ATHEISTS MUST DENY THE FACTS, BECAUSE THE FACTS DON'T SUPPORT THEIR POSITION - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

ATHEISTS MUST DENY THE FACTS, BECAUSE THE FACTS DON'T SUPPORT THEIR POSITION
in Science

By GrafixGrafix 230 Pts edited March 16

The message in the above image is that as I am an eagle and everyone knows I cannot swim, nevertheless, atheists would ignore the fact that I am also not accredited with any ability or knowledge of how to walk on water, either.  Instead of debating why it is that I can suddenly walk on water - an observable fact because I have demonstrated it - they will argue the only reason I do this is because I cannot swim, declining to acknowledge that the inability to swim does not explain or prove the reason why I can walk on water.  They treat material evidence on the historical record, regarding occurrences involving Christ, which are verified and authenticated, in the same way. 
 
They do the same in the scientific discipline, denying the impact of DNA, that it is evidence of Intelligent Design in creation.   Atheists deny that.  Why?  They do the same regarding Einstein's equation, E=mc², concerning the question of relativity.  I don't think atheists truly understand the implications of Einstein's equation, which he said himself proves the existence of a higher intelligence, yet atheists will not accept even the scientist's own words on this.  Why do atheists do this?  The reason is obvious.  It is because the facts do not support their position, so they are compelled to deny them, which subsequently sees them denying the historical and verified record, no matter how well-documented and authenticated it is.   Can atheists prove me wrong?
PlaffelvohfenAlofRIJGXdebatePRORS_masterRudraBhattacharyaxlJ_dolphin_473
The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
«1345678



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 16

    I challenge every atheist on this channel to disprove the above allegations.

    Obviously, most welcome are any supporting arguments from non-atheists, particularly where examples of the above can be demonstrated.
    JGXdebatePROAlofRIxlJ_dolphin_473PlaffelvohfenRS_masterHappy_Killbot
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • The advocation you are making applies to christians, not atheists. The proof is on our side. We have centuries of science on our side and you have one dusty old book. Interesting fact: God commands the old and weak and disabled to be slaughtered. Ezekiel 9:6.
  • @Grafix Wrong again Grafix!

    Eagles are actually quite good swimmers! I just proved you wrong!
    https://www.npr.org/2019/06/14/732843218/bald-eagle-caught-elegantly-swimming

    Image result for can eagles swim

    THEISTS MUST DENY THE FACTS BECAUSE THE FACTS DON'T SUPPORT THEIR POSITION!


    Because Eagles are actually good swimmers, therefore they do not walk on water, thus it requires no explanation. You must now except that DNA, E = MC^2, Einstein's theory of general relativity, do not prove the existence of a higher being, or else you are committing the same fallacy you claim Atheists make, which we actually never made because the reality supports our position.

    You played yourself!
    DeePlaffelvohfenGrafixJGXdebatePRORS_master
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 552 Pts
    I've walked on water many times! ('course it was only an inch or so deep ;-). I saw a picture of Trump appearing to stand on water, so, if HE can do it, Satan could too! ………….. so much for the god thingy!
    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    You’re on the money again and the best person at beating @Grafix arguments is himself,  he shoots himself in the foot every time 
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 538 Pts
    @JGXdebatePRO

    What published book of Science, are you talking about that can be used by you or any Atheist, to cooberate your below statements?


    "The advocation you are making applies to christians, not atheists." 

    "The proof is on our side. We have centuries of science on our side and you have one dusty old book."

    Maybe Einstein wrote a Science book?

    Maybe Richard Dawkins wrote a Science book?

    Maybe the Atheist Revolution website, has written a book on Science?

    And all of these probable written Science books, could be used by you to help you cooberate your statement?


    "Interesting fact: God commands the old and weak and disabled to be slaughtered. Ezekiel 9:6."



    PlaffelvohfenGrafix
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    @JGXdebatePRO - You wrote ....
    The advocation you are making applies to christians, not atheists. The proof is on our side. We have centuries of science on our side and you have one dusty old book. Interesting fact: God commands the old and weak and disabled to be slaughtered. Ezekiel 9:6.

    So atheists have dishonestly claimed for decades, but more recent science says otherwise, proven science, which atheists deny and refuse to debate.  

    I see that you don't wish to debate the two examples I gave - that DNA proves there is Intelligent Design which atheists won't accept and Einstein's equation of relativity proves that their is a super intelligent force beyond the scope of the feeble human mind's capacity to even imagine.  Why won't you debate these?

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • My debate against DNA is that DNA is not life. DNA is merely a part of what brings a being to life. as for e=mc2 this is a calculus equation stating that energy is relative to mass, nothing to do with god.
    Happy_Killbot
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 28
    @Happy_Killbot - Love your phototgraph Killjoy.  It really gave me a belly laugh.  LOL!

    OK, mate, getting serious now.  Can you debate whether or not DNA proves there is Intelligent Design behind every natural thing in existence, i.e., that the universe itself and the vegetation, life and climate on our own planet were all designed to be fundamental functions which, once initially created and then set in motion, could each naturally sustain themselves, being designed to do so? 

    On the question of intelligent life, can you explain how each of us obtains our unique DNA, given that it cannot be inherited because it is unique unlike that of our parents and nature cannot produce DNA, it being intangible information, the same way that our P.C.s stores information?
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Secondly, @Grafix, e=mc2 does not prove that there is "super intelligent life" I believe you need to brush up on your physics.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 17
    @Dee - LOL!  Dee, you just can't help yourself.  True to form in you bounce with a typical remark, in your infamous style, totally off-topic and attempting to personalize the debate right from the get-go.  You know these two flaws in your debating approach are my two most strident complaints against your style, so let's get that on the record right at the top of the page and if I ignore you, then you will know why.  A deal? ... that you will not spam the topic with duplicate off-topic posts, demanding attention and which no-one answers? Deal?
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix Shifting the burden of proof kid, that's a no-go. It isn't my job to disprove your claims, it is your job to prove your claims, and if I can find one single piece of evidence that disproves its over. If I can't then it is possible but not necessarily true.

    you see, the phrase "DNA proves (or disproves) inteligent design" is a nonsensical statement, because the existence of DNA doesn't mean that it was created or not. Suppose the universe just formed exactly how it is with everything, including your memories, every book that was written, and every DNA molecule exactly how it is only 20 minutes ago. Very improbable, but not impossible. Does that mean that this random even happened or something made it happen? We can't know.

