# Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?



## Weatherman2020

Be specific. 
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.


----------



## mamooth

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.



Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.



> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.



What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.


----------



## Weatherman2020

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
Click to expand...

Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?


----------



## Weatherman2020

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
Click to expand...

Have to have a beginning. So stop dodging.


----------



## mamooth

Weatherman2020 said:


> Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?



None. Why do you think biological life forms represent "order"? Please define "order" for us, in a precise scientific fashion.


----------



## Hollie

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.


What explosion?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Hollie said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> What explosion?
Click to expand...

You tell me.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
Click to expand...


Chaos can be said to be the driving force of evolution.   Cells replicate.   In certain cases, the cells do not replicate accurately.   If that provides an advantage to that life form, and it is passed down to future generations, it will succeed.


----------



## Hollie

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> What explosion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You tell me.
Click to expand...

I can't answer a question you can't define.


----------



## Weatherman2020

WinterBorn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chaos can be said to be the driving force of evolution.   Cells replicate.   In certain cases, the cells do not replicate accurately.   If that provides an advantage to that life form, and it is passed down to future generations, it will succeed.
Click to expand...

Again, which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Hollie said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> What explosion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't answer a question you can't define.
Click to expand...

If you’re not familiar with the leading theory to the beginning of the universe, best you go to a thread about smurfs.


----------



## Hollie

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> What explosion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't answer a question you can't define.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you’re not familiar with the leading theory to the beginning of the universe, best you go to a thread about smurfs.
Click to expand...

I am familiar with the theory. There was no explosion. 

You're arguing a position that is utterly nonsensical. Best you learn the terms and definitions that you're befuddled with.


----------



## Hollie

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chaos can be said to be the driving force of evolution.   Cells replicate.   In certain cases, the cells do not replicate accurately.   If that provides an advantage to that life form, and it is passed down to future generations, it will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
Click to expand...

Physics and biology are different terms. They're spelled differently which should give you a clue.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Hollie said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> What explosion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't answer a question you can't define.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you’re not familiar with the leading theory to the beginning of the universe, best you go to a thread about smurfs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am familiar with the theory. There was no explosion.
> 
> You're arguing a position that is utterly nonsensical. Best you learn the terms and definitions that you're befuddled with.
Click to expand...

Oh. So the area about the size of a quarter becoming the universe was a *poof*
Why does science call it the Big BANG?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Hollie said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chaos can be said to be the driving force of evolution.   Cells replicate.   In certain cases, the cells do not replicate accurately.   If that provides an advantage to that life form, and it is passed down to future generations, it will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Physics and biology are different terms. They're spelled differently which should give you a clue.
Click to expand...

How did I know you have no explanation to address the OP?


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chaos can be said to be the driving force of evolution.   Cells replicate.   In certain cases, the cells do not replicate accurately.   If that provides an advantage to that life form, and it is passed down to future generations, it will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
Click to expand...


I didn't address that at all.    But chaos theories say that there are always chances of organized processes going wrong.   That can be said to be the root of evolution.   A cellular process goes wrong and cellular replication does not produce an accurate process.    Most of those have little effect.  Many have detrimental effects.   And some provide advantages to that life form.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> What explosion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't answer a question you can't define.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you’re not familiar with the leading theory to the beginning of the universe, best you go to a thread about smurfs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am familiar with the theory. There was no explosion.
> 
> You're arguing a position that is utterly nonsensical. Best you learn the terms and definitions that you're befuddled with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh. So the area about the size of a quarter becoming the universe was a *poof*
> Why does science call it the Big BANG?
Click to expand...


The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with evolution.


----------



## WinterBorn

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chaos can be said to be the driving force of evolution.   Cells replicate.   In certain cases, the cells do not replicate accurately.   If that provides an advantage to that life form, and it is passed down to future generations, it will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Physics and biology are different terms. They're spelled differently which should give you a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did I know you have no explanation to address the OP?
Click to expand...


The OP was specifically about the theory of evolution.   The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.


----------



## Hollie

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chaos can be said to be the driving force of evolution.   Cells replicate.   In certain cases, the cells do not replicate accurately.   If that provides an advantage to that life form, and it is passed down to future generations, it will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Physics and biology are different terms. They're spelled differently which should give you a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did I know you have no explanation to address the OP?
Click to expand...

How did I know you don't understand the terms and definitions you stumble over?


----------



## Hollie

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.


Existence.

Correct your spelling.


----------



## skews13

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.


I believe it started when the universe started since it is governed by fundamental forces.


----------



## Dagosa

Weatherman2020 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
Click to expand...

First, you don’t have to be an atheist to believe in evolution.


----------



## esalla

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
Click to expand...

Self replicating molecules consist of the most complicated code in the universe that can not assemble from nothing. So what you did is just assume that they create themselves when this was never observed


----------



## Dagosa

esalla said:


> Self replicating molecules consist of the most complicated code in the universe that can not assemble from nothing. So what you did is just assume that they create themselves when this was never ob


Spoken like someone who knows for sure what else exists in the rest of the universe, really. Just because we aren’t sure, is no proof a God is behind it.


----------



## esalla

Dagosa said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self replicating molecules consist of the most complicated code in the universe that can not assemble from nothing. So what you did is just assume that they create themselves when this was never ob
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like someone who knows for sure what else exists in the rest of the universe, really. Just because we aren’t sure, is no proof a God is behind it.
Click to expand...

All science leads to God.  Rather simple really as once we travel to another planet and set up a food web which will be required, God is fully proven and it's us.

Deny reality all you choose, but it's happening now


----------



## Dagosa

esalla said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self replicating molecules consist of the most complicated code in the universe that can not assemble from nothing. So what you did is just assume that they create themselves when this was never ob
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like someone who knows for sure what else exists in the rest of the universe, really. Just because we aren’t sure, is no proof a God is behind it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All science leads to God.  Rather simple really as once we travel to another planet and set up a food web which will be required, God is fully proven and it's us.
> 
> Deny reality all you choose, but it's happening now
Click to expand...

Which God ? There are seven or eight major religions in the world. I’m guessing you don’t believe in the other six. Well, an athiest doesn’t believe in just one less.  In your hypocracy, you only believe  in one more.
An agnostic doesn’t disbelieve anything, he just hasn’t seen the proof yet. Really,  an agnostic is more ‘ religious” then you.
So, which god ?


----------



## esalla

Dagosa said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self replicating molecules consist of the most complicated code in the universe that can not assemble from nothing. So what you did is just assume that they create themselves when this was never ob
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like someone who knows for sure what else exists in the rest of the universe, really. Just because we aren’t sure, is no proof a God is behind it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All science leads to God.  Rather simple really as once we travel to another planet and set up a food web which will be required, God is fully proven and it's us.
> 
> Deny reality all you choose, but it's happening now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which God ? There are seven or eight major religions in the world. I’m guessing you don’t believe in the other six. Well, an athiest doesn’t believe in just one more.  In your hypocracy, you only beluve in one more.
> An agnostic doesn’t disbelieve anything, he just has t seen the proof yet, really, an agnostic is more ‘ religious” then you.
> So, which god ?
Click to expand...

God is a scientific requirement needed for the code of DNA to exist.  God is not associated with any religion as all Earth life comes from him.  Your question fades because you are failing to contemplate that humans will soon be jumping planets and this is enabled by knowledge not by any religion


----------



## Dagosa

esalla said:


> God is a scientific requirement


Name one university that teaches that God is a scientific requirement in their accredited science courses. Just one. You have over 3400 to choose from.


----------



## esalla

Dagosa said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is a scientific requirement
> 
> 
> 
> Name one university that teaches that God is a scientific requirement in their accredited science courses. Just one. You have over 3400 to choose from.
Click to expand...

