*disclaimer
Not sure if any of you have ever been confronted with such questions or not but just wanted to share it with you.

Well today I was given a link to a video that contained very thought provoking questions, for me atleast.

And I wanted to share it with you guys, being if you haven't seen or heard them before some where prior to.

Here it goes:

[b]1. Do you believe energy has always existed?

1A. Do you believe it existed within vacuum fluxes in a timeless, spaceless, matterless, void before a big bang?

1A-A. Can energy create itself?

1A-B. How so? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof on how it does still today)

It is scientifically believed that energy can't be created or destroyed, henceforth law of conservation of energy. For something to be labeled as science, it should be able to be observed, tested, and then repeated. Since it's seemingly impossible to be able to observe whether something is eternal or not, (since you're not eternal you can't observe it) which means it's seemingly impossible to be able to test whether it's eternal or not since you can't observe it, which definitely means you can't repeat it if you've never tested it.

2. Has matter always existed?

2A. can matter create itself?

2A-A. How so? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof on how it does still today)

3. Do you believe a mass of matter and energy rotated until it exploded?

3A. Did that mass of energy and matter create itself?

3A-A. Do you believe that all matter and energy in the Universe was created by a Big Bang 14 billion years ago?

3A-B. Were you or anyone existing today, existing at that point to observe this occurrence?

3A-C. If you didnt exist to observe it, how can you test it today? And wouldn't your tests be based on the assumption that it happened since no one was there to observe it?

3B. Can you repeat an occurrence that no one has observed?

3B-A. How so? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof on how you can)

3B-B. If you do attempt to repeat it, wouldnt the outcome be based on the assumption that it happened like you thought it did?

3B-C. How not? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof on how it wouldnt be)



4. If I work to solve a math problem, and I start solving it at the middle of the equation will the outcome be an assumption based on the fact that I skipped half the equation?


4A. If I started watching a movie half way through, will I truly understand the outcome since I missed the beginning the movie?

Do you see that the ending is contingent upon the beginning and the beginning on the end? If you don't have the beginning the end result will be an assumption, which cannot be regarded as science, but religion. I assume there's an intelligent designer because I can't prove 100% that there is one. I believe theres one however.

5. Since the beginning of your theory can't be proven, nor is it a part of science, how do you expect people to think it's not a religious belief, and why don't you think it's a religious belief since your theory can't be proven, nor is it a part of science

For any of the previous or following questions, if you're going to fill in the gap by saying we don't have the answer now but we will in the future, answer me these questions.

6. Isn't that just the same as saying "god did it?" You're not answering the question, nor are you admitting you don't know the answer, you're simply filling in your ignorance by giving an unreliable answer based on an assumption.

6A. Can you predict the future?

6A-A Does predicting the future based on assumptions contradict the humanistic view? If you believe that what you experience through your 5 senses are the only things that exist, how can you try to predict the future since you can't see into the future?

6A-B. How so? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical, proof on how it doesn't, and how you can)

If I say what I believe is an assumption, nothing changes, I believe in the designer of the bible, and every word of the gospels of Christ. I believe the bible for its valid history that even concurs even with secular history, for the fulfilled prophesies, and also for the stories and knowledge of this book. If science claims their findings are assumptions it wouldn't have scientific data anymore, it would have assumptiontific data.

7. If you had to show me one empirically, 100%, factual, non-opinionated, proof for evolution, show it with absolute solid, unarguable, infallible proof now. Video and text responses are accepted.[/b]


-Questions Brought to you by: ManupPowerup

will be watching dis thread

@onyinye

hi honey,merry belated xmas

These are preliminary conclusions from those 7 or so questions:

1) The asker does not understand the meaning of "science". Assignment: read-up on "science" to understand.
2) It is quite impossible to imagine the sort of confusion of ideas and knowledge that would inspire questions 1 through 3B-C.
3) Question 4 shows this asker does not understand mathematics. Hint: what does "middle of an equation" mean??
4) Question 4A is quite - er, no offence - stupid. What movie? A movie?? Like a Nigerian Nollywood movie? Someone would need to be quite exceedingly dull to not be able to figure many of these movies from - heck - the titles and the quite expressive pictures on the jackets.
5) Item 5 is a display of a depth of ignorance that's so absurd it's unbelievable.
6) Item 6 isn't reasoning; any SS2 student worth his/her salt should be able to sort that out in a moment.
7) Item 6A: predicting the future? Scientists do this all the time.
Item 7 shows how not to go at as issue: it's clear the fellow asking these questions has a problem with (Darwinian) evolution, yet they start out by asking atheists; hey, not all atheists believe in (Darwinian) evolution.
.