    Your claims are synonymous with asking "Does the color pink prove that unicorns do (or do not) exist?" From a logical standpoint, these are the same questions.

    I debate once you make you make your position a falsifiable claim.

    P.S. Have't I already explained to you how unique DNA happens? It might have been someone else but the TL;DR is that ionizing radiation breaks apart DNA and causes it to randomly re-form.

    I think it was someone else, but I gave this ridiculous (but direct) analogy of a library plagued with bookworms, It would be very memorable.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    @AlofRI - LOL!  Appearances are interesting, as are optical illusions and sleights of hand. 

    Now let's get to the serious stuff.  Can you rebut the science which says that DNA is intelligent information?  Science acknowledges that nature cannot produce DNA, that it can only copy it, that as nature cannot produce it, so the big question is, where did it come from in the first place?  
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 16
    @JGXdebatePRO - You wrote ...
    My debate against DNA is that DNA is not life. DNA is merely a part of what brings a being to life. as for e=mc2 this is a calculus equation stating that energy is relative to mass, nothing to do with god.

    That's not the question though.  Where do I ask in this OP for a debate on whether DNA is life itself?  I don't.  I ask a completely different question, which you have tried to adroitly side-step.  I think I am winning already in that you have proved a reluctance to even countenance the question itself.  I ask again, does DNA prove that there is Intelligent Design in living cells?  

    You do know that without any DNA cells would just be blobs of life with no specific characteristics, with no identifying features like blonde hair, or blue or brown eyes, short or long legs, that we would have no noses, no ears, no sense of hearing, smell, taste, eyesight, a brain or intelligence at all?  Without DNA the molecules do not know how to assemble to create these specifically designed characteristics.  It is DNA which actually characterizes each cell.  Without DNA the cells do not know what to do.  That's because DNA is an instruction manual, which tells them how to assemble to create these characteristics.  Do you deny that?

    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfenAlofRI
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 16
    @JGXdebatePRO - You also wrote ....
    Secondly, @Grafix, e=mc2 does not prove that there is "super intelligent life" I believe you need to brush up on your physics.

    I didn't use the words "super intelligent life", even if one day we may prove that, but it hasn't been proved yet.  I used the words "super intelligent force".  There is a difference.  Einstein didn't prove the existence of any super intelligent life at all.  He only proved that the force of mass when travelling at the speed of light squared, is at such an astronomical speed and produces such an astronomical force that the matter vaporizes into energy,  just as the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima proved.  So, if that is what happens then we can deduce that the massive speed and force required to fling planets millions and millions of miles apart, by a big bang, would vaporize their matter before they got out of the starting blocks.  Right?

    Einstein realized this, so it left the multi-billion dollar question then, how could so many planets come into existence without such a force?  Intelligent design had to be involved.  He knew that immediately.

    Happy_KillbotDeePlaffelvohfen
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    @Grafix

    The best person at beating @Grafix arguments is himself,  he shoots himself in the foot every time 
  • @Grafix
    Very wrong. As atheists, the fact do very much support our position. I am aware that there are many arguments, such as the argument from design that supposedly ‘prove’ God’s existence, but they do not. I would appreciate it if you throw some arguments at me, so I can attempt to rebut them... what have you got?
  • @Grafix That fact that DNA tells cells what to do is not evidence it was created, because it wrights itself. It does so in a way which is both complex and fascinating. Each codon, which is a group of 3 DNA base pairs tells a ribosome molecule to produce a new string of amino acids, these amino acids then fold themselves up depending on which are used in what order to produce a protein, which basically functions as a mini machine, capable of carrying out tasks in a way that is both chemical and mechanical. Among these machines, some of them allow DNA to make new DNA in one of the most beautiful processes that is going on right now billions of times inside every one of us.

    Nowhere in any of this is there any suggestion or hint that the DNA was created out of nowhere, or made deliberately. To think this is what is happening is an argument from ignorance and has no evidence to back it up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bee6PWUgPo8
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Grafix
    Grafix said:
    @JGXdebatePRO - You also wrote ....
    Secondly, @Grafix, e=mc2 does not prove that there is "super intelligent life" I believe you need to brush up on your physics.

    I didn't use the words "super intelligent life", even if one day we may prove that, but it hasn't been proved yet.  I used the words "super intelligent force".  There is a difference.  Einstein didn't prove the existence of any super intelligent life at all.  He only proved that the force of mass when travelling at the speed of light squared, is at such an astronomical speed and produces such an astronomical force that the matter vaporizes into energy, just like the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima proved.  So, if that is what happens then we can deduce that the massive speed and force required to fling planets millions and millions of miles apart, by a big bang, would vaporize their matter before they got out of the starting blocks.  Right?

    Einstein realized this, so it left the multi-billion dollar question then, how could so many planets come into existence without such a force?  Intelligent design had to be involved.  He knew that immediately.


    That is a very inaccurate misrepresentation of the equation E = MC^2 and a child's view on how the universe works.

    What the equation means is that when something is traveling very fast, it has more mass, however from the perspective of that traveling object, it would seem that everything else was moving very fast and thus it would have more mass. The equation is to explain this bizarre and unintuitive reality, that when you travel fast things for you seem to slow down, and everything else speeds up.

    I believe I have showed you in the past what the equation actually means, and how it can be used to calculate the change in mass due to nuclear fission, but it is apparent you don't understand what you are trying to argue against, like a child insisting that a car runs because the springs on the wheels make it bounce forward.

