The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You will no then that the creationist model us not a welcome model in any secular field do science and or in the brainwashing chambers of the secular "education" system, hence you are all atheists, especially the "teachers" / brainwashes, are you not? Let's see if you can a simple question teach.

Could you rephrase this to render it into communicable English?

 

[McBell]

.... you deny that all creation was in fact ever created...

You will need to show that what you call "creation" was in fact actually created.
Until then, you are merely making unsubstantiated claims based on wishful thinking and hoping people will accept it as the fact you pretend it is.

 

[McBell]

mate when you are ready to speak to me honestly and with out familiarity, I don't know you at all, i may get to understand we're in the name of science you might be coming from, I know what mechanisms you believe in and they are not supported by observed fact, which maks you a liar not me and I hate liars more than evolutionists. Sorry same thing, like a nebulous cloudy cloud.

I love it when creationists whine about unobserved....

What part of the "creation" process was observed?

Ah, the blatant dishonest hypocrisy you promote...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That's good news, countless numbers of us, sensational. Did you notice that none of us are as bitter and twisted as you?

I've noticed that many are not as bitter, but all are more twisted (in relevant respects, anyway). However, that doesn't matter. What matters is whether you present anything substantive that offers more than a fortune cookie or magic 8-ball. So far, you've offered less (a broken clock is at least right twice a day, granted a 12-period and not 24-period). You've mischaracterized the sciences, philosophy, epistemology, logic, empiricism, and pretty much everything you've posted about (at least in this thread).

As is typical of those like you, you offer no rejoinders, no supporting evidence, nor anything that even approximates a knowledge sufficient enough to actually approach any count-argument or present any argument relevant to this topic. You dismiss entire posts with irrelevant assertions, offer no evidence for anything you say, and display your position with a thoroughly complete ignorance that seems almost designed to lack any substance. I am still hard-pressed to take your posts seriously as I find it hard to imagine so utter a lack of substantive information can be arrived at "honestly".

However, if this is not some sad, ironic commentary on the Status Quaestionis of the communication of scientific research, and you are serious, then I see little reason to continue this.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

you and me are a different species.

Via what evolutionary mechanisms/processes?

 

[LuisDantas]

Um, I'm not lying,

Yes, you are. You are claiming that evolution is "about whatever evolutionists want it to be", and that is not even remotely the case.

The Theory of Evolution is a very well-defined, well-documented part of biological facts. It is usually badly distorted and misrepresented by those who can't accept it, but that is not its fault.

 

[McBell]

Okay...ready...go have a look out your window. Thats your proof creation was actually created.

If that is the best you got..

Now since you have not been able to show that "creation" was actually created, you have merely confirmed that your claim is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Feel free to make a more honest attempt at any time.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The fAct that you and I are a different species has nothing to do with evolution.

Your definition of species being...?

We even inhabit a different world I live in the actual works

I see. You clearly have access to a computer and to the internet. This means that even if you don't make use of the countless ways in which the theories you deny enable you to survive, your can be at least passingly familiar with the use of technology the methods you dismiss without evidence, knowledge, familiarity, or logic nonetheless survive despite your astounding devotion to inaccuracies and worship of ignorance. Ironic that the tools you use to mock that which you do rely on your inept and inaccurate assessments as expressed here. You rely on computer science, engineering, the same evolutionary algorithms and fitness functions used in the life sciences for mere perusal of the internet all possible because of what you know nothing of. Again, ironic that you dismiss what you do using methods which depend upon your dismissal being wrong.

while you are still in the natural world.

What makes it "natural"?

There's some freaky spooky kooky arm chair philosophy for you. Did you like that?

"There are more things in heaven and earth..." The fact that you think this resembles philosophy simply indicates you are as thoroughly unacquainted with philosophy as you are the sciences. That you seem to revel in this is curious, but apart from that your attempts at imitations of what amount to approximation of mockeries of philosophy remain as they are: boring and tired.

 

[McBell]

I find it fruitless to be make honest attempts with the dishonest.

If everyone took that attitude you would have no one to talk to.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The definition of species still hasn't been defined by your lot has it

Neuroscientists? No. It never will be as that has nothing to do with "my lot"

 

[Ouroboros]

Come to think of it, I don't think I have ever heard of anyone proposing that "something came from nothing" without also proposing that God Did It. Oddly, they usually do not mention God himself as an example.

Atheists and other people who do not share that view generally simply do not claim that something came from nothing.

Agree.

"Something from nothing" is also called Ex Nihilo. Ex Nihilo is a Theological concept that's been around for much longer than atheism and science.

It's like the "life can't come from rocks" argument by Ken Hovind. But he fails to realize that his Bible says life came from dirt.

 

[McBell]

Be honest,you just like skull humping faith heads. To be called a dishonest hypocrite for not being there 6000 years ago, sorry, but you dudes weren't three 13.7 billion years ago either, where you. Oh the irony...did you look out the widow yet, go on do done science for once, observe your surroundings. :shout

And yet "we dudes" are not the ones doing the whining about unobservable....

