The scientist who enjoys debating creationists

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-03-2015, 08:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No, nothing comes from nothing.  He has always existed. I know it is a difficult concept to grasp but there always had to be something and that something could not have been matter (Something to do with the second law of thermodynamics).  Luckily for us, after a while that something decided to create.

Nothing comes from nothing.   Therefore, something has to come from something.   So what something did the supreme being come from?

[GMDino]

(08-03-2015, 08:49 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Nothing comes from nothing.   Therefore, something has to come from something.   So what something did the supreme being come from?

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2015, 08:49 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Nothing comes from nothing.   Therefore, something has to come from something.   So what something did the supreme being come from?

As I mentioned earlier it is a difficult concept. He didn't come from anything he has always been. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.

For instance if I say god came from a rock, guess what the next question will be? There always had to be something, there is no other way.

[GMDino]

(08-03-2015, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I mentioned earlier it is a difficult concept. He didn't come from anything he has always been. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.

For instance if I say god came from a rock, guess what the next question will be? There always had to be something, there is no other way.

Repeating for the sake of clarity:

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2015, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There always had to be something, there is no other way.

I would like to add this is why that a 2011 Rueters survey conducted in 28 countries 51% of those polled believe in a Supreme Being; while only 28% believe in creationism. Many evolutionist believe there had to be a Supreme Being to spark the process

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-03-2015, 09:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I mentioned earlier it is a difficult concept. He didn't come from anything he has always been. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.

For instance if I say god came from a rock, guess what the next question will be? There always had to be something, there is no other way.

"Didn't come from anything" seems synonymous with nothing., but it seems you disagree.

The universe didn't come from anything it has always been. There always had to be something, there is no other way. Agree or disagree?

Did you know the 2nd law of thermodynamics is really just a theory which can be expressed as a mathematical equation?

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2015, 09:35 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: "Didn't come from anything" seems synonymous with nothing., but it seems you disagree.

 The universe didn't come from anything it has always been.   There always had to be something, there is no other way.   Agree or disagree?

Did you know the 2nd law of thermodynamics is really just a theory which can be expressed as a mathematical equation?

That would make sense if I said he came from something, he did not.

Disagree, because just a Universe void of matter could not create anything. It would still be nothing.

Must admit Thermodynamics is not my strong suit; however, I have no reason to doubt that it can be expressed by mathematical equation. It is just my understanding that if matter always existed every start in the Universe would be burned out by now.

Like I said many folks that believe in Evolution believe in a Supreme Being. I have given you my thoughts on the "beginning" and you have disputed it numerous times. What do you think created life?

[Beaker]

(08-03-2015, 07:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Neither side can prove they are "right"? You're a sciency guy you believe in life from nothing and evolution. I am a bible guy I believe in a supreme being and creation. You will point to broken fossil lines and inconclusive DNA as proof, I will point to the fact that the complexity of man is not random. You go with your belief and I'll go with mine. I really think Ben Carson summed it up (for me) as well as I've ever heard it when he said: "I simply don't have enough faith to believe that something as complex as our ability to rationalize, think, and plan, and have a moral sense of what's right and wrong, just appeared."

I have never asked for proof. I've asked you to provide tangible evidence to support your side. There is plenty of evidence for evolution as the way life proceeds. There is none (unless you can provide it) for creation as the way life proceeds. Mine is not a belief based only on faith. Mine is a collection of facts that provide a logical explanation for how life on Earth reached its current complexity and diversity. I would gladly consider creation as an alternative explanation if one single creationist could provide evidence. But so far, none ever has. All creationist do is try to tell you why evolution is wrong. They somehow think that if they can discredit evolution, that makes creation correct. Guess what? It doesn't work that way.

[Beaker]

(08-03-2015, 09:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would like to add this is why that a 2011 Rueters survey conducted in 28 countries 51% of those polled believe in a Supreme Being; while only 28% believe in creationism. Many evolutionist believe there had to be a Supreme Being to spark the process

I have never disallowed for a supreme source. But if there is one, that source set evolution in motion. It did not happen the way creationists want to say it did.

And again, whether a supreme being came from nothing, and how life began are NOT evolution topics. But to touch on the first, energy can become matter, and vice versa. That has already been shown to be true both by the equation E=mc2, and via experiments.

