Jump to content


Photo

Tough Questions For The Skeptics


  • Please log in to reply
157 replies to this topic

#21 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 31 May 2015 - 01:18 PM

 You can't answer the questions WITH a deep understanding of psychology and neurology. 

 

The Creator is the ONLY answer to these questions. It's not that He did not reveal himself countless times to countless numbers of people throughout the history of the world, you just don't choose to believe it.

And you can say that because you are an expert in neurology and knows what the latest research is in neurology, attend congresses, has subscriptions to the most specialised neurology journals and so on...


  • keysi likes this

#22 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 31 May 2015 - 01:33 PM

And you can say that because you are an expert in neurology and knows what the latest research is in neurology, attend congresses, has subscriptions to the most specialised neurology journals and so on...

Quit diverting from the issue. It doesn't matter how expert one might be in neurology, no one will ever figure out how conscious thought originated  to develop sentient beings without an ultimate cause; that cause has to be God. There is no other logical explanation. Finding data on this subject is like trying to measure a ghost, but you skeptics don't believe in ghost's, now do you?

 

On this matter you are just as lost as you are on the Biogenesis issue. There is really nothing you can do about it.



#23 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 31 May 2015 - 01:48 PM

Quit diverting from the issue. It doesn't matter how expert one might be in neurology, no one will ever figure out how conscious thought originated  to develop sentient beings without an ultimate cause; that cause has to be God. There is no other logical explanation. Finding data on this subject is like trying to measure a ghost, but you skeptics don't believe in ghost's, now do you?

 

On this matter you are just as lost as you are on the Biogenesis issue. There is really nothing you can do about it.

Are you an expert in neurology, that you can pontificate on what research will be succeesful and on what it will not be? 



#24 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 31 May 2015 - 02:18 PM

Are you an expert in neurology, that you can pontificate on what research will be succeesful and on what it will not be? 

 

I am not pontificating on anything. Your comrades tell us there is no answer for this. Now are you going to admit it also or are you going to continue diverting the subject with the neurology stuff? Then again, if the world of neurology has the answer to the question then just tell us plainly.



#25 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colombia

Posted 31 May 2015 - 07:20 PM

Iguana:

 

 

 

That's not what I said. That's what you said... because you can't do any better and you know it. 

Well evidently you think science hasn't found a materialist answer, which is true. That doesn't mean it won't. In fact historically whenever someone says there isn't a materialist answer they are quick to be proven right.

 

 

 

You're the one with the problem, sinner person. I didn't ask for your opinions: I asked for facts. It appears that you have none.

I have plenty of facts. namely, the following:

 

4. The origin of light... Ho boy... Light is, fundamentally speaking, electromagnetic radiation. EM radiation is really just electric and magnetic fields oscillating in such a way that they basically cause each other. The cause of the initial oscillations is any electromagnetic process. In this way, "the origin of light" is simply Electromagnetism. The question then shifts to the cause of electromagnetism. Which would be explained by the Standard Model as certain particle interactions. You probably want to ask the reason why this is. But When we want to talk about the electromagnetic force at this level we really have to go more fundamental. At high enough energies two of the fundamental forces of the universe, the Weak Force and the Electromagnetic Force, essentially merge into one single force (butchering the physicss here T_T). This is the Electroweak Force. This is believed to have happened during the early stages of the universe, in what's called the Electroweak Epoch (It certainly explains a lot of what we see in the CMB if it's correct). At even higher energies, you get the Electronuclear Force. The unification of all the forces except Gravity (Gravity is... special, if it was at some point unified with the other forces, it couldn't have happened at any point after the Planck Epoch, which is essentially unobservable, so until Quantum Gravity is figured out we should steer clear of that). It's here that Grand Unification Theories (GUTs) are applied. These theories go even deeper than the Standard Model, which explains the 4 fundamental forces as we know them. And if you want to go even deeper, There are a multitude of ideas as to why the Standard Model works the way it does, String Theory (arguably) being chief among them. Anything in this paragraph from "Electronuclear" on is unconfirmed and an active area of study. If you want to ask the why of the most fundamental thing I've described here, which would be String Theory (if it's even correct, and that's a big if), the answer is a simple "Nobody knows"

 

TL;DR: All light comes from Electromagnetic interactions, if you want to go deeper that's one hell of a rabbit hole, to which the final answer would be wedonno

 

5. There are two prevailing ideas regarding the universe's "shape", either it's infinite in extension or finite but unbounded (An example of a finite but unbounded surface is the Earth itself. It's finite, but it has no edge and if you walk far enough in one direction you'll get back to the original point). The universe doesn't really need anything to expand into. Some ideas suggest that the universe is embedded in a 4-spatial-dimensional expanding body. In which case there would indeed be something the universe is expanding into, however these are not confirmed and there isn't much in the way of tests unless we can get more energy than the sun emits in a year to test String Theory. You are really conflating two different things when you refer to the Event Horizon of the universe. That applies to the observable universe, which is decidedly finite and decidedly getting bigger. 

 

 

Everything there is factual and coming from my personal study of physics. In many of these things there is more than one proposed explanation, but that's far from "There's no answer except for a creator"

 

 

 

The creationist says, 'God did it' with the most logical reasons and scientific laws to back it up: Cause and Effect, the Law of conservation of matter, the Law of Biogenesis, etc.Not one of those laws is in your favor. You have to pretend.

God violates the law of Cause and Effect, therefore you accept that it's not universal and there must be an exception, for you said exception is God, for me I don't know what the exception is.

