(April 26, 2012 at 8:30 pm)jess_essential Wrote: Stupid and unwilling go hand in hand. You've gotta be stupid to be unwilling to accept the facts of "life".

which are ? that life had no cause ??

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam...31185.html

Quote:I posit to you that all the evidence points, in an obvious and inextricable way, to a supernatural explanation for the origin of life. If there are no known naturalistic explanations and the likelihood that "chance" played any role is wildly minute, then it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that a conscious super-intelligence (that some of us call God) was the architect of life on this planet. Everyone agrees to the appearance of design. It is illogical to assume its non-design in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

(April 27, 2012 at 6:20 am)Jireh Wrote:

(April 26, 2012 at 8:30 pm)jess_essential Wrote: Stupid and unwilling go hand in hand. You've gotta be stupid to be unwilling to accept the facts of "life".

which are ? that life had no cause ??

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam...31185.html

Quote:I posit to you that all the evidence points, in an obvious and inextricable way, to a supernatural explanation for the origin of life. If there are no known naturalistic explanations and the likelihood that "chance" played any role is wildly minute, then it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that a conscious super-intelligence (that some of us call God) was the architect of life on this planet. Everyone agrees to the appearance of design. It is illogical to assume its non-design in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Quoting a Rabbi,

Yep, that's really going to work.

Yes Jireh,,,"life" has no cause in conjunction to your elitist emotional world view. What you fail to understand is that you are not special, not worth the effort to have the most simple of "life's" processes explained to you because YOU do not wish to understand. You are nothing but unmitigated ego and will perpetually regale against anything that calls your views into question.

Most on here have had to go the hard road of re-forming their world view concepts based on available scientific information, knowing full well that that information may be made redundant at any moment. Life is fluid Jireh, unlike you who are rigid and uncaring and inflexible. Enjoy your life mate.

(April 22, 2012 at 12:24 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:

(April 22, 2012 at 11:30 am)Jireh Wrote: What is your standard of extraordinary ?

radio waves, electromagnetism, and light leave no " hard evidence ", but they exist..........

Ummmm........

Did you say that with a straight face?

Probably. The stupid is strong with this one.

Nah, no stupid is as stupid as christianity.

Well 28 pages in Jireh and we still don't believe in any god and I can't believe someone hasn't shut down your apologetic windbagging after the first page.

Time for you to start selling a product that isn't past its preach-by-date.

(April 26, 2012 at 6:16 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: They are not assertions, they are conclusions based on the available evidence.

Quote:Dr. Monty White:

1. There is no proof that the earth ever had an atmosphere composed of the gases used by Miller in his experiment.

2. The next problem is that in Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.

3. The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.

4. Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from?

Quote:The alternative to abiogenesis is that biological life has existed forever

No. Its that God created physical life.

Quote:: do you imagine a biological God, with a metabolism and DNA?

No, i imagine a eternal God, which is spirit.

Quote:The belief that life was created by the will of God from dust or nothing or whatever the case may be is also an abiogenetic hypothesis. As for evolution through natural selection, I've observed that a creationist who has even a simple layman's understanding of it is nearly as rare as the basilisk, so I really just don't expect you to understand why it's such a strong theory.

Do YOU have a grasp of abiogenesis ? If you had, you would not make such nonsense assertions, as scientific evidence would point out to a natural origin of life. Truth is, science is completely without answer how life could have had a natural origin.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t60-abio...e-on-earth

Quote:Although widely heralded for decades by the popular press as ‘proving’ that life originated on the early earth entirely under natural conditions, we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for the opposite conclusion.
It is now recognized that this set of experiments has done more to show that abiogenesis on Earth is not possible than to indicate how it could be possible.

(April 24, 2012 at 2:26 pm)Jireh Wrote: The first self-replicating protein had no more information than other, similar proteins. It just happened to have the property of self-replication in the chemical environment it occured in

to be self replicating, it needs to have information. " It just happened " ?
If you see a computer progam code, or a Book, like Shakespeares " Hamlet", would you assert also : " it just happened ", without any intelligence needed to write it ? even the most simple self replicating molecule has more information stored as the enciclopedia britannica.......

