Politics & Stuff

[Fernando 6,585]

1 minute ago, Dion said:

That's what YOU are not understanding. What you call the first information is the first organism. Evolution does not explain how the first organism was originated it explains how it changed and also tries to explain the mechanisms involved in that process. It's not faulty reasoning, it's you failing to understand what's the phenomena that evolution deals with. How do you jump from nothing to information is not what evolution explains or tries to explain. That would be what primordial soup tries to explain.

But you do realize how silly it sounds? 

In the beginning there was nothing, then there was an explosion out of nothing... And out of nothing you and I exist.

 

[Dion 2,476]

5 minutes ago, Fernando said:

But you do realize how silly it sounds? 

In the beginning there was nothing, then there was an explosion out of nothing... And out of nothing you and I exist.

 

You realize what you have just said has nothing to do with evolution, right? Also, I never said there was nothing. I actually have said that I think it is more likely that things have always existed than a creator has always existed, which is what creationism preaches. At least I have evidence that things exist now, whereas I have no evidence that a creator has ever existed.

[Blue_Fox_ 2,086]

9 minutes ago, Fernando said:

But this is what I'm saying. There's only evidence for a big bang. A big bang suggest there's a creator.

And as i pointed out in the original post:
All of the universe it's evidence to its existence? And what exactly links it to him? Men's imagination?

Just replace "all of the universe" with "the Big bang" 

[Fernando 6,585]

13 minutes ago, Dion said:

You realize what you have just said has nothing to do with evolution, right? Also, I never said there was nothing. I actually have said that I think it is more likely that things have always existed than a creator has always existed, which is what creationism preaches. At least I have evidence that things exist now, whereas I have no evidence that a creator has ever exis

Yes but evolution is that you evolved from something right? 

If that's true then when you go to the origin how did that orgasim got there? 

From what it evolved? 

[Dion 2,476]

5 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Yes but evolution is that you evolved from something right? 

If that's true then when you go to the origin how did that orgasim got there? 

From what it evolved? 

Are you trolling me?

[Fernando 6,585]

11 minutes ago, Dion said:

Are you trolling me?

No its just using the same logical thinking you told me about. 

Everything evolved, okay I get your view. But go back further enough how did you get that chemicals that got this thing to evolved? 

The only thing that makes sense is either a god existed or that the universe always existed. 

Because the elements had to appear from somewhere. 

You can't get something from nothing. You need some type of elements to make things work. 

[Blue_Fox_ 2,086]

2 minutes ago, Fernando said:

No its just using the same logical thinking you told me about. 

Everything evolved, okay I get your view. But go back further enough how did you get that chemicals that got this thing to evolved? 

1.The only thing that makes sense is either a god existed or that the universe always existed. 

2.Because the elements had to appear from somewhere. 

You can't get something from nothing. You need some type of elements to make things work. 

1. Why?

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis Most basic answer.Also this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

[Dion 2,476]

23 hours ago, Fernando said:

No its just using the same logical thinking you told me about. 

Everything evolved, okay I get your view. But go back further enough how did you get that chemicals that got this thing to evolved? 

The only thing that makes sense is either a god existed or that the universe always existed. 

Because the elements had to appear from somewhere. 

You can't get something from nothing. You need some type of elements to make things work. 

Not everything evolved. I'll explain as clearly as I can. In summary, evolution started as soon as there was an organic form of life who could replicate itself and also suffer changes while or after doing so. From this point on evolution started its work. Anything before this was subject to a different phenomena other than evolution. You have point A and point B in time. Point A we have no life on the planet. Point B we have the first living organism. Did it evolve? No, it didn't cause it is the first one to ever exist. Evolution starts after the first living organism replicated, the first one can't be the result of replication and as such can't have evolved. It can have been created by a supernatural being or assembled randomly or anything else really. Something other than evolution happened between point A and B. That's why there are multiple theories for the origin of life even though evolution is almost a scientific truth, it's because these are different things, they explain different things. Are you following? Evolution explains the place where we are now and further back to the the replications and mutations of the first living being. It does not explain or even tries to explain how the first living being came to be. Do you get it now? The fact that we don't know how the first living being came to be does not invalidate evolution because that's not what evolution depicts. That's why evolution is compatible with creationism even.

This is very tiresome, I seem to be repeating the same things over and over and you don't get it. Evolution requires replication and change. If something does not replicate and change it is not the subject of evolution. Evolution starts as soon as an organism was able to replicate and change.

[Dion 2,476]

In addition to everything, I think it is a bit hypocritical that creationists are perfectly okay with saying that God, an entity which we have 0 evidence of having ever existed or even existing right now, just came to be out of nothing or has always existed but the universe, which we can currently experience and produce evidence about, can't be perpetual or have been originated out of nothing. If anything, our experience should point us to the direction that things have always existed. As far as I know we seem to be unable to create or destroy matter. I also don't think we have ever seem it be created or destroyed either.

