ooman4:

Do you have problem with reading?

Yes I believe my white masters's science because it offers logics and proofs unlike you who believe your illiterate white masters mysticism without logic or proves but inference and conclusion based on faith

same MO insulting replies when will you get to the science part.

anyway as a Dawkins fanboy the tactics is still in line with commands of the G.O Dawkins Atheist ministries

Enigma:

^^^ Look at your friend's image with the ballooons. One says 'as you blow the balloon, the galaxies move further apart'.

Meanwhile two gigantic elephants in the room:

1. someone is blowing the balloon; the balloon is not blowing itself and the galaxies are not moving further apart on their own

2. look at the size of the person blowing --- compared to the balloon he is blowing.

Those who will get this will get it.

Perfect!

davidylan:

Ok it seems you dont even understand the terms you use so let me help you... Miriam Webster defines "empirical" as "relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>"

Empirical evidence and an assumption is an oxymoron.

thanks but try again.

David, you have started to cluch straws again. You asked for empirical facts to support the big b.ang theory, i presented the fact that the universe is inflating, therefore the inflation would have started at a point in time and space. You then decided to fly of the handle by arguing off point on Webster's definition of empirical.

So what type of empirical facts are you looking for? That we should be there to witness the big b.ang?

I am sorry to say, but you sometimes argue like you have never opened a science text book in your life. No science book says galaxies started to expand, it is space that started to expand, and galaxies did not form until much later after the big b.ang, Quakers, formed first, then galaxies and stars.

If you want further evidence of our inflating universe, get a telescope and a spectrometer. Just measure the red shifts of various galaxies in the sky to confirm that the further a galaxy is from us, the faster it is receding away from us.

davidylan:

i had to shake my head at that one.

you missed the post?

ooman:

dont be so dumb, they have different philosophical implications dunce. read the history of abiogenesis and chemical evolution, then check out pasteurization. pasteurization now proves wrong life originating from organic decaying matter which is what abiogenesis originally means. abiogenesis is wrongly used by many to mean organic evolution this days neglecting the philosophical implications, such dunce like yourself.

ooman: @ chukkynwob: great Chuks, here you are bashing me again.

According to present knowledge you are right.

Abiogenesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth.
Precambrian stromatolites in the Siyeh Formation, Glacier National Park. In 2002, a paper in the scientific journal Nature suggested that these 3.5 Ga (billion years old) geological formations contain fossilized cyanobacteria microbes. This suggests they are evidence of the earliest known life on earth.

Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis is the natural process by which life arises from inorganic matter.[2][3][4][5] The word is usually used to describe the processes by which life on Earth originated. The earliest known life existed between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean Era when sufficient crust had solidified following the molten Hadean Eon.

But i and some other staunch evolutionist and supporter of chemical evolution prefer they be used differently because of the history of the term, hence its philosophical explanation.

its because of people like you, before we say one or two things, you would quickly burst in that pasteurazation proved it wrong, which it truly did, which is why we prefer it to be sepratate, got it?

chukkynwob: Ooman you have the right to not believe in God but saying science disproved God is simply ludicrous!!!!

I have basically followed your arguments and none is scientific in anyway,you even said that the difference between chemical evolution and abiogenesis is philosophical,when I probed further you gave me the F word.

i find this your attitude in negation to any civil discourse, but nevertheless consistent to modus operandi of MOST atheists on NL.

93% of scientists at the national academy of science in america says science disprove god not just me.

Abiogenesis and organic evolution defers by history.

Creationists use them interchangably to mock evolution before it became the conventional term.
read history of science, not just science

wirinet:

David, you have started to cluch straws again. You asked for empirical facts to support the big b.ang theory, i presented the fact that the universe is inflating, therefore the inflation would have started at a point in time and space. You then decided to fly of the handle by arguing off point on Webster's definition of empirical.

I dont understand what you mean by "fly off the handle"... i responded to you as calmly as possible but perhaps you are projecting your own feelings.

