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

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix You know, when you started this debate the first thing I did was to show that your assumption that Eagles can not swim was wrong.

If you were wrong about the Eagles, could you be wrong about DNA and the Big bang?

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - You wrote ...

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? 

I don't say I don't know what is meant by intelligence in the design of nature.  It is clearly designed by an intellect, outside of nature.  I merely say what it cannot be from a scientific standpoint, construed to mean anything  beyond that.  That is the correct application of the rigor of science.  We can speculate as to what it suggests  and many do, including that it points to the existence of a superior spiritual being, such as the Christian God.  As I am a Christian, that is my faith-based interpretation of that evidence, but I would never be persuaded to claim it is a scientifically based assertion, for the simple reason no scientific evidence exists which proves that.  I'd have thought that is pretty obvious.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - Another atheist moving the goal posts.  LOL.  So in spite of the video evidence to the contrary from the Dept. of Energy, you are still clinging to this ....

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.

Spare me the rest of you assumptions which are not relevant here.

SkepticalOne

Grafix said:

@SkepticalOne - You wrote ...

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? 

I don't say I don't know what is meant by intelligence in the design of nature.  It is clearly designed by an intellect, outside of nature.  I merely say what it cannot be from a scientific standpoint, construed to mean anything  beyond that.  That is the correct application of the rigor of science.  We can speculate as to what it suggests  and many do, including that it points to the existence of a superior spiritual being, such as the Christian God.  As I am a Christian, that is my faith-based interpretation of that evidence, but I would never be persuaded to claim it is a scientifically based assertion, for the simple reason no scientific evidence exists which proves that.  I'd have thought that is pretty obvious.

Ok. I accept that your interpretation of the facts pointing to the Christian deity is faith-based. I used share that view before I became an apostate.

I think the only disconnect we have left is that you believe science holds that nature is designed in general. That is a reflection of more faith-based interpretations of scientific findings. 

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - Yes, Harry Ha Ha Kilbot picked me up on the malapropism of abiogenesis.  I do understand that, just lazy.  Be it ab initio or just plain genesis of the universe, it does not alter my point. 

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. 

I don't know how old you are, but our text books claimed the Big Bang was the beginning of three dimensions, time, matter and space.  It was always taught as those three.  Atheism has shifted the goal posts so many times now, it is hard to keep up.

I think the main problem here is that you are suffering from a bit of a misapprehension regarding the BB.

No, mate.  As a kid I fully accepted the whole kit and kaboodle of the Big Bang Theory and Evolution.  As science advanced it became obvious that many clearer, smarter heads were rejecting these theories on solid grounds.  You can't put the Genie back in the bottle or the toothpaste back in the tube.  I have done the hard yards and am just not prepared to accept junk science anymore.  It is the atheists who are afflicted, not others and funny how it is ONLY atheists who are.  That speaks volumes.

SkepticalOne

@Grafix

Skep: 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. 

Grafix: I don't know how old you are, but our text books claimed the Big Bang was the beginning of three dimensions, time, matter and space.  It was always taught as those three.  Atheism has shifted the goal posts so many times now, it is hard to keep up.

...and I wouldn't disagree with the BB being the beginning of 3 dimensions along with space, time, and matter.  How are the goalposts being shifted here?

MayCaesar

@Grafix

I do not remember the Department of Energy defining what physics theories are. Your "lol"-s do nothing but expose your insecurity and inability to admit when you are wrong.

When you have no clue what the big bang theory is and what it states, what makes you want to debate people on the subject who are actually certified professionals in it?

This is a very strange phenomenon among many people: that they choose to just make up stuff in their heads and substitute reality for that stuff. Someone says something, and they will think, "Ah, he says a different thing from what I just heard". They are really like Cathy Newman:
"I think women and men have different psychologies."
"Guys, look, Jordan just said that women are inferior to men!"

Grafix

@Plaffelvohfen - You wrote ...

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...

Well then, explain how one bunch of cells, with no intelligence knows how to form a nose, another bunch knows how to form skin and another how to form toenails?  Of course they need information, which is contained in DNA.  If you are going to deny that, then there really is no point in furthering this conversation.  You would be defying proven, accepted, undisputed scientific fact.  Are you gonna do that? Then you whine ...

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...

Sure, but it changes nothing.  A few nucleotides and acids clumping together still can't build a life form in any event, and certainly not with necessary complex and specific characteristics.  The length, shape and organisation of the protein strings are critical.  The information in the DNA and how that code is specifically arranged in the right order, in the correct permutations is critical to the characterization of every cell and every cell's function.  Without this information the cells cannot function, are useless, just blobs.  Then you delve into the depths of the nano world with this ....  

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). 

It still changes nothing.  No matter how minuscule the particles under the microscope become, the ultimate question remains, whatever the first dot, first spark may eventually be proved to be, whatever the source, whatever the abiogenesis  I T   W I L L     H A V E    T O    H A V E     C O M E    F R O M     N O T H I N G   and that is the very obvious fact which atheism just refuses to accept.  It is the billion dollar question which atheism refuses to countenance.  Funny how it is ONLY atheists who are afflicted with this blind spot.   Your next remark confirms that, as follows ....

