Remember, only life can beget life as per the very science you hold onto so much. Yet, those very same evolutionists cry spontaneous eruption of life exception from non-life! Make sense of that without denying the other.
Last comment: I'll now block you, because you went against my warnings. Instead of sounding smarter, you actually made worse comments and are starting to admit to your superstitions. Bye now. Thanks for playing, but you should've stuck with the "I'm smart" act. In fact, without the underlying belief in God, you might actually get somewhere in the scientific community.
Natural selection is a key element in forming new species. According to Creationism, new species cannot arise, despite the fact that we've observed it already. While most creationists accept natural selection (the strong are more likely to survive than the weak), they fail to realise what comes with the package and are afraid to go further "into the light". You creationists are afraid of the truth. I simply try to get you to accept it.
The only answer is ENERGY. Plain old, dumb, regular, natural energy. God is an anti-answer. It raises far more questions and problems than answers. Note that the big bang wasn't an explosion, but an expansion of space-time.
No, but the scientific fields which are represented by the "buzzwords" do provide all the evidence you need. (apart from MBR)
We know matter is "solid" energy and didn't exist in the first moments after the Big Bang. It only came later, after the energy cooled down. We know time is subjective and that it denotes an observable change. We know energy increases space itself, more specifically Dark Energy. So without time, space and matter, only Energy is left. God is, as said, an anti-answer.
Because my terms are the terms for correct, objective, scientific analyses of facts and evidence, while yours is purely subjective and consists of absolutely no evidence at all and uses as main argument: "you need to have faith".
The rules of science got you electricity, computers, cars, machinery, tv's, radio's, dvd's, cd's, microwave ovens, etcetera. Faith got us mass murder, mass suicide, pandemics, famines and even more problems.
"Natural selection is a key element in forming new species."
True species can arise, that have a subset of the characteristics of the previous organism. I' am very surprised PJ. that you say this, "Natural selection is a key element in forming new species.". I though you were a little smart, I guess not. Natural selection favors a change in a living organism. Natural Selection of itself does not change the organism, it only changes the ratio of the population.
Bessy, your tons of mails, tons of comments and uber-ignorance and lies are really starting to piss me off. If I explain something, I expect you to either ask for clarification, refute it using scientific facts or accept the explanation. NOT repeating the same old lies over and over again!
I never said Natural selection changes the organism itself. I said it's a key element in forming new species. How? It selects the traits, necessary for speciation.
Saying "nu'uh" isn't a refutation, Bessy. And THAT's what you've been doing.
Natural Selection isn't a change in ratio of population. At least, that's not to point of it. You get a number of organisms. Some organisms are better at surviving than others. They are thus more likely to actually survive, while the others don't. That's natural selection. Also, as said, it's a KEY ELEMENT in speciation. I never said it's the ONLY element. Mutations in DNA are an other key element, for example.
Most of your comments come down to "nu'uh", although you don't respond that shortly. Also, a creation myth concerns the supernatural. What part of Evolution is supernatural? Not to mention that not all atheists accept Evolution, since they're both separate things. Being an atheist, doesn't mean you accept the scientific fact of Evolution.
No, Bessy, that's NOT what natural selection does. Natural selection selects for the best traits in organisms, in a certain environment. (cont)
(cont) the change of ratio of population is an irrelevant side-effect. As you put it "Natural selection is a change in ratio of population" means that it's only purpose is to get rid of a number of organisms, regardless of how good or bad they are. That's obviously not the case. It's a selection process on traits, not a population control system.
And no, I know exactly what you're talking about, but you're wrong. It's that simple. "Thou hypocrite. First take the beam out of your own eye."
""Natural selection is a change in ratio of population" means that it's only purpose is to get rid of a number of organisms, regardless of how good or bad they are."
Actually it is regardless of how good or bad they are...
what empirical test proves the existence of god or that the earth is less than 10000 years? well... science proves 100% that the earth has billions of years of age and that the only explanation for diversity of life is: Evolution. I even asked you how can some have problems with adenoids and others don't. The only explanation is: mutations, natural selection, etc etc --> evolution.
There is no creation. I mean, where is it? The universe didn't come from nothing and since everything is part of the universe, nothing was created. Note that creation means something coming from nothing, through magic. This never happened. So no creation = no creator = no God.