Nimshi:

Item 7 shows how not to go at as issue: it's clear the fellow asking these questions has a problem with (Darwinian) evolution, yet they start out by asking atheists; hey, not all atheists believe in (Darwinian) evolution.

Consider that the atheist would ask a question such as:

If you had to show me one empirically, 100%, factual, non-opinionated, proof for God, show it with absolute solid, unarguable, infallible proof now.

Why would it be unfair and unreasonable to ask that the atheist, who trumpets evolution as proof that the story of creation is false, show proof that evolution really does occur?

David: question already answered: Not all atheists believe in (Darwinian) evolution (don't be very surprised, )

I hope you'll notice it's quite absurdly unfair to ask someone to explain wha they don't believe? Like, say, asking you to prove that Satan is Angel Michael.
.

Nimshi:

David: question already answered: Not all atheists believe in (Darwinian) evolution (don't be very surprised, )

I hope you'll notice it's quite absurdly unfair to ask someone to explain wha they don't believe? Like, say, asking you to prove that Satan is Angel Michael.

rather than that being an answer, it is essentially a leeway to avoid confronting the huge holes in the atheist's story.

If God does not exist and evolution is not true . . . then how did we get here?

I suppose that is a valid question for the atheist.

Well, you've reframed the question; not bad. But, th epoint still remains: the question must be directed at that atheist who also believes in evolution; not all atheists believe in evolution.

.

Nimshi:

Well, you've reframed the question; not bad. But, th epoint still remains: the question must be directed at that atheist who also believes in evolution; not all atheists believe in evolution.

I posed another question to the atheist who doesnt believe in evolution already.

But here: unfortunately, the question is waaay too late. There's irrefutable evidence to support evolution; it's quite a twist to now ask "what happen if evolution isn't true"; problem is: it is true. What Christians who've found this to be so are doing is to find a way to marry God the Creator and evolution. Not an easy job; but someone's got to do it.  

.

Nimshi:

But here: unfortunately, the question is waaay too late. There's irrefutable evidence to support evolution; it's quite a twist to now ask "what happen if evolution isn't true"; problem is: it is true. What Christians who've found this to be so are doing is to find a way to marry God the Creator and evolution. Not an easy job; but someone's got to do it.

evidence like?

Ok; before proceeding, could we have a common definition for "evolution"? A basic biology textbook is sufficient to define evolution precisely. Do you have a working definition for evolution?
.

Nimshi:

Ok; before proceeding, could we have a common definition for "evolution"? A basic biology textbook is sufficient to define evolution precisely. Do you have a working definition for evolution?

That has nothing to do with me. I'm simply asking a direct question . . . what is the evidence for evolution if you believe it exists?

If you think it doesn exist and God does not then how did we get here? Irrefutable proof pls.

You claimed there is "irrefutable evidence to support evolution", what proof? Thank you.

Hey David, just establishing a common ground, so that there's no confusion. We could quickly move to solid evidences in favour of evolution via speciation, there is specific evidence for common descent (that's macroevolution). It'll be astonishing to look at these and not give a pause to denying evolution as a fact.
.

davidylan:

That has nothing to do with me. I'm simply asking a direct question . . . [color=#000099]what is the evidence for evolution if you believe it exists?

How do we intelligently discuss "evolution" is we don't have a common definition of "evolution"? This is fundamental. A common definition of the most important concept in the exhange is a first step to reasoned discussion.

davidylan:
If you think it doesn exist and God does not then how did we get here? Irrefutable proof please.

Step by step, eh. There's no leap to "God does not exist"; whether God exists or not is - strictly - irrelevant to this discussion of evolution. The proof I called irrefustable is for evolution. Clarity David; clarity.
.

davidylan:

rather than that being an answer, it is essentially a leeway to avoid confronting the huge holes in the atheist's story.

If God does not exist and evolution is not true . . . then how did we get here?

I suppose that is a valid question for the atheist.

I dont know how we got here but that does'nt mean that we should believe all the biblical lies like the creation story, noah's ark (which i know for a fact never happened), tower of babel(as the beginning of seperate languages), talking donkeys, jonah's story, unicorns, hebrew tribal and war god, prayers, miracles etc

Nimshi:

How do we intelligently discuss "evolution" is we don't have a common definition of "evolution"? This is fundamental. A common definition of the most important concept in the exhange is a first step to reasoned discussion.

