ATHEISTS MUST DENY THE FACTS, BECAUSE THE FACTS DON'T SUPPORT THEIR POSITION

Dee

@RickeyD

@RickeyD ; has been counted as unworthy to receive words of life he vomits his hate for Truth without restraint; therefore,Ricky is on ignore and will be ignored. 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix ;

EAGLES CAN SWIM, MASS IS ENERGY, DNA DOESN'T ALWAYS MAKE SENSE.

This is reality get on my level!

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - So very wearing is the wasted time on "I said" and "You said" noise - argumentative and only looking for an argument and not a discussion.  Such a waste of time and energy.  You wrote this ....

No, it has nothing to do with the speed of splitting atoms. In fact, conventional reactors and nuclear weapons use highly enriched Uranium, which is a thermal fuel, meaning it absorbs neutrons at thermal energies. n practice, this means they are not moving fast as apposed to fast fuels (i.e. low enriched uranium) in order to fission. The force comes from the mass defect as I have lectured you on before now 3 times. The mass of a Uranium nucleus is more than the mass of two daughter nucli (and extra neutrons  if applicable) thus some of that mass turned into energy.

Fission means splitting.  Right?  Fusion means combining.  Right?  Atomic fission  splits the atom. Nuclear fusion  combines nuclei.  I was referring to the speed (velocity required) for either of these to occur in context with Einstein's equation. Massive velocity is required for both.  Smashing atoms requires enormous velocity.  For two nuclei to collide and fuse to create a heavier nucleus, a very high velocity is also required to break down the resistance to the fusion by the two nuclei. The resultant  nucleus has an extremely high atomic number.  You conflated these with nuclear fission.  I didn't even mention nuclear fission.   Then you denied any astronomical velocity is required for nuclear fission.  UH.  DUH.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix ;EAGLES CAN SWIM, MASS IS ENERGY, DNA DOESN'T ALWAYS MAKE SENSE.

This is reality get on my level!

Quantum tunneling is how the sun does! It isn't about velocity!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS1dpowPlE8

God of the gaps and pseudo-science is danger!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgN7a_vdIIc

I just proved you wrong!
(again)

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Go back to page 2 and read my reply to you on why that claim of yours is irrelevant.  In the same post I also PROVE that energy is not  mass, which you also claimed, but seem to be now backing away from.  When you read it then get back to me OR I can bring that post across to this page if you want to be embarrassed a second time.  I see you are no longer disclaiming Einstein's equation is relative to force.  LOL!

P.S.  I know you are fooling around, but just in case you don't know.  There are a wide variety of eagles which cannot swim.  The only one which can is the sea eagle.  There wasn't a meme for the others which can't.  LOL.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Go back to page 2 of this discussion and read my reply that shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. E = mc^2 literally means "Energy =equals mass times causality squared"

Notice how we can rearrange the equation: "mass equals energy divided by causality squared"

Please just be a man, admit you are wrong so we can move on? I have funny pictures of giraffes I want to show you.

mass is energy, and if you don't believe me I can show you what nukes are all about:

RS_master

@Grafix Have you got the proof yet?
The big bang and evolution have been proven. i also forgot to mention That do not get your cristianity proof from the bible because it is written by the believers/ creators of this religion. It is like assuming I am god just because I say so.
In your atheists think this is logical debate I responded. Please respond...
Some links to enjoy about big bang proofs are:
https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html
https://www.space.com/40370-why-should-we-believe-big-bang.html
https://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm

SkepticalOne

@Grafix

Mass=energy

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Why are all you guys in such a flurry in here?  I've never seen the comment rate so prolific. Am so behind with my replies, still on the page 2.   You asked me ...

Please tell me what mutation is then. If you think that DNA is always intelligent, then that means you think that mutation that kills the cell is intelligible.

There are little busy enzymes, (I think that's what the entity is called), which run around and correct errors in the DNA, apparently if it is copied incorrectly by nature.  I guess some slip through the cracks, but that is a guess.

That said, where do I claim that all information is 100% free of error?  I don't.  So what's your point?
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix You are a lot further behind than just one page... The reason so many people are posting is because you keep saying dumb things that require correcting, because that is what intelligence does to bad information.

My point was that if DNA is "intelligently designed" (whatever that means) then it should have 0 errors.

If DNA is intelligently designed, then why is it that errors can manifest as cancer and mutations?

Isn't this new information being added to the DNA, thus proving that it is the result of lots and lots of random events, thus it was not intelligent?

Grafix

@xlJ_dolphin_473 - You wrote ...

DNA: it evolved. We’re not sure exactly how, but one theory is that there were chains of self-replicating cells, and by accident one of them was a bit different and became RNA, which later evolved into DNA.

Mate, that even beats the God gap.  LOL!    DNA evolved?  Yeah right.  It can't, .  It has no physical or material attributes to  evolve  .    LOL!  Atheism gets more ridiculous by the minute.  But ...  um  .... we really don't know how it did, but .... um  truth be known we really have no evidence that it did at all, but .... um ... truth is we just made it up.  LOL!  Honestly !!  And you people call this   S C I E N C E .   Pissing myself laughing.  Sorry, mate, me no buy your li'l tale..  Then you wrote ....

You see, science cannot provide all the answers straight away. Scientists are working to find the answers, and by following science and scientific news, you may see the answers emerge. Just because something is not clear is no excuse for theists to invoke the argument “Well God must have done it”. It’s plainly illogical. @Grafix

Oh!  I do  see, very clearly...  It's OK for science not to have all of the answers, but it definitely is not OK for Christianity to not have them. LOL!  ... at least as far as atheists are  concerned.   Christianity stays true to its Bible, while atheism does everything to twist it's bible of science into a pretzel, just to fit it's narrative.  Damned good show science can't retaliate with a wrath equivalent to that of God, otherwise you would have all been  dispatched unceremoniously to the abyss for your egregious and shameless disrespect of the rigors of science.
.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

***** I have funny pictures of giraffes I want to show you.

Ha ,Ha , he would probably argue  they weren’t actually giraffes but part of a Satanist /Commie  plot 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee I figure it will be something like another 8 hours before he reads that comment. Even then he will most likely skip over that very relevant part. I mean, if someone wants to argue that "nature proves creation" the giraffe is a good place to start to prove them wrong. An intelligent creator can definitely do better than that, once you consider how ridiculous they are. Did you know that male giraffe's determine if a female is in estrus by drinking her urine? You have to be crazy to know that and think this is intelligent design. If it is the result of lots of random mutations, then it makes perfect sense.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - You wrote ...

@Grafix  -  What is the "official line"? People at schools are exposed to various views and theories; nobody forces them to accept anything if they do not want to. There is no "official line", there are individual schools and teachers making their curriculum.
In any case, what people are taught at schools has nothing to do with what the theory actually is.

I told you what the official line is.  So you think education is a joke, that what is officially approved for school texts is a lucky dip, a lottery, a raffle.  Yeah right.  Don't be so bloody ridiculous.  Then you claim this ....  

According to this paper (from 2007), just a bit over a third of scientists in the US working at elite universities do not believe in god; in physics it it ~40%:
https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/54/2/289/1676075?redirectedFrom=fulltext

The article has a paywall.  The Abstract merely says what the article is about.  It gives no stats, no numbers, no clue of how the demographics fall or anything, so how did you deduce this precious gem ??? ...

Sounds like it is actually the religious scientists that are running the show overall, not the atheist ones.

Same old same old from you, May.  You make broad sweeping declarations which are merely your opinion.  I repeat merely your opinion  and pretend they're some kind of revelatory  F A C T   or a   R E B U T T A L.  
They're not.  They aren't even worth reading because they mean nothing.  I could do the same and what would it achieve?  Zero, nada, zilch, zip, nuttin'. Smarten up.  E V I D E N C E   is necessary..

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

**** An intelligent creator can definitely do better than that, once you consider how ridiculous they are. Did you know that male giraffe's determine if a female is in estrus by drinking her urine? You have to be crazy to know that and think this is intelligent design. 