Whatever your next question is, prepare to be answered eventually...
Your God has retreated a little more in the ever recessing Gap...

DNA and Einstein's equation seriously close the God gap, not widen it and there it is, again, in black white, the very stubborn resistance which afflicts atheists and atheism, alone.  It is a croc.  A fraud.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - If you read other commenters replies, they claim that the Big Bang was never an explosion. 

..and I wouldn't disagree with the BB being the beginning of 3 dimensions along with space, time, and matter.  How are the goalposts being shifted here?

 I've seen the claim that BB was not an explosion made by many atheists, but only in the last decade.  Prior to then it was always a solid claim that the Big Bang was an explosion which birthed the beginning of time space and matter.  Always, yet three people on this page are claiming it was not an explosion - just an expansion, LOL.  It appeared your previous comment endorsed that too.

MayCaesar

@Grafix ;

"Explosion" is expansion of matter in space; it cannot happen in the lack of space. Hence, "explosion which births the beginning of time, space and matter" is a phrase that makes no sense.

The Big Bang Theory also has nothing to do with atheism; there is plenty of religious physicists who accept the evidence implying its validity. Your problem, once again, is not that you are religious, but that you are irrational.
Your debating style is also extremely weak: put words into people's mouths and attack those words. You have rarely, if ever, addressed the actual arguments people make.

Stop hiding behind your religiousness; nobody cares about it. Your arguments are just poor, is all.

SkepticalOne

Grafix said:

@SkepticalOne - If you read other commenters replies, they claim that the Big Bang was never an explosion. 

..and I wouldn't disagree with the BB being the beginning of 3 dimensions along with space, time, and matter.  How are the goalposts being shifted here?

 I've seen the claim that BB was not an explosion made by many atheists, but only in the last decade.  Prior to then it was always a solid claim that the Big Bang was an explosion which birthed the beginning of time space and matter.  Always, yet three people on this page are claiming it was not an explosion - just an expansion, LOL.  It appeared your previous comment endorsed that too.

So, you object to the BBT because it is being described as an expansion instead of an explosion? I don't understand what possible difference that could make to your worldview.

For the record, I accept what the experts say: the BB was an expansion of space and not an explosion.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - I missed this question of yours, the posts hitting the page so fast, faster than I have time to address them, being occupied at the same time with other things.  You asked this ....

@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?

I may one day be proved wrong, but as it stands right now, at this minute, science has already shown that a cell cannot be functional without intelligent information.  There is no information which is unintelligible and at the same time useful.  Unintelligible information is all that could be created from any random collection of it.  Intelligible data is the definition of information.  Unintelligible data is not the definition of information, so I can't even contemplate the hypothesis you propose, let alone provide an answer in the affirmative or the negative, because I don't consider it is a scientific possibility.  Science has moved right away from the randomness of natural selection and Darwin's hypothesis due to the discovery of DNA .  Random selection is no longer accepted as a viable hypothesis by the science which is prepared to countenance the facts.

Grafix

@MayCaesar ;- You wrote ...

I do not remember the Department of Energy defining what physics theories are. Your "lol"-s do nothing but expose your insecurity and inability to admit when you are wrong.

What you are really saying is that the scientists who specialize in the field of energy in the Department of Energy, have no clue how to define energy, let alone teach its origins?  The lecturer has "Dr." in front of his name too.  But I guess you know best.  Right.  Got it.  LOL!  ... and spare us all your amateur psychoanalyses.  We really don't need them, May.  Then you wrote ....

When you have no clue what the big bang theory is and what it states, what makes you want to debate people on the subject who are actually certified professionals in it?

That's rich coming from someone who has demonstrated no inclination at all to debate me here on the Big Bang theory, while accusing someone who IS  prepared to debate it.   As I said before to you, May, if you think I am so clueless, then why are you so unprepared to debate me on the subject, instead of being only interested in reducing the debate to a personal slinging match?  If you find my responses so worthless, then you should be able to destroy them hands down, but you make no attempt to.  LOL!  If you can't see how your persistence in this vein exposes your own ignorance, then God help you. 

If your penchant is to discuss psychoanalyses, you are in the wrong topic.  Now debate the topic or shove off and quite wasting space, which we all have to scroll past.  Soon you will be on Dee's level.
.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - Please don't start that again Skep.  We've been over the introduction of arguments where there are none, before.  You wrote ...

So, you object to the BBT because it is being described as an expansion instead of an explosion? I don't understand what possible difference that could make to your worldview.
For the record, I accept what the experts say: the BB was an expansion of space and not an explosion.

I never said anything of the kind.  I accept there are explosions of stars ongoing and that the Universe is continually expanding.  As for why I reject the BB Theory I have already clearly stated those reasons under this topic.  I reject it on the basis that it is peddled as the genesis  of time, space and matter.  It simply is not logical that it could be.  It is an oxymoron in and of itself.  That's why I reject it.  For a more complete explanation of my reasons for accepting that it is an oxymoron, you need to follow the COMPLETE conversation in here and read my responses to others. 