 

Mass is not always conserved in a system, energy isn't either, besides if the net energy of the universe is zero (Which it is in certain reference frames) and the net energy before the Big Bang is also zero (if such a thing makes sense at all), then the Big Bang doesn't violate conservation laws

 

The law of biogenesis must have an exception, for you that exception is God, for me I don't know what the exception is



#26 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 31 May 2015 - 07:53 PM

Igauana:

 

Well evidently you think science hasn't found a materialist answer, which is true. That doesn't mean it won't. In fact historically whenever someone says there isn't a materialist answer they are quick to be proven right.

 

 

 

...'which is true'. You should have stopped right there, kid, but as usual, common sense escapes you.

 

I have plenty of facts. namely, the following:

 

 

Those 'facts' don't answer the questions proposed in the O.P. 

 

You said, "the answer is a simple "Nobody knows" and " the final answer would be wedonno"

 

So much for your 'facts'. You just shot yourself down and you can't even see it.

 

Everything there is factual and coming from my personal study of physics. In many of these things there is more than one proposed explanation, but that's far from "There's no answer except for a creator"

 

 

 

You didn't give even 'one proposed explanation'. You're just talking but have no substance. But if you're sure the Creator is not involved....then tell us about the origin of conscious thought. 

 

God violates the law of Cause and Effect, therefore you accept that it's not universal and there must be an exception, for you said exception is God, for me I don't know what the exception is.

 

 

 

That's because you don't know God and never did. Believing in Him (as you once did) and knowing Him are two different things. Had you truly known Him personally and had a relationship with Him then you would not have departed from Him in the first place.

 

But for the sake of argument: Leave God out of it for just one moment: NOW....................what caused your so-called 'Big Bang'. Say it.

 

Mass is not always conserved in a system, energy isn't either, besides if the net energy of the universe is zero (Which it is in certain reference frames) and the net energy before the Big Bang is also zero (if such a thing makes sense at all), then the Big Bang doesn't violate conservation laws

 

 

 

Here we go again, with the nonsense. You have no demonstrable evidence that the Laws of Energy/Matter conservation has been violated.Not one, including your 'quantum particle' guesswork.

 

The law of biogenesis must have an exception, for you that exception is God, for me I don't know what the exception is.

 

 

 

You don't know diddly squat about origins and neither does any other skeptic who calls himself an atheist. You did not observe it, you cannot re-create it, and there is no evidence that something can come from nothing in the first place.



#27 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colombia

Posted 31 May 2015 - 08:36 PM

 

 

But for the sake of argument: Leave God out of it for just one moment: NOW....................what caused your so-called 'Big Bang'. Say it.

The question makes no sense, time as a concept breaks down if you try to analyze anything anything prior to the Big Bang. It's like asking what's North of the North Pole, the only meaningful thing you can say about the North Pole is that everything is south of it. If we assume that the question does make sense, however, then the answer is a clear-as-day "I don't know"

 

 

 

Here we go again, with the nonsense. You have no demonstrable evidence that the Laws of Energy/Matter conservation has been violated.Not one, including your 'quantum particle' guesswork.

There is a very simple mechanism by which energy is lost in a closed system, and it's via the expansion of the universe. The simplest way to demonstrate this is via the Doppler shift caused by the expansion. The photons lose energy as they redshift and this energy goes nowhere. Fundamentally this is because the expansion creates a time asymmetry in the universe which negates Conservation of Energy due to Noether's Theorem. There are no symmetries in the universe related to mass and no there is no universal conservation law for it.

 

My "Quantum Particle Guesswork", besides being confirmed experimentally, does not violate any conservation laws. The total energy of the system before, during and after the spontaneous appearance of virtual particles is always constant, as are all the the quantities that are conserved in a system. Also as far as we can tell these particles are uncaused, so I guess there's a conversation to be made regarding the validity of the law of cause and effect

 

 

 

You don't know diddly squat about origins and neither does any other skeptic who calls himself an atheist. You did not observe it, you cannot re-create it, and there is no evidence that something can come from nothing in the first place.

Can you prove that we can't recreate the origin of life? There doesn't seem to be anything that makes it intrinsically impossible.

 

 

 

You didn't give even 'one proposed explanation'. You're just talking but have no substance. But if you're sure the Creator is not involved....then tell us about the origin of conscious thought. 

I don't know where conscious thought comes from. Neurology is a rapidly-advancing science. So there are people working on that question as we speak.

 

 

Those 'facts' don't answer the questions proposed in the O.P. 

 

You said, "the answer is a simple "Nobody knows" and " the final answer would be wedonno"

 

So much for your 'facts'. You just shot yourself down and you can't even see it.

No, I was being honest about my ignorance. Ignorance doesn't mean we should go to the supernatural explanation



#28 Will

Will

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I have no doubt that I am a Humanist
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ontario

Posted 01 June 2015 - 06:17 AM

 

How does the lack of an answer from skeptics lend any credibility to your answer?

Because their theories of origins fly in the face of known and established laws of science, that's why. I listed just three of them in my previous post above.

 

I don't follow your reasoning here. Even if all of the scientists and skeptics are wrong about everything how does this impact the validity of your arguments?

 

If I say that 2 and 2 are 3.9 this doesn't lend any support to the idea that 2 and 2 are 4.1.



#29 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 01 June 2015 - 06:31 AM

Iguana:

 

The question makes no sense, time as a concept breaks down if you try to analyze anything anything prior to the Big Bang. It's like asking what's North of the North Pole, the only meaningful thing you can say about the North Pole is that everything is south of it. If we assume that the question does make sense, however, then the answer is a clear-as-day "I don't know"

 

 

 

 

You are so very backwards in your thinking. The question makes perfect sense and countless millions of people have asked the question just in this generation. We know what is north of the north Pole. We can see it. Your answer is a backwards answer! Good grief, fella. Your last statement was correct so we are finished on this point..at least as far as science is concerned because they clearly DO NOT KNOW what is beyond space as we know it. One then has to turn to divine considerations for what is beyond it. We know what's out there. You don't.

