Poor character reflection',

Not at work.

Or you could just show a demonstration.  Once I see a rock exploding into existence from nothing I'll consider myself beaten.  Deal?

 OKay.

So... To establish a base line for the conversation that is this question/reply.

You are quite happy with both the theory and real life applications of Quantum Mechanics, yes?

You are quite happy with both the theory of and real life detection of Black Holes, yes?

Not at work.

(January 1, 2019 at 5:40 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(January 1, 2019 at 5:37 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Or you could just show a demonstration.  Once I see a rock exploding into existence from nothing I'll consider myself beaten.  Deal?

 OKay.

So... To establish a base line for the conversation that is this question/reply.

You are quite happy with both the theory and real life applications of Quantum Mechanics, yes?

You are quite happy with both the theory of and real life detection of Black Holes, yes?

Not at work.

I just want to be *BOOM* in an empty space and there's a rock or anything else that would occupy space.  It doesn't even have to be big.  A cm would be fine, maybe even less.

Just so I can say, "Yep, there's new matter in the form of a rock"  If it's a stick or something else, just switch "rock" with said item.

(January 1, 2019 at 1:09 pm)Angelina Wrote: A Christian is someone who has received the salvation of God and invited in the Holy Spirit to make changes in them. A Christian is someone who in every way tries to follow the example of Jesus Christ.

Christians are not doing very little when compared to anyone, and Christians are very involved in politics and world affairs and we are a big part of the reason governments all over the world help feed the hungry. Starvation is a problem that requires an on-going flow of money, and that money is coming mostly from Christians who pay taxes and donate money at church. What you should ask yourself is, why aren't the other 5 billion people in the world doing more to help?

We forgot to thank the christians for Westboro Baptists. 

BTW, have you looked other countries?: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-...the-world/

I think you're demonstrating the presumed superiority of the US christian.

(January 1, 2019 at 4:34 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 1, 2019 at 4:18 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Fortunately, the world runs on correct explanations, not easy ones.  Creationism explains nothing, makes no predictions, and can't be shown to be correct.  This is not the case with biological evolution.

Boru

Creationism attempts to explain creation.  How someone applies or responds to it can vary.

It's more problematic for atheist who explain nothing in terms of science.  The best they've been able to come up in "something from nothing" and "inorganic forming into organic, then increasing in complexity."  Modern science implies these ideas are nonsense and are not observable in light of the Law of Conservation of Mass, and Biogenesis.

Creationism doesn't attempt to explain anything.  It is a statement of belief, not an explanation.

There is no 'law of biogenesis'. What Pasteur et al did was to disprove a variety of creationism. There are, however, intriguing hypotheses concerning the transition from molecular evolution to the first protocells.

Boru

(January 1, 2019 at 5:58 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 1, 2019 at 5:40 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:  OKay.

So... To establish a base line for the conversation that is this question/reply.

You are quite happy with both the theory and real life applications of Quantum Mechanics, yes?

You are quite happy with both the theory of and real life detection of Black Holes, yes?

Not at work.

I just want to be *BOOM* in an empty space and there's a rock or anything else that would occupy space.  It doesn't even have to be big.  A cm would be fine, maybe even less.

Just so I can say, "Yep, there's new matter in the form of a rock"  If it's a stick or something else, just switch "rock" with said item.

Where in any scientific literature is there a claim that a 'boom' in empty space creates a rock, a stick or anything else? 

You might want to peruse some scientific articles about cosmology in place of these strawman arguments.

Boru

(January 1, 2019 at 6:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 1, 2019 at 4:34 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Creationism attempts to explain creation.  How someone applies or responds to it can vary.

It's more problematic for atheist who explain nothing in terms of science.  The best they've been able to come up in "something from nothing" and "inorganic forming into organic, then increasing in complexity."  Modern science implies these ideas are nonsense and are not observable in light of the Law of Conservation of Mass, and Biogenesis.

Creationism doesn't attempt to explain anything.  It is a statement of belief, not an explanation.

