So you are telling me that you are paying 900 dollars per week per person but only at the end of the ICO which is around february?
True, that is the system we apply, because we will pay the participants with CGCOIN Do you have to use the signature until then? Or can you apply for a few weeks and then drop it? I'm just saying the payment looks too big, how do you calculate the value of CGCOIN? With the ICO? |
|
|
|
Unfortunately newtons 3rd law never states that everything has causes. I explained that in the other thread:
'It is sufficient to show that all the motions have causes, which is something that Newton proved with his 3rd law.'' No it's not. Where does newton 3rd law say that all motions have causes? You don't even know what the law says, do you? For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. (FOR EVERY ACTION) meaning that IF there is an action or cause then there is a reaction or effect. Thats only IF not that everything has a cause, nowhere in the law it says that everything has a cause. You are a dishonest liar.
Still wrong.
Not only will you not find a motion in the universe that doesn't have a cause or that isn't a cause, even the idea of it is absurd. Ale there is, is cause and effect, action and reaction.  Ok since you are going to say the same thing over and over again I will try to make a final statement and if you don't agree with this either I don't think there is a point in continuing the conversation. The idea of everything having causes is just as absurd as something with no cause. Right now, quantum mechanics state that almost all quantum processes are random. This is not me claiming this like you, these are bright minds, far smarter than me and you together that ahve studied this for years and this is what they have come up with. Quantum theory is the best we have, do you understand that? All scientific theories are the best we have right now and I'm not claiming they are 100% true, no one is, when a better theory is known then we use that one but RIGHT NOW, quantum theory just like evolution theory is the best we have, whether you like it or not, it is the best. Can you show us the cause of those quantum processes like radioactive decay? If you can, go ahead, right a paper, get a nobel prize and you will be able to rewrite quantum theory but until you do that you have to accept it as it is. Period. Edit: Also, can I prove to an 100% degree that there are things with no cause? No, can you prove that everything has a cause? No. What do we do? We do what science does, and this is why it works so well, we go with what we have and what we have is what the quantum theory says right now, that's the best we have just like evolution or gravity theories are the best and they work, they are useful, they are applied to many different things. We still don't know what exactly causes gravity but that doesn't stop us from being able to use it and being able to form a theory that tries to explain it as best as it can and maybe in the future something better will come and we will ditch gravity theory but right now it's the best we can. You can't just come here and claim that everything has a cause when you have no proof to then say that your god has no cause because what? Because he is outside the universe? How do you even know that there can be something outside the universe? And if that's the case then many things could be outside the universe and have no cause, right? Maybe there are infinite things with no cause outside the universe, your claim, even if it were true, which again you don't know, just proposes far more questions for no reason. |
|
|
|
Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God. Yeah something did it but how do you know it was god? Thank you for asking this question again. People forget answers, and this prompts me to answer again. It was God, because it fits our definition of God. When you look at a car and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a toy manufacturer. It is a car maker. When you look at a computer and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a burlap bag maker, it is a computer manufacturer. Notice how the definition of a car manufacturer is "a business engaged in the manufacture of automobiles." Notice how a computer maker is a company that makes computers. Because of the complexity and greatness of the universe (far beyond the complexity and greatness of a car or computer), Whatever the Maker of the Universe was, It/He was God, by definition. That's how we know that It/He was God. It's by the definition. If you suggest that it was NOT God Who made the universe, the definition of whatever made the universe still is God, because it still fits the definition of "God." If you say that a Klindgab made the universe, then you simply have designed a new word that means "God." If the Klindgab happens to be a corporation of multitudes of entities, then the Klindgab Corporation is God, by definition. If you want to change the definition of "God," you certainly have that right. But in the same way that you have that right, others have the right to keep the definition. However, even if there is a new word that defines the universe, that new word means what the old word "God" meant when it was common. You are playing with semantics. You are like the joker in that other thread who thinks that gravity isn't gravity, but rather is density. Gravity is gravity because it defines something that exists. The theory of why gravity exists, or what it is made up of, or the reasons why it works in the universe like it does... this theory does not change the fact that gravity is what it is, by definition. Go ahead and put together a theory of all kinds of things about God. But "God" fits the Maker of the universe by definition. It's as simple as that! To illustrate: when you walk through the woods and see a watch, you recognize it as designed not because of its complexity or by contrasting it with the surrounding nature, but because you have seen other watches and all of those watches have, to your knowledge, been engineered by people. It is also clearly not safe to judge whether or not an object is designed purely by its complexity. A perfectly smooth perfect sphere is an extremely simple shape. However, if you found a perfectly smooth perfectly spherical wooden ball in the woods, you would recognize it as most likely not having arisen naturally, but rather having been carved and sanded into that shape. Again you are wrong, there is no way of knowing if the other things in nature are also designed. You lost, again. When you examine the watch in the woods, and