Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 110 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-19-2017 7:02 PM
353 online now:
Coyote (1 member, 352 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,680 Year: 27,286/21,208 Month: 1,199/1,714 Week: 42/365 Day: 42/40 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1920212223
24
Author Topic:   Where did the matter and energy come from?
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 346 of 357 (652483)
02-13-2012 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by hugenot
02-13-2012 10:17 PM


You are wrong and so is the felon Hovind.

{AbE}

You should take note that this forum is divided into different sections. Posts in a science section thread, such as this one, should include evidence to support their claims. Posts with no evidence, but mere preaching, such as yours, do not belong in these sections.

Edited by subbie, : As noted


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by hugenot, posted 02-13-2012 10:17 PM hugenot has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3951
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 347 of 357 (652496)
02-14-2012 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by hugenot
02-13-2012 10:17 PM


So an argument from Authority and one from Incredulity.

Very well done, that man.

So apart from this, do you have any actual evidence for what you say.

All the best.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by hugenot, posted 02-13-2012 10:17 PM hugenot has not yet responded

    
rueh
Member (Idle past 1250 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 348 of 357 (652538)
02-14-2012 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by hugenot
02-13-2012 10:17 PM


hugenot writes:

God created the Earth and the universe 6000 years ago through His Word.
Planets cannot form out of nothing, and organise themselves and start turning in organisez fashion!
It is just impossible!

I'm confused. You say that it is impossible for planets to "come from out of nothing". Yet in the proceeding sentence you say that God created the planets using nothing but words. So which is it? Can the universe be created from nothing or is it impossible? And if it is impossible, than how could God create the universe from nothing?


'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
It takes all kinds to make a mess- Benjamin Hoff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by hugenot, posted 02-13-2012 10:17 PM hugenot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by hugenot, posted 02-23-2012 11:01 PM rueh has responded

  
hugenot
Junior Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 7
From: palm beach gardnes, fl
Joined: 02-13-2012


Message 349 of 357 (653726)
02-23-2012 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by rueh
02-14-2012 12:45 PM


Ok evolution says that everything came by chance. But it cannot be because no one has ever seen cone specie changing into another specie.
Nor can we find in the fossils any transitional species. Nothing in the pre cambrian and poof... many fossile appear whole and everything in the cambrian out of nowhere!
How can that be? Where are the transitions?
Geologic column? Where is it on earth with all the layers, like in the evolution books?
Nowhere on earth?
Very interesting?
It's just in the imagination?
Nowhere on Earth do we find the geologic column with all the layers?
Then evolution cannot be true.
No change between species examined
No transitional fossils
And no geological column anywhere!
Do they tell that to the students in school?
No. DO most students check by themselves it what they are taught is true?
No.
What an amazing lie from satans' hellish mind!
http://www.bible-tube.com/hovind-1-age-of-the-earth.php
This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by rueh, posted 02-14-2012 12:45 PM rueh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Pressie, posted 02-23-2012 11:39 PM hugenot has not yet responded
 Message 351 by dwise1, posted 02-24-2012 12:49 AM hugenot has not yet responded
 Message 352 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-24-2012 2:44 AM hugenot has not yet responded
 Message 355 by Admin, posted 02-24-2012 5:59 AM hugenot has not yet responded
 Message 356 by rueh, posted 02-24-2012 8:02 AM hugenot has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1824
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 350 of 357 (653732)
02-23-2012 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by hugenot
02-23-2012 11:01 PM


I wanted to respond to this, but this thread falls under cosmology and is not the appropriate section for it. Please don't derail this thread.

As the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with where matter and energy come from, neither anything to do with the Big Bang and cosmology, I request you to start a new thread on in in the appropriate section, Biological Evolution.

As the geological column etc., have nothing to do with where matter and energy come from, neither anything to do with the Big Bang and cosmology, I request you to start a new thread on in in the appropriate section, Geology and the Great Flood.

There I’ll point out exactly that your post is full of deception and outright untruths.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by hugenot, posted 02-23-2012 11:01 PM hugenot has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 351 of 357 (653737)
02-24-2012 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by hugenot
02-23-2012 11:01 PM


Ah, you poor ignorant fool.