Name one university that can write DNA from nothing then watch it walk away

LOL you are clueless


----------



## esalla

Dagosa said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is a scientific requirement
> 
> 
> 
> Name one university that teaches that God is a scientific requirement in their accredited science courses. Just one. You have over 3400 to choose from.
Click to expand...

Still waiting champ

Name one university that can write DNA from nothing then watch it walk away

LOL you are clueless


----------



## Dagosa

esalla said:


> Name one university that can write DNA from nothing then watch it walk away


You can’t name a university that completely understands Quantum theory either . But they don’t say “god” is responsible for cell phones. It seems like you would. We have cell phones whose foundation we don’t completely understand, and no cell phone development came in the form of the holy ghost.

Again, you’re crediting something we don’t completely understand, to God.
We did that with the tides. We used to have Gods  coming out our asteroid until science added enough understanding to look elsewhere.

You’re  now saying that because we can’t make a human  being from scratch, there must be a god. Surprise. The stars and evolution appears to have made human beings from scratch From what we know now. . Now go ahead and make the stars gods.


----------



## Dagosa

esalla said:


> LOL you are clueless


Ha ha 
you’re the one arguing that you know more then MIT, Johns Hopkins and NASA. And I’m clueless ?


----------



## esalla

Dagosa said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one university that can write DNA from nothing then watch it walk away
> 
> 
> 
> You can’t name a university that completely understands Quantum theory either . But they don’t say “god” is responsible for cell phones. It seems like you would. We have cell phones whose foundation we don’t completely understand, and no cell phone development came in the form of the holy ghost.
> 
> Again, you’re crediting something we don’t completely understand, to God.
> We did that with the tides. We used to have Gods  coming out our asteroid until science added enough understanding to look elsewhere.
> 
> You’re  now saying that because we can’t make a human  being from scratch, there must be a god. Surprise. The stars and evolution appears to have made human beings from scratch From what we know now. . Now go ahead and make the stars gods.
Click to expand...

I can name a respected though comical physicist who claims that the entire universe is a simulation written by a great computer programmer who is clearly God

You have failed as Tyson is associated with Harvard, Columbia and Austin Universities


----------



## esalla

Dagosa said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you are clueless
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha
> you’re the one arguing that you know more then MIT, Johns Hopkins and NASA. And I’m clueless ?
Click to expand...

LOL I also knew more than the FBI.........................................

Yawn

Play on Jr.

Come back with your Mom as you clearly need the help


----------



## ChemEngineer

WinterBorn said:


> I didn't address that at all.    But chaos theories say that there are always chances of organized processes going wrong.   That can be said to be the root of evolution.   A cellular process goes wrong and cellular replication does not produce an accurate process.    Most of those have little effect.  Many have detrimental effects.   And some provide advantages to that life form.



Mathematics, specifically statistics, drive your cockamamey "theory" off a high cliff.
Let's talk about biochemistry going RIGHT, not wrong.  The random selection of a polypeptide only 150 amino acid residues (You DO know what those are, don't you?) in length being active and useful is 1 in 10 to the 170th power, according to biochemist Douglas Axe. This means for every 10 to the 170th polypeptides synthesized, only 1 of them will work. 

There are only 10 to  the 80th fundamental particles in the universe.  So guess what?
"Impossible."  No less an evolution proponent than militant bitter atheist, Richard Dawkins, gives his definition of "impossible" as one chance in 10 to the 40th power.  More about this if anyone tries to claim that only zero probability is "impossible."

Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body?  A clue?
Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Weatherman2020 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have to have a beginning. So stop dodging.
Click to expand...


Weatherman, the person you address is on my Ignore List for good reason, so I only can see the nonsense he writes when I reply to a reasonable person, such as you.

Crystals in caves are self replicating.  Is that "evolution"?  No.  Water freezing into ice represents "self replicating molecules."  Is water evolutionary?  No.
On this fascinating subject of water about which I know quite a bit, do you realize that clouds are composed of water and watermelon is about 99% water so doesn't every Darwinist think that watermelon evolved from clouds?  I mean they're more closely related than Democrats and chimps.  Or are they.....


----------



## Weatherman2020

How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?


----------



## ChemEngineer

Weatherman2020 said:


> How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?



You smart, das why.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't address that at all.    But chaos theories say that there are always chances of organized processes going wrong.   That can be said to be the root of evolution.   A cellular process goes wrong and cellular replication does not produce an accurate process.    Most of those have little effect.  Many have detrimental effects.   And some provide advantages to that life form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathematics, specifically statistics, drive your cockamamey "theory" off a high cliff.
> Let's talk about biochemistry going RIGHT, not wrong.  The random selection of a polypeptide only 150 amino acid residues (You DO know what those are, don't you?) in length being active and useful is 1 in 10 to the 170th power, according to biochemist Douglas Axe. This means for every 10 to the 170th polypeptides synthesized, only 1 of them will work.
> 
> There are only 10 to  the 80th fundamental particles in the universe.  So guess what?
> "Impossible."  No less an evolution proponent than militant bitter atheist, Richard Dawkins, gives his definition of "impossible" as one chance in 10 to the 40th power.  More about this if anyone tries to claim that only zero probability is "impossible."
> 
> Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body?  A clue?
> Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. The standard ID'iot creationist ''it's impossible'', nonsense.

I would be hesitant to cite creationer loons as reliable sources for science matters.





__





						Encyclopedia of American Loons
					

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.




					americanloons.blogspot.com
				




Axe is a zealous creationist associated with the Discovery Institute (he is the director at their “Biologic Institute"). Axe is a molecular biologist, and thus actually knows some science. He uses this knowledge to write mundane papers, at least two of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals - despite being uninteresting and mundane. Axe’s work is hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views. Of course, there is no actual support of intelligent design in these published papers, and Axe himself admits as much: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html

Insofar as Axe is a creationist with real scientific publications to his name, Axe’s work is one of the main contributions to a sheen of legitimacy for the ID movement. But given that his publications do not at all support or even touch on their views (but are willfully interpreted as such by other ID-proponents without Axe complaining) he is an important contributor to erecting the framework of dishonesty that is the ID movement.

Diagnosis: Dishonest wingnut who might pose a genuine if minor threat to science and rationality as a creationist with actually published (though unrelated) material.




So tell more about the creationer nonsense and the odds against biological evolution. 

The obvious flaw with the creation claim against biological evolution tgat “the odds are too great” is that the stereotypical creationer argument relies on math they don't understand and biology they find on religious extremist websites.

Firstly, the silly religioner “calculation of odds” assumes that the biological conditions formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the religioner ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously,_

As we see consistently, the religious extremists are unable to make any affirmative case for their gods and so are left to attack science with meaningless "what are the odds", memes that ignore some very basic elements of biology.


----------



## Hollie

Weatherman2020 said:


> How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?



How did you not know that abiogenesis, the study of how life first began, is not yet determined?

How did you not know that ''supernatural gods did it'' is not an answer?

How did I know nobody could answer how your gods, and everyone else's gods, came into existence?


----------



## harmonica

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.


..it's a lot more believable than creation


----------



## harmonica

Weatherman2020 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
Click to expand...

..what are you talking about?


