(November 19, 2013 at 6:01 am)Aractus Wrote: Oh please, are you serious?

Considering how vague and ill worded your initial response was, it's miraculous I could make any sense out of it at all. You mentioned what "should" happen, as if you've got some basis for saying so, as if abiogenesis is this idea that life just springs from any set of conditions willy nilly, and that's just factually incorrect. Because of your own misapprehension, you discarded a component of the theory, and as justification for both your initial mistake and this, you provide... nothing.

Nothing at all, besides this non sequitur about "describing true laws."

(November 19, 2013 at 6:06 am)Esquilax Wrote: You mentioned what "should" happen, as if you've got some basis for saying so, as if abiogenesis is this idea that life just springs from any set of conditions willy nilly, and that's just factually incorrect. Because of your own misapprehension, you discarded a component of the theory, and as justification for both your initial mistake and this, you provide... nothing.

Why don't you try answering my questions? If abiogenesis exists, then it exists as a law of physics (regardless of whether it requires specific starting conditions), why did you say it isn't one? Why did you claim that the laws of physics and chemistry are separate, implying they're not dependant, co-dependant, etc, upon each other which would imply that you predict the same laws of chemistry to exist in a universe with arbitrary laws of physics, etc?

(November 21, 2013 at 5:40 am)Aractus Wrote: Why don't you try answering my questions? If abiogenesis exists, then it exists as a law of physics (regardless of whether it requires specific starting conditions), why did you say it isn't one? Why did you claim that the laws of physics and chemistry are separate, implying they're not dependant, co-dependant, etc, upon each other which would imply that you predict the same laws of chemistry to exist in a universe with arbitrary laws of physics, etc?

Simple: we don't know what caused abiogenesis, or the conditions behind it. It could be a product of chemistry, but that's no more a law of anything than any other chemical reaction. It's an effect, not the reason for the effect. Gravity is the attraction of objects with mass toward larger ones; that doesn't mean that every individual falling object is its own law of gravity for X.

Besides, that's even assuming the event has a chemical cause; since we don't have an answer yet, asserting anything about it to be true based on incomplete information is just guessing; that's why I don't go around claiming what abiogenesis should be producing.

(November 21, 2013 at 5:40 am)Aractus Wrote:

(November 19, 2013 at 6:06 am)Esquilax Wrote: You mentioned what "should" happen, as if you've got some basis for saying so, as if abiogenesis is this idea that life just springs from any set of conditions willy nilly, and that's just factually incorrect. Because of your own misapprehension, you discarded a component of the theory, and as justification for both your initial mistake and this, you provide... nothing.

Why don't you try answering my questions? If abiogenesis exists, then it exists as a law of physics (regardless of whether it requires specific starting conditions), why did you say it isn't one? Why did you claim that the laws of physics and chemistry are separate, implying they're not dependant, co-dependant, etc, upon each other which would imply that you predict the same laws of chemistry to exist in a universe with arbitrary laws of physics, etc?

E rm does it really matter, 100 years ago we didn't know half the stuff we know now. Heck even 30 years ago people wouldn't have dreamed of the Technology and Knowledge we have.

So there are things that Science cannot answer but that's what Quantum Mechanics is all about and I am sure in a few hundred years our science techniques will look primitive.

Lastly all this asside how does this Prove that Jesus is God? I watched the Islam Channel and these people do believe with all their Heart that God is only one God and that they believe that Jesus is 'NOT' God and that its an Unforgivable Sin before Allah to worship any other person aside from Allah.

Where as in Christianity its essentially the same the other way around! So if a God exists it does not say who!

Taking the Bible It would appear the God of the Old Testament is more likely as

1) All relgions agree to the OT
2) The god there loved war / crime / hate / death so todays world would appeal to him.

(November 21, 2013 at 6:29 am)themonkeyman Wrote: E rm does it really matter, 100 years ago we didn't know half the stuff we know now. Heck even 30 years ago people wouldn't have dreamed of the Technology and Knowledge we have.

100 years ago we already had Quantum Mechanics, and we also had Special Relativity. We got General Relativity in 1916, that's 97 years ago, and since then there has been barely any progress in theoretical physics - certainly far less than the aforementioned theories, so yes 100 years ago we knew ~90% of what we know now as far as theoretical physics is concerned.

Ok ,what I have heard is that scientist and physiologists have come to the idea that before the big bang there was nothing and not sure what to think. Correct me if im wrong. and there is ideas a multiverse thing but that still doesn't solve the problem where did the first one come from? black holes and all this other crazy stuff out there had to have a start. and all this stuff that doesn't make stuff to help a mass explosion of physics and laws to happen by itself. I don't think Your girlfriend has enough faith to be an Atheist and I don't eaither

(November 21, 2013 at 10:22 am)super spidey man Wrote: Ok ,what I have heard is that scientist and physiologists have come to the idea that before the big bang there was nothing and not sure what to think. Correct me if im wrong. and there is ideas a multiverse thing but that still doesn't solve the problem where did the first one come from? black holes and all this other crazy stuff out there had to have a start. and all this stuff that doesn't make stuff to help a mass explosion of physics and laws to happen by itself. I don't think Your girlfriend has enough faith to be an Atheist and I don't eaither

You are wrong. Many times over.

Physiologists don't study cosmology.
Scientists have not come to any conclusion about "before the big-bang".
Multiverse hypothesis is not about sequential universes.
Formation of black-holes is understood pretty well.
Physics and laws have never exploded.
Being an atheist doesn't require faith.

(November 18, 2013 at 9:44 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I'm always bugged by questions of "what came before the big bang?!" as if that hysterical utterance somehow invalidates the theory, mainly because it doesn't make sense. After all, we're talking about a state of being completely outside the scope of our understanding, here.

Who says time even operates the same way in a pre-expansion universe? Or that time even existed in it? For all we know, the idea of a before the big bang might not even make sense. And that's kind of the problem; assuming god based on our ignorance of what came before the big bang is one giant argument from ignorance, and furthermore, to believe in god just because of that is to ignore all of the evidence pointing to the big bang (cosmic background radiation, redshift, etc etc) in favor of a proposition with no evidence at all, merely because it's culturally extant, and she already wants to believe it.

Uh... didn't you just make the case for God in most of that?

And how in the world...er...universe could you NOT include God in those assumptions? Lack of evidence? You have more for God than what happened in the beginning.

(November 21, 2013 at 10:53 am)ronedee Wrote: Lack of evidence? You have more for God than what happened in the beginning.

False.

Your perception of evidence is unreliable for it is based on nothing more than faith.

(November 21, 2013 at 10:55 am)Kitanetos Wrote:

(November 21, 2013 at 10:53 am)ronedee Wrote: Lack of evidence? You have more for God than what happened in the beginning.

False.

Your perception of evidence is unreliable for it is based on nothing more than faith.

Well... tell us [more] about the beginning, and your evidence?