Quote:, as other complex proteins that arise as expected in organic chemistry

as expected ?? expected based on what expectation ??

Quote:have their own unique properties without needing a cosmic programmer to intervene. Afterwards, information was added from its environment. That's what evolution through natural selection does: add information about the environment into DNA.

amazing faith you have in chances hability to produce information. Amazing.....

the argument of information in the cell is just a knock down, check mate to atheists aspiration and wishful thinking of naturalism. But since they are blind, they do not want to accept it, and cross a red line, from being reasonable, to bein irrational.

You don't think someone that has no evolutionary " lense " will believe and accept your irrational arguments , right ?

Quote:Because 'I don't know how natural processes can add information to DNA' doesn't entitle you to conclude 'therefore, God'.

Actually, no. I can conclude it, and be perfectly be justified based on the fact, that it has only been observed human beings to be able to create codified, complex, and specified information.

Quote:Besides 'brane theory, cyclical universe, or black hole universe? Probably several.

these fall all either to the category eternal universe in one way or the other, or a universe out of absolutely nothing.

(April 24, 2012 at 2:26 pm)Jireh Wrote: Nope. I have my doubts that 'absolutely nothing' is a coherent concept.

its not a concept, its just one of the few possibilities.

Quote:Look at the problems with saying God created the universe out of absolutely nothing: where was there 'absolutely nothing' if God existed?

thats why that is a alternative to the other option of a universe from absolutely nothing.

Quote:Now, it's absolutely possible for something to arise from as close to nothing as seems to be physically allowed: that's exactly where we find virtual particles coming into existence (briefly).

from the book : a case of a creator

Quote:So are you just The quantum vacuum is not what most people envision when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it's a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws. These particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum.
"So it's not an example of something coming into being out of nothing, or something coming into being without a cause. The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from?"
He let that question linger before continuing. "You've simply pushed back the issue of creation. Now you've got to account for how this very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into being. Do you see what I'm saying? If quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can't legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of that domain itself. You need something transcendent that's beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being. Suddenly, we're back to the origins question."being contrary, as no one is proposing the universe came from absolutely nothing?

Quote: There is some reason to think that it is possible for a universe to begin from 'quantum nothingness'.

what reason would that be ? and, what is a quantum nothingness ?

Quote:Because you keep making claims about knowing the secrets of the universe without having even as much physical evidence as the most counterintuitive claims of hypothetical physics,

i am not making claims. I just present what seems to me to be the most plausible explanation for our existence.

Quote:AND you keep saying science is on your side. And I never ask for proof, proof is for math and whiskey. All I ask for is a reason to think your hypothesis is as sound as the hypotheses of peer-reviewed cosomologists.

the issue here is about meta-physics, not about cosmology.

Quote:The thing about a timeless dimension is that nothing can occur in it.

So ?

Quote:You misunderstand the scientific consensus. Our physics breaks down immediately prior to the cosmic inflation, we are still working on describing what preceded that point, hence the multiple hypotheses. Our universe had a beginning in terms of existing in its current form, but it's not that clear whether this was a beginning from (relative) nothingness, a collision of 'branes, or a transformation of a previous state.

most scientists take it for granted, that our universe had a absolute beginning.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/bigquestions/s460625.htm

Quote:Beyond the point is nothing. The balloon – space – has simply disappeared. Play this scenario in forward time and it represents the coming-into-being of a universe from literally nothing, with space itself appearing. So it’s not an explosion in a pre-existing space. Space itself appears. And so, for that matter, does time.

---

Quote:Do you not see how citing the work of a single scientist does not support your contention that the universe beginning 'ex nihilo' rather than transforming from a previous state has 'overwhelming scientific support'?

oh, i can give you a whole bunch if you want....