compare it with a rock, the complexity of both on the micro scale is beyond any simple understanding. The difference is that the watch has a designer that includes mankind, while the rock doesn't... necessarily. However, if you found a perfectly smooth perfectly spherical wooden ball in the woods, you would recognize it as most likely not having arisen naturally, but rather having been carved and sanded into that shape. The perfect spherical wooden ball is designed, however it is not more complex than a rock or a tree, yet we still know it's designed, not because of it's complexity. You are wrong, again. So, the question has to do with the designer of the internal complexity, right? The shape of the ball shows that the designer of the ball was probably man. The question revolves around whether or not the things of nature that appear to not be designed by man were designed or not, right? This is where cause and effect comes in. After all, it is far more difficult to make a perfectly round ball than it is to simply hew out a chunk of wood. The difficulty of even making the wood is so extreme that mankind cannot do it. This shows that the complexity in nature has been made by something that is far greater at making things than mankind. If this were not enough, you can find all kinds of things in nature that one might think were constructed by mankind. A simple construction is a balancing rock. It looks like it would have had to have been set in place by mankind. And while we don't have enough of a view into the past to determine 100% that it was not, there are many such rocks, suggesting strongly that mankind did not see them up. But they look like it. Also, you can find round rocks in nature that look like they have been rounded by a person. It is only by guessing that no person was ever present to round these rocks out that we can determine that people didn't do it. In other words, we have things built by man. We have things that look like they were built by man, but we aren't sure. And we have some things that were not built by man, but they look like they were. The difference is that everything was built. Why? Because all things are machines; they have motion; Newton's 3rd Law. Machines have makers. Unfortunately newtons 3rd law never states that everything has causes. I explained that in the other thread: 'It is sufficient to show that all the motions have causes, which is something that Newton proved with his 3rd law.'' No it's not. Where does newton 3rd law say that all motions have causes? You don't even know what the law says, do you? For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. (FOR EVERY ACTION) meaning that IF there is an action or cause then there is a reaction or effect. Thats only IF not that everything has a cause, nowhere in the law it says that everything has a cause. You are a dishonest liar. Still wrong. |
|
|
|
Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God. Yeah something did it but how do you know it was god? Thank you for asking this question again. People forget answers, and this prompts me to answer again. It was God, because it fits our definition of God. When you look at a car and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a toy manufacturer. It is a car maker. When you look at a computer and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a burlap bag maker, it is a computer manufacturer. Notice how the definition of a car manufacturer is "a business engaged in the manufacture of automobiles." Notice how a computer maker is a company that makes computers. Because of the complexity and greatness of the universe (far beyond the complexity and greatness of a car or computer), Whatever the Maker of the Universe was, It/He was God, by definition. That's how we know that It/He was God. It's by the definition. If you suggest that it was NOT God Who made the universe, the definition of whatever made the universe still is God, because it still fits the definition of "God." If you say that a Klindgab made the universe, then you simply have designed a new word that means "God." If the Klindgab happens to be a corporation of multitudes of entities, then the Klindgab Corporation is God, by definition. If you want to change the definition of "God," you certainly have that right. But in the same way that you have that right, others have the right to keep the definition. However, even if there is a new word that defines the universe, that new word means what the old word "God" meant when it was common. You are playing with semantics. You are like the joker in that other thread who thinks that gravity isn't gravity, but rather is density. Gravity is gravity because it defines something that exists. The theory of why gravity exists, or what it is made up of, or the reasons why it works in the universe like it does... this theory does not change the fact that gravity is what it is, by definition. Go ahead and put together a theory of all kinds of things about God. But "God" fits the Maker of the universe by definition. It's as simple as that! To illustrate: when you walk through the woods and see a watch, you recognize it as designed not because of its complexity or by contrasting it with the surrounding nature, but because you have seen other watches and all of those watches have, to your knowledge, been engineered by people. It is also clearly not safe to judge whether or not an object is designed purely by its complexity. A perfectly smooth perfect sphere is an extremely simple shape. However, if you found a perfectly smooth perfectly spherical wooden ball in the woods, you would recognize it as most likely not having arisen naturally, but rather having been carved and sanded into that shape. Again you are wrong, there is no way of knowing if the other things in nature are also designed. You lost, again. When you examine the watch in the woods, and compare it with a rock, the complexity of both on the micro scale is beyond any simple understanding. The difference is that the watch has a designer that includes mankind, while the rock doesn't... necessarily. However, if you found a perfectly smooth perfectly spherical wooden ball in the woods, you would recognize it as most likely not having arisen naturally, but rather having been carved and sanded into that shape. The perfect spherical wooden ball is designed, however it is not more complex than a rock or a tree, yet we still know it's designed, not because of it's complexity. You are wrong, again. |
|
|
|
|
So you are telling me that you are paying 900 dollars per week per person but only at the end of the ICO which is around february?