[Fernando 6,585]

36 minutes ago, Dion said:

Not everything evolved. I'll explain as clearly as I can. In summary, evolution started as soon as there was an organic form of life who could replicate itself and also suffer changes while or after doing so. From this point on evolution started its work. Anything before this was subject to a different phenomena other than evolution. You have point A and point B in time. Point A we have no life on the planet. Point B we have the first living organism. Did it evolve? No, it didn't cause it is the first one to ever exist. Evolution starts after the first living organism replicated, the first one can't be the result of replication and as such can't have evolved. It can have been created by a supernatural being or assembled randomly or anything else really. Something other than evolution happened between point A and B. That's why there are multiple theories for the origin of life even though evolution is almost a scientific truth, it's because these are different things, they explain different things. Are you following? Evolution explains the place where we are now and further back to the the replications and mutations of the first living being. It does not explain or even tries to explain how the first living being came to be. Do you get it now? The fact that we don't know how the first living being came to be does not invalidate evolution because that's not what evolution depicts. That's why evolution is compatible with creationism even.

This is very tiring, I seem to be repeating the same things over and over and you don't get it. Evolution requires replication and change. If something does not replicate and change it is not the subject of evolution. Evolution starts as soon as an organism was able to replicate and change.

Okay I get your point. Evolution only explain when life appear not how it started. In that case you have a point. Not that I believe in evolution but I see your point there.

34 minutes ago, Dion said:

In addition to everything, I think it is a bit hypocritical that creationists are perfectly okay with saying that God, an entity which we have 0 evidence of having ever existed or even existing right now, just came to be out of nothing or has always existed but the universe, which we can currently experience and produce evidence about, can't be perpetual or have been originated out of nothing. If anything, our experience should point us to the direction that things have always existed. As far as I know we seem to be unable to create or destroy matter. I also don't think we have ever seem it be created or destroyed either.

Not 0 evidence but as your state our experience show us.

But then our experience don't matter here. We are talking about what science has been able to prove. And so far science has been able to prove the big bang theory. Meaning that it had a beginning.

[Dion 2,476]

2 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Okay I get your point. Evolution only explain when life appear not how it started. In that case you have a point. Not that I believe in evolution but I see your point there.

Not 0 evidence but as your state our experience show us. Just like you said.

But then our experience don't matter here. We are talking about what science has been able to prove. And so far science has been able to prove the big bang theory. Meaning that it had a beginning.

Well, the matter that got expanded in the big bang, it had to exist before didn't it? There was a condensed mass of matter before the big bang. Matter existed before, the big bang theory does not say matter was created there, it says the expansion of our universe started there. The beginning you're talking about is the beginning of the expansion, not the beginning of everything. Just the beginning of the universe as we know it.

[Fernando 6,585]

1 hour ago, Dion said:

Well, the matter that got expanded in the big bang, it had to exist before didn't it? There was a condensed mass of matter before the big bang. Matter existed before, the big bang theory does not say matter was created there, it says the expansion of our universe started there. The beginning you're talking about is the beginning of the expansion, not the beginning of everything. Just the beginning of the universe as we know it.

So that's the answer you was looking for. Universe always existed in some kinda of form. 

Now the question we must find out is why? Why did it explode and expand?

[Fernando 6,585]

7 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

It's always funny when someone decides to use a whole bunch of semiconductor material assembled as processors and logic gates. be it a computer or a phone, connected to a global network of fiber optics that links almost everyone on the planet together, to doubt the entire scientific method  

Tell me one thing. 

This question goes not to just you but everyone here who calls themselves atheist as well.  

What if after life is for real? 

What if hell is real? 

Take a look at the testimony of this former atheist and how he grapple with this while in the hospital:

 

 

[CHOULO19 24,332]

5 hours ago, Fernando said:

Tell me one thing. 

This question goes not to just you but everyone here who calls themselves atheist as well.  

What if after life is for real? 

What if hell is real? 

Let me ask YOU a question: What if god loves science and only sends to hell those who refuse to acknowledge evolution?

What if the real son of god is Nickleback and anyone who ever said anything bad about him goes to hell?

What if god's real religion is Scientology? WHAT IF?! 

 

There are quite literally an infinite number of hypotheses, with zero evidence for, which you can come up with; a lot of which would be contradictory. Imagine trying to consider if every single one of them is true when trying to live your life!  

[Fernando 6,585]

3 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

Let me ask YOU a question: What if god loves science and only sends to hell those who refuse to acknowledge evolution?

What if the real son of god is Nickleback and anyone who ever said anything bad about him goes to hell?

What if god's real religion is Scientology? WHAT IF?! 

 

There are quite literally an infinite number of hypotheses, with zero evidence for, which you can come up with; a lot of which would be contradictory. Imagine trying to consider if every single one of them is true when trying to live your life!  

Well as the guy said in his interview you can believe in all you want but when you get to your death bed that's when you start second guessing everything and about life after death. 

Until we can bring people back to life we will never know. And I mean bringing people back to life that long have been dead like Michael Jackson and such. 

Life after death is still a mystery just like how life began.