A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: edmc^2

Physics and Schrodinger's cat not withstanding,I would say semantics aren't a scientific hypothesis nor even an effective debate tactic.
Things occur spontaneously all the time, humans infinitely so with our creativity,again, all the time.

Things occur spontaneously all the time

Huh? Does this mean then that when I open my drawer tomorrow, I shall be presented with a $10000000 bill?

Alright!!

Like I said in the previous post, I'll just refer to evolutionists as 'evoth-propo' (evolution theory proponents) to keep it short and hopefully avoid breaking some evolutionary eggg-o.

But if you have one that is pedantic to your taste and sensibility then, by all means, please let me know and I'll fain to your wishes.

Seriously.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

Those proponents of biological evolution are called Scientists. It is a theory, which has been agreed upon, which has evidence to support it. Just like THermodynamics, Gravity (which we understand less than evolution, yet it is apparent, just like evolution). The SN1 and SN2 mechanism.

Thus the people who use evolutionist as a term, just like Darwinist, are those who do not understand science. Thus, I refute your points again.

As a religious scientist, you are indeed speaking untruths.

What untruth? I'm merely stating the facts. Science is a very wide field. Hence to narrow it down to specifics, those who are proponents of evolution theory are evolutionists as much as those who are proponents of Creation are termed as Creationists. Both are involved in the same field of scientific studies but from a different point of view. That's a fact and no untruth in it. Now if evolutionist is a misnomer, then what about this - scientists who are proponents of evolution theory? Will that work?

In any case, for simplicity, I'll just refer to them as evolutionists.

Please don't, because there's no such word. It's a simplistic concept thought up by those who are naïve enough to think that creationism is on the same playing field as biology. It's not. There are no 'creationist scientists' either, there are just people with an agenda.
Good grief, this topic again? Seriously?

Like I said in the previous post, I'll just refer to evolutionists as 'evoth-propo' (evolution theory proponents) to keep it short and hopefully avoid breaking some evolutionary eggg-o.

But if you have one that is pedantic to your taste and sensibility then, by all means, please let me know and I'll fain to your wishes.

Seriously.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

Those proponents of biological evolution are called Scientists. It is a theory, which has been agreed upon, which has evidence to support it. Just like THermodynamics, Gravity (which we understand less than evolution, yet it is apparent, just like evolution). The SN1 and SN2 mechanism.

Thus the people who use evolutionist as a term, just like Darwinist, are those who do not understand science. Thus, I refute your points again.

As a religious scientist, you are indeed speaking untruths.

What untruth? I'm merely stating the facts. Science is a very wide field. Hence to narrow it down to specifics, those who are proponents of evolution theory are evolutionists as much as those who are proponents of Creation are termed as Creationists. Both are involved in the same field of scientific studies but from a different point of view. That's a fact and no untruth in it. Now if evolutionist is a misnomer, then what about this - scientists who are proponents of evolution theory? Will that work?

In any case, for simplicity, I'll just refer to them as evolutionists.

Please don't, because there's no such word. It's a simplistic concept thought up by those who are naïve enough to think that creationism is on the same playing field as biology. It's not. There are no 'creationist scientists' either, there are just people with an agenda.
Good grief, this topic again? Seriously?

Like I said in the previous post, I'll just refer to evolutionists as 'evoth-propo' (evolution theory proponents) to keep it short and hopefully avoid breaking some evolutionary eggg-o.

But if you have one that is pedantic to your taste and sensibility then, by all means, please let me know and I'll fain to your wishes.

Seriously.

Ah. I see that you have nothing serious to bring to this, other than coded insults and other language. Good day to you. I refuse to sink to your level.

a reply to: edmc^2

Depends on the conjuration...

a reply to: edmc^2


Science is not a field. There are fields of inquiry within science, sure. People go to school and learn about very specific subject matter. But calling science, the tool, the method a field and then supporting your notion with evidence that it is in fact a method of investigating the natural world around us and COMPRISED OF FIELDS,'specialized fields of study and inquiry, are not the same thing. But then you've already shown that you can't understand the fact points and details when you ranted and raved about how "creation scientists" aren't looked at on the same level as "atheist evolutionist scientists" when neither of those descriptors are actually a thing to anyone outside of the YEC crowd. Or your odd belief that to be religious one must be a Christian or my favorite one was where you alluded that all Christians were creationists and anyone who was t a creationist was t a Christian. Fun times!