|
|
|
|
Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God. Yeah something did it but how do you know it was god? Thank you for asking this question again. People forget answers, and this prompts me to answer again. It was God, because it fits our definition of God. When you look at a car and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a toy manufacturer. It is a car maker. When you look at a computer and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a burlap bag maker, it is a computer manufacturer. Notice how the definition of a car manufacturer is "a business engaged in the manufacture of automobiles." Notice how a computer maker is a company that makes computers. Because of the complexity and greatness of the universe (far beyond the complexity and greatness of a car or computer), Whatever the Maker of the Universe was, It/He was God, by definition. That's how we know that It/He was God. It's by the definition. If you suggest that it was NOT God Who made the universe, the definition of whatever made the universe still is God, because it still fits the definition of "God." If you say that a Klindgab made the universe, then you simply have designed a new word that means "God." If the Klindgab happens to be a corporation of multitudes of entities, then the Klindgab Corporation is God, by definition. If you want to change the definition of "God," you certainly have that right. But in the same way that you have that right, others have the right to keep the definition. However, even if there is a new word that defines the universe, that new word means what the old word "God" meant when it was common. You are playing with semantics. You are like the joker in that other thread who thinks that gravity isn't gravity, but rather is density. Gravity is gravity because it defines something that exists. The theory of why gravity exists, or what it is made up of, or the reasons why it works in the universe like it does... this theory does not change the fact that gravity is what it is, by definition. Go ahead and put together a theory of all kinds of things about God. But "God" fits the Maker of the universe by definition. It's as simple as that! ''the definition of whatever made the universe still is God'' Not really because I suggested that it could be a few different gods or a few different aliens so no, that does not fit the definition of god, so you lost. You are using the complexity argument again after I debunked it, why are you doing this? Again, you forget the simple idea of a corporation manufacturing cars. The corporation is made up of many people doing multitudes of jobs. If they don't work together as one, the pistons will be of different sizes. Not all the doors will fit the car. One window will be made of glass and another of plastic, and they will be of different shades. The car won't work. Even if there are many entities in God, they all work together as one. And in the case of the complexity and interconnectivity of all the physics and parts of something as great as the universe, they would have to be One. That is what God is. If your idea was that big bang made the universe, get together with Hawking, and figure out a theory of how there could be multitudes of big bangs, each one very different from every other, and still make a universe that has the same physics throughout. Actually, this might have been done. But the complexity of such a theory wouldn't really be understandable in any way. Astargath thinks he is God. Because the corporation is ''one''? No it's not, it just a lot of people working together on something just like a lot of different gods or aliens could be working together WITHOUT BEING ONE, just a lot of them working together, SO NO YOU ARE WRONG, AGAIN. You assume that evidence of design is an objective quality obvious to all viewers. In reality, the ability to discern design is largely a function of familiarity and cultural context. ''Not to mention the multitude of phenomena we now know are natural, but which in the past were explained through intelligent design or benevolent creation, such as the Giant's Causeway, the rock upon which the Kyaiktiyo Pagoda has been built, or the numerous legends explaining how various glacial erratics ended up in their current positions.'' To illustrate: when you walk through the woods and see a watch, you recognize it as designed not because of its complexity or by contrasting it with the surrounding nature, but because you have seen other watches and all of those watches have, to your knowledge, been engineered by people. It is also clearly not safe to judge whether or not an object is designed purely by its complexity. A perfectly smooth perfect sphere is an extremely simple shape. However, if you found a perfectly smooth perfectly spherical wooden ball in the woods, you would recognize it as most likely not having arisen naturally, but rather having been carved and sanded into that shape. Again you are wrong, there is no way of knowing if the other things in nature are also designed. You lost, again. |
|
|
|
Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God. Yeah something did it but how do you know it was god? Thank you for asking this question again. People forget answers, and this prompts me to answer again. It was God, because it fits our definition of God. When you look at a car and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a toy manufacturer. It is a car maker. When you look at a computer and wonder how it was made, your answer is not a burlap bag maker, it is a computer manufacturer. Notice how the definition of a car manufacturer is "a business engaged in the manufacture of automobiles." Notice how a computer maker is a company that makes computers. Because of the complexity and greatness of the universe (far beyond the complexity and greatness of a car or computer), Whatever the Maker of the Universe was, It/He was God, by definition. That's how we know that It/He was God. It's by the definition. If you suggest that it was NOT God Who made the universe, the definition of whatever made the universe still is God, because it still fits the definition of "God." If you say that a Klindgab made the universe, then you simply have designed a new word that means "God." If the Klindgab happens to be a corporation of multitudes of entities, then the Klindgab Corporation is God, by definition. If you want to change the definition of "God," you certainly have that right. But in the same way that you have that right, others have the right to keep the definition. However, even if there is a new word that defines the universe, that new word means what the old word "God" meant when it was common. You are playing with semantics. You are like the joker in that other thread who thinks that gravity isn't gravity, but rather is density. Gravity is gravity because it defines something that exists. The theory of why gravity exists, or what it is made up of, or the reasons why it works in the universe like it does... this theory does not change the fact that gravity is what it is, by definition. Go ahead and put together a theory of all kinds of things about God. But "God" fits the Maker of the universe by definition. It's as simple as that! ''the definition of whatever made the universe still is God'' Not really because I suggested that it could be a few different gods or a few different aliens so no, that does not fit the definition of god, so you lost. You are using the complexity argument again after I debunked it, why are you doing this? You assume that evidence of design is an objective quality obvious to all viewers. In reality, the ability to discern design is largely a function of familiarity and cultural context. ''Not to mention the multitude of phenomena we now know are natural, but which in the past were explained through intelligent design or benevolent creation, such as the Giant's Causeway, the rock upon which the Kyaiktiyo Pagoda has been built, or the numerous legends explaining how various glacial erratics ended up in their current positions.'' To illustrate: when you walk through the woods and see a watch, you recognize it as designed not because of its complexity or by contrasting it with the surrounding nature, but because you have seen other watches and all of those watches have, to your knowledge, been engineered by people. It is also clearly not safe to judge whether or not an object is designed purely by its complexity. A perfectly smooth perfect sphere is an extremely simple shape. However, if you found a perfectly smooth perfectly spherical wooden ball in the woods, you would recognize it as most likely not having arisen naturally, but rather having been carved and sanded into that shape. Again you are wrong, there is no way of knowing if the other things in nature are also designed. You lost, again. |
|
|
|
There is nothing that shows that all machines have makers either. If a rock or a mountain are machines then they have no maker. The only machines that have makers are things that humans made, everything else we don't know and you don't know either. You claim that because machines that humans made have makers (humans) then everything else that is a machine also have makers? How does that make any sense?
