Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"If you want to honestly discuss any of the the science we actually have, you can ask any question here."
Oh, I did that and gave the two laws I gave showing creation can't happen on its own and this was your comeback...
"No, the 2 laws you mention all point to naturalism. Your abuse of them means you are dead, and this planet does not exist, as I explained before. The fact that you are not dead and Earth does exist means there is a flaw in your argument."
That was considered to YOU an answer. I most certainly see how you pretend to go by "the the science we actually have"
You are not going to use up my time with your lies.
Now you put...
"There was no leap, I explained specifically the logic that shows BOTH options do not require a god AND I gave you a science paper explaining one of those options."
You gave NO logic or science. This is what YOU gave...
"No, the 2 laws you mention all point to naturalism. Your abuse of them means you are dead, and this planet does not exist, as I explained before. The fact that you are not dead and Earth does exist means there is a flaw in your argument."
Also, copy and paste the "science paper" you gave in this topic and the date you gave it to me. Show something besides your..."No, the 2 laws you mention all point to naturalism. Your abuse of them means you are dead, and this planet does not exist, as I explained before. The fact that you are not dead and Earth does exist means there is a flaw in your argument."
You can't have it both ways...science and [your] logic.
"So you want to doctor the data by removing a religion. That is just being dishonest."
See above, it is YOU that is dishonest.
I am just responding to a few parts of your rambling dismissals because you are a waste of time, and I must take the Mr Yap for a walk.
If you are ignoring data you do not like, then yes, you are doctoring the data. And that is you being dishonest, not me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnysig
"You TOO are a man with a vowel in your name and who wears trousers. You are on our side."
Wow, that was supposed to prove something for your side that claimed...."And yes, now I would like for all religion to disappear. We don't need such antiquated ideas and beliefs and it does nothing but cause strife and wars."
Yes, it proves your argument was the cüm hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. If you want to blame atheism for anything, you need to show how it is responsible, not just point to some correlations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnysig
Strawman is VERY popular in use on your side. What DOES show your fairytale goo-to-you evolution is science. As I already showed, and wrote several times but it gets ignored over and over again....
---Evidence points to nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. It must be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This (the 1LT and 2LT) all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We know these laws and have NO doubts about them.
It does not get ignored over and over again, we have addressed these points over and over again. It is you who simply dismisses our explanations over and over again, before repeating your cut and paste rant over and over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnysig
You just start with everything all there for you so you can pretend to be thinkers when you clearly are not. You have NO science for your side. But don't let that bother you, just lie about me.
There is no pretense, it is a logical conclusion, there was either absolutely nothing or there was always something. Logically these are the only two possible options, and neither of them require a god to explain why things exist.
And that is the logic you need to refute, not just repeat your rants over and over again. Address the actual logic I have presented showing where it is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnysig
"Your abuse of them means you are dead, and this planet does not exist, as I explained before. The fact that you are not dead and Earth does exist means there is a flaw in your argument."
So, because I'm not dead and the earth exists, those laws are thrown out the window.
No, those laws are not thrown out of the window, those laws used correctly explain why you are NOT dead. The fact that you are not dead means that your straw man version of those laws are thrown out of the window.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnysig
There is NO science that shows life came about on its own. To know what life entails, shows you have NO idea what you're dealing with. You can't even get past creation happening on its own, as you CLEARLY showed you can't.
Sorry, the various theories are all based on solid, scientific facts. Exergonic reactions, hydrophobic / hydrophilic reactions, 2LoT (), PNA formation, etc. We have so many pieces of the puzzle, all of them based on actual science, we just do not know the precise details. That is far more evidence than you have.
And we can explain this science in the science forum.
You are not going to use up my time with your lies.
Now you put...
"There was no leap, I explained specifically the logic that shows BOTH options do not require a god AND I gave you a science paper explaining one of those options."
You gave NO logic or science.
Yes I did provide logic AND a science paper, so you are in NO position to accuse others of lying.
Either there was absolutely nothing, including rules to determine how absolutely nothing should behave, OR there was always an eternal something. Both are logically necessarily true, and neither requires a god to explain existence.
Do not simply pretend I did not post a logical argument, and do not simply repeat your refuted rant, deal with the actual logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnysig
This is what YOU gave...
"No, the 2 laws you mention all point to naturalism. Your abuse of them means you are dead, and this planet does not exist, as I explained before. The fact that you are not dead and Earth does exist means there is a flaw in your argument."