As fast as your BS involving what to call proponents of evolution, it's a childish game of gotcha and nothing more. You aren't actually interested in a dialogue let alone open to learning anything beyond your personal comfort zone which is some version of creationism. Unlike you, people who work within various aspects of science whether that be research or applied sciences, are forced to challenge themselves and be challenged by others quite frequently and don't hate de out in their comfort zone refusing to look at other possibilities that explain st beyond their preconceived notions and confirmation biases and accepting hat evidence can change their paradigms. Can you say that? So about your need to label... its completely about you and not about respecting anyone else or their views so why bother unless your only goal is to provoke ?

originally posted by: edmc^2
And who are these "Scientists" that are the "gate keepers" of this "great (scientific) knowledge"? Are they not atheists and evolutionists?

NO, they aren't. They are scientists and their personal beliefs are irrelevant. More than half of scientists believe in god or a higher power, so calling them atheists is flat out dumb. They aren't "evolutionists", they are evolutionary biologists, geologists, paleontologists, astrophysicists, chemists, etc. Your derogatory generalizing terms don't apply

In fact, you can't name one prominent religious scientists recognized by the scientific community as an authority in science.

LOL, somebody already gave you numerous examples. Like I said, based on surveys of scientists 51% believe in a god or higher power. Your claim is completely baseless.

As to the question - you mean the scientific community is stumped?

Scientists don't know everything, bud. They are working to try and figure it out.

You mean when they start proposing or teaching Biblical Creation they are accepted as equals amongst atheist scientists alike. Or are they recognized only in their specialized fields and as long as it complies with the evolution theory?

Your argument just keeps getting worse, I'm afraid to read the rest. Proposing or teaching biblical creation IS NOT SCIENCE. Scientists work with what can be tested and verified, like evolution. You are letting your obvious bias compromise your judgement. Science is completely separate from somebody's personal beliefs. You don't seem to get that.

Like I said in the previous post, I'll just refer to evolutionists as 'evoth-propo' (evolution theory proponents) to keep it short and hopefully avoid breaking some evolutionary eggg-o.

It's way shorter to just say "biologist". Why is that so hard for you? Oh I know, it's because you want it to fit your narrative that science is just a guess and don't want to give them credit for anything.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: edmc^2

Physics and Schrodinger's cat not withstanding,I would say semantics aren't a scientific hypothesis nor even an effective debate tactic.
Things occur spontaneously all the time, humans infinitely so with our creativity,again, all the time.

Things occur spontaneously all the time

Huh? Does this mean then that when I open my drawer tomorrow, I shall be presented with a $10000000 bill?

Alright!!

No, just because spontaneously causes takes place why would you assume that you would suddenly get benefits from it?

a reply to: edmc^2

Can you cite anything peer reviewed?? Thought not

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Xenogears

Those who believe in any of the abrahamic faiths in light of our current understanding, are no different than flat-earthers, either ignorant or willfully ignorant.

To the contrary, I find it way ahead of our time. In fact I think, we're just catching up to it - with the help of modern technology.

If you knew anything about science and technology, you would know that both are neutral and draw no conclusions other than what the evidence demonstrates. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

You posed a question in your original post which is mindless.

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

The answer is no because the "something" would be infinite. It would have no beginning and no end. And since there's no evidence for absolute infinity, the question is a moot point. So unless you can present evidence to the contrary, why don't you fold up your tent and head for Ken Scam's Ark and take a vacation.

absolute infinity

You're not making any sense.

What is an "absolute infinity" when infinity have no absolutes?

It'd be like saying infinity+1 or -1.

In fact there's only one to chose from:

Space is either: 1. Infinite. or 2. Finite. Evidence shows the former.

What? No evidence? I'm shocked!!

a reply to: Phantom423


Sure there is. Its just that non of you have the mind to grasp it.


Moste of you dont even know that Our Scientific Reach is Limited to just Our expanding universe. When we talk about the infinite you all fall of the wagon.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Phantom423


Sure there is. Its just that non of you have the mind to grasp it.


Moste of you dont even know that Our Scientific Reach is Limited to just Our expanding universe. When we talk about the infinite you all fall of the wagon.

Great. So why don't you provide the evidence? Meanwhile, I'll brush myself off.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Phantom423


Sure there is. Its just that non of you have the mind to grasp it.


Moste of you dont even know that Our Scientific Reach is Limited to just Our expanding universe. When we talk about the infinite you all fall of the wagon.

Great. So why don't you provide the evidence? Meanwhile, I'll brush myself off.