You don't know whether a mountain or the earth had a maker.
You lost badecker, just stop.
You are losing, personally, just because you are unwilling to accept the overwhelming evidence and proof for the fact that the universe is a machine full of machines. Come on out of your false religion, into the truth of reality. Where is the evidence that all machines are designed though? We know things that we created are designed because WE (humans) created them but how do YOU know that all the others are also designed? The methods that God uses are not necessarily design. But the obvious thing is that His ways are way far in advance of ours, just like one would expect from the real God. Such a thing as God making the universe without designing it shows how great His power really is. People can't simply "plop" some machine into existence. But if God can do it without designing it ahead of time, He is so far ahead of us that we can never hope to catch up. But how do you know he did it, though? Something did it. The laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show us that whatever the "He" is, it fits the greatness of the definition of God. Yeah something did it but how do you know it was god? You keep saying the same thing again for no reason, I already showed you that complexity does not imply design but you keep saying the same thing over and over and over and over again, are you insane? How does complexity imply design? Given how much bad design there is in the world, I think it’s more likely to have been designed by a confused committee of gods than a single, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god or aliens or a ton of other possibilities, endless possibilities really. |
|
|
|
You still haven't shown proof that everything has a cause, though.
Sure I have. You forget... Everything is moving in the universe, because absolute zero is not quite attainable. Movement means action. Action means existence of reaction - Newton's 3rd Law. This means that there is cause and effect in everything, which means there are programmed changes, not random mutations like Evolution theory says. However, if absolute zero were attained somewhere in the universe, it wouldn't be in an evolving mutation. Absolute zero means no movement. No movement means no change... no mutation. Evolution is a hoax. However even if everything is in motion, what matters is the cause/causes of all the motions and you can't prove or show all the causes of all the motions, can you? True randomness exists, at least it's just the way quantum mechanics works. It may seem a bit unsatifactory to just have to accept the randomness, but remember that quantum mechanics is only a mathematical model - one that so far successfully describes the universe we see around us. All mathematical models are based on some assumptions, and the randomness in making measurements is one of these assumptions. It's possible that some deeper model will be developed one day, and this model will explain why the randomness occurs. However there is no such model at the moment, nor even a hint of one. Oh dear. You forgot to read the post you are replying to. I don't have to prove the causes of all the motions. It is sufficient to show that all the motions have causes, which is something that Newton proved with his 3rd law. If you want to start to prove evolution, you have to find at least one effect that doesn't have a cause. Quantum anything is simply complex probability. Probability indicates that we don't know. If we knew, we wouldn't need probability to attempt to find out. We wouldn't need quantum. Quantum takes into account C&E. It doesn't ever leave C&E behind. That is the reason it is as successful as it is. But its proof is in the engineering of whatever model quantum shows us. The thing that this tells us is that evolution is something that we don't know to have fact behind it. There is no engineering to back up any evolution quantum model that might be in existence. The probability of evolution in this form or in that form cancels itself out. The quantum models might be there. Now let's find some engineering that can prove which quantum model is most or absolutely correct. Since evolution hasn't been proven, we don't know that it is correct. When we look at the things that oppose it, we find that evolution can't be real, no matter how many quantum possibilities exist. Evolution is a hoax. Astargath is a hoax. ''It is sufficient to show that all the motions have causes, which is something that Newton proved with his 3rd law.'' No it's not. Where does newton 3rd law say that all motions have causes? You don't even know what the law says, do you? For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. (FOR EVERY ACTION) meaning that IF there is an action or cause then there is a reaction or effect. Thats only IF not that everything has a cause, nowhere in the law it says that everything has a cause. You are a dishonest liar. |
|
|
|
You still haven't shown proof that everything has a cause, though.
Sure I have. You forget... Everything is moving in the universe, because absolute zero is not quite attainable. Movement means action. Action means existence of reaction - Newton's 3rd Law. This means that there is cause and effect in everything, which means there are programmed changes, not random mutations like Evolution theory says. However, if absolute zero were attained somewhere in the universe, it wouldn't be in an evolving mutation. Absolute zero means no movement. No movement means no change... no mutation. Evolution is a hoax. However even if everything is in motion, what matters is the cause/causes of all the motions and you can't prove or show all the causes of all the motions, can you? True randomness exists, at least it's just the way quantum mechanics works. It may seem a bit unsatifactory to just have to accept the randomness, but remember that quantum mechanics is only a mathematical model - one that so far successfully describes the universe we see around us. All mathematical models are based on some assumptions, and the randomness in making measurements is one of these assumptions. It's possible that some deeper model will be developed one day, and this model will explain why the randomness occurs. However there is no such model at the moment, nor even a hint of one. |
|
|
|
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 will evolve into bad times for the many great times for the few and then the many will have enough ..
See evolution is real ..
I wonder if a UNIVERSAL INCOME will evolve?..
Soon the many will come for the few if no UNIVERSAL INCOME..