Fascinating fact I didn’t know that , @Grafix I would imagine enjoys drinking female piss 

Yes I often think the term used should be  “unintelligent design” if speculating on a god ,they used to use the human eye as a perfect example off intelligent design until they realized how many humans need spectacles

Grafix

@SkepticalOne -  You asked ...

Why? Can you provide an alternative that can survive scientific rigor, if not, can you provide valid falsifiable justification to drop or amend BBT? If you can't do either of these, could it be you reject the BBT because of Ideological reasons and not because of the evidence? 

I've already done so and asked you to refer to that post and follow the discussion.  SkepticalO, I don't have the time to re-type and duplicate my arguments.  Please follow the discussion with others where I give explanations as already requested.  Why do you think atheists everywhere, even in here, are denying that the BBT is an explosion and instead jump to the claim that it merely posits a theory on the expansion of the universe.  That in itself is illogical, for without the explosion first, then what do they rely upon for the genesis - causality - of the expansion, if not the Big Bang?  

If we go back to the true definition of BBT, as it has always been taught, which is an explosion of matter, at the same time claiming it is the genesis of the universe, space and time, the obvious question jumps out of the page.  How can it be the genesis of matter, given it required matter to already exist in order for it to even explode?  So what was the genesis of THAT matter?  There's the dichotomy.  There's the paradox.  There's the oxymoron.  The same problem applies to the claim that it is the genesis of space.  The matter which explodes is apparently, according to the narrative,  ALREADY IN SPACE.    I mean, is this science for real  ....  ????

Grafix

@RS_master - You asked ...

@Grafix Give me proof from where cristianity is true. Big bang and evolution have so much proof supporting them so I know if I believe in hem I have a way greater chance of being right. Would I believe there is some sort of magician who lives in Earth not making one mistake? That is crazy because all humans are imperfect and that is the truth

Sorry RS, but this topic is about the flaws in the arguments of atheism's notions of science and the credibility of those.  It's not intended to be an examination of Christianity's credibility.  So I'm not willing to take the discussion off-topic and answer your request to dive into proofs of Christianity, as much as I would love to.  You can find my answers to that, though, well-expounded in other topics that I have started.

As for why I reject the Big Bang theory, I've provided my views on that in my reply above to SkepticalOne and to others.  Just follow the discussion with others and you'll see I've already rebutted the BBT.  Your declarations that the BBT and Evolution "have so much proof supporting them", while advancing none to support that statement, are not debating, nor are they rebuttals.  They're just your opinion.  To debate the topic you must provide evidence of your claims.  Anyone can make hollow claims.  

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Grafix said:

@RS_master - You asked ...

@Grafix Give me proof from where cristianity is true. Big bang and evolution have so much proof supporting them so I know if I believe in hem I have a way greater chance of being right. Would I believe there is some sort of magician who lives in Earth not making one mistake? That is crazy because all humans are imperfect and that is the truth

Sorry RS, but this topic is about the flaws in the arguments of atheism's notions of science and the credibility of those.  It's not intended to be an examination of Christianity's credibility.  So I'm not willing to take the discussion off-topic and answer your request to dive into proofs of Christianity, as much as I would love to.  You can find my answers to that, though, well-expounded in other topics that I have started.

As for why I reject the Big Bang theory, I've provided my views on that in my reply above to SkepticalOne and to others.  Just follow the discussion with others and you'll see I've already rebutted the BBT.  Declaring that the BBT and Evolution "have so much proof supporting them", while advancing none to support that statement, is not debating, nor is it a rebuttal.  It is just your opinion.  To debate the topic you must provide evidence of your claims.  Anyone can make hollow claims.  

If you are an expert on anything, it is hollow claims.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote ....

@Grafix Go back to page 2 of this discussion and read my reply that shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. E = mc^2 literally means "Energy =equals mass times causality squared"
Notice how we can rearrange the equation: "mass equals energy divided by causality squared"
Please just be a man, admit you are wrong so we can move on? I have funny pictures of giraffes I want to show you.
mass is energy, and if you don't believe me I can show you what nukes are all about:

I suggested you go back and read my response, because I assumed you had not seen it.  I have NEVER  argued with any straight up and down denial of your statement that mass is energy  at all, the reason I said your claiming that is irrelevant, yet you just keep harping on it like a screeching squeeze-box with a stuck key.  Please read other's arguments before you rebut.  I now say, for the THIRD time, what I have only ever said, that your definition is not the most accurate, that mass contains POTENTIAL energy which needs an outside factor - velocity, motion, momentum, whatever you want to call it - to RELEASE the energy locked in the mass.  That energy when released, is known as KINETIC energy.  I've also said that without that catalyst to release the energy mass is, strictly speaking, not energy.  it's mass with potential energy locked inside.  While in that state it is described as "rest mass".   Otherwise, I don't have a big beef with your statement and see no reason to drum it up into a massive debate.

The argument I do have is with your claim that energy is mass.  It is not.  That was the basis of our disagreement, yet you pretend otherwise, because you have no rebuttal to my argument.  It's dishonest debating, , pretending there is an argument where there isn't and ignoring the argument where there is one.  So, defend your statement that energy is mass, or just let it go, without dragging up an argument that doesn't exist.  You have almost filled two pages  on an argument that doesn't even exist, while trumpeting all over these pages how stoopid, uneducated, low information, and every other anti-scholarly slur you can sling at me.  It's not debating, .  It's ratbag, hair-brained, lowbrow, uneducated, callow conduct.  Now pull your socks up, get your act together, show some mettle and rebut my posts, or pipe down.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix ;Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote ....

@Grafix Go back to page 2 of this discussion and read my reply that shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. E = mc^2 literally means "Energy =equals mass times causality squared"
Notice how we can rearrange the equation: "mass equals energy divided by causality squared"
Please just be a man, admit you are wrong so we can move on? I have funny pictures of giraffes I want to show you.
mass is energy, and if you don't believe me I can show you what nukes are all about:

I suggested you go back and read my response, because I assumed you had not seen it.  I have NEVER  argued with any straight up and down denial of your statement that mass is energy at all, the reason I said your claiming that is irrelevant, yet you just keep harping on it like a screeching squeeze-box with a stuck key.  Please read other's arguments before you rebut.  I now say, for the THIRD time, what I have only ever said, that your definition is not the most accurate, that mass contains POTENTIAL energy which needs an outside factor - velocity, motion, momentum, whatever you want to call it - to RELEASE the energy locked in the mass.  That energy when released, is known as KINETIC energy.  I've also said that without that catalyst to release the energy mass is, strictly speaking, not energy.  it's mass with potential energy locked inside.  While in that state it is described as "rest mass".   Otherwise, I don't have a big beef with your statement and see no reason to drum it up into a massive debate.

The argument I do have is with your claim that energy is mass.  It is not.  That was the basis of our disagreement, yet you pretend otherwise, because you have no rebuttal to my argument.  It's dishonest debating, , pretending there is an argument where there isn't and ignoring the argument where there is one.  So, defend your statement that energy is mass, or just let it go, without dragging up an argument that doesn't exist.  You have almost filled two pages  on an argument that doesn't even exist, while trumpeting all over these pages how stoopid, uneducated, low information, and every other anti-scholarly slur you can sling at me.  It's not debating, .  It's ratbag, hair-brained, lowbrow, uneducated, callow conduct.  Now pull your socks up, get your act together, show some mettle and rebut my posts, or pipe down.
.

, chill. You are wrong, it's okay, not everyone can be 100% right 100% of the time. What is important is that you are learning where you went wrong, which you are not doing and this is why you are still saying dumb things.

Making stuff go fast doesn't release energy, that isn't how it works, that's not what it means or what it implies.

If you had the capacity to understand, you would realize I have already done more than enough to qualify that mass is energy is mass is energy... I did nuclear calculations for you more than once, what more do you want? Do I need to detonate a nuke over your head to prove it to you? You can google this and read papers to your hearts content, or visit a nuclear power plant if you don't believe me.