Everything is relevant concerning the origin of everything.
A perfect god would never create anything, thus concluding God (who's deemed perfect) cannot have created anything.
The universe was not created: observation of the universe.
No creation because you can't name one single created object. There is no proof of creation. Every observation of the universe proves always existed, nothing is destroyed, everything transforms.
As transltlantic asked: do you have proof it ever happened? Empirical, scientific proof that there was a creation and that something was created?
Magic isn't a scientific explanation, thus the universe wasn't created. (also Energy always existed, because it cannot be created nor destroyed)
A perfect god would never create anything, because that would mean he's not perfect. Look at it this way: if you already have everything you ever wanted, then why make some more?
"Empirical, scientific proof that there was a creation and that something was created?"
We observe a universe that reveals design, in our biological systems too,and the universe had a beginning, and order always goes toward chaos not the other way around. Since the universe is not eternal, like some scientist believed 200+ years ago, and of course it not surprising you believe it to, then the universe would have to be created by a separate entity.
Mistake 1: there is no design in the universe. You simply see everything that works at the moment, while everything that didn't work, died out and is forgotten. Which is in fact explained in this very video.
Mistake 2: the universe did NOT have a beginning. It has a beginning OF EXPANSION. The universe itself always existed.
Mistake 3: chaos = order. The universe looks chaotic, but it's all very finely ordered by the laws of nature.
Mistake 4: 200+ years ago, scientists believed the universe has always been the same. Same size, same conditions, etcetera. That's not the case. However, they were right about the universe being eternal.
As said, Bessy, you can't pick and choose in science. You have to consider ALL the facts and ALL the facts prove you wrong.
How did stars form? Why is the universe precisely built? Why is the universe in balance and in order? Where did the laws of nature come from? What would happen if you took away the law of gravity?
"the universe did NOT have a beginning. It has a beginning OF EXPANSION. "
Evolutionists take it to far sometimes, they will say the most stupid statements to cover the butts.
- Chaos is the most complex order there is. Just because you're too ignorant to understand it, doesn't mean it isn't true.
- they were wrong about the universe being the same throughout its history, not about it being eternal.
- the fact that the universe didn't have a beginning and always existed, the fact that macro-Evolution is accumulative micro-Evolution, the fact that mutations are generally neutral and not detrimental, etcetera.
Also the first law states, energy cannot by itself be created nor destroyed. Energy may be changed from one form into another, but the total amount remains unchanged.
Energy has an origin, since a natural process cannot created energy it was created via a supernatural process.
So your argument is: "since God must exist, energy must thus not be the last point and must thus be created by God, but God doesn't need to be created, because otherwise I would be wrong again."
Face it: the supernatural = the non-existing. Energy is eternal and doesn't have an origin. God is merely a figure of our imagination.
You may sound smart, Bessy, but your arguments remain the same as the most ignorant creationist: "I believe God did it, I can't imagine otherwise, so God did it."
You clearly lack basic logic. Yes, God would hypothetically be able to do whatever he wants. However, if God is perfect, then he already HAS everything he wants, in which case he wouldn't want anything MORE. Or in other words: he wouldn't want to create anything.
So, either God is perfect and didn't create anything at all, or God is imperfect, in which case he's not a real god.
"Magic isn't a scientific explanation, thus the universe wasn't created. (also Energy always existed, because it cannot be created nor destroyed)"
Yikes. Magic is not scientific therefore the universe was not created, good job....
A law does nothing, any natural process cannot violate the 1st law. Since the universe had a beginning, that just shows you that a separate entity created it that was not effected by the laws of nature.
What you consider "dumb comments" are actually scientific refutations of your retarded world view. Your claim is "dur, magic sky daddy did it"...very wise indeed...
As said above, the universe DID NOT, DID NEVER, DIDN'T AT ALL have a beginning. Only a beginning OF EXPANSION. If you want to ignore this proven scientific fact, go ahead. Just do it on your own channel. As I've also said: ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED, WHICH MEANS IT ALWAYS EXISTED. How clear do I have to be?
"What you consider "dumb comments" are actually scientific refutations of your retarded world view."