Darwin himself predicted these changes from dinosaur to become full capable human being so what are you askeng for? But there is no proof that it was evolution that made the changes. In fact, there is no proof for evolution at all, and barely any evidence. All the evidence fits the "like begets like" creation model better than it fits evolution. Evolution is a hoax. Yet no scientist has ever taken the ''creationist model'' seriously because there is literally no proof for it. Unlike evolution that is fully documented and supported/used by the whole scientific community and majority of religions/religious people accept it. You are mistaken. I was taught in high school by a scientist who took the creation model very seriously. There are many others. Most don't speak what they really believe, because they have a family to support, and they would get fired from their job in the university if they came out with the truth. Evolution is a hoax. I have seen many who take evolution model very seriously, far more than creation, therefore evolution beats creation. Evolutionist hopefuls. Not evolutionists who can provide any proof. Even the slight bit of evolution evidence fits creation better. If this weren't enough, cause and effect shows that the evolution model is all guesswork. Evolution is a hoax. Actually almost all the evidence shows the bible is wrong: http://www.discoveringislam.org/bible_scientific_errors.htmhttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors |
|
|
|
Why do I have to prove this? Remember, it is you who are embracing evolution. Prove that there is even one causeless effect. Radioactive decay No proof. But examples of the opposite, which I have already shown you. Evolution is a hoax. Astargath is a hoax. Radioactive decay is studied by the brightest minds, they have concluded that it is indeed truly random. You don't need any outside influence to get the isotope to decay. The decay is random just like (almost) all other Quantum Mechanical phenomena. |
|
|
|
God is the maker of all things, because all things are machines in one way or another.
Badecker would say that's impossible, since a god cannot make himself and can't be the effect (caused by) something else. Take away god, all you have left is the theory of evolution - it hasn't be proven wrong yet in billions of scientific observations. Badecker contradicts himself all the time like: Free will but also everything is determined. Everything has a cause but god doesn't. Scientific theories are not known to be true, asks me to prove something by telling him if there is a scientific theory of that something. He is just going insane, I think. Now you are simply talking fud. The free will of man is only free will. It doesn't connect to mans' capabilities. God, who is outside of cause and effect, looks at mans' free will choices, and then goes back to the Beginning, and adjusts the universe, using cause and effect to change the universe according to the free will of mankind, and the objectives that He, God, has. Any proof for any of that? Why is god ''outside'' of cause and effect? If free will of humans is not connected to their capabilities, then why are they punished/rewarded for it? Are you really asking if you have free will or not? Do you suddenly think that you don't have free will? Are you admitting to artificial free will in yourself? After all, cause and effect has been proven. So, any free will that you have must be artificial, right? God is outside of C&E because He made it to be that way. If mankind is punished for using His free will incorrectly, it is because he essentially asked for the punishment by using his free will the way he did. Consider the pain punishment you will get if you get your hammer, and smash you hand with it. Or, get a gun and shoot yourself in the gut, and then ask why you punished yourself. Poor God. He was only giving you what you asked for by your free will, but then you go out and blame Him for using your free will in a wrong way that gives you punishment. God is such a giving "person," and He loves you so much, that He wants to give, give, give to you. But you are such an evil person that when you ask for bad things, and you get punishment, you blame God for it. In the judgment, God will wake you up to your wrong use of your own free will. Can't have free will if everything is deterministic as you claim (aka having a known cause) '' God is outside of C&E because He made it to be that way.'' HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THOUGH, you are claiming things for the sake of it, where is your evidence? Since you are unable (more likely unwilling) to understand what I have shown you over and over, why would you accept evolution as reality? Is it because evolution theory is so complex that you can't follow it, and that is why you worship it as reality? If God were within C&E, science would have found some little bit of Him by now. Especially considering anything that is part of C&E that is big enough and complex enough to cause the whole, complex universe, would have been found already if it were part of the universe. You seem to be unwilling to put your thinking cap on and understand what is going on. Evolution is a big fat hoax. I accept evolution because there is a ton of evidence for it. ''If God were within C&E, science would have found some little bit of Him by now'' Why? How do you know? ''Especially considering anything that is part of C&E that is big enough and complex enough to cause the whole, complex universe, would have been found already if it were part of the universe.'' Why? How do you know? How do you know they just haven't find him and he is indeed part of the universe (if he exists, of course) And why is not finding any single piece of proof of god, evidence for god? You seem unable to prove that everything has a cause, so you lost, again. You forget... Everything is moving in the universe, because absolute zero is not quite attainable. Movement means action. Action means existence of reaction - Newton's 3rd Law. This means that there is cause and effect in everything, which means there are programmed changes, not random mutations like Evolution theory says. However, if absolute zero were attained somewhere in the universe, it wouldn't be in an evolving mutation. Absolute zero means no movement. No movement means no change... no mutation. Evolution is a hoax. Nice analogy but it's wrong. It doesn't matter if everything is moving, what matters is the cause of the movement and you can't prove that all the things moving are caused by something instead of causeless. Besides motion is a relative concept, so you are never "moving" but only "moving with respect to something". You still need to prove everything has a cause and also prove that god doesn't have one and also prove god exists. Man you have a lot to do. Thank you for pointing out that evolution and evolution theory doesn't have any causeless effect evidence, to say nothing about proof. Evolution is a hoax. ou still need to prove everything has a cause and also prove that god doesn't have one and also prove god exists. Man you have a lot to do. According to dawkins texts, we know what you say is true. all these cells developed to become rocks and some developed to become fish, later dinosaurs, monkeys, water, cosmos and other evolution figures. They automatically developed them selves and I believe we will continue to evolve to become three handed and more intelligent capabilities. Evevn unicors will develop at some point in time but it will take billions of years to evolve an ant from a whale according to darwins texts. You have a lot to learn from this belief Since nobody has seen any of it happen, and since it all fits the creation model better than the evolution model... Evolution is a hoax. Since nobody has seen god create the world and since all the evidence fits evolution, creation is a hoax. Cause and effect shows that it wasn't evolution in the sense that evolution theory suggests. Evolution is a hoax. You still haven't shown proof that everything has a cause, though. |
|
|
|
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 will evolve into bad times for the many great times for the few and then the many will have enough ..