There is no 'law of biogenesis'. What Pasteur et al did was to disprove a variety of creationism. There are, however, intriguing hypotheses concerning the transition from molecular evolution to the first protocells.

Boru

Sounds like you belong to some weirdo cult that denies science.  Biogenesis is well established.

From study.com

Where do kittens come from? What about baby birds? No, these aren't philosophical questions. Kittens come from cats, and baby birds come from bird eggs. Along the same lines, microorganisms, or living things that are too small to see with the naked eye, come from other microorganisms. That seems pretty obvious, right? Well, it hasn't always been that way.

In fact, the origin of microorganisms was a major debate following their discovery in the 1670s by Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. It wasn't until the 1850s to 1860s, nearly 200 years later, that scientists came up with the theory that all living organisms have to come from other living organisms. This theory is called biogenesis because bio means 'life' and genesis means 'beginning.' 

From Biology Online

The popular notion used to be was the spontaneous generation. People, including prominent scientific thinkers, such as Aristotle, believed that mice could arise from stored grain and in the absence of any biological parent. Aristotle wrote on his book, History of Animals, that some animals could spring from their parent animals and others could grow spontaneously and not from their same type. Accordingly, the animal could come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter. ¹

The principle of spontaneous generation states that inanimate objects could produce living things. This is sometimes referred to as abiogenesis. This theory is no longer widely supported to this day. With the advent of laboratory tools and microbial techniques, scientific experiments such as that of Louis Pasteur proved that living things could not be generated spontaneously from inanimate object. Only living things are capable of reproducing another life. Thus, the theory of spontaneous generation became obsolete and the theory of biogenesis became more widely accepted.

Has anyone seen a god explode into existence?

(January 1, 2019 at 4:14 pm)Angelina Wrote: I just stated that you would have to assume they "may" have been, and it is not a leap. The vast majority of the world are creationists, and that is because everything we have on this planet and all life here, are more easily explained with an intelligent creator involved.

Why would have to assume they 'may' have been, that's nonsense, really it is. It does not matter what the majority of the world is or believes, only what we can reasonably prove, if numbers were true then would Islam be more true when it inevitably overtakes christianity as the worlds foremost religion ?

Quote:Not one thing about being human seems like it could have just occured by random chance.

Why do you say that , feelings ?

Quote:I have read all about evolution, and it explains practically nothing, and definitely nothing I was referring to.

The way you characterise it makes me think you have not understood it. Evolution fits the world we see around us much more closely than any creation myth.

---

(January 1, 2019 at 1:38 pm)Angelina Wrote: We grow enough food each year to feed the whole world 1.5 times over. 10 Billion people can be fed by what is currently grown each year. There should be no starving people in the world, but it does require money and action to get the food to those people, and as Christians we are doing everything we can to get this accomplished

Clearly you cannot simultaneously have a country with so many claimed christians doing everything they can, while at the same time having most the wealth in the world, that is the most ridiculous claim I have heard. It is more accurate to say christians, along with Muslims, atheists, humanists (add any religion you want) are doing something.

Quote:What you should ask yourself is, why aren't the other people in the world doing just as much as the Christians? If they were, we would have no starving people.

What makes you think they are not? So far you have boldly claimed this yet given no reason for it.
And if god kept his promise there would certainly be no starving christians.

 

Quote:The passage you quoted was Jesus speaking to people who were specifically instructed, as you quoted "to first seek the kingdom of God and His Righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you" Christians are also going on missions all over the world, trying to encourage every single person to accept His gift of Salvation, but not everyone is receptive.

What has that to do with god's promise to feed and clothe those who seek first his kingdom? are you suggesting that those christians in countries where their children (and themselves) starve to death are co-incidently those who are not real christians ?

Is it a promise of god, or is it not ?

Why do christians who claim that their god made the whole universe appear out of nothing (note it's theists who do that, not atheists), then ask us to believe god then cannot keep his promise because he's been incompetence enough to entrust this promise to people he must have foreknown will not deliver ? All your reply tells me is no god is exactly the same and indistinguishable from your god.