Chemical evolution of amino acids and proteins ? Impossible !!

[The Architect Of Fate]

can being come from non-being ?

Do you always respond to questions with deflections?
Show the data that points towards intelligence as a source for life, data other than founded in your lack of imaginations or abundance of ignorance.
Do you have any original thoughts or do you often copy pasta walls of text to impress the (other) gullible?

He's an apologist .Regurgitating talking points  is his jam .

[Paleophyte]

OK, let's look at the data:

By volume, the universe is 99.999...[we may be here a while reading 9s]...999% cold, empty vacuum. The overwhelming majority of the space that has any matter in it is filled with stars, neutron stars, black holes, or is otherwise inhospitable. The fraction of space that is habitable is laughably small.

By mass, the universe is 95% dark matter and dark energy. You can't even interact with the rubbish except through gravity. Of the 5% of the universe's mass that is regular matter and energy, the overwhelming majority is stellar plasma, neutronium, and singularities. A trivially small mass makes up planets but the overwhelming majority of them are too dense, too airless, too hot, too cold, too irradiated, too caustic, rains rock too frequently, or is otherwise a bad neighbourhood. The mass of the habitable portion of the universe is also trivially small.

By duration, the universe is 99.999...[is there a sale on 9s?]...999% slowly evaporating black holes. The current habitable epoch is a barely observable blip between the primordial quark-gluon plasma and the dark, empty universe dominated by black holes that is the future. Once the last star gutters out in a few trillion years there are untold trillions of trillions of years of watching the universe slowly circle the drain before the last of the supergiant black holes finally evaporates into picoKelvin Hawking radiation.

Any objective observer looking at the universe would conclude that the universe is not the result of any intelligence. They would be unlikely in the extreme to even notice us to note that we were not the reason for its existence.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There's a theory I like that posits black holes in other universes become white holes, i.e. Big Bangs, on the other end of the process. Matter gathered in this universe becomes the sum total of a universe "elsewhere". Each SMBH produces a whole universe. And this is cascaded.

[Otangelo]

OK, let's look at the data:

By volume, the universe is 99.999...[we may be here a while reading 9s]...999% cold, empty vacuum. The overwhelming majority of the space that has any matter in it is filled with stars, neutron stars, black holes, or is otherwise inhospitable. The fraction of space that is habitable is laughably small.

By mass, the universe is 95% dark matter and dark energy. You can't even interact with the rubbish except through gravity. Of the 5% of the universe's mass that is regular matter and energy, the overwhelming majority is stellar plasma, neutronium, and singularities. A trivially small mass makes up planets but the overwhelming majority of them are too dense, too airless, too hot, too cold, too irradiated, too caustic, rains rock too frequently, or is otherwise a bad neighbourhood. The mass of the habitable portion of the universe is also trivially small.

By duration, the universe is 99.999...[is there a sale on 9s?]...999% slowly evaporating black holes. The current habitable epoch is a barely observable blip between the primordial quark-gluon plasma and the dark, empty universe dominated by black holes that is the future. Once the last star gutters out in a few trillion years there are untold trillions of trillions of years of watching the universe slowly circle the drain before the last of the supergiant black holes finally evaporates into picoKelvin Hawking radiation.

Any objective observer looking at the universe would conclude that the universe is not the result of any intelligence. They would be unlikely in the extreme to even notice us to note that we were not the reason for its existence.

Is the universe hostile to life ?

http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1896-is-the-universe-

The fact to be explained is why the universe is life-permitting rather than life-prohibiting. That is to say, scientists have been surprised to discover that in order for embodied, interactive life to evolve anywhere at all in the universe, the fundamental constants and quantities of nature have to be fine-tuned to an incomprehensible precision. Were even one of these constants or quantities to be slightly altered, the universe would not permit the existence of embodied, interactive life anywhere in the cosmos. These finely-tuned conditions are necessary conditions of life in a universe governed by the present laws of nature. it would be obtuse to think that the universe is not life-permitting because regions of the universe are not life-permitting! 

An alteration in the ratio of the expansion and contraction forces by as little as 1 part in 1055 at the Planck time (just 10-43 seconds after the origin of the universe), would have led either to too rapid expansion of the universe with no galaxies forming or to too slow an expansion with consequent rapid collapse. 

It should be obvious by now that the fine-tuning argument holds in the relation to the universe as a whole, and is not meant to address the question of why you cannot live on the sun or breathe on the moon. Of course sources of energy (stars) are needed to drive life and evolution, and of course you cannot live on them. Nor can you live in the, by necessity, frighteningly large stretches of empty space between them and planets. So what is the point? Nobody would deny that the light bulb is an invention that greatly enhances modern life. But when you would try to hold your hand around a light bulb that is turned on, you would burn it to pieces. Is the light bulb then "hostile to life"? Certainly not. This modest example, however, indicates how utterly irrelevant the argument really is – one of those false arguments that appear to be brought forth and rehashed solely in order to avoid the deeper issues. [b]


1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-un...le-to-life
2. http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosm...ts-god.htm
3. https://www.str.org/blog/if-universe-fin...Ln27dLyuUl]

---

can being come from non-being ?

Do you always respond to questions with deflections?
Show the data that points towards intelligence as a source for life, data other than founded in your lack of imaginations or abundance of ignorance.
Do you have any original thoughts or do you often copy pasta walls of text to impress the (other) gullible?

Chance of intelligence to set up life: 
100% We KNOW by repeated experience that intelligence does elaborate blueprints and constructs complex factories and machines with specific purposes.

Chance of unguided random natural events doing it:

Chance of random chemical reactions to setup amino-acid polypeptide chains to produce  functional proteins on early earth external to cellular biosynthesis:
1 in 10^200.000 That's virtually the same as 0%. There are 10^80 atoms in the universe.

---

Why then should we expect to know how God created the universe ? The theory of intelligent design proposes a intelligent mental cause as origin of the physical world. Nothing else.

So not only have you failed to even show that your Creator exists but you can't even begin to conceive of how it could possibly Create. This is why ID isn't a theory. It has all of the explanatory capability of a steaming dog turd.

[size=small]Atheist: No god has been demonstrated to exist. 

Reply: Gods existence is logically inferred. There is no alternative to God. The alternative to God is not luck or chance. They are not a causal agency. The alternative to God is nothing. The universe is not eternal but began to exist. Since nothing cant do something, as for example cause a universe into existence, the cause of the universe must have been God.

Being cannot come from non-being.
Since we exist, then being has always been in one form or another.
Since the universe had a beginning, a non-physical being must have existed beyond the universe, causing the universe into existence.
That being is God.

min. 1:18   Asking for verifiable proofs of Gods existence

Common atheist fallacies: exposed !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK99BsNc2Ko&t=3054s

[The Architect Of Fate]

1.No your re just framing the question in a way that suits your apologist script without actually addressing the point .Then repeating the same fallacies again.Then just linking some apologist websites as if they have answered he question any better then you have (which is not at all)

[brewer]

Still trying to argue god(s) into existence. And doing a poor job of it.

Something tells me that you can't handle the idea of death without the false promise of an afterlife.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Still trying to argue god(s) into existence. And doing a poor job of it.

It's ironic he accuses you of fallacies .When his whole case is nothing but a heap of them piled on top of each other.

[brewer]

Still trying to argue god(s) into existence. And doing a poor job of it.

It's ironic he accuses you of fallacies .When his whole case is nothing but a heap of them piled on top of each other.

It's difficult to exchange with the delusional.

[The Architect Of Fate]

It's ironic he accuses you of fallacies .When his whole case is nothing but a heap of them piled on top of each other.

It's difficult to exchange with the delusional.

H's not just delusional .He's the delusional lead by the delusional

[Paleophyte]

Is the universe hostile to life ?

Yes. Whether you measure it by space, duration, or mass the proportion of the universe that is not utterly hostile to life is vanishingly small. Even in the miniscule portions of the universe that aren't immediately deadly, all life dies eventually. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that the "Designer" is either absent or criminally incompetent.

Gods existence is logically inferred. There is no alternative to God.

You say that as if you understand the alternatives.

the cause of the universe must have been God.

Kindly demonstrate causation that is not part of the universe.  

Being cannot come from non-being.

Prove it.

Since the universe had a beginning, a non-physical being must have existed beyond the universe, causing the universe into existence.

Hi! You appear to be trying to philosophy. Would you like some help with that?