I'll stop calling you dumb when you stop being dumb, It isn't my job to make you smarter, it is your job to invest in yourself and enrich your own mind. Seems all you are interested in is falling for the dumbest nonsense and eating paint chips. We can never debate, because you just are not intelligent enough and I am not going to waste more of my time trying to make you better.

This is reality, get on my level!

P.S. "Stoopid" is spelled "". Now you know something. That will be $2.99.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote ...

@Grafix  -  My point was that if DNA is "intelligently designed" (whatever that means) then it should have 0 errors.

What?  That's not the claim that "DNA was intelligently designed".  LOL!  The claim is that all matter living or otherwise, is intelligently designed and that DNA, which is intelligent information and the blueprint of every cell is proof of that intelligent design.  I've explained how DNA cannot be produced by nature, therefore nature simply C O P I E S   I T.   In so doing nature makes errors.  Although there is a mechanism for correcting those errors by nature, even nature's own mechanism for correcting them may miss some.  There's no claim made  A N Y W H E R E   that it's an error-free system.  Nature isn't error-free.  How hard is that to understand?  Then you say ...

If DNA is intelligently designed, then why is it that errors can manifest as cancer and mutations?
Isn't this new information being added to the DNA, thus proving that it is the result of lots and lots of random events, thus it was not intelligent?

First sentence already answered in my first para above.  Second sentence - No, because nature cannot produce DNA.  The errors are caused when nature copies it.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote ...

@Grafix  -  My point was that if DNA is "intelligently designed" (whatever that means) then it should have 0 errors.

What?  That's not the claim that "DNA was intelligently designed".  LOL!  The claim is that all matter living or otherwise, is intelligently designed and that DNA, which is intelligent information and the blueprint of every cell is proof of that intelligent design.  I've explained how DNA cannot be produced by nature, therefore nature simply C O P I E S   I T.   In so doing nature makes errors, although there is a mechanism for correcting those errors by nature, even nature's own mechanism for correcting the errors may miss some.  There's no claim made  A N Y W H E R E   that it's an error-free system.  Nature isn't error-free.  How hard is that to understand?  Then you say ...

If DNA is intelligently designed, then why is it that errors can manifest as cancer and mutations?
Isn't this new information being added to the DNA, thus proving that it is the result of lots and lots of random events, thus it was not intelligent?

First sentence already answered in my first para above.  Second sentence - No, because nature cannot produce DNA.  The errors are caused when nature copies it.
.

Suppose I show you an example of nature producing DNA. Would you admit you were wrong again?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528795-500-dna-could-have-existed-long-before-life-itself/

This cycle of you being wrong and others showing your mistakes only for you to deny them only goes to show just how low you level of knowledge really is, no doubt a result of staying in a system which prescribes ignorance and condemns learning. Religion is a disease of the mind, but you can be cured.

SkepticalOne

Grafix said:

@SkepticalOne -  You asked ...

Why? Can you provide an alternative that can survive scientific rigor, if not, can you provide valid falsifiable justification to drop or amend BBT? If you can't do either of these, could it be you reject the BBT because of Ideological reasons and not because of the evidence? 

I've already done so and asked you to refer to that post and follow the discussion.  SkepticalO, I don't have the time to re-type and duplicate my arguments.  Please follow the discussion with others where I give explanations as already requested.  Why do you think atheists everywhere, even in here, are denying that the BBT is an explosion and instead jump to the claim that it merely posits a theory on the expansion of the universe.  That in itself is illogical, for without the explosion first, then what do they rely upon for the genesis - causality - of the expansion, if not the Big Bang?  

If we go back to the true definition of BBT, as it has always been taught, which is an explosion of matter, at the same time claiming it is the genesis of the universe, space and time, the obvious question jumps out of the page.  How can it be the genesis of matter, given it required matter to already exist in order for it to even explode?  So what was the genesis of THAT matter?  There's the dichotomy.  There's the paradox.  There's the oxymoron.  The same problem applies to the claim that it is the genesis of space.  The matter which explodes is apparently, according to the narrative,  ALREADY IN SPACE.    I mean, is this science for real  ....  ????

Mass is energy and energy is mass. Once you grasp that, then your perceived paradoxes cease to exist. (No matter was required for the BB). 

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot ; - Another Alice-in-Wonderland-down-the-rabbit-hole post.  I wouldn't normally respond, but then again, it demonstrates and validates the topic title.  Here we have Solar energy, being put up as some kind of rebuttal to "prove me wrong".  Wrong about what?  We've  never disagreed on nuclear fusion, nor nuclear fission, but you have sought to pretend we have.  You sharply told me you weren't discussing nuclear fusion, only nuclear fission, yet here you are claiming that the sun's energy production proves your point. I'm confused now.   Are you aware that solar energy is produced by nuclear fusion and not nuclear fission?  LOL!  Here's your post ...

@Grafix  - This is reality get on my level!
Quantum tunneling is how the sun does! It isn't about velocity!



God of the gaps and pseudo-science is danger!


I just proved you wrong!
(again)

As for the video on God of the Gaps - , it's a psy op and you fell for it.  Tell me exactly how a religious belief could be planted in the evidence during the scientific rigor of testing a theory?  It can't, if the correct rigors of scientific methodology are followed.  I am not aware of such ever influencing scientific outcomes.  Are you?  Name one if you are aware.  Does the sap in the video?  Nope. So he doesn't back his claim. No evidence in sight, unsourced prattle, which is hilarious, given he's going on about the corruption of science, when he can't even follow the methodology of proof himself.  LOL!.

These claims are not just silly fabrications, they make him look really foolish.  if he were to be believed, he is admitting that the scientific profession is over-run with corruption, that it has somehow been swamped by a bunch of Bible thumpers.  LOL!  If that were the case, then who would be to blame for allowing that to happen?  T H E    S C I E N C E     P R O F E S S I O N   themselves.  Yeah right, the Catholics have taken over all of the research posts, all of the scientific professorial posts in academia, the scientific journals and the science labs, LOL!  

Atheism has the highest representation in scientific academia.  I don't think they're gonna let a bunch of Bible-thumping Christians out the door with "the official line", somehow.  It's a big fat whine with nary a piece of sourced material within coo-ee, a propaganda piece, produced by a typical anti-Christian, anti-Christ, anti-science, pseudo whacko, using it to vent his atheist bigotry.

When he can provide some sources and   F A C T S   he will have something worthwhile to contribute to society.  Until then, it's just a big fat Snowflake bleat.  I could reverse everything claimed by simply substituting the words "religion" or "Christianity"  with "atheism" or "atheists" and the video would still work.  That immediately demonstrates it has no factual basis.  I accuse atheism of exactly what he's accusing religion of.  What is ludicrous is that atheists control the flow of information from the scientific community, no religious affiliates do.  So how does that work?  It says it all.  A hit job, whining because atheism is under the hammer for its lies, deceptions, duplicity and fake science and this is its only comeback.  Instead of defending  the integrity of atheistic science, he engages in the usual leftie, Marxist vilification - shifts the attention away from atheism's transgressions - the junk science - to shift  the focus to the opponent, blaming it for atheism's transgressions.  So transparent.  Textbook Alinsky Marxism straight out of "Rules for Radicals".  A classic psy op, waging the Information war.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix You really shouldn't have responded, everything you said is still wrong, it isn't about disagreement, it is about you having no idea what you are talking about.

I think you need to watch the video again, it has nothing to do with psyops. Actually, you should just watch all his videos, they will tell you about how he transitioned out of the manipulation of religion and the false beliefs of pseudo-science.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

Yes, school education in all countries I know is largely a joke. What does it have to do with any conspiracies?

If you cannot access the article, then just google its title, and you will see a lot of passages quoted from it, including on researchgate:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Hello_I_don_t_know_where_to_ask_it_so_I_will_ask_this_question_here_What_is_the_majority_religion_among_scientists

Statistics is not "just my opinion"; statistics is statistics.

Reading your conversation with @Happy_Killbot is painful; it is like you have read a couple of pages on Wikipedia, and that is all you know on the subject. I do not even know where to start criticising your interpretation of claims in physics; you are wrong just about everything.