 

There is a very simple mechanism by which energy is lost in a closed system, and it's via the expansion of the universe. The simplest way to demonstrate this is via the Doppler shift caused by the expansion. The photons lose energy as they redshift and this energy goes nowhere. (???)Fundamentally this is because the expansion creates a time asymmetry in the universe which negates Conservation of Energy due to Noether's Theorem. There are no symmetries in the universe related to mass and no there is no universal conservation law for it.

 

 

 

You did....not...answer...the question. Furthermore the Doppler method has come into question in recent years: http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

 


My "Quantum Particle Guesswork", besides being confirmed experimentally, does not violate any conservation laws. The total energy of the system before, during and after the spontaneous appearance of virtual particles is always constant, as are all the the quantities that are conserved in a system. Also as far as we can tell these particles are uncaused, so I guess there's a conversation to be made regarding the validity of the law of cause and effect.

 

 

 

We don't yet know for sure what quantum particles are in the first place. Again...you are not accurate with details. They last less than a nano-second so how do you get a universe with matter out of that? Tell us. Don't guess, give us the fact and then prove it. So far, you're only guessing.

 

Can you prove that we can't recreate the origin of life? There doesn't seem to be anything that makes it intrinsically impossible.

 

 

 

That's for you to do. Those of us who have seen the power of God and the miraculous in the name of Jesus Christ know what He can do. There are at least three accounts of humans who died and came back to life within hours or days of their death. You might remember me posting those accounts.

 

During an intense counselling session about seven years ago I saw this object materialize right in front of me after we had just taken a break in our dining room. It formed spontaneously about three feet in front of me and dropped to the floor.

 

Cheshirecat.png

 

There was no one close to it when it happened. After inquiring about the object the woman I was counseling and her husband asked, "How did that get here?" I asked what they knew about it and she replied, "That's a toy that belongs to our children and it has been sitting at the back of our China closet for over two years!" Her husband confirmed what she said. Yet that is only one of three of four objects that I/we have seen materialize before out eyes. However, I'd like to point out that this was not a 'created' object. It was transferred supernaturally by means of teleportation from one location (212 miles away) to another. So the point is that the spirit realm interacts with the physical realm on occasion giving visible evidence of the existence of the supernatural. It is something that cannot be measured by scientific methods...and yet it is observed by many people.

 

I don't know where conscious thought comes from. Neurology is a rapidly-advancing science. So there are people working on that question as we speak.

 

 

 

 

Case closed on this point.

 


No, I was being honest about my ignorance. Ignorance doesn't mean we should go to the supernatural explanation.

 

 

 

Why not? You see you're in a real dilemma because you not only have the problems I listed above but you have the problem of trying to solve the origin of all scientific law and how they came to be laws in the first place...and...on top of that the very balance of nature (a la George Wald) needs to be explained. How did the blind forces of nature combine to such a degree of complexity that it would bring about and support all life on earth? The point": those laws could not have created themselves either BEFORE or AFTER your so-called 'Big Bang'/

 

But  God not only created the universe HE MADE IT OBVIOUS that it was created. THEN...He told us what He did by first, a verbal/physical appearance to man and later by His mighty miracles in the sight of thousands of people, and still later in the person of Jesus Christ, his Son who performed countless supernatural acts in front of hundreds and sometimes thousands of people. Those supernatural acts are the biggest reason why Jesus became famous to the world to begin with. I believe in it because I have observed it...one of the points of the scientific method.



#30 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 01 June 2015 - 06:33 AM

I don't follow your reasoning here. Even if all of the scientists and skeptics are wrong about everything how does this impact the validity of your arguments?

 

If I say that 2 and 2 are 3.9 this doesn't lend any support to the idea that 2 and 2 are 4.1.

 

Huh? Your second statement is not even related to the known and established laws of science. NO ONE among us is saying that 2 +2 = 3.9 or that it supports the idea that 2 +2 = 4.1.



#31 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 01 June 2015 - 08:33 AM

Iguana:

 

 

You did....not...answer...the question. Furthermore the Doppler method has come into question in recent years: http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

 

 

 

More than called it "into question", More like, took it to the Woodshed and Bludgeoned it Senseless.  I have also posted this to Iguana personally (@ least twice) but he continues to "Whistle Past the Graveyard" ( that's why I placed him on "Permanent Ignore" ), Here it is again...

 

http://evolutionfair...e-2#entry115078

 

With a Special Bonus of Bludgeoning The CMB, Enjoy. 

 

 

We don't yet know for sure what quantum particles are in the first place. Again...you are not accurate with details. They last less than a nano-second so how do you get a universe with matter out of that? Tell us. Don't guess, give us the fact and then prove it. So far, you're only guessing.

 

 

Oh don't tell me: the Death of 1LOT......again,  :get_a_clue: "Quantum Particles"!!!!  Where'd you get the QUANTUM VACUUM ??

 

Alan Guth, professor of physics at M.I.T,  “In this context, a proposal that the universe was created from empty space is no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from”. 
Guth, Alan; The Inflationary Universe (New York: Perseus Books).1997, p. 273.
 
Philip Yam of Scientific American wrote, “Energy in the vacuum, though, is very much real. According to modern physics, a vacuum isn’t a pocket of nothingness. It churns with unseen activity even at absolute zero, the temperature defined as the point at which all molecular motion ceases”
Yam, Philip, “Exploiting Zero-Point Energy,” Scientific American, 277[6]:82-85. 1997, p. 82.
 