What you are telling me is that science dont actually have any evidence and i have to provide. So how can you refute edmc^2 ?

You are just denying him With Words,,,anyone can do that i see.


If i have to prove that science cant look byond Our universe, you dont even belong in discusion.

If you dont have the mind to know what the infinite is, and that it must exists. You dont have the mind to comprehend evidence. You just have to wait until someone With a job description provides it to you. That is how you People work.

It dosent matter what i provide. You will deny it. It is how it works. I have been on these topics for years and hav elearned that much.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: edmc^2

Physics and Schrodinger's cat not withstanding,I would say semantics aren't a scientific hypothesis nor even an effective debate tactic.
Things occur spontaneously all the time, humans infinitely so with our creativity,again, all the time.

Things occur spontaneously all the time

Huh? Does this mean then that when I open my drawer tomorrow, I shall be presented with a $10000000 bill?

Alright!!

No, just because spontaneously causes takes place why would you assume that you would suddenly get benefits from it?

Yeah, that's my mistake. I was assuming a lot. - I guess I'm out of luck. Then again, who knows I might get lucky - spontaneously.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Xenogears

Those who believe in any of the abrahamic faiths in light of our current understanding, are no different than flat-earthers, either ignorant or willfully ignorant.

To the contrary, I find it way ahead of our time. In fact I think, we're just catching up to it - with the help of modern technology.

If you knew anything about science and technology, you would know that both are neutral and draw no conclusions other than what the evidence demonstrates. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

You posed a question in your original post which is mindless.

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

The answer is no because the "something" would be infinite. It would have no beginning and no end. And since there's no evidence for absolute infinity, the question is a moot point. So unless you can present evidence to the contrary, why don't you fold up your tent and head for Ken Scam's Ark and take a vacation.

absolute infinity

You're not making any sense.

What is an "absolute infinity" when infinity have no absolutes?

It'd be like saying infinity+1 or -1.

In fact there's only one to chose from:

Space is either: 1. Infinite. or 2. Finite. Evidence shows the former.

What? No evidence? I'm shocked!!

Ditto Spy66!

But let's see if you can grasp this - let's assume the multi-universe theory.

If such universes do exist - what separates them from each other?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Xenogears

Those who believe in any of the abrahamic faiths in light of our current understanding, are no different than flat-earthers, either ignorant or willfully ignorant.

To the contrary, I find it way ahead of our time. In fact I think, we're just catching up to it - with the help of modern technology.

If you knew anything about science and technology, you would know that both are neutral and draw no conclusions other than what the evidence demonstrates. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

You posed a question in your original post which is mindless.

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

The answer is no because the "something" would be infinite. It would have no beginning and no end. And since there's no evidence for absolute infinity, the question is a moot point. So unless you can present evidence to the contrary, why don't you fold up your tent and head for Ken Scam's Ark and take a vacation.

absolute infinity

You're not making any sense.

What is an "absolute infinity" when infinity have no absolutes?

It'd be like saying infinity+1 or -1.

In fact there's only one to chose from:

Space is either: 1. Infinite. or 2. Finite. Evidence shows the former.

What? No evidence? I'm shocked!!

Ditto Spy66!

But let's see if you can grasp this - let's assume the multi-universe theory.

If such universes do exist - what separates them from each other?

A multi universe dont make sense to me because there is no traces of it. If there is something science would have seen With their sensors by now, is if a different universe is pushing or in anyway interacting With Ours. But that is not happening. Our universe is expanding equally in all directions at the same time, something it would not have done if there were other universes interacting With Ours.

The multi universe theory is just Scientific Wild card which cant be proven.

a reply to: spy66

Moste of you dont even know that Our Scientific Reach is Limited to just Our expanding universe. When we talk about the infinite you all fall of the wagon.

There are a couple problems with that. First, we don't know if "the infinite" even exists. Second, science could one day reach beyond that. There is also the possibility that our expanding universe is all that exists, and if that's the case, there is no limit to science and the universe is not infinite. Too much is assumed to suggest there is evidence of "the infinite".

A multi universe dont make sense to me because there is no traces of it. If there is something science would have seen With their sensors by now, is if a different universe is pushing or in anyway interacting With Ours. But that is not happening. Our universe is expanding equally in all directions at the same time, something it would not have done if there were other universes interacting With Ours.

