Jump to content


Photo

Tough Questions For The Skeptics


  • Please log in to reply
157 replies to this topic

#41 Paul79

Paul79

    Junior Member

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

Posted 02 June 2015 - 10:24 AM

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"

 

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.

 Very well put Mike! That is why they would rather believe a lie because the alternative to that lie is God and living a life for God limits them. What they don't realize is that they are not free at all but slaves to sin every day. Only those truly in Christ are free.


  • Calypsis4 and mike the wiz like this

#42 macten

macten

    Bare Assertion Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Nottingham, England

Posted 02 June 2015 - 11:13 AM

So Calypsis - Can you just clarify that you think stars and space are north of the north pole?



#43 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 - 11:18 AM



So Calypsis - Can you just clarify that you think stars and space are north of the north pole?

 

Is this a joke?

 

Polaris-and-trails-telephoto_ANNO-ST_S_e



#44 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 - 11:29 AM

 Very well put Mike! That is why they would rather believe a lie because the alternative to that lie is God and living a life for God limits them. What they don't realize is that they are not free at all but slaves to sin every day. Only those truly in Christ are free.

 

So very true. that's more than the average Christian poster is willing to say on this board. The way I see it it really accomplishes nothing just to argue the merits of a Creator and His Creation unless we can persuade them to believe in Him and His Son Jesus Christ for salvation.

 

Thanks for your truthful words and I hope you post more often.



#45 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 02 June 2015 - 05:08 PM

 

Is this a joke?

 

Polaris-and-trails-telephoto_ANNO-ST_S_e

 

Nothing is north of the North Pole, Cal. North-east-south-west are directions based on a relative coordinate system that only applies to the surface of the earth....pretty simple.



#46 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 - 05:45 PM

Nothing is north of the North Pole, Cal. North-east-south-west are directions based on a relative coordinate system that only applies to the surface of the earth....pretty simple.

 

Oh, good grief. All this over a non-issue in the first place. The analogy of 'north of the north pole' doesn't apply to the universe as a whole in the first place. The edges of the so-called 'event horizon' would be in every direction around us and not in one point on a globe.

 

You guys have been drinking goofy juice. :gilligan:


  • Enoch 2021 likes this

#47 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

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

Posted 02 June 2015 - 05:56 PM

Calypsis, I know much more about modern physics than you do. As evidenced by the fact that you think Conservation of Mass is a universal law, that cardinality of infinite sets is "monkey business" and that there things North of the North Pole. You also deliberately misrepresent what I'm saying. This Conversation is indeed over. but just for the record:

 

The concept of time breaks down at the Big Bang, the question of what came before makes no sense.

 

There are many, many cases in which mass isn't conserved, the law of conservation of mass is only widely used in molecular chemistry, which only deals with the Electromagnetic force (whose effects on mass are negligible) for the most part.

 

The expansion of the universe, a thoroughly confirmed and observed phenomenon, causes small losses of energy from closed systems, breaking the law of conservation of energy, albeit to a degree too small to matter unless you're considering really, really ancient light (and other things, but mostly that)

 

No one knows what causes virtual particles, if anything causes them at all. Anyone who says they do is either wrong or lying. They're one of the biggest mysteries of modern physics, the best idea out there for their cause is String Theory, and that hasn't been confirmed.

 

The universe, being either infinite or finite but unbounded, needs nowhere to expand into. One of the characteristics of any infinite/unbounded set is that it can expand into itself, and te universe is one such set (See Hilbert's Grand Hotel)

 

And lastly. If the skeptic's answer is "I don't know", that doesn't mean God did it, it means we don't know.

 

I find it rather funny that you use third grade science to disprove modern physics. It's like saying General Relativity is wrong because it contradicts Newton, or that Bohr's model of the atom is wrong because it contradicts Dalton's, or that the Real Gas Law is wrong because it contradicts the Ideal Gas Law. As a general rule, whenever you learn more about science you discover that most of what you thought you knew was in fact an oversimplification, a useful one, but still an oversimplification. Just like most people would say atoms form molecules because they "seek" filled electron shells (This is actually false, but a very good approximation to the actual mechanisms), most people would say Energy is always conserved in all systems. This is, fascinatingly, an oversimplification of the truth

 

TL;DR: Most if not all of the laws of science break under the right conditions or if you consider the right effects, just because my arguments contradict common knowledge doesn't mean they're false.