Interesting, considering you haven't put fourth anything with any scientific merit. In some cases you refute yourself.
"DID NOT, DID NEVER, DIDN'T AT ALL have a beginning. "
If you want to believe in something with no evidence to support it and a belief that has been rejected 200+ years ago, then your free to do so. But of course you can reject also Einsteins work.
- As explained earlier, 200+ years ago they stated the universe stayed the same throughout its history. This is not what I said. I said the universe always existed, but NOT in the same way it is today. What I said isn't refuted.
- Space-time is expanding
- The Sun is not the universe and the universe will collapse back into a singularity (aka: always something).
- the fact that the universe didn't have a beginning, but a beginning of expansion.
"200+ years ago, scientists believed"..."However, they were right about the universe being eternal."
Your saying they believed the universe was eternal, and you believe the same thing.
"I said the universe always existed, but NOT in the same way it is today. What I said isn't refuted."
The idea that the universe is eternal has been thoroughly rejected, and is contrary to scientifically known laws. You should read the two quotes below.
As said half a dozen times now: science refuted that the universe has always been in the same state. It has NEVER refuted and even CONFIRMS that it's eternal.
Last time: 200+ years ago is a different model than what I'm saying. It was the steady state universe, which I don't buy either. However, the part where they said the universe is eternal, IS CORRECT.
- if something exists and cannot be created nor destroyed, it is therefore eternal. Since Energy is part of the universe and Energy is eternal, the universe is logically eternal as well.
- Hawkings is smart, but partially wrong. (even Einstein was wrong at times) Time had a beginning at the big bang, but the universe didn't. Also, it was about 13.7 billion years ago, which Hawking didn't know yet. (no matter how smart you are, if you don't have the facts, you can't know it)
"if something exists and cannot be created nor destroyed, it is therefore eternal. "
Why do you keep repeating the same comments? If something exist in a dimension with natural laws then it had a beginning. As I said, something that is eternal does not end, as our universe will.
As I said, please provide evidence in favor of a eternal universe.
Please point out why Hawkins and Einstein are wrong with a few hundred other scientists.
I keep repeating the same comments, because you keep repeating the same mistakes.
If something cannot be created nor destroyed (like Energy), it thus doesn't have a beginning and thus always existed. (like Energy) Therefore, Energy always existed and never had a beginning.
Your claim that everything natural must have a beginning and that God is the cause of this beginning, is purely a faith-based argument that contradicts scientific facts. Evidence for eternal universe: singularity.
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."---- Stephen Hawking
"The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something." ----Janna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University
Congratulations, you quoted a mathematician and theoretical physicist on cosmology. Why not take Kent Hovind instead? He was a science teacher for 15 years...
- stars formed through gravity and nuclear fusion
- the universe is "precisely built", because it follows the laws of nature.
- if the universe wasn't in balance, it would not exist and you wouldn't ask that question.
Stars burn via nuclear fusion, they don't form via nuclear fusion...
How do gases collapse on itself, since gases expand when heated? How do particles clump together when an explosion would push them father apart from each other?
As said: GRAVITY. Also note that the gases cooled down first, before they were compressed enough to ignite. By the time they ignited, they were massive enough for gravity to hold together.
"God created the universe..."
Congratulations, you've just destroyed your entire act of sounding smart, with that phrase.
Now, this is a compliment: you were giving me a hard time, because of your sources and the topic (not your claims), but in the end, you're just the same as the rest. So sad...
"the universe is "precisely built", because it follows the laws of nature."
Congratulation, I give this is the most stupid comment of the day award. The universe is precisely built because it doesn't follow the laws of nature. When God created the universe, it was in order, God was the force that organized. Now we observe it going toward a lower state of energy, in other words disorder.
So, who designed your video PJ, since it's a very intelligent video, so it must been designed by an intelligent designer, or did evolution design this video?
Nahh just fucking with ya. ;) Awesome video Pieter, awesome!
If intelligence requires an intelligent designer, then what intelligent designer designed the intelligent designer? That's why your argument is an astronomical failure. You must start with the simplest thing of all, with the potential of complexity and this is Energy.