“Quantum mechanics tells us that the vacuum of space is not empty; instead, it crackles with energy”
Gefter, Amanda, “Touching the Multiverse,” New Scientist, 205[2750]:28-31, March 6 2010, p. 29.
 
"Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics…can produce something from nothing…. But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing…. Theories that the Universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their “quantum vacuum” is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not “nothing”
Sarfati, Jonathan D. “If God Created the Universe, Then Who Created God?,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 1998 12[1]:21.
 
"A more fundamental problem is that Tryon’s scenario does not really explain the origin of the universe. A quantum fluctuation of the vacuum assumes that there was a vacuum of some pre-existing space. And we now know that “vacuum” is very different from “nothing.” Vacuum, or empty space, has energy and tension, it can bend and warp, so it is unquestionably something."

Vilenkin, Alex,  Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang). 2006, p. 185.

 
 
And the Crème de la crème....
 
"The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing."
Albert, D PhD (Physics, Philosophy)., On the Origin of Everything: review of A Universe From Nothing, by Lawrence M. Krauss, New York Times, 23 March 2012
 

 

So be prepared... 2-10 posts from now either here or another thread, you're gonna hear:  "Well what about Quantum Particles?" and a Mind Numbing analogy as a bonus. Then you'll ask yourself...."Didn't I already go over this"??  Yep, You Did....but it doesn't matter.  Rinse Repeat Rinse Repeat.  May I offer some advice......   :running1:

 

regards   


  • Calypsis4 and Zaccarias like this

#32 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colombia

Posted 01 June 2015 - 03:47 PM

Calypsis:

 

 

 

You are so very backwards in your thinking. The question makes perfect sense and countless millions of people have asked the question just in this generation. We know what is north of the north Pole. We can see it. Your answer is a backwards answer! Good grief, fella. Your last statement was correct so we are finished on this point..at least as far as science is concerned because they clearly DO NOT KNOW what is beyond space as we know it. One then has to turn to divine considerations for what is beyond it. We know what's out there. You don't.

There is nothing North of the north pole, every direction away from the north pole leads south. In the same way. It doesn't matter which path you take from the Big Bang, you'll end up after it. If you try to plug the numbers for "before the Big Bang" into the equations, you start getting negative roots and divisions by zero. Things simply stop making sense.

 

It is indeed a sensible question, and most people ask it when they learn of the Big Bang for the first time. If it was truly the glaring flaw in the whole thing that you make it out to be, no one would accept it. Fact is there is enough evidence to know that the Big Bang occurred even if we don't know what came before it (assuming such a thing makes sense at all)

 

 

Quote

There is a very simple mechanism by which energy is lost in a closed system, and it's via the expansion of the universe. The simplest way to demonstrate this is via the Doppler shift caused by the expansion. The photons lose energy as they redshift and this energy goes nowhere. (???)Fundamentally this is because the expansion creates a time asymmetry in the universe which negates Conservation of Energy due to Noether's Theorem. There are no symmetries in the universe related to mass and no there is no universal conservation law for it.

 

 

 

You did....not...answer...the question. Furthermore the Doppler method has come into question in recent years: http://electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

I did, I explained how energy is lost in a system, violating the law of conservation of energy, this is due to time asymmetries in the universe caused by its accelerating expansion, which Noether's theorem demonstrates invalidate the respective conservation law.

 

The very first paragraph of your link is wrong, redshift isn't only caused by recession. There are three causes for it, the other two being gravity and the expansion of the universe. The article is also not scientific and didn't provide any predictive capacities, and no mechanisms by which his idea of the inherent redshift can possibly come to be (As a bonus, if that idea is correct we might as well throw conservation of energy out the window, since it will cause the energy emitted through blackbody radiation to be lesser than the energy lost by the body)

 

Edit: I guess  I should explain better. A Photon's energy is given by its wavelength (It can be given by its frequency too), redshift involves an increase the wavelength of photons, this means that the photon loses energy. There are three mechanisms that cause redshift in a vacuum, the first is recession, if a photon is emitted by a moving object, its wavelength as perceived by an observer in another reference frame will change, so its energy will change, this doesn't violate Conservation of Energy as the total energy remains the same if you stay within the same reference frame, this works exactly the same way as the Doppler shift of sound we experience daily.

 

The second method is gravity, When a photon travels away from a mass, it has to fight the gravitational force of the mass, losing some energy to the planet and shifting to red, in the same way, when a photon travel towards a mass, it gains some energy and shifts to blue. The effect is slight most of the time, but it's appreciable when it comes to very massive objects like black holes and neutron starts (And quasars, further disproving your link, it ignored this when it said that quasars were actually young).

 

The third method, and the one relevant here, is expansion. In classical terms the expansion of the universe causes any two points in space to get farther apart over time, this applies to the space between the peaks and valleys of an EM wave, causing the wavelength to become bigger over time. This is hard to measure over such small distances but it becomes appreciable when investigating very ancient light like the CMB or ancient galaxies, and it's measurable (but not significant) with shorter timeframes too. There is nowhere for the energy of the photon to go to, but it still loses it.
 