If everyone pigeon-holed the discussion to just between themselves and me, I would have to re-type every answer every time to everyone.  It is  E X P E C T E D   that commenters are following the discussion.  Kindly oblige.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

Logic requires analysis of claims, not people who made them. Whether something is said by a doctor of philosophy or by a random guy from cornfields does not change the validity or invalidity of that something.

All I see from you is "you, you, you". So many claims about what I am willing or unwilling to do or my general qualities, but not a single attempt to address the actual arguments I make.

Invite me to a date already. You seem more interested in me than I myself am! I do not generally date guys, especially such stubborn ones, but I am willing to make an exception in this particular case as a gesture of good will.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - You wrote ....

"Explosion" is expansion of matter in space; it cannot happen in the lack of space. Hence, "explosion which births the beginning of time, space and matter" is a phrase that makes no sense.

I couldn't agree more, but that's what has been taught in schools for decades.  I still have a textbook which has that very definition in its text.  As I said, atheism has been shifting the goal posts of its definition since strenuous criticism of the Theory began to surface, testimony to the fact that it was never a solid theory at all, merely a narrative, which narrative keeps changing.  That is not how science works.  Once a Theory is disproved, then the Theory is taken off the table and a new Theory replaces it, but do you think the atheists will ever admit the BBT was, is, or will ever be a croc?  Nah.  They just keep changing its definition and as each new and ignorant generation comes along, it's taught the latest definition as if it was always the Theory.  Such a truckload of bullshite and an abuse of the rigors of science too.  You  now claim ...

The Big Bang Theory also has nothing to do with atheism; there is plenty of religious physicists who accept the evidence implying its validity. Your problem, once again, is not that you are religious, but that you are irrational.

Well, I would expect an atheist to deny that, while everyone else with any merit and knowledge knows two things.  It was invented by atheist establishment scientists, defended by atheist establishment scientists and in its dying last gasps only atheists remain clinging to it.  So what does that tell us?  Plenty.  If you read literature which went beyond confirmation bias, May, your knowledge would be much broader, much deeper and much wiser.  Instead your knowledge is shaped by your bias, commonly known as a closed mind, but you are not alone.  Every atheist MUST do the same thing, otherwise they could not be an atheist.

Spare me the personal attacks which are based on zero. I merely rebut yours.  If you refrained from making such, there would be nothing to rebut and no weaponizing of the personal even occurring here.
.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

What is taught in schools has little to do with what goes on in sciences. Am I supposed to dismiss all science because some people write books with false claims in them and some teachers choose to use those books?

Who are "atheist establishment scientists"? I am not aware of such a group of people.

No atheist must do anything; every human is a free individual, free to believe and say whatever they want. There is no hive mind among us, or some sort of deviation in our brains making us unable to think and come to our own conclusions. There are atheists who question BBT, and there are religious people who look favorably to it.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - you wrote ....

@Grafix - What is taught in schools has little to do with what goes on in sciences. Am I supposed to dismiss all science because some people write books with false claims in them and some teachers choose to use those books?

What you personally are supposed to do is not even relevant.  What IS  relevant is that the SCHOOL SYLLABUS was hijacked by this junket science - the Big Bang and Evolution Theories - right across the Western sphere and, in spite of scientists now being fully aware that both have been seriously shown to be questionable Theories, both are still taught as the official line.  Worse, the atheist cabal of scientists in the establishment refuse to allow that either has been disproved in the actual scientific sense, regardless of that transition.  Whenever elements of a Theory are disproved and collapse the Theory, then it is usual scientific practice to take that Theory off the table, but that hasn't happened.  Witness all of you in here still defending these two Theories.  The only section of the original  Big Bang Theory which remotely resembled fact was the expansion of the universe, still an observable fact today.  The rest of it was and still is a truckload of horseshite.  Then you plead ignorance, which can only be expected, coming from an atheist with this pretence ...

Who are "atheist establishment scientists"? I am not aware of such a group of people.

They are corralled in the areas of influence, which control the dissemination of scientific material, whether it be in the Education Dept., the peer reviewed science journals, the Nobel Prize selectors, involved in influential research NGOs, likewise in influential Think Tanks of the science sector and the publishing of scientific data, critiques, reports, media, you name it.  Atheism is like Socialism/Communism.  Both have commandeered the "influence peddling" industry, the Ministries of Propaganda.  That's where they ferret their livelihoods from, a whole horde of them bunkered down in the bureaucracy in order to "control" the information the public receives and believes, whether it be science, religion, social norms, politics, history, whatever, wherever it serves their political and social engineering Agenda.

xlJ_dolphin_473

Grafix said:

@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?

The motion is “Atheists must deny the facts, because the facts do not support their position”. You are proposing this motion and I am opposing this motion (meaning I am saying that the facts do support the atheists’ position).

DNA: it evolved. We’re not sure exactly how, but one theory is that there were chains of self-replicating cells, and by accident one of them was a bit different and became RNA, which later evolved into DNA.

