Message from @tripp

Discord ID: 607589178850672680


2019-08-04 09:10:00 UTC  

@WHITTYZ13
Unproven Theories:
non-life > life > male and female > reproduction > helpful mutations > DNA increase > natural election to new 'kinds' > progress from simple to complex

Let's step back into reality.

The following is impossible:
non-life > life > male and female > reproduction > helpful mutations > DNA increase > natural election to new 'kinds' > progress from simple to complex

Don't be fooled with eloquent words, God has made His presence and existence simple.

Since the fall of man, and so, the separation from God, and our attraction to evil, all has gone to a deteriorating state (death).

Another very important flaw to be taken into account with athiesm is the lack of a catalyst. There must be a catalyst throughout all of these phases. The mere foolishness that nothing is something, and that nothing had a catalyst to spark it to enact something, while it is still nothing itself is mind bogling.

The fact alone that nothing had no catalyst, that alone disproves athiesm. What should we mention about intelligence, morals, entropy, thermodynamics, physics, 'push-pull', etc.

God's existence is clearly seen, yet having denied Him as disobedient children, they have gone astray, rejecting all manner of truth to follow after their own lusts. Desiring to have no part in Him they have rejected their first Love.

2019-08-04 09:13:20 UTC  

What an insane ramble

2019-08-04 09:14:32 UTC  

I hope you're on some strong drugs man

2019-08-04 10:06:16 UTC  

I have no idea what you're talking about

2019-08-04 10:07:05 UTC  

Those "signs of god" is your interpertation of an event without providing evidence to support your claim

2019-08-04 10:07:36 UTC  

Now i'm not saying that there might not be a god

2019-08-04 10:08:01 UTC  

I'm saying that the existence of god is a pointless debate

2019-08-04 10:08:28 UTC  

Cause it's not within the realm of scientific research

2019-08-04 10:08:51 UTC  

It's more in the philosophical realm if anything

2019-08-04 10:09:35 UTC  

But even in philosophy it is said that if you can't test the validaty of a claim then it's not worth the debate

2019-08-04 10:09:57 UTC  

How would anyone go about testing the existence of a god?

2019-08-04 10:11:33 UTC  

@James McKinnon Wrong the Big Bang was a set of conditions, it was an expansion. Radiation isn't a force and it isn't constantly in motion around us. Yeah it can be measured, do you know what carbon dating is?

2019-08-04 10:11:57 UTC  

Law of Entropy only works on a closed system btw

2019-08-04 11:32:54 UTC  

@Dr.Cosby my ass

2019-08-04 12:32:34 UTC  

The law of social entropy can work with a closed system such as Earth. And carbon dating is just relative to other carbon datings. So it's only as accurate as another carbon dating measurement is which in turn is also only as accurate as another one.

2019-08-04 12:35:10 UTC  

And saying that the existence of God's not within the Realms of science makes no sense. If you go back and you look at the creation of this Earth, there are so many things that just don't make sense when your "science" says how it began. The Big Bang Theory cannot work because matter cannot be created or destroyed, so saying that two particles created everything that exists is completely preposterous. Although microevolution is a possibility, macro-evolution is not. We did not come from monkeys or bacteria/little amoebas

2019-08-04 13:31:33 UTC  

bruh

2019-08-04 13:31:44 UTC  

This just tells me you know nothing.

2019-08-04 13:34:18 UTC  

I was saying that the LOE doesn't apply to Big Bang.

> And carbon dating is just relative to other carbon datings. So it's only as accurate as another carbon dating measurement is which in turn is also only as accurate as another one.

No that's not how carbon dating works, it can't be relative. That doesn't make sense.

> And saying that the existence of God's not within the Realms of science makes no sense. If you go back and you look at the creation of this Earth, there are so many things that just don't make sense when your "science" says how it began. The Big Bang Theory cannot work because matter cannot be created or destroyed, so saying that two particles created everything that exists is completely preposterous. Although microevolution is a possibility, macro-evolution is not. We did not come from monkeys or bacteria/little amoebas

You don't understand the big bang theory, there is the initial singularity, ekyprotic universe, or hartle hawking state. Furthermore the thing that matter cannot be created or destroyed is for energy. https://math.vanderbilt.edu/schectex/courses/wolfram.html

Macro evolution is, we don't come from monkeys. It's a common ancestor, it's just a common misconception.

2019-08-04 15:02:12 UTC  

there's something of a process that often occurs; polytheistic pantheons end up being subsumed into a single monotheosit/henotheistic god and their children or servants and such
often parallel to the uniting of diverse groups of people in society into a larger civilisation with a unified rulership

2019-08-04 15:02:28 UTC  

You ever noticed this happens a lot?

2019-08-04 18:07:52 UTC  

Lol @ religious people who say things like "your 'science'...". Shows you where their heads are.

2019-08-04 18:08:25 UTC  

Yeah it's MY science, all mine

2019-08-05 00:25:38 UTC  

They’re saying that like facts/truths are subjective

2019-08-05 00:26:08 UTC  

If it has been proven, then it is not subjective or “your science”

2019-08-05 01:14:10 UTC  

There are not facts only calculated probabilities

2019-08-05 05:20:00 UTC  

If I am not mistaken, carbon dating works when you compare the amount of carbon-14 to carbon-12 Atoms, right?

2019-08-05 05:25:45 UTC  

Because if the ratio changes over time, they don't exactly know what year it was at what ratio. So they would say things like "This is older than this because it has a different ratio." And I say your science because it's not mine, and not a lot of other people's either.

2019-08-05 05:27:33 UTC  

Yes

2019-08-05 05:29:05 UTC  

Well actually no

2019-08-05 05:29:57 UTC  

The amount of carbon-14 atoms is looked at because they decay over time. How much they have decayed and how many are left is what is used. I’m not sure if thats determined proportionally to other samples or carbon-12 atoms

2019-08-05 05:33:19 UTC  

the carbon-14 atoms are spawns of satan

2019-08-05 05:33:35 UTC  

meant to steer the good people away from god

2019-08-05 17:01:58 UTC  

Demon: "Lord Satan, what evil plan do you have to steer the human race away from God today? Fire, plagues, death?"

Satan: "No, something far worse"

Demon: "what could be worse than a plague? "

Satan: "CARBON 14, MUAHAHAHA"

2019-08-06 10:06:51 UTC  

@Cheeki Breeki bruh you got it all wrong

2019-08-06 10:07:08 UTC  

thinking satan is all fire and fucking doom is stupid af

2019-08-06 14:32:23 UTC  

Was trying to make a joke dude

2019-08-06 18:03:55 UTC  

yeah @Cheeki Breeki satan doesn't put carbon 14 atoms in living things to mislead people cuz he dont exist stupid 😂 😆

2019-08-06 18:04:19 UTC  

lol nice user

2019-08-06 18:10:24 UTC  

Believe what you want...

2019-08-07 09:12:25 UTC  

Isn’t that literally the basis of this channel..?