Now, another way to demonstrate this is through Noether's theorem. In really basic terms, Noether's Theorem proves that everywhere there's a symmetry in the universe, there must also be a respective conservation law. For example, it doesn't matter where in the universe you perform something, you'll get the same result, this implies the law of conservation of linear momentum. Similarly, it doesn't matter the orientation of the process, this implies the law of conservation of angular momentum. If you took the universe and replaced every positive charge with a negative charge and vice-versa, absolutely nothing would change, this implies the law of conservation of charge. The law of conservation of energy comes from the fact that it doesn't matter when you do something, you'll get the same result. Except this isn't quite true. Due to the fact that the rate of acceleration is increasing (for unknown reasons), if you perform an experiment now vs tomorrow you'll get very slightly different results, this means that the universe doesn't actually have a time symmetry, it has a time near-symmetry, which means that the law of conservation of energy is an approximate law, not an absolute one.
 
Incidentally, this serves to answer to your question of where the scientific laws comes from, they're an implicit consequence of the symmetries of the universe. If you don't believe me then go ahead and disprove Noether's theorem. It's a theorem so that's impossible.
 

 

 

We don't yet know for sure what quantum particles are in the first place. Again...you are not accurate with details. They last less than a nano-second so how do you get a universe with matter out of that? Tell us. Don't guess, give us the fact and then prove it. So far, you're only guessing.

Quantum Mecahanics are actually pretty well understood, though it's true that it's a moving field. I did not say the universe originated in the same way as virtual particles. I used virtual particles as an example of something coming from nothing while not violating any conservation laws

 

 

 

Why not? You see you're in a real dilemma because you not only have the problems I listed above but you have the problem of trying to solve the origin of all scientific law and how they came to be laws in the first place...and...on top of that the very balance of nature (a la George Wald) needs to be explained. How did the blind forces of nature combine to such a degree of complexity that it would bring about and support all life on earth? The point": those laws could not have created themselves either BEFORE or AFTER your so-called 'Big Bang'/

I don't need to know something's cause to know that something. And I don't make up answers.



#33 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 01 June 2015 - 04:50 PM

Iguana:

 

 

There is nothing North of the north pole, every direction away from the north pole leads south. In the same way. It doesn't matter which path you take from the Big Bang, you'll end up after it. If you try to plug the numbers for "before the Big Bang" into the equations, you start getting negative roots and divisions by zero. Things simply stop making sense.

 

 

 

North of the north pole are visible stars. Beyond that more stars and empty space. Beyond that science does not know. But we know...because of divine revelation.

 


It is indeed a sensible question, and most people ask it when they learn of the Big Bang for the first time. If it was truly the glaring flaw in the whole thing that you make it out to be, no one would accept it. Fact is there is enough evidence to know that the Big Bang occurred even if we don't know what came before it (assuming such a thing makes sense at all)

 

 

 

There is NO evidence for a 'Big Bang'. The universe is orderly, not helter skelter. That by itself bespeaks of a Creator.

 

I did, I explained how energy is lost in a system, violating the law of conservation of energy

 

The truth is that energy is never lost: it is only transformed into something else. And had you been given a true scientific education in the laws of science then I wouldn't have to take the time to correct your errors in this matter. 

 

Quote: "In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed, but it transforms from one form to another, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite.(Wikipedia)

 

Now I could quote a half dozen more sources like that but it would be a waste of time for you have shut down your brain from honest scientific inquiry because you've chosen the lies of atheism and that strongly colors your thinking in such matters. You prefer the lie over the truth. So be it. But some day you will face God the Creator and you will answer for every single sin you have ever committed in life. So says God's Word.

 

The very first paragraph of your link is wrong, redshift isn't only caused by recession.

 

 

You might try reading more slowly and THINK about what you have read; This is what Arp said in the very first paragraph.

 

Quote: If the lines in the spectrum of the light from a star or galaxy appear at a lower frequency (shifted toward the red) than where they are observed in the spectrum of the Sun, we say this object exhibits 'positive redshift'.  The accepted explanation for this effect is that the object must be moving away from us.  This interpretation is drawn by analogy with the downward shift in the pitch of a train whistle as it passes through a railroad crossing and then speeds away from us.  The question is: Is recessional velocity the only thing that can produce a redshift, as modern astrophysicists presume?  It has become clear that the answer to that question is an emphatic NO!

 

He said exactly what you said and then went on to explain it.........yet you insist that Arp was wrong. Huh?

 

There are three causes for it, the other two being gravity and the expansion of the universe.

 

 

Really(?) but expansion into what? Tell us what is beyond space........BY OBSERVATION and then document it.

 

The article is also not scientific and didn't provide any predictive capacities, and no mechanisms by which his idea of the inherent redshift can possibly come to be (As a bonus, if that idea is correct we might as well throw conservation of energy out the window, since it will cause the energy emitted through blackbody radiation to be lesser than the energy lost by the body)

 

 

 

You don't know what you're talking about. 'Not scientific'...declared by an 18 yr old, wet-behind-the-ears kid. Right. :blink: Halton Arp happens to be the former personal assistant of....(guess who?) Edwin Hubble.

 


Quantum Mecahanics are actually pretty well understood, though it's true that it's a moving field

 

 

 

That takes the cake. Quote: The popular Cal Tech physicist Richard Feynman has summed up this paradoxical situation well:

 

I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics... In fact, it is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably correct.http://www.khouse.or...ticles/1998/62/      
So when did you get smarter than Cal Tech's Richard Feynman? I assume you've heard of him.

 

I did not say the universe originated in the same way as virtual particles. I used virtual particles as an example of something coming from nothing while not violating any conservation laws.

 

 

 

Yet, Enoch has already shot you down (hard!) on this very point. Should I be surprised that you're still touting the falsehood? You refuse to be corrected even when the laws of science directly contradict your thinking and after it has all been laid out before you in plain English. I think he was right (and so was I when I said to you at least once before) that you just don't care about scientific truth. You twist the facts any way you can to justify your atheism and rejection of Jesus Christ.