See evolution is real ..
I wonder if a UNIVERSAL INCOME will evolve?..
Soon the many will come for the few if no UNIVERSAL INCOME..
Darwin himself predicted these changes from dinosaur to become full capable human being so what are you askeng for? But there is no proof that it was evolution that made the changes. In fact, there is no proof for evolution at all, and barely any evidence. All the evidence fits the "like begets like" creation model better than it fits evolution. Evolution is a hoax. Yet no scientist has ever taken the ''creationist model'' seriously because there is literally no proof for it. Unlike evolution that is fully documented and supported/used by the whole scientific community and majority of religions/religious people accept it. You are mistaken. I was taught in high school by a scientist who took the creation model very seriously. There are many others. Most don't speak what they really believe, because they have a family to support, and they would get fired from their job in the university if they came out with the truth. Evolution is a hoax. I have seen many who take evolution model very seriously, far more than creation, therefore evolution beats creation. |
|
|
|
God is the maker of all things, because all things are machines in one way or another.
Badecker would say that's impossible, since a god cannot make himself and can't be the effect (caused by) something else. Take away god, all you have left is the theory of evolution - it hasn't be proven wrong yet in billions of scientific observations. Badecker contradicts himself all the time like: Free will but also everything is determined. Everything has a cause but god doesn't. Scientific theories are not known to be true, asks me to prove something by telling him if there is a scientific theory of that something. He is just going insane, I think. Now you are simply talking fud. The free will of man is only free will. It doesn't connect to mans' capabilities. God, who is outside of cause and effect, looks at mans' free will choices, and then goes back to the Beginning, and adjusts the universe, using cause and effect to change the universe according to the free will of mankind, and the objectives that He, God, has. Any proof for any of that? Why is god ''outside'' of cause and effect? If free will of humans is not connected to their capabilities, then why are they punished/rewarded for it? Are you really asking if you have free will or not? Do you suddenly think that you don't have free will? Are you admitting to artificial free will in yourself? After all, cause and effect has been proven. So, any free will that you have must be artificial, right? God is outside of C&E because He made it to be that way. If mankind is punished for using His free will incorrectly, it is because he essentially asked for the punishment by using his free will the way he did. Consider the pain punishment you will get if you get your hammer, and smash you hand with it. Or, get a gun and shoot yourself in the gut, and then ask why you punished yourself. Poor God. He was only giving you what you asked for by your free will, but then you go out and blame Him for using your free will in a wrong way that gives you punishment. God is such a giving "person," and He loves you so much, that He wants to give, give, give to you. But you are such an evil person that when you ask for bad things, and you get punishment, you blame God for it. In the judgment, God will wake you up to your wrong use of your own free will. Can't have free will if everything is deterministic as you claim (aka having a known cause) '' God is outside of C&E because He made it to be that way.'' HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THOUGH, you are claiming things for the sake of it, where is your evidence? Since you are unable (more likely unwilling) to understand what I have shown you over and over, why would you accept evolution as reality? Is it because evolution theory is so complex that you can't follow it, and that is why you worship it as reality? If God were within C&E, science would have found some little bit of Him by now. Especially considering anything that is part of C&E that is big enough and complex enough to cause the whole, complex universe, would have been found already if it were part of the universe. You seem to be unwilling to put your thinking cap on and understand what is going on. Evolution is a big fat hoax. I accept evolution because there is a ton of evidence for it. ''If God were within C&E, science would have found some little bit of Him by now'' Why? How do you know? ''Especially considering anything that is part of C&E that is big enough and complex enough to cause the whole, complex universe, would have been found already if it were part of the universe.'' Why? How do you know? How do you know they just haven't find him and he is indeed part of the universe (if he exists, of course) And why is not finding any single piece of proof of god, evidence for god? You seem unable to prove that everything has a cause, so you lost, again. You forget... Everything is moving in the universe, because absolute zero is not quite attainable. Movement means action. Action means existence of reaction - Newton's 3rd Law. This means that there is cause and effect in everything, which means there are programmed changes, not random mutations like Evolution theory says. However, if absolute zero were attained somewhere in the universe, it wouldn't be in an evolving mutation. Absolute zero means no movement. No movement means no change... no mutation. Evolution is a hoax. Nice analogy but it's wrong. It doesn't matter if everything is moving, what matters is the cause of the movement and you can't prove that all the things moving are caused by something instead of causeless. Besides motion is a relative concept, so you are never "moving" but only "moving with respect to something". You still need to prove everything has a cause and also prove that god doesn't have one and also prove god exists. Man you have a lot to do. Thank you for pointing out that evolution and evolution theory doesn't have any causeless effect evidence, to say nothing about proof. Evolution is a hoax. ou still need to prove everything has a cause and also prove that god doesn't have one and also prove god exists. Man you have a lot to do. According to dawkins texts, we know what you say is true. all these cells developed to become rocks and some developed to become fish, later dinosaurs, monkeys, water, cosmos and other evolution figures. They automatically developed them selves and I believe we will continue to evolve to become three handed and more intelligent capabilities. Evevn unicors will develop at some point in time but it will take billions of years to evolve an ant from a whale according to darwins texts. You have a lot to learn from this belief Since nobody has seen any of it happen, and since it all fits the creation model better than the evolution model... Evolution is a hoax. Since nobody has seen god create the world and since all the evidence fits evolution, creation is a hoax. |
|
|
|
God is the maker of all things, because all things are machines in one way or another.