Your dishonesty knows no bounds does it?

 

[johnhanks]

A heartfelt plea.

STOP FEEDING THE TROLL.

 

[Ouroboros]

So you agree you have seen no evidence for life evolving out of non life. Thanks this refutes evolution theory. Also look up the meaning of dogma, it's not a dirty word to throw at people you don't agree with, in fact there is nothing inherently negative about dogma.

A seed is technically dead until you give it water and nutriton. I've seen seeds turn to seedlings and plants. The whole idea of death and resurrection comes from observing nature, and dead bringing about life is there. All the time. You just haven't looked.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Bro, I'm rolling eyes big time

A typical reaction when confronted with something that seems to one to be so CLEARLY wrong. However, this is as much an indicator of an erudite as an idiot, as all hangs on whether or not such a response is informed.

You have thus far failed to communicate that you know anything about any subject you have broached or responded to, leaving the rest of us with little to go on other than your inaccuracies, misrepresentations, seeming displays of utter unfamiliarity with the basics of the sciences (let alone evolutionary theory), and some hints as to a fundamentally skewed an uninformed view. Were you to rectify this by providing some substantive answers/responses, it might help.

the benefits of human advancement through invention has f all to do with Darwin's racist tirades against the savage black man

Newton was an alchemist. Does that mean calculus should be discarded? Pearson was a proponent of Eugenics. Should we throw out his derivations of metrics and coefficients essential to research because of his person views? Are you familiar at all with anything remotely resembling critical argumentation that might help you determine the fallacies you engage in here?

Why do you always roll out such tripe it shows you've got nuthin.

When one is provided with a recipe for a pie that contains instead the components of some triple nitration of glycerin or hexamine, one cannot really comment on the deficiencies of the recipe except in broad strokes. If you wish to indicate that you have any idea whatsoever as to the topics you touch on, feel free. Then we might actually get somewhere.

 

[McBell]

Your denying creation demands a creator and you've spent over 200 years trying to prove it without success. Dudes is being exceedingly polite.

I have not denied creation.
That is your strawman to beat up on.

I am no where near 200 years old.
Another problem.

You are the one making the claim of creation.
It falls on you to show creation.

I am not the least bit obliged to blindly accept your unsubstantiated claims.
now since you ahve not presented anything plausible to substantiate your claims, your unsubstantiated claims can be dismissed with the exact same urgency as your presentation.

 

[LuisDantas]

:slap: your mate just told me it's constantly being tweaked and revised....so please stop lying or you may lose your cushy staff privileges. Your hall monitor badge and your Aaron jumper which your granny embroidered staff in big letters, all gone, could you live with that, I suppose with your faith on the Buddha you'll pull through okay.

Are you truly having such a hard time understanding basic concepts?

 

[Ouroboros]

Clearly the seed wasn't dead then huh genius?

Technically, it is dead. It needs water and nutrition to come back to life again. It only contains the potential for life, not being living at the moment. The potential of life exists in all matter. That's how it's possible for you to eat dead matter like vitamins, proteins, and such, and refactor it to living cells. The process is natural and part of chemistry and biology. The crossover is all natural.

Are you Christian? If so, read Chor 15:36: "What a foolish question! When you put a seed into the ground, it doesn't grow into a plant unless it dies first."

So it's Biblical.

My goodness with each passing post the level of intelligence in this place descends humungous distances downward.

I was never rude to you. I'm not sure why you had to go down that path yourself.

Quote "I've seen seedlings grow into seedlings and plants" we'll hold the bloody front page.

:no: Bad move.

 

[shawn001]

Be honest,you just like skull humping faith heads. To be called a dishonest hypocrite for not being there 6000 years ago, sorry, but you dudes weren't three 13.7 billion years ago either, where you. Oh the irony...did you look out the widow yet, go on do done science for once, observe your surroundings. :shout

It always cracks me up when someone posts you weren't the argument in the context he is using and then say's "observe your surroundings".

Jafa

How to we date things and what are all the methods?

How do we know the universe is 13.7 billion years old with a margin of error of less then 1%.


On the last one its because we "observe your surroundings"

"…determined the universe to be 13.77 billion years old to within a half percent."

Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)

WMAP 1 Year Mission Results Press Release


300,000-Year-Old Caveman 'Campfire' Found in Israel

300,000-Year-Old Caveman 'Campfire' Found in Israel | LiveScience

 

[shawn001]

What's the Total Energy In the Universe?

"Ultimate free lunch

The question, then, is why the ball started falling in the first place. How did something – composed of equal positive and negative parts, mind you – come from nothing?

Physicists aren't exactly sure, but their best guess is that the extreme positive and negative quantities of energy randomly fluctuated into existence. "Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing," wrote Filippenko and Pasachoff.

They continued, "Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called 'virtual particle' pairs are known as 'quantum fluctuations.' Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time."

What's the Total Energy In the Universe? | LiveScience

Work being done to show how the universe might have gotten started to create the bang.