The infinity God in the Bible is the only logical explanation for the existence of the universe.

Dee

You say ......God is for obvious

My reply .....If he’s so “obvious “ he is not so to me and others , also which particular god is obvious and how?

You say .........yet unknown reasons the only logical explanation through which the finite universe around us could exist. I will explain these reasons.

My reply ......When you post a peer reviewed paper which proves the veracity of your claims I will make a judgement until then it’s merely your opinion

Regards Evoulution If it was proven to be nonsense it still doesn’t prove a god exists. Regarding Evolution it’s accepted as fact the denial of facts is something rational beings don’t do , the evidence for Evolution is mountainous young earthers have not got one peer reviewed paper to counter the theory so yet again your opinion is just that and nothing more    

AlofRI

@Logic4tw ;
 Well, 4tw, there is absolutely no proof to back up your theory except religious text. Carl Sagan said: "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is, than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." I'm with Carl on this.

YeshuaBought

AlofRI said:

@Logic4tw ;
 Well, 4tw, there is absolutely no proof to back up your theory except religious text. Carl Sagan said: "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is, than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." I'm with Carl on this.

God loves you.

jesusisGod777

The big bang is impossible. Explosions only occur by two known processes. 

The introuduction of energy in a closed system, where the energy can not be contained or the result of nuclear fission. The loss of nuclear energy and matter falling into itself.

The loss of nuclear fuel determines that anything that loses nuclear fuel destablizes and destroys the matter.

Jesus is Lord.

THEDENIER

@Logic4tw
There's a huge amount to unpack here. You make a number of statements I find questionable both in scientific validity and in logical conclusions. 

You straight up open with the impossibility of evolution; I guess I'll open there too. Your criticisms are threefold. 1: time, 2: mutations, 3: spontaneous generation.

I'll start with mutations because they're the least work. To quote you: "Most mutations aren’t helpful. Those few mutations that are don’t help, either." So to clarify, the mutations that are helpful don't help? Seems paradoxical to me but alright. Generally your claim in this section is that A) positive mutation doesn't happen and even if it did happen it doesn't prove macro evolution. Here's some examples to easily disprove A: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/microexamples_01. Yes, mutations can be positive and are passed on to descendants. Now let me address B. This is a flawed idea for 2 reasons. 1: It is only reasonable to believe many small changes build up over time to create larger changes, just as if I saw a horse running past me for only a second I would reasonably assume it keeps running and has been running before. 2: Micro and macro mutations themselves are not necessary evidence for Darwinism. They are extremely plausible mechanisms for the evolution we observe (which have been observed on a small scale). Even without them, there still is evidence for Darwinism. Take a look: https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/amnh/human-evolutio/darwin-and-evolution-by-natural-selection/a/charles-darwins-evidence-for-evolution.

Next up: spontaneous generation. You cite both Pasteur and cell theory as evidence of the impossibility of spontaneous generation. Pasteur merely proved that in a dry and sealed glass container that the spontaneous formation of life was impossible after a few weeks of study. I don't disagree that spontaneous generation is unlikely to be observed at any point in time, but a few billion years (we'll get to this later, don't worry)  in a wet, freeflowing ocean can do pretty amazing things. Now onto your claim about cell theory. Cell theory does forbid this at least on the surface, but if you look up literature about the first "cells" they are so simple as to be quite plausibly constructed of random molecules. Furthermore, the spontaneous formation of any lifeforms is inherently unlikely, but not impossible. When you say that the chance of life forming on earth is widely low, you are thinking about this the wrong way. Think of all the worlds in the solar system, galaxy, and universe which do not bear life. Only a planet with life can say "its so unlikely that I'm here".  All the planets that didn't win the "lottery of life" if you will don't have inhabitants asking questions. Due to the sheer size of the universe, despite infinitesimal odds, life is bound be created somewhere in the universe, it just happens to the the planet we call earth.

