Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HI SOMEONE12, FEDERALE

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

  • #91
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldE:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    Not at all. In all three cases a search is made for the same conclusion. That there is no God and another explanation exists for what there is. Without providing that explanation but asserting that it exists is what I find dumbfounding. Of equal note is the theist who argues against science. In truth, they have no faith since science will ultimately prove their faith, that is, if they believed themselves. Their fear is what makes them ignorant buffoons and the atheist greatest ally. To see science is to witness God's ability. The more the merrier. Watching those videos, got to number 3, it illustrates clearly one fact. We don't know sht. For anyone to use lack of knowledge as a foundation to disprove something is beyond ridiculousness. It's like the question of whether radio reception in space was possible way back when. The answer was already known before the first flight but fear provoked the question. Yes, we are all connected and space really isn't a vacuum at all. Question is, what are we all connected to? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No, davdah. In physics, unlike some other not so punctiliously exact disciplines, research is not made to arrive to certain predetermined conclusion. You can't say in physics "let's do some research so we can conclude that elephants can fly".

    The ultimate goal of physicist is to find out why Nature is what it is. And nothing but empirical observation and application of rigorous scientific method to determine causality really mattters in reaching one or another valid conclusion.
    If for any reason you reach wrong conclusion in physics it simply won't work. It won't be applicable or in any way practically useful in the relevant context.

    Einstein himself at one point became too rigid by allowing his philosophical, preconditioned by whatever past experiences he had, views about Nature dictate his interpretation of emprically observed phenomena that was too shockingly in contradition to it and asserted that "God doesn't play dice".

    To which he got stern reply from Neils Bohr who hammered out the following memorable words: "Stop telling God what to do!"


    P.S. In terms of proving or disproving something, i will just quote myself from earlier post:
    "The rules of argument (if you want to argue logically) require one to prove existence rather than non-existence.
    In other owrds, one is not obligated to prove non-existence, it's those who make positive assertion that also bear the burden of proving it".
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I like that! Watching the the clip, I learned that the atheist-physicists all proved that they are on a fishing expedition and the conclusion is that we all have a conscience. But, I new that before.
    “...I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for that you may say it”! - Voltaire

    Comment


    • #92
      Being of sceptical mind I always take any youtube posted videos about "Latest scientific discoveries...." with heapful of salt.

      One thing i noticed in the clip that everyone here refers to is the absence of credentials.

      However, sound effects and visuals in place, that alone didn't immediately capture my attention, what did was that many of the speakers were saying lots of nonsense mixed with known discoveries in physics , thus cementing my conclusion that the video is a hogwash meant to make you a lot more stupid by means of subtly passing it through your consciousness under the guise of "scientific".

      My advise to all: if you want to know anything about sciences go read books and check carefully who wrote them. Be critical. Be sceptical. Be open for discoveries that will leave you dumbfounded.

      And if you want to watch videos about physics, watch at least ones where you know you won't be taken for a fool.

      Here is one from Feynman
      http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

      "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

      Comment


      • #93
        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
        E, I have to disagree with your statement of a random scientific approach. A postulation is made and experiments are conducted to prove it. They don't arbitrarily throw compounds together to see what happens with no guiding objective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

        You can disagree with me all you want, it's just slightly more difficult to credibly disagree with those brighter minds i quoted

        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
        And, in any argument, both sides have a duty to prove their position. A negative assertion is just as significant and requires the same evidence bar to maintain it's validity. If what you say were true, then all things in physics with opposing forces, positive & negative, would never have been discovered with only the one extreme being called into question.

        ya really need to stop these bating techniques, there obvious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

        No, i have to disappoint you because the established rules of argument , if you want to argue on scientific and logic grounds (and if you don't then that's a whole different subject), postulate that it is the positive assertion that has to be proven and not vice versa.
        http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

        "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

        Comment


        • #94
          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
          Hiding behind Einstein quotes won't do nor reinforce anyone's argument. A debate calls for individual opinion without dead tag team partners ring side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

          Everyone makes their own decision, whether it be quoting Einstein or Bible. And it is up to each individual how to express themselves. Besides, you are shifting focus from subject to individual, as usual, which is time old techniquie of demagogues. Rise above that !

          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
          To say God doesn't exist is just as positive a position as saying he does. It's taking a position, one which needs a defence if disagreed with. If you say there is no hole in the ground and everyone else says there is. You don't need to do anything to support your thesis? What about when your pushed into it?

          Those videos were a cheap shot. Yeah, it was obvious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

          The video i posted wasn't a cheap shot, it was an interview by Feynman. If you don't know who he was may be you shouldn't be getting into this debate at all. But "What the bleep we know" was indeed a cheap shot because it artificially mixed myths and outright fabrications with known discoveries in quantum physics and tried to pass it off as "scientific".

          Next, i never in all my life argued that God doesn't exist.

          It is you who makes positive assertion that God exists and very specific one at that. You , just as everyone else, are free to believe whatever you chose to believe but if you assert something and tell others that they must accept it as universal truth then you are also obligated to back it up, it's just a rule of argument. Doing the opposite is the logical fallacy.

          Here is some Logic 101 for you, davdah , try to read and comprehend it before coming back to post again.

          http://wiki.ironchariots.org/i..._God_doesn%27t_exist
          http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

          "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

          Comment


          • #95
            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You , just as everyone else, are free to believe whatever you chose to believe but if you assert something and tell others that they must accept it as universal truth then you are also obligated to back it up, it's just a rule of argument. Doing the opposite is the logical fallacy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

            Totally agree.
            "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

            Comment


            • #96
              I am curious what is the opinion of our Great Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamare on this?
              Does he agree with me on this as well?
              I would be extremely flattered if he did.
              http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

              "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

              Comment


              • #97
                Engaging in an argument and doing everything to win doesn't always mean imposing such belief that one holds on others. It doesn't happen among adult debaters. It's more of a 'take it or leave it' thing after all is said and done. Hey, this is just an anonymous immigration forum on cyberspace, among many. It's plain curiosity and fun.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Honorable Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, please have your say on this debate, we are all curious to hear it !
                  http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                  "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • 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.

                      Comment


                      • 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.

                        Comment


                        • <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?

                          Comment


                          • <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.

                            Comment


                            • 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.

                              Comment


                              • 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.

                                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