 

I don't need to know something's cause to know that something.

 

 

 

Like it or not, 'cause & effect' is a law. No one has ever seen it violated. So live with it but you will never escape its reality.

http://lawsoftheuniv...and-effect.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

 

I don't know why the scientific laws work the way they do, and I don't make up answers.

 

 

 

You're playing dodge ball. I didn't ask you HOW they work, I asked you how they originated in the first place.

 

The fact is that you don't have any answers...starting with the challenges I made in the OP.



#34 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colombia

Posted 01 June 2015 - 07:13 PM

North of the north pole are visible stars. Beyond that more stars and empty space. Beyond that science does not know. But we know...because of divine revelation.

 

What? North is defined as "in the direction of the North Pole"

 

 

 

There is NO evidence for a 'Big Bang'. The universe is orderly, not helter skelter. That by itself bespeaks of a Creator.

Yes, it is orderly, the Big Bang explains why, if it didn't no one would accept it.

 

 

 

The truth is that energy is never lost: it is only transformed into something else. And had you been given a true scientific education in the laws of science then I wouldn't have to take the time to correct your errors in this matter. 

No, it isn't, I explained why in my post. Care to explain why the reasoning is invalid? Can you say where the energy goes when redshift due to universal expansion occurs? Also, I have a very above-average knowledge of physics, at the risk of bragging I am at the top of my class at the university. I know that the law of conservation of energy isn't quite universal, and I know why. It's due to Noether's Theorem, probably the foundation of all modern physics from which all of the laws can be derived from.

 

 

You might try reading more slowly and THINK about what you have read; This is what Arp said in the very first paragraph.

 

Quote: If the lines in the spectrum of the light from a star or galaxy appear at a lower frequency (shifted toward the red) than where they are observed in the spectrum of the Sun, we say this object exhibits 'positive redshift'.  The accepted explanation for this effect is that the object must be moving away from us.  This interpretation is drawn by analogy with the downward shift in the pitch of a train whistle as it passes through a railroad crossing and then speeds away from us.  The question is: Is recessional velocity the only thing that can produce a redshift, as modern astrophysicists presume?  It has become clear that the answer to that question is an emphatic NO!

 

He said exactly what you said and then went on to explain it.........yet you insist that Arp was wrong. Huh?

 

Arp implied that the scientific community thought that it was only redshift due to recession that the scientific community accepted. This is false, every single piece of "evidence" exposed in that article is perfectly explainable if you consider all three causes and doesn't require any of that "intrinsic redshift" nonsense.

 

 

 

Really(?) but expansion into what? Tell us what is beyond space........BY OBSERVATION and then document it.

That is the beauty of infinity, if you're infinite, you don't need anything to expand into, you can expand into yourself. Google Hilbert's Grand Hotel for a cool explanation of this.

 

If you want to get technical you'd say that the cardinality of a countably infinite set is equal to Aleph0 and that any sets that are derived from multiplicative transformations to that set will have the same cardinality of Aleph0.

 

Or if you want to butcher the beautiful math you can just say that infinity times two equals the same infinity (and yes, some infinite are different than others, in this particular case, however, the infinities are the exact same even if you multiply one).

 

Also this applies to a universe that isn't infinite but rather finite but unbounded, but for that to make sense you need to represent it as a 3d universe embedded in a 4d hypersphere, do note that the hypersphere doesn't have to exist, it's only a representation of the phenomena.

 

 

 

You don't know what you're talking about. 'Not scientific'...declared by an 18 yr old, wet-behind-the-ears kid. Right.  :blink: Halton Arp happens to be the former personal assistant of....(guess who?) Edwin Hubble.

There is no hypothesis, no null hypothesis  and no tests, therefore it is not scientific. Show me a paper, preferably peer-reviewed

 

 

 

That takes the cake. Quote: The popular Cal Tech physicist Richard Feynman has summed up this paradoxical situation well:

Richard Feynman died in 1988. Quantum Mechanics and our understanding of it has advanced a lot since then. There are still questions, but we have a decent grasp of it.

 

 

 

Like it or not, 'cause & effect' is a law. No one has ever seen it violated. So live with it but you will never escape its reality.

Please tell me what the cause of virtual particles is, then.

 

 

 

You're playing dodge ball. I didn't ask you HOW they work, I asked you how they originated in the first place.

All the laws of the universe are derived from the second law of thermodynamics and the laws of conservation (Well, except for the 2LOT and the conservation laws, obviously), the laws of conservation are derived from the symmetries of the universe through Noether's Theorem. no one knows the cause of the 2LoT (Though don't get me wrong, there are plenty of ideas) or of the symmetries, but they're probably inherent properties of the system. If that's the case the question goes back to the origin of the system, that is, the universe, to which the answer is, again, nobody knows, but there are plenty of ideas.



#35 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 01 June 2015 - 08:42 PM

Iguana:

 

 

What? North is defined as "in the direction of the North Pole"

 

And above that? So that's where your thinking stops...never mind the nature of the question to begin with.

 

Yes, it is orderly, the Big Bang explains why, if it didn't no one would accept it.

 

No the Big Bang DOESN'T explain why. The natural tendency of nature is disorder, not order. But you've given us yet another example of the Orwellianized mind you have. 

 

No, it isn't, I explained why in my post. Care to explain why the reasoning is invalid?

 

I just told you, my hard-headed counterpart: The Law of Conservation of mass, and add to that the Law of conservation of energy...neither of which can be created nor destroyed and is conserved in every single experiment and/or observation ever made. I gave my documentation and as usual, you ignored it. But one last time ( AND THIS WILL BE YOUR LAST TIME arguing with me.)