So if you ever think "intelligence requires an intelligent designer", then always remember that this means God needs a designer too and isn't an exception. If God doesn't need an intelligent designer, then we don't need one either
On the contrary, Monte, if you claim intelligence requires an INTELLIGENT designer, then it only logically follows that an INTELLIGENT designer needs an OTHER, MORE intelligent designer to come to be. It's a never ending story. You'll always need a more intelligent designer to design the next intelligent designer. So the only solution is to go for simplicity, as we see everywhere. The first planes were sticks and cloth. Now it's incredibly complex. So: simplicity comes before complexity.
Well, to be honest, I can't take credit for that. You'd have to congratulate Bas Haring for that. (he wrote the book "Cheese and the Theory of Evolution")
Remember, only life can beget life as per the very science you hold onto so much. Yet, those very same evolutionists cry spontaneous eruption of life exception from non-life! Make sense of that without denying the other.
denn034 1 year ago
@denn034: that's because you don't know what you're talking about.
1) Evolution doesn't concern the origin of life, the universe, planets or anything like that.
2) the Law of Biogenesis refutes the notion that fully formed beings come from inanimate matter, like driftwood turning into crocodiles
3) Abiogenesis does not go against the above law, but states the first lifeforms formed from self-replicating molecules and such.
4) educate yourself, child.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
I have to go, for now. I will continue to refute dumb claims after.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
Last comment: I'll now block you, because you went against my warnings. Instead of sounding smarter, you actually made worse comments and are starting to admit to your superstitions. Bye now. Thanks for playing, but you should've stuck with the "I'm smart" act. In fact, without the underlying belief in God, you might actually get somewhere in the scientific community.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
really? i thought he lost it all when he claimed that the earth has less than 10000 years...
the belief in god is ok, but to refute scientific facts.... wow...
this IDiots are all the same. ;D
transtlantic 2 years ago
What problem does natural selection pose for creationism?
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
Natural selection is a key element in forming new species. According to Creationism, new species cannot arise, despite the fact that we've observed it already. While most creationists accept natural selection (the strong are more likely to survive than the weak), they fail to realise what comes with the package and are afraid to go further "into the light". You creationists are afraid of the truth. I simply try to get you to accept it.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Who made the big bang then smart guy? The only answer is God you cannot deny that
dogspawn 2 years ago
The only answer is ENERGY. Plain old, dumb, regular, natural energy. God is an anti-answer. It raises far more questions and problems than answers. Note that the big bang wasn't an explosion, but an expansion of space-time.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Once again you are wrong. Where is the evidence?
dogspawn 2 years ago
Microwave Background Radiation...
Physics...
Cosmology...
etcetera.
Where's YOUR evidence?
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Buzzwords aren't evidence
dogspawn 2 years ago
No, but the scientific fields which are represented by the "buzzwords" do provide all the evidence you need. (apart from MBR)
We know matter is "solid" energy and didn't exist in the first moments after the Big Bang. It only came later, after the energy cooled down. We know time is subjective and that it denotes an observable change. We know energy increases space itself, more specifically Dark Energy. So without time, space and matter, only Energy is left. God is, as said, an anti-answer.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
What part about God don't you understand?
dogspawn 2 years ago
1) What is God? Explain it scientifically. If you can't define God scientifically, then you can't claim God did anything.
2) How did God create anything at all, while creation is magic by definition. (making something out of nothing, which is impossible)
3) Why did God create anything, since a perfect god wouldn't need to do so.
Try answering those 3 questions first.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Why do I have to use your terms? Seems one sided and unfair.
dogspawn 2 years ago
Because my terms are the terms for correct, objective, scientific analyses of facts and evidence, while yours is purely subjective and consists of absolutely no evidence at all and uses as main argument: "you need to have faith".
The rules of science got you electricity, computers, cars, machinery, tv's, radio's, dvd's, cd's, microwave ovens, etcetera. Faith got us mass murder, mass suicide, pandemics, famines and even more problems.
That's why we do it on my terms, not yours.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Jesus did it
dogspawn 2 years ago
And now you're blocked, spambot.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
"The rules of science got you electricity, computers, cars, machinery, tv's, radio's, dvd's, cd's, microwave ovens, etcetera."