Also, copy and paste the "science paper" you gave in this topic and the date you gave it to me. Show something besides your..."No, the 2 laws you mention all point to naturalism. Your abuse of them means you are dead, and this planet does not exist, as I explained before. The fact that you are not dead and Earth does exist means there is a flaw in your argument."
You are arguing it always goes from order to disorder. My examples (we have a universe full of them) shows we also get order from disorder (dust to star systems, acid full of chemicals to ADP). I even explained why, local entropy states.
You can deal with this in the science forum, otherwise stop wasting every ones time with your thread derail.
There is NO case atheism is responsible for wars. If you want to point to Stalin and Mao, then there is an equally strong case for men causing wars, people who wear trousers causing wars, or people with vowels in their names.
But when you look at the actual evidence (zb, the religious accounted for only 0.5% of the victims of Stalin), then we see the reason is often power mad dictators removing perceived threats to their power base.
Perhaps you need to think rationally instead of linking to articles.
So you want to doctor the data by removing a religion. That is just being dishonest.
You TOO are a man with a vowel in your name and who wears trousers. You are on our side.
No, you said some people said rape was good for evolution. But that is irrelevant, not raping is also good for evolution. That does not magically get you to a god existing.
Yes, it is our problem you can not think for yourself.
We have explained the flaws in your parody of science, but you keep running from the actual science.
No, the 2 laws you mention all point to naturalism. Your abuse of them means you are dead, and this planet does not exist, as I explained before. The fact that you are not dead and Earth does exist means there is a flaw in your argument.
A fine tuned god (and it must be fine tuned) refutes your own argument AND a god would not need to create a large, old fine tuned universe, it could create any universe it wanted. the fine tuning argument is an argument against any gods doing it.
The various theories about the beginning of life are all based on scientific facts. That a god did it is not, it is just an assertion that explains absolutely nothing.
Evolution.
Not actually a problem, just you dropping the word information without even understanding which meaning of the word you are referring to..
Evolution.
We are working on that, and the decades of science you pretend we do not have all point to it not being a god.
That we created logic is an argument against a god, otherwise we would not have to create logic (and Mathematics, science, language).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
I am just responding to a few parts of your rambling dismissals because you are a waste of time, and I must take the Mr Yap for a walk.
If you are ignoring data you do not like, then yes, you are doctoring the data. And that is you being dishonest, not me.
Yes, it proves your argument was the cüm hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. If you want to blame atheism for anything, you need to show how it is responsible, not just point to some correlations.
It does not get ignored over and over again, we have addressed these points over and over again. It is you who simply dismisses our explanations over and over again, before repeating your cut and paste rant over and over again.
There is no pretense, it is a logical conclusion, there was either absolutely nothing or there was always something. Logically these are the only two possible options, and neither of them require a god to explain why things exist.
And that is the logic you need to refute, not just repeat your rants over and over again. Address the actual logic I have presented showing where it is wrong.
No, those laws are not thrown out of the window, those laws used correctly explain why you are NOT dead. The fact that you are not dead means that your straw man version of those laws are thrown out of the window.
Sorry, the various theories are all based on solid, scientific facts. Exergonic reactions, hydrophobic / hydrophilic reactions, 2LoT (), PNA formation, etc. We have so many pieces of the puzzle, all of them based on actual science, we just do not know the precise details. That is far more evidence than you have.
And we can explain this science in the science forum.
I'm not the one running. You in another thread with your eternal universe and your other one how the energy equals zero, were all shot down. It's getting old about your science fiction, as I already showed...
"Perhaps you need to think rationally instead of linking to articles."
The lie was brought up talking about religions and wars alluding to it's a big cause.
Northsouth wrote, "And yes, now I would like for all religion to disappear. We don't need such antiquated ideas and beliefs and it does nothing but cause strife and wars."
So, all religion 'does nothing but cause strife and wars."
I responded to show that is far from the case and a lie. YOU don't think rationally and you are not honest of why I brought up that article. There was the root of it, so YOU live with it or just keep on lying.
"So you want to doctor the data by removing a religion. That is just being dishonest."
See above, it is YOU that is dishonest.
"You TOO are a man with a vowel in your name and who wears trousers. You are on our side."
Wow, that was supposed to prove something for your side that claimed...."And yes, now I would like for all religion to disappear. We don't need such antiquated ideas and beliefs and it does nothing but cause strife and wars."
Again, you're dishonest about the facts.