You see, science cannot provide all the answers straight away. Scientists are working to find the answers, and by following science and scientific news, you may see the answers emerge. Just because something is not clear is no excuse for theists to invoke the argument “Well God must have done it”. It’s plainly illogical. @Grafix

MayCaesar

@Grafix

What is the "official line"? People at schools are exposed to various views and theories; nobody forces them to accept anything if they do not want to. There is no "official line", there are individual schools and teachers making their curriculum.
In any case, what people are taught at schools has nothing to do with what the theory actually is.

According to this paper (from 2007), just a bit over a third of scientists in the US working at elite universities do not believe in god; in physics it it ~40%:
https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/54/2/289/1676075?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Sounds like it is actually the religious scientists that are running the show overall, not the atheist ones.

Acceptance of the BBT does not just occur among the religious scientists; even prominent religious figures have spoken in favor of it. Even one of the Catholic Popes has said explicitly that the BBT does not conflict with the Christian world view.
The BBT is also widely accepted in scientific communities in heavily religious Muslim countries, where questioning religion is outlawed and the science is run by theocrats.

Sounds like it is not all some evil atheist conspiracy.

Dee

.  Put your ridiculous nonsense about the Eagle to bed proving easily ( again) you’re a lousy debater 

****They treat material evidence on the historical record, regarding occurrences involving Christ, 

“Occurrences” oh , you mean “miracles” and slyly try to introduce it in the back door , most credible Historians accept  a man called  Jesus lived  , not one credible Historian believes the claims of miracles or divinity 

****which are verified and authenticated, in the same way. 

No they’re not , point out one credible Historian that says so 

 ****They do the same in the scientific discipline, denying the impact of DNA, that it is evidence of Intelligent Design in creation.   

Post up one peer review paper that supports your ? What ? You cannot , I know

***Atheists deny that.  

Peer reviewed paper?

****Why?  

We don’t swallow

****They do the same regarding Einstein's equation, E=mc², concerning the question of relativity. 

Do “they”?

***I don't think atheists truly understand the implications of Einstein's equation, which he said himself proves the existence of a higher intelligence, 

But a nut like you does it seems? Einstein never stated anything “proves” a higher intelligence  

**yet atheists will not accept even the scientist's own words on this.  

You mean words he never uttered?

****Why do atheists do this?  

Why do we deny ? Work it out Sherlock

***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.   

You have presented no “facts” only claims as usual 

***Can atheists prove me wrong?

There’s nothing to prove you given nothing but your biased opinion which is absolutely worthless

Your claims you cannot support ( yet again )

1: Solid proof for miracle claims/divinity of Jesus or as you call them “occurrences “

2: Peer reviewed papers regards your claims for intelligent design so far , zero 

3: Yet another appeal to authority and this time it’s Einstein

Your claim that Einstein said the implications of E=mc² proved a higher intelligence is nonsense  , it’s  yet another  lie in an ever increasing list of such 

Also Einstein thought people like you swallowed infantile childish stories which were pure fantasy,  I agree 

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

I’m going to put you up for an award for attempting to educate lost causes and one for patience in your endeavors to do so 

SkepticalOne

@Grafix

As for why I reject the BB Theory I have already clearly stated those reasons under this topic.  I reject it on the basis that it is peddled as the genesis  of time, space and matter.

Why? Can you provide an alternative that can survive scientific rigor, if not, can you provide valid falsifiable justification to drop or amend BBT? If you can't do either of these, could it be you reject the BBT because of Ideological reasons and not because of the evidence? 

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Just beautiful.  Perfect.  Proves my allegations against the slither and wiggle of the atheist character, and all put on the page by your very own hand.  You wrote .....

@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!

Does this equation E = m c ² look the same or mean the same as this equation E = M C ^ ² ??  It does not, although that is the equation you seek to debate and attempt to compel me to debate.  They're not the same.at all, so quit with the sleight of hand here.   You then claim that energy is mass and that mass is energy.  Almost, but not quite the correct way to express it.  Just because the two share the basic component of energy does not mean they are equally interchangeable at all in their static  state.  They are not.  Energy is not mass period.  Energy can be motion, friction or thermal, etc. but it is never mass.  Mass is not energy in its static form, either, although it is potential energy.  Motion is necessary to create the transition of mass to energy, which then becomes  kinetic energy.  These qualifiers are important.

Mass when in motion releases energy, which changes it's state.  The sleight of hand that you pull with the altered equation is what confuses people. Your claims amount to claiming vapour is an ice cube, simply because the two share the same basic component of water, just as mass and energy share the same basic component of energy, but the ability for mass to transition to energy and the ability of ice to transition to vapour does not mean that vapour is a solid nor does it mean that energy is mass UNLESS and until another outside influence is added.  In the case of ice, thermal energy is required for it to transition to vapour.  In the case of mass, motion is required for it to transition to energy.  This does not require any increase  in the mass at all, which is what you are trying to argue.   Let me give you a graphic example.