The "definition" issue is a red herring to avoid the question.

You said there was irrefutable evidence for evolution, where is it?

davidylan:

The "definition" issue is a red herring to avoid the question.

It isn't.

What's your working definition for "evolution" as you have been using the word?

The definition of "evolution" is the faundamental to this discussion; what did you mean when you ahev used it? A few sentences will do and put this to rest.
.

Nimshi:

It isn't.

What's your working definition for "evolution" as you have been using the word?

The definition of "evolution" is the faundamental to this discussion; what did you mean when you ahev used it? A few sentences will do and put this to rest.

Read the wikipedia entry on evolution.

I'm bored. Its either you have the "irrefutable evidence" or you dont. I hate playing musical chairs. thank you.

davidylan:

The "definition" issue is a red herring to avoid the question.

You said there was irrefutable evidence for evolution, where is it?

you keep asking for evidence when it comes to science but you are yet to tell us how the biblical god created light using hebrew, neither have you been able to tell us how the biblical god created the different human races, what about the lies the bible says about rainbow?. you have not told us how donkeys are able to talk. what does the bible know about science? here is how your bible describes genetic engineering

37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban's animals. 41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob. 43 In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and maidservants and menservants, and camels and donkeys.

here is what your bible says about rainbow

 Genesis 9.13-15[24]):

   I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.

we all know that this description and assertions of the bible are a big joke so deal with it and stop talking about science and the bible, because they just don't agree until you use your knowledge of science and biology to explain how jonah survived inside a fish for 3 days or how all men descended from adam/noah, you have no right to come here and tell us rubbish about proving science or evolution.

I can define evolution as I've been using the word in a sentence with less than 2 lines on this page. My experience has been that many using the word have no idea what it means; I suspect that you - unfortunately - may belong to this class. It's worthless having a discussion about evolution with anyone who couldn't understand a precise definition of "evolution". And, no wikipedia; a basic biology textbook will do.

Hi everyone: to begin a discussion of evolution, you ought to be able to precisely define it; the definition is an aid to understanding any reasonable discussion on the subject. And, while at this lees-than-20-word definition, try not to be bored.


.

@ Nimshi

Until he tells us how the stars are going to fall into the earth on the day jesus comes from the clouds, you have nothing to explain to him about the science behind evolution.

Nimshi:

I can define evolution as I've been using the word in a sentence with less than 2 lines on this page. My experience has been that many using the word have no idea what it means; I suspect that you - unfortunately - may belong to this class. It's worthless having a discussion about evolution with anyone who couldn't understand a precise definition of "evolution". And, no wikipedia; a basic biology textbook will do.

Hi everyone: to begin a discussion of evolution, you ought to be able to precisely define it; the definition is an aid to understanding any reasonable discussion on the subject. And, while at this lees-than-20-word definition, try not to be bored.


.

can u define creation since that is obviously what u believe in?

Nimshi:

I can define evolution as I've been using the word in a sentence with less than 2 lines on this page. My experience has been that many using the word have no idea what it means; I suspect that you - unfortunately - may belong to this class. It's worthless having a discussion about evolution with anyone who couldn't understand a precise definition of "evolution". And, no wikipedia; a basic biology textbook will do.

Hi everyone: to begin a discussion of evolution, you ought to be able to precisely define it; the definition is an aid to understanding any reasonable discussion on the subject. And, while at this lees-than-20-word definition, try not to be bored.

All these long stories when all i asked was just one of your "irrefutable evidences".

God created the world and himself

In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection. Genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring producethe inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. These traits vary within populations, with organisms showing heritable differences in their traits. When organisms reproduce, their offspring may have new or altered traits. These new traits arise in two main ways: either from mutations in genes, or from the transfer of genes between populations and between species. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are also produced by genetic recombination, which can increase variation between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population.
*source wikipedia
Do all parties agree to this definition?

1) - 6) are all very stupid questions, but the most provoking is this

Isn't that just the same as saying "god did it?" You're not answering the question, nor are you admitting you don't know the answer, you're simply filling in your ignorance by giving an unreliable answer based on an assumption.

@poster
This has got to be a joke abi?

onyinye2:
Well today I was given a link to a video that contained very thought provoking questions, for me atleast.

