'First human' discovered in Ethiopia

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Mitspa said:
Well they have their religion and we have ours...:) Nothing blew up and made everything .... yea that's real science?
Click to expand...

Another argument from personal incredulity. You don't understand the big bang theory, and your argument is a straw man. The big bang theory does not state that nothing blew up and formed something. If you can read some journals (Prof. Hawking, Prof. Brian Cox) and come back to me and understand what the big bang theory actually states, then you can logically argue against it.
 
"I think it's very bad science and even worse theology -- and the theology is far more offensive to me," -- Lisa Park, Presbyterian Elder and Professor of Paleontology, when asked what she thought of the Creation Museum in Kentucky.
 
Champa said:
Just because you think you're thinking critically, doesn't mean you are. If you can actually explain, correctly, to me the mechanism for evolution by natural selection, as is cited in a scientific journal, and portray sufficient understanding of its premises in order to make coherent argument against its premises as they are stated then I'll happily hear your perspective, even if all those high priests won't.

However, if you fail to convey a genuine understanding of what evolutionary theory is as it is stated in peer reviewed and published scientific journals then I will discard your arguments into the annals of all the other creationist arguments that fall under ''the argument from personal incredulity''.

Those are fair premises for debate, Tintin, for you can only argue against something when you understand what it actually is that you are arguing against.
Click to expand...


Said the man who is arguing against God.
 
Champa said:
Another argument from personal incredulity. You don't understand the big bang theory, and your argument is a straw man. The big bang theory does not state that nothing blew up and formed something. If you can read some journals (Prof. Hawking, Prof. Brian Cox) and come back to me and understand what the big bang theory actually states, then you can logically argue against it.
Click to expand...


And YOU understand the big bang theory? haha.....I love the types who come on here and try to throw their supposed intellectual muscle around.

Stop with the incredulity argument...it is so 2000's, and the way you use it, it appears you just learned what it means.
 
Lizathrose said:
Eugh...

This thread.
Click to expand...

This is thread is right....you knuckle headed evolutionists have been taking fragments of bones and turning them into something they're not for far too long. I'm sorry if I don't measure up to your "intellectual" prowess there Liza the Bones fan, but I have as much right to comment as you do. You can take your hoighty toighty attitude and.......well you know where Imm going with that.
 
Sirk said:
This is thread is right....you knuckle headed evolutionists have been taking fragments of bones and turning them into something they're not for far too long. I'm sorry if I don't measure up to your "intellectual" prowess there Liza the Bones fan, but I have as much right to comment as you do. You can take your hoighty toighty attitude and.......well you know where Imm going with that.
Click to expand...
:confused:

I'm certainly not disputing your commenting privileges. You're free to post whatever you like, of course.
 
Sirk said:
And YOU understand the big bang theory? haha.....I love the types who come on here and try to throw their supposed intellectual muscle around.

Stop with the incredulity argument...it is so 2000's, and the way you use it, it appears you just learned what it means.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Do you understand the concept of relativistic potentiality? The relativistic mass is exactly proportional to the energy, or in other terms, the gravitational potential of a thing is equal to the kinetic energy of a thing, which brings us to a state of universal energy equilibrium called mathematical zero

The expansion of a singularly dense body of stuff was the mechanism to bring about what we know as the spacetime spectrum and give rise to a ''universe'', which is in its entirety essentially nothing more than the transformation of energy through different states, or waveforms through different frequencies.

No energy can be created or destroyed, thus all the energy that ever existed has always existed in some form or another, and always will exist in some form or another. That's why you're wrong to say that ''something came from nothing''. Something, by the very laws of physics, cannot come from nothing.

The reason you can't wrap your head around this is because you believe time to be the governing factor of the expansion and progression of the universe, as though it is inflicted upon particles, and that the beginning of time was the beginning of ''stuff''. That's not true. Time is not an outside influence upon matter and energy, energy and matter are necessary precursors to the advent of time -- time which, to us as beings capable of conscious observance, is essentially a reference to the motion of stuff from a specific point of view.

Think about that.
 
Last edited:
It's "space-time continuum" not "spacetime spectrum." If you're going to debate this, Champa, get your terms right.

And if energy cannot be created, destroyed, etc. then where did this universe come from? What spawned the (theoretical) original ball of matter/energy that became the universe that keeps repeating itself through big bangs?
 
Lynx said:
It's "space-time continuum" not "spacetime spectrum." If you're going to debate this, Champa, get your terms right.

And if energy cannot be created, destroyed, etc. then where did this universe come from? What spawned the (theoretical) original ball of matter/energy that became the universe that keeps repeating itself through big bangs?
Click to expand...

The spacetime continuum and the spectral analysis of that continuum by beings capable of tri-dimensiional observation aren't the same thing.

This universe doesn't have to have come from anywhere. What emotion is hairgel? I can ask stupid questions all day long, it doesn't mean they're valid questions with logical answers.

I fno energy can be created or destroyed, then that energy has existed always. Again, you consider time to be an infliction, otherwise you wouldn't ask this question. ''Where does it come from''. Coming requires movement and time. If a potentiality has not movement it has not time. Time is intertwined in space. Time requires expansion already happening. Without expansion, there is no time.

Timelessness is a concept that you need to familiarize yourself with.
 
Last edited:
Then... the whole universe came from nothing? Everything has to have an origin, or we must admit something can be created from nothing.
 
Lynx said:
Then... the whole universe came from nothing? Everything has to have an origin, or we must admit something can be created from nothing.
Click to expand...

''Stuff'' (I wont' say ''universe'', because a universe is specifically matter energy and spacetime) didn't ''come'' or ''go'' anywhere. It has always been. Always. And it always will be.

Stuff didn't come. It didn't go. It didn't originate. What originated was TIME. Stuff does not need ''time'' to be stuff.
 
And ''stuff'' cannot originate or come or go, because ''coming'' or ''going'' are motive and require time. They require point A and point B. Timelessness can have neither.
 
Okay, we'll try it without time references. What or who made the stuff? Even in the absence of time it had to have an origin, a source.
 
You can't get past the idea that something must have an origin, and it must have a creator. That's not true. Things can just ''be'' and they can ''be'' without having precluded the advent of space-time or without being currently space-time.
 
Lynx said:
Okay, we'll try it without time references. What or who made the stuff? Even in the absence of time it had to have an origin, a source.
Click to expand...

No it didn't. Without time, things can't have ''origins'' because origins require start points, and moments thereafter. There is no start point for ''stuff'', just a startpoint for time.
 
Lynx said:
In other words you don't know.
Click to expand...

I don't have to ask the question. It's a stupid question to ask. When was the start point for stuff that didn't have time? Well, start points require that there is time. If there's no time, there's no start or no end there's just timelessness and stuff.

If energy can't be created or destroyed, then it CANT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED.
 
Exactly! So where did you and I and all the other stuff in the universe come from? All you have is a sophistic (not to be confused with sophisticated) argument about why it shouldn't matter where everything came from. You completely ignore the fact that our presence here at all doesn't make sense. In fact the existence of anything at all makes no sense at all. Even time (by your own logic) shouldn't exist, and the fact that it does is very illogical.
 
Hey... I may be on to something! I have noticed that very few people make sense when they say something. Maybe it's because our very existence makes no sense. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back