    Planets didn't form until long after the big bang, because there were almost no elements heavier than helium after the big bang. Stars first needed to go supernova in order to produce these elements, such as iron, carbon, and oxygen. This in no way suggests intelligent design. Actually, it is evidence against it because why would a god take so many steps to produce the universe if it could do it much simpler by just making everything exactly how it wanted it to be from the get go?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 16
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 - You wrote ....
    @Grafix - Very wrong. As atheists, the fact do very much support our position. I am aware that there are many arguments, such as the argument from design that supposedly ‘prove’ God’s existence, but they do not. I would appreciate it if you throw some arguments at me, so I can attempt to rebut them... what have you got?
    There is no evidence which proves God's existence, so anyone arguing that, is arguing a croc.  That is not the scientific argument at all and is not the argument which Creationists and others make at all.  I would ignore those arguments, if I were you.  It is not my argument either.  My argument is the scientific argument as already posited, namely, that living cells would just be blobs without the instruction manual which DNA provides.  It is like a unique blueprint for each of us, and gives us our individual characteristics.  I have already given you the argument for you to debate.  Do you deny this is the debate question?

    Plaffelvohfen
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    I think Grafix' existence proves the intelligent design; there is no way nature spontaneously could produce a person with views so full of contradictions! I have always known that the Reapers are behind all this.
    SkepticalOne
  • @Grafix

    It seems you've confused facts with your interpretation of fact. DNA and E=mc² are facts. Either of them necessarily pointing to a creator is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable interpretation of fact.

    As such, the OP presents no facts which argue against atheism.

    /end thread
    Happy_KillbotMayCaesar
  • @MayCaesar What? No way everything he says is anything but totally random words that just happen to come together into semi-coherent sentences. What will you say when it turns out his entire profile is just a cat that sometimes sleeps on someone's keyboard?
    MayCaesar
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts

    ATHEISTS MUST DENY THE FACTS, BECAUSE THE FACTS DON'T SUPPORT THEIR POSITION


    This from @Grafix who thinks a “fact “ is that Dynamo the magician does his tricks by using Satanic powers or his latest that the Covid virus is actually a plot engineered to overthrow  Trump ........The guy is beyond barking mad  and beats stiff competition for that title but does so easily 
    Happy_KillbotNope
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 16
    @Happy_Killbot ; - You wrote ...
    @Grafix That fact that DNA tells cells what to do is not evidence it was created, because it wrights itself. It does so in a way which is both complex and fascinating. Each codon, which is a group of 3 DNA base pairs tells a ribosome molecule to produce a new string of amino acids, these amino acids then fold themselves up depending on which are used in what order to produce a protein, which basically functions as a mini machine, capable of carrying out tasks in a way that is both chemical and mechanical. Among these machines, some of them allow DNA to make new DNA in one of the most beautiful processes that is going on right now billions of times inside every one of us.
    Your first sentence ignores the initial and evident necessity for DNA to be present in the very first instance, necessary to tell the cells what to write in the very first instance.  That's the kicker.  Without DNA the cells do not know what to write, because cells have no intelligence, no brain.  They have to have the information in the first place to know what to write.  Once the DNA is written, then it can be copied from the parent cell and transported by RNA to the necessary protein chains.  You also don't answer how the amino acids, nucleotides, etc. know how to assemble themselves to build the protein chains and how these chains then know how to fold and form their complex shapes, which ultimately house the new DNA.  They need instructions to do all of that, because chemicals have no intelligence.  It's a case of what came first?  The chicken or the egg?  Then you wrote ...
    Nowhere in any of this is there any suggestion or hint that the DNA was created out of nowhere, or made deliberately. To think this is what is happening is an argument from ignorance and has no evidence to back it up.
    I just did back it up.  How do the protein chains know how to do this or even that they must store the DNA?  Atheists argue that the creation of natural life needs no intelligence to reproduce itself.  That is true in 99% of the process and I agree with that, however the other 1% is necessary before the other 99% can even get started, because the DNA information is necessary in the very first instance, before anything can become any form of life, let alone living cells becoming more than a blob with individual characteristics.  You ignore what characterizes cells and how the protein chains know how to even form themselves correctly.  

    The very first substances necessary to begin the formation of a living cell are not even life themselves, let alone intelligent.  They are just four basic chemicals which are not living matter.  How do four basic chemicals know how to assemble their particles to create even a single molecule of life?  Then how do these molecules know how to assemble themselves correctly to create a completed living cell?  Then how do the living cells know which different characteristics each of them is to create?  They must have the DNA which tells each of them, you will make an ear, instead of a nose, or a bone instead of a blood vessel, or a heart instead of a lung, etc. 

    Abiogenesis began with only those very first four chemicals.  Where did they obtain the DNA from to tell them how to do all of that?  Where did it come from?
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 16
    @MayCaesar - LOL!  May, that's very clever and funny too.  It made me chuckle aloud.  LOL!  You wrote ....
    I think Grafix' existence proves the intelligent design; there is no way nature spontaneously could produce a person with views so full of contradictions! I have always known that the Reapers are behind all this.
    Of course, the fact that you can't see the contradiction of atheism in and of itself, I need not say what that proves. 
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix The real question is, if in the future someone, either a group of scientists or professors can show to your satisfaction that abiogenesis can occur, will you still believe that information can never come from randomness?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 16
    @Dee - What lie is this of yours and where did you find it in anything I have ever written?  I don't think there is a single post of mine which even remotely mentions The President, let alone in relation to the the Covid virus, yet you construe this wonderful piece of pixie dust as follows  ....
    This from @Grafix who thinks a “fact “ is that ... the Covid virus is actually a plot engineered to overthrow  Trump ........The guy is beyond barking mad  and beats stiff competition for that title but does so easily 
    I have never voiced such a conclusion anywhere, so go and wash your mouth out, Dee.  Meanwhile, quote where I have stated this back to me, for all to see.  If you can't then we know who engages with the fairies, don't we?  If you cannot keep your comments away from personalizing  debates with completely irrelevant  drivel, then I will flag them all AGAIN.  Now debate the topic or piss off into your land of fake hubris.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    @Grafix

    Yeah , yeah same old Grafix nonsense denial and deflection , try take a couple of deep breaths and the f-ck down
    Nope
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    @Grafix

    Yeah , yeah same old Grafix nonsense denial and deflection , try take a couple of deep breaths and the f-ck down
    Nope
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 16
    @SkepticalOne - Ah dear, my old debating friend, SkepticalOne, up to his usual tricks of misrepresenting his opponent's arguments.  You wrote ...
    @Grafix - It seems you've confused facts with your interpretation of fact. DNA and E=mc² are facts. Either of them necessarily pointing to a creator is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable interpretation of fact.
    I agree.  Neither of them prove a Creator or evidence of a Creator and cannot be construed or stretched to mean that.  Both merely point to an intelligence in the design of nature, which is all that I am arguing here.  So, mate, you have merely confirmed my previous statements about your style of debate, that it's dishonest. You persistently seek to introduces arguments where there are none, therefore your next remark ...
    As such, the OP presents no facts which argue against atheism.
    .... is therefore false.