The rules of science? Actually it was our knowledge of our environment, or science. What is wrong with science?
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
Without the rules of science, there would be no science and thus no knowledge of our environment.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
"Natural selection is a key element in forming new species."
True species can arise, that have a subset of the characteristics of the previous organism. I' am very surprised PJ. that you say this, "Natural selection is a key element in forming new species.". I though you were a little smart, I guess not. Natural selection favors a change in a living organism. Natural Selection of itself does not change the organism, it only changes the ratio of the population.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
Bessy, your tons of mails, tons of comments and uber-ignorance and lies are really starting to piss me off. If I explain something, I expect you to either ask for clarification, refute it using scientific facts or accept the explanation. NOT repeating the same old lies over and over again!
I never said Natural selection changes the organism itself. I said it's a key element in forming new species. How? It selects the traits, necessary for speciation.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
"uber-ignorance and lies "
Interesting.
"If I explain something, I expect you to either ask for clarification, refute it using scientific facts or accept the explanation."
It is easy to refute an explanation when it is not scientific, which is what I have been doing, and did.
"forming new species. How? It selects the traits, necessary for speciation. "
O my...you really don't know anything.
How can a change in ratio form a new species?
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
it is scientific: The greatest show on earth, by Richard Dawkins, where are the mistakes? nowhere.
Where are the mistakes of the Evolution page at wikipedia? nowhere. you are lying.
"change in ratio"? of what? number of individuals, genes, expression of genes? what?
transtlantic 2 years ago
Saying "nu'uh" isn't a refutation, Bessy. And THAT's what you've been doing.
Natural Selection isn't a change in ratio of population. At least, that's not to point of it. You get a number of organisms. Some organisms are better at surviving than others. They are thus more likely to actually survive, while the others don't. That's natural selection. Also, as said, it's a KEY ELEMENT in speciation. I never said it's the ONLY element. Mutations in DNA are an other key element, for example.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
"Saying "nu'uh" isn't a refutation, Bessy. And THAT's what you've been doing."
All I have been saying is "nu'uh"? If that if what you have observed, then I see why you believe in evolution the creation myth of atheism.
"Natural Selection isn't a change in ratio of population."
Just when I though an evolutionist could not get any dumber. That is excatally what natural selection does.
Who wrote the Origin of Species?
Wouldn't be surprised if you said Einstein.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
Most of your comments come down to "nu'uh", although you don't respond that shortly. Also, a creation myth concerns the supernatural. What part of Evolution is supernatural? Not to mention that not all atheists accept Evolution, since they're both separate things. Being an atheist, doesn't mean you accept the scientific fact of Evolution.
No, Bessy, that's NOT what natural selection does. Natural selection selects for the best traits in organisms, in a certain environment. (cont)
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
"Some organisms are better at surviving than others. They are thus more likely to actually survive, while the others don't. That's natural selection."
And that is a change in the ratio of a given population. Duh.
Now I really know you are clueless to what I' am talk about.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
(cont) the change of ratio of population is an irrelevant side-effect. As you put it "Natural selection is a change in ratio of population" means that it's only purpose is to get rid of a number of organisms, regardless of how good or bad they are. That's obviously not the case. It's a selection process on traits, not a population control system.
And no, I know exactly what you're talking about, but you're wrong. It's that simple. "Thou hypocrite. First take the beam out of your own eye."
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
""Natural selection is a change in ratio of population" means that it's only purpose is to get rid of a number of organisms, regardless of how good or bad they are."
Actually it is regardless of how good or bad they are...
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
WRONG, if I find the same mistakes in your next batch of comments, I'll block you for wasting my time and spamming.
Natural Selection selects the good traits and gets rid of the bad traits. If it didn't select, it wouldn't be called "natural selection", stupid.
Saying your comments are dumb may not be a refutation, but it's still the truth.
Yes, our intelligence is beneficial to our survival.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Interesting you say my comments are lies, considering I use my knowledge of science to conjure them.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
what empirical test proves the existence of god or that the earth is less than 10000 years? well... science proves 100% that the earth has billions of years of age and that the only explanation for diversity of life is: Evolution. I even asked you how can some have problems with adenoids and others don't. The only explanation is: mutations, natural selection, etc etc --> evolution.
transtlantic 2 years ago
"If you can't define God scientifically, then you can't claim God did anything."