Finally for your contentions: the earth's age. You make a huge number of unfounded claims here. Claims which I frankly don't quite grasp. First of all you say scientists don't know what proportion of the original rock used in dating was lead. Actually they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium%E2%80%93lead_dating / http://creationwiki.org/Uranium-Lead_dating#Detail_of_Process. Uranium-lead dating is used primarily on minerals which reject lead while forming. Therefor, the creation of any lead must be a result of uranium decay. Even more problematically for you, there are actually a number of different dating methods which point to a very very old earth. They do not all suffer form the same fictional problem I believe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Modern_dating_methods  Needless to say (I should hope), if carbon dating can push us back to 80,000 years, that's already a lot more than the honestly ridiculous estimation of a 6,000 year old planet. Speaking of carbon, you make claims about rate of consumption and production of carbon in the atmosphere. There are a few weird things you do here. First of all you assume the atmosphere has always been the same. It hasn't: https://socratic.org/questions/how-has-the-composition-of-the-earth-s-atmosphere-changed-over-time. Secondly, there is a carbon cycle, but that by no means gaurentees any type of immediate equilibrium. That's like saying there's always the exact same amount of water in the atmosphere (humidity does change) just because a water cycle exists. Furthermore, the huge amount of carbon perhaps has something to do with humans creating it and putting it in the atmosphere no?

Now onto general matters: 
1: You present a lot of things as facts supporting your case with no substantiation. I highly encourage you to add some links next time. In fact if you look back and find every time where you say "theory says" or "scientists say" or "our knowledge predicts" you will see places which would benefit from sourcing. I had a hell of a time trying to research what you were saying because you didn't link anywhere for me to start. Furthermore, I a lot of what you said seemed to have no scientific grounding at all (carbon replacement? what?). 

2: When science seems to contradict itself you never stop to ask who is right. For example I assume most evolutionary biologists know about cell theory, yet the support the idea of spontaneous formation of life anyway. Before you call them all idiots, let me just say that perhaps the experts in the field see that there is an exception to the laws of cell because there is one. In general, across this post you demonstrate a trust in science but only when it agrees with your preconceived notions of the world. "This science says god isn't real so its wrong, but this science says something to the contrary so I'll cite the power of science hoping it'll change people's minds even though it has failed to change mine." There is a body of scientific literature on these sorts of things, but its only credible science if it says god is real?

3: Almost this entire opening is a argument from ignorance (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). You provide little or no evidence of intelligent creation, instead choosing to pick apart science of evolution. What makes this fallacious is the assumption "we don't know, therefor I'm right". Perhaps if evolution is somehow truly all bunk the universe is actually created by aliens, or wizards, or even *shudder shudder* the god in the Torah or the Koran. There is simply no reason to put a biblical god as the only possible explanation even if evolution is problematic.

Hope to hear from you soon,
Best,
The Denier

jesusisGod777

@THEDENIER

I'll prove evolution false in one statement.

The complete decomposition of blood is 10,000 years and remnants of dinosaur blood have been found in fossils.

jesusisGod777

@THEDENIER

Carbon dating:

Carbon dating was not invented until 1930,

Explain to me why evolutions claimed the earth was billions of years old back in 1864.

jesusisGod777

Here's the problem with science.

They make a claim,

Create a system by which the claim is possible

And then here it comes!

Make a false statement as it relates to the claim as if it was evidence.

In the case of carbon dating.

Evolutionists as early as early as 1864 claimed the earth was billions of years old.

Radio carbon dating was not yet invented.

The explanation of how radio carbon dating, dates something was invented to suit the statement despite the fact radio carbon dating can't date crap!

A penguin which was still alive was dated to be a couple million years old.......

That determines, not KIND OF DETERMINED readio carbon dating does not work.

If you have evidence something doesn't work, it DOESNT work.

If it is a fool proof system such problems should NEVER occur.

Science is a complete fabrication. We never went into space.

Darcon is the outter most layer of an "astronauts" space suit. It's physical constraint tempreture is 240+-, the moons surface is 280 or 260+-. Mylar inserts have a physical resistance to cold tempretures up to negative 80. 

Explain to me how a suit made of yarn and mylar enter into space and somehow a FLAG whose physical constraint tempreture is about 50 degrees Fahrenheit isn't completely frozen?

Think. 

Jesus is Lord and God.not allah boobies, not buddha whose statues been changed like 3 million times, and not Hindu false god number 8 trillion trillium for billium. I reject everything but Jesus because Jesus the Christ who came in the flesh is God.

AlekseySalaz

@jesusisGod777 I don't think you should concern yourself with this. God asks for faith not evidence. With a bunch of evidence there would be no need for faith

THEDENIER

@jesusisGod777
Its like you're not even trying to address my points here.

To address your questions (as extraneous as it is) lord Kelvin originally estimated the age of the earth as billions of years because he estimated it would take many millions of years for cliffs to form and erode (processes that were know at the time). He also estimated the age of the earth through thermal gradients (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction). Importantly, his methods have been proven unreliable. BUT, this does not disqualify the wealth of evidence that does support the current age of the earth. You haven't even attempted to address my central contention about the power of dating. Even if scientists had no idea what they were saying in 1864, this is NO WAY invalidates our current wealth of evidence.

Next your claim about dinosaur blood. Blood is consumed by bacteria, parasites, animals, or just erodes away. It does not magically disappear on its own. In certain conditions it can be sheltered and therefor preserved. And you're right, scientists don't understand how this happened, but it has been observed by a number of reputable scientists with no reason to lie. There are lots of things scientists don't understand; it does not mean those things do not exist or that the scientific method is wrong. I will get to your comments about that soon. First let me address the relative insignificance of this fact.  It does not disprove evolution with "one sentence". At best if you are right and scientists are lieing about finding dinosaur blood for some strange reason it neither disproves dinosaurs no evolution. Dinosaur bones have still be found. Micro evolution has still be observed. Adaptations due to environmental pressures have still been observed. To say that dinosaur blood being falsified would disprove evolution is to say the only evidence for evolution is dinosaur blood. That would be either maliciously fallacious or incredibly ill-informed.

Anyway, let me get back to the scientific method as a whole. Dinosaur DNA is a great example. The scientific community had a theory about how long blood can last without being frozen. Due to new hard and undeniable evidence, this idea has changed. In this way, even though science is never perfect, it always gets closer and closer though constant minor revisions. Science which hypothesizes then ignores evidence is only existent in minds like your's. Just because you assume that evolution is false and then ignore contradictory data doesn't mean scientists do.

This shouldn't matter anyway. Everything you've just said is tangential. It fails to rebut my contentions or support any relevant ones of your own. What is wrong with the data I have presented? Where is the evidence for god? Show me relevant fact and I will do my best to either rebut it or admit defeat. Instead you are merely piling irrelevant facts on, hoping that I will forget where we started.

Your defense of the Jesus is laughable. "Allah boobies"? "Hindu god number 8 trillion trillium for billium"? Either this is a dedicated troll or a dilutional fanatic.

P.S. if you could source anything you say it would make you more credible. Also, if you could expand upon things like "scientists in 1864 said" it would make you easier to engage with. Which scientists? Why did they think this? It is almost like you're trying to make yourself harder to debate so people think its not worth the effort. It is, so you might as well make it easier on me. Please?

ZeusAres42

Logic4tw said:

God is for obvious yet unknown reasons the only logical explanation through which the finite universe around us could exist. I will explain these reasons.

If these reasons are unknown then how can you give reasons for this in the first place?

ZeusAres42

Logic4tw said:

God is for obvious yet unknown reasons the only logical explanation through which the finite universe around us could exist. I will explain these reasons.

If these reasons are unknown then how can you give reasons for this in the first place?

jesusisGod777

@THEDENIER

Time to school you on reality.

Fossils are dated based on their position in the geologic column

- Pragnitism and statigraphg

Radioactive decay does not date fossils nor are fossils dated by potassium argon dating

-scientific journal page 100

The amount of carbon in the atmosphere is tested against the amount of carbon in an object

The problem is equilibrium.

In 1940 Willard liby invented a system , as a result of realizing earth would have to reach equilibrium to date objects using a radio-METRIC system as

The rate of decay of an object is based on the half-life of how long it takes an object to decay.

Liby, estimated it would take 30, 000 years for the earth to reach equilibrium to ensure there is no more c14 being introduced into the Earth's atmosphere .

C14 is absorbed by an organism and the amount of c14 measured from the half-life of C14 is used to date an organism

Here's the problem.

There is more c14 in the atmosphere than there was 20 years ago. Earth's atmosphere hasn't reached equlobrium.

So if we haven't reached equilibrium the earth is less than 30,000 years old.

The difference between science and what you all are claiming is the difference between being educated and scientific and repeating what it says in a text book.

Radio carbon is still forming 20-37% faster than it's decaying. Earth hasn't reached equilibrium. Exactly what Christians say when the state the earth is 6 thousand years old. We're right.

jesusisGod777

@THEDENIER

Time to school you on reality.

Fossils are dated based on their position in the geologic column

- Pragnitism and statigraphg

Radioactive decay does not date fossils nor are fossils dated by potassium argon dating

-scientific journal page 100

The amount of carbon in the atmosphere is tested against the amount of carbon in an object

The problem is equilibrium.

In 1940 Willard liby invented a system , as a result of realizing earth would have to reach equilibrium to date objects using a radio-METRIC system as

The rate of decay of an object is based on the half-life of how long it takes an object to decay.