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 16
    @Happy_Killbot - you wrote ....
    That is a very inaccurate misrepresentation of the equation E = MC^2 and a child's view on how the universe works.
    It's not a misrepresentation, actually.  It's just another dimension of the equation, aside from and additional to the other facts which Einstein's equation also revealed and which you attempt to explain.  I don't deny these other facts, the only ones which atheism will allow.   It is you who is denying the science here, not me.  Then you wrote this contradiction ....
    What the equation means is that when something is traveling very fast, it has more mass, however from the perspective of that traveling object, it would seem that everything else was moving very fast and thus it would have more mass. The equation is to explain this bizarre and unintuitive reality, that when you travel fast things for you seem to slow down, and everything else speeds up.
    The equation doesn't mean that when something is travelling very fast that it has more mass.  It means that it has more FORCE.  The mass actually vaporizes into more FORCE, because the faster mass travels the more kinetic energy it releases.  Energy is not mass, while, conversely, mass is trapped energy.  The increase in speed simply increases the FORCE of the mass.  It cannot increase the mass.  Both energy and mass are constants in so far as their quantity is measured, so you are wrong.  There is not any increase in mass at all, only an increase in the force of the existing energy.  All energy travels at the speed of light squared.  ALL.  What Einstein's equation shows is how the laws of motion release the FORCE of energy.  Then you try this little dupe ...
    I believe I have showed you in the past what the equation actually means, and how it can be used to calculate the change in mass due to nuclear fission, but it is apparent you don't understand what you are trying to argue against, like a child insisting that a car runs because the springs on the wheels make it bounce forward.
    I am not aware that you or I have ever  discussed nuclear fusion anywhere on this forum.  You are confusing me with someone else, but if you wish to, we can start with the evidence of its impact on Hiroshima if you like.  Nuclear or atomic fusion or fission both disprove the possibility of the Big Bang being the beginning of time, space and matter.  Your next remark simply ignores so much empirical evidence, when you wrote ...
    Planets didn't form until long after the big bang, because there were almost no elements heavier than helium after the big bang. Stars first needed to go supernova in order to produce these elements, such as iron, carbon, and oxygen. This in no way suggests intelligent design. Actually, it is evidence against it because why would a god take so many steps to produce the universe if it could do it much simpler by just making everything exactly how it wanted it to be from the get go?
    Where did the matter come from that created the explosion of the Big Bang in the first place?  Atheists ignore this.  Even if we do accept their Big Bang fairy tale, for which they have no evidence, but merely extrapolations and conjecture, where's the evidence which supports the theory?  The BBT engages in backward reasoning, which you and  @SkepticalOne,  @piloteer ;and  @MayCaesar ; all love to accuse me of, when in fact it is you lot who are engaging in that, by constructing fake facts to fit the atheist narrative, rather than doing it the correct way around, allowing the fact to construct the narrative.

    Science knows that gases existed in the universe and that many planets formed from gases, evident to this day in the gaseous planets.  Science cannot explain the abiogenesis, the very original origin of these gases however.  Sure, once you have stars exploding and planets exploding they produce these gases, which can produce more planets, but you have to have the abiogenesis of those first planets or first stars which first exploded OR the abiogenesis of the first gases which formed into the first stars and planets.  Which came first?  The chicken or the egg?  So, atheism in its infinite wisdom decided it would take charge of the narrative and created the furphy of the Big Bang Theory, which merely kicks the can further down the road, because the question STILL  remains,  um ...  well ..... um ..... where did the matter come from in the first place, which exploded to create the gases, which created the planets years later? 

    None of your twaddle explains the beginning of time, the beginning of matter or the beginning of space at all.  It is a fake, a croc, a double blind made up by atheists to do nothing more than serve at the altar of atheism.  It is a big fat deceit, a deceit which many, many thousands of scientists agree that it is just that - a deceit constructed to create a narrative, rather than allowing the facts to create the narrative.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Grafix

    When are you going to stop competing in the oppression Olympics? When every single person you debate with misrepresents your position, then, chances are, there is a problem in how you express that position. You always blame others for everything, but never stop to consider your own shortcomings.

    You have never said anything around here that would suggest that DNA or E=mc^2 in any way warrant the intelligent design. It has just been the same set of emotional arguments: "It is obvious!", "It is so similar to our own designs!", etc.