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self replicating molecules consist of the most complicated code in the universe that can not assemble from nothing. So what you did is just assume that they create themselves when this was never ob
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like someone who knows for sure what else exists in the rest of the universe, really. Just because we aren’t sure, is no proof a God is behind it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All science leads to God.  Rather simple really as once we travel to another planet and set up a food web which will be required, God is fully proven and it's us.
> 
> Deny reality all you choose, but it's happening now
Click to expand...

there is no god--you can't prove it......god is not fully proven---nowhere close-----not proven--saying that is ludicrous


----------



## harmonica

ChemEngineer said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't address that at all.    But chaos theories say that there are always chances of organized processes going wrong.   That can be said to be the root of evolution.   A cellular process goes wrong and cellular replication does not produce an accurate process.    Most of those have little effect.  Many have detrimental effects.   And some provide advantages to that life form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathematics, specifically statistics, drive your cockamamey "theory" off a high cliff.
> Let's talk about biochemistry going RIGHT, not wrong.  The random selection of a polypeptide only 150 amino acid residues (You DO know what those are, don't you?) in length being active and useful is 1 in 10 to the 170th power, according to biochemist Douglas Axe. This means for every 10 to the 170th polypeptides synthesized, only 1 of them will work.
> 
> There are only 10 to  the 80th fundamental particles in the universe.  So guess what?
> "Impossible."  No less an evolution proponent than militant bitter atheist, Richard Dawkins, gives his definition of "impossible" as one chance in 10 to the 40th power.  More about this if anyone tries to claim that only zero probability is "impossible."
> 
> Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body?  A clue?
> Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.
Click to expand...

so you believe a fully formed human just appeared from nowhere???
give us the creation of man theory--in about 10 sentences


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self replicating molecules consist of the most complicated code in the universe that can not assemble from nothing. So what you did is just assume that they create themselves when this was never ob
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like someone who knows for sure what else exists in the rest of the universe, really. Just because we aren’t sure, is no proof a God is behind it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All science leads to God.  Rather simple really as once we travel to another planet and set up a food web which will be required, God is fully proven and it's us.
> 
> Deny reality all you choose, but it's happening now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no god--you can't prove it......god is not fully proven---nowhere close-----not proven--saying that is ludicrous
Click to expand...

God brought life to Earth, just as humans who were made in Gods image will be doing themselves very shortly.

So tell me if humans set up a food web on another planet, will they have to find Darwins pond on that planet to begin?


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

God is proven and he is us, except for you as you want to be pond scum


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't address that at all.    But chaos theories say that there are always chances of organized processes going wrong.   That can be said to be the root of evolution.   A cellular process goes wrong and cellular replication does not produce an accurate process.    Most of those have little effect.  Many have detrimental effects.   And some provide advantages to that life form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathematics, specifically statistics, drive your cockamamey "theory" off a high cliff.
> Let's talk about biochemistry going RIGHT, not wrong.  The random selection of a polypeptide only 150 amino acid residues (You DO know what those are, don't you?) in length being active and useful is 1 in 10 to the 170th power, according to biochemist Douglas Axe. This means for every 10 to the 170th polypeptides synthesized, only 1 of them will work.
> 
> There are only 10 to  the 80th fundamental particles in the universe.  So guess what?
> "Impossible."  No less an evolution proponent than militant bitter atheist, Richard Dawkins, gives his definition of "impossible" as one chance in 10 to the 40th power.  More about this if anyone tries to claim that only zero probability is "impossible."
> 
> Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body?  A clue?
> Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, yes. The standard ID'iot creationist ''it's impossible'', nonsense.
> 
> I would be hesitant to cite creationer loons as reliable sources for science matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons
> 
> 
> It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> americanloons.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Axe is a zealous creationist associated with the Discovery Institute (he is the director at their “Biologic Institute"). Axe is a molecular biologist, and thus actually knows some science. He uses this knowledge to write mundane papers, at least two of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals - despite being uninteresting and mundane. Axe’s work is hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views. Of course, there is no actual support of intelligent design in these published papers, and Axe himself admits as much: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function
> 
> Insofar as Axe is a creationist with real scientific publications to his name, Axe’s work is one of the main contributions to a sheen of legitimacy for the ID movement. But given that his publications do not at all support or even touch on their views (but are willfully interpreted as such by other ID-proponents without Axe complaining) he is an important contributor to erecting the framework of dishonesty that is the ID movement.
> 
> Diagnosis: Dishonest wingnut who might pose a genuine if minor threat to science and rationality as a creationist with actually published (though unrelated) material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell more about the creationer nonsense and the odds against biological evolution.
> 
> The obvious flaw with the creation claim against biological evolution tgat “the odds are too great” is that the stereotypical creationer argument relies on math they don't understand and biology they find on religious extremist websites.
> 
> Firstly, the silly religioner “calculation of odds” assumes that the biological conditions formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.
> 
> Secondly, the religioner ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously,_
> 
> As we see consistently, the religious extremists are unable to make any affirmative case for their gods and so are left to attack science with meaningless "what are the odds", memes that ignore some very basic elements of biology.
Click to expand...

3 million wurdz or less please


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?


I guess you didn't like my answer: it was always in existence.


----------



## esalla

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you didn't like my answer: it was always in existence.
Click to expand...

So in your mind evolution was present before the big bang

If you say so kiddy


----------



## alang1216

esalla said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you didn't like my answer: it was always in existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your mind evolution was present before the big bang
> 
> If you say so kiddy
Click to expand...

Did gravity exist before the BB?  How about math?


----------



## esalla

alang1216 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you didn't like my answer: it was always in existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your mind evolution was present before the big bang
> 
> If you say so kiddy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did gravity exist before the BB?  How about math?
Click to expand...

Unknown about gravity as the universe might be code on a hard drive, math is not real however until it is toyed with


----------



## alang1216

esalla said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you didn't like my answer: it was always in existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your mind evolution was present before the big bang
> 
> If you say so kiddy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did gravity exist before the BB?  How about math?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unknown about gravity as the universe might be code on a hard drive, math is not real however until it is toyed with
Click to expand...

So we might live in the Matrix and 1 + 1 didn't equal 2 until someone did the addition?

If you say so kiddy


----------



## esalla

alang1216 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you didn't like my answer: it was always in existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your mind evolution was present before the big bang
> 
> If you say so kiddy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did gravity exist before the BB?  How about math?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unknown about gravity as the universe might be code on a hard drive, math is not real however until it is toyed with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So we might live in the Matrix and 1 + 1 didn't equal 2 until someone did the addition?
> 
> If you say so kiddy
Click to expand...

Not my idea pal, your physics hero thought it up

LOL, sucka


----------



## Dagosa

esalla said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self replicating molecules consist of the most complicated code in the universe that can not assemble from nothing. So what you did is just assume that they create themselves when this was never ob
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like someone who knows for sure what else exists in the rest of the universe, really. Just because we aren’t sure, is no proof a God is behind it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All science leads to God.  Rather simple really as once we travel to another planet and set up a food web which will be required, God is fully proven and it's us.
> 
> Deny reality all you choose, but it's happening now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no god--you can't prove it......god is not fully proven---nowhere close-----not proven--saying that is ludicrous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God brought life to Earth, just as humans who were made in Gods image will be doing themselves very shortly.
> 
> So tell me if humans set up a food web on another planet, will they have to find Darwins pond on that planet to begin?
> 
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> God is proven and he is us, except for you as you want to be pond scum
Click to expand...

Your god lets 20k children die each due to malnutrition and desease. He hasn’t done shit for us. Where are the multitudes being fed with two loaves and a couple of fish ? That was obviously a fking fable. Only science has doubled our life expectancy.