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html

Quote:The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time
"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago." Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University
"As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other." CalTech
"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University
"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan
"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan
"The present location and velocities of galaxies are a result of a primordial blast known as the BIG BANG. It marked: THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE! THE BEGINNING OF TIME!" Terry Herter, Cornell University
"That radiation is residual heat from the Big Bang, the event that sparked the beginning of the universe some 13 billion years ago." Craig Hogan, University of Washington
"Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950." University of Illinois
"The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old (it evolves in time)." Nilakshi Veerabathina, Georgia State University ()
"The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something." Janna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University
"Today scientists generally believe the universe was created in a violent explosion called the Big Bang." Susan Terebey, Department of Physics and Astronomy, California State University Los Angeles
"Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity." Stephen T. Abedon, Ohio State University
"A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event." Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama
"Now, after decades of observing and thinking, we have come to answer confidently the question of the origin of our universe... with what is known as the "big bang"." Yuki D. Takahashi, Caltech
"The theory is the conceptual and the calculational tool used by particle physicists to describe the structure of the hadrons and the beginning of the universe." Keh-Fei Liu, University of Kentucky.
"The three-part lecture series includes: "How the Universe Began," "The Dark Side of the Universe: Dark Matter and Dark Energy" and "Cosmic Inflation: The Dynamite Behind the Big Bang?" (Lectures by Michael S. Turner, Bruce V. and Diana M. Rauner at Penn State University)
"Travel back in time to the beginning of the Universe: The Big Bang" Douglas Miller, University of Arizona
"Beginning of the Universe 20.0 billion yr ago" Charly Mallery, University of Miami
"At the beginning the universe was extremely hot and dense (more about this later) and as it expanded it cooled." Syracuse University
"THE UNIVERSE AND ALL OF SPACE ARE EXPANDING FROM A BIG BANG BEGINNING" Center for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago
"Gamow realized that at a point a few minutes after its beginning, the universe would behave as a giant nuclear reactor." Valparaiso University, Department of Physics and Astronomy
"I'll also include what the time is since the creation of the Universe, and an estimate of the temperature of the Universe at each point." Siobahn M. Morgan, University of Northern Iowa.
"The Universe is thought to have formed between 6-20 billion years ago (Ga) as a result of the "Big Bang" Kevin P. Hefferan, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
"The dominant idea of Cosmology is that the Universe had a beginning." Adam Frank, University of Rochester Department of Physics & Astronomy
"The hot dense phase is generally regarded as the beginning of the universe, and the time since the beginning is, by definition, the age of the universe." Harrison B. Prosper, Florida State University
"One of the major hypotheses on which modern cosmology is based is that the Universe originated in an explosion called the Big Bang, in which all energy (and matter) that exists today was created." Eric S. Rowland, UC Santa Cruz
"Together with Roger Penrose, I developed a new set of mathematical techniques, for dealing with this and similar problems. We showed that if General Relativity was correct, any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God." Stephen W. Hawking "Origin of the Universe" lecture.

Hey, Asshole....

When you try an argument from authority you better come up with a better 'authority' than some answersingenesis cocksucker. We check because you clowns try to slip these bastards in all the time.

Quote:Dr. A.J. Monty White is an independent itinerant creationist speaker. He was formerly the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the Creationist organization known as Answers in Genesis (AiG) in the UK.

Fuck the two of you.

(April 27, 2012 at 5:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, Asshole....

thats the way you disqualify yourself as someone worth to be debated. Almost 13 thousand posts, and you have not learned this elementary rule ? !!

(April 27, 2012 at 6:35 pm)Jireh Wrote:

(April 27, 2012 at 5:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, Asshole....

thats the way you disqualify yourself as someone worth to be debated. Almost 13 thousand posts, and you have not learned this elementary rule ? !!

Not true actually,Min is most civil and respectful to the deserving.

Neither Min nor I suffer fools. YOUR many post expose you as a pure D,grade A fool,and a willfully ignorant one at that.