Badecker would say that's impossible, since a god cannot make himself and can't be the effect (caused by) something else. Take away god, all you have left is the theory of evolution - it hasn't be proven wrong yet in billions of scientific observations. Badecker contradicts himself all the time like: Free will but also everything is determined. Everything has a cause but god doesn't. Scientific theories are not known to be true, asks me to prove something by telling him if there is a scientific theory of that something. He is just going insane, I think. Now you are simply talking fud. The free will of man is only free will. It doesn't connect to mans' capabilities. God, who is outside of cause and effect, looks at mans' free will choices, and then goes back to the Beginning, and adjusts the universe, using cause and effect to change the universe according to the free will of mankind, and the objectives that He, God, has. Any proof for any of that? Why is god ''outside'' of cause and effect? If free will of humans is not connected to their capabilities, then why are they punished/rewarded for it? Are you really asking if you have free will or not? Do you suddenly think that you don't have free will? Are you admitting to artificial free will in yourself? After all, cause and effect has been proven. So, any free will that you have must be artificial, right? God is outside of C&E because He made it to be that way. If mankind is punished for using His free will incorrectly, it is because he essentially asked for the punishment by using his free will the way he did. Consider the pain punishment you will get if you get your hammer, and smash you hand with it. Or, get a gun and shoot yourself in the gut, and then ask why you punished yourself. Poor God. He was only giving you what you asked for by your free will, but then you go out and blame Him for using your free will in a wrong way that gives you punishment. God is such a giving "person," and He loves you so much, that He wants to give, give, give to you. But you are such an evil person that when you ask for bad things, and you get punishment, you blame God for it. In the judgment, God will wake you up to your wrong use of your own free will. Can't have free will if everything is deterministic as you claim (aka having a known cause) '' God is outside of C&E because He made it to be that way.'' HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THOUGH, you are claiming things for the sake of it, where is your evidence? Since you are unable (more likely unwilling) to understand what I have shown you over and over, why would you accept evolution as reality? Is it because evolution theory is so complex that you can't follow it, and that is why you worship it as reality? If God were within C&E, science would have found some little bit of Him by now. Especially considering anything that is part of C&E that is big enough and complex enough to cause the whole, complex universe, would have been found already if it were part of the universe. You seem to be unwilling to put your thinking cap on and understand what is going on. Evolution is a big fat hoax. I accept evolution because there is a ton of evidence for it. ''If God were within C&E, science would have found some little bit of Him by now'' Why? How do you know? ''Especially considering anything that is part of C&E that is big enough and complex enough to cause the whole, complex universe, would have been found already if it were part of the universe.'' Why? How do you know? How do you know they just haven't find him and he is indeed part of the universe (if he exists, of course) And why is not finding any single piece of proof of god, evidence for god? You seem unable to prove that everything has a cause, so you lost, again. You forget... Everything is moving in the universe, because absolute zero is not quite attainable. Movement means action. Action means existence of reaction - Newton's 3rd Law. This means that there is cause and effect in everything, which means there are programmed changes, not random mutations like Evolution theory says. However, if absolute zero were attained somewhere in the universe, it wouldn't be in an evolving mutation. Absolute zero means no movement. No movement means no change... no mutation. Evolution is a hoax. Nice analogy but it's wrong. It doesn't matter if everything is moving, what matters is the cause of the movement and you can't prove that all the things moving are caused by something instead of causeless. Besides motion is a relative concept, so you are never "moving" but only "moving with respect to something". You still need to prove everything has a cause and also prove that god doesn't have one and also prove god exists. Man you have a lot to do. Thank you for pointing out that evolution and evolution theory doesn't have any causeless effect evidence, to say nothing about proof. Evolution is a hoax. ou still need to prove everything has a cause and also prove that god doesn't have one and also prove god exists. Man you have a lot to do. Why do I have to prove this? Remember, it is you who are embracing evolution. Prove that there is even one causeless effect. Radioactive decay |
|
|
|
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 will evolve into bad times for the many great times for the few and then the many will have enough ..
See evolution is real ..
I wonder if a UNIVERSAL INCOME will evolve?..
Soon the many will come for the few if no UNIVERSAL INCOME..
Darwin himself predicted these changes from dinosaur to become full capable human being so what are you askeng for? But there is no proof that it was evolution that made the changes. In fact, there is no proof for evolution at all, and barely any evidence. All the evidence fits the "like begets like" creation model better than it fits evolution. Evolution is a hoax. Yet no scientist has ever taken the ''creationist model'' seriously because there is literally no proof for it. Unlike evolution that is fully documented and supported/used by the whole scientific community and majority of religions/religious people accept it. |
|
|
|
There is nothing that shows that all machines have makers either. If a rock or a mountain are machines then they have no maker. The only machines that have makers are things that humans made, everything else we don't know and you don't know either. You claim that because machines that humans made have makers (humans) then everything else that is a machine also have makers? How does that make any sense?