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self replicating molecules consist of the most complicated code in the universe that can not assemble from nothing. So what you did is just assume that they create themselves when this was never ob
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like someone who knows for sure what else exists in the rest of the universe, really. Just because we aren’t sure, is no proof a God is behind it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All science leads to God.  Rather simple really as once we travel to another planet and set up a food web which will be required, God is fully proven and it's us.
> 
> Deny reality all you choose, but it's happening now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no god--you can't prove it......god is not fully proven---nowhere close-----not proven--saying that is ludicrous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God brought life to Earth, just as humans who were made in Gods image will be doing themselves very shortly.
> 
> So tell me if humans set up a food web on another planet, will they have to find Darwins pond on that planet to begin?
> 
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> God is proven and he is us, except for you as you want to be pond scum
Click to expand...

not proven --plain-simple-final


----------



## Dagosa

harmonica said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self replicating molecules consist of the most complicated code in the universe that can not assemble from nothing. So what you did is just assume that they create themselves when this was never ob
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like someone who knows for sure what else exists in the rest of the universe, really. Just because we aren’t sure, is no proof a God is behind it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All science leads to God.  Rather simple really as once we travel to another planet and set up a food web which will be required, God is fully proven and it's us.
> 
> Deny reality all you choose, but it's happening now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no god--you can't prove it......god is not fully proven---nowhere close-----not proven--saying that is ludicrous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God brought life to Earth, just as humans who were made in Gods image will be doing themselves very shortly.
> 
> So tell me if humans set up a food web on another planet, will they have to find Darwins pond on that planet to begin?
> 
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> God is proven and he is us, except for you as you want to be pond scum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not proven --plain-simple-final
Click to expand...

Nothing in anyone’s bible is proven Either.


----------



## Dagosa

esalla said:


> God brought life to Earth, just as humans who were made in Gods image will be doing themselves very shortly.


If man was made in gods image, why do we die ? Why can’t we fly ? Oh, just how we look and not his insides ? Well, who’s insides do we have ?


----------



## Quasar44

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.


Please !! You cannot talk about evolution with “Science illiterates “
Most conservatives have the science level of a 2nd grader


----------



## Quasar44

Evolution is 100 percent fact 
Anyone who disputes it is a “Science illiterate “


----------



## Weatherman2020

Quasar44 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> Please !! You cannot talk about evolution with “Science illiterates “
> Most conservatives have the science level of a 2nd grader
Click to expand...

I put a dollar in your PayPal, go buy a new stupid attack to add to your childish response.
So typical of you science haters to say such stupid crap.


----------



## ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer said:


> Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body?  A clue?
> Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.



Winterborn of course had nothing to say.   Zip.  Nada.
There are at least 5,000 different proteins in humans.  The largest is titin, in muscles.  It has 33,450 amino acid residues - the component left after a peptide bond forms, expelling a water molecule in the process.  Non-peptide bonds are equally probable so the chance of getting the right combination of 33,450 amino acids in sequence, with peptide bonds is 1/33,450 to the 20th power times 1/33,450 squared.  There is no difference between this number and 0.
I didn't bother to try to factor in the probability of protein folding or L versus D amino acids, but humans are made of L amino acids, for Levorotary as opposed to Dextrorotary.  This is the handedness of amino acids, comparable to the right glove versus the left glove.  They're different.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body?  A clue?
> Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn of course had nothing to say.   Zip.  Nada.
> There are at least 5,000 different proteins in humans.  The largest is titin, in muscles.  It has 33,450 amino acid residues - the component left after a peptide bond forms, expelling a water molecule in the process.  Non-peptide bonds are equally probable so the chance of getting the right combination of 33,450 amino acids in sequence, with peptide bonds is 1/33,450 to the 20th power times 1/33,450 squared.  There is no difference between this number and 0.
> I didn't bother to try to factor in the probability of protein folding or L versus D amino acids, but humans are made of L amino acids, for Levorotary as opposed to Dextrorotary.  This is the handedness of amino acids, comparable to the right glove versus the left glove.  They're different.
Click to expand...

Ahh. So your argument is that, ''it's complicated. I don't understand it therefore, the gawds did it''

You should know that the silly ''probability'' numbers you steal from ID'iot creationer websites are intended to dupe the ignorant.


----------



## alang1216

ChemEngineer said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body?  A clue?
> Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn of course had nothing to say.   Zip.  Nada.
> There are at least 5,000 different proteins in humans.  The largest is titin, in muscles.  It has 33,450 amino acid residues - the component left after a peptide bond forms, expelling a water molecule in the process.  Non-peptide bonds are equally probable so the chance of getting the right combination of 33,450 amino acids in sequence, with peptide bonds is 1/33,450 to the 20th power times 1/33,450 squared.  There is no difference between this number and 0.
> I didn't bother to try to factor in the probability of protein folding or L versus D amino acids, but humans are made of L amino acids, for Levorotary as opposed to Dextrorotary.  This is the handedness of amino acids, comparable to the right glove versus the left glove.  They're different.
Click to expand...

If evolution were a random process you'd have a point.  It is not so you don't.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Hollie said:


> You should know that the silly ''probability'' numbers you steal from ID'iot creationer websites are intended to dupe the ignorant.


OMG, you mean he hasn't even been waving his own dick?


----------



## itfitzme

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.



Says who?


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body?  A clue?
> Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn of course had nothing to say.   Zip.  Nada.
> There are at least 5,000 different proteins in humans.  The largest is titin, in muscles.  It has 33,450 amino acid residues - the component left after a peptide bond forms, expelling a water molecule in the process.  Non-peptide bonds are equally probable so the chance of getting the right combination of 33,450 amino acids in sequence, with peptide bonds is 1/33,450 to the 20th power times 1/33,450 squared.  There is no difference between this number and 0.
> I didn't bother to try to factor in the probability of protein folding or L versus D amino acids, but humans are made of L amino acids, for Levorotary as opposed to Dextrorotary.  This is the handedness of amino acids, comparable to the right glove versus the left glove.  They're different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh. So your argument is that, ''it's complicated. I don't understand it therefore, the gawds did it''
> 
> You should know that the silly ''probability'' numbers you steal from ID'iot creationer websites are intended to dupe the ignorant.
Click to expand...

Holly you know that God wrote DNA.  Everyone knows this


----------



## itfitzme

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.



The question is a non-sequitur.    Not getting an answer to a non-sequitur doesn't reveal anything.

Also, by what law of physics are you basing this " explosions do not result in complex order."  Of course they can, and do.  Explosions don't "cause" complex order.  When the energy and mass coalesces, it coalesces into whatever order the surrounding physical environment allows for.

Also, "explosion" is an extremely general term, covering every physical and chemical process that releases large amounts of energy into the surrounding volume.  The "Big Bang" isn't a firecracker exploding.  To start, there was no surrounding volume to expand into.


----------



## itfitzme

ChemEngineer said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body?  A clue?
> Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn of course had nothing to say.   Zip.  Nada.
> There are at least 5,000 different proteins in humans.  The largest is titin, in muscles.  It has 33,450 amino acid residues - the component left after a peptide bond forms, expelling a water molecule in the process.  Non-peptide bonds are equally probable so the chance of getting the right combination of 33,450 amino acids in sequence, with peptide bonds is 1/33,450 to the 20th power times 1/33,450 squared.  There is no difference between this number and 0.
> I didn't bother to try to factor in the probability of protein folding or L versus D amino acids, but humans are made of L amino acids, for Levorotary as opposed to Dextrorotary.  This is the handedness of amino acids, comparable to the right glove versus the left glove.  They're different.
Click to expand...



I have a small but significant objection.  You say, "There is no difference between this number and 0." 

That is simply not true.  (1/33450)^20*(1/33450)^2 = 2.9e-100. 

2.9e-100 is not equal to zero, however small that may be.

Where does this erroneous idea that "There is no difference between this number and 0" come from?

Let's consider 2.9e-100 in context of the size of the universe.    The size of the universe is  8.8×1026 m = 8.8E1026

2.9e-100 * 8.8E1026 = another really big number.

EDIT:  it's early.


----------



## james bond

It's a good question.  There is no explanation of how male and female came to be in evolution.

I doubt there's a good definition or description of evolution.  Other than life just happened and we can BS it from there.