"No, you said some people said rape was good for evolution."
Was that your side or not? Did I say ALL of your side said that? No. I said if they are not correct, by what authority do you have to say that?
"But that is irrelevant"
Oh, so it is irrelevant because you said so. That is your morality based on what you say it is.
"not raping is also good for evolution. That does not magically get you to a god existing."
I never said it "magically get you to a god existing."
Strawman is VERY popular in use on your side. What DOES show your fairytale goo-to-you evolution is science. As I already showed, and wrote several times but it gets ignored over and over again....
---Evidence points to nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. It must be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This (the 1LT and 2LT) all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We know these laws and have NO doubts about them.
Then after creation*there are a WHOLE lot of things science never got around such as the fine-tuning of the universe so life can exist on earth, the beginning*of life, the designs of life forms, the information needing to be there before life started, the synchrony needed from the start, asexual and sexual reproduction, consciousness, logic, etc.----
You just start with everything all there for you so you can pretend to be thinkers when you clearly are not. You have NO science for your side. But don't let that bother you, just lie about me.
"Yes, it is our problem you can not think for yourself."
Oh wow, that was supposed to somehow show all that I gave was not correct and I don't think for myself. Your side sure supplies a lot of laughter.
"We have explained the flaws in your parody of science, but you keep running from the actual science."
I must have missed it. Do copy and paste from anyone who supplied with how creation happened naturally and got around the laws I gave. Go ahead and do that, but.....you can't. Lying is much easier for you.
"No, the 2 laws you mention all point to naturalism."
And this is how you got around the laws to prove creation happened naturally....
"Your abuse of them means you are dead, and this planet does not exist, as I explained before. The fact that you are not dead and Earth does exist means there is a flaw in your argument."
So, because I'm not dead and the earth exists, those laws are thrown out the window. Wow, again, your side supplies such humor. The fact you're not embarrassed to write that says a whole lot about you. That did NOTHING to show what I gave is not correct but to you....it's all that was needed.
"A fine tuned god (and it must be fine tuned) refutes your own argument AND a god would not need to create a large, old fine tuned universe, it could create any universe it wanted. the fine tuning argument is an argument against any gods doing it."
I'm not surprised you would write that as if that somehow proved a fine-tuned universe for life on earth is not really there because you said so. It's IS there but not there because...........YOU said so. NO evidence it is not there, just you saying it is not there.
"The various theories about the beginning of life are all based on scientific facts."
And your best one to show that life came about on its own is....
(blank)
There is NO science that shows life came about on its own. To know what life entails, shows you have NO idea what you're dealing with. You can't even get past creation happening on its own, as you CLEARLY showed you can't.
"Evolution."
Again, look at how you handled what had to happen previously to that, it's all nonsense.
"Not actually a problem, just you dropping the word information without even understanding which meaning of the word you are referring to.."
And your evidence I don't know what information is in this context...
(blank)
Originally Posted by Johnnysig View Post
... the synchrony needed from the start, asexual and sexual reproduction, ...
"Evolution."
And the evidence to show that....
(blank)
Originally Posted by Johnnysig View Post
... consciousness, ...
"We are working on that"
Oh darn, you couldn't get around anything else I gave but this one you're working on.
"That we created logic is an argument against a god"
Oh, so logic was created too. To have logic that was created, we need a creation that led to our brains thinking logically and you have not logically even done that along with the list I gave that followed.
And what's really amazing is, you think you thought this through.
I'm not the one running. You in another thread with your eternal universe and your other one how the energy equals zero, were all shot down. It's getting old about your science fiction, as I already showed...
"Perhaps you need to think rationally instead of linking to articles."
The lie was brought up talking about religions and wars alluding to it's a big cause.
Northsouth wrote, "And yes, now I would like for all religion to disappear. We don't need such antiquated ideas and beliefs and it does nothing but cause strife and wars."
So, all religion 'does nothing but cause strife and wars."
I responded to show that is far from the case and a lie. YOU don't think rationally and you are not honest of why I brought up that article. There was the root of it, so YOU live with it or just keep on lying.
"So you want to doctor the data by removing a religion. That is just being dishonest."
See above, it is YOU that is dishonest.
"You TOO are a man with a vowel in your name and who wears trousers. You are on our side."
Wow, that was supposed to prove something for your side that claimed...."And yes, now I would like for all religion to disappear. We don't need such antiquated ideas and beliefs and it does nothing but cause strife and wars."