God is the creator. Their is a creation, logically their is a creator.
"How did God create anything at all,"
We don't know, neither is it relevant. What is relevant is whatever process created all we see around us is not longer happening.
"Why did God create anything, since a perfect god wouldn't need to do so."
That is theological question. Why God created anything is of no importance to a scientist.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
There is no creation. I mean, where is it? The universe didn't come from nothing and since everything is part of the universe, nothing was created. Note that creation means something coming from nothing, through magic. This never happened. So no creation = no creator = no God.
Everything is relevant concerning the origin of everything.
A perfect god would never create anything, thus concluding God (who's deemed perfect) cannot have created anything.
YOU FAIL!!!
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
"There is no creation. I mean, where is it? "
The process is no longer happening, it is not a natural process such as evolution.
"The universe didn't come from nothing and since everything is part of the universe, nothing was created."
What makes you draw that conclusion?
"didn't come from nothing and since everything is part of the universe, "
Ugh?!!
"So no creation = no creator = no God."
I think it is you that has to stop commenting. No creation? What is your logic...?
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
"no longer happening"!?!?
so how do you prove it happened?
The universe was not created: observation of the universe.
No creation because you can't name one single created object. There is no proof of creation. Every observation of the universe proves always existed, nothing is destroyed, everything transforms.
transtlantic 2 years ago
"A perfect god would never create anything, thus concluding God (who's deemed perfect) cannot have created anything."
How do you know this? =)
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
As transltlantic asked: do you have proof it ever happened? Empirical, scientific proof that there was a creation and that something was created?
Magic isn't a scientific explanation, thus the universe wasn't created. (also Energy always existed, because it cannot be created nor destroyed)
A perfect god would never create anything, because that would mean he's not perfect. Look at it this way: if you already have everything you ever wanted, then why make some more?
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
"Empirical, scientific proof that there was a creation and that something was created?"
We observe a universe that reveals design, in our biological systems too,and the universe had a beginning, and order always goes toward chaos not the other way around. Since the universe is not eternal, like some scientist believed 200+ years ago, and of course it not surprising you believe it to, then the universe would have to be created by a separate entity.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
Mistake 1: there is no design in the universe. You simply see everything that works at the moment, while everything that didn't work, died out and is forgotten. Which is in fact explained in this very video.
Mistake 2: the universe did NOT have a beginning. It has a beginning OF EXPANSION. The universe itself always existed.
Mistake 3: chaos = order. The universe looks chaotic, but it's all very finely ordered by the laws of nature.
(cont)
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Mistake 4: 200+ years ago, scientists believed the universe has always been the same. Same size, same conditions, etcetera. That's not the case. However, they were right about the universe being eternal.
As said, Bessy, you can't pick and choose in science. You have to consider ALL the facts and ALL the facts prove you wrong.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
"However, they were right about the universe being eternal."
Actually they were wrong.
"As said, Bessy, you can't pick and choose in science. You have to consider ALL the facts and ALL the facts prove you wrong. "
Name one fact that is not imaginary, that disproves my statements.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
"there is no design in the universe."
How did stars form? Why is the universe precisely built? Why is the universe in balance and in order? Where did the laws of nature come from? What would happen if you took away the law of gravity?
"the universe did NOT have a beginning. It has a beginning OF EXPANSION. "
Evolutionists take it to far sometimes, they will say the most stupid statements to cover the butts.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
"chaos = order. "
Can someone get any more dumb?
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
- Chaos is the most complex order there is. Just because you're too ignorant to understand it, doesn't mean it isn't true.
- they were wrong about the universe being the same throughout its history, not about it being eternal.
- the fact that the universe didn't have a beginning and always existed, the fact that macro-Evolution is accumulative micro-Evolution, the fact that mutations are generally neutral and not detrimental, etcetera.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Also the first law states, energy cannot by itself be created nor destroyed. Energy may be changed from one form into another, but the total amount remains unchanged.
Energy has an origin, since a natural process cannot created energy it was created via a supernatural process.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
So your argument is: "since God must exist, energy must thus not be the last point and must thus be created by God, but God doesn't need to be created, because otherwise I would be wrong again."