Evolutionary cosmology has big bang from nothing (singularity) and accelerated expansion from dark energy.  The ToE has abiogenesis and aliens did something.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It's a good question.  There is no explanation of how male and female came to be in evolution.
> 
> I doubt there's a good definition or description of evolution.  Other than life just happened and we can BS it from there.
> 
> Evolutionary cosmology has big bang from nothing (singularity) and accelerated expansion from dark energy.  The ToE has abiogenesis and aliens did something.


Biological evolution is well defined and well described. Evolution doesn't describe "life just happened''. You are confusing abiogenesis, the beginning of life, with biological evolution which describes the diversity if life and how that changes over time. Yours is a mistake commonly made among those without a science vocabulary. 

Can you define ''evolutionary cosmology''? That appears to be a term you read at one of the ID'iot creationer ministries. 

Second, the idea that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. There was no big bang explosion that was the beginning of the universe, The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”. 

This has been explained to you repeatedly.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good question.  There is no explanation of how male and female came to be in evolution.
> 
> I doubt there's a good definition or description of evolution.  Other than life just happened and we can BS it from there.
> 
> Evolutionary cosmology has big bang from nothing (singularity) and accelerated expansion from dark energy.  The ToE has abiogenesis and aliens did something.
> 
> 
> 
> Biological evolution is well defined and well described. Evolution doesn't describe "life just happened''. You are confusing abiogenesis, the beginning of life, with biological evolution which describes the diversity if life and how that changes over time. Yours is a mistake commonly made among those without a science vocabulary.
> 
> Can you define ''evolutionary cosmology''? That appears to be a term you read at one of the ID'iot creationer ministries.
> 
> Second, the idea that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. There was no big bang explosion that was the beginning of the universe, The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
> 
> This has been explained to you repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Actually Hollie Darwin claimed that life just happened one day in a pond.

Please read before you babble


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Biological evolution is well defined and well described. Evolution doesn't describe "life just happened''. You are confusing abiogenesis, the beginning of life, with biological evolution which describes the diversity if life and how that changes over time. Yours is a mistake commonly made among those without a science vocabulary.
> 
> Can you define ''evolutionary cosmology''? That appears to be a term you read at one of the ID'iot creationer ministries.



No, biological evolution is not well defined.  Why don't you define it for me?  I want to put your theories to the same test you put mine.

Furthermore, how is it's falsifiable?   Some ToE proponents claim all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone.  This is not falsifiable.  What do you claim?  That's why I asked for you to define it.  

ToE could be made up stuff and the evidence doesn't show it happens.  Otherwise, we would practically accept ToE as mostly true, but it remains scientific atheism or one which takes a "leap of faith" to believe.  For example, if it started with abiogenesis, then how can one falsify that hypothesis?  If there is no beginning to ToE, then there isn't much to discuss here.

Evolutionary cosmology is the explanation of what was there before the big bang and the cause of the big bang.  There is little valid explanation of how spacetime started nor where the energy came from.  If singularity or quantum particle of infinite density and infinite temperature, then I don't think singularity can be falsified, but you tell me.

All of the above, I am open to your explanation.  I'm just skeptical of your evolutionary theories.



Hollie said:


> Second, the idea that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. There was no big bang explosion that was the beginning of the universe, The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
> 
> This has been explained to you repeatedly.














It had to have a beginning if space appeared and time started, so no imagination necessary.  It's how our four dimensions work.  And I said expansion, not explosion, so you are making stuff up.

It was an expansion in all directions and looked like the above as space and time expanded, too.  Now, if you took a slice of the universe at a point in time, then it would look flat and curved around the edges.

Is that your explanation?  That seems to fit the Bible theory (For example, what the Bible explains as God stretching out the heavens) better than the above of what we see with just the CMB, cosmic inflation, and big bang expansion.  Where the energy came from is still not explained.  How about gravity?


----------



## james bond

esalla said:


> Actually Hollie Darwin claimed that life just happened one day in a pond.
> 
> Please read before you babble



Then her statement can't be falsified.  For example, if I lost my head and said I slept with ten women today, then I can falsify by it by producing eleven women who were witnesses.  If I can only produce nine witnesses, then it isn't but still falsifiable.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Hollie Darwin claimed that life just happened one day in a pond.
> 
> Please read before you babble
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then her statement can't be falsified.  For example, if I lost my head and said I slept with ten women today, then I can falsify by it by producing eleven women who were witnesses.  If I can only produce nine witnesses, then it isn't but still falsifiable.
Click to expand...

OMMFG


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biological evolution is well defined and well described. Evolution doesn't describe "life just happened''. You are confusing abiogenesis, the beginning of life, with biological evolution which describes the diversity if life and how that changes over time. Yours is a mistake commonly made among those without a science vocabulary.
> 
> Can you define ''evolutionary cosmology''? That appears to be a term you read at one of the ID'iot creationer ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, biological evolution is not well defined.  Why don't you define it for me?
Click to expand...

Yes it is and she just did. You, in fact, just quoted her doing so.


> biological evolution which describes the diversity if life and how that changes over time.


_Then_ you wanna talk about falsifiable? Don't like things being defined as studies? Then go ahead and have a self pity party, but stop kidding yourself that secular science lacks vocabulary or definition. Christ, your lot depends upon it. Feeds upon it. You'd have next to nothing left to discuss without it. _Let's see, the Bible tells me so, and then there's.. Hmm.. ?_


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biological evolution is well defined and well described. Evolution doesn't describe "life just happened''. You are confusing abiogenesis, the beginning of life, with biological evolution which describes the diversity if life and how that changes over time. Yours is a mistake commonly made among those without a science vocabulary.
> 
> Can you define ''evolutionary cosmology''? That appears to be a term you read at one of the ID'iot creationer ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, biological evolution is not well defined.  Why don't you define it for me?  I want to put your theories to the same test you put mine.
> 
> Furthermore, how is it's falsifiable?   Some ToE proponents claim all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone.  This is not falsifiable.  What do you claim?  That's why I asked for you to define it.
> 
> ToE could be made up stuff and the evidence doesn't show it happens.  Otherwise, we would practically accept ToE as mostly true, but it remains scientific atheism or one which takes a "leap of faith" to believe.  For example, if it started with abiogenesis, then how can one falsify that hypothesis?  If there is no beginning to ToE, then there isn't much to discuss here.
> 
> Evolutionary cosmology is the explanation of what was there before the big bang and the cause of the big bang.  There is little valid explanation of how spacetime started nor where the energy came from.  If singularity or quantum particle of infinite density and infinite temperature, then I don't think singularity can be falsified, but you tell me.
> 
> All of the above, I am open to your explanation.  I'm just skeptical of your evolutionary theories.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, the idea that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. There was no big bang explosion that was the beginning of the universe, The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
> 
> This has been explained to you repeatedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It had to have a beginning if space appeared and time started, so no imagination necessary.  It's how our four dimensions work.  And I said expansion, not explosion, so you are making stuff up.
> 
> It was an expansion in all directions and looked like the above as space and time expanded, too.  Now, if you took a slice of the universe at a point in time, then it would look flat and curved around the edges.
> 
> Is that your explanation?  That seems to fit the Bible theory (For example, what the Bible explains as God stretching out the heavens) better than the above of what we see with just the CMB, cosmic inflation, and big bang expansion.  Where the energy came from is still not explained.  How about gravity?
Click to expand...


There is no theory to test against claims of magic and supernaturalism. Your claims to your gods are no different than the claims made by others. It thus falls to you to establish what hierarchy of special pleading separates your claims to gods vs. the competing pleadings.

You haven't contributed your model of ''evolutionary cosmology'', whatever that is. It sounds like you need more graphs and pictures... I guess. I noticed that the unsourced, unattributed image you used of the ''big bang'' expansion you used includes a timeline of 13.7 billion years. That is in direct contradiction to what you have previously insisted cannot be in terms of biblical timelines. It seems you cannot pose a consistent argument. I will also note that the image is hosted on the NASA.gov site. Why are you using data from those evilutionist, atheist scientists? Henry Morris would be _very_ disappointed. I also note that the image you posted shows nothing of a ''singularity'' you have identified previously. 