    As my undergraduate math analysis professor liked to say, "Obvious statements are great, because they are very easy to prove". When you declare something obvious, but cannot prove it, then it means that either it is not obvious, or you are just that bad at proving things.
    Happy_Killbot
  • @Grafix
    It's not a misrepresentation, actually.  It's just another dimension of the equation, aside from and additional to the other facts which Einstein's equation also revealed and which you attempt to explain.  I don't deny these other facts, the only ones which atheism will allow.   It is you who is denying the science here, not me.  Then you wrote this contradiction ...
    Tell me what you know about Einstein's theory of relativity that I don't know.
    The equation doesn't mean that when something is travelling very fast that it has more mass.  It means that it has more FORCE.  The mass actually vaporizes into more FORCE, because the faster mass travels the more kinetic energy it releases.  Energy is not mass.  It is FORCE.  Then you try this little dupe ...
    No, this is completely wrong. The "m" in the equation is "mass" for example, a Uranium atom has more mass than two atoms with the same number of protons and neutrons.
    I am not aware that you or I have ever  discussed nuclear fusion anywhere on this forum.  You are confusing me with someone else, but if you wish to, we can start with the evidence of its impact on Hiroshima if you like.  Nuclear or atomic fusion or fission both disprove the possibility of the Big Bang being the beginning of time, space and matter.  Your next post ignored so much empirical evidence, when you wrote ...
    I would have to go back and find it, but I do believe it was you, I think it was right after you started ranting about how Einstein was a theist even though he was not, and I posted an equation showing how to apply the equation E = mc^2 to nuclear physics.
    Where did the matter come from that created the explosion of the Big Bang in the first place?  Atheists ignore this.  Even if we do accept their Big Bang fairy tale, for which they have no evidence, but merely extrapolations and conjecture, where's the evidence which supports the theory?  The BBT engges in backward reasoning which you and  @SkepticalOne,  @piloteer ;;and  @MayCaesar ;; all love to accuse me of, when in fact it is you lot who are engaging in that, by constructing fake facts to fit the atheist narrative, rather than doing it the correct way around, allowing the fact to construct the narrative.
    We have lots of evidence for the big bang, such as cosmic inflation and the cosmic microwave background. Where is the evidence for any god, let alone the Abrahamic god which Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship?
    Science knows that gases existed in the universe and that many planets formed from gases,evident to this day in the gaseous planets.  Science cannot explain the abiogenesis, the very original origin of these gases however.  
    Science can not yet explain abiogenesis, but that doesn't mean that it never will, just give it some time. We can't know everything at once, it takes a little to do research and learn what we need to know. Abiogenesis is not the origin of the gases, abiogenesis is about in-organic material forming into life.
    Sure, once you have stars exploding and planets exploding they produce these gases, which can produce more planets, but you have to have the abiogenesis of those first planets or first stars which first exploded OR the abiogenesis of the first gases which formed into the first stars and planets.  Which came first?  The chicken or the egg?  
    Planets don't explode to form new elements, it is a nuclear reaction caused by the fast fusion of heavy elements bouncing off the outer layers of stars undergoing gravitational collapse following a decrease in nuclear material to fuse to produce the energy to counteract that gravitational collapse. Strike two with the abiogenesis non-sense. You question "Which cam first" is again nonsensical.
    So, atheism in its infinite wisdom decided it would take charge of the narrative and created the furphy of the Big Bang Theory, which merely kicks the can further down the road, because the question STILL  remains,  um ...  well ..... um ..... where did the matter come from in the first place, which exploded to create the gases, which created the planets years later?  None of your twaddle explains the beginning of time, the beginning of matter or the beginning of space at all.  It is a fake, a croc, a double blind made up by atheists to do nothing more than serve at the altar of atheism.  It is a big fat deceit deceit and many, many thousands of scientists agree that it is.
    .
    The big bang was not an explosion, that is just some BS spewed by those morons who don't know anything about the BBT. How about instead of me telling you how little you know, how about you just explain to me everything you do know about the BBT and I will ask you questions about how it works until you actually know something?

    You seem to be moving toward the "god of the gaps" fallacy here, which is where you assume that because there is something we don't understand, that means god must have done it.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Grafix Here is where I lectured you on the misuse and misunderstanding of E = MC^2
    https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/68214/#Comment_68214
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Grafix said:
    @SkepticalOne - Ah dear, my old debating friend, SkepticalOne, up to his usual tricks of misrepresenting his opponent's arguments.  You wrote ...
    @Grafix - It seems you've confused facts with your interpretation of fact. DNA and E=mc² are facts. Either of them necessarily pointing to a creator is an unverifiable and unfalsifiable interpretation of fact.
    I agree.  Neither of them prove a Creator or evidence of a Creator and cannot be construed or stretched to mean that.  Both merely point to an intelligence in the design of nature, which is all that I am arguing here.  So, mate, you have merely confirmed my previous statements about your style of debate, that it's dishonest. You persistently seek to introduces arguments where there are none, therefore your next remark ...
    As such, the OP presents no facts which argue against atheism.
    .... is therefore false.

    We agree neither prove a creator - great. My apologies, but what is the difference between a creator and "an intelligence in the design in nature"? 

    Regardless, you're still pointing to interpretations rather than fact and my overall point stands.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    @MayCaesar ; -   Unable to debate the topic, May?  Now fleeing to the retort of last resort?  Attacking the person and not the substance of the debate?  Of course, every atheist IS  going to misrepresent the truth in my statements.  That IS  the substance of the argument that they  DO  engage in that to avoid  arguing the FACTS which I put in front of them.  Meanwhile, you and they in their blinkered state of mental decay in launching personal attacks like yours quoted below, only serves to PROVE  my allegations even more so, when you write ...
    @Grafix - When are you going to stop competing in the oppression Olympics? When every single person you debate with misrepresents your position, then, chances are, there is a problem in how you express that position. You always blame others for everything, but never stop to consider your own shortcomings.
    Every single person I debate is an atheist.  It stands to reason then that they WILL and with great regularity DO misrepresent my arguments.  That's the very point of this topic: that they do so to avoid discussing the

    F A C T S

    In your follow-up statement, you don't merely misrepresent my statements, you dive into the rhetorical slosh pit and deny that I have presented any arguments at all.  Refresh your page and look at my replies to Harry Ha Ha Killjoy.  Yet, in your blinkered state of mental hoary happenstance you instead claim this ...
    You have never said anything around here that would suggest that DNA or E=mc^2 in any way warrant the intelligent design. It has just been the same set of emotional arguments: "It is obvious!", "It is so similar to our own designs!", etc.
    What I truly don't get is this:  If you think my arguments are so weak, merely "stating the obvious" then why the heck can't you debate them and destroy them?  You don't even attempt to.  You just run away and prattle commonplace nothingness armed with a personal steam train, raining buckets of vitriolic steam vapors down on my head.  Debate my arguments against Harry Ha Ha Killjoy, or forever hold your peace.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Grafix said:
    You also don't answer how the amino acids, nucleotides, etc. know how to assemble themselves to build the protein chains and how these chains then know how to fold and form their complex shapes, which ultimately house the new DNA.  They need instructions to do all of that, because chemicals have no intelligence.  It's a case of what came first?  The chicken or the egg?   .
    You should refrain from assuming that any cell or molecule or element needed to know anything to produce life. You seem to think that we are, at this moment in time, the pinnacle of evolved life in the universe, that's quite presumptuous and so wrong... The natural world didn't have "us" in mind when life happened. Nature has no mind to begin with, you have a very anthropomorphic perception of reality and it's components... I guess that explains your belief in ID...

