Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HI SOMEONE12, FEDERALE

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rough Neighbor
    replied
    Laws, not theories. Science and biblical truths, not speculative gobbledygook. And mind you, I am not starting yet. Why run away this early in the fight, eh? And oh, by any chance, did I address all your concerns? If not, just please say so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rough Neighbor
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rough Neighbor:
    The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God – resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is “growing old like a garment” (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Ha, quite a concoction you've written here RN.
    Evolution directly contradicts entropy? No, it does not, as evolution refers to changes within the organic nature, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Evolution requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements. Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.

    However, this basic law of science (The Second Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">not the inorganic universe, which does evolve as well but according to different sets of physical laws. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    What sets of physical laws? Theories won't be accepted please.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The universe will cease to exist at one point, it is inevitable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    That's what I said, look how you're contradicting yourself. You just confirmed the scientific and biblical law of entropy, moron.

    Repeat after me: The Second Law of Thermodynamics as confirmed by the Scriptures, that Atheists (or Evolutionists by default, the real ones, unlike someone who's just acting it out like you) tend to reject.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not many theists are willing to think about it, and answer the simple question: what will happen to their God when there is nothing again? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I'll address it now.

    A pseudo-atheist like you asks, "what will happen to God when there is nothing again?" God, by definition, is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question is illogical. A better question would be, "If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?" Everything which has a beginning has a cause.

    The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1) but God doesn't have, and has no end (Hebrews 1:10-12).

    Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

    It is important to stress the words "which has a beginning." The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so he does not need a cause. Einstein's general relativity shows that time is linked to matter and space.

    So, time itself would have begun along with matter and space at the beginning of the universe. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time and is independent and outside of time. He is not limited by the time dimension he created, so he has no beginning in time. And by logic, no end.

    Leave a comment:


  • ProudUSC
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProudUSC:
    I believe the alternative would be evolution. I've struggled from time to time to try and understand how we could be descendents of both God and apes. The theories don't mesh (at least in my mind), but I choose to believe there is a God and must be an explanation for the theory of evolution as well. There's too much scientific proof that evolution did occur. Is it un-Christian to believe in both theories? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    We are not descendant from apes, this is a mistake scientists made in the past. We are a separate species like all the rest of the natural world that evolved from a separate unique ancestor. This is quite brand new finding of the recent couple years.
    And evolution, Proudie is not a theory, it is a scientific FACT. Live with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    That is what I said.

    There's too much scientific proof that evolution did occur.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kollerkrot
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
    Originally posted by Kollerkrot:


    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This is hogwash!

    Me jumping up doesn't show me gravity. I want to see it. I can bounce a ball or drop a rock I see the ball or the rock I don't see gravity. Show me Gravity I want to see it! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Strawman. You don't have to see everything with your biocentrism oriented eyeb.a.l.ls to know whether something exists or doesn't. Can we see the billions of galaxies in our universe? Can we see atoms and electrons? No, yet we know they exist.
    This is Logic .000001 class, Koller. Please, next. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Oh, I didn't know that I don't have to see everything I believe in. Cool!

    Leave a comment:


  • Kollerkrot
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kollerkrot:

    Wrong, morality does exist outside nature. If I would follow Spinoza good and evil does not exist. Murdering someone would be completely ok. Where do Atheist base morality?
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No, morality is relative through mankind, as all value judgements are.
    Tell me, do you really care if some creatures on other planets kill each other, or not? I don't care, because it is irrelevant to me, and so logically do not other people on other planets care if we kill each other or not.
    Murdering someone is only not ok to us. I would go further with this, but on this forum.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Moreover, show me Gravity. Have you ever seen it? I want to see it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Jump. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    This is hogwash!

    Me jumping up doesn't show me gravity. I want to see it. I can bounce a ball or drop a rock I see the ball or the rock I don't see gravity. Show me Gravity I want to see it!

    Leave a comment:


  • Kollerkrot
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rough Neighbor:
    "And yet the bottom line is we live in a universe which completely frustrates any attempt to explain its origin and content by natural processes alone.

    The best evidence for the possible existence of a supernatural creator lies in the total lack of any scientific evidence in these key areas. Can God be scientifically proven? No, it would be nice but his existence cannot be proven scientifically.

    The reason is God is supernatural; he exists outside the natural, scientific world. While our scientific tools cannot prove God exists, they do provide us with evidence we can use to determine if there is a better explanation for what has taken place besides the existence of a supernatural creator.

    It is interesting how atheists reject any notion of the supernatural because of what they perceive to be a lack of evidence when they could use that same objectivity to reject their naturalistic world view.

    Most atheists are not even honest enough to apply the same burden of proof for naturalism that they demand of supernaturalism.

    The laws of science falsify the notion that this physical, living world came to be through natural means. These laws provide very credible evidence for the possible existence of a supernatural being.

    Atheism violates these basic laws of science. Atheism requires not only a tremendous amount of faith but also a belief in miracles. And not only miracles but natural miracles, an oxymoron.

    Both naturalism and supernaturalism require faith and which one you place your faith in is one of the two most important choices you will ever make."

    http://www.anointed-one.net/atheism.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Is this a quote from somebody? Well, I completely disagree with this point of view as it is based on one of the above weak fallacies and I see a couple straw men there as well.
    But it is a good point of discussion, quite a lengthy one but it can be resolved using logic, as everything else.
    First of all, it is absolutely not naturalism versus supernaturalism, the latter being a biblical assumption that something supernatural exists (unproven). Which is contradicted by logic -- only existence can exist, there is nothing that exists beyond nature (Spinoza). The exact quote is the following: "Good and Evil don't exist in Nature, and nothing exists outside of Nature."