Nothing in your post makes a case for a universe magically 'poofed' into existence 6,000 years ago. In fact, just the opposite. Pease turn in your key to the Disco'tute.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biological evolution is well defined and well described. Evolution doesn't describe "life just happened''. You are confusing abiogenesis, the beginning of life, with biological evolution which describes the diversity if life and how that changes over time. Yours is a mistake commonly made among those without a science vocabulary.
> 
> Can you define ''evolutionary cosmology''? That appears to be a term you read at one of the ID'iot creationer ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, biological evolution is not well defined.  Why don't you define it for me?  I want to put your theories to the same test you put mine.
> 
> Furthermore, how is it's falsifiable?   Some ToE proponents claim all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone.  This is not falsifiable.  What do you claim?  That's why I asked for you to define it.
> 
> ToE could be made up stuff and the evidence doesn't show it happens.  Otherwise, we would practically accept ToE as mostly true, but it remains scientific atheism or one which takes a "leap of faith" to believe.  For example, if it started with abiogenesis, then how can one falsify that hypothesis?  If there is no beginning to ToE, then there isn't much to discuss here.
> 
> Evolutionary cosmology is the explanation of what was there before the big bang and the cause of the big bang.  There is little valid explanation of how spacetime started nor where the energy came from.  If singularity or quantum particle of infinite density and infinite temperature, then I don't think singularity can be falsified, but you tell me.
> 
> All of the above, I am open to your explanation.  I'm just skeptical of your evolutionary theories.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, the idea that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. There was no big bang explosion that was the beginning of the universe, The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
> 
> This has been explained to you repeatedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It had to have a beginning if space appeared and time started, so no imagination necessary.  It's how our four dimensions work.  And I said expansion, not explosion, so you are making stuff up.
> 
> It was an expansion in all directions and looked like the above as space and time expanded, too.  Now, if you took a slice of the universe at a point in time, then it would look flat and curved around the edges.
> 
> Is that your explanation?  That seems to fit the Bible theory (For example, what the Bible explains as God stretching out the heavens) better than the above of what we see with just the CMB, cosmic inflation, and big bang expansion.  Where the energy came from is still not explained.  How about gravity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no theory to test against claims of magic and supernaturalism. Your claims to your gods are no different than the claims made by others. It thus falls to you to establish what hierarchy of special pleading separates your claims to gods vs. the competing pleadings.
> 
> You haven't contributed your model of ''evolutionary cosmology'', whatever that is. It sounds like you need more graphs and pictures... I guess. I noticed that the unsourced, unattributed image you used of the ''big bang'' expansion you used includes a timeline of 13.7 billion years. That is in direct contradiction to what you have previously insisted cannot be in terms of biblical timelines. It seems you cannot pose a consistent argument. I will also note that the image is hosted on the NASA.gov site. Why are you using data from those evilutionist, atheist scientists? Henry Morris would be _very_ disappointed. I also note that the image you posted shows nothing of a ''singularity'' you have identified previously.
> 
> Nothing in your post makes a case for a universe magically 'poofed' into existence 6,000 years ago. In fact, just the opposite. Pease turn in your key to the Disco'tute.
Click to expand...

LOL Hollie please explain how Darwins pond scum wrote DNA without Magic

Grow up little girl


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Hollie Darwin claimed that life just happened one day in a pond.
> 
> Please read before you babble
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then her statement can't be falsified.  For example, if I lost my head and said I slept with ten women today, then I can falsify by it by producing eleven women who were witnesses.  If I can only produce nine witnesses, then it isn't but still falsifiable.
Click to expand...

Your psycho-sexual fantasies are rather creepy so you might want to delve into where they derive from. You should also understsnd the context of the discussion as it relates to science matters not your imagined, Napoleonic sexual conquests. 

On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

In addition to being falsifiable, biological evolution makes verifiable predictions. Evolutionary theory predicts that closely related organisms will share large amounts of the same genetic material. Evolution predicts an ordering of the fossil record, such that animals like mammals never appear before the first reptiles. It predicts that isolated regions of the planet will be populated by organisms which are unique to those isolated regions. Evolutionary theory predicts anatomical similarities between genetically similar organisms. It predicts the existence of vestigial structures and organs that were useful to ancestral forms but become useless as organisms evolve.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Hollie Darwin claimed that life just happened one day in a pond.
> 
> Please read before you babble
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then her statement can't be falsified.  For example, if I lost my head and said I slept with ten women today, then I can falsify by it by producing eleven women who were witnesses.  If I can only produce nine witnesses, then it isn't but still falsifiable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your psycho-sexual fantasies are rather creepy so you might want to delve into where they derive from. You should also understsnd the context of the discussion as it relates to science matters not your imagined, Napoleonic sexual conquests.
> 
> On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.
> 
> In addition to being falsifiable, biological evolution makes verifiable predictions. Evolutionary theory predicts that closely related organisms will share large amounts of the same genetic material. Evolution predicts an ordering of the fossil record, such that animals like mammals never appear before the first reptiles. It predicts that isolated regions of the planet will be populated by organisms which are unique to those isolated regions. Evolutionary theory predicts anatomical similarities between genetically similar organisms. It predicts the existence of vestigial structures and organs that were useful to ancestral forms but become useless as organisms evolve.
Click to expand...

Evolution is impossible unless something to evolve exist.

Just that simple


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Yes it is and she just did. You, in fact, just quoted her doing so.



Diversity and change is too broad.  I can accept microevolution.  Let's just say macroevolution has been falsified and we have reached a final agreement.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.



If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Haha.  If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short.  They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.

No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true.  Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories.  Evolution becomes bogus.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Didn't Einstein prove that time is relative?  This proof has been validated by atomic clocks on space ships.  So the age of earth is.... relative.  We have no idea relative to what.


----------



## Grumblenuts

*"Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?"*

Did you mean: *existence ?*


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> Haha.  If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short.  They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.
> 
> No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true.  Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories.  Evolution becomes bogus.
Click to expand...

The bible was written by idiots rocking by the mountain and eating locust


----------



## Turtlesoup

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.


Basically, EVOLUTION means that all organisms are looking for a trait that makes them better at survival.    Ergo, when one group of anything develops a trait like say thicker hair which keeps them warm (in cooler climates) or making them more attractive to the opposite sex they are more likely to survive and to mate passing this trait down to their offspring creating change.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
Click to expand...

So that's why there's intelligent life on Titan


----------



## esalla

Turtlesoup said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, EVOLUTION means that all organisms are looking for a trait that makes them better at survival.    Ergo, when one group of anything develops a trait like say thicker hair which keeps them warm (in cooler climates) or making them more attractive to the opposite sex they are more likely to survive and to mate passing this trait down to their offspring creating change.
Click to expand...

Completely wrong because that is not evolution but adaptation.  Why? because when it warms up the hair thins as the organism readapts


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> Haha.  If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short.  They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.
> 
> No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true.  Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories.  Evolution becomes bogus.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense.

Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.

I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.

You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> Haha.  If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short.  They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.
> 
> No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true.  Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories.  Evolution becomes bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.
> 
> I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.
> 
> You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.
Click to expand...

Again absolute nothingness can not evolve

Except in the minds of the feeble


----------



## Turtlesoup

esalla said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, EVOLUTION means that all organisms are looking for a trait that makes them better at survival.    Ergo, when one group of anything develops a trait like say thicker hair which keeps them warm (in cooler climates) or making them more attractive to the opposite sex they are more likely to survive and to mate passing this trait down to their offspring creating change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely wrong because that is not evolution but adaptation.  Why? because when it warms up the hair thins as the organism readapts
Click to expand...