    And you're behind in science, get up to date... You keep parroting Dr. Tour that "amino acids don't hook together by themselves", that nucleotides can't either, when in fact they actually do... And they don't need to know anything to do so...

    Next you're probably going to ask how were the first enzymes made then? 

    Well we have an answer now, Dr Matthew Powner (UCL Chemistry) and his team have demonstrated that the precursors to amino acids, called aminonitriles, can be easily and selectively turned into peptides in water, taking advantage of their own built-in reactivity with the help of other molecules that were present in primordial environments. Many researchers have sought to understand how peptides first formed to help life develop, but almost all of the research has focused on amino acids, so the reactivity of their precursors was overlooked... 

    “This is the first time that peptides have been convincingly shown to form without using amino acids in water, using relatively gentle conditions likely to be available on the primitive Earth,” said the study lead author Dr Matthew Powner (UCL Chemistry). 

    Whatever your next question is, prepare to be answered eventually...

    Your God has retreated a little more in the ever recessing Gap...
    Happy_KillbotDee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    @SkepticalOne - You have redeemed your position Skep.  I genuinely and sincerely appreciate your acknowledgement of the misunderstanding and your apology.  You then ask ...
    We agree neither prove a creator - great. My apologies, but what is the difference between a creator and "an intelligence in the design in nature"? 
    Regardless, you're still pointing to interpretations rather than fact and my overall point stands.

    That's a great question.  What is the difference?  Can science one day give us that answer?  Although DNA and Einstein's equations both point to an intelligence somewhere in the mix, we agree that it hardly proves the existence of a "Creator" in the sense of the embodiment of any "being" as we define the word "Creator" to mean, let alone proves the existence of the Christian God or any God.  We can only accept what the science says, which is that there is an obvious intelligence in the way the creation of life and the universe has been orchestrated so that each may then self-replicate.  Taking the facts beyond that conclusion is dishonest.

    Although, this automatically leads to claims made by Christians that it proves the existence of their God, it does not.  However, it must be acknowledged that it certainly is "supportive" of their faith-based conviction, as opposed to denying or flatly disproving or negating the reasoning behind the Christian faith.  It is evidence that science has moved closer to, rather than further away from, the Christian argument.  That's all it means.

    Plaffelvohfen
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 16
    @Grafix

    Me being an atheist has nothing to do with anything; I have had many meaningful discussions on the subject with various Christians and other theists. It is only with the kinds of you, people so stuck up in their echo-chamber that they are unable to even comprehend the idea that their world view is not the only valid one, that this kind of meaningless exchanges occurs. It is not that you are a Christian, it is that you are an ideological fanatic, that makes these debates go so unfavorably for you.

    Your opening argument contained no substance but "These things clearly hint at the existence of the creator, but atheists deny that". This kind of emotional attribution does not even need being debated; it is not a logical argument. And then you are wondering why people misrepresent your position? It is because you are not saying anything of substance, dude. Whatever complicated positions you might hold in your head do not find their way here.

    I have an exercise for you. Take a sheet of paper and a pen. On one side of the paper write down your arguments. On another side of the paper write down the arguments of those disagreeing with you as if you agree with them; that will force you to think about why people might disagree with you. Notice how you feel when you do the latter part. If you feel strong resistance and have the urge to straw man those arguments and make them look incoherent, then that is a good sign that your position is emotional and not logical. Emotional attachments cause illogical resistances in us, and if that is the case here, then you know well that your position is not logical, and hence what you write here is not logical either.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 17
    @Happy_Killbot - I'm not denying that discussion.  I'm denying that we have ever discussed nuclear fusion, which you claim we had.  Where's the discussion of nuclear fusion in your link to this reply to me?  There's none   ....
    @Grafix Here is where I lectured you on the misuse and misunderstanding of E = MC^2
    https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/68214/#Comment_68214
    This is what you wrote back then, which your above link points to ...
    @Grafix Sometimes the simplest minds are the hardest to probe.
    Einstein was famously agnostic, his stance was one of "we don't know and never will" He was by no means a theist or atheist, as you can see in the context of the letter I quoted above.
    He didn't believe in any one single deity or religion, he was agnostic, I can't drive that point hard enough.
    You still haven't made any attempt to dissuade the "y chromosome" pragmatic argument. If it isn't useful, then it isn't real.
    P.S. You still have gross conceptual errors on how human reproduction works.

    I responded with a copy of an article, as per the below, but need to stress, I do not agree with the absolutism claimed in its title.  I then and now, unequivocally state that Einstein's equation does not prove the existence of God.  It only proves Intelligent Design.  Nowhere in this discussion, Harry_K,  do we discuss nuclear fusion, at all, and nor have we ever done so.. Even the explanation of the equation in this article is wrong.  It includes the volume of mass to the next power squared. The equation only squares the speed of light and not the mass.  However, I am simply posting this to prove to you that we never discussed nuclear fusion.  I posted that article for one reason, merely to illustrate the incomprehensible magnitude and scale of the implications of Einstein's equation.  It is positively beyond the realms of all human comprehension.



    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix I was never talking about FUSSION, I was talking about FISSION! 

    F***ing read!

    Also, you are looking in the wrong spot. The lecture I was referring to was this one which is a direct response to the blatant stupidity in that article you post:

    @Grafix Dude, this site can't even do high school math right:

    "step one: Add all the mass in the universe

    step two: multiply by the speed of light

    step 3: square that number:" WRONG! You have to square the speed of light first, then multiply that number by the mass of the universe, and then you will STILL BE WRONG because that is a misuse of that equation!

    This equation applies not directly to matter, it doesn't mean that you can turn energy into matter and vice versa, the confusion comes from the term "mass" which is separate from "matter" what it means is that the faster something is moving, the more mass it has. It puts the speed limit on travel of information and matter, namely the speed of light, (c) which stands for causality.

    The confusion over this whole debacle comes from it's use in calculating the mass defect of atoms. Simply put, the most massive atoms contain more binding energy than lighter ones down to iron, and splitting this difference releases energy. This is how nuclear fission happens.