Kent Hovind is a convicted tax fraud; I think he has served about one year of his ten-year sentence in federal prison. He would repeat just about any creationist lie that he heard. Some skeptics in New Mexico fabricated an April Fool's Day hoax in order to test creationist gullibility, "Onyate Man", a fossil human being eaten by a fossilized T.Rex; one foot missing as appropriate for the Oñate reference. As eager as creationists were for it to be true, they didn't jump on it immediately. Well, except for Hovind who, minutes after having first heard about it, included it in his "seminar" presentation in Philadelphia. When circa 2002 Answers in Genesis published an article listing creationist claims that were false and hence creationists should stop using them, he lashed out at them because many of his own claims were on that list; IOW, even other creationists know that his claims are bogus. He starts out saying that he taught high school math and science for 15 years. More like 13 years. And the only reason he had that job was because it was his own private school. Are you fooled by that "Dr" he would brandy about? Does that make you think he's a scientist? The only science education he got was in his first two years at a community college. His PhD, questionable as it is to begin with, was in religious education, as was his master's from the same diploma mill and his bachelor's from an unaccredited Baptist college.

Since I don't have two hours to waste watching that video (I've watched several hours of his "seminar tapes" downloaded from his site), does he do the "leap second" claim? The one where he claims a high rate at which the earth's rotation is slowing? A rate that is about 1800 times greater than the real rate which is constantly being measured empirically by direct observation conducted by the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS), which is how they work out when and whether to add another leap second. A claim that is so blatantly and obviously bogus that its originator, most likely Walter Brown circa 1979, has dropped it and makes no mention of it since it was first soundly refuted in 1982. Yet not only would Kent Hovind continue to use it, but make it a central argument.

And did he also include the rate at which the sun is losing mass as it "burns its fuel"? 5 million tons per second (a scosh higher than the actual 4.2-4.6 million ton rate, depending on which kind of ton you're using). He would just wave his hands and state that the ancient sun's gravity would have been so great that it would have "sucked the earth in". Plus he would try to tie that in with the tired old bogus "shrinking sun" claim that was refuted in 1980, the same year it came out. Well, if you were to do the math, you would find that regardless of how impressive the total amount of mass lost in 5 billion years (a scosh higher than the actual 4.5 billion) may appear to his unschooled unthinking audience, it is actually only a few hundredths of one percent of the sun's total mass. So how much would the ancient sun have "sucked the earth in"? about 60,000 miles. Our planet's orbit varies by 3 million miles every year, being closest to the sun circa 04 January. I contacted Hovind about this claim in order to ask him about his calculations. He did everything he could to avoid responding, including twice trying to pick a fight with me over my email address (same as my moniker here). As far as I could tell, he thought both that the sun burns on its surface through combustion and that he thought that combustion caused the annihilation of the fuel's mass. And this turkey taught high school science for 13 years? Those poor, poor students!

Your pathetic list is one of the reasons why creationist is one of the leading contributors to the growth and spread of atheism. Anyone with a modicum of science education would look at that list and see it for the crap that it is. And, given by creationists the choice of accepting that list or become atheists, they will decide as elementary school students have been documented as have chosen when pressured to by "public school" creationist materials: "Well if religion wants me to believe something so ridiculous, then I choose atheism."

BTW, the necessity of that choice is yet another creationist lie. Thank you very much for your continuing support to the cause against religion.

What an amazing lie from satans' hellish mind!

Several years ago, a Christian presented this to me. He stated that Satan creates lies in pairs. One lie is the true and truly pernicious lie while the other is an outrageous lie that he uses to trick believers into embracing the truly pernicious lie. Creationism is the truly pernicious lie while creationism's lies are designed to alarm the faithful in order to trick them into embracing creationism. Which among other things tells them that the world must be different than it actually is and if the world is actually the way it is then Scripture has no meaning and you should become an atheist. Nor am I making any of that up, since that is exactly what I've been told repeatedly by creationists.

But, as has been pointed out, this is off-topic.