You don't know whether a mountain or the earth had a maker.
You lost badecker, just stop.
You are losing, personally, just because you are unwilling to accept the overwhelming evidence and proof for the fact that the universe is a machine full of machines. Come on out of your false religion, into the truth of reality. Where is the evidence that all machines are designed though? We know things that we created are designed because WE (humans) created them but how do YOU know that all the others are also designed? The methods that God uses are not necessarily design. But the obvious thing is that His ways are way far in advance of ours, just like one would expect from the real God. Such a thing as God making the universe without designing it shows how great His power really is. People can't simply "plop" some machine into existence. But if God can do it without designing it ahead of time, He is so far ahead of us that we can never hope to catch up. But how do you know he did it, though? |
|
|
|
God is the maker of all things, because all things are machines in one way or another.
Badecker would say that's impossible, since a god cannot make himself and can't be the effect (caused by) something else. Take away god, all you have left is the theory of evolution - it hasn't be proven wrong yet in billions of scientific observations. Badecker contradicts himself all the time like: Free will but also everything is determined. Everything has a cause but god doesn't. Scientific theories are not known to be true, asks me to prove something by telling him if there is a scientific theory of that something. He is just going insane, I think. Now you are simply talking fud. The free will of man is only free will. It doesn't connect to mans' capabilities. God, who is outside of cause and effect, looks at mans' free will choices, and then goes back to the Beginning, and adjusts the universe, using cause and effect to change the universe according to the free will of mankind, and the objectives that He, God, has. Any proof for any of that? Why is god ''outside'' of cause and effect? If free will of humans is not connected to their capabilities, then why are they punished/rewarded for it? Are you really asking if you have free will or not? Do you suddenly think that you don't have free will? Are you admitting to artificial free will in yourself? After all, cause and effect has been proven. So, any free will that you have must be artificial, right? God is outside of C&E because He made it to be that way. If mankind is punished for using His free will incorrectly, it is because he essentially asked for the punishment by using his free will the way he did. Consider the pain punishment you will get if you get your hammer, and smash you hand with it. Or, get a gun and shoot yourself in the gut, and then ask why you punished yourself. Poor God. He was only giving you what you asked for by your free will, but then you go out and blame Him for using your free will in a wrong way that gives you punishment. God is such a giving "person," and He loves you so much, that He wants to give, give, give to you. But you are such an evil person that when you ask for bad things, and you get punishment, you blame God for it. In the judgment, God will wake you up to your wrong use of your own free will. Can't have free will if everything is deterministic as you claim (aka having a known cause) '' God is outside of C&E because He made it to be that way.'' HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THOUGH, you are claiming things for the sake of it, where is your evidence? Since you are unable (more likely unwilling) to understand what I have shown you over and over, why would you accept evolution as reality? Is it because evolution theory is so complex that you can't follow it, and that is why you worship it as reality? If God were within C&E, science would have found some little bit of Him by now. Especially considering anything that is part of C&E that is big enough and complex enough to cause the whole, complex universe, would have been found already if it were part of the universe. You seem to be unwilling to put your thinking cap on and understand what is going on. Evolution is a big fat hoax. I accept evolution because there is a ton of evidence for it. ''If God were within C&E, science would have found some little bit of Him by now'' Why? How do you know? ''Especially considering anything that is part of C&E that is big enough and complex enough to cause the whole, complex universe, would have been found already if it were part of the universe.'' Why? How do you know? How do you know they just haven't find him and he is indeed part of the universe (if he exists, of course) And why is not finding any single piece of proof of god, evidence for god? You seem unable to prove that everything has a cause, so you lost, again. You forget... Everything is moving in the universe, because absolute zero is not quite attainable. Movement means action. Action means existence of reaction - Newton's 3rd Law. This means that there is cause and effect in everything, which means there are programmed changes, not random mutations like Evolution theory says. However, if absolute zero were attained somewhere in the universe, it wouldn't be in an evolving mutation. Absolute zero means no movement. No movement means no change... no mutation. Evolution is a hoax. Nice analogy but it's wrong. It doesn't matter if everything is moving, what matters is the cause of the movement and you can't prove that all the things moving are caused by something instead of causeless. Besides motion is a relative concept, so you are never "moving" but only "moving with respect to something". You still need to prove everything has a cause and also prove that god doesn't have one and also prove god exists. Man you have a lot to do. Thank you for pointing out that evolution and evolution theory doesn't have any causeless effect evidence, to say nothing about proof. Evolution is a hoax. ou still need to prove everything has a cause and also prove that god doesn't have one and also prove god exists. Man you have a lot to do. |
|
|
|
There is nothing that shows that all machines have makers either. If a rock or a mountain are machines then they have no maker. The only machines that have makers are things that humans made, everything else we don't know and you don't know either. You claim that because machines that humans made have makers (humans) then everything else that is a machine also have makers? How does that make any sense?
You don't know whether a mountain or the earth had a maker.
You lost badecker, just stop.
You are losing, personally, just because you are unwilling to accept the overwhelming evidence and proof for the fact that the universe is a machine full of machines. Come on out of your false religion, into the truth of reality. Where is the evidence that all machines are designed though? We know things that we created are designed because WE (humans) created them but how do YOU know that all the others are also designed? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