And no, physicists do not have any hard rules on what letters to use and when to capitalise them. Writing e=mc^2, E=mc^2, E=Mc^2 or even e=mC^2 is perfectly valid, and people can understand from the context what this equation means. When we write such equations in scientific papers, we always define each letter, and while most of the time you will see the form E=mc^2 used, it is not a hard requirement. There is no such rule as, for example, "small c always means speed of light, and large C always means something else"; either of these symbols can mean a variety of things depending on the context, and small c, for example, is often used to denote heat capacity. If you want to be particularly original, you can even write something like c=e*m*M, denoting the same thing, with proper definition of the variables.

Dee

@Grafix

***** Textbook Alinsky Marxism straight out of "Rules for Radicals".  A classic psy op, waging the Information war.
.
The usual much loved accusation  and nonsensical final statement from the Giraffe after a savage beating by @Happy_Killbot , all you ever do is fire off insults and accusations and never once back any of your claims up with evidence , all you have is the ramblings of your empty head which hilarious at times are also something a 9 year old would be embarrassed to lay claim to

xlJ_dolphin_473

Grafix said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473 - You wrote ...

DNA: it evolved. We’re not sure exactly how, but one theory is that there were chains of self-replicating cells, and by accident one of them was a bit different and became RNA, which later evolved into DNA.

Mate, that even beats the God gap.  LOL!    DNA evolved?  Yeah right.  It can't, .  It has no physical or material attributes to  evolve  .    LOL!  Atheism gets more ridiculous by the minute.  But ...  um  .... we really don't know how it did, but .... um  truth be known we really have no evidence that it did at all, but .... um ... truth is we just made it up.  LOL!  Honestly !!  And you people call this   S C I E N C E .   Pissing myself laughing.  Sorry, mate, me no buy your li'l tale..  Then you wrote ....

You see, science cannot provide all the answers straight away. Scientists are working to find the answers, and by following science and scientific news, you may see the answers emerge. Just because something is not clear is no excuse for theists to invoke the argument “Well God must have done it”. It’s plainly illogical. @Grafix

Oh!  I do  see, very clearly...  It's OK for science not to have all of the answers, but it definitely is not OK for Christianity to not have them. LOL!  ... at least as far as atheists are  concerned.   Christianity stays true to its Bible, while atheism does everything to twist it's bible of science into a pretzel, just to fit it's narrative.  Damned good show science can't retaliate with a wrath equivalent to that of God, otherwise you would have all been  dispatched unceremoniously to the abyss for your egregious and shameless disrespect of the rigors of science.
.

Science and Christianity are unrelated. Science is, well, science, while Christianity is a religion. Science is taught at Christian schools. Christians believe in science. 

RS_master

Grafix said:

@RS_master - You asked ...

@Grafix Give me proof from where cristianity is true. Big bang and evolution have so much proof supporting them so I know if I believe in hem I have a way greater chance of being right. Would I believe there is some sort of magician who lives in Earth not making one mistake? That is crazy because all humans are imperfect and that is the truth

Sorry RS, but this topic is about the flaws in the arguments of atheism's notions of science and the credibility of those.  It's not intended to be an examination of Christianity's credibility.  So I'm not willing to take the discussion off-topic and answer your request to dive into proofs of Christianity, as much as I would love to.  You can find my answers to that, though, well-expounded in other topics that I have started.

As for why I reject the Big Bang theory, I've provided my views on that in my reply above to SkepticalOne and to others.  Just follow the discussion with others and you'll see I've already rebutted the BBT.  Declaring that the BBT and Evolution "have so much proof supporting them", while advancing none to support that statement, is not debating, nor is it a rebuttal.  It is just your opinion.  To debate the topic you must provide evidence of your claims.  Anyone can make hollow claims.  

@Grafix Where are the flaws in this logical statement, may I ask? I pointed out lots from the bible

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote ....

@Grafix You really shouldn't have responded, everything you said is still wrong, it isn't about disagreement, it is about you having no idea what you are talking about.
I think you need to watch the video again, it has nothing to do with psyops. Actually, you should just watch all his videos, they will tell you about how he transitioned out of the manipulation of religion and the false beliefs of pseudo-science.

Your video about the God gap presenting some guy claiming "he transitioned" from the "manipulation of religion and the false beliefs of pseudo-science"  IS  a classic psy op, .  It's the most common type of psy op.  First he gives no evidence that he has transitioned, or that he ever was a Bible believer, religious etc. Second he gives no evidence that proves that religion is "manipulative" or is even "pseudo science".

How can a voluntary belief manipulate anyone?  There is no pressure to believe or not.  If you don't want to suffer the "guilt trip" you're free to simply walk away.  Even the term "guilt trip" was founded by an atheist.  That's where the manipulation is, where the social engineering and inculcation is.  It's all coming from your camp.  Explain to me how anything which we can freely walk away from has the power to "manipulate"  us?  It just doesn't.  It's a croc, an argument invented by atheism, coming from Dawk the Dawkins in his Thought of Thoughtkins.

Then we get the accusation that Christianity engages in "pseudo science".  Christianity cannot engage in any science.  It's a philosophy preached by a man 2,000 years ago.  Where in those religious teachings is there a single reference to science, a single exhortation to build science academies in God's name to teach science as an integral precept of Christianity?  No such animal exists. Science is not even mentioned.  Sure we have Catholic-funded and sponsored Universities, centres of learning and theologians, but that is not what the word "Christianity" denotes.  They're merely a bunch of academics professing support for non-State, independent and private scholarship of a Christian stripe.  That's not the definition of Christianity at all.  You are basically subscribing to the view that no-one else has any authority in the discipline of science except the Godless atheists.  That dogma jumps from these pages at every turn - the atheistic INTOLERANCE of other views, of other science, other opinion and scholarship. You're  the tyrants here.

What has happened is the scientific evidence of a God, has merely derailed the faux science of atheism, with no need for Christianity to engage any science.  How is that possible?  Simply because atheism's unbridled, unfettered, undisciplined and seething hatred of Christianity prompted atheism to engage in junk science, deliberately designed to discredit the Christian belief system.  As Christianity was and is always its target, then it only stands to reason that atheism's fake claims couched in faux atheistic "science" in its fanaticism to destroy Christianity will be exposed by  REAL science and it has been. Christians merely point that out.  Logical.

Yet, you lap up this pile of strawman, unadulterated bile and think it's credible, logical and an accurate portrayal.  What he is actually portraying is  Y O U  and every atheist just like  Y O U,  but reversing that reality back onto the opponent - Christianity.  It's the Marxist strategy outlined in its Protocols - shift the attention from atheism and blame the opponent for what you are doing.  It completely derails the criticism with the two opposing sides simply launching a slanging match of Yes you did and No I didn't type of lame discussion, masterfully derailing the the original topic, the original criticism, completely lost in the garbage.  It's the Marxist strategy from the get go - target, personalize, polarize and paralyze opponents - diverting attention from the Marxist perfidy, all fully documented. All of you atheists in here, engage this  R E P E A T E D L Y.

The video is junk, mate.  Propaganda.  Marxist/Atheism inculcation.  Go get an education.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Just watch all his videos, he focuses on the psychological aspects of religion. While he doesn't talk about leaving religion in that video specifically, he does in others where he is more specific.

If you want to know how beliefs manipulate, just keep watching his videos. If you are a true believer, then it won't matter what you watch so you have nothing to lose.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - No mate.  You need to defend your claims, to post a counter-defence to my arguments.  That's how a debate works.  I just told you what he is.  I just exposed your pet propagandist.  The onus is now on  Y O U   to defend your pet mouthpiece's words. He's not here to do so.  Pointing me to more of the same of his propaganda is NOT a defence or a rebuttal.  It's just doubling down with more of the same.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Well, how do you know that you are not buying into the propaganda?

Isn't it possible that your stance is based on false information from unaccredited sources?

What if his words are not propaganda, but rather expose the real propaganda, such as all those dirty pages on the back side of the internet that were written by people who have no idea what they are saying?

How do you know you are right and the rest of us are wrong?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote ...