Face it: the supernatural = the non-existing. Energy is eternal and doesn't have an origin. God is merely a figure of our imagination.
You may sound smart, Bessy, but your arguments remain the same as the most ignorant creationist: "I believe God did it, I can't imagine otherwise, so God did it."
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
"A perfect god would never create anything, because that would mean he's not perfect.
How do you know this? What is the logic behind it?
"Look at it this way: if you already have everything you ever wanted, then why make some more?"
God did have everything he ever wanted. God can do whatever he wants.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
You clearly lack basic logic. Yes, God would hypothetically be able to do whatever he wants. However, if God is perfect, then he already HAS everything he wants, in which case he wouldn't want anything MORE. Or in other words: he wouldn't want to create anything.
So, either God is perfect and didn't create anything at all, or God is imperfect, in which case he's not a real god.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Since energy/matter cannot create itself, a separate entity has to create it.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
"So, either God is perfect and didn't create anything at all, or God is imperfect, in which case he's not a real god. "
What does perfection have to do with an act of creation?
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
"Magic isn't a scientific explanation, thus the universe wasn't created. (also Energy always existed, because it cannot be created nor destroyed)"
Yikes. Magic is not scientific therefore the universe was not created, good job....
A law does nothing, any natural process cannot violate the 1st law. Since the universe had a beginning, that just shows you that a separate entity created it that was not effected by the laws of nature.
Have any more dumb comments?
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
What you consider "dumb comments" are actually scientific refutations of your retarded world view. Your claim is "dur, magic sky daddy did it"...very wise indeed...
As said above, the universe DID NOT, DID NEVER, DIDN'T AT ALL have a beginning. Only a beginning OF EXPANSION. If you want to ignore this proven scientific fact, go ahead. Just do it on your own channel. As I've also said: ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED, WHICH MEANS IT ALWAYS EXISTED. How clear do I have to be?
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
"What you consider "dumb comments" are actually scientific refutations of your retarded world view."
Interesting, considering you haven't put fourth anything with any scientific merit. In some cases you refute yourself.
"DID NOT, DID NEVER, DIDN'T AT ALL have a beginning. "
If you want to believe in something with no evidence to support it and a belief that has been rejected 200+ years ago, then your free to do so. But of course you can reject also Einsteins work.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
- As explained earlier, 200+ years ago they stated the universe stayed the same throughout its history. This is not what I said. I said the universe always existed, but NOT in the same way it is today. What I said isn't refuted.
- Space-time is expanding
- The Sun is not the universe and the universe will collapse back into a singularity (aka: always something).
- the fact that the universe didn't have a beginning, but a beginning of expansion.
(cont)
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
"200+ years ago, scientists believed"..."However, they were right about the universe being eternal."
Your saying they believed the universe was eternal, and you believe the same thing.
"I said the universe always existed, but NOT in the same way it is today. What I said isn't refuted."
The idea that the universe is eternal has been thoroughly rejected, and is contrary to scientifically known laws. You should read the two quotes below.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
As said half a dozen times now: science refuted that the universe has always been in the same state. It has NEVER refuted and even CONFIRMS that it's eternal.
Last time: 200+ years ago is a different model than what I'm saying. It was the steady state universe, which I don't buy either. However, the part where they said the universe is eternal, IS CORRECT.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
"The Sun is not the universe and the universe will collapse back into a singularity (aka: always something)."
The sun is part of the universe, I never said it was the universe. how will the universe collapse on itself?
"the fact that the universe didn't have a beginning, but a beginning of expansion."
What expanded?
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
"Only a beginning OF EXPANSION."
What expanded? If something is eternal then is will have no end, but our universe will eventually end. The sun will eventually stop burning.
"If you want to ignore this proven scientific fact, go ahead."
What fact are you talking about? Please tell me.
"ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED, WHICH MEANS IT ALWAYS EXISTED."
How does that imply it always existed? Why do you draw that conclusion. Provide evidence that the universe is eternal.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
- if something exists and cannot be created nor destroyed, it is therefore eternal. Since Energy is part of the universe and Energy is eternal, the universe is logically eternal as well.