Secondly, that the universe is inflating is a fact... but that is not empirical evidence for the existence of the earth's creation. Yes it may be empirical evidence for the distance between planets but it says nothing as to how those planets got there in the first place. You also ignore a huge elephant in the room... when and how did time and space begin? From empty vacuum?

wirinet:
I am sorry to say, but you sometimes argue like you have never opened a science text book in your life. No science book says galaxies started to expand, it is space that started to expand, and galaxies did not form until much later after the big b.ang, Quakers, formed first, then galaxies and stars.

ok this is even more convoluted. Space started to expand... from where? so space has always existed? What created this space that apparently has mass?

If space is expanding and the galaxies did not form until much later, that automatically destroys your attempt to use "space inflation" as empirical evidence for the big ba.ng. the big ban.g attempts to explain the creation of earth and the galaxies...

wirinet:
If you want further evidence of our inflating universe, get a telescope and a spectrometer. Just measure the red shifts of various galaxies in the sky to confirm that the further a galaxy is from us, the faster it is receding away from us.

Ok a telescope tells us that the galaxies are receding farther away from us and so? How do they explain the creation of those galaxies in the first place?

ooman4:

93% of scientists at the national academy of science in america says science disprove god not just me.

Abiogenesis and organic evolution defers by history.

Creationists use them interchangably to mock evolution before it became the conventional term.
read history of science, not just science

what is the difference because I did my research(just in case something new came up) and they are still one and the same so what is the difference

ooman4:

93% of scientists at the national academy of science in america says science disprove god not just me.

Abiogenesis and organic evolution defers by history.

Creationists use them interchangably to mock evolution before it became the conventional term.
read history of science, not just science

fallacy of appeal to authority. A common mistake atheists make.

davidylan:

fallacy of appeal to authority. A common mistake atheists make.

you took the word right from my mouth(fingers abi keyboard) lol!!!

chukkynwob:

you missed the post?

i'm glad i missed it... that would have been a few minutes of my time wasted on a confused piece of nonsense.

I might start taking you seriously if you can give me a logical difference between Chemical Evolution and Abiogenesis.

chukkynwob: Ooman you have the right to not believe in God but saying science disproved God is simply ludicrous!!!!

I have basically followed your arguments and none is scientific in anyway,you even said that the difference between chemical evolution and abiogenesis is philosophical,when I probed further you gave me the F word.

i find this your attitude in negation to any civil discourse, but nevertheless consistent to modus operandi of MOST atheists on NL.

i cannot say science has disproved the thousands of Gods that have existed throughout human history, but i can categorically say science has disproved the Jewish God YHWH, who claimed to have created the world in 6 days using Hebrew words and created man out of inorganic clay and used one rib from man to make woman.

wirinet:

i cannot say science has disproved the thousands of Gods that have existed throughout human history, but i can categorically say science has disproved the Jewish God YHWH, who claimed to have created the world in 6 days using Hebrew words and created man out of inorganic clay and used one rib from man to make woman.

even though your only scientific proof of an alternative creation is a man blowing a balloon with stars painted on it and a telescope?

wirinet:

i cannot say science has disproved the thousands of Gods that have existed throughout human history, but i can categorically say science has disproved the Jewish God YHWH, who claimed to have created the world in 6 days using Hebrew words and created man out of inorganic clay and used one rib from man to make woman.

how is that? enlighten me.

davidylan:

did you understand the meaning of the term "empirical" or did it just fly over your head?

Before the galaxies started to "expand", how did they appear in the first place?

DONT JUST ASK QUESTIONS, GIVE LOGICAL REASONABLE ANSWERS.

[size=15pt]READ A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING BY KRAUSS AND THEN WE CAN TALK.[/size]

Enigma:

^^^ Look at your friend's image with the ballooons. One says 'as you blow the balloon, the galaxies move further apart'.

Meanwhile two gigantic elephants in the room:

1. someone is blowing the balloon; the balloon is not blowing itself and the galaxies are not moving further apart on their own

2. look at the size of the person blowing --- compared to the balloon he is blowing.

Those who will get this will get it.

and davidylan also supported this.

You are both dunces no doubt.

Just because you say Jesus is the lion of judah doesnt make him a lion.

that is an analogy by creationists.

You are disproving yourselves.

davidylan:

fallacy of appeal to authority. A common mistake atheists make.

dont be silly, that is right. if you have anything against it, then speak

chukkynwob:

what is the difference because I did my research(just in case something new came up) and they are still one and the same so what is the difference

abiogenesis was disproved by pasteurization. do your researches

chukkynwob: I might start taking you seriously if you can give me a logical difference between Chemical Evolution and Abiogenesis.

abiogenesis was used to refer to the presence of bacteria that causes decay on meat, it was believed that the bacteria came from the meat in the past. Pasturization proved that wrong. however, the term remained in use because of creationists couldnt make a difference between evolution from inorganic matter from evolution from organic matter during the process of chemical evolution.

wirinet:

i cannot say science has disproved the thousands of Gods that have existed throughout human history, but i can categorically say science has disproved the Jewish God YHWH, who claimed to have created the world in 6 days using Hebrew words and created man out of inorganic clay and used one rib from man to make woman.

The problem with people like davidylan is that the KNOW very well that their mythical belief are FALSE but due to excessive early childhood indoctrination and the fear of ancient tales and mythology he keeps on insisting that others MUST believe in something. . .My own is that know body knows anything as such no body can give you any credible evidence that can stand any test. There are MANY atheist like me that believe in nothing when it come to how the universe and humans on planet earth came about. . .Ever body is just speculating and that remains the fact. . .people like davidylan will tell you that science supports they man made god but when asked how they will begin to cry and speak in tongues. . .The question I always ask the tyheist that claim that their own specific god created the universe and ALWAYS fail to provide a single evidence for their lies is this. .Why asset something that you CAN"T even provide evidence for in the first place?. . .Scientist no matter how wild their claims are always try to provide some testable evidence or something that can be demonstrated even though its not sound enough. . When will these liars bring something other than words of mouth?. . .The fact that they are always telling others about a god they claims speaks to people and wants a personal relationship with him says it all. . .Deluded goons. . .

davidylan:

but you are yet to provide this "logics" and "proofs" to support what you believe sparked our very existence. Why is that so difficult?

read the book, then learn

mazaje:

The problem with people like davidylan is that the KNOW very well that their mythical belief are FALSE but due to excessive early childhood indoctrination and the fear of ancient tales and mythology he keeps on insisting that others MUST believe in something. . .My own is that know body knows anything as such no body can give you any credible evidence that can stand any test. There are MANY atheist like me that believe in nothing when it come to how the universe and humans on planet earth came about. . .Ever body is just speculating and that remains the fact. . .people like davidylan will tell you that science supports they man made god but when asked how they will begin to cry and speak in tongues. . .The question I always ask the tyheist that claim that their own specific god created the universe and ALWAYS fail to provide a single evidence for their lies is this. .Why asset something that you CAN"T even provide evidence for in the first place?. . .Scientist no matter how wild their claims are always try to provide some testable evidence or something that can be demonstrated even though its not sound enough. . When will these liars bring something other than words of mouth?. . .The fact that they are always telling others about a god they claims speaks to people and wants a personal relationship with him says it all. . .Deluded goons. . .

simple question - how did science disprove the existence of God. It doesnt need a 20-line diatribe on my upbringing to answer it.

davidylan:

simple question - how did science disprove the existence of God. It doesnt need a 20-line diatribe on my upbringing to answer it.