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2015, 11:33 PM)Beaker Wrote: I have never asked for proof. I've asked you to provide tangible evidence to support your side. There is plenty of evidence for evolution as the way life proceeds. There is none (unless you can provide it) for creation as the way life proceeds. Mine is not a belief based only on faith. Mine is a collection of facts that provide a logical explanation for how life on Earth reached its current complexity and diversity. I would gladly consider creation as an alternative explanation if one single creationist could provide evidence. But so far, none ever has. All creationist do is try to tell you why evolution is wrong. They somehow think that if they can discredit evolution, that makes creation correct. Guess what? It doesn't work that way.

You don't get to decide "The way it works". I will tell you again that my evidence is the complexity of the human being. To suggest that just random things happened over and over to arrive at this being just requires more faith in everything going perfectly that I simply have the faith to believe in.

You cannot show how any species evolved into man, you can simply show extinct species of ape (tangible evidence) and call this as proof of Evolution.

I get it; you're science guy. You want your beliefs (theory) to be true so you are willing to accept certain assumptions (isn't this important in a Scientific Theory) and overlook certain flaws.

[GMDino]

(08-04-2015, 12:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You don't get to decide "The way it works". I will tell you again that my evidence is the complexity of the human being. To suggest that just random things happened over and over to arrive at this being just requires more faith in everything going perfectly that I simply have the faith to believe in.

You cannot show how any species evolved into man, you can simply show extinct species of ape (tangible evidence) and call this as proof of Evolution.

I get it; you're science guy. You want your beliefs (theory) to be true so you are willing to accept certain assumptions (isn't this important in a Scientific Theory) and overlook certain flaws.

And you still don't understand the word theory.

Just ask for "video proof" Tommy.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-03-2015, 10:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That would make sense if I said he came from something, he did not.

Disagree, because just a Universe void of matter could not create anything. It would still be nothing.

Must admit Thermodynamics is not my strong suit; however, I have no reason to doubt that it can be expressed by mathematical equation. It is just my understanding that if matter always existed every start in the Universe would be burned out by now.

Like I said many folks that believe in Evolution believe in a Supreme Being. I have given you my thoughts on the "beginning" and you have disputed it numerous times. What do you think created life?

To review:

1. The universe couldn't come from nothing, it had to come from something.   The supreme being didn't come from something or nothing.

2. It is impossible for the universe to have always existed. It is not impossible for a supreme being to have always existed.

3. Something always had to be present because there is no other way. That something couldn't be "matter" based upon the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which applies to an isolated system.) Luckily, that something decided to create.  But, according to the law of mass conservation, mass cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system in which the 2nd law of thermodynamics would apply. Luckily, only the laws of physics you cite apply to the universe.

4. Scientific laws describe a phenomenon. Scientific theories explain a phenomenon. Both, are subject to the same burden of proof. Both are equally accepted as true. Unless further evidence reveals otherwise. Neither is considered "conjecture" except among the science illiterate.   The belief in a supreme being is exempt from a burden of proof. No amount of further evidence will ever prove the belief in a supreme being is false.

5. The universe is made of matter. Matter is something, not nothing. If the universe were devoid of matter, it wouldn't be the universe.

6. Evolution works through natural selection. Not by your brain telling your body to do something.

7. You have dismissed evolution as conjecture frequently. You stated Beaker believes in life from nothing. However, you fail to recognize the paradox that you believe life came from a supernatural being that didn't come from anything or something  

8. What do I think created life?  Hmm. Good question. Is the supreme being alive?

[fredtoast]

(08-04-2015, 12:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I get it; you're science guy. You want your beliefs (theory) to be true so you are willing to accept certain assumptions (isn't this important in a Scientific Theory) and overlook certain flaws.

Actually people who believe in scince acknowledge flaws and holes in theories, but here is the big difference.  Scientists want to keep looking and acquiring more knowledge so that we can expand our knowledge and maybe someday in the futre get more answers.  Creationists are so vain that they believe they have reach the maximum capacity of human knowledfe and if we don't have all the answers right now there is no need to keep looking.  Instead they want to just give up on scientific study and give all the credit to a magical being with no evidence.