    When you calculate mass defect you use the equation E = Mc^2 to determine the energy yield, where M is the mass defect. This however, doesn't change the fact that you start out with the same amount of matter as before, it is just now that matter has a different mass. That is how the equation is supposed to be used, not this blasphemy from some idiots on the internet who failed high school math!

    Image result for calculating energy released in nuclear fission

    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Grafix I was never talking about FUSION, I was talking about FISSION! 

    F***ing read what I wrote!

    Also, you are looking in the wrong spot. The lecture I was referring to was this one which is a direct response to the blatant stupidity in that article you post:

    @Grafix Dude, this site can't even do high school math right:

    "step one: Add all the mass in the universe

    step two: multiply by the speed of light

    step 3: square that number:" WRONG! You have to square the speed of light first, then multiply that number by the mass of the universe, and then you will STILL BE WRONG because that is a misuse of that equation!

    This equation applies not directly to matter, it doesn't mean that you can turn energy into matter and vice versa, the confusion comes from the term "mass" which is separate from "matter" what it means is that the faster something is moving, the more mass it has. It puts the speed limit on travel of information and matter, namely the speed of light, (c) which stands for causality.

    The confusion over this whole debacle comes from it's use in calculating the mass defect of atoms. Simply put, the most massive atoms contain more binding energy than lighter ones down to iron, and splitting this difference releases energy. This is how nuclear fission happens.


    When you calculate mass defect you use the equation E = Mc^2 to determine the energy yield, where M is the mass defect. This however, doesn't change the fact that you start out with the same amount of matter as before, it is just now that matter has a different mass. That is how the equation is supposed to be used, not this blasphemy from some idiots on the internet who failed high school math!

    Image result for calculating energy released in nuclear fission

    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 1565 Pts
    edited March 17
    [duplicate]
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • If you walked on water that would be actual evidence of miraculous goings on.

    Do you see how your analogy therefore has no relevance to any actual religion on the face of the earth?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 480 Pts
    edited March 17
    @Grafix

    Where did the matter come from that created the explosion of the Big Bang in the first place? 
    Science knows that gases existed in the universe and that many planets formed from gases, evident to this day in the gaseous planets.  Science cannot explain the abiogenesis, the very original origin of these gases however.  Sure, once you have stars exploding and planets exploding they produce these gases, which can produce more planets, but you have to have the abiogenesis of those first planets or first stars which first exploded OR the abiogenesis of the first gases which formed into the first stars and planets.  Which came first?  The chicken or the egg?  So, atheism in its infinite wisdom decided it would take charge of the narrative and created the furphy of the Big Bang Theory, which merely kicks the can further down the road, because the question STILL  remains,  um ...  well ..... um ..... where did the matter come from in the first place, which exploded to create the gases, which created the planets years later? 
    The "Big Bang" describes the moment energy first transitioned to matter in this universe. (My personal non-expert understanding). There was no matter that caused the BB. 

    "Abiogenesis" is categorically biological and not applicable to the Big Bang. 

    I think the main problem here is that you are suffering from a bit of a misapprehension regarding the BB.
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • Grafix said:
    @SkepticalOne - You have redeemed your position Skep.  I genuinely and sincerely appreciate your acknowledgement of the misunderstanding and your apology.  You then ask ...
    We agree neither prove a creator - great. My apologies, but what is the difference between a creator and "an intelligence in the design in nature"? 
    Regardless, you're still pointing to interpretations rather than fact and my overall point stands.

    That's a great question.  What is the difference?  Can science one day give us that answer?  Although DNA and Einstein's equations both point to an intelligence somewhere in the mix, we agree that it hardly proves the existence of a "Creator" in the sense of the embodiment of any "being" as we define the word "Creator" to mean, let alone proves the existence of the Christian God or any God.  We can only accept what the science says, which is that there is an obvious intelligence in the way the creation of life and the universe has been orchestrated so that each may then self-replicate.  Taking the facts beyond that conclusion is dishonest.

    Although, this automatically leads to claims made by Christians that it proves the existence of their God, it does not.  However, it must be acknowledged that it certainly is "supportive" of their faith-based conviction, as opposed to denying or flatly disproving or negating the reasoning behind the Christian faith.  It is evidence that science has moved closer to, rather than further away from, the Christian argument.  That's all it means.

    If you dont know what is meant by "an intelligence in the design of nature", then how can you suggest DNA or Einstein's equation proves it? 
    Happy_Killbot
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 17

    @Happy_Killbot ; - OK, so your link pointed to the wrong posts.  Accepted.  Then you exhort me to  R E A D couched in expletives but fail to do that very thing yourself.  What does this in my own post tell you?  .....

    Grafix said:  I responded with a copy of an article, as per the below, but need to stress, I do not agree with the absolutism claimed in its title.  I then and now, unequivocally state that Einstein's equation does not prove the existence of God.  It only proves Intelligent Design.  Nowhere in this discussion, Harry_K,  do we discuss nuclear fusion, at all, and nor have we ever done so.. Even the explanation of the equation in this article is wrong.  It includes the volume of mass to the next power squared. The equation only squares the speed of light and not the mass.  However, I am simply posting this to prove to you that we never discussed nuclear fusion.  I posted that article for one reason, merely to illustrate the incomprehensible magnitude and scale of the implications of Einstein's equation.  It is positively beyond the realms of all human comprehension.

    Obviously, I recognize the error in the interpretation of the equation, but that error had no impact upon what I was illustrating, did it?  ... The purpose of posting the article was always and only to illustrate the sheer scale and magnitude of Einstein's equation and his own admission of its implications.  That's all that was intended, without your need to misrepresent the intent.  Back to the now ...

    You are taking Einstein's equation beyond what it defines to suit your own argument.  I know the 'm' stands for mass, having typed it on the page several times already in this discussion.  You are trying to float the equation multiplies mass by mass.  It doesn't.  It multiplies mass by the speed of light squared.  The direct result of THAT is an  increase in FORCE  and not an increase in mass.  It is not possible to increase mass or energy because both are  C O N S T A N T S,  therefore the equation does not increase mass at all.  To claim it does or even that it COULD  is an aberration of accepted science.  Multiplying mass with motion automatically releases KINETIC energy and that release of kinetic energy is what increases the force.  The more the speed of the mass increases the greater the kinetic energy released thus the greater the increase in force.  There is no logic in claiming mass multiplied by speed increases mass. That's impossible given both energy and mass are constants.   Then you claim this unholy misrepresentation ...   