You are assuming that the climate would warm back up enough to make thicker hair an issue-----------or that thicker hair wouldn't have another purpose such as making one more attractive and thus more likely to mate.   You also assume that shedding somehow negates a specialized need for a warmer coat during cooler months creating a change (evolution)..which isn't the case.     A thicker coat for cooler climate could evolve in a species in a cooler climate----whether they shed in the summer or not would not change this.

Evolution is done in TINY TINY TINY steps----one member then one family then one group or region develops an unique often tiny tiny tiny  trait that they use to aid the individual and then group passing the change gene for.  Eventually regional changes become widespread in the group creating a new species with its own unique traits.   Only after many many many generations of breeding in countless traits do we see a new species assuming that those that carry the traits live and continue to breed based on their special traits providing an advantage.


----------



## esalla

Turtlesoup said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, EVOLUTION means that all organisms are looking for a trait that makes them better at survival.    Ergo, when one group of anything develops a trait like say thicker hair which keeps them warm (in cooler climates) or making them more attractive to the opposite sex they are more likely to survive and to mate passing this trait down to their offspring creating change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely wrong because that is not evolution but adaptation.  Why? because when it warms up the hair thins as the organism readapts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are assuming that the climate would warm back up enough to make thicker hair an issue-----------or that thicker hair wouldn't have another purpose such as making one more attractive and thus more likely to mate.   You also assume that shedding somehow negates a specialized need for a warmer coat during cooler months creating a change (evolution)..which isn't the case.     A thicker coat for cooler climate could evolve in a species in a cooler climate----whether they shed in the summer or not would not change this.
> 
> Evolution is done in TINY TINY TINY steps----one member then one family then one group or region develops an unique often tiny tiny tiny  trait that they use to aid the individual and then group passing the change gene for.  Eventually regional changes become widespread in the group creating a new species with its own unique traits.   Only after many many many generations of breeding in countless traits
Click to expand...

You are clueless, as longer hair is not evolution.  Northern wolves have longer, thicker and whiter hair than southern wolves.  This is really true now, they are not different evolved species as they can and do interbreed.

Evolution means wolves turn into turtles and squid

Grow up fool


----------



## ChemEngineer

Turtlesoup said:


> Basically *EVOLUTION* means that all organisms are looking for a trait that makes them better at survival.    Ergo, when one group of anything develops a trait like say thicker hair which keeps them warm (in cooler climates) or making them more attractive to the opposite sex they are more likely to survive and to mate passing this trait down to their offspring creating change.



"It's better that way."  *Science*, 1850's style.  NO biochemistry necessary. NO statistical analysis of polypeptide synthesis.

Now let us suppose that this "developer" of a "trait" is a homosexual, or otherwise does not breed, or that it is killed by a predator or competitor before passing on its *advantage*. Where does your tautology go then?


----------



## ChemEngineer

Turtlesoup said:


> Evolution is done in TINY TINY TINY steps----



You don't understand the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.
Picking the next amino acid to be added to a new protein capable of your daring "selection" must be done from a base of 20 different amino acids of which humans are built.  One chance in 20 does not change in one month, or one year or 10,000 years.  It's always 1 in 20.  Now raise that to the 33,450th power for titin, in your muscles. That's just ONE protein of th 5,000 that make up your body.  "Tiny, tiny, tiny" numbers indeed.  Equal to 0.  No different from 0.  Impossible is the word.
Atheist Dawkins himself has defined "impossible" as "one chance in 10 to the 40th power."  Again, what is 1/20 to the 33,450?  Is is smaller than 1 in 10 to the 40th ya think?


----------



## esalla

ChemEngineer said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is done in TINY TINY TINY steps----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.
> Picking the next amino acid to be added to a new protein capable of your daring "selection" must be done from a base of 20 different amino acids of which humans are built.  One chance in 20 does not change in one month, or one year or 10,000 years.  It's always 1 in 20.  Now raise that to the 33,450th power for titin, in your muscles. That's just ONE protein of th 5,000 that make up your body.  "Tiny, tiny, tiny" numbers indeed.  Equal to 0.  No different from 0.  Impossible is the word.
> Atheist Dawkins himself has defined "impossible" as "one chance in 10 to the 40th power."  Again, what is 1/20 to the 33,450?  Is is smaller than 1 in 10 to the 40th ya think?
Click to expand...

It's far simpler than that as evolution can not happen until the organism exist.  Exactly as a computer program can not run without a computer.  Both life and evolution are molecular computer programs that did not create themselves in the mud out of mud


----------



## schmidlap

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.


Even though some rabid religionists have raged against Darwinian evolution, it's certainly as viable a notion as claiming that the gods took a fancy to it.

Why does _everything_ exist?  I don't pretend to know, but I'm content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things:

*There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.*​


----------



## esalla

schmidlap said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> Even though some rabid religionists have raged against Darwinian evolution, it's certainly as viable a notion as claiming that the gods took a fancy to it.
> 
> Why does _everything_ exist?  I don't pretend to know.
Click to expand...

Learn a few words before you babble.

Religionist

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


----------



## schmidlap

esalla said:


> Learn a few words before you babble.
> 
> Religionist
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


Compose yourself. 

Take care of the people; let the gods take care of themselves.


----------



## esalla

schmidlap said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn a few words before you babble.
> 
> Religionist
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> 
> 
> Compose yourself.
> 
> Take care of the people; let the gods take care of themselves.
Click to expand...

In English next time please


----------



## james bond

schmidlap said:


> I don't pretend to know, but I'm content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things:



At least you admit you're a religionist. an atheist religionist, who follows Darwin, i.e. a believer that everything is natural, until we find the laws of physics were broken at the big bang.  To the creation scientists, that is definitely not _natural_.  Nor something before the big bang.  Your side can't explain the accelerating expanding universe either.  Dark energy is definitely not natural.

I just showed how you contradicted yourself saying you are "content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things..."



schmidlap said:


> _*There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.*_



Certainly an interesting comment.

You seem like a nonsensical fellow, what does what you quoted from Darwin mean to you?


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to know, but I'm content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least you admit you're a religionist. an atheist religionist, who follows Darwin, i.e. a believer that everything is natural, until we find the laws of physics were broken at the big bang.  To the creation scientists, that is definitely not _natural_.  Nor something before the big bang.  Your side can't explain the accelerating expanding universe either.  Dark energy is definitely not natural.
> 
> I just showed how you contradicted yourself saying you are "content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things."
Click to expand...

Yo simpleton religionist is not a word

Not that you use real vurdz enyvayz


----------



## schmidlap

james bond said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to know, but I'm content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least you admit you're a religionist. an atheist religionist, who follows Darwin, i.e. a believer that everything is natural, until we find the laws of physics were broken at the big bang.  To the creation scientists, that is definitely not _natural_.  Nor something before the big bang.  Your side can't explain the accelerating expanding universe either.  Dark energy is definitely not natural.
> 
> I just showed how you contradicted yourself saying you are "content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things..."
> 
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly an interesting comment.
> 
> You seem like a nonsensical fellow, what does what you quoted from Darwin mean to you?
Click to expand...

You are free to propound your prejudices, of course.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> Haha.  If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short.  They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.
> 
> No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true.  Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories.  Evolution becomes bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.
> 
> I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.
> 
> You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.
Click to expand...

Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.


----------



## james bond

schmidlap said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to know, but I'm content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least you admit you're a religionist. an atheist religionist, who follows Darwin, i.e. a believer that everything is natural, until we find the laws of physics were broken at the big bang.  To the creation scientists, that is definitely not _natural_.  Nor something before the big bang.  Your side can't explain the accelerating expanding universe either.  Dark energy is definitely not natural.
> 
> I just showed how you contradicted yourself saying you are "content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things..."
> 
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly an interesting comment.
> 
> You seem like a nonsensical fellow, what does what you quoted from Darwin mean to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are free to propound your prejudices, of course.
Click to expand...