Again, you're dishonest about the facts.
"No, you said some people said rape was good for evolution."
Was that your side or not? Did I say ALL of your side said that? No. I said if they are not correct, by what authority do you have to say that?
"But that is irrelevant"
Oh, so it is irrelevant because you said so. That is your morality based on what you say it is.
"not raping is also good for evolution. That does not magically get you to a god existing."
I never said it "magically get you to a god existing."
Strawman is VERY popular in use on your side. What DOES show your fairytale goo-to-you evolution is science. As I already showed, and wrote several times but it gets ignored over and over again....
---Evidence points to nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. It must be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This (the 1LT and 2LT) all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We know these laws and have NO doubts about them.
Then after creation*there are a WHOLE lot of things science never got around such as the fine-tuning of the universe so life can exist on earth, the beginning*of life, the designs of life forms, the information needing to be there before life started, the synchrony needed from the start, asexual and sexual reproduction, consciousness, logic, etc.----
You just start with everything all there for you so you can pretend to be thinkers when you clearly are not. You have NO science for your side. But don't let that bother you, just lie about me.
"Yes, it is our problem you can not think for yourself."
Oh wow, that was supposed to somehow show all that I gave was not correct and I don't think for myself. Your side sure supplies a lot of laughter.
"We have explained the flaws in your parody of science, but you keep running from the actual science."
I must have missed it. Do copy and paste from anyone who supplied with how creation happened naturally and got around the laws I gave. Go ahead and do that, but.....you can't. Lying is much easier for you.
"No, the 2 laws you mention all point to naturalism."
And this is how you got around the laws to prove creation happened naturally....
"Your abuse of them means you are dead, and this planet does not exist, as I explained before. The fact that you are not dead and Earth does exist means there is a flaw in your argument."
So, because I'm not dead and the earth exists, those laws are thrown out the window. Wow, again, your side supplies such humor. The fact you're not embarrassed to write that says a whole lot about you. That did NOTHING to show what I gave is not correct but to you....it's all that was needed.
"A fine tuned god (and it must be fine tuned) refutes your own argument AND a god would not need to create a large, old fine tuned universe, it could create any universe it wanted. the fine tuning argument is an argument against any gods doing it."
I'm not surprised you would write that as if that somehow proved a fine-tuned universe for life on earth is not really there because you said so. It's IS there but not there because...........YOU said so. NO evidence it is not there, just you saying it is not there.
"The various theories about the beginning of life are all based on scientific facts."
And your best one to show that life came about on its own is....
(blank)
There is NO science that shows life came about on its own. To know what life entails, shows you have NO idea what you're dealing with. You can't even get past creation happening on its own, as you CLEARLY showed you can't.
"Evolution."
Again, look at how you handled what had to happen previously to that, it's all nonsense.
"Not actually a problem, just you dropping the word information without even understanding which meaning of the word you are referring to.."
And your evidence I don't know what information is in this context...
(blank)
Originally Posted by Johnnysig View Post
... the synchrony needed from the start, asexual and sexual reproduction, ...
"Evolution."
And the evidence to show that....
(blank)
Originally Posted by Johnnysig View Post
... consciousness, ...
"We are working on that"
Oh darn, you couldn't get around anything else I gave but this one you're working on.
"That we created logic is an argument against a god"
Oh, so logic was created too. To have logic that was created, we need a creation that led to our brains thinking logically and you have not logically even done that along with the list I gave that followed.
And what's really amazing is, you think you thought this through.
This is a giant run-on mess of text, please consider using forum quoting format more effectively so the conversation is clear. It's hard to take someone seriously that isn't even capable of presenting their arguments in a cogent and coherent manner.
I'm not the one running. You in another thread with your eternal universe and your other one how the energy equals zero, were all shot down. It's getting old about your science fiction, as I already showed...
"Perhaps you need to think rationally instead of linking to articles."
The lie was brought up talking about religions and wars alluding to it's a big cause.
Northsouth wrote, "And yes, now I would like for all religion to disappear. We don't need such antiquated ideas and beliefs and it does nothing but cause strife and wars."
So, all religion 'does nothing but cause strife and wars."
I responded to show that is far from the case and a lie. YOU don't think rationally and you are not honest of why I brought up that article. There was the root of it, so YOU live with it or just keep on lying.
"So you want to doctor the data by removing a religion. That is just being dishonest."
See above, it is YOU that is dishonest.