Let's say I own a wee Morris Mini Minor, with just a wee 850 cc engine under the bonnet.  Little more than a toy box on wheels on the road.  Right?  I decide I'm unhappy with the absence of brute power under the bonnet, so I give the 850 Mini to my wife and go out and buy a Mini-Minor which an enthusiast has converted to a rear-engined Mini by connecting it up to a super-sonic Rolls Royce jet-engine in the boot.  Right?  Yeah I know it would not fit, but let's just for the exercise, pretend it would  

Next, I say to my wife, I want to test Einstein's equation.  So we take the two cars to a weighbridge, weigh them and then I go out and buy a block of lead to put in the boot of my wife's Mini, to make the mass and weight of the two cars identical.  Right?  We also go out and buy for ourselves state-of-the-art, super-special safety gear, full face helmets, steel knee pads, knee-high re-inforced boots, etc. and also fit out the two Minis with roll cages and state of the art crash safety equipment .  Right?  Finally we are ready.

We drive our cars of identical mass and weight down to the starting grid and line up.  400 metres down the test track in front of us is a brick wall.  Off we go, gunning our engines to maximum speed and maintaining maximum speed all the way.   In due course at full throttle each of us slams into the brick wall.  Which one us do you think does the most damage to the brick wall?  And did either Mini, particularly the jet-engined Mini, with all of its extra speed and extra kinetic energy double, or trebble or quadruple its mass?  I don't think so.  Both certainly multiplied the force or the energy of their mass, though, by simply applying motion to mass and releasing kinetic energy.  That is precisely what Einstein's equation demonstrates - the relativity between mass and energy when motion is applied at the rate of the speed of light squared. 

All of your high falutin' scientific terminology, which I refuse to engage in for the benefit of those who do not understand it, does not mean that you are more correct, nor does it mean that my way of explaining the equation is low order schoolbook maths, either. It is far from it. The damage to the wall testifies to that when we compare the impression in the wall from the FORCE of the jet-engined Mini with the impression in the wall from the FORCE of the 850 Mini.  Force = Energy.  It is synonymous with Energy.  Force or Energy are synonymous with mass only when mass is multiplied by motion.  Motion is speed, which is also energy.  As all energy travels at the speed of light, Einstein sought to discover the totality of ALL energy and quantify it.  That required the inclusion of static, potential energy contained in mass.  To release static energy and transition it to its naked form requires the application of speed to mass.  He showed the relativity between energy in mass and the totality of all energy in existence when it is released from mass. 

That is the same equation they use in atomic explosions - the release of energy from mass by splitting atoms at astronomical speeds = force.  If the purpose of a nuclear bomb is not to release an indescribable force, Bozo, then what is its purpose - a Sunday picnic?.   So, it is neither mass nor energy which are increased, given both are constants.  It is force which is increased when the constants of mass and energy are multiplied by speed, which provides the  sum of potential naked energy released from the mass.   The level of force produced is relative to the volume of mass and relative speed.  That is the relativity the equation demonstrates..In other words the world has enough potential energy to vaporize itself in the blink of an eye if ever all of its potential energy were ever released all at once. The same energy which brought it into existence can snuff it out.

The rest of your post is irrelevant.

TKDB

@MayCaesar

Are you engaging in Anti Religious discrimination with these very words?

"Stop hiding behind your religiousness; nobody cares about it. Your arguments are just poor, is all."

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

What's more wrong?

The anti religious discrimination, or people being peacefully non religious oriented, or being peacefully religious oriented?

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix did you graduate high school? the "^" denotes exponentiation. The two equations you wrote are the same.

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - I missed this question of yours, the posts hitting the page so fast, faster than I have time to address them, being occupied at the same time with other things.  You asked this ....

@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?

I may one day be proved wrong, but as it stands right now, at this minute, science has already shown that a cell cannot be functional without intelligent information.  There is no information which is unintelligible and at the same time useful.  Unintelligible information is all that could be created from any random collection of it.  Intelligible data is the definition of information.  Unintelligible data is not the definition of information, so I can't even contemplate the hypothesis you propose, let alone provide an answer in the affirmative or the negative, because I don't consider it is a scientific possibility.  Science has moved right away from the randomness of natural selection and Darwin's hypothesis due to the discovery of DNA .  Random selection is no longer accepted as a viable hypothesis by the science which is prepared to countenance the facts.

Please tell me what mutation is then. If you think that DNA is always intelligent, then that means you think that mutation that kills the cell is intelligible.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

*****   did you graduate high school? the "^" denotes exponentiation. The two equations you wrote are the same.

Bet he will come up with some as a response 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Does this equation E = m c ² look the same or mean the same as this equation E = M C ^ ² ??  It does not, although that is the equation you seek to debate and attempt to compel me to debate.  They're not the same.at all, so quit with the sleight of hand here.   You then claim that energy is mass and that mass is energy.  Almost, but not quite the correct way to express it.  Just because the two share the basic component of energy does not mean they are equally interchangeable at all in their static  state.  They are not.  Energy is not mass period.  Energy can be motion, friction or thermal, etc. but it is never mass.  Mass is not energy in its static form, either, although it is potential energy.  Motion is necessary to create the transition of mass to energy, which then becomes  kinetic energy.  These qualifiers are important.

did you graduate high school? the "^" denotes exponentiation. The two equations you wrote are the same you moron!