    "... it was right after you started ranting about how Einstein was a theist"  

    Yeah right.  You people couldn't lie straight in bed if you were paid to.  Now quote back to me where I ever said that.  NEXT ...

    "We have lots of evidence for the big bang, such as cosmic inflation and the cosmic microwave background. Where is the evidence for any god, let alone the Abrahamic god which Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship?"  

    There is no evidence of the Big Bang.  It is a narrative built on conjecture and extrapolations.  Present this elusive evidence, if you can find it.  On your claims re God.  Just read my replies in here and quit making up fake arguments.  I've never claimed what you claim is being claimed, dude.  NEXT ...

    "Science can not yet explain abiogenesis, but that doesn't mean that it never will, just give it some time. We can't know everything at once, it takes a little to do research and learn what we need to know. Abiogenesis is not the origin of the gases, abiogenesis is about in-organic material forming into life."   

    OK, I'll concede a better descriptor would be ab initio of the gases, but let's not quibble, you know what is meant. The fact that science cannot explain the genesis of all material and living things, doesn't give Atheism licence to invent it's own fairy tales as a substitute, which is what The BB and Evolution Theories attempt.  They're junk-science, extrapolations and conjecture to build a narrative to serve at the altar of atheism.  The fact that so many accredited scientists, many leaders in their field, decry the aberrations of these non-scientific theories is ignored by atheists.  The fact they've been taught for decades in schools is scandalous and demonstrates the depth, breadth and scale of atheism's organised propaganda-machine and its primary vested interest -  to destroy Christianity.  That's the exposure you all run from. Is why you won't accept the science which disproves this looney junk science, otherwise you then MUST accept the full implications of DNA and Einstein's equation.  Atheism has committed crimes against scholarship and humanity in the most egregious and sustained manner.

    Planets don't explode to form new elements, it is a nuclear reaction caused by the fast fusion of heavy elements bouncing off the outer layers of stars undergoing gravitational collapse following a decrease in nuclear material to fuse to produce the energy to counteract that gravitational collapse. Strike two with the abiogenesis non-sense. You question "Which cam first" is again nonsensical.

    Sure, planets are stable, not known to explode, unlike stars, although that's no reason to presume a completely gaseous planet could not explode given the right conditions.  It could.  The juicy bit here is the fact that planets of solid mass don't explode, as you just agreed, while confirming ever more so the myth of the BBT, supposedly the beginning of all matter.  LOL!    And, No, your copy + paste, pretence of higher learning has no relevance whatsoever to the question of which came first.  Your own arguments expose the deceit of the Big Bang theory.  If you can't see that, then you are full of it, mate.  NEXT ...

    The big bang was not an explosion, that is just some BS spewed by those morons who don't know anything about the BBT. How about instead of me telling you how little you know, how about you just explain to me everything you do know about the BBT and I will ask you questions about how it works until you actually know something?

    Shifting of the goal posts, now, eh?  Ever since science began to prove the idiocracy of atheism's pet BB theory, atheism suddenly began claiming it was never about an explosion.  Yeah right.  Well here's The U.S. Dept. of Energy, teaching what exactly?  Take a good look at the graphics now In this video both at the 1 minute mark and again at the 7 minute mark.   Tell me this is not the Big Bang Theory explained as a literal explosion with graphics confirming that?  I think you just suffered a massive implosion, mate.

                               

    Then it's the same old, same old kite flight that just won't seem to stay up and fly, with ....

    You seem to be moving toward the "god of the gaps" fallacy here, which is where you assume that because there is something we don't understand, that means god must have done it.

    Why do atheists run to that lame claim to fame, every time someone questions their junk science?  No, mate.  I just don't, won't, can't and never will accept dodgey, daft, dippy, dipshite dupes as science.

    .

    PlaffelvohfenHappy_KillbotDee
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 17
    The big bang theory was never about any explosions to begin with; it seems that some people take the name of the theory too literally. The guy who coined  the term, in fact, later many times apologised for it and said he should have come up with a better analogy than that.

    Grafix seems to be like Cathy Newman and other like-minded individuals: when they cannot refute a sound argument, they replace it with a mock argument that is easy to prove to be wrong, show that it is wrong and claim that they have won the argument. This is what intellectual cowards do, afraid of facing real intellectual challenges questioning their beliefs.
    Happy_Killbot
  • @Grafix Why do I talk to you when you just change your story whenever you get pushed into a corner?

    Your dishonesty and ignorance is just painful to read...

    You tried to tell me that the equation E = MC^2 is about force now several times, which I have corrected you on multiple times... The equation literally means that mass and energy are the same thing, that is apparent just by looking at it, it has nothing to do with force, I have even showed you a practical example of applying the calculation to nuclear fission which shows exactly that. When you break up a heavy nucleus such as of Uranium, the resulting fission products (the two left over from the split) weigh less combined than the uranium atom did, thus mass turned into energy, you are just wrong, you remain wrong, you will always be wrong, and if you disagree, I will show you what Nukes are all about!

    https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang
    Sure, planets are stable, not known to explode, unlike stars, although that's no reason to presume a completely gaseous planet could not explode given the right conditions.  It could.  The juicy bit here is the fact that planets of solid mass don't explode, as you just agreed, while confirming ever more so the myth of the BBT, supposedly the beginning of all matter.  LOL!    And, No, your copy + paste, pretence of higher learning has no relevance whatsoever to the question of which came first.  Your own arguments expose the deceit of the Big Bang theory.  If you can't see that, then you are full of it, mate.  NEXT .
    I didn't copy and paste any of that, I can even get into more detail if you would like. Also gas giants don't just explode. You are still wrong.

    WTF are you even arguing for? I think @SkepticalOne hit the nail on the head when he says:

    "If you dont know what is meant by "an intelligence in the design of nature", then how can you suggest DNA or Einstein's equation proves it?"
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch