CHISTIANS PLEASE EXPLAIN

[pocaracas]

No.

Then I cannot help you my friend. Even Richard Dawkins admits that. And by implication you also accept extremely small (Statistically very well beyond "nil") chance that it happened "by itself". Well there goes logic for you ! But what the heck!

The evidence thus far can support anything, that's what ryan told you.
We don't know how it happened.

It is more accurate to suggest that a singularity, in this scenario, represents everything. It's a bit conceited to dismiss a theory on the basis of your understanding of that theory being precisely incorrect.

Thanks. Please explain what this singularity is and where it came from? Is it "nothing" or is it "something"? Please explain in simple terms - you know what Einstein said.

A singularity is an event where known physics brakes down.

We don't know how to describe this singularity, we only know that the tools we have have been insufficient for that task.

The option you propose relies on wishful thinking. Given our current knowledge of the event, I can't say it's 100% impossible, but it does not seem likely.

[Ryantology]

It is more accurate to suggest that a singularity, in this scenario, represents everything. It's a bit conceited to dismiss a theory on the basis of your understanding of that theory being precisely incorrect.

Thanks. Please explain what this singularity is and where it came from? Is it "nothing" or is it "something"? Please explain in simple terms - you know what Einstein said.

For all we know, it could be an uncaused cause, one which undercuts the prime mover Christian assertion because any justification for God having no cause applies just as well to the universe, given what we currently know about either possibility.

[The Reality Salesman01]

As an example, would you agree that evidence thus far would also support intelligent design ?

Is the human appendix evidence for or against something that was designed by an intelligent creating agent? Can you speak intelligently about the purpose of the human appendix as an omnisciently designed component of the human body? Surely this should be no problem since you believe that any and everything that exists was meticulously crafted mistake free and with clear functional purpose.

[truthBtold]

Appendix was made to process hotdogs.. not just vienna!

[The Reality Salesman01]

Ha ha ha

[Esquilax]

Of course I prefer to discuss matters logically. If you suggest creationist fabrications, I would like you to point out the one(s) that I am guilty of (or the sources referred to on a specific topic)

Ignorance ? Please correct me then.

The quote I gave back on the previous page was, top to bottom, creationist lies and misrepresentations of scientific positions. It is so fallacious, so completely wrong and so utterly debunked, and has been so for years that I actually have a hard time thinking you genuinely believe it. It's far more likely that you're simply lying, than that you've never come across a source that corrects this egregious bullshit.

Disrespectful? Please elaborate. If it refers to my remark on family ties, don't blame me. I personally do not believe anybody is a descendant of any ape but if you insist....

No, what's disrespectful is that you come into our forum, full of very intelligent, sane people that are fully willing to engage on these topics as deeply as possible, and you proceed to utterly refuse to so much as take the discussion seriously. What's disrespectful is the complete lack of regard you show for us when you trot out these pitiful, anemic strawmen arguments as though they're true. What's disrespectful is lying to us about what we believe, and demonstrating how little effort you've put into understanding what your opponents think before you decided we're wrong.

You didn't intimate anything that's remotely true. What you did was come into our house, shit all over our conversation, and then expect us to take you seriously.

The only thing I can ask of you is to also evaluate information as objectively as possible and even agree where there is insufficient evidence to support your view or alternatively that a different solution to yours is possible?
As an example, would you agree that evidence thus far would also support intelligent design ?

There is no evidence for intelligent design, you fatuous moron. Every last piece of "evidence" for intelligent design boils down to an argument from ignorance, and a claim that since evolution can't answer x, therefore designer. You actually need evidence for your position, not just holes you can poke in the opposite.

That's the thing: one side has actual evidence, and the other has the breathtaking bullshit that you've seen fit to deploy here.

Then I cannot help you my friend. Even Richard Dawkins admits that. And by implication you also accept extremely small (Statistically very well beyond "nil") chance that it happened "by itself". Well there goes logic for you ! But what the heck!

Okay, now I know you're a lying piece of shit, because I specifically told you, several pages back, that what you represented Dawkins as saying was not what he had meant, that it was a quote mine taken out of context by creationist frauds. To confirm this, I linked you to an article literally written by Dawkins where he addressed that specific quote, and said he believes the opposite of what you're making him out to say.

There is no excuse for this, you're being dishonest.

[Carnavon]

Then I cannot help you my friend. Even Richard Dawkins admits that. And by implication you also accept extremely small (Statistically very well beyond "nil") chance that it happened "by itself". Well there goesu logic for you ! But what the heck!