- Hawkings is smart, but partially wrong. (even Einstein was wrong at times) Time had a beginning at the big bang, but the universe didn't. Also, it was about 13.7 billion years ago, which Hawking didn't know yet. (no matter how smart you are, if you don't have the facts, you can't know it)
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
"if something exists and cannot be created nor destroyed, it is therefore eternal. "
Why do you keep repeating the same comments? If something exist in a dimension with natural laws then it had a beginning. As I said, something that is eternal does not end, as our universe will.
As I said, please provide evidence in favor of a eternal universe.
Please point out why Hawkins and Einstein are wrong with a few hundred other scientists.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
I keep repeating the same comments, because you keep repeating the same mistakes.
If something cannot be created nor destroyed (like Energy), it thus doesn't have a beginning and thus always existed. (like Energy) Therefore, Energy always existed and never had a beginning.
Your claim that everything natural must have a beginning and that God is the cause of this beginning, is purely a faith-based argument that contradicts scientific facts. Evidence for eternal universe: singularity.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."---- Stephen Hawking
Wait let me guess Stephen Hawking is "dumb". =)
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
"The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something." ----Janna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
Congratulations, you quoted a mathematician and theoretical physicist on cosmology. Why not take Kent Hovind instead? He was a science teacher for 15 years...
- stars formed through gravity and nuclear fusion
- the universe is "precisely built", because it follows the laws of nature.
- if the universe wasn't in balance, it would not exist and you wouldn't ask that question.
- the laws of nature always existed.
- without gravity, a lot would fall apart.
- Creationists are infinitely worse.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
"stars formed through gravity and nuclear fusion"
Stars burn via nuclear fusion, they don't form via nuclear fusion...
How do gases collapse on itself, since gases expand when heated? How do particles clump together when an explosion would push them father apart from each other?
Hydrogen gases does not come together.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
As said: GRAVITY. Also note that the gases cooled down first, before they were compressed enough to ignite. By the time they ignited, they were massive enough for gravity to hold together.
"God created the universe..."
Congratulations, you've just destroyed your entire act of sounding smart, with that phrase.
Now, this is a compliment: you were giving me a hard time, because of your sources and the topic (not your claims), but in the end, you're just the same as the rest. So sad...
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
"the universe is "precisely built", because it follows the laws of nature."
Congratulation, I give this is the most stupid comment of the day award. The universe is precisely built because it doesn't follow the laws of nature. When God created the universe, it was in order, God was the force that organized. Now we observe it going toward a lower state of energy, in other words disorder.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
"What you consider "dumb comments" are actually scientific refutations of your retarded world view. "
Saying my comments are dumb is not a refutation.
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
Why are we intelligent, is it for our survival?
BlessElShaddai 2 years ago
So, who designed your video PJ, since it's a very intelligent video, so it must been designed by an intelligent designer, or did evolution design this video?
Nahh just fucking with ya. ;) Awesome video Pieter, awesome!
MortalLuc 2 years ago
Thanks, but please, stick with PJ. Calling me Pieter is like calling you Lu. :-)
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Intelligence requires a being.
JosephShedrickMaror 2 years ago
If intelligence requires an intelligent designer, then what intelligent designer designed the intelligent designer? That's why your argument is an astronomical failure. You must start with the simplest thing of all, with the potential of complexity and this is Energy.
So if you ever think "intelligence requires an intelligent designer", then always remember that this means God needs a designer too and isn't an exception. If God doesn't need an intelligent designer, then we don't need one either
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Poor argument
ManicDepressive101 2 years ago
On the contrary, Monte, if you claim intelligence requires an INTELLIGENT designer, then it only logically follows that an INTELLIGENT designer needs an OTHER, MORE intelligent designer to come to be. It's a never ending story. You'll always need a more intelligent designer to design the next intelligent designer. So the only solution is to go for simplicity, as we see everywhere. The first planes were sticks and cloth. Now it's incredibly complex. So: simplicity comes before complexity.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Excellent chess analogy, PJ.
SiCurious 2 years ago
Well, to be honest, I can't take credit for that. You'd have to congratulate Bas Haring for that. (he wrote the book "Cheese and the Theory of Evolution")
PJDesseyn 2 years ago