@Grafix Well, how do you know that you are not buying into the propaganda?
Isn't it possible that your stance is based on false information from unaccredited sources?
What if his words are not propaganda, but rather expose the real propaganda, such as all those dirty pages on the back side of the internet that were written by people who have no idea what they are saying?
How do you know you are right and the rest of us are wrong?

I'm a little surprised at this question coming from you Happy K.  Isn't the answer an obvious one?  Check the facts and be sure we know them. If we don't already have a knowledge of the facts, then we must go out in search of them.  That does not mean going in search of confirmation bias, in search of O P I N I O N.  It means a scholarly search for F A C T S, whether we like the facts or not. Always go to the source, to check them. Be sure we check  accredited sources, not fake sources or revisionist history.  Be sure the record is properly authenticated and not just an opinion, but is actually a fact source.. If we don't like the facts, then maybe we need to contemplate why we don't and examine our inner reactions to them and do a self-analysis.  At the end of the day, REAL facts are the REAL truths and nothing can actually change the facts..

I addressed some of his claims in that way and disproved them.  That's how we know.   What did I do to show he has no facts?  I asked questions.

Can a voluntary belief system really  manipulate anyone when they're free to walk away at any time?  

Can he prove that Christianity engages in pseudo science?  Are Christ's four Gospels - the record of Christ's teachings and the foundation of Christianity -  pseudo science?  Where on the record is God's law or a requirement in the teachings that scientific endeavor must buttress or be an integral precept of Christianity?

Can it be disproved that the popularly coined descriptor, "guilt trip",  promulgated by a leading atheist to define Christianity was an open broadside to publicly denegrate Christianity and was propaganda?

Can it be disproved that the Marxist protocol of targeting, personalizing, polarizing and paralyzing opponents is a key tenet of the Marxist strategy, as recorded in their own "handbook"?  Can it be disproved that the methodology employed to target opponents is known as a reverse psychological operation - aka psy op - when it is already recorded in their own "handbook" and this is clearly the video's modus operandi?  

Can it be denied that atheists do not engage this strategy to propagandize, to derail debate topics and to drive discussions off topic when they are losing or have no rebuttals?  Evidence of it is all over this forum.

Can it be denied that atheism is denying current science merely because it does not support its own science?

Can it be denied that atheism's own science has been disproved?

.Questions concerning the content or claims are the only way to do the checking.  Has it been proven? Is there adequate evidence, properly accredited and cited or provided?

OPINION DOES NOT MAKE A FACTUAL ARGUMENT and always demands this kind of scrutiny, no matter whose opinion, even if the opinion confirms our own.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Okay, so TheraminTrees, the producer of that video I showed you is a certified psychologist living in the UK.

That makes him a valid source of reliable information does it not?

Can a voluntary belief system really  manipulate anyone when they're free to walk away at any time?

Are the cultists who kill themselves being manipulated?

Can he prove that Christianity engages in pseudo science?  Are Christ's four Gospels - the record of Christ's teachings and the foundation of Christianity -  pseudo science?  Where on the record is God's law or a requirement in the teachings that scientific endeavor must buttress or be an integral precept of Christianity?

Ever heard of young earth creationists? That is pseudo-science to the max.

Can it be disproved that the popularly coined descriptor, "guilt trip",  promulgated by a leading atheist to define Christianity was an open broadside to publicly denegrate Christianity and was propaganda?

You are shifting the burden of proof.

Can it be disproved that the Marxist protocol of targeting, personalizing, polarizing and paralyzing opponents is not a key tenet of the Marxist strategy, as recorded in their own "handbook"?  Can it be disproved that the methodology employed to target opponents is known as a reverse psychological operation - aka psy op, when it is already recorded in their own "handbook" and this is clearly the video's modus operandi?  

Shifting the burden of proof, also non-sequitur.

Can it be denied that atheists do not engage this strategy to propagandize, to derail debate topics and to drive discussions off topic when they are losing or have no rebuttals?  Evidence of it is all over this forum.

Seeing as you lost this debate hard, I think that serves adequate evidence.

Can it be denied that atheism is denying current science merely because it does not support its own science?

This is blatantly false. For the most part atheists steer clear of un-scientific nonsense, and Christians on the whole seem attracted to them, see young earth creationists.

Can it be denied that atheism's own science has been disproved?

Atheism is the stance that a god doesn't exist and nothing more. There is no "atheist science"

.Questions concerning the content or claims are the only way to do the checking.  Has it been proven? Is there adequate evidence, properly accredited and cited or provided?

Just watch all his videos, TheraminTrees covers this all.

OPINION DOES NOT MAKE A FACTUAL ARGUMENT and always demands this kind of scrutiny, no matter whose opinion, even if the opinion confirms our own.

Then your whole argument is a bust because it is based entirely on scientific misconceptions and your personal interpretation of fact rather than on the facts themselves. You claim ridiculous things like "CERN is a demonic conspiracy" and "DNA is not matter, it is a code which proves intelligence" and "E = mc^2 is about force" All of which are patently wrong. Maybe you should follow your own advice and stop drinking so much pee.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote ...

@Grafix Okay, so TheraminTrees, the producer of that video I showed you is a certified psychologist living in the UK.
That makes him a valid source of reliable information does it not?

A verified source of what though?  Psychology or religious and scientific attributions?  I did not consider that his psychology is wrong.  I agreed in my very first response, where I said that I could replace the words "religion" or "Christianity" with "atheism" or "atheists" and the video would still work, and it does.  So immediately what does that tell us?  That his psychology is OK, but the rest is questionable, because he is making a claim about Christianity, which does not stand up.  It can be made against atheists too.  I also pointed out that the Christian religion does not engage in what he claims, because it is a philosophy taught by a man 2,000 years ago and has no such teachings directing it to engage in any of that, so how can prove that it does?  He can't.

He goes off the rails by using his credentials to abuse a target outside of his craft.  He's not accredited with any scholarship in Christianity, theology or science.  His opinion claims that Christianity has incorrect beliefs in science, thereby setting himself up as an expert on two subjects he is not expert in. Any opinion which cites nothing is not worth the hot air it breathes and even then any citations must be checked for veracity..

Are the cultists who kill themselves being manipulated?

.Of course they are.  But Christianity is not defined as a cult and has no history of that.  People are not free to walk away from those cults, either.  There are threats if they do. You draw a false equivalent.

Ever heard of young earth creationists? That is pseudo-science to the max.

Another false equivalent.  They are not representative of Christianity and nor do they teach accredited science.  False equivalents are not relevant.  Only Christianity is, which expresses nothing on science.

Grafix said:  Can it be disproved that the popularly coined descriptor, "guilt trip",  promulgated by a leading atheist to define Christianity was an open broadside to publicly denegrate Christianity and was propaganda?  @Happy_Killbot said in reply: You are shifting the burden of proof.

I wasn't putting that forward as a question to be debated in this discussion.  I simply put it forward as an example of how to establish plausibility and credibility of any argument, merely providing examples of how to examine material in front of us.  Likewise applies to the two following and similar questions on atheism.  It is evident I was merely using them as examples by my next comment which was ...

Grafix said:  .Questions concerning the content or claims are the only way to do the checking.  Has it been proven? Is there adequate evidence, properly accredited and cited or provided?

@Happy_Killbot replied:   Just watch all his videos, TheraminTrees covers this all.

I don't see any compulsion to heed his opinion like you do, because he is merely passing his opinion on matters he is not accredited in.  He clearly has his definition of Christianity and religion arse up in the first place and clearly he is not educated in either.  Secondly, he is also not educated in the field of the sciences to comment on whether the BBT or TOE are valid science or whether Christianity follows pseudo science, if it could, which it can't because it is a philosophy which has nothing to do with science.  He is barking up a pole chasing a possum which is not at home.  I can see he can teach me nothing, only bigotry.

Then your whole argument is a bust because it is based entirely on scientific misconceptions and your personal interpretation of fact rather than on the facts themselves. You claim ridiculous things like "CERN is a demonic conspiracy" and "DNA is not matter, it is a code which proves intelligence" and "E = mc^2 is about force" All of which are patently wrong. Maybe you should follow your own advice and stop drinking so much pee.