Just think if doctors a few hundred years ago had just thrown their hand up and said "It is just too complex to understand.  There is no use studying or looking for new informnation.  It is all just magic.  If we can't understand it now we will never be able to."


It is absurd to claim that the proof of a higher power is the fact that we don't have all the answers now and it is all just too complicated to ever understand.  That was not the correct answer 500 years ago, and it is not the correct answer today.

[GMDino]

(08-04-2015, 01:29 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually people who believe in scince acknowledge flaws and holes in theories, but here is the big difference.  Scientists want to keep looking and acquiring more knowledge so that we can expand our knowledge and maybe someday in the futre get more answers.  Creationists are so vain that they believe they have reach the maximum capacity of human knowledfe and if we don't have all the answers right now there is no need to keep looking.  Instead they want to just give up on scientific study and give all the credit to a magical being with no evidence.

Just think if doctors a few hundred years ago had just thrown their hand up and said "It is just too complex to understand.  There is no use studying or looking for new informnation.  It is all just magic.  If we can't understand it now we will never be able to."


It is absurd to claim that the proof of a higher power is the fact that we don't have all the answers now and it is all just too complicated to ever understand.  That was not the correct answer 500 years ago, and it is not the correct answer today.

[BmorePat87]

(08-04-2015, 12:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You don't get to decide "The way it works". I will tell you again that my evidence is the complexity of the human being.

He didn't decide that. Logic tells us that disproving evolution does not make creationism correct. It just disproves evolution.

Also, your "evidence" is a huge cop out, and not actually evidence. Saying that you think something is really complex so it had to be designed by a god doesn't make it evidence that it was. I don't sound very smart saying "natural camouflage in animals is really complex, so obviously it's evidence that God made that animal".

[Rotobeast]

[RASCAL]

(08-01-2015, 10:23 AM)Beaker Wrote: What if the creator tell him he was right all along?

I'm a betting man Beaker. And I'll bet you are to. So I am going to give you 50% toward your not believing in God, But, you also must, as well as the atheists, give me my 50% toward believing in God and his word! 50% are GREAT odds anywhere and anyone would be glad to take them. Kinda like flipping a coin for heads or tails. But, when you die, what if YOU are wrong?

[GMDino]

(08-04-2015, 01:27 PM)RASCAL Wrote: I'm a betting man Beaker. And I'll bet you are to. So I am going to give you 50% toward your not believing in God, But, you also must, as well as the atheists, give me my 50% toward believing in God and his word! 50% are GREAT odds anywhere and anyone would be glad to take them. Kinda like flipping a coin for heads or tails. But, when you die, what if YOU are wrong?

That's still just hedging you bets.

Are you saying you are willing to "believe" just in case?

That's not right either.

[Beaker]

(08-04-2015, 12:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You don't get to decide "The way it works". I will tell you again that my evidence is the complexity of the human being. To suggest that just random things happened over and over to arrive at this being just requires more faith in everything going perfectly that I simply have the faith to believe in.

You cannot show how any species evolved into man, you can simply show extinct species of ape (tangible evidence) and call this as proof of Evolution.

I get it; you're science guy. You want your beliefs (theory) to be true so you are willing to accept certain assumptions (isn't this important in a Scientific Theory) and overlook certain flaws.

So the only evidence you have for how life reached its current complexity and diversity is the end result? Then why don't you just hold up any piece of complex machinery and say god did it? Here's a light bulb, it came this way, god made it. I do get to decide how it works when it comes to presenting and evaluating evidence....and that is not how it works.

And you still havent figured out the difference between evidence and proof because you keep saying I am claiming proof of evolution. Wrong again.

As for evolution, there is plenty of evidence beyond fossils that indeed shows that current species evolved from previous species....including humans. You simply choose to deny the evidence because it conflicts with your faith. That doesnt make evolution incorrect, it simply makes you blinded by religion.

[Beaker]

(08-04-2015, 01:27 PM)RASCAL Wrote: But, when you die, what if YOU are wrong?

Then a loving god would understand my choices while alive and welcome me with open arms. Especially since he created me and knew when he did so what choices I would make.