The equation does in fact mean that mass and energy are the same thing, mass is energy, if you don't believe me I will show you what nukes are all about! Nuclear fission turns mass into energy, so does nuclear fusion. This is reality, get on my level!

Mass when in motion releases energy, which changes it's state.  The sleight of hand that you pull with the altered equation is what confuses people. Your claims amount to claiming vapour is an ice cube, simply because the two share the same basic component of water, just as mass and energy share the same basic component of energy, but the ability for mass to transition to energy and the ability of ice to transition to vapour does not mean that vapour is a solid nor does it mean that energy is mass UNLESS and until another outside influence is added.  In the case of ice, thermal energy is required for it to transition to vapour.  In the case of mass, motion is required for it to transition to energy.  This does not require any increase  in the mass at all, which is what you are trying to argue.   Let me give you a graphic example.

That is in blatant violation of the law of the conservation of momentum, "An object at rest stays at rest, an object in motion stays in motion" Grade school stuff. What I am claiming has nothing to do with ice, and just adding motion doesn't make an object turn into energy, that isn't it at all. Adding momentum adds mass to the object, such that it can never reach or exceed the speed of light, because to add more speed means more energy is needed, which approaches infinity at the speed of light. This is reality, get on my level!

Let's say I own a wee Morris Mini Minor, with just a wee 850 cc engine under the bonnet.  Little more than a toy box on wheels on the road.  Right?  I decide I'm unhappy with the absence of brute power under the bonnet, so I give the 850 Mini to my wife and go out and buy a Mini-Minor which an enthusiast has converted to a rear-engined Mini by connecting it up to a super-sonic Rolls Royce jet-engine in the boot.  Right?  Yeah I know it would not fit, but let's just for the exercise, pretend it would  

Next, I say to my wife, I want to test Einstein's equation.  So we take the two cars to a weighbridge, weigh them and then I go out and buy a block of lead to put in the boot of my wife's Mini, to make the mass and weight of the two cars identical.  Right?  We also go out and buy for ourselves state-of-the-art, super-special safety gear, full face helmets, steel knee pads, knee-high re-inforced boots, etc. and also fit out the two Minis with roll cages and state of the art crash safety equipment .  Right?  Finally we are ready.

We drive our cars of identical mass and weight down to the starting grid and line up.  400 metres down the test track in front of us is a brick wall.  Off we go, gunning our engines to maximum speed and maintaining maximum speed all the way.   In due course at full throttle each of us slams into the brick wall.  Which one us do you think does the most damage to the brick wall?  And did either Mini, particularly the jet-engined Mini, with all of its extra speed and extra kinetic energy double, or trebble or quadruple its mass?  I don't think so.  Both certainly multiplied the force or the energy of their mass, though, by simply applying motion to mass and releasing kinetic energy.  That is precisely what Einstein's equation demonstrates - the relativity between mass and energy when motion is applied at the rate of the speed of light squared. 

LOL! So you think that momentum and E = mc^2 are the same thing? No, you should not be applying general relativity here because the effects are so small that you can just use Newtonian physics to calculate the force of the impact. Assuming the mass of the vehicles is the same then the one moving faster relative to the wall is the one that does the most damage, because it has a higher inertial frame. No need to use Einstein here. This is reality get on my level!

All of your high falutin' scientific terminology, which I refuse to engage in for the benefit of those who do not understand it, does not mean that you are more correct, nor does it mean that my way of explaining the equation is low order schoolbook maths, either. It is far from it. The damage to the wall testifies to that when we compare the impression in the wall from the FORCE of the jet-engined Mini with the impression in the wall from the FORCE of the 850 Mini.  Force = Energy.  It is synonymous with Energy.  Force or Energy are synonymous with mass only when mass is multiplied by motion.  Motion is speed, which is also energy.  As all energy travels at the speed of light, Einstein sought to discover the totality of ALL energy and quantify it.  That required the inclusion of static, potential energy contained in mass.  To release static energy and transition it to its naked form requires the application of speed to mass.  He showed the relativity between energy in mass and the totality of all energy in existence when it is released from mass. 

That would be very self indulgent wouldn't it, being as you are the one who is trying to argue against it in your ignorance. You should really read a book before you make yourself look any dumber. This is reality, get on my level!

That is the same equation they use in nuclear explosions - the release of energy from mass by splitting atoms at astronomical speeds = force.  If the purpose of a nuclear bomb is not to release an indescribable force, Bozo, then what is it?.   So, it is neither mass nor energy which are increased, given both are constants.  It is force which is increased when the constants of mass and energy are multiplied by speed, which provides the  sum of naked energy released from the mass.  The volume of mass and relative speed is relative to the level of force produced.  That is the relativity the equation demonstrates..In other words the world has enough potential energy to vaporize itself in the blink of an eye if ever all of its potential energy were ever released all at once. The the same energy brought it into existence can snuff it out.

Wrong Again Grafix!