Now you flee to the refuge of last resort - bringing in topics totally left of field - topics that have nothing to do with this one.  Worse, you deliberately miss-state what I actually DID  show and argue concerning CERN, what I actually did  show concerning DNA and Einstein's equation.  If I took the bait to defend myself in reply then I would be playing right into your typically Marxist strategy and you would succeed in what you are now attempting to do - to drive the focus of this argument somewhere else, which is  P R E C I S E L Y  what I have already stated is the modus operandi of Marxist atheism whenever they see they're losing an argument.  Thanks for the confirmation.  Do try to stick to the subject at hand, which is that your Marxist atheist psychologist mate has strayed beyond his expertise in order to bash Christianity.  A propagandist parvenu, in other words.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix TheraminTrees is an atheist, so no it doesn't work for you to switch Christianity with atheism. His video's focus on the psychological abuses of religion, for example the concept of a "Shepard and sheep" is ver suggestive of authoritarian thinking. Most of what he does is just tell his story of growing up in a home with narcissistic parents and an abusive relationship with religion.

You really should watch his videos.

For example, here are two on Jehovah's witness and how it is a cult.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsvJMlg_SaM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F58ZJt_qYU

Here is one talking about ex-Muslims who get a much worse treatment than any Christian ever will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Bt7xsOQ_I

You want to know about false equivalency? He has a video on that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-2WZsP6LA0

Here is one on how religions bend the truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaUhR-tRkHY

Here is where he talks about leaving the faith and how it changed him for the better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xqCkx6WQBE

I do not respect your anti-science beliefs or your religion, and this video will show you why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_5yUXjXizQ

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot ; - You wrote ....

@Grafix TheraminTrees is an atheist, so no it doesn't work for you to switch Christianity with atheism. His video's focus on the psychological abuses of religion, for example the concept of a "Shepard and sheep" is ver suggestive of authoritarian thinking. Most of what he does is just tell his story of growing up in a home with narcissistic parents and an abusive relationship with religion.

It works perfectly by reversing the roles and planting exactly the same criticisms against atheism.  Atheism is a cult-style belief system in so far as it clings to its notions without rhyme or reason via an emotional need only.  As well, it is a massively well-funded organisation with a global Agenda, which makes it fit perfectly into the delusional and inculcation concepts, which he accuses Christians of.   There is no credible, logical, plausible reason why I should watch a bunch of videos that are not only off-topic, but are merely opinion,  advanced by someone not educated in the subjects he pretends to be. Midsummer madness.

I see you haven't rebutted a single thing in my last post, either.  That vindicates and validates the allegation I made against you in that post, namely, that it was precisely the reason you threw up CERN, DNA and Albert Einstein, to divert the discussion, because you have no rebuttals here.  They were teasers to draw me away from my criticisms of your psychologist mate.  Now you want me to watch videos by him on Muslims, on Jehova Witnesses, false equivalents and anti-science beliefs of Christianity.   Huh?  Are you listening?   

I've made it clear that he is using his credentials to pass his opinion on subjects in which he holds no accreditation nor is trained in.  What good reason would I have for thinking he knows what he is talking about?  There is none.  I've already watched one of his videos and saw straight away that it is not based on a knowledge of the subject.  It is based on bigotry.  I have no inclination at all to watch more of his bigotry against Jehova Witnesses, Muslims or Christians or any religion.  What IS  perfectly clear is that he cannot control his anti-religion bigotry.  Just looking at your list of videos clearly demonstrates that, evidencing that he is a typical atheist religion basher.  Show me an atheist who is not. All you are doing is confirming that.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix You know, the fourth video on the list thoroughly debunks your belief that atheism is a cult-style belief.

On top of this, there is no central atheist authority, there is nothing which we all pay tribute to unlike the Catholic Church.

These videos are not in any way off topic, from a certain point of view, they are the topic.

I can't refute your posts because they lack basic scientific integrity, for example your very first claim, which says and I quote:

"The message in the above image is that as I am an eagle and everyone knows I cannot swim, nevertheless, atheists would ignore the fact that I am also not accredited with any ability or knowledge of how to walk on water, either.  Instead of debating why it is that I can suddenly walk on water - an observable fact because I have demonstrated it - they will argue the only reason I do this is because I cannot swim, declining to acknowledge that the inability to swim does not explain or prove the reason why I can walk on water.  They treat material evidence on the historical record, regarding occurrences involving Christ, which are verified and authenticated, in the same way. "

can not be disputed because it isn't true, in this case because Eagles can swim. In other words, it is objectively wrong. No one can dispute objectively wrong claims, only opinions, and if your opinion is that 2 +2 = 7 then nothing I say can change your mind.

The fact of the matter is, the other subjects which you claim to be making points in you are not for the same reasons, you have no idea what you are talking about.

That is just how it is. Your arguments is the same as "Atheists must deny the truth that 2 + 2 = 7 because it doesn't fit with their worldview". When MayCaesar, SketicalOne, Dee, Plaffelvohfen,  and myself correct your misconception, in this  hypothetical it would be by showing that 2 + 2 = 4 and not 7, you simply say we are not rebutting your claim. It is because your claim is based on gross conceptual errors, it's rotten information. The videos I reference are there to give you a foundation for all of your failures to reason properly, almost definitely a result of your religious indoctrination.

Atheists are on the whole very independent thinkers and generally take pride in having a way of thinking that works to come to strong conclusions, it is the opposite of a cult, and that is why I left religion. I got tired of all the manipulation and control and decided I was going to be in charge of my life, not some imaginary man in the sky.

Grafix

only one eagle type can swim and that is the sea eagle.  No others can.  If there were a meme with another species of eagle it would have prevented daft arguments like yours from being put to the page and wasting space.  If you think this topic is about whether an eagle can swim or not, then I rest my case.

No mate.  Just face it.  I am not prepared to discuss non-factual opinion, let alone opinions authored by those waxing lyrical on subjects they know nothing about and are not scholars in.  How hard is that for you to understand?  What you are demonstrating is exactly what I have alleged.  A cultist cleaving mentality, which cannot understand the difference between fact and fiction, logic and delusional beliefs.  Atheism is a delusional belief with a massively well-funded inculcation program that is global and you are victim of it.  All the things you and atheists generally, sling at people who belong to Christianity are true of your very own inculcated beliefs.  The fact that you cannot even see it, is definitive proof of that.  Atheism is just a variation of Marxism by another name.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix The picture I posted is a Bald eagle, not a sea eagle. You are wrong yet again.

See what I mean?

This is what we are all talking about when we say that you just make stuff up. There is no correlation between what you say and reality, and that is why no one wants to have a serious discussion with you.

You claim you are not prepared to discuss non-factual opinion, but that is all you say.

You claim that we have a cultist cleaving mentality, when you can not understand when you have your facts wrong, and simply lack the common sense to google it first.

You claim atheism is delusional and well funded, when there is no evidence to back it up.

The very same things you sling at atheists are true of Christianity, it is well funded (just look at all the tax fraud cases against the Mormon Church, or the massive cathedrals built during the height of the Roman Catholic church and all the people who claim to have religious experiences which were induced by drugs.)

Atheism and Marxism have nothing to do with each other, that is again just ridiculous hearsay. Maybe you would like to put your money where your mouth is? How much are you willing to wager that Marxism and Atheism are variations of each other? Seriously, how much? I will bet you $10,000 that you are wrong and in fact these ideas are different and can exist independently of each other.

Grafix

LOL!  I just make stuff up, eh?  You love to say that, but have yet to prove it to be so.    For example ....

T H E     B A L D    E A G L E
.
B E L O N G S     T O      T H E        G E N U S      O F       S E A         EAGLES

I SAID SEA EAGLES CAN SWIM.  THAT'S CORRECT AND INCLUDES THE BALD-HEADED EAGLE.  WHO'S WRONG NOW?

, making statements like this one below, all day every day, without backing them up, is not debating.  It is pure, unadulterated bleating. 