 

Quote: The law of conservation of energy is one of the basic laws of physics and therefore governs the microscopic motion of individual atoms in a chemical reaction. The law of conservation energy states:http://www.nyu.edu/c...re_2/node4.html

In a closed system, i.e., a system that isolated from its surroundings, the total energy of the system is conserved.

But like I said, no matter what we lay before you or how solid the evidence is and no matter what law we appeal to you will not be corrected by anyone.

 

Can you say where the energy goes when redshift due to universal expansion occurs?

 

First, prove the expansion to begin with. Your beliefs are direct violation of the laws of conservation of mass and energy but you don't seem to have a clue of that fact.

 

Also, I have a very above-average knowledge of physics, at the risk of bragging I am at the top of my class at the university. I know that the law of conservation of energy isn't quite universal, and I know why. It's due to Noether's Theorem, probably the foundation of all modern physics from which all of the laws can be derived from.

 

Your 'knowledge' is junk. Period. Whoever taught you this nonsense is an idiot and he doesn't have any more of a clue about the truth of the matter than you do.

 

Arp implied that the scientific community thought that it was only redshift due to recession that the scientific community accepted. This is false, every single piece of "evidence" exposed in that article is perfectly explainable if you consider all three causes and doesn't require any of that "intrinsic redshift" nonsense.

 

A man who cannot even read carefully has no standing with those who can.

 

That is the beauty of infinity, if you're infinite, you don't need anything to expand into, you can expand into yourself. Google Hilbert's Grand Hotel for a cool explanation of this.

 

We weren't talking about people/humans...student. I asked you plainly WHAT IS BEYOND THE EVENT HORIZON of our universe. Since the vacuum of space is not, after all, emptiness and it does have energy then WHAT IS BEYOND IT?

 

If you want to get technical you'd say that the cardinality of a countably infinite set is equal to Aleph0 and that any sets that are derived from multiplicative transformations to that set will have the same cardinality of Aleph0.

 

More monkey business. But you know good and well you CANNOT demonstrate your idea. No one ever has. 

 

Or if you want to butcher the beautiful math you can just say that infinity times two equals the same infinity (and yes, some infinite are different than others, in this particular case, however, the infinities are the exact same even if you multiply one).

 

That doesn't help you solve the problem. The math breaks down when you cannot even conclude what 'x' is in the first place. But that never occurs to you.

 

Also this applies to a universe that isn't infinite but rather finite but unbounded, but for that to make sense you need to represent it as a 3d universe embedded in a 4d hypersphere, do note that the hypersphere doesn't have to exist, it's only a representation of the phenomena.

 

There is no hypothesis, no null hypothesis  and no tests, therefore it is not scientific. Show me a paper, preferably peer-reviewed

 

There was direct observation, measurements, and data that was given as well as confirmation by other scientists(as Enoch and I both posted it) who have good eyesight; not like the self-afflicted blind men 'astronomers' you prefer to listen to.  You just plainly don't care...........about anything if it disagrees with your personal notions. So I'm not going to show you anything....at least not anything more after this discussion, because it wouldn't change your thinking in the slightest.

 

Richard Feynman died in 1988. Quantum Mechanics and our understanding of it has advanced a lot since then.

 

Not yours. You can't even grasp the simplest laws of science in their practical applications. You deliberately twist those laws to fit your prejudices.

 

There are still questions, but we have a decent grasp of it.

 

The only thing you have demonstrated by your outrageous statements is just how badly you've been bamboozled by a poor education. We wouldn't be so hard on you except for the fact of your continual arrogance and know-it-all attitude. You do not grasp it nor does anyone else...i.e. the Schroedingers Cat experiments. Wiser men who have done such experiments repeatedly tell us that they don't know why they get such results.

 

Please tell me what the cause of virtual particles is, then.

 

Enoch told you. Go back and read it on this very thread. (Hint; in the last seven paragraphs of his last post).

 

All the laws of the universe are derived from the second law of thermodynamics and the laws of conservation (Well, except for the 2LOT and the conservation laws, obviously), the laws of conservation are derived from the symmetries of the universe through Noether's Theorem. no one knows the cause of the 2LoT

 

No one of your persuasion knows the cause of the other laws either. 

 

(Though don't get me wrong, there are plenty of ideas) or of the symmetries, but they're probably inherent properties

 

Properties from where???............cause and effect......cause and effect...........cause and effect............cause and effect. What was the cause of the properties and how did it bring about the effect? Will you ever get it?

 

 If that's the case the question goes back to the origin of the system, that is, the universe, to which the answer is, again, nobody knows, but there are plenty of ideas.

 

Again, that's the only right conclusion you've had in this entire debate.

 

Like your teachers, you just make it up as you go and you blindly swallow any idea that will help you maintain your unbelief in the God who made you. And you are actually going to teach this stuff to students some day? God forbid.

 

Don't bother. I think I'll put you on ignore like Enoch did and conserve some energy. ;)



#36 Will

Will

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I have no doubt that I am a Humanist
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ontario

Posted 02 June 2015 - 05:19 AM

Huh? Your second statement is not even related to the known and established laws of science. NO ONE among us is saying that 2 +2 = 3.9 or that it supports the idea that 2 +2 = 4.1.

 

Its an analogy and the purpose is to simplify a more complex idea. They are not meant to be taken literally. Just ignore it if it doesn't help.

 

It seems to me your point is that because science has not answered these questions your answer must therefore be correct. This does not follow.