 

I would like to leave two links more in here. The first is a Richard Feynman (who Calypsis himself quoted a while back) explaining in a beautiful way why asking a "why?" question in science is often a wrongly asked one.

 

 

And the second link is kinda self-explanatory

 

http://en.wikipedia....ical_projection



#48 Zaccarias

Zaccarias

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • PH

Posted 02 June 2015 - 06:08 PM

So taking out all the fluff and mumbo jumbo, the answer skeptics have is basically:

 

We don't know yet, but we "know" it's not God.

 

What a strong faith statement! :)


  • Mike Summers likes this

#49 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 02 June 2015 - 06:54 PM

So taking out all the fluff and mumbo jumbo, the answer skeptics have is basically:

 

We don't know yet, but we "know" it's not God.

 

What a strong faith statement! :)

 

Who said that in this thread?  I saw a lot of "I / we don't know's," but that was it.



#50 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

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

Posted 02 June 2015 - 08:36 PM

So taking out all the fluff and mumbo jumbo, the answer skeptics have is basically:

 

We don't know yet, but we "know" it's not God.

 

What a strong faith statement! :)

No one said, implied or meant that.



#51 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,071 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 02 June 2015 - 10:39 PM

1. Describe the origin of conscious thought and why it exists in the first place.

 

2. Describe the step-by-step process of non-living chemicals into a living organism.

 

My question is why are you asking these things? You must have known that, in essence, our answers will boil down to an unknown. So let me ask you this, even if you don't know every little detail of something is it reasonable to accept it based on careful analysis of what is known? 

 

How do you describe the origin of consciousness and why does it exist in the first place? 

 

Describe the step-by-step process of the creation of living organisms. 

 

1. Simply put consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, and it exists because it was deemed a favorable trait by natural selection. 

 

2. An interesting question and despite my loathing of chemistry I truly do wish that I could fully answer this. Alas no one can give a hole-free scenario, we can't even define life perfectly yet. If you are truly interested and not just asking because it is a "tough question" I suggest starting off with the wiki page on abiogenesis: http://en.wikipedia....ganic_molecules

 

3. Explain why there are no two-celled, three-celled, four-celled, or five-celled organisms on earth and why all 6 to 20 celled organisms are parasites. This being so what did the first parasites survive on?

 

Exactly how multicellularism evolved is unknown, big surprise I know. For years now the thought is that it is linked to colonies, look up the "volvox". When you look at colonies do you see two-celled colonies, or three, or four..... no, you see a big colony. This is why we don't see multicellular organisms with so few cells, and why parasites need not be the first multicellular organism as I've seen you argue in the past. 

 

4. Explain the origin of light and when it appeared in the universe.

 

The short answer is that light is a particle, the photon, which is the manifestation of the electromagnetic force. As long as electromagnetism exists photons/light can exist (in QM photons are the force carriers of electromagnetism). When I turn on a flashlight I am creating new photons/light. If you want to go deeper than that it gets into the grand unified theory and the theory of everything as Iguana talked about, and deeper still is the question of why the universe has the properties that it does, to which the answer is no one knows. 

 

Light first appeared sometime in the early universe (the first few seconds after the big bang), but because the universe was still so dense and hot the universe was basically a plasma which is opaque to radiation meaning that although photons existed they couldn't go anywhere. Around 380,000 years after the big bang the universe cooled enough to form neutral atoms (electrons bind to atomic nuclei) making the universe transparent to radiation allowing photons to move freely. 

 

5. Explain what exists beyond the Event Horizon of our 'expanding' universe.

 

Since you are willfully ignorant of anything and everything non-creationists tell you about this topic, here is a creationist to explain it to you. An interesting few minute video IMHO, but start at 2:29 if you must. 

 



#52 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 03 June 2015 - 05:17 AM

Who said that in this thread?  I saw a lot of "I / we don't know's," but that was it.

 

He is generalizing but it was an accurate generalization because more than one skeptic said "We don't know but that doesn't necessarily mean that the supernatural is the only other option".  However, when all the options of natural causes are eliminated then the supernatural is the only logical one left.



#53 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 03 June 2015 - 05:48 AM

 

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.

 

The thing is that every time we have used God as an answer to any question we have gone on to find out that there is indeed a materialistic answer. This is essentially a 'god of the gaps' argument. I really do not see any reason to think that it will be different for consciousness.