This is what we are all talking about when we say that you just make stuff up. There is no correlation between what you say and reality, and that is why no one wants to have a serious discussion with you.
You claim you are not prepared to discuss non-factual opinion, but that is all you say.

Well for all your "What we are all talking about"  you are once again wrong again, aren't you?  The bald eagle is  a sea eagle.  Ha.  Ha.  Ha.   In the subjects that we have properly debated, there's no evidence which I've provided that was inaccurate or opinion-based and not properly sourced, when debating the facts.  If you had issue with those facts, then you had every chance to disprove them  You didn't.  Instead you just posted silly pictures of giraffes or sea eagles, or memes, or went off-topic about pianola's and similar, just like you're doing here.  OFF-TOPIC BLEATING.  just plain Snowflake whining, whinging, belly-aching, thumb-sucking sulking, & C.  Bringing up other topics past their use-by date in a different topic lacks moral spine.  Put up or . The topics are still open.  Then you whine some more with ....

You claim atheism is delusional and well funded, when there is no evidence to back it up.

I gave you the evidence.  It is empirical in both science academia and Education Departments across the entire Western sphere.  Atheism clings to an out-dated science 100 years old.  Atheism has not progressed from that.  Everyone else has, yet they still control the school texts, academia's texts and the teaching profession's text.  That takes a lot of influence, a lot of $$$ and a lot of political clout.  To maintain such outdated modus operandi  as the official line requires buying off a swag of professionals in control of academia, schools, the bureaucracy and politics, sold out for retirement packages funded by atheism. 

The very same things you sling at atheists are true of Christianity, it is well funded (just look at all the tax fraud cases against the Mormon Church, or the massive cathedrals built during the height of the Roman Catholic church and all the people who claim to have religious experiences which were induced by drugs.)

They're not true of Christianity, however.  I've proved that.  We have the facts on our side.  We have freedom to walk away on our side.  We have freedom to believe or not believe.  We're not buying off the establishment.  We're not funding speakers to tour the world bagging atheism.  We're not bothered by what atheists believe, but they sure as hell spend a lot of money on attacking what they say does not exist.  We're more logical than that.

Atheism and Marxism have nothing to do with each other, that is again just ridiculous hearsay. Maybe you would like to put your money where your mouth is? How much are you willing to wager that Marxism and Atheism are variations of each other? Seriously, how much? I will bet you $10,000 that you are wrong and in fact these ideas are different and can exist independently of each other.

Atheism is the  S T A T E     R E L I G I O N  of   BOTH   Marxism and Communism.  How can you say they have nothing in common?
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Don't think that this technicality makes you right, The bald Eagle belongs to the genus Haliaeetus  (not sea eagle which is why you are still wrong) which are commonly refereed to as sea eagles, that is true, but when you say "sea eagle" I have to assume you mean Steller's sea eagle, white bellied sea eagle, or the fish eagle.

In the OP you say:

"I am an Eagle and everyone knows I cannot swim"

but it seems you have changed your position. Good for you. Now why don't you change your position on what E = mc^2 means and DNA being matter, then maybe we can talk.

Atheism is growing in the US at break-neck speeds, in about 100 years at current rates, all religions will be sent to the dust bin of history where they belong.
https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

I gave you the evidence.  It is empirical in both science academia and Education Departments across the entire Western sphere.  Atheism clings to an out-dated science 100 years old.  Atheism has not progressed from that.  Everyone else has, yet they still control the school texts, academia's texts and the teaching profession's text.  That takes a lot of influence, a lot of $$$ and a lot of political clout.  To maintain such outdated modus operandi  as the official line requires buying off a swag of professionals in control of academia, schools, the bureaucracy and politics, sold out for retirement packages funded by atheism. 

Where? You are just making stuff up.

We're not buying off the establishment.  We're not funding speakers to tour the world bagging atheism.  We're not bothered by what atheists believe, but they sure as hell spend a lot of money on attacking what they say does not exist.  We're more logical than that.

So what would you call a missionary trip then?

Atheism is the  S T A T E     R E L I G I O N  of   BOTH   Marxism and Communism.  How can you say they have noting in common?

Both Communism, Marxism, and Christianity have "do not kill" as one of their rules, so that means that these are all the same thing then? By your logic, they would be.

Or is it that looking at any one aspect is insufficient to make that determination?

For example, the crusaders who killed tons of people and damaged would be allies, were Christians. Does that mean that all Christians are murderers? By your logic, they would be.

Grafix

, I don't give a rat's arse about sea eagles.  I didn't use a sea eagle in my meme, so why are you harping about sea eagles?  Now you want to argue whether or not a baldy eagle is a sea eagle all because you didn't know it was and I had to point that out.  Now you're gonna deny that fact too, because you can't own it and you have a neediness  to own facts, because you're a megalomaniac.   Everyone knows the baldies ARE sea eagles.

T H A T' S         W H A T          E V E R Y O N E          C A L L S        T H E M         B E C A U S E       T H E Y' R E        A L W A Y S      S E E N      B Y      T H E       S E A

 
In your usual style you have driven the disucssion completely off-topic, which I've accused you of doing so many, many times and why do you do it?  You can't defend your lies, you have no rebuttals.  This page is full of your whines accusing me of everything you're  doing right now, right here on this page, full of your  non-facts, your  off-topic drivel.  Is the topic sea eagles?  NO.  Is there even a sea eagle in the meme? NO.  Is a Pyschologist educated in science or theology?  NO.  Yet it's the donkey-shite you want to discuss.  Why?  You're a fraud.  A great big fat fraud and that's what the topic title says  you are.  Once more, thanks for the confirmation again.

T H E    T O P I C     T I T L E      S A Y S :=       "A T H E I S T S      D E N Y     T H E       F A C T S".     
W E L L       D O N E       Y O U      J U S T      D I D     S O      A G A I N

You deny you're clinging to science that is over 100 years old and everyone else has moved on?  You deny that atheism still clings to that out-dated science, which it ensures stays in student & theacher texts, even though it has been disproved, over and over?  You deny that the people who control atheism are the wealthiest atheists in the world, that they also control political elites and political policy, likewise control bureaucratic decisions, the halls of academia and education?  Educated people know they do.  Academia knows they do in exchange for making millionaires of academics.  They own the mainstream media too. They're trillionaires and billionaires who worship Satan.  They fund eugenics, Satanic churches, ritualistic societies and cults.  They make their money from trafficking children for paedophilia and as sex slaves.  When the young girls reach puberty, they impregnate them and use their babies for their Satanic rituals and blood sacrifices.  The same people fund Planned Parenthood.  The same people fund the DNC.  The same people demand open borders for their trafficking.

We know all of this because it has already been exposed.  The donor class has been caught, their dicks held to the fire with their pants down and their hands caught in the political cookie jar, influence peddling and using George Soros' distributed electronic voting machines for electoral fraud.  It's all on the record and guess what?  They're all Satanists, all atheists, all fighting a Christian leader who is exposing them.  You deny this too?


N O W       CA N      W E      G E T       B A C K       O N       T O P I C ?  ....  O R      D O    I     N E E D      T O       C A L L         W A M B O     T O      P I C K      U P     Y O U R      P I E C E S  

RS_master

RS_master said:

Grafix said:

@RS_master - You asked ...

@Grafix Give me proof from where cristianity is true. Big bang and evolution have so much proof supporting them so I know if I believe in hem I have a way greater chance of being right. Would I believe there is some sort of magician who lives in Earth not making one mistake? That is crazy because all humans are imperfect and that is the truth

Sorry RS, but this topic is about the flaws in the arguments of atheism's notions of science and the credibility of those.  It's not intended to be an examination of Christianity's credibility.  So I'm not willing to take the discussion off-topic and answer your request to dive into proofs of Christianity, as much as I would love to.  You can find my answers to that, though, well-expounded in other topics that I have started.

As for why I reject the Big Bang theory, I've provided my views on that in my reply above to SkepticalOne and to others.  Just follow the discussion with others and you'll see I've already rebutted the BBT.  Declaring that the BBT and Evolution "have so much proof supporting them", while advancing none to support that statement, is not debating, nor is it a rebuttal.  It is just your opinion.  To debate the topic you must provide evidence of your claims.  Anyone can make hollow claims.  