    The rest of that text is full of such unproven false statements (opinions). Physics, science can explain how nature works very well, and it never brushes against anything supernatural, which doesn't exist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Wrong, morality does exist outside nature. If I would follow Spinoza good and evil does not exist. Murdering someone would be completely ok. Where do Atheist base morality?

    Moreover, show me Gravity. Have you ever seen it? I want to see it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rough Neighbor
    replied
    "And yet the bottom line is we live in a universe which completely frustrates any attempt to explain its origin and content by natural processes alone.

    The best evidence for the possible existence of a supernatural creator lies in the total lack of any scientific evidence in these key areas. Can God be scientifically proven? No, it would be nice but his existence cannot be proven scientifically.

    The reason is God is supernatural; he exists outside the natural, scientific world. While our scientific tools cannot prove God exists, they do provide us with evidence we can use to determine if there is a better explanation for what has taken place besides the existence of a supernatural creator.

    It is interesting how atheists reject any notion of the supernatural because of what they perceive to be a lack of evidence when they could use that same objectivity to reject their naturalistic world view.

    Most atheists are not even honest enough to apply the same burden of proof for naturalism that they demand of supernaturalism.

    The laws of science falsify the notion that this physical, living world came to be through natural means. These laws provide very credible evidence for the possible existence of a supernatural being.

    Atheism violates these basic laws of science. Atheism requires not only a tremendous amount of faith but also a belief in miracles. And not only miracles but natural miracles, an oxymoron.

    Both naturalism and supernaturalism require faith and which one you place your faith in is one of the two most important choices you will ever make."

    http://www.anointed-one.net/atheism.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Rough Neighbor
    replied
    The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God – resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is “growing old like a garment” (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rough Neighbor
    replied
    Correction, it's not according to me, it's according to established facts that conform to the Scripture. Yes, indeed, the arguments you cited are all poor and weak. Why? Because they avoided the logical and rational truths that are offered by the Bible in conformity with science.

    Thanks for googling and cutting and pasting your response, but that's not what we're specifically talking about now. It's about creation, 'something out of nothing' remember? not yet about the Creator. We'll come to that though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rough Neighbor
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rough Neighbor:
    Is that an objection? Here's the actual quote: "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done."

    And the challenge stands. Give me something that would disprove this from among your theories. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Objection!!!

    This quote:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    and this quote:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy may be converted into another, energy may be converted into matter, and matter may be converted into energy, but the total quantity always remains the same. You can't get something from nothing, and you can't take something and make nothing out of it. Genesis 2:1,2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    -don't come from the same book. First is a f.airytale, the other is science. Science disproves the fact that God created something out of nothing, in seven cool days of the earth traveling around our Sun, amongst trillions of other galaxies, He decided to measure Time according to celestial movements of our lil blue dot... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    An objection without any valid counter proof means nothing. It speaks volumes about the overall empty argument by the one who raises the objection.

    And I repeat, the First Law of Thermodynamics confirms that nothing can come out of nothing (and vice versa) anywhere in the universe.

    Prove this wrong please.

    Leave a comment:


  • ProudUSC
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iperson:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rough Neighbor:
    Is that an objection? Here's the actual quote: "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done."

    And the challenge stands. Give me something that would disprove this from among your theories. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Objection!!!

    This quote:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    and this quote:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy may be converted into another, energy may be converted into matter, and matter may be converted into energy, but the total quantity always remains the same. You can't get something from nothing, and you can't take something and make nothing out of it. Genesis 2:1,2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    -don't come from the same book. First is a f.airytale, the other is science. Science disproves the fact that God created something out of nothing, in seven cool days of the earth traveling around our Sun, amongst trillions of other galaxies, He decided to measure Time according to celestial movements of our lil blue dot... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



    Actually that isn't how he measured time. The earth wasn't created until after the heavens so a different point of reference was used. That being the case, it's supported by time distortion as a function of speed described in Genesis concerning how long things took. However, with something from nothing impossible bound by natural law, it does raise the question. Where did it come from? From that, we must presume the existence things operating outside the confines of known natural law. To counter God, an alternative must be given. What? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I believe the alternative would be evolution. I've struggled from time to time to try and understand how we could be descendents of both God and apes. The theories don't mesh (at least in my mind), but I choose to believe there is a God and must be an explanation for the theory of evolution as well. There's too much scientific proof that evolution did occur. Is it un-Christian to believe in both theories?

    Leave a comment:


  • Rough Neighbor
    replied
    Is that an objection? Here's the actual quote: "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done."

    And the challenge stands. Give me something that would disprove this from among your theories.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rough Neighbor
    replied
    Is there any objection before I give the next proof? Mind you, iperson and S12, I'm giving scientific laws, not theories. But S12 will surely self-eliminate here because this subject is too intricate for his double digit IQ that he shares with two other individuals on this site.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rough Neighbor
    replied
    But the question is simple and straight-forward:

    How could something come into being out of nothing? If not through a Supreme Being, a Creator, or a God, how else?

    What atheists, agnostics, skeptics, doubters, etc. do is just compile wild ideas, opinions, or theories by some 'scientists' which contradict established scientific facts and the Bible.

    First proof among many:

    The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy may be converted into another, energy may be converted into matter, and matter may be converted into energy, but the total quantity always remains the same. You can't get something from nothing, and you can't take something and make nothing out of it. Genesis 2:1,2.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    Honorable Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, please have your say on this debate, we are all curious to hear it !

    Leave a comment:

Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

Home Page

Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Questions/Comments

SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily



Working...
X