"You TOO are a man with a vowel in your name and who wears trousers. You are on our side."
Wow, that was supposed to prove something for your side that claimed...."And yes, now I would like for all religion to disappear. We don't need such antiquated ideas and beliefs and it does nothing but cause strife and wars."
Again, you're dishonest about the facts.
"No, you said some people said rape was good for evolution."
Was that your side or not? Did I say ALL of your side said that? No. I said if they are not correct, by what authority do you have to say that?
"But that is irrelevant"
Oh, so it is irrelevant because you said so. That is your morality based on what you say it is.
"not raping is also good for evolution. That does not magically get you to a god existing."
I never said it "magically get you to a god existing."
Strawman is VERY popular in use on your side. What DOES show your fairytale goo-to-you evolution is science. As I already showed, and wrote several times but it gets ignored over and over again....
---Evidence points to nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. It must be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This (the 1LT and 2LT) all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We know these laws and have NO doubts about them.
Then after creation*there are a WHOLE lot of things science never got around such as the fine-tuning of the universe so life can exist on earth, the beginning*of life, the designs of life forms, the information needing to be there before life started, the synchrony needed from the start, asexual and sexual reproduction, consciousness, logic, etc.----
You just start with everything all there for you so you can pretend to be thinkers when you clearly are not. You have NO science for your side. But don't let that bother you, just lie about me.
"Yes, it is our problem you can not think for yourself."
Oh wow, that was supposed to somehow show all that I gave was not correct and I don't think for myself. Your side sure supplies a lot of laughter.
"We have explained the flaws in your parody of science, but you keep running from the actual science."
I must have missed it. Do copy and paste from anyone who supplied with how creation happened naturally and got around the laws I gave. Go ahead and do that, but.....you can't. Lying is much easier for you.
"No, the 2 laws you mention all point to naturalism."
And this is how you got around the laws to prove creation happened naturally....
"Your abuse of them means you are dead, and this planet does not exist, as I explained before. The fact that you are not dead and Earth does exist means there is a flaw in your argument."
So, because I'm not dead and the earth exists, those laws are thrown out the window. Wow, again, your side supplies such humor. The fact you're not embarrassed to write that says a whole lot about you. That did NOTHING to show what I gave is not correct but to you....it's all that was needed.
"A fine tuned god (and it must be fine tuned) refutes your own argument AND a god would not need to create a large, old fine tuned universe, it could create any universe it wanted. the fine tuning argument is an argument against any gods doing it."
I'm not surprised you would write that as if that somehow proved a fine-tuned universe for life on earth is not really there because you said so. It's IS there but not there because...........YOU said so. NO evidence it is not there, just you saying it is not there.
"The various theories about the beginning of life are all based on scientific facts."
And your best one to show that life came about on its own is....
(blank)
There is NO science that shows life came about on its own. To know what life entails, shows you have NO idea what you're dealing with. You can't even get past creation happening on its own, as you CLEARLY showed you can't.
"Evolution."
Again, look at how you handled what had to happen previously to that, it's all nonsense.
"Not actually a problem, just you dropping the word information without even understanding which meaning of the word you are referring to.."
And your evidence I don't know what information is in this context...
(blank)
Originally Posted by Johnnysig View Post
... the synchrony needed from the start, asexual and sexual reproduction, ...
"Evolution."
And the evidence to show that....
(blank)
Originally Posted by Johnnysig View Post
... consciousness, ...
"We are working on that"
Oh darn, you couldn't get around anything else I gave but this one you're working on.
"That we created logic is an argument against a god"
Oh, so logic was created too. To have logic that was created, we need a creation that led to our brains thinking logically and you have not logically even done that along with the list I gave that followed.
And what's really amazing is, you think you thought this through.
So in essence, eternal existence is not possible (therefore your god can not exist), OR there was once absolutely nothing (which includes your god by definition), therefore your non-existent impossible god must be the only answer.
And all because you clearly do not understand the science you quote out of context; your arguments entail you must be a stinking, rotting corpse on a non-existent planet; you can spell 'silly' but do not feel the need to explain why any counter arguments are silly; and you repeatedly lie about science you do not like even existing.
No wonder you avoid the science section, even though you were less than honest when you said you had.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
discuss any of the the science we actually have, you can ask any question here.
), PNA formation, etc. We have so many pieces of the puzzle, all of them based on actual science, we just do not know the precise details. That is far more evidence than you have.