Liby, estimated it would take 30, 000 years for the earth to reach equilibrium to ensure there is no more c14 being introduced into the Earth's atmosphere .

C14 is absorbed by an organism and the amount of c14 measured from the half-life of C14 is used to date an organism

Here's the problem.

There is more c14 in the atmosphere than there was 20 years ago. Earth's atmosphere hasn't reached equlobrium.

So if we haven't reached equilibrium the earth is less than 30,000 years old.

The difference between science and what you all are claiming is the difference between being educated and scientific and repeating what it says in a text book.

Radio carbon is still forming 20-37% faster than it's decaying. Earth hasn't reached equilibrium. Exactly what Christians say when the state the earth is 6 thousand years old. We're right.

jesusisGod777

@THEDENIER

Now what other lies are you making up, I'm going to have to read them and scientifically disprove the rest of what you said. It's obvious

1. You don't have enough knowledge nor information to make a credible argument about potassium argon, nor how a radio-METRIC system was established to determine the rate of decay as a means to determine the age of an object.

Second it made me bust out laughing when you never realized that every scientist states, fossils are dated based on their position in the geologic column.

The problem is how do you date a fossil with an accurate way of determining their age since radio metric dating is used based on their position in the geologic column. Let me correct you LOL , don't ever say I didn't do something when I obviously did.

You know what's called, attempting to make someone seem like they like credibility.

That's actually used in debate when someone has no counter argument and intends to repeat what they said as if it was superior with what someone else said, in the event they don't intend to lose credibility with an audience.

You lost credibility by doing so.

Second ignoring how the scientific community itself dates objects and showing how ignorant you were makes you lose even more credibility. Lolololol hahaha do you know how to debate?

jesusisGod777

This phone auto corrects a lot.

jesusisGod777

@THEDENIER

I'd like you to explain your statement " science isn't perfect" and explain to me how science is able to assess or determine a fact much less make observations and is a credible form of evaluation when

1. Science is not perfect which means

2.science is not a means of evaluating anything as it's not perfect and therefore is not objective analysis.

jesusisGod777

As the poster mentioned in the opening of the debate Jesus is God and it's obvious.

Jesus is my Lord and Jesus is God.simple.

To argue that, since creationists argue God doesn't need a cause so something else doesn't need a cause but suggest God doesn't exist when you use an argument that is deemed as invalid is the result of complete idiocy.

Darwin just inverted the Bible. 

That's not a theory, that's just retarded is. Jesus is God and Jesus is Lord.

THEDENIER

@jesusisGod777
Well thank god we've gotten here. Someone has finally resorted to the "LOL's" and "do you even know how to debate." I'm glad you got the chance to "school" me. It's clearly because I'm losing.

Moving on from the ad hominems to the substance of your argument. 

You make the argument that the production and decay of Carbon 14 should have reached equilibrium by now, and because it has not, the earth must be less than 30,000 years old. This is an old and weak argument and fails to recognize current scientific fact. The production of C-14 in the atmosphere naturally fluctuates. Sometimes more is created than decays and sometimes the opposite is true. The fact that more C-14 is created than destroyed is merely a reflection of this.  https://infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/carbon-14/equilibrium.html

By the way, you might be interested to know that "scientific journal page 100" is not a source (neither is Pragnitism and statigraphg). If you could provide a link that would be great.

Furthermore, you may have never heard of exact dating. Scientists do use carbon dating to find the age of rocks or organisms for which they have little context. https://www.fossilera.com/pages/dating-fossils

Aaand, it may be clear to you that I know nothing about potassium argon dating (I was talking about uranium thorium dating) but please don't let that stop you from explaining to me why I am wrong. Rather than providing any argument against the power of dating you just use another ad hominem. Charming, but not very intellectually useful. 

Science may be imperfect, but its magic is in its constant self-refinement. It is a system of thought and experiment which with every passing second brings us closer to the knowledge of how everything works (even if we may never quite get there). Ironically you seem to cite it all the time. I challenge you to find a better system. 

Finally, you seem to have a knack for choosing one point and providing boat loads of analysis for it. While I understand you want to play to your strengths, remember you still have a lot more to address. Those being: Uranium dating and Carbon dating. You also repeatedly fail to provide any proof of a god. 

I'm sorry my ideas "retarded is". I'm glad I can make you laugh. Next time it would be easier if you put everything in one response rather than copy pasting one response twice and then adding in 3 more paragraphs as individual responses.