And I wanted to share it with you guys, being if you haven't seen or heard them before some where prior to.

Here it goes:

1. Do you believe energy has always existed?

It is uncertain. In our conception of time and how we are bound by it, there is some suggestion that, even if one doesn't resort primarily to quantum physics (a very difficult task), time would have started "after" energy thereby ensuring that it would always have existed - so to speak.

1A. Do you believe it existed within vacuum fluxes in a timeless, spaceless, matterless, void before a big bang?

1A-A. Can energy create itself?

1A-B. How so? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof on how it does still today)

Now, to the addendums to the original question. Energy wouldn't have existed within vacuum fluctuations, but could have come into existence - and out of existence - through them.

Also, yes, energy can come into being spontaneously. Science doesn't do proof nor "100%"s.

It is scientifically believed that energy can't be created or destroyed, henceforth law of conservation of energy.

No, it isn't.

For something to be labeled as science, it should be able to be observed, tested, and then repeated.

That's not the definition of science.

Since it's seemingly impossible to be able to observe whether something is eternal or not, (since you're not eternal you can't observe it) which means it's seemingly impossible to be able to test whether it's eternal or not since you can't observe it, which definitely means you can't repeat it if you've never tested it.

That's neither logical nor sensible.

2. Has matter always existed?

No.

2A. can matter create itself?

2A-A. How so? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof on how it does still today)

By that I assume you mean: can matter exist without the need for a conscious creator? Yes, it certainly is possible. How so? One possibility is explored in researchs involving baryogenesis.

3. Do you believe a mass of matter and energy rotated until it exploded?

3A. Did that mass of energy and matter create itself?

No. Yes for A - provided we aren't assigning conscious functions to the things mentioned.

3A-A. Do you believe that all matter and energy in the Universe was created by a Big Bang 14 billion years ago?

3A-B. Were you or anyone existing today, existing at that point to observe this occurrence?

3A-C. If you didnt exist to observe it, how can you test it today? And wouldn't your tests be based on the assumption that it happened since no one was there to observe it?

The Big Bang may have started the process that eventually led to matter. No one need have been there for the observation of the hallmarks that have led to the formulation of the theory. The tests need not be based on the assumption that it happened. However, even if they are it wouldn't necessarily invalidate what is found, in much the same way a forensic scientist assuming that a victim was murdered by a human agent as opposed to an elf wouldn't make his or her findings wrong.

3B. Can you repeat an occurrence that no one has observed?

3B-A. How so? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof on how you can)

Yes. Large Haldron Collider. Nuclear weapons, etc.

3B-B. If you do attempt to repeat it, wouldnt the outcome be based on the assumption that it happened like you thought it did?

3B-C. How not? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof on how it wouldnt be)

Not all tests work as they are expected. See above.

4. If I work to solve a math problem, and I start solving it at the middle of the equation will the outcome be an assumption based on the fact that I skipped half the equation?


4A. If I started watching a movie half way through, will I truly understand the outcome since I missed the beginning the movie?

Do you see that the ending is contingent upon the beginning and the beginning on the end? If you don't have the beginning the end result will be an assumption, which cannot be regarded as science, but religion. I assume there's an intelligent designer because I can't prove 100% that there is one. I believe theres one however.

Nonsense. The analogy is stupid.

5. Since the beginning of your theory can't be proven, nor is it a part of science, how do you expect people to think it's not a religious belief, and why don't you think it's a religious belief since your theory can't be proven, nor is it a part of science

For any of the previous or following questions, if you're going to fill in the gap by saying we don't have the answer now but we will in the future, answer me these questions.

The follow up is worse. I think we are about done here.

KAG:

Also, yes, energy can come into being spontaneously. Science doesn't do proof nor "100%"s.

Essentially a fraudulent cop-out for those who scream that religion MUST do proof or 100%'s

KAG:

By that I assume you mean: can matter exist without the need for a conscious creator? Yes, it certainly is possible. How so? One possibility is explored in researchs involving baryogenesis.

In other words . . . another unproven hypothesis simply given a high-fallutin name to make it sound mysterious.

KAG:

The Big Bang may have started the process that eventually led to matter. No one need have been there for the observation of the hallmarks that have led to the formulation of the theory. The tests need not be based on the assumption that it happened. However, even if they are it wouldn't necessarily invalidate what is found, in much the same way a forensic scientist assuming that a victim was murdered by a human agent as opposed to an elf wouldn't make his or her findings wrong.