No, it has nothing to do with the speed of splitting atoms. In fact, conventional reactors and nuclear weapons use highly enriched Uranium, which is a thermal fuel, meaning it absorbs neutrons at thermal energies. In practice, this means they are not moving fast as apposed to fast fuels (i.e. low enriched uranium) in order to fission. The force comes from the mass defect as I have lectured you on before now 3 times. The mass of a Uranium nucleus is more than the mass of two daughter nucli (and extra neutrons  if applicable) thus some of that mass turned into energy.

MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY MASS IS ENERGY

This is reality, get on my level!

Happy_Killbot

@Dee I literally showed how mass is released from nuclear reactions, I did the math for him and everything. He still thinks he knows what he is talking about, he sits on the top of the peak of the dunning-Kruger graph, and has no F***ing idea!

Until he accepts that this is reality and gets on my level, I don't think anyone should be talking to him if he refuses to be educated.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

He’s beyond education he’s too far gone this clot believes card and coin tricks are the work of Satan , men dressed up for the opening of CERN were actually demons and scientists are in a satanic plot (  because they’re Commies ) to overthrow young Earth creationists he makes Ricky D look balanced which takes some doing 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee Yeah, at least Rickey's outlook is coherent and consistent even if it is wrong. I am not convinced this guy even knows what his own position is, let alone how to debate it. I'm not getting paid to educate this guy, so I think the rest of my responses to him are just going to be

"EAGLES CAN SWIM, MASS IS ENERGY, DNA DOESN'T ALWAYS MAKE SENSE.

This is reality get on my level!"

until he gets the picture.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

***** . I'm not getting paid to educate this guy

He actually claimed you and I were getting paid to post comments on here , I still haven’t got my dough feeling a bit put out 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee That's really funny, because I told him something similar just to see how gullible he was. Apparently he is dumb enough to have taken the bait. All we can do now is just laugh at him and his general incompetance.

SkepticalOne

@Happy_Killbot

Whatever you do, please do not create another spam post. Its effing annoying to have to scroll through that time after time.

Happy_Killbot

@SkepticalOne Please, spamming truth is more useful than anything Grafix has posted on this site and you know it.

You can't have any kind of useful discussion with someone who has the level of knowledge of a high school freshman coupled with the conviction of an conquering dictator.

Arguments from ignorance and the god of the gaps fallacy do not a good argument make, and quite frankly, those things annoy me.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

No doubt he will take our denial as acceptance that we are getting paid 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee I was kind of thinking about just rolling with it, he already believes it to be true, and there is no changing his mind, so might as well as have some fun at his expense. Worst case scenario it forces him to finally think critically for once and that realization will drive him to question more things, until he finally knows enough to keep his mouth shut.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

Yes that’s possibly the best approach . I think also your original observation about his religion is right as in he’s definitely a Catholic as recently he kept using the Douay Rheims bible which is the one most used by Catholics when it comes to biblical translations 

SkepticalOne

Happy_Killbot said:

@SkepticalOne Please, spamming truth is more useful than anything Grafix has posted on this site and you know it.

You can't have any kind of useful discussion with someone who has the level of knowledge of a high school freshman coupled with the conviction of an conquering dictator.

Arguments from ignorance and the god of the gaps fallacy do not a good argument make, and quite frankly, those things annoy me.

Understood, but resorting to infantile argumentation in response isn't likely to be productive. 

RickeyD

@SkepticalOne ; What argument does the atheist have for their ideology of hopelessness?

SkepticalOne

RickeyD said:

@SkepticalOne ; What argument does the atheist have for their ideology of hopelessness?

I don't know any atheists who has an argument for an 'ideology of hopelessness' (which doesn't describe atheism).

RickeyD

@SkepticalOne ; Atheism epitomizes hopelessness and futility through nihilism and naturalism; therefore, how can you honestly say "I don't know"???

Dee

@RickeyD

***** What argument does the atheist have for their ideology of hopelessness?

None, because Atheism is a position on one question and one question alone , nothing else ...What ? ......Oh , you’re welcome 

Happy_Killbot

@SkepticalOne Perhaps you would like to put a wager on that.

The thing is, his level of knowledge is too low for us to have any kind of meaningful discourse. Normally this isn't a big deal if someone is open minded and willing to learn, I have no problem informing them about where exactly their ideas fall apart, and sharing my knowledge with them, or perhaps learning from them if there is something they know more about than me. 

But when that lack of knowledge comes with the assumption of knowledge, there is no productive discussion which can occur. Gullibility topped with ignorance and sandwiched between two loaves of conviction is a recipe for disaster. He is so dumb he isn't even aware of what he doesn't know, and can't fathom that anyone could be smarter than him. It could take years to educate this person enough to get him to a level of knowledge capable of having any idea why what he is thinking is wrong, and it is neither my responsibility nor my intention to educate him any further. That is firmly his responsibility and I am not wasting any more time trying to educate this imbecile.