---

Wrong again

If you think that this.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=rich...B63EB34D0C

Is evidence for Dawkins wavering then you are an idiot.

Possible seeding of life by aliens only replaces abiogenesis not evolution and you should also note that Dawkins said that the aliens capable of doing this must have evolved elsewhere.

Evolution is the only way to get complex life that we know of and evolution is a proven fact.

And that this is all speculation on possibilities with no supporting evidence.

Hi, it is very obvious that Dawkins’ “wavering “ and suggestion that little green men seeded life of course suggests intelligent design. Even "an idiot" can see that. The fairly ridiculous SETI project has unsuccessfully spent billions of dollars finding these “little green men”, yet this seems a more plausible solution to you?
To state that evolution is the only way to get complex life is a statement you cannot make as this is by far not proven and is actually contradicted by the second LAW of thermodynamics (entropy) and has never been circumvented if a system is left to itself – whether an open or closed system. It can be argued that when additional energy gets into a system, it increases disorder rather than decreases it/create order.
Stating evolution as a fact, is interesting. According to my best information, species shows up “abruptly”, fully developed and hence the proposed hypotheses of punctuated equilibrium. “Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.”
So my friend, it seems that you are being led up the garden path. No disrespect, but even a superficial evaluation of research by honest researchers on both sides of the spectrum will easily convince you that evolution can by no means be described as fact – with even the very first step (abiogenesis) resting on nothing more than hypotheses. And you accept that.
Against that, I put to you in all honesty the infallibility of God’s Word. Have a great day!

[Bad Wolf]

According to your best information?

If Eldredge and Gould proposed that, then they would be wrong.
Evolution is a done deal.

[Esquilax]

Hi, it is very obvious that Dawkins’ “wavering “ and suggestion that little green men seeded life of course suggests intelligent design. Even "an idiot" can see that.

So, I posted this to you about two weeks ago, so it's interesting that, even after reminding you of it earlier today, you're still persisting with this egregious lie that Dawkins has any belief in the concept of intelligent design:

A common quote mine, but not a true one: Dawkins suggested panspermia- your "little green men"- as a possible scenario that would involve a creator of life, not the one he actually subscribes to. That answer was later taken out of context by creationists in order to misrepresent his position as the one you've posited here. Here, read it from the horse's... blog. It's down the page a little ways.

Here's the link again. You have, literally, no excuse for not immediately retracting your lie, and ceasing the use of it in future.

To state that evolution is the only way to get complex life is a statement you cannot make as this is by far not proven and is actually contradicted by the second LAW of thermodynamics (entropy) and has never been circumvented if a system is left to itself – whether an open or closed system.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! Interestingly, this is another one of those claims I warned you off of, that are so fallacious they've been debunked for years. Why are you still using them? Why aren't you even looking at the actual research before you make these ridiculous, bullshit claims?

It can be argued that when additional energy gets into a system, it increases disorder rather than decreases it/create order.
Stating evolution as a fact, is interesting. According to my best information, species shows up “abruptly”, fully developed and hence the proposed hypotheses of punctuated equilibrium. “Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.”

As has been shown previously, your "best information," is an idiot. Every claim you've made here has been thoroughly debunked, and this one? It's just not true, and you can go and look at the findings of mainstream biology and cladistics to see why that is. All of the evidence is on the side of evolution, and this claim you've made here is pure fantasy.

But I'll give you a chance: who are Eldredge and Gould? Like, do they have full names, and a reference for that quote you made, so I can look it up and see for myself?

So my friend, it seems that you are being led up the garden path. No disrespect, but even a superficial evaluation of research by honest researchers on both sides of the spectrum will easily convince you that evolution can by no means be described as fact – with even the very first step (abiogenesis) resting on nothing more than hypotheses. And you accept that.
Against that, I put to you in all honesty the infallibility of God’s Word. Have a great day!

Assertions without evidence: even a cursory glance at mainstream biology demonstrates that evolution is accepted, confirmed scientific fact. Actually, it's interesting that you'll state that an evaluation of the research would say otherwise, given that ninety seven percent of scientists accept evolution as true. More lies from you, it seems!

Also, without demonstrating the "god" part of god's word, let alone the infallible part, you're just talking out your ass. But then, that's hardly surprising, by now.

[Mudhammam]

"It can be argued that when additional energy gets into a system, it increases disorder rather than decreases it/create order." Did the plant really just say that? Pretty amazing how foetuses are born and grow into adults with all that increase in disorder.