In other words we really don't have a clue. We are just grasping for theories to explain away why the creation could have come about without God. Have you experimented the big bang?

KAG:

Yes. Large Haldron Collider. Nuclear weapons, etc.

Actually your answer to that question should truthfully be no because the large haldron collider hasnt even proven that it can recreate matter through a big bang. In other words, its just another white elephant built to validate an assumption. Wait for it to work first before trumpeting it.

KAG:

Not all tests work as they are expected. See above.

In other words u already have an excuse shld the haldron collider fail.

KAG:

It is uncertain. In our conception of time and how we are bound by it, there is some suggestion that, even if one doesn't resort primarily to quantum physics (a very difficult task), time would have started "after" energy thereby ensuring that it would always have existed - so to speak.

which means we really have no clue when matter or time appeared . . . we just have a "concept" which we can neither prove nor are we sure is correct.

davidylan:

KAG: Also, yes, energy can come into being spontaneously. Science doesn't do proof nor "100%"s.

Essentially a fraudulent cop-out for those who scream that religion MUST do proof or 100%'s

Actually, no. First, I don't know the "those who scream that religion MUST do proof or 100%'s", so maybe your misunderstanding of science should be directed to them.

In any case, science doesn't do 100% anything for several important reasons, particularly the need to avoid dogmatism and promote honest enquiry. Further, it is important that any theory proposed leave room for falsification. If nothing else, probable falsification would at the very least ensure that nothing is hundred percent.

By that I assume you mean: can matter exist without the need for a conscious creator? Yes, it certainly is possible. How so? One possibility is explored in researchs involving baryogenesis

In other words . . . another unproven hypothesis simply given a high-fallutin name to make it sound mysterious,

Um, no. It's: in other words, the last few times I bothered to post anything of the subject none of you was interested, so I'm bloody well not going to do it at three a.m. And yes, if I remember correctly, I've posted a brief summation of the probable origins of matter for you on more than one occassion.

The Big Bang may have started the process that eventually led to matter. No one need have been there for the observation of the hallmarks that have led to the formulation of the theory. The tests need not be based on the assumption that it happened. However, even if they are it wouldn't necessarily invalidate what is found, in much the same way a forensic scientist assuming that a victim was murdered by a human agent as opposed to an elf wouldn't make his or her findings wrong.

In other words we really don't have a clue. We are just grasping for theories to explain away why the creation could have come about without God.

Clearly you didn't understand this part of my post, hence the red herring and strawman rolled into one. The part you bolded was meant to emphasise a correction to a point in the original question. Also, the rest of the post deals with the fallacy that implies that assumptions necessarily lead to a faulty experiment.

By the way, this part of your post is also a strawman because it assumes that the Big Bang theory or the theory dealing with the origins of matter are held only by atheists and were created for and by atheists. It overlooks the fact that there are many theistic physicists that work on and accept the theories.

Have you experimented the big bang?

Nope.

Actually your answer to that question should truthfully be no because the large haldron collider hasnt even proven that it can recreate matter through a big bang. In other words, its just another white elephant built to validate an assumption. Wait for it to work first before trumpeting it.

That's not what the LHC was made to do. Also, the LHC and Nuclear weapons are both right because they are both examples of ways of repeating things that hadn't been previously observed.

Not all tests work as they are expected. See above.

In other words u already have an excuse shld the haldron collider fail.

Fail in what? In any case, I wasn't even thinking of the LHC at that point in my response.

davidylan:

which means we really have no clue when matter or time appeared . . . we just have a "concept" which we can neither prove nor are we sure is correct.

Not quite. Time is estimated to be at least 13.5 billion years old and matter a few planck seconds after the Big Bang.

KAG:

Not quite. Time is estimated to be at least 13.5 billion years old and matter a few planck seconds after the Big Bang.

KAG and his/her trade mark long long long posts that say essentially nothing.

Time is nothing but an estimate . . . based on what? What existed before time?

More estimating, more hypothesis . . . in short science has no answer.

davidylan:

KAG and his/her trade mark long long long posts that say essentially nothing.

Seems we are getting somewhere.

Time is nothing but an estimate . . . based on what?

The big bang

What existed before time?

Although the question is worded somewhat paradoxically, I understand what you mean. Space.

More estimating, more hypothesis . . . in short science has no answer.

I like that you typed that on a computer and sent it via the intertubes. Makes irony more than just a word that contains iron.