#37 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 02 June 2015 - 05:41 AM

 

I know it was an analogy but the analogy doesn't fit. No one on our side of things proposes such a mathematical scenario.

 

It seems to me your point is that because science has not answered these questions your answer must therefore be correct. 

 

You're catching on slowly. Like the FBI uses forensic evidence to establish a case, the investigators eliminate all the possibilities and arrive at the only possible conclusion as to who committed the crime. Likewise, when I was in the U.S. Navy Hospital Corps doctors used the terminology 'prognosis' and 'rule out' in the course of their examinations of patience with sickness and disease. If I am correct they still use both terms to this day. It's only logical. But it seems that those of your persuasion are blind to the same type of logic as it relates to science.

 

Now, these analogies fit....perfectly. Iguana's doesn't.

 

This does not follow.

 

 

 

 

The exact opposite is true if you will just honestly consider what I just said above. We have laws of science that fly directly in the face of evolutionary teaching (entropy, Biogenesis, the conservation of mass/matter/energy, cause and effect, etc.) and yet those who think like you do absolutely fail to see that that nature (1) cannot create anything, (2) cannot generate life from non-living matter, and (3) changes in organisms never violate the limitations that God placed upon them (nor can they force it to happen in the lab).


#38 Paul79

Paul79

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 02 June 2015 - 07:08 AM

In light of the neurology comments above: the brain does have a lymphatic system that was never detected before and the scientists that discovered this commented that the textbooks will have to be rewritten. How is it that science has failed in detecting something like this for so many decades? How could they not have known what the brain is composed of in the 21st century? My point being that what we think we know is very limited yet we say we have figured out what the brain is composed of and how it came to be and what it is capable of and how it evolved, etc. I find it frustrating that people think we have evolved and yet mindless molecules continue to evade our grasp. Does this mean we are dumber than these mindless molecules?

 

The article I am referring to: http://neurosciencen...robiology-2080/


  • Calypsis4 and mike the wiz like this

#39 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 02 June 2015 - 08:13 AM

Thanks, Paul. That was very interesting.

 

Quote from the article you provided: "In a stunning discovery that overturns decades of textbook teaching, researchers at the University of Virginia School of Medicine have determined that the brain is directly connected to the immune system by vessels previously thought not to exist. That such vessels could have escaped detection when the lymphatic system has been so thoroughly mapped throughout the body is surprising on its own, but the true significance of the discovery lies in the effects it could have on the study and treatment of neurological diseases ranging from autism to Alzheimer’s disease to multiple sclerosis.

“Instead of asking, ‘How do we study the immune response of the brain?’ ‘Why do multiple sclerosis patients have the immune attacks?’ now we can approach this mechanistically. Because the brain is like every other tissue connected to the peripheral immune system through meningeal lymphatic vessels,” said Jonathan Kipnis, PhD, professor in the UVA Department of Neuroscience and director of UVA’s Center for Brain Immunology and Glia (BIG). “It changes entirely the way we perceive the neuro-immune interaction. We always perceived it before as something esoteric that can’t be studied. But now we can ask mechanistic questions.”

“We believe that for every neurological disease that has an immune component to it, these vessels may play a major role,” Kipnis said. “Hard to imagine that these vessels would not be involved in a [neurological] disease with an immune component.”

New Discovery in Human Body

Kevin Lee, PhD, chairman of the UVA Department of Neuroscience, described his reaction to the discovery by Kipnis’ lab: “The first time these guys showed me the basic result, I just said one sentence: ‘They’ll have to change the textbooks.’ There has never been a lymphatic system for the central nervous system, and it was very clear from that first singular observation – and they’ve done many studies since then to bolster the finding – that it will fundamentally change the way people look at the central nervous system’s relationship with the immune system.”

So the blind forces of nature did this also? Not a chance. They need to come to that conclusion about the theory of evolution altogether.



#40 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 June 2015 - 10:00 AM

 

 

Will: It seems to me your point is that because science has not answered these questions your answer must therefore be correct. This does not follow.

 

But it seems the evolutionists are arguing that either the answer is scientific, and there is an answer, or the answer can't be answered by science yet (appeal to future), so it is an unknown scientific answer.

 

So; "it's either science or science". But what you really mean to say is; "it's either a materialistic answer or it's a materialistic, unknown answer"

 

And just how are we supposed to answer that? You basically admit you will only accept a materialist answer and you don't seem to even care if the answer truly is the Lord.

 

What this really equates to is PEOPLE. 

 

PEOPLE DO NOT WANT God to be the answer, so they choose to believe that the answer is materialistic, but like Calypsis so succinctly points out in a nutshell each time, there are various laws that certaintly are scientific, but they simply don't support materialism.

 

You see the only reason so many atheists harp on about, "science" is because they desperately want "science" to justify materialism, but when we look at the real scientific facts they very strongly point to theism, or at least much of the evidence does, even the majority of the evidence.

 

It is also true when Calypsis said God has made it obvious that the universe is created, I mean I can't believe anyone could actually convince themselves when they look at a tree or a butterfly, that it's all related as an evolutionary-tree. Just think about a tree alone in all of the complex cycles, photosynthesis and abscission for example, are such sophisticated chemical processes that human-designers are utterly and hopelessly CONFOUNDED in their attempts to design it on the same level.

 

I'm sorry but evolution just isn't the answer, it has no intelligence and your arguments are always so weak that it just convinces me all the more that the Lord created the universe with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Why would evolution be true? It fails on every level apart from turning a turtle into a turtle. But let's face it you don't even need evolution for that, you just need turtles. Lol.


  • Calypsis4, Zaccarias and Paul79 like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users