It is going to be faster and more productive to talk to this person in a language he understands, which is this case is simple, , and marginally accurate. If you need evidence of this, just look at my very first response to him, which has arguably been the most productive thus far in this entire thread, and I literally wrote it as a joke. He marked it as "great argument" This is a common theme with him. As much as it disgusts me to admit it, there can be no constructive argumentation with those programmed to reject reality. We must therefore adapt our way of discussing things to a more compatible mode of discussion.

RickeyD

@Dee has been counted as unworthy to receive words of life as she vomits her hate for Truth without restraint; therefore, Dee is on ignore and will be ignored.

SkepticalOne

RickeyD said:

@SkepticalOne ; Atheism epitomizes hopelessness and futility through nihilism and naturalism; therefore, how can you honestly say "I don't know"???

You have confused the absence of your ideology as a "futile and nihilistic" worldview. The absence of one particular worldview isn't an ideology though.

I'd encourage you to ask honestly how non-believers view the world. I doubt very many will grant the fatalistic nihilism you suspect of them. I certainly don't.

RS_master

@Grafix Give me proof from where cristianity is true. Big bang and evolution have so much proof supporting them so I know if I believe in hem I have a way greater chance of being right. Would I believe there is some sort of magician who lives in Earth not making one mistake? That is crazy because all humans are imperfect and that is the truth.

RickeyD

@SkepticalOne ; There is a lack of honesty in atheism...I don't trust same...I have challenged you in the other forum...respond.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Just some of your hubris below ....

did you graduate high school? the "^" denotes exponentiation. The two equations you wrote are the same you moron!
The equation does in fact mean that mass and energy are the same thing, mass is energy, if you don't believe me I will show you what nukes are all about! Nuclear fission turns mass into energy, so does nuclear fusion. This is reality, get on my level!
That is in blatant violation of the law of the conservation of momentum, "An object at rest stays at rest, an object in motion stays in motion" Grade school stuff. What I am claiming has nothing to do with ice, and just adding motion doesn't make an object turn into energy, that isn't it at all. Adding momentum adds mass to the object, such that it can never reach or exceed the speed of light, because to add more speed means more energy is needed, which approaches infinity at the speed of light. This is reality, get on my level!

What makes you think I had an issue with the exponent?  I didn't.  I take issue with the the case of each letter in the way you wrote the equation..  These are important and it is incorrect to show the equation as, for example,
 e = MC² or even as E=MC^2. This is because physicists use the case of letters as well as the letters themselves, to denote particular physical entities, quantities and constants in equations.  As Einstein was expressing the constants of mass and energy it must be written as E=mc² .  NEXT ...

You claimed energy was mass. You also claimed that Einstein's equation increased the mass.   I state that mass has energy locked inside it, a more precise and accurate definition than yours.  So why have you wasted P.C. screen real estate childishly chanting like a brain-dead parrot squawk that "mass is energy"  ?   I said that is not quite the correct expression for it and it isn't, then explained why.  I then took specific issue with your claim that energy is mass.  It isn't.  I prove that in the next para, further down.  Remember, photons, although described as "particles" of light, nevertheless are massless. They are quantized bundles of electromagnetic energy.

Why is energy not mass?  Take a log of wood and burn it.  The wood gets lighter as it burns the fuel.  However, all of the ash, the tiny smoke particles, the water vapour produced from the combustion still weigh exactly equal to the mass of the log before it was burnt up. Altering its chemical properties does not alter its volume or mass at all.  It's mass remains the same. It is simply converted to other chemical properties.

The energy released in the combustion is "chemical energy". Burning the wood releases chemical energy locked up in it. No additional energy is created in the process and none is destroyed.  It's just changed from one energy type, (chemical bonds) to another form of energy (heat and light). In other words the total amount of energy, just like the total amount of mass, remains the same as that which was locked in the log before it was burnt up.  

So, although the energy has been released from the mass, (the log), despite that separation, the volume and weight of the mass has not altered.  What does that tell us?  It tells us that even after we unlock energy from mass the separation of it from mass, does not alter the volume and weight of the mass, (i.e., the mass of the log, although now changed to other properties).  Therefore the energy locked in the mass before it was released did not contribute to the weight or volume of the mass of the log.  Therefore energy cannot possibly constitute mass at all.  This PROVES that energy has no mass.

You are confusing mass with matter.  Energy can certainly be converted to matter.  Each atom of a substance, (matter) can be thought of as a little ball of tightly packed energy that can be released under certain circumstances. Likewise, we can take energy (e.g. particles of light, called photons) and turn it into matter. This was first achieved in the 1930s.  That light can be turned into matter is perhaps a rather odd idea, I know, but it is proof that energy which has no mass can be converted to matter.  Only then does it have mass and then like all mass, it is capable of locking up energy, but the two are not to be confused as the same thing.  They are merely interchangeable.  Here is how Einstein described it in his own words, and note he clearly says they're   D I F F E R E N T.  You are ignoring that a  C O N V E R S I O N  must occur.

Einstein said: “It followed from the Special Theory of Relativity that mass and energy are both, but are different manifestations of the same thing - a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to mc², in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied with the [by the] square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned before [E = mc2]. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally."