ATHEISTS THINK THIS IS LOGICAL .....

RS_master

Grafix said:

@RS_master - You wrote ...

@Grafix How do you know all the truths are from god. There is no evidence. The story goes...

A densely packed dot exploding, (2nd law of thermodynamics) and as it explodes the dot gets less densely packed and larger and more spread out.  Eventually some gas(still mass) settled together to form planets and stars and after 8.5 billion years the solar system formed. This is where evolution starts. All the molecules kept joining with different ones to get more complicated molecules.

What if I said to you that the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang are concoctions devised by atheism to prove atheism?  You could say in reply, well Christ is a concoction to prove the religion of Christianity.  Then it gets down to who has the most evidence of their cliaims.  Right?  Christianity does by far.  Thousands of documents, relics, tombs, an empty tomb, a crucifixion, miracles and mysteries with eye-witness accounts outside of the Biblical texts.  What hard evidence is their to support a common ancestor, Evolution and the Big Bang?  

Christianity's hard evidence is Christ Himself. His obvious divinity observed in both his resurrection and his ascension with eye-witness accounts on the historical record outside of Biblical texts. The written record of the Governor, Pontius Pilate in his Acta Pilati, (Acts of Pilate). There's also a plethora of archaeological evidence which testifies to the accuracy of the Biblical texts.  What is on the historical record, with eye-witness accounts and archaeological evidence that the account you rely on even happened?  There's none.  It's all conjecture.  You then wrote ...

Eventually, DNA was made. That DNA became more complicated to make simple life cells. By accident one may have been a bit different and the others died out because they could not survive. This is called natural selection. It kept happening making more complicated life.Eventually humans formed. Because they are so complicated they can decide, invent and use. By doing that we came with laws and values so god did not have to interfere. There are other theories each one minimising god existance chances.

Explain where DNA came from?  DNA, like the attributes I describe in my previous post, is information contained in protein chains.  No useful  cell can be formed without it.  Every cell has a function, which is its purpose for existing.  If it does not know what its function is, it cannot be formed in any way to be functional.  That is what DNA does - gives the knowledge to cell formation in order to determine that our hair is brown or blonde, eyes blue or brown, legs long or short, skin fair or dark, etc.  

Sure, we inherit our DNA from our parents, but remember DNA is never replicated by nature.  You cannot replicate something which is not physical. You can only copy it.  Before cells divide, they copy the DNA from the parent cell.  If they didn't the new cells would not form into functional cells.  So where did the DNA come from in the first male and female of each species?  Secondly, as we're clearly not exact replicas of our parents, and our DNA is different from theirs, because no two living things have identical DNA, where does the new DNA not inherited come from which makes each one of us unique?  Science acknowledges it is intelligent information.

.

@Grafix It looks like you were not paying attension that proof is evidence. Evidence backs up belief. Proof drives belief. Big bang/ evolution has scientific proof. Cristianity`s proof is from the book created by the first believer in it. There are bible contradictions.

Grafix

@RS_master - You wrote ....

@Grafix It looks like you were not paying attension that proof is evidence. Evidence backs up belief. Proof drives belief. Big bang/ evolution has scientific proof. Cristianity`s proof is from the book created by the first believer in it. There are bible contradictions.

OH indeed, I am paying great attention.  For centuries over the millennia Christians have kept faith in their faith, impressed by the wisdom of it, by the wisdom of those in the Good Book speaking to us, particularly placing their faith in the update which Christ brought with His own bodily self, providing us with some very special evidence  of our God's omniscience, increasing our conviction in the truths of Christianity.  We fully acknowledge we never were and still are not by any law, nor social expectation, legal diktat or requirement, obliged to prove anything pertaining to our faith, for the simple reason it is just that, a faith.  The definition of faith is to believe without seeing, to believe by placing trust in something or someone.   Nevertheless, since the time of Christ, archaeological and historical evidence just keeps pouring in at a great rate. 

Unlike the freedom of faith in the absence of evidence, science is  obliged to provide evidence and support its claims, because that is the moral expectation, the moral integrity of its purpose and the moral, social, legal and philosophical obligation which those who fund it, invest in it and who reward its academia with great recognition, demand from it.

What's most interesting is that of the these two disciplines, theology and science, it seems theology has put science's back up against the wall regarding two of its Theories - Evolution and the Big Bang.  In requesting material and hard  evidence which supports either, we are shocked to find that none actually exists, only extrapolations, conjecture and cobbled-together narratives, unlike Christianity which has a plethora of both  hard and material evidence to support its claims.  

I can't possibly cover all of it, particularly not the raft of ancient texts, scrolls, antiquities and archives of real-in-the-flesh-material hard evidence.  Below is just a smattering of it, from sources outside of the Biblical texts, verified and authenticated by historians, scientists and governments, which cover only key events in the historical record of Christ's life.  I remind you, all of this evidence comes from cultures and people who were hostile to Christianity.  None of it is  based on "faith", but all drawn from the record and from hostile eye-witness accounts.  I use an earlier post already made by me ...

In addition, are just a few examples of that plethora of evidence on the historical record.  Below is an excerpt from a respected archaeological journal which shows that recent archaeological discoveries now disprove the JEDP Theory with hard evidence to back up the reasons why that theory is no longer viable.

.

Below is an excerpt referencing that same archaeological evidence, but from a different and equally respected Archaeology Journal, discussing in more detail exactly what that hard evidence reveals on the Sumerian clay tablet nearly 8,000 years old ...

Below is the chronological order of these Biblical historical accounts inscribed on these ancient Sumerian tablets found at Ebla in Syria, with each separate tablet dated later then the previous one and each signed by the identities listed in the far right column.  As you can see, no author is attributed to the first tablet recording Chapter One of the Book of Genesis, which is the record of creation, before God had created man.  There was no human alive to author it, so although it has been dutifully recorded and matches perfectly the record in the Book of Genesis, no signature is provided at the end of this ancient inscription, as found on the earliest of these set of ancient tablets.  The rest follow in the correct chronological order as in the Book of Genesis as we know it today.  So Moses compiled these records already written before his time, transcribing them faithfully and accurately.

The following is the historical record, as written by the highly regarded and respected historian Josephus.  All of his work is an archive of that which he thoroughly researched and verified to his satisfaction, before committing it to the record.  This is what he said, now archived in the Jewish Antiquities, but remember he is a Roman, who were pagans at the time and the hostile occupiers of Israel ...

There is other hard and material evidence found on the ground and on sea beds discovered by archaeologists too.  One such discovery is that of a 515 foot mighty ship 6,000 feet above seal level in the Mountains of Ararat, (today's Turkey), the measurements of which and the construction of which match precisely the record given in the Biblical texts of Noah's Ark and it found exactly where the Biblical account said it came to rest after the flood waters had subsided.  Samples have all been taken from the excavation and lab tested, properly dated, examined and recorded.  The undeniability of the gobsmacking question, how did such a great whacking sea vessel come to be 6,000 feet above sea level cannot be dismissed?  Surely, that alone is hard evidence of the Great Flood, in conjunction with the dating of the artefact itself?

The Turkish government, (a bunch of Moslems hostile to Christianity, don't forget), sent in its scientists from its Dept. of Antiquities to examine the whole site and the samples.  They could not deny the evidence.  After considerable pressure from both academic quarters in the West from its historical, archaeological and antiquities disciplines and other academia, the Turkish Government declared a National Park around the site to protect the artefact and built a viewing platform with a visitors' centre for tourists to see it.  An extract from a brief news article on the discovery is below.  The lamination  of the timber beams in the structure is technology way before our time, likewise is evidence of the use of alloyed metals, also way before our time and not previously known to have been in use in BCE - obviously knowledge later lost and re-discovered by us.

This is just a tiny part of the record of one archaeological discovery with hard, material evidence which is indisputable and proves the authenticity of the Biblical text and the events described in it, right down to the exact measurements of the structure of the Ark, all recorded in the Biblical text.  Another example is the discovery of hundreds of skeletons all in one spot on the sea bed of the Red Sea of an Egyptian army, of many remains of Pharaoh's chariots, the wheels, axles and hubs, also of horse fema bones, etc., all found in hundreds of feet of water.  What would an army be doing trying to cross the Red Sea in hundreds of feet of water?  There is no evidence of any sea-going vessel, only of land transport, like chariots and all dated properly, fitting the exact era which the Bible describes as the Exodus of the Israelites fleeing from Egypt with the Pharaoh and his army in hot pursuit.  On the shore on each opposite bank of the sea at this point, are two pillars with inscriptions, commemorating this historic crossing, erected by King Solomon, a ruler of the Israelites in Israel.

Then there is the evidence of the destruction and razing to the ground of Sodom and Gomorrah by "hail, fire and brimstone", as described in the Biblical texts, evidenced today by the ghostly spectres of these cities' remains, still standing on the now desolate plains, once full of lush pasture in a fertile valley.  The valley is now completely barren.  Nothing has grown in it for many millennia.  Why not?  Geologists can't work it out.  The Bible text states when God destroyed these cities He cursed the land so that nothing would ever grow in it again, not even a single blade of grass and that is the exactly what we see, in spite of rain falling in this once fertile place.  

If you walk across the ground you can see the brimstone lying around and embedded in the now petrified skeletal structures of the remains of the destroyed buildings.  This same brimstone is always found in perfectly spherical balls like hailstones.  It  is also pure white, not yellow at all.  This brimstone has been tested and it is pure sulphur.  The only known sulphur that has ever been sourced on earth is a luminescent yellow and does not have the percentage of sulphur that the brimstone at Sodom and Gomorrah has and nowhere on earth has any ever been found with that 100% sulphur composite, except that lying on the ground at these two places.  For centuries, theologians could never work out why the Biblical text said "hail" in the same context as "fire and brimstone".  Once these little spherical balls of brimstone were discovered, that made sense.

There is a plethora of literature, hundreds of videos, thousands of records in evidence, all similar to the above, about many different sites, finds and artefacts which prove the accuracy and authenticity of events recorded in the Biblical texts.  Atheists are just ignorant of them.  That ignorance leads them to believe in their unfounded hubris, that therefore Christianity is a "myth" merely based on fairy tales, but it is undeniably proved already, that it is anything but based on "myths".  The problem atheism has is this. This information has been around for many, many decades.  Atheists simply refuse to acknowledge it, refuse to research it, refuse to discuss it whenever it is put in front of them.  That just multiplies their ignorance further and further as the evidence in support of Christianity just keeps mounting and mounting.  It is no longer a viable claim to call it a "myth" at all because Christianity has  presented far more hard and material evidence to support it than either the Theory of Evolution or of the Big Bang ever have, can or ever will, because evidence is now exposing them as the myths.

.

RS_master

@Grafix ; one fallacy you are doing is you are saying faith is important for belief. Faith is not proof. As I keep mentioning, proof drives belief. Proof is more important You also stated "we live by no law". That is not nice, rules prevent the world from becoming chaotic. 

Grafix

@John_C_87 - Are you still around?  I've had so many posts to reply to in other topics, I couldn't get back to this topic and your last response, the key part of which I think is this ...

Not surprised that it is. I didn't write the formula incorrectly simply in general idea from a possible suggestion and speed in the translation of mathematic symbols. I can see why others would do the same. The mathematical proof of motion as the law written.  For all Elasticity, modulation, and reverberation there exists gravity. 
So, what my proof is stating is. That for all elasticity of number and numbers, that share a modulation within the numbers or number, that is reverberating on a number or numbers, creates an attraction to a number, or those numbers. Gravity. This is a true proof of relationship ratio over-approximation.

John, I have to admit this is way, way, way, out of my league.  Whether further explanation of it will be fruitful or not I cannot know and don't wish to press you if you can see fairly clearly that it would probably not help.  However, I'll ask anyway and see where it takes us.

Are you, maybe, even on the brink of solving the equation for gravity?  Perhaps? ... or suggesting that gravity has a relationship of relativity to Einstein's equation of General Relativity? .... or nothing like that?   I'm struggling here.

When you use the term "elasticity of number and numbers" are you speaking literally about any numerals?  If so, then I honestly don't understand what is meant by "elasticity" when applied to numerals, let alone numerals sharing a "modulation" that is "reverberating" on them.   Worse, how that might then create an "attraction to a number or numbers" just goes way over my head because I have no idea what the three terms of "elasticity", "modulation" and "reverberation" mean when applied to numerals or numbers, so I am lost at the starting gate.  Therefore, how that could reach a conclusion of "relationship ratio over-approximation" just flies over my head, although I think I can see that you could possibly be referencing how Einstein's use of algebra gave him knowledge of that relationship.  That's the best I can do.

John_C_87

@Grafix ;
Here, kind of....lol

Grafix

@HowardChance1 - You didn't address your post to anyone in particular and having been drawn away from this topic to reply in others, I had forgotten about it.  Are you still out there?  You wrote ...

You could keep your faith out of my life... That would be nice... we have a president of the United States that you Christians by and large elected.
Everything his presidency is based on is a lie ... He told you what you wanted to hear and you voted for him...
 The most ignorant uneducated  non-productive unprofitable States that have the most unemployment and entitlements handed out every year was carried by Donald Trump..

Not sure what you mean by "carried by Donald Trump".  Maybe you mean they  "carried" him  to an election win?  If that is the case,  then maybe they were fed up with Socialist, leftie policies?  That would be a logical deduction to make, I think.  Intolerant of others' right to vote are we?  Typical Democrat..  Socialism creates poverty and a dependency on the State.  That's its primary purpose.  It's ultimate goal IS  to control the people.  Lenin admitted that "the goal of Socialism is Communism".  Communism requires we hand all we own over to the State with the State in complete control of our lives.  The people rejected that all across this nation, not just in "Bible belts".  To pretend otherwise, is just atheistic sour grapes, ignoring the demographics of the different voting blocs right across the nation.  Wallow in your ignorant whine.  It won't make you any the smarter.

 All those States happen to have the most churches in them as well per capita... 

Not a single American saw Donald Trump as any kind of flagship for Christianity.  If anything, his life and lifestyle had always suggested the very opposite.  So, No.  Your premise is twaddle.  It is only SINCE he became President, not until the beginning of the second year of his term that this became apparent as a strong binding principle which he embraced. Possibly the influence of his VP, Mike Pence.  Then you claim ....

 The courts have overthrown elections in my state all going Republican and Christian

There is only one way the Courts can get involved in the results of elections and that is if foul play is alleged and proved.  Obviously, The Democrats got caught cheating at the polls or via the electoral process.  There is ample evidence of that fairly widespread across the nation, Broward County and Brenda Snipes the flagship of that and the canary in the coal mine, which woke up the Republican camp to be a little wiser about what was going on.  You want a dishonest system, so that Democrats can keep on cheating, just so your criminal politicians can win via corrupt means.  That figures.  All Democrats are corrupt and dishonest.

The federal government has had two presidents now That we're Not elected by the popular vote one of which elections was decided by the supreme Court...

Mate, you're positively unhinged.  Need a lesson in civics? These two Presidents aren't the ONLY Presidents at all, who didn't win the popular vote.  The system was deliberately  designed by the Founding Fathers to ignore the popular vote.  Nearly every President ever elected has never won it.  There is a solid reason for that - all of the big city States would always continually hold the majority of seats in Congress, leaving fly-over America and the smaller States out in the cold with no representation.  That is the whole purpose of the Electoral College system, to prevent that.  It just so happens the big metropolises are strongholds for Democrats.  I bet you London to a brick that if rural and regional America were strongholds for Democrats you wouldn't be whining like a stuck pig about  the popular vote, yet that's all we ever see from Democrats, intolerance of anything even-handed and fair when they can't win in an even-handed and fair manner.  Instead they want to CHANGE the system to anything but even-handed and fair so that it favors them  so they can win anyway, no matter how, as long as they win.  They're not Democrats at all.  They're tyrannical little shitheads, power-drunk, intolerant, bleating, whinging bullies whenever they lose. You epitomize that by your long and exhaustive whine in your post.

Christians have allowed a Russian puppet to be the president of the United States with evidence of Russian interference in our elections..just two elections after they put our ballot on servers an  eight-year-old can hack..

You're so ignorant.  The Republican quarter doesn't control the electoral system.  Democrat bureaucrats do. They introduced these vile voting machines, all manufactured by a company owned by George Soros - the anti-democracy, anti-American, Marxist prick and key donor of the DNC.  Get your facts straight, Bozo.  Trump wants a return to paper ballots for the very reasons you complain about.  If you want the corruption in the electoral system cleaned up, then go and talk to your dirty mates down in Broward County, in Florida, in L.A., in Seattle, in Texas, in Omaha, etc. all caught with their hands in the ballot boxes.

The federal government and said President Donald Trump just made it legal 4 religious leaders like Christian preachers 2 endorse politicians from the pulpit despite the constitutional amendment against that extremely difficult and dangerous permission in the first constitutional amendment .. that church and state must remain separate...

 Oh!  I see.  Ignoring history too, now are we?  Who brought that law in and when? ... against the churches?  A disgruntled Senator by the name of Lyndon B. Johnson introduced the Bill in the 1950s, all because a heap of clergy and church groups called his policies out for being "Communist" policies.  They lobbied against his policies and blocked his run for the Senate.  In retaliation he tabled a Bill to silence them, robbing them of their right to exercise their freedom of speech and an allegiance to a Political Party.  Until then, over the entire history of America the churches had always had that right, but suddenly in the 1950s they had to , all because of a butt-hurt  Snowflake Senator who was too thin-skinned to accept fair and warranted criticism, so he silenced them with his bully-boy tactics.  i suppose you support censorship of free speech too. Only weasels do. 

 So if u think I am a little gruff with you that is because you don't realize that your life and your belief system holds dominion over mine.
 If you realize that your belief system holds dominion over mine and see no wrong with it then I will point you to the American revolution And the secular document that is called the Constitution that came out of it..
 Let's talk about the civil war and slavery and how every bit of the argument to preserve slavery was in fact biblical..

I think I just proved who the bullies in the pulpit are and it ain't Christians or the churches.  LOL! I suppose you will deny that 90,000 Christians are slaughtered every year by your Islamic mates, which your daft Political Party lets into this country to trash it, to defy our Constitution, break our laws, rape our women, smash in our shop fronts, bludge off our taxpayers, rob our neighbours and burn our flag.  Happy now?  You do realize that not a single Republican owned a slave, right?  You do realize the very nations which your dippy daft Democrat Immigration Policies allow to swarm into our nation had the largest, most brutal and bloodiest network of slave trading on the record in the entire world?  Used it all to fund their next brutal, bloodthirsty rampage of slaughter against the next innocent nation - a sustained activity of slaughter, rape and slavery  for nearly 1,000 years.  

Jesus's sermon on the Mount tells slaves to obey their masters even the bad ones.   Don't whine to me Christian..

It doesn't actually.  I've already proved to others who made the same claim, that the Bible texts which portray that are not authentic, are bastardizations of the original translations.  I showed them the earliest translations in English which use the word "servant" and how it has been replaced with the word "slave".  Christ warned us of that - that "there will be many false prophets who will come in My name".  90% of the passages in the bastardized translations substitute the words of servant and hireling with "slave" and alter the text.  These times are prophesied to usher in the anti-Christian era, like you, followed by the Anti-Christ whom you will worship and whom God will smite down.  I think you had better re-think your strategy, Bozo, and search for truths, rather than fabrications to feed into your seething, unhinged, bile and hatred.

If you hear a rough word on occasion perhaps you should look within and wonder what you would do if you were me..

Your words aren't "rough".  They're delusions based on fabrications, which I have already shown them to be.  Your thinking is based on confirmation bias, an uncontrolled and deep-seated bigotry.  Loot to feed it.

RS_master

RS_master said:

@Grafix ; one fallacy you are doing is you are saying faith is important for belief. Faith is not proof. As I keep mentioning, proof drives belief. Proof is more important You also stated "we live by no law". That is not nice, rules prevent the world from becoming chaotic. 

@Grafix please respond... Do not dodge this argument because if you do, that shows you lost and resign.

Grafix

@RS_master - You wrote ...

RS_master said:

RS_master said:

@Grafix ; one fallacy you are doing is you are saying faith is important for belief. Faith is not proof. As I keep mentioning, proof drives belief. Proof is more important You also stated "we live by no law". That is not nice, rules prevent the world from becoming chaotic. 

@Grafix please respond... Do not dodge this argument because if you do, that shows you lost and resign.

Mate, what's your definition of the word "faith"?  Do you have faith in your wife's fidelity?  Faith in your brand of vehicle?  Faith in your horse, in your sports team, in your Mother, in your father, your brother, your son, your news sources, your dog, your decisions, your politic, etc.?  So what does faith really mean?  It means  T R U S T.  Right?  What builds that trust?  A demonstration of reliability, of soundness of mind, of soundness of principle, a soundness of logic, a soundness of performance, a consistency in results, in meeting expectations, in delivering, in loyalty, etc.  None of these relationships ever provide PROOFS of the same nature that is demanded of science.  Faith in a God is the same.  It is built on trust.  There's no obligation that any of these should produce "evidence", nor that they must, let alone any legal requirement for it. 

To pretend otherwise is a dishonest argument, a sleight of hand, fabricating that I said "we live by no law".  That's not the context in which I said Christians have no legal requirement to provide evidence and you damned well know it isn't.  Misrepresenting another's argument is not debating.  It's cheating, bleating, obfuscating and dodging the argument, which to quote your own words, "shows you lost".  LOL!

Your post is a typical leftie, Snowflake, atheist fake whine.  You make the claim that I dodged your question, while ignoring that I put on the page - WITH NO OBLIGATION TO DO SO - a reasonably exhaustive measure of evidence, which actually goes well beyond the requirements of a platform such as this, yet somehow that's "dodging the argument"?  Really?  It is?  Well then, Sunshine, you had better enlighten me.  If it wasn't evidence which supports Christianity that you challenged me to produce, then what was it, exactly?  You got a truckload of it.  Sorry I wasted your time - and mine.   Please put me out of my perplexed state here.  

The other problem with your reply is that you make no attempt to rebut it with any counter evidence  in support of your quasi science of Big Bang flops and fake Evolutionary ancestors.  What happened to that?  No evidence, Sunshine?  To add to this deluded reply of yours, you then after all of that, have the gall to claim that I "dodged the argument".  Me thinks thou doth protest too loudly for it appears, from your very own reply, that it is you who is doing the dodging here.  With your kind of swagger, I am amazed you can fit your balls into trousers.
.

RS_master

@Grafix ;https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=E211US1274G0&p=faith+definition That is the definition of faith. The 2nd one is more in context with this debate. So faith, in this context is utter nonsense and an exclusion of proof/evidence.

RS_master

@Grafix Even if we use the 1st definition then also in belief proof is more important. Without scientific evidence you cannot believe. You say: We live by faith not by proof
My response: You are avoiding an explanation and you are avoiding evidence. Explanation and evidence are really important in debating.

RS_master

@Grafix against your last argument I have 2 words: PAY ATTENTION!!! 
I have posted so many links including proof. https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/astro/cosmos/bigbang/bb_evid
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/10703130/Proof-of-the-Big-Bang.html
https://www.space.com/40370-why-should-we-believe-big-bang.html
https://study.com/academy/lesson/evidence-for-the-big-bang-theory-background-radiation-red-shift-and-expansion.html

John_C_87

Extending the work of Isaac Newton by writing a 4th law of motion addressing gravity by acts of mathematics alone. It is far less expensive than looking into creating an algebra fix equation through physical experimentation. Numbers with mathematic principles create an attraction of numbers to a number, just as some principles of mathematics create the motion of momentum with the answers that move in only one direction until an equivalent is met negating any proceeding value, or returning the value to the original state. Some math principles create a value that revolves around a number pinning certain values to orbit around only a single value as their radius, or several different orbits with one main center value.

It is the numbers in math that when are elastic, can modulate, and set a reverberation with other values in a string that demonstrate an ability to draw numbers together at one point of rotation around them. Drawling values into the process of effect with a certain result.  

RS_master

@Grafix you have been for abusive language at the end.

Grafix

@RS_master - i am paying attention, RS.  I think it is you who is not  The exercise requires complete honesty with oneself.  No shyacking, no shying away and no . Here's the opening sentence of your first link ...

"Astronomers 'think' that the universe started with a Big Bang.  It then goes on to say they have "evidence", which "evidence" I address below..  If they had evidence then why do they only "think" and are not "certain"?  Because they have no hard or material evidence  to support it, only conjecture and extrapolations, unlike Christianity's evidence, which is hard and material evidence.  Christians KNOW not only that Christ actually existed  from the public record, but that He also rose from the dead and performed incredible miracles, among a heap of other stuff as I have already shown you, above, proving evidence of his Divinity.  Even the fact that every Biblical prophesy, made thousands of years in advance, has now been fulfilled, (except for those in the last Chapter of the Bible), is E V I D E N C E   of  higher knowledge.  That's a LOT of prior knowledge that has been fulfilled, which is a LOT of evidence, in and of itself, outside of the hard and material evidence which is not contained in the Bible at all.

NEXT

The article states:  "The universe  'is probably'  expanding .... and everything 'must have been' squashed together ... etc. Same problem, no hard, material evidence.  Extrapolations and conjecture.

NEXT

So after admitting that they don't know for sure whether the Big Bang really happened they then make statements like this, as though they are  F A C T ....

"Very early in its history, the whole Universe was very hot." [How do they know that if they aren't even sure if there was a Big Bang?  Were they there? Where's the hard, material evidence of it?]

"As it expanded, this heat left behind a glow that fills the entire Universe."  [Again, if they're not sure whether there was even a Big Bang, how can they AUTOMATICALLY deduce that?  They can't unless there is hard evidence of it.  Were they there?  Eye witness accounts?  Historical record?  Where's the hard, material evidence?]

"The Big Bang theory not only predicts that this glow 'should exist', but that it 'should be' visible as microwaves".  ["Predicts" and "should" - twice in the same sentence - are definitives?  You call this  PROOF even though it's only based on a 'should' and a 'prediction'?  Really?  Don't think so.  Again, its all conjecture and extrapolations.]

NEXT

After saying that they only "think" there was a Big Bang and that the universe is "probably' expanding, with no material or hard evidence of either, then claims are suddenly presented as F A C T S ...

"As the Universe expanded and cooled down, some of the elements that we see today were created. " 

Science just does not  work like this.  It is not science.  It is a narrative using backward reasoning, creating the narrative to fit an Agenda, as opposed to going where the evidence leads.

None of this PROVES anything -  not a "glow", not a "big squash"  not an expansion subsequent to any explosion, not even proof of an explosion, let alone that it was the beginning of space, matter, time and energy.  None of it dispels the glaring contradictions in the narrative, either, i.e. How can it be claimed that the BB was the genesis of time, matter and space, when we know from logical deduction that ALL of these
 H A D   T O    H A V E   B E E N    A L R E A D Y    in existence for it to be even possible for a big bang to occur?  You cannot have a Big Bang in the cosmos without matter, without space and without time already in existence.  This is what atheists refuse to admit.

I looked over all of the other links and they do exactly the same as this article does - draw up conjecture and extrapolations, with no evidence in support of any of them and then move into making conclusions stated as facts, yet merely based on that original conjecture of 'we think', or 'it suggests' or 'it could' or 'it's possible', etc. etc.  It is double blind.  A scientific swindle. 

All literature surrounding it is the same, wherever we look. I have done the hard yards.  Truly I have and these articles confirm what I have said all along - A pack of lies, presented as fact, based on conjecture and extrapolations.  Dr. James Tour calls it all lies.  He is the top scientist in the field of molecular chemistry and bio-physics.  On Evolution he pulls no punches.  He says it straight in his videos: "They lied to you"  and  provides the counter evidence showing how and why they did and still are.   Exactly the same deployment of deception is used to make claims on Evolution.  I challenge every atheist to go back and read the texts they have trusted all these years and prove me wrong.

U N L I K E    C H R I S T I A N I T Y    T H E R E    I S    N O   H A R D    O R    M A T E R I A L

   E V I D E N C E     T O     S U P P O R T     T H E     C L A I M S    I N    T H E     T E X T S
.

A_Lesbian_Libral

Hello there! Although I see that you have already debated with someone much more experienced than me, I still would wonder if you're available to debate? I am new here, so I apologize if my arguments aren't as long or up to par with others, but I would call myself a passionate young women, and would like to give it a shot! 

RS_master

@Grafix I posted 4 links not 2 or 3. some links against the bible
https://www.atheistalliance.org/thinking-out-loud/eight-reasons-christianity-is-false/
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2016/08/the-most-powerful-argument-against-christianity-problem-of-divine-hiddenness-atheism/
A link for big bang:
https://www.reference.com/science/evidence-support-big-bang-theory-3f7479a7a4046ab6

@Grafix It works like this. Chemistry element of big bang:Elements mixing together forming new and complex ones. Thermodynamics element: 2nd law and conversion of mass and energy. Physics element: The forces like gravity which help pull things together. Biology element: theory of evolution and the first DNA forming.
Science doe work like this. Chemistry is about mixing like stated. Thermodynamics is about conversion as stated. Physics is the study of forces. Biology is the study of life.

RS_master

A_Lesbian_Libral said:

Hello there! Although I see that you have already debated with someone much more experienced than me, I still would wonder if you're available to debate? I am new here, so I apologize if my arguments aren't as long or up to par with others, but I would call myself a passionate young women, and would like to give it a shot! 

@A_Lesbian_Libral ; It does not matter, the arguments. You are welcomed to this brilliant website and will build your way slowly and who knows you may get 3000 points?

Grafix

@RS_master - You wrote ....

@Grafix It works like this. Chemistry element of big bang:Elements mixing together forming new and complex ones. Thermodynamics element: 2nd law and conversion of mass and energy. Physics element: The forces like gravity which help pull things together. Biology element: theory of evolution and the first DNA forming.
Science doe work like this. Chemistry is about mixing like stated. Thermodynamics is about conversion as stated. Physics is the study of forces. Biology is the study of life.

I really do understand these things, RS, but they really are not the point at all.  The fact we know that all of this stuff occurs is great.  However, we are not talking bout what we know.  We are talking about what we DON'T know and cannot pretend to know by making up furphies where no evidence to support the furphies can be found in the rigors of scientific methodology.

Just because we have this knowledge, which you mention, doesn't provide licence for science to USE  that knowledge to backward reason  A POSSIBILITY  that these elements came from an EVENT, yet which event they can provide no evidence for, let alone claim the extrapolated event as  F A C T.   A possibility, due to the knowledge of chemical reactions, fusions and whatever, is   N O T    P R O O F   of the claimed event without evidence to support its occurrence.  It is, instead, mere extrapolations and conjecture made on the basis of this knowledge - conjecture merely because it could be possible.  It's backward reasoning, creating a narrative of a possibility.    That's not allowing the facts to lead us where they take us.   It's creating facts from knowledge we have to create a possibility and declaring it as fact.  Not science, mate. 

Let's look at what Dr. James Tour, the top molecular chemist, bio-chemist and nano-technology scientist in the world says about the Theory of Evolution, (TOE).  He has proven that four basic chemicals are imperative for the very first building blocks of life which must group with others to form the very first living molecule and that molecule must then group together with other molecules to form the very first living cell.  He has proven that if they just join together randomly, they merely create a BLOB, because they do not know what their specific function is, what structured characteristic or feature to build, consequently they are just a mass of cells with no function, just a BLOB.   He builds molecules starting with those four chemicals, which are carbohydrates, amino acids, nucleic acids and  lipids.  He has to go out and purchase them, so even he does not know how to begin the building blocks of life ab initio - from nothing.  He cheats by using what is already in existence, extracted from other living matter.

He knows how to build living cells using these four basic chemicals by going through the process, but at the end of the day, he doesn't know how to tell them to organize themselves in the correct order, the correct design and correct number or shape to make an ear, or a nose, or hair, nor the colour of it, let alone how to tell the cells to make bone or a heart or a lung, a hoof, or trunk, etc.  So how do the cells know?  They have an instruction manual, known as DNA.  DNA is not a material entity.  It's information and is housed in our protein chains.  The cells have to form protein chains to house the DNA. 

As DNA is like information in our P.C., it cannot be created by nature itself.  It can only be copied by nature and transported from cell to cell by RNA.  As we, like nature, cannot make DNA either nor reproduce it in a test tube, where does it come from, yet no living cell is functional without it.   The best we can do is what nature does, make clones from existing cells, which already have their own DNA    DNA cannot replicate the same way a cell divides from a parent cell and then it becomes a parent cell when a cell divides from it copying the DNA it inherited down the chain.  The DNA of every cell in our body is identical to the next cell's DNA. These cells know how to organize themselves to make different characterizations of our body parts.  How do they know how to do that, even though their DNA in each cell is identical? Cell's have no intellect, no brain.

DNA proves that we did not evolve from a common ancestor, otherwise we'd all have the same DNA marker but we don't.  We don't even have the same DNA.  We have filial markers, which identify our genealogy, our family, all the way back to the original family ancestor.  We have homo sapien makers that identify us as humans, but apart from those each person's DNA is unique. That's why we are all individuals.  DNA proves that even the different species of mammals did not evolve from one another, i.e. lions from leopards, or tigers from Cheetahs, etc. We know that because they don't have the same DNA  group markers.  Like us, there is a different group marker for each mammal set, just like our homo sapien marker, therefore the Common Ancestor notion is a  myth as is the evolution between species.  

Dr. tour also demonstrates why cell's trying to grow into a different species from another species die and cannot survive, so he has proved unequivocally that evolution from one species to another is impossible, that it's all a big fat lie. If two different species copulate and produce offspring, it is always infertile, sterile, and cannot reproduce.  This is because of the conflicting genetic DNA. Through demonstrating the behaviour of molecules, nano-cars, protein chains and DNA, Dr. Tour proves evolution is not possible.  He pulls no punches, accusing establishment science of lying. He says, "It's a lie. They lied to you."  If they lied about Evolution, it's easy to accept they're lying about the BBT.  The bigger question is why the heck is establishment science lying to us?  What is the purpose?  What do they hope to gain?  What is the Agenda.  Many of us have a very good idea why, but do you?
.

RS_master

@Grafix That is right. DNA is important but after years of atoms colliding to form very complicated molecules DNA was formed.
This is how I will express it. It is just a simple way. Lets say there are atoms a - n. A+A = b  A *A = 2A B+A=C C+A=D D*A=DA B D+D = H H+D = L L+B = N  DA*N=DNA

Obviously it is way more complex in the real world but that is the basic/simplified version of he Big Bang - Evolution transition.

RS_master

@Grafix which bit is illogical?

Grafix

@RS_master - Dr. Tour would disagree with you, because atoms are matter and DNA is not.  End of lesson.

Besides atoms don't carry DNA, only cells do.
.

RS_master

@Grafix Stephen Hawking would agree with me.

RS_master

DNA is made out of atoms

Happy_Killbot

Grafix said:

@RS_master - Dr. Tour would disagree with you, because atoms are matter and DNA is not.  End of lesson.

Besides atoms don't carry DNA, only cells do.
.

@Grafix

Well this just takes the cake, shoves it up a donkey's A$$ and sucks it out through a straw.

did you think DNA is made out of? Fairy dust and angel S**t?

DNA is very much made out of atoms, everything that we call "matter" is made of atoms, including DNA. I went to a dirt poor school in rural America, and even here I fondly remember doing an experiment that allowed us to extract and measure the DNA from some strawberries, to figure out how much DNA they have by weight. Clearly you got to experience no such experiment, otherwise you would know how completely ludicrous what you said is.

https://littlebinsforlittlehands.com/strawberry-dna-science/

You can do this experiment right now, at home, for under $20.



There is no bottom to the pit of your ignorance is there?

Grafix

@RS_master - you originally wrote this .....

@Grafix That is right. DNA is important but after years of atoms colliding to form very complicated molecules DNA was formed.
This is how I will express it. It is just a simple way. Lets say there are atoms a - n. A+A = b  A *A = 2A B+A=C C+A=D D*A=DA B D+D = H H+D = L L+B = N  DA*N=DNA
Obviously it is way more complex in the real world but that is the basic/simplified version of he Big Bang - Evolution transition.

Atoms can collide all day long and produce all sorts of complexities of molecular whatever, but as neither carry or create DNA their activity is irrelevant to DNA.  DNA must be inherited, that is why it can only be carried in a higher order of matter, a living cell.  The fact that every family has identifying DNA markers which are genetically inherited from the beginning of time by every blood relative down through the ages, the fact that every homosapien has the same homo sapien marker repeated down through the ages of time, the fact that every different species has its own identifying marker repeated down through the ages of time, I think we can safely deduce that DNA is not created by random collisions of anything.  It is very specific and the characteristics it designs are very specific. 

The absolute kicker, though, is that it is not matter, therefore matter cannot create it.  It can only be inherited.  But even the inherited DNA does not explain the uninherited DNA which makes all of us an individual.  It is our I.D. that not another single living thing has.  It's uniquely our own.  So where does that unique DNA come from which is not inherited from our Mum and Dad?  Nature can't produce NEW codes of DNA.  It can only copy an existing code already in an existing cell.  

I know atheists will die their last dying breath denying it, but DNA is intelligent information.  Natural cell structure, atoms, nuclei, peptides, anzymes, etc. have no intelligence, so how could they produce information?  Another word for information is intelligence.  Whatever way we look at it, matter cannot produce DNA, it can only copy it.  Even that is pretty gobsmacking.

.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Grafix said:

@RS_master - you originally wrote this .....

@Grafix That is right. DNA is important but after years of atoms colliding to form very complicated molecules DNA was formed.
This is how I will express it. It is just a simple way. Lets say there are atoms a - n. A+A = b  A *A = 2A B+A=C C+A=D D*A=DA B D+D = H H+D = L L+B = N  DA*N=DNA
Obviously it is way more complex in the real world but that is the basic/simplified version of he Big Bang - Evolution transition.

Atoms can collide all day and produce all sorts of complexities of molecular whatever, but as neither carry or create DNA their activity is irrelevant to DNA.  DNA must be inherited, that is why it can only be carried in a higher order of matter, a living cell.  The fact that every family has identifying DNA markers which are genetically inherited from the beginning of time by every blood relative down through the ages, the fact that every homosapien has the same homo sapien marker repeated down through the ages of time, the fact that every different species has its own identifying marker repeated down through the ages of time, I think we can safely deduce that DNA is not created by random collisions of anything.  It is very specific and the characteristics it designs are very specific. 

The absolute kicker, though, is that it is not matter, therefore matter cannot create it.  It can only be inherited.  But even the inherited DNA does not explain the uninherited DNA which makes all of us an individual.  It is our I.D. that not another single living thing has.  It's uniquely our own.  So where does that unique DNA come from which is not inherited from our Mum and Dad?  Nature can't produce NEW codes of DNA.  It can only copy an existing code already in an existing cell.  

I know atheists will die their last dying breath denying it, but DNA is intelligent information.  Natural cell structure, atoms, nuclei, peptides, anzymes, etc. have no intelligence, so how could they produce information?  Another word for information is intelligence.  Whatever way we look at it, matter cannot produce DNA, it can only copy it.  Even that is pretty gobsmacking.

You have no idea what you are talking about, and it is painfully obvious.

I have already explained to you, and so have others, why you are wrong, but still you refuse to accept you have no F***ing clue what you are saying!

You prescribe intelligence to DNA because you yourself have no idea what intelligence is!

You will die the D***A** that you are unless you make an effort to learn anything. Until then, you are fit only as an ignoramus thrall to your beliefs.

Vaulk

• Theist: God is real, He created life as we know it. 
•  Atheist: Prove it. 
•  Theist: I cannot prove it but I can offer evidence.
•  Atheist: If you can't prove it...he's not real. 
•  Atheist: Naturalism is responsible for life as we know it, it's simply a fact at this point. 
•  Theist: Prove it. 
•  Atheist: Read this article and this research journal and this scientific theory. 
•  Theist: Did you write those? 
•  Atheist: No. 
•  Theist: Do you know the person who did write them? 
•  Atheist: No. 
•  Theist: Can you prove that those theories are sound? Can you reproduce the results of the research you're citing? 
•  Atheist: Well....no.
•  Theist: So you can't prove anything actually, you can only offer 15th, 30th, 100th party evidence then? You don't actually know anyone who knows someone who knows someone who can prove this? 
•  Atheist: No. 
•  Theist: Sounds like a double standard to me.

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk Isn't naturalism a philosophy, and therefore built on facts rather than being a fact?

That is to say, naturalism is a set of guiding principals for examining reality, and therefore is useful in that it helps to discover objective truth, rather than being something that is objectively true itself?

IDK, it just feels like comparing apples to oranges here, since although many religions are sort of the ancestors of philosophy, they get out of hand when they are believed to be literally true.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot ; -  Trust you to bounce in Happy K with half-baked science and compel me to take this into deeper realms in order to correct your error but which complexities the average person really is not interested in or does not need to know.  You are confused and I don't and can't blame you for that.  Ninety percent of the Mom and Pop shop discussion about DNA on the internet is so poorly expressed, confusion reigns.  As for the site you linked to on strawberries.  Spare us the kindergarten interpretation.  You wrote ....

@Grafix - Well this just takes the cake, shoves it up a donkey's A$$ and sucks it out through a straw.
did you think DNA is made out of? Fairy dust and angel S**t?
DNA is very much made out of atoms, everything that we call "matter" is made of atoms, including DNA. I went to a dirt poor school in rural America, and even here I fondly remember doing an experiment that allowed us to extract and measure the DNA from some strawberries, to figure out how much DNA they have by weight. Clearly you got to experience no such experiment, otherwise you would know how completely ludicrous what you said is.

I fully "get" the confusion about this and there is a great deal of it.   The first thing that must be recognized above all things is that DNA is merely a CODE .  It uses only the four letters which you correctly show in your image, namely A,T,G,C.  In this discussion the quintessential thing to never lose sight of is that fact, that DNA is a CODE of intelligent information as represented by those four letters, no different from the text on this page.  Those letters ARE information.  So if you can MAKE EVERY ENDEAVOR not to lose sight of that fact, we can then progress to explain what it is that your image actually shows..

DNA code is arranged in a different way for each individual.  That arrangement is reflected in or manifested in how the matter arranges itself, although the matter IS NOT the DNA itself.  Remember DNA is a code.  You are not looking at the code.  You are looking at a manifestation of it.  Don't forget that.  When we look at  the helix, which is where the DNA is stored inside the protein chains, we know that the reason for all the different shapes, sizes, lengths, curves, coils and spirals of the helix is an EXPRESSION of how the code has been arranged in that helix, but we must not make the mistake of believing that the helix itself or part of it is ACTUALLY  the DNA.   IT IS NOT.  The helix is merely the carrier of the DNA, and its shape expresses the INDIVIDUALITY of the arrangement of the code..  

Unfortunately and regrettably in the lay language used to discuss DNA people everywhere refer to the matter which is involved in the regulation, encoding, modification, transcription, expression and carrying of DNA as if it were the actual DNA itself and this is where the confusion arises.  The substances mentioned like sugars, proteins and the like may be REGULATORS of gene expression or FACILITATORS of the code, but again they themselves are not the code itself.  This is equally as critical to never forget, despite what you read.  REAL science when discussing DNA speaks of "encoding", "transcription", "recognition", "expression", "sequence", "facilitators", etc.  These are not words applicable to matter.  They are words applicable to  ... 

I N T E L L I G E N T       I N F O R M A T I O N

Just to illustrate the complexity of this subject, so that no-one gets the idea it can be explained away with a few pompous lines and a single image, worse, make the mistake of believing that Happy_K or myself understand the science of DNA in an educated manner, I've selected an image of a more complex helix to demonstrate that we are just not  qualified to discuss the deeper mechanisms of DNA. There are billions upon billions of different shaped helices (plural for helix) expressing DNA.. The image below depicts just one of such, which is an Helix-turn-Helix (HTH) and which is not to be confused with the helix-loop-helix, (HLH).  These are really complex helices and their functions are equally as complex.  To explain their functions goes off the planet, introducing terminology like bacteriophage lambda & C.

 

 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix You know how I can tell when you have lost?

When you try to come back and fis your mistakes and then keep saying wrong things that show that your level of knowledge is less than that of the average high school student.

Those letters are not really there, they are shorthand for the name of the nucleobase present, Adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine in case you didn't know that. It isn't a code the way that words are, there is no semantic meaning there. It is a physical thing.

Your lack of knowledge reflects your inability to say anything meaningful, or even vaguely accurate. Just admit you have no idea what you are talking about, you seem to be the only one who is unaware of that fact.

Also, don't forget to clean the straw out when you are done.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote ....

@Grafix You know how I can tell when you have lost?
When you try to come back and fis your mistakes and then keep saying wrong things that show that your level of knowledge is less than that of the average high school student.
Those letters are not really there, they are shorthand for the name of the nucleobase present, Adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine in case you didn't know that. It isn't a code the way that words are, there is no semantic meaning there. It is a physical thing.
Your lack of knowledge reflects your inability to say anything meaningful, or even vaguely accurate. Just admit you have no idea what you are talking about, you seem to be the only one who is unaware of that fact.
Also, don't forget to clean the straw out when you are done.

Although you're not wrong, you still don't "get" it.  All you are doing Happy_K, is making this more complicated than it need be and taking the discussion into areas where we might need to start cutting and pasting after a great deal of research to defend our positions and risk imparting inaccurate information, which serves no good purpose.

As I said, never lose sight of the fact that DNA  is a  C O D E .  If you intend driving  an agenda opposing that, then you will mislead, misinform and screw science, screw yourself and screw any who read your disinformation.  Sure, those four letters do stand for those nitrogenous bases and one of their purposes is to stabilize the helix.  However, that said, without looking deeply into the structure of these and understanding the different formulae, we cannot hope to explain it accurately.  What is important is the overarching definition of DNA.  In spite of the fact that these are substances, it's not the point.  The point is this ....

H O W    T H E Y     A R R A N G E     T H E M S E L V E S     T O     C R E A T E     T H E     C O D E, 
  
W H I C H     I S     A N     I N T E L L I G E N T     A R R A N G E M E N T.  