Not necessarily. If there were other expanding bubbles in other directions that are all heading towards each other, then that could explain why the expansion is speeding up. When people talk about other big bang bubbles, they mention it as a possibility, not a definite thing. Something has to account for dark energy and there has to a cause for the big bang. Also you just mentioned above that our scientific reach is limited to our expanding universe, so why would you expect them to have picked up another possible expanding bubble on sensors?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Xenogears

Those who believe in any of the abrahamic faiths in light of our current understanding, are no different than flat-earthers, either ignorant or willfully ignorant.

To the contrary, I find it way ahead of our time. In fact I think, we're just catching up to it - with the help of modern technology.

If you knew anything about science and technology, you would know that both are neutral and draw no conclusions other than what the evidence demonstrates. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

You posed a question in your original post which is mindless.

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

The answer is no because the "something" would be infinite. It would have no beginning and no end. And since there's no evidence for absolute infinity, the question is a moot point. So unless you can present evidence to the contrary, why don't you fold up your tent and head for Ken Scam's Ark and take a vacation.

absolute infinity

You're not making any sense.

What is an "absolute infinity" when infinity have no absolutes?

It'd be like saying infinity+1 or -1.

In fact there's only one to chose from:

Space is either: 1. Infinite. or 2. Finite. Evidence shows the former.

What? No evidence? I'm shocked!!

Ditto Spy66!

But let's see if you can grasp this - let's assume the multi-universe theory.

If such universes do exist - what separates them from each other?

I have no idea what separates them, if anything. But since you asked the question, I presume you know the answer. So let's have it. What separates them????

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Phantom423


Sure there is. Its just that non of you have the mind to grasp it.


Moste of you dont even know that Our Scientific Reach is Limited to just Our expanding universe. When we talk about the infinite you all fall of the wagon.

Great. So why don't you provide the evidence? Meanwhile, I'll brush myself off.

What you are telling me is that science dont actually have any evidence and i have to provide. So how can you refute edmc^2 ?

You are just denying him With Words,,,anyone can do that i see.


If i have to prove that science cant look byond Our universe, you dont even belong in discusion.

If you dont have the mind to know what the infinite is, and that it must exists. You dont have the mind to comprehend evidence. You just have to wait until someone With a job description provides it to you. That is how you People work.

It dosent matter what i provide. You will deny it. It is how it works. I have been on these topics for years and hav elearned that much.

Once again, weaseling your way out of answering the question. I provided my answer in a post here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Neither one of you have answered the question.

It dosent matter what i provide. You will deny it. It is how it works. I have been on these topics for years and hav elearned that much

Once again avoiding your answer. If you're not prepared to defend your answer, then of course I would expect you to make excuses. Obviously, you're not prepared.

When you provide an answer, you can expect a response.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
Nothing deceptive about it. It's a challenge question to atheists/evolutionists as they claim to be the vanguard, the mantle of authority when it comes to scientific matters.

That's not true at all. Scientists are the authorities of science, not atheists or "evolutionists". This question can't be answered by anybody because nobody really knows if something without a cause exists, we don't know about other dimensions or the cause of the big bang. It does seem like some element of it has to be eternal at some point. Perhaps not infinite, but not restricted to our perception of time. If time only exists within our big bang bubble as scientists postulate, then everything outside of it (if anything exists outside of it) would technically be eternal.

And who are these "Scientists" that are the "gate keepers" of this "great (scientific) knowledge"? Are they not atheists and evolutionists?

In fact, you can't name one prominent religious scientists recognized by the scientific community as an authority in science.

As to the question - you mean the scientific community is stumped?

But what does logic tell us?

What does the word infinity imply if not boundless?

logic.

And who are these "Scientists" that are the "gate keepers" of this "great (scientific) knowledge"? Are they not atheists and evolutionists? In fact, you can't name one prominent religious scientists recognized by the scientific community as an authority in science.

Catholic scientists[edit]

