Evolution is a Joke part XII

...its obvious...

God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient: he is a everywhere at once, he is as much present in the past as he is in the future or the present, and he is all powerful. He is beyond our perception but we can percieve him through what he made for us to enjoy and gave us dominion over. Jesus in the visable manifestation of the invisable God.

 

Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post

I see....so you have no option but to fall back on the "God exists because he says so" tactic......very scientific.

Tell me please, what defined or even slightly tangible aspects of this entity can be examined by science?
....and reading a book does not cut it.

 

That's a nice excuse for having no proof of your mythical sky fairy.

 

Are you repeating yourself?

 

Proof? Who needs proof?

 

Parmenides ain’t dead he lives on in the KCA~


The reason many secular thinkers that once embraced the Big Bang model of the universe and now are beginning to distance themselves from it including Hawking is that it contained a hidden theistic validating element, ie that the universe began. Long story short I feel that the universe is designed is far more logical than assuming that it came from absolutely nothing caused by absolutely nothing. The main problem I find in debating many secular people is that they rely on science to validate their paradigm etc, but do not know the science that is required to debate the subject, a good example is understanding that the nothing is really nothing before time zero (the moment of the big bang). No vacuum no quantum processes, no spacetime n-o-t-h-i-n-g. So again, using the overwhelmingly accepted theory for the universes origins, ie the hot model of the big bang, the one we are all familiar with, how does a universe begin to exist one that is that supports life (and btw is against all odds for that as well) and what is the cause that caused the big bang to begin? Science tells us that nothing begins to exist without a cause.

So I am waiting for a logical scientific answer, what caused the universe to begin to exist and how did it begin to exist from nothing? nihilo nihil fit


reva

 

Yes....in what is probably an unfounded hope you might actually respond with something other than avoidance and the typical nonsense we have all come to expect. Likely, you will avoid answering again....but it solidifies the perception od the ignorant fool you have so beautifully created.

 

The Big Bang came from a singularity. What existed before that, we don't yet know and neither do you. You cannot use god as a null hypothesis because you unable to show the existence of any god (ever) or the requirement for the need of any god.

Second, the universe doesn't "support" life, life arose from the results of the universe formation and the laws of the universe. No design needed or required.

 

Firstly, you are using the way science works, as well as certain aspects of what has thus far been understood from it to theorize the lack of "Knowing" everything. This alone indicates a misunderstanding or what the process actually is. In the realm of scientific research/theory...it is fully accepted that much of it will be adapted to new observations and discovery.
Secondly, were this applied to the concept of an entity in some way "Creating" what is observed the complete lack of anything to study, experiment with, see, experience or interact with would instantly remove it from all fields of inquiry.

Science gave up on "God" long ago...and it has been dismissed as failed hypothesis ever since.

 

WRONG!!! Source please.

Another peice lifted from one of my posts. Yes SCIENCE can not go back more than some fractions of a nanosecond before T-0. I said I have a logical argument that supports my claims, so you are WRONG again lol ! I am asking what came before the big bang. I am saying that its MORE LOGICAL TO ASSUME GOD or the term I coined GID designed the universe via a logical argument. You and your atheist secular progressive cohorts have NOTHING to show how the universe could begin to exist from nothing using the Big Bang which is the ONLY model that has evidence of several different types to validate it.

WRONG # 3 you are outta here. You even agree with me with the rest of your

You lifted that from my post. Are you aware of the odds AGAINST the universe forming as it did? I wonder how it beat those remarkable odds the odds were ten to the one hundred and twenty third power AGAINST there the universe being capable of supporting stars and developing rocky planets hell even against making CARBON, you know, the element that is organic chemistries holy grail?

reva

 

So you can not answer the question? And you have no argument no evdience to support your claims that God does not exist, while I have an argument that supports GODs existance that uses the Big Bang and logic and math and ...science and....


reva

 

No amount of ignorant hand-waving can change the Science. Big Ban is a fact. The current accepted hypothesis is from a Singularity. You're flat out wrong.

What???...We do not yet know what came before the moment of Big Bang...AND NEITHER DO YOU. Gawd/Creation is not logical because you cannot prove (or provide any evidence or data) any gawd ever existed or that there was EVER any requirement for ANY gawd to exist. You're special pleading and are committing a logical fallacy....also, presupposition is viciously circular...another logical fallacy.

Yes, the odds are 1 for 1...or 100%....unless you know of other universes???

not even worth addressing.

 

No, you THINK you have an argument...but, you don't.

Does gawd perform miracles?

 

They can't swim.

Man, atheists are dumb. Get some biology going?

Here's a question? If all the species evolved based on local vegetation etc., how come almost all ocean reefs, with different varieties of polyp colonies are identical? a clown fish in Australia is exactly the same DNA as a clown fish in the Caribbean?