 

I would also say that God is not really an answer but rather a catch-all non explanation for things that we do not actually know.

 

 

PEOPLE DO NOT WANT God to be the answer, so they choose to believe that the answer is materialistic,

 

This sounds like willful ignorance. What could anyone gain by willfully ignoring evidence for a God?

 

In the end, I can honestly say that I do not know if there is a God. If there is a creator then they created the universe in a way that we can examine and understand. This being the case then I do not see how seeking materialistic explanations contradicts or disproves a God in any way.



#54 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 03 June 2015 - 06:35 AM

Will:

 

The thing is that every time we have used God as an answer to any question we have gone on to find out that there is indeed a materialistic answer.

 

 

You mean like the creation of matter from nothing? We have a law that tells us otherwise but you believe in it anyway. Several posters of your persuasion have already told us that they do not know what caused the universe to come into existence. Yet you call your position, 'science'.

 

This is essentially a 'god of the gaps' argument. I really do not see any reason to think that it will be different for consciousness.

 

That is such a ridiculous argument. "We don't know what it was but that (God) is not under consideration." :think:  Right.

 

I would also say that God is not really an answer but rather a catch-all non explanation for things that we do not actually know.

 

 

Never mind the fact that He revealed Himself to the world in (1) the ten plagues of Egypt, the Red Sea crossing, (2) the miracles of the prophets, (3) in the person of Jesus Christ who likewise performed many miracles (the reality of which made him famous to the whole world unlike the phonies, the frauds, and the charlatan tricksters), and (4) in the fact that His power is still seen unto this day in resurrections from the dead in His name, and instantaneous healings which I myself have witnessed along with several witnesses.

 

Those things are not a 'catch-all', for they happened in time and space with countless witnesses.

 

This sounds like willful ignorance. What could anyone gain by willfully ignoring evidence for a God?

 

 

I think you need to look in a mirror when you talk about willful ignorance. We have seen the evidence for our God, but you have NOT seen the evidence for a creation without God nor even for evolution itself. It doesn't exist.

 

In the end, I can honestly say that I do not know if there is a God.

 

 

I can honestly say I do for reasons that I just stated above and much more than that.

 

If there is a creator then they created the universe in a way that we can examine and understand. This being the case then I do not see how seeking materialistic explanations contradicts or disproves a God in any way.

 

 

 

Because nature cannot create. Don't you get it? Nature, by law, is incapable of creating anything and it can only do what it was pre-programmed to do by the Creator who made it.

 

Now since you have come to this conclusion, let me invite you to respond to the second part of the question "Even Tougher Questions for the Skeptics". As of the last time I checked a few dozen people have read those points but no one has replied. Would you like to be the first? Try and give a materialistic explanation for those questions if you think you can.



#55 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 June 2015 - 07:08 AM

The thing is that every time we have used God as an answer to any question we have gone on to find out that there is indeed a materialistic answer. This is essentially a 'god of the gaps' argument. I really do not see any reason to think that it will be different for consciousness.

 

I would also say that God is not really an answer but rather a catch-all non explanation for things that we do not actually know.

You mean like the creation of matter from nothing? We have a law that tells us otherwise but you believe in it anyway.

I'm pretty sure he means things like volcanos, lightning, rain, disease, and earthquakes .... to name a few.

 

Several posters of your persuasion have already told us that they do not know what caused the universe to come into existence. Yet you call your position, 'science'.

Science makes no claims to be all knowing.  On the other hand, I was told by a YEC only a few days ago that all knowledge comes from the Bible.  A bit of projection, perhaps?

 

That is such a ridiculous argument. "We don't know what it was but that (God) is not under consideration." :think:  Right.

Right. 

 

In science God is not under consideration because when He exercises His power to suspend the laws of nature and implement His divine will, He is acting outside the limitations of scientific investigation.   We call them "natural" and "physical" sciences for a reason. 

 

Can you guess what that reason might be?


  • StormanNorman and Will like this

#56 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 03 June 2015 - 07:46 AM

In science God is not under consideration because when He exercises His power to suspend the laws of nature and implement His divine will, He is acting outside the limitations of scientific investigation.   We call them "natural" and "physical" sciences for a reason. 

 

 

 

Another silly answer from the ex-scientist from NASA.