Galileo Galilei

René Descartes

Blaise Pascal

Louis Pasteur

André-Marie Ampère

Antoine Lavoisier

John Eccles

Brian Kobilka
Maria Gaetana Agnesi (1718–1799) – mathematician who wrote on differential and integral calculus
Georgius Agricola (1494–1555) – father of mineralogy[5]
André-Marie Ampère (1775–1836) – one of the main discoverers of electromagnetism
Leopold Auenbrugger (1722–1809) – first to use percussion as a diagnostic technique in medicine
Adrien Auzout (1622–1691) – astronomer who contributed to the development of the telescopic micrometer
Amedeo Avogadro (1776–1856) – Italian scientist noted for contributions to molecular theory and Avogadro's Law[6]
Francisco J. Ayala (1934–present) – Spanish-American biologist and philosopher at the University of California, Irvine[7][8]
Stephen M. Barr (1953–present) – professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Delaware and a member of its Bartol Research Institute
Laura Bassi (1711–1778) – physicist at the University of Bologna and Chair in experimental physics at the Bologna Institute of Sciences, the first woman to be offered a professorship at a European university
Antoine César Becquerel (1788–1878) – pioneer in the study of electric and luminescent phenomena
Henri Becquerel (1852–1908) – awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for his co-discovery of radioactivity
John Desmond Bernal (1901–1971) – British pioneer in X-ray crystallography in molecular biology[9][10]
Claude Bernard (1813–1878) – physiologist who helped to apply scientific methodology to medicine
Jacques Philippe Marie Binet (1786–1856) – mathematician known for Binet's formula and his contributions to number theory
Jean-Baptiste Biot (1774–1862) – physicist who established the reality of meteorites and studied polarization of light
Giovanni Alfonso Borelli (1608–1679) – often referred to as the father of modern biomechanics
Raoul Bott (1923–2005) – mathematician known for numerous basic contributions to geometry in its broad sense[11][12]
Louis Braille (1809–1852) – inventor of the Braille reading and writing system
Edouard Branly (1844–1940) – inventor and physicist known for his involvement in wireless telegraphy and his invention of the Branly coherer
James Britten (1846–1924) – botanist, member of the Catholic Truth Society and Knight Commander of the Order of St. Gregory the Great[13]
Hermann Brück (1905–2000) – Astronomer Royal for Scotland from 1957–1975; honored by Pope John Paul II
Albert Brudzewski (c. 1445–c.1497) – first to state that the Moon moves in an ellipse
Nicola Cabibbo (1935-2010): Italian physicist, discoverer of the universality of weak interactions (Cabibbo angle), President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences from 1993 until his death
Alexis Carrel (1873–1944) – awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for pioneering vascular suturing techniques
John Casey (mathematician) (1820–1891) – Irish geometer known for Casey's theorem
Giovanni Domenico Cassini (1625–1712) – first to observe four of Saturn's moons and the co-discoverer of the Great Red Spot on Jupiter
Augustin-Louis Cauchy (1789–1857) – mathematician who was an early pioneer in analysis
Andrea Cesalpino (c.1525–1603) – botanist who also theorized on the circulation of blood
Jean-François Champollion (1790–1832) – published the first translation of the Rosetta Stone
Guy de Chauliac (c.1300–1368) – the most eminent surgeon of the Middle Ages
Albert Claude (1899–1983) – awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his contributions to cytology
Mateo Realdo Colombo (1516–1559) – discovered the pulmonary circuit,[14] which paved the way for Harvey's discovery of circulation
Carl Ferdinand Cori (1896–1984) – shared the 1947 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with his wife for their discovery of the Cori cycle
Gerty Cori (1896–1957) – biochemist who was the first American woman win a Nobel Prize in science (1947)[15]
Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis (1792–1843) – formulated laws regarding rotating systems, which later became known as the Corialis effect
Charles-Augustin de Coulomb (1736–1806) – physicist known for developing Coulomb's law
Clyde Cowan (1919-1974) – Co-discoverer of the neutrino
René Descartes (1596–1650) – father of modern philosophy and analytic geometry
Johann Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet (1805–1859) – mathematicians who contributed to number theory and was one of the first to give the modern formal definition of a function
Pierre Duhem (1861–1916) – historian of science who made important contributions to hydrodynamics, elasticity, and thermodynamics
Jean-Baptiste Dumas (1800–1884) – chemist who established new values for the atomic mass of thirty elements
John Eccles (1903–1997) – Awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work on the synapse[16]
Stephan Endlicher (1804–1849) – botanist who formulated a major system of plant classification
Gerhard Ertl (1936– ) – German physicist who won the 2007 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his studies of chemical processes on solid surfaces[17]
Bartolomeo Eustachi (c.1500–1574) – one of the founders of human anatomy
Hieronymus Fabricius (1537–1619) – father of embryology
Gabriele Falloppio (1523–1562) – pioneering Italian anatomist who studied the human ear and reproductive organs
Mary Celine Fasenmyer (1906–1996) – Roman Catholic sister and mathematician, founder of Sister Celine's polynomials
Hervé Faye (1814–1902) – astronomer whose discovery of the periodic comet 4P/Faye won him the 1844 Lalande Prize and membership in the French Academy of Sciences