Sorry, but as a biologist I wrote my fist high school paper on the errors and mistakes in the "Origin of the Species."

 

"a clown fish in Australia is exactly the same DNA as a clown fish in the Caribbean?"...and why would they have dissimilar DNA???

If you're a Biologist...you're not a good one. You seem to not understand how Evolution works.

 

Star Trek got the idea from science. Yes, obviously the "DNA" would be different but I wouldn't necessarily say that silicon based life can't exist on Earth. Scientists are getting closer and closer to creating life in the lab and once that's accomplished I'm sure that some bold scientists will attempt to create a silicon life form in the lab.

 

Hey, I'm good with the breasts they created!

 

One of the easier explanations I have found on the concept:

"Could Life be based on Silicon rather than Carbon?





You’ve seen it on Star Trek or the X-Files, maybe in a sci-fi movie or book. Silicon-based life forms have resided in the human imagination for decades. Why? On the surface, silicon seems like an ideal substitute for carbon in another living system. Theoretically, silicon has bonding chemistry identical to that of carbon, and like carbon, can combine with four other elements to construct an incredible range of different macromolecules. So why not silicon-based life?

First, let’s look at the competition. Carbon, the MVP in all known biological molecules from sugar to DNA and even squid ink, is unique in that its bonding versatility allows it take on many forms: long side chains that make up fatty acids and cell membranes, ring structures that compose hormones and sugars, and even simple gaseous molecules like methane (CH4) or carbon dioxide (CO2). Can silicon compete?

The short answer is probably not. Silicon simply doesn’t have the moves. While carbon is perfectly comfortable in a variety of different structures (rings, long chains, multi-ring chains, and double-bonded carbon catenations), silicon’s analogous structures are comparatively unstable and sometimes highly reactive. Additionally, such analogous silicon compounds may never occur in nature; the largest silicon molecule ever observed had only six silicon atoms. In contrast, some carbon-based molecules can have tens of thousands!

Silicon also has the formidable disadvantage of being less abundant in the universe. The birthplace of all heavier elements—older stars—tend to produce far more carbon than silicon. Thus the likelihood of a living system to evolve based on silicon is lower based on the sheer rarity of naturally produced silicon compared to carbon. In fact, astronomical observations of the spectra of various stars and nebulae reveal that organic carbon ring structures (also known as polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAH’s) exist even in the far reaches of space. In a laboratory at NASA Ames Research Center, NAI astrochemist Lou Allamandola simulates the conditions under which it is believed these PAH’s are produced in space. His experiments have yielded a variety of carbon-based, biologically interesting molecules. Click here to view a seminar given by Dr. Allamandola originally webcasted live in January 2002.

Another chemical property unique to carbon chemistry that silicon lacks is chirality, or “handedness.” All organic carbon molecules may be found naturally in left or right-handed conformations. However, life as we know it utilizes only the right-hand form of sugars, integral components in DNA structure, and the left-hand form of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. Very few silicon compounds have handedness at all. The biochemical reactions of life are incredibly specific, and in fact, many larger biomolecules are so precise that a single conformational change (right to left) around one carbon atom would block the reaction. Without chirality, the ability of biomolecules to recognize specific substrates would be crippled, ultimately limiting the number of different reactions available and achievable by a silicon-based system.

So, while the chances for silicon-based life may be slim, silicon may have played a role in emergence of life on Earth. One of the unsolved mysteries in the origin of life is why life came to employ one chiral version of a molecule (left vs. right) in its reactions and not the other. Some chemists believe that the chiral selection process in the pre-biotic “soup” might have been aided by a “handed” silica (SO2) surface. Both left- and right-handed molecules could have interacted with the chiral surface, and were aligned according to handedness. In this manner chiral molecules were separated and sorted in preparation for pre-biological selection. So even if silicon is an unlikely participant in the biological reactions of life, it could have certainly lent a helping hand to the origin of life."
http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/astrobio/feat_questions/silicon_life.cfm

Unlikely...Yes.
Impossible....No.

 

...Really? You obviously aren't as knowledgeable about the Big Bang as you pretend to be.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=55

 

The KCA is a horrible, horrible argument.

 

Allow me to clarify. The singularity you are thinking of is not like a black hole singularity and the singularity did not cause the universe to begin to exist. If you want to get technical saying the universe began to exist from a spacetime singularity that would be accurate, however it does not help your argument because then the question is what caused the space time singularity to begin to exist. I didn’t know I would have to explain this.

reva

 

Sorry, what was that?

"There are 28 known species of anemonefish, most of which live in the shallow waters of the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea, and the western Pacific. They are not found in the Caribbean, Mediterranean, or Atlantic Ocean."

 

Why can't the singularity have always existed? Even if it didn't, what makes you so sure a god had to have created it?

 

Well, if you posit "god" as your cause of the singularity, then you have to do more than explain.

 

Then how did they get to New Guinea?