You can argue till the cows come home the dippy, daft backward reasoning that, Oh well ACGT are substances therefore DNA  can be produced by nature, but that is just closing your ears and eyes.  As I said above and say again, the matter contained in these nitrogenous bases does not represent THE CODE itself. 

H O W     T H E Y     I N T E L L I G E N T L Y     A R R A N G E     T H E M S E L V E S     I S     T H E     C O D E.   

What science does not know and cannot ever know, is how to arrange these four to create the code permutations.  Worse, the SAME code is deployed to build different characteristics, as mentioned in my earlier post, so how the code works in that way is a mystery and as it is "information" that can never be VIEWED through a microscope, yet somehow expresses different features, will remain a mystery, .  Likewise nature does not know this either.  It relies on the intelligence conveyed in the coded arrangement of these four substances.  Dr. Tour even has these substances at hand when he is building molecules and even he cannot arrange them in the right order, sequence and so on.  If anyone is qualified to do that, it is him.   As i said.  You cannot "purchase" DNA because it is information, an intelligent code.  Maybe this image will help you understand, by planting your peepers on the bar below the Helix..

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - This is an actual helix in real life, a very simple one, and how it appears to the naked eye under the microscope ...

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix NO, you don't get it. You want to say DNA is a code because you think it is the same as words and has semantic meaning, when the reality is it is more like a player piano, you know, the old-timey ones where you put in a sheet of paper that has a bunch of holes, and the location of the holes determines which notes to play?

It is like that in a lot of ways.

Just imagine if the holes told the piano how to build a new piano, complete with a copy of the instructions to build more. That is basically what cells do, but at the end of the day, it is still just a piece of paper with holes in it. Nothing special or intelligent there. The holes of course need the piano to turn them into something meaningful, like music or a new piano. However, someone could rearrange the way the data is read to make it mean something else entirely. One of the exciting technologies being developed now is DNA based memory for computers, which turns the DNA into computer code. The meaning of that code however is based on how the computer interprets it, thus the meaning of the words is relative.

So the same information that produces a bacteria cell might be used to make a messy image with a computer.

P.S. No, that picture isn't DNA under a microscope, it is a 3D render, more of an artist's picture really. As far as I can tell, it came from this website https://www.createdigital.org.au/synthetic-biology-technology-21st-century/
Here is a real picture:

Grafix

LOL!  What a truckload of irrelevant  N O T H I N G.   The DNA code  I S  the intelligent arrangement of those four nitrogenous substances with a different permutation for every  individual on the face of the planet, exactly as I have stated it, with no requirement for any sophomore sophistry built around a lowly pianola.

I am interested only  in ensuring that  F A C T S  aren't distorted, misrepresented, twisted into pretzels and spewed out resembling your bush school peanut gallery.  You really do have it bad, clinging to every last vestige of the attack-dog mentality, that you have to now try to debunk the photograph of the genuine helix, taken from a University paper.  Your link obviously lifted it from that.  HA.  HA.  HA.

We're done here.  If you can't climb over your meglomanaical proclivities then it's your problem not mine, mate.  Have a nice day and don't let the facts stand in your way while you keep building your heaps of crapola higher than the burj khalifa.   You never know.  One day you'll be able to jump over it, unlike your ego.  Bye.

Grafix

@John_C_87 - Sorry for my tardy response.  Had to swat an annoying mosquito a few times to clear the decks here.  LOL!  You wrote ...

Extending the work of Isaac Newton by writing a 4th law of motion addressing gravity by acts of mathematics alone. It is far less expensive than looking into creating an algebra fix equation through physical experimentation. Numbers with mathematic principles create an attraction of numbers to a number, just as some principles of mathematics create the motion of momentum with the answers that move in only one direction until an equivalent is met negating any proceeding value, or returning the value to the original state. Some math principles create a value that revolves around a number pinning certain values to orbit around only a single value as their radius, or several different orbits with one main center value.

It is the numbers in math that when are elastic, can modulate, and set a reverberation with other values in a string that demonstrate an ability to draw numbers together at one point of rotation around them. Drawling values into the process of effect with a certain result.  

WOW!  If you could solve the equation for gravity, you would become the modern-day Einstein.  Solving it using maths alone sounds tricky, but what do I know.  Best of British good luck with it.

On the elasticity of numbers, reverberations and modulations, I can't stop laughing at your obvious brilliance and my complete lack of understanding, although your explanation is not unclear nor imprecise. I can see that to someone versed in what you do, it would be perfectly clear.  I myself am the obvious plank in the eye here, being at the opposite end of the spectrum of knowledge in your league of maths.  

That said, you mentioned earlier that maths has proved atheism cannot present a plausible or even possible explanation for existence and life itself, or something like that. Einstein came to the same conclusion, so you are in good company.  If you can solve your equation which proves that atheism is the biggest load of croc on this side of the galaxy, then the world will owe you a great debt.  

Godspeed and don't look back.  I really enjoyed our chat.  I'm just sorry I couldn't measure up.  Cheers.

Grafix

@A_Lesbian_Libral - Hi there.  Welcome and feel free to jump in and take anyone's argument on.  

Grafix

@Vaulk - Hi Vaulk, Welcome to the debate.  You wrote ...

• Theist: God is real, He created life as we know it. 

•  Atheist: Prove it. 

•  Theist: I cannot prove it but I can offer evidence.

•  Atheist: If you can't prove it...he's not real. 

•  Atheist: Naturalism is responsible for life as we know it, it's simply a fact at this point. 

•  Theist: Prove it. 

•  Atheist: Read this article and this research journal and this scientific theory. 

•  Theist: Did you write those? 

•  Atheist: No. 

•  Theist: Do you know the person who did write them? 

•  Atheist: No. 

•  Theist: Can you prove that those theories are sound? Can you reproduce the results of the research you're citing? 

•  Atheist: Well....no.

•  Theist: So you can't prove anything actually, you can only offer 15th, 30th, 100th party evidence then? You don't actually know anyone who knows someone who knows someone who can prove this? 

•  Atheist: No. 

•  Theist: Sounds like a double standard to me.

And atheists think we're the joke. Some even peddle atheist sophistry and get PAID for their speaking tours.  I guess you could call that a vested interest in lying.  Hard to believe, isn't it?  LOL!

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix That's funny, and so ironic since you still have no idea what you are saying. Just being unique doesn't mean intelligence. actually, it's a fairly good indicator of randomness.

If you rolled 100 dice 5 times and got all different numbers, would you look at that data and go Woa! it must be intelligent for it to have not landed the same way!

That is basically what you are arguing here.

You just seem more interested in spewing your alt-facts and misconceptions like the moron you are.

almost forgot about all the funny giraffe pictures I meant to show you:

If you think that life and DNA is intelligent or is evidence of intelligence, then that means you think that everything in nature is intelligently designed, including the obscure parts.

Male Giraffes drink the urine of the female to determine if she is ready to mate.

Now tell me, does this seem intelligent to you, at all?

If you wanted to design an animal, is this how you would do it?

This makes sense if evolution is the result of random processes, and random mutations in DNA lead to these traits and developments, including the original formation of DNA from inorganic matter.

RS_master

@Happy_Killbot Please express that in a nicer way.

Grafix

@RS_master - Don't let Harry_K's image upset you, son.  The male doesn't "drink" anything.  It "tastes" and "smells" the urine only.  It is actually a demonstration of nature doing its job.  Some of my family own ranches and we see bulls doing the same when a cow urinates, as well as rams doing the same when a ewe (female sheep), urinates, likewise our horses too.  This is how the male gender in the mammal species establishes whether the female is "cycling" or not, i.e., whether she is "in season" or said another way "on heat", which is when she is producing eggs and is fertile.  That's all you are looking at here. 

