Refuting Scientific Proof Elohim/god Exists

My take on the utter nonsense that seekerofyhwh threw out as "scientific proof" (science does not deal in proofs) while he bastardized science.

seekerofyhwh has made two videos concerning this topic, and utilized portions from the first to make the second. He has his ratings disabled, big surprise! He has his comments disabled and censored, more surprises. I doubt this will make it as a video response, but wtf...
Have fun!

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• messiahjonz
• seekerofyhwh
• nonsense
• science
• proof
• evidence
• scietific
• method
• 2nd
• law
• biogenesis
• abiogenesis
• creator
• intelligent
• design

[messiahjonz]

I am not sure which "theory" you are referring to when you say; "that theory has not even beed tested."

Please, make some sense.

Please, stop being dishonest...

Dishonest in your posts...

Dishonest in your reasoning...

Dishonest in your lack of ability to comprehend simple scientific concepts.

[messiahjonz]

You said this:

"A system that can be broken down, had to at some point been broken down."

Then you cite several systems, skeletal, nervous and respiratory.

There is nothing to indicate that any of these systems "had to at some point been broken down", in your words.

You speak of dishonesty of others, yet fail to realize that you have not a clue of that which you speak of.

Stop being dishonest.

[messiahjonz]

There is nothing to indicate that creation occurred other than a religious belief.

Science does not assume a god created something as an alternative.

You brought up atheism, not me, I never claimed to be an atheist, because I am not one.

Having said that, science does not entertain the supernatural simply because science is the study of nature, and theories are our best explanations for the natural processes we (the scientific community) observe.

Stop being dishonest.

[EmptyBottleTherapies]

there doesn't have to be a reason" just doesn't cut it as a scientific theory, especialy when that theory has not even beed tested. I understand if you take up the call of athiesm as a religous choice, that's your right, god bless you (lol), but that's not being true to science and the pursuit of truth...what information led you to your hypothesis? and more importantly how did you test it? If the answer to the 1st is lack of evidence of god, that doesn't cut it for the origin of matter, sorry

[EmptyBottleTherapies]

I can name several systems that can broken down to smaller parts. You see the Human body has serpate Independant yet codependant systems that on their own wouldn't survive very long, yet each system serves and committs a specialized function...Skeletal System, Nervous System, Respiratory system...and those systems can be broken down into muscles or in some cases tissues working together, and those tissues can be broken down to cells, which are made up of molecues, which are made up of atoms

[EmptyBottleTherapies]

you are being very very disnhonest in assuming there is no cause for creation. Cause and effect. I drink too much tea (cause) , later I have to piss (effect). To assume that something exists without even wanting to know why it is there and how it got there is extremely dishonest to science...good for justifying a religous position, but not truly in the search of truth.

[messiahjonz]

A breakdown of causality logic is known as questionable cause. This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together.

Hydrogen is matter, and makes up 75% of te known universe. Hydrogen is the simplest (not complexed) element.

Systems are built up to the point they are at now.

Systems may break down as well...

can you name one?

"There had to be a cause of creation..."

WHY?

Because you are being dishonest in assuming.

[EmptyBottleTherapies]

following the basic scientific principles of Cause and Effect. Matter are complex molecules made up of certain atoms, made up of protons, electrons, and neutrons, the protrons and neutrons work together, the electrons form eliptical orbits around the nucleus. A system that can be broken down, had to at some point been broken down. That's just mathematics and physics. There had to be a cause of creation, and NOT attempting to explore a cause for atomic matter is intellectualy dishonest.

[Iggyocracy]

I might agree from the other side of the screen, but you aren't being objective only judgemental. Which is fine, I run into you every day. If people did more research & actually put their noodle to work to discover the truth I spout, then maybe they'd see this world & it's "authorities" for what they are. Do you have a specific topic to discuss? Maybe you'd like a "whack job's" view on it? I'm trying to literally wake people up, not tell them what they want to hear or already believe.

[messiahjonz]

Tesla makes a hypothesis, nothing more.

Besides, what occurred prior to this dense pinhead? (not insulting you)

It is easy to make assumptions of what one meant or inferred when they are not arround to agree or disagree with a critique.