@Grafix Where are the flaws in this logical statement, may I ask? I pointed out lots from the bible

@Grafix please respond....   Another point is you are dodging my pre - previous argument because you cannot think of counters.

PLEASE RESPOND                         Where are the flaws in the big bang or in atheism?

Grafix

@RS_master - I appreciate fully that when discussing atheism's denial of scientific facts it is CERTAIN to lead into discussing Christianity's belief system, but the facts which I intend to be the focus of this topic are the ones which atheists are denying, (as per the topic title), rather than a full scale examination of Christianity's belief system, which is where this would go, if I responded to your question.   Christianity is not intended to be the focus of this topic.  I am fully aware that atheism will do its damndest to make it the focus, though.  They always do and then bash it.   Atheism is intended to be the focus here. 

There are other topics on the board where the full scale belief system of Christianity is being and has already been examined.  I see that you have already visited one of those and we have since had a discussion under that topic in there.  Great.  That's how I believe we can keep topics on topic, by paying attention to their titles.

What I am looking for in this topic is for atheists to justify and defend why they cling to outdated science more than 100 years old, when everyone else has moved on? Why they deny that DNA is intelligent information, that a cell cannot be funcional without it.  Why they deny that nature cannot produce DNA and pretend that it can?  Why do they deny that DNA is intellgiently arranged with over one billion permutations in ONE single DNA?    Why do atheists deny the exhaustive record, both historical and archaeological of the historical figure of Christ and His resurrection and miracles, all attested to by pagans, being sure to confine that discussion to what they deny. 

RS_master

@Grafix when a chemical reaction happens you get a more complicated bond. When you mix complicated bonds. You get an even more complex bond. After millions and billions of years they got the DNA molecule bond. Where are the flaws?
Also where are the flaws in the whole theory big bang and evolution? There is plenty of proof. I can send you more links if that is what you want-
https://justrichest.com/proof-evolution/
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution
https://www.proof-of-evolution.com/evolution-evidence.html
Now for the big bang:
https://gizmodo.com/astronomers-discover-first-direct-proof-of-the-big-bang-1545525927
https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/astro/cosmos/bigbang/bb_evid
https://www.reference.com/science/evidence-support-big-bang-theory-3f7479a7a4046ab6

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix If you read what I wrote, you will notice I didn't deny that the bald eagle is technically a sea eagle because the genus Haliaeetus are sometimes refereed to as sea eagles.

They are not however, always seen by the sea, in fact they live all over the place:

I live pretty far inland and I have seen them before.

Eagles are very much on topic, in fact they are the only topic remaining since you know to little to talk about physics and genetics.

Atheism still isn't based on science, it is a philosophical position that there is no god, now science tends to make people into atheists, because when you study the natural world all the superstition goes away, because we can understand things in a way that doesn't need a supernatural being to explain it.

You are still so full of and you still have no idea what you are talking about, for example Eugenics was a project the Nazis engaged in, and they were very Catholic. Hardly supported by 100 year old science now is it, when it was the Christians who used it?

The truth is, all the Catholic priests have been caught with their pants down raping and molesting children who they traffic to them. Do atheists do this? No, because there is no centralized atheist authority, none whatsoever. Are you going to deny that fact?

the DNC doesn't count because they accept Muslims and Christians alike

Academia doesn't count because there are many private Christian schools everywhere

The Wealthy don't count, because most of them (i.e. Mark Zuckerberg) are religious, about the same as the percentage in the US general population


The mainstream media doesn't count, because FOX news exists and they are very Christian


Do you deny that all of this is true, and you have no F***ing idea what you mean? You are a delusional brain washed loser who's mind is owned by the Christian church, which BTW, in case you were unaware, Jesus was actually Satan in disguise, it was his ultimate con. The devil turned himself into Jesus so that people would follow him as a false idol instead of the true god, that way he could gain all of their souls in hell. You are going to hell unless you reject Jesus and follow only the one true god.

Grafix

@RS_master - The flaw is in the claim that both Evolution and the Big Bang are science.  Neither has come about as the result of the required rigorous methodology of scientific testing, the testing of each element in each of the hypotheses and building the evidence step by step, evidence upon evidence, meticulously put down on the record in a logical chain, progressing to a final conclusion based on a record of evidence, evidence which has been properly tested and can stand upon itself.  This hasn't been done for either hypothesis. It can't be done.  How can it with no evidence to observe for the BBT? Subsequently, it's reasoned backwards, based on conjecture. 

It is not science to use knowledge that we possess today to construct conjecture about the past and invent certain and specific events, with no evidence of them, but which would fit  in with what we know today.  That's all the Big Bang is, conjecture based on what we know today.  That's not how science works.   EVERYTHING MUST BE BASED ON A CHAIN OF  EVIDENCE.   The BBT is reverse reasoning, propped up with conjecture and extrapolations.  That's not science.  It's a scientific abomination. Neither theory has the capacity to meet the rigors of scientific testing, for the reasons of age, time elapsed and gaps in the record. 

Regarding TOE, the huge gaps in the evolutionary chain clearly disprove it, among other serious problems with it concerning capacities of molecular and cell life, which cannot survive one species spawning another species, all proved impossible due to molecular, atomical and nucleic resistance.  Atheists also ignore the huge gaps in the descent record, which are well-established, where we see species after species just exploding into the fossil record, but with absolutely no evidence of any ancestry prior to the explosion.  The Cambrian explosion is a good example.  New species just appearing out of nothing.  HYpotheses are great and science needs them to drive itself forward, but when they fall over, science routinely discards them and has always done so honestly, not hung onto them dishonestly.  If disproven, chop chop and consigned to the dust bin.

Yet this has not happened with either the BBT or TOE although both fall over in so many ways.  Atheism won't discard them.   Evidence through the rigors of scientific testing - which are very specific and demand exacting disciplines to be met - give rise to new theories with a 99% rate of probabily.  This rigor is particularly necessary when we are talking about early periods where there is no written record of reference, no artefacts which man left behind, no material or hard evidence, no eye-witness accounts, nothing but a blank page to begin with.

Thus the geo sciences, bio-sciences, chemical sciences must work together to try to work it out, taking readings, testing probablilities on what we know today and if possible backing it up with samples of cores from earth or other planets, by looking at today's cosmos and today's fossils and ground layers, but the massive time gaps can only ever be filled in with conjecture and extrapolations, which rightly drive the hypothesis and the research forward.  That's all great, but nevertheless, it doesn't meet the status of  A   SCIENTIFIC  T H E O R Y.     It meets the status of  A   S C I E N T I F I C     H Y P O T H E S I S   and should only ever be being taught as an hypothesis, not as fact, not as accepted science, not as a factual occurrence, and specifically not as an accepted theory, specifically not in the case of the BBT - zero available evidence.

in the case of TOE, it maybe just scraped in as a possible "Theory", but now has been dsiproven in so many ways.  As Dr. James Tour says,  "They lied.  They lied to you."   Darwin thought the fossil record would explode with a raft of fossil discoveries to map it all out.  That just didn't happen.  Had it have happened, then his theory could have been easily accepted or rejected.  Nevertheless, we have enough massive gaps in the record of descent  in the chain of evidence, which already and unequivocally disproves TOE, aside from the separate bio-chemical and DNA evidence, evidencing it is not scientifically possible for one species to evolve into another. .  

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

The flaw is in the claim that both Evolution and the Big Bang are science.  Neither have come about as the result of the required rigorous methodology of scientific testing, the testing of each element in each of the hypotheses and building the evidence step by step, evidence upon evidence, meticulously put down on the record in a logical chain, progressing to a final conclusion based on a record of evidence, evidence which has been properly tested and can stand upon itself.  This has not been done for either hypothesis. It can't be done.  How can it with no evidence to observe for the BBT. Subsequently, It has been reasoned bckwards, based on conjecture. 

BRUH!

Read a book!