,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by hugenot, posted 02-23-2012 11:01 PM hugenot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Pressie, posted 02-24-2012 5:03 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15972
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 352 of 357 (653742)
02-24-2012 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by hugenot
02-23-2012 11:01 PM


Ok evolution says that everything came by chance. But it cannot be because no one has ever seen cone specie changing into another specie.
Nor can we find in the fossils any transitional species. Nothing in the pre cambrian and poof... many fossile appear whole and everything in the cambrian out of nowhere!
How can that be? Where are the transitions?
Geologic column? Where is it on earth with all the layers, like in the evolution books?
Nowhere on earth?
Very interesting?
It's just in the imagination?
Nowhere on Earth do we find the geologic column with all the layers?
Then evolution cannot be true.
No change between species examined
No transitional fossils
And no geological column anywhere!
Do they tell that to the students in school?
No. DO most students check by themselves it what they are taught is true?
No.

Well, that was a remarkable combination of dishonesty and stupidity.

What an amazing lie from satans' hellish mind!

Quite so. In fact when Satan looks at creationism, he must himself blush and regret the impulse that made him the Father Of Lies. He may be God's appointed adversary, but surely he didn't mean to take it that far.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by hugenot, posted 02-23-2012 11:01 PM hugenot has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15972
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 353 of 357 (653743)
02-24-2012 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by New Cat's Eye
11-21-2011 2:35 PM


Re: Plausible explanation
As 'x' increases, the value of f(x) gets smaller and smaller, but it can never actually reach zero, the x axis.

* coughs gently *

I think you meant to say: as 'x' increases, the value of f(x) gets larger and larger, but it can never actually reach infinity, the y asymptote.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-21-2011 2:35 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-01-2012 4:22 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1824
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 354 of 357 (653763)
02-24-2012 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by dwise1
02-24-2012 12:49 AM


dwise1 writes:

Your pathetic list is one of the reasons why creationist is one of the leading contributors to the growth and spread of atheism.

I'm a prime example. I despise people who always tell untruths.

A creationist telling obvious untruths was the first trigger setting me off on a path that lead to my atheism.

Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by dwise1, posted 02-24-2012 12:49 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12534
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 355 of 357 (653782)
02-24-2012 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by hugenot
02-23-2012 11:01 PM


Moderator Request
Hi Hugenot,

This is a cosmology thread. Please stop posting about evolution and geology here.

To Pressie,

Thanks for trying.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by hugenot, posted 02-23-2012 11:01 PM hugenot has not yet responded

    
rueh
Member (Idle past 1250 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


(1)
Message 356 of 357 (653794)
02-24-2012 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by hugenot
02-23-2012 11:01 PM


Well that was a complete waste of typing. Maybe you could try again. Remember we are talking about cosmology here. It is a subject completly seperate from evolution. Here is a reminder of what we were talking about.
hugenot writes:

There was no big bang, God created the Earth and the universe 6000 years ago through His Word.
Planets cannot form out of nothing, and organise themselves and start turning in organisez fashion!
It is just impossible!


To which I replied
rueh writes:

I'm confused. You say that it is impossible for planets to "come from out of nothing". Yet in the proceeding sentence you say that God created the planets using nothing but words. So which is it? Can the universe be created from nothing or is it impossible? And if it is impossible, than how could God create the universe from nothing?


Care to address that contradiction? How is it that you believe it is impossible for everything in the universe to come from nothing, yet at the same time you believe that God created the universe from nothing? The rest of your post is completly off topic for this thread. Maybe you could find the appropriate thread to discuss your misconceptions?

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
It takes all kinds to make a mess- Benjamin Hoff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by hugenot, posted 02-23-2012 11:01 PM hugenot has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11812
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 357 of 357 (654446)
03-01-2012 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Dr Adequate
02-24-2012 3:18 AM


Re: Plausible explanation
As 'x' increases, the value of f(x) gets smaller and smaller, but it can never actually reach zero, the x axis.

* coughs gently *

I think you meant to say: as 'x' increases, the value of f(x) gets larger and larger, but it can never actually reach infinity, the y asymptote.

Um, the function is 1/x...

I chose that because Phat was talking about the universe getting smaller and smaller and I wanted that reflected in the value of the function.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-24-2012 3:18 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1920212223
24
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017