Unnecessary to say his image isn't relevant to the DNA code, least of all relevant to the intelligence required to create DNA codes in the correct sequence, with the correct number of sequences and in an accurate  arrangement to provide the correct information for cells to then know how to correctly construct our physical characteristics. Without this information cells are just a non-functioning BLOB.  Remember the top scientist in this field has proved that.  Harry Ha Ha thinks he's the top scientist here.  He's not.  The single DNA code for any single individual is  .... wait for it ....  miles long if it were recorded in the way shown in the image below.  The ticker tape of the code, if written like this on a piece of paper, would literally stretch for miles, because there are billions of sequences of the four letters, (expressing the sequence of the 4 nitrogenous bases), in one single DNA code.

Unlike humans, animals don't copulate for pleasure.  They only participate in sexual intercourse to reproduce offspring and for no other reason, so "Daddy" giraffe here, is just doing his "Daddy" job.  Of course, I am not really a giraffe, so again, one has to laugh at Harry Ha Ha's parting shot and take it with a grain of salt.  If I were a giraffe, then I would be a very unusual phenomenon, indeed, but I know I am not, for no scientific institution has ever shown  the slightest bit of interest in me, therefore I know I am a pretty normal human being.  Have a nice day, mate.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix You know that humans are mammals to right?

I don't think you understand what I am saying here, if you think DNA is intelligent, then that means you think that drinking urine is intelligent.

Do you think drinking urine is intelligent?

If you were making an animal, would you make it so that it drinks urine to tell when females are in estrus?

John_C_87

The one obstacle larger than proving the God of religion and belief is proving GOD is not a religion or belief in a united state of all people. By context is the one obstacle larger than proving god the answer of religion and belief, is vanity, as just a translation made on 400 11 500, everyday numbers looking for no answers yet getting the problems anyway.

Grafix

@John_C_87 ; -  I've re-written my post.  See below.

Grafix

@John_C_87 ; - I think I just worked out your last sentence, so added a P.S.  You wrote ...

The one obstacle larger than proving the God of religion and belief is proving GOD is not a religion or belief in a united state of all people. By context is the one obstacle larger than proving god the answer of religion and belief, is vanity, as just a translation made on 400 11 500, everyday numbers looking for no answers yet getting the problems anyway.

Although I agree with the stated obstacles, I think you are being very generous and overly kind to atheism in attributing mere vanity as the reason for its investment in a multi-billion dollar global network - its Ministry of Propaganda - which involves the hijacking of Western scientific establishments, the hijacking of Departments of Education, school texts and syllabi, as well as the inculcation of the halls of scientific academia, of teaching institutions, politics and so on.  Surely, such a carefully crafted orchestration with the investment of billions of dollars has to be an Agenda which points to much more than the hubris of vanity?

It is actually a full-on information war to win hearts and minds to derail its Nemesis, Christianity, which takes us to the very core of this debate.  Of what interest is it to the atheist cabal, whether the populace believes in a God or not and of such interest that it invests billions in influence peddling to win the hearts and minds of the people, in order to persuade them that there is no God and no proof of any God?  it is social engineering reflecting both a political AND a spiritual Agenda, hence the information war, The Great Apostasy, which the Biblical texts prophesied in Revelation.

Can you explain what you mean by the statement that the gematra of 400 11 500 "is everyday numbers looking for no answers and getting the problems anyway"?

P.S.  I THINK my light bulb just went on.  You are saying that using gematra and construing numbers is not really a genuine endeavor to source a genuine answer, but is in reality merely a ruse to pretend that is the purpose of the endeavor, while all along knowing the answer will not prove there is a God, but pretending the methodology is an accredited methodology and therefore pretending that the answer is "proof" of no God OR, alternative designed to  pretend there is proof of God.  Right?  Which one is it, or is it both?

xlJ_dolphin_473

piloteer said:

Just so others know, I see no reason to mark a trolls post as funny and give them a point for a post that only demonstrated they're missing a chromosome. The funny icon should probably only be used for "funny ha ha" posts, not for "boy that was a train wreck of a post". Their kind do not deserve points.  

@piloteer
What about when you're laughing at how rubbish the argument is? Points is just a number.

piloteer

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

piloteer said:

Just so others know, I see no reason to mark a trolls post as funny and give them a point for a post that only demonstrated they're missing a chromosome. The funny icon should probably only be used for "funny ha ha" posts, not for "boy that was a train wreck of a post". Their kind do not deserve points.  

@piloteer
What about when you're laughing at how rubbish the argument is? Points is just a number.

I'm a point fanatic. The next time you see an argument that you think is so ridiculous that it makes you laugh, just go ahead and throw the funny icon on one of my posts instead. 

AlofRI

I think God got PO'd at being EVERYTHING …... with NOTHING …. and just blew up!

xlJ_dolphin_473

piloteer said:

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

piloteer said:

Just so others know, I see no reason to mark a trolls post as funny and give them a point for a post that only demonstrated they're missing a chromosome. The funny icon should probably only be used for "funny ha ha" posts, not for "boy that was a train wreck of a post". Their kind do not deserve points.  

@piloteer
What about when you're laughing at how rubbish the argument is? Points is just a number.

I'm a point fanatic. The next time you see an argument that you think is so ridiculous that it makes you laugh, just go ahead and throw the funny icon on one of my posts instead. 

But then others may think I am laughing at your argument and may think it is a train wreck. Besides, debating skill cannot be quantified as a number.

piloteer

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

piloteer said:

xlJ_dolphin_473 said:

piloteer said:

Just so others know, I see no reason to mark a trolls post as funny and give them a point for a post that only demonstrated they're missing a chromosome. The funny icon should probably only be used for "funny ha ha" posts, not for "boy that was a train wreck of a post". Their kind do not deserve points.  

@piloteer
What about when you're laughing at how rubbish the argument is? Points is just a number.

I'm a point fanatic. The next time you see an argument that you think is so ridiculous that it makes you laugh, just go ahead and throw the funny icon on one of my posts instead. 

But then others may think I am laughing at your argument and may think it is a train wreck. Besides, debating skill cannot be quantified as a number.

I have no qualms with other people thinking my argument is so bad it's funny. I actually do get a lot of funny points anyway, and sometimes it is because what I've said may have actually made them laugh. I have no desire to be considered a skilled debater. I just want the points.  

John_C_87

@Grafix ;

"You are saying that using gematria and construing numbers is not really a genuine endeavor to source a genuine answer, but is in reality merely a ruse to pretend that is the purpose of the endeavor, while all along knowing the answer will not prove there is a God"

The revers. The proof is that there is a GOD that God is not religious. Atheism is not real, it is a proof request of god held public without being a test for political office.

Roman numerals have a mathematical principle as an unlining guide, they are not simple translation of value made between a start and end sequence. Though generally believe to be so as it is far easier for common use when excepted. The identity of "IN GOD WE TRUST" is the easy to remember way of a much larger formulation of sequencing numbers by value 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 - 100.. In dollars, the list of numbers is 1,2,5,10,20,50,100 not 1-100 The savings are self-evident truth of a sharable trust when the speed saved in counting to 100 is made. Just look below.

1. Counting from 1-100 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50, etc.100) 100 - 25 is 75

2. Counting by 2 to 100.(2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28,30,32,34,36,38,40,42,44,46,48,50,52,54,56,58,60,62,64,66,68,70,72,74,76,78,80,82,84,86,88,90,92,94,96,98,100.) 100 - 50 is 50

3. Counting by 5 to 100. (5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,55,60,65,70,75,80,85,90,95,100.) 100 - 20 is 80

4 Counting by 10 to 100. (10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90,100.) 100 - 10 is 90

then, counting by 20 to 100. (20,40,60,80,100.) 100 - 5 is 95

and the last counting by 50 to 100.( 50,100.) 100 - 2 is 98

The numbers not written when added is the savings of the trust by GOD( 400,11,500). 98, 95,90,80,50,75 equaling 488 savings is avalible for every 600 dollars in value spent and becomes avaliable. The united state of TRUST does not work with just random numbers, or credit asignd from random numbers.