 

All that God does is in accordance with His written Word. Beyond that, He did a number of things that were observed by human beings and they saw the lasting results of it, like the burnt top 1/3 of Mount Sinai in Arabia. (Exodus 19:18)

 

 http://www.according...edsea/sinai.gif

 

And the rock that was split that brought water to the Hebrew children as a result of Moses miracle in God's power (Isaiah 48:21)

 

http://www.arkdiscov...rockathoreb.jpg

 

There were thousands of eyewitnesses who observed it and we see the lasting results to this very day. This is just a sampling. His position is, once again, in error.

 

Can you guess what that reason might be?

 

 

 

 

What was said above was sufficient.



#57 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 June 2015 - 08:26 AM

In science God is not under consideration because when He exercises His power to suspend the laws of nature and implement His divine will, He is acting outside the limitations of scientific investigation.   We call them "natural" and "physical" sciences for a reason. 

Another silly answer from the ex-scientist from NASA.

While I appreciate the promotion, I have never claimed to be a scientist at NASA.  I was a computer technician in Launch Control at the Kennedy Space Center for four years.  In that position, I had the honor of working the first six Space Shuttle launches in Launch Control.

 

What's silly about the answer?  Science relies on the constancy of natural law.  How can you do science if God suspends the natural laws?

 

 

All that God does is in accordance with His written Word. Beyond that, He did a number of things that were observed by human beings and they saw the lasting results of it, like the burnt top 1/3 of Mount Sinai in Arabia. (Exodus 20:18)

 

 http://www.according...edsea/sinai.gif

 

And the rock that was split that brought water to the Hebrew children as a result of Moses miracle in God's power (Isaiah 48:21)

 

http://www.arkdiscov...rockathoreb.jpg

 

There were thousands of eyewitnesses who observed it and we see the lasting results to this very day. This is just a sampling. His position is, once again, in error.

Is it? 

 

I saw no evidence  the top of Mount Sinai had been burnt in the photo you posted.  In the photo of the split rock, there was no evidence of water coming from it either.   That said, I'm not challenging God's ability to perform miracles.  My comment stands.... when God chooses to suspend the natural laws and perform a miracle, He is acting outside the limitations of science to investigate His actions.

 

Prove me wrong..... show just ONE supernatural test available to science.  If/when God performs miracles, the correct scientific answer will be "Wedonno" not "Wedonno, so Goddidit."

 

Can you guess what that reason might be?

What was said above was sufficient.

Sufficient to what?   Show that science is capable of testing when the natural laws have been suspended by God?   Far from it.



#58 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 03 June 2015 - 08:26 AM

 

My question is why are you asking these things? You must have known that, in essence, our answers will boil down to an unknown. 

 

 

Well since every last Materialist/Atheist that attends these forums does the Rope-A-Dope feebly obfuscating JUSTIFYING their World View, CAL puts your feet to the fire to solicit something other than BLIND FAITH.  Savvy?

 

 

How do you describe the origin of consciousness and why does it exist in the first place? 

 

 

SEE: answer above.  And....Consciousness exists Right?  So since "SCIENCE" is in the business of ascertaining CAUSATION of OBSERVED PHENOMENA through Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.....

 

We want to know your answer?  See the Connection?

 

 

Describe the step-by-step process of the creation of living organisms.

 

 

Since nobody was there to OBSERVE THIS, Direct Elucidation via "Science" is IMPOSSIBLE.   HOWEVER, we can still get there; How?  Well....

 

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible @ the same time (or do you disagree?).   This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Nature (Unguided) the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.
 
George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...
 
“The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION. …Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.

 

 

 

1. Simply put consciousness is an emergent property of the brain,   2. and it exists because it was deemed a favorable trait by natural selection.

 

 

 

1.  :funny:  Yes just like Windows 7 is an "Emergent Property" of my Computer Hardware.  I just purchased the Monitor/Keyboard and Mouse (didn't need the CPU this time) and Software Programs just starting POOFING themselves into existence when I plugged the monitor in.  Microsoft and Apple are BANKRUPT!!!

 

 

2.  Natural Selection...."DEEMED"!!  So to "DEEM" something, it's a contingent necessary fact that it has to have Sentience/Intelligence.  Are you saying "Natural Selection" a "CONCEPT" is alive?