Science has nothing to do with your mythical man made idea called god(your own happens top be the jewish and roman version). . .You don't need science to help you support your own claims do you?. . .Science has nothing to do with your mythical beliefs. . .You can not even provide a single evidence for the what you are asserting yet you want some one to tell you how science disproves your god idea?. . .You are a joke. .

mazaje:

Science has nothing to do with your mythical man made idea called god(yourt own happens top be the jewish and roman version). . .You don't need science to help you support your own claims do you?. . .Science has nothing to do with your mythical beliefs. . .

I'm not sure what exactly it is you are answering here. No one has ever said science is the basis of christianity.

I asked a simple question - how does science disprove the existence of God? Afterall wasnt that the premise of wirinet's claims that you agreed with?

davidylan:

I'm not sure what exactly it is you are answering here. No one has ever said science is the basis of christianity.

I asked a simple question - how does science disprove the existence of God? Afterall wasnt that the premise of wirinet's claims that you agreed with?

If you can tell us exactly what your god is, how it looks like, how its voice sounds like, how exactly it interact with humans and the univserse etc. . .Please provide a factual description of your god’s characteristics and abilities so that we can be sure that we can pass it over to the scientist to help us know if it exist or not and tell us so that will know it when we see it, hear its voice or come in contact with it. Try to be as specific as possible to avoid ambiguity. We need to be able to differentiate your god from other god's or other phenomena. . .Do that first before asking questions like how has science disproved your god. . .Science has nothing to do with man made traditional mythology . . .

ooman4:

abiogenesis was used to refer to the presence of bacteria that causes decay on meat, it was believed that the bacteria came from the meat in the past. Pasturization proved that wrong. however, the term remained in use because of creationists couldnt make a difference between evolution from inorganic matter from evolution from organic matter during the process of chemical evolution.

which is which?

In the context of origin of life,chemical evolution is the same as abiogenesis or simply put 'spontaneous generation'

mazaje:

If you can tell us exactly what your god is, how it looks like, how its voice sounds like, how exactly it interact with humans and the univserse etc. . .Please provide a factual description of your god’s characteristics and abilities so that we can be sure that we can pass it over to the scientist to help us know if it exist or not and tell us so that will know it when we see it, hear its voice or come in contact with it. Try to be as specific as possible to avoid ambiguity. We need to be able to differentiate your god from other god's or other phenomena. . .Do that first before asking questions like how has science disproved your god. . .Science has nothing to do with man made traditional mythology . . .

well perhaps you can start by telling us EXACTLY how the earth was created, how life evolved, how the galaxies were formed from expanding space and why exactly life exists on only one planet. Please provide a FACTUAL DESCRIPTION of the scientific evidence that disproves that God could have created the earth. As usual atheists NEVER answer any questions... they hide, deflect then ask the same tired questions that they have repeated on 200 threads.

chukkynwob:

which is which?

In the context of origin of life,chemical evolution is the same as abiogenesis or simply put 'spontaneous generation'

in the context of the history of both words, they are different and i still prefer they be used differently, what is it you dont understand about that?

I wasnt wrong saying you do not fit anymore than a tv repairer.

davidylan:

simple question - how did science disprove the existence of God. It doesnt need a 20-line diatribe on my upbringing to answer it.

simple question. HOW DID SCIENCE PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF YOUR GOD THAN IT DOES THE EXISTENCE OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI?

davidylan:

well perhaps you can start by telling us EXACTLY how the earth was created, how life evolved, how the galaxies were formed from expanding space and why exactly life exists on only one planet. Please provide a FACTUAL DESCRIPTION of the scientific evidence that disproves that God could have created the earth. As usual atheists NEVER answer any questions... they hide, deflect then ask the same tired questions that they have repeated on 200 threads.

IS this the first time answers were provided to you yet wasnt brave enough to drop your dogmas. so shut up about it

ooman4:

simple question. HOW DID SCIENCE PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF YOUR GOD THAN IT DOES THE EXISTENCE OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI?

when are you going to answer the science questions?

davidylan:

when are you going to answer the science questions?

when you answer yours