 

 

2. An interesting question and despite my loathing of chemistry I truly do wish that I could fully answer this. Alas no one can give a hole-free scenario, we can't even define life perfectly yet. If you are truly interested and not just asking because it is a "tough question" I suggest starting off with the wiki page on abiogenesis: http://en.wikipedia....ganic_molecules

 

 

 

So you post a "wiki" link, eh?  A "Wiki Google" Scientist?

 

Why don't you take this wiki drivel to a Yahoo Message thread where this belongs and stop insulting our Intelligence. 

 

And posting just a "link" without speaking to the issue is Intellectually Lazy...... @ best!

 

 

Exactly how multicellularism evolved is unknown, big surprise I know. 

 

 

Begging The Question (Fallacy) "multicellularism evolved" x 2 and @ this point that's not a surprise, more like SOP.

 

 

Light first appeared sometime in the early universe (the first few seconds after the big bang), but because the universe was still so dense and hot the universe was basically a plasma which is opaque to radiation meaning that although photons existed they couldn't go anywhere. Around 380,000 years after the big bang the universe cooled enough to form neutral atoms (electrons bind to atomic nuclei) making the universe transparent to radiation allowing photons to move freely. 

 

 

Did we ask for a Philosophical Ideologue Mantra ?

 

Please VALIDATE...errr "Science", ANY aspect of your fairytale story telling here....?

 

No insult intended here, but......If you can't SUPPORT what you say or any of your claims specifically; tell us, what is the difference between you and your average village idiot?

 

 

regards


  • Calypsis4 and Zaccarias like this

#59 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 03 June 2015 - 09:06 AM


 

 

While I appreciate the promotion, I have never claimed to be a scientist at NASA.  I was a computer technician in Launch Control at the Kennedy Space Center for four years.  In that position, I had the honor of working the first six Space Shuttle launches in Launch Control.

 

 

 

 

 

I rest my case. :rolleyes:

 

What's silly about the answer?  Science relies on the constancy of natural law.  How can you do science if God suspends the natural laws?

 

 

 

I just gave him examples and he ignored them. I could give more but why? He doesn't believe much of anything that YEC's lay before him.

 


Is it? 

 

I saw no evidence  the top of Mount Sinai had been burnt in the photo you posted.  In the photo of the split rock, there was no evidence of water coming from it either.   That said, I'm not challenging God's ability to perform miracles.  My comment stands.... when God chooses to suspend the natural laws and perform a miracle, He is acting outside the limitations of science to investigate His actions.

 

 

 

First he didn't bother to trace those photos to their sources to find the evidence.

 

http://search.aol.co...rnt at the peak

 

He doesn't WISH to find any evidence that flies directly in the face of what he believes in. The truth is that he doesn't know the first thing about the only true and living God of scripture because he trusts the 'word' of nature, not the Lord's written Word. He will always trust nature over God's holy Word.

 

His statement is just more unbelief. Well, there is a great reason why the Arabian government put a chain link fence around that particular parcel of ground with warning signs to 'Stay Out' and I can assure you readers that it wasn't because they were trying to keep people from poaching or from finding military secrets.

 


Prove me wrong..... show just ONE supernatural test available to science.  If/when God performs miracles, the correct scientific answer will be "Wedonno" not "Wedonno, so Goddidit."

 

 

Answer to prayer. Miraculous healings (which I have personally observed). Resurrection from the dead (I can & have provided three excellent examples on this very website). I have posted a number of supernatural acts that were recorded by various people proving that such things can happen and be observed. 

 

Sufficient to what?   Show that science is capable of testing when the natural laws have been suspended by God?   Far from it.

 

 

 

 

That man has no love for the truth. He loves his prejudces. I just gave some examples above and those are more than sufficient.



#60 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 03 June 2015 - 09:18 AM

He is generalizing but it was an accurate generalization because more than one skeptic said "We don't know but that doesn't necessarily mean that the supernatural is the only other option".  However, when all the options of natural causes are eliminated then the supernatural is the only logical one left.

 

How will we know when we are out of possible natural causes?  I imagine that hundreds of years ago many thought that disease was supernatural as they had no natural explanations for it.  Of course, that is changed.  For the past 100 years or so, technological advancement has been exponential. Who knows what technologies will be unveiled in the next 100 years ..... and with them more means, methods, and options to explore and test the natural world.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users