It's not my prejudice.  Is this not a free country?  Am I not entitled to believe what I think it's true or reality?  The Bible explains quite well the cause and how time began and how space began at the same moment.  The clincher is that we find science backs up the Bible when it isn't a science book.  I haven't heard anyone who read Darwin make that claim for his two books.  I think we find that science does not back him up.  Otherwise, your side will be smoking a fat victory cigar,


, rudely of course because atheists have no moral values.  They're feces of the Earth.

You didn't answer my question, so I'll just assume you posted your Darwin quote to make you look smart when you aren't.


----------



## ChemEngineer

schmidlap said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> Even though some rabid religionists have raged against Darwinian evolution, it's certainly as viable a notion as claiming that the gods took a fancy to it.
> 
> Why does _everything_ exist?  I don't pretend to know, but I'm content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things:
> 
> *There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.*​
Click to expand...


Was your god, Darwin, a "rabid religionist"?  After all, you quote "rabid religionist" Darwin who cites "the Creator."

You can't begin to be consistent with your rabid atheism.  tsk, tsk









						Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
					






					AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com


----------



## ChemEngineer

schmidlap said:


> You are free to propound your prejudices, of course.



Nobody can stop you from propounding your pathetic ignorance.
But intelligent people can choose to ignore you, and they should.

"Go from the presence of a foolish man." - The Holy Bible, filled with wisdom, beginning with the science in the First Sentence in the First Book, which required scientists 2000 years to prove.  

ciao brutto  
You just joined others like yourself on my Ignore List


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is done in TINY TINY TINY steps----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.
> Picking the next amino acid to be added to a new protein capable of your daring "selection" must be done from a base of 20 different amino acids of which humans are built.  One chance in 20 does not change in one month, or one year or 10,000 years.  It's always 1 in 20.  Now raise that to the 33,450th power for titin, in your muscles. That's just ONE protein of th 5,000 that make up your body.  "Tiny, tiny, tiny" numbers indeed.  Equal to 0.  No different from 0.  Impossible is the word.
> Atheist Dawkins himself has defined "impossible" as "one chance in 10 to the 40th power."  Again, what is 1/20 to the 33,450?  Is is smaller than 1 in 10 to the 40th ya think?
Click to expand...


I’m afraid you know nothing other than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.


These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously._

To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to propound your prejudices, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody can stop you from propounding your pathetic ignorance.
> But intelligent people can choose to ignore you, and they should.
> 
> "Go from the presence of a foolish man." - The Holy Bible, filled with wisdom, beginning with the science in the First Sentence in the First Book, which required scientists 2000 years to prove.
> 
> ciao brutto
> You just joined others like yourself on my Ignore List
Click to expand...

It really is comical to watch you run away, pout and complain when your nonsensical attempts at argument are dismissed as routine ID’iot creationer whining.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ChemEngineer said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is done in TINY TINY TINY steps----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.
> Picking the next amino acid to be added to a new protein capable of your daring "selection" must be done from a base of 20 different amino acids of which humans are built.  One chance in 20 does not change in one month, or one year or 10,000 years.  It's always 1 in 20.  Now raise that to the 33,450th power for titin, in your muscles. That's just ONE protein of th 5,000 that make up your body.  "Tiny, tiny, tiny" numbers indeed.  Equal to 0.  No different from 0.  Impossible is the word.
> Atheist Dawkins himself has defined "impossible" as "one chance in 10 to the 40th power."  Again, what is 1/20 to the 33,450?  Is is smaller than 1 in 10 to the 40th ya think?
Click to expand...

For anyone actually interested in this along with pesky logic, facts, and stuff,.. here's a nice taste of the recent scientific wisdom.


----------



## Hollie

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> Haha.  If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short.  They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.
> 
> No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true.  Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories.  Evolution becomes bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.
> 
> I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.
> 
> You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
> And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.
Click to expand...



The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.

I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Hollie said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> Haha.  If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short.  They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.
> 
> No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true.  Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories.  Evolution becomes bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.
> 
> I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.
> 
> You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
> And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.
> 
> I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.
Click to expand...

Cripes. I just stated the thread is not about evolution but the beginning of life itself. You can’t have evolution without something living. Take a crack at it. Tell us how rocks ended up writing Concerto No 5.


----------



## ChemEngineer

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
					

A topnotch WordPress.com site




					TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> For anyone actually interested in this along with pesky logic, facts, and stuff,.. here's a nice taste of the recent scientific wisdom.



You couldn't even explain what the paper was about pops.  Just get a life before you know.

ETA:  I don't mind you presenting a complex argument, but at least give us a sentence or two about what you argument is about and how it relates to abiogenesis.  Then we know you know something and can contribute.  Instead, we know your side has no evidence for abiogenesis, but make up as many things as you can about RNA and DNA.  The paper has nothing to do with abiogenesis.  What does it have to do with ToE?  Can you explain that?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Hollie said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> Haha.  If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short.  They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.
> 
> No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true.  Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories.  Evolution becomes bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.
> 
> I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.
> 
> You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
> And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.
> 
> I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.
Click to expand...

And though it’s off topic, there’s never in history a genetic defect of any living creature that was beneficial.  They always shorten the lifespan, always.


----------



## ChemEngineer

james bond said:


> You couldn't even explain what the paper was about pops.  Just get a life before you know.



The paper is an exercise in bullshit, using technical words which mean nothing.  Douglas Axe has shown that for a very simple polypeptide of only 150 amino acid residues in length, only 1 combination in 10 to the 170th power is functional.  The rest are garbage.

A protein that short is meaningless.  Human hemoglobin is composed of 574 residues.  Titin in our muscles is composed of 33,450 residues.
Grumblenuts doesn't even know how to raise 1/20 to the 574th power much less to the 33,450th power, both of which decimals are no different from 0 in terms of probability.

 One in 20 to the 574th equates to 1 in 10 to the 650th power. That's, oh, 610 orders of magnitude more impossible than Dickie Dawkins' Definition.

Richard Dawkins has stated that 1 chance in 10 to the 40th is impossible.
So what of 1 in 10 to the 170th or much, much less?


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> For anyone actually interested in this along with pesky logic, facts, and stuff,.. here's a nice taste of the recent scientific wisdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't even explain what the paper was about pops.  Just get a life before you know.
Click to expand...

Just keep telling yourself that, sonny. Whatever helps you sleep at night..


----------



## Hollie

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> Haha.  If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short.  They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.
> 
> No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true.  Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories.  Evolution becomes bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.
> 
> I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.
> 
> You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
> And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.
> 
> I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cripes. I just stated the thread is not about evolution but the beginning of life itself. You can’t have evolution without something living. Take a crack at it. Tell us how rocks ended up writing Concerto No 5.
Click to expand...


You might try understanding the terms you use. The origin of life on the planet is not fully understood. All the basic building blocks of life are abundant in the universe so it may be only a matter of time before the spark of life occurred.

Tell us how your gods made a snake talk to a human and scolded them for fruit theft.


----------



## Hollie

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> Haha.  If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short.  They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.
> 
> No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true.  Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories.  Evolution becomes bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.
> 
> I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.
> 
> You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
> And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.
> 
> I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And though it’s off topic, there’s never in history a genetic defect of any living creature that was beneficial.  They always shorten the lifespan, always.
Click to expand...


I guess you were a graduate of the Henry Morris School for the Silly.




			CB101:  Most mutations harmful?
		

*Claim CB101:*
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.*Source:*
Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

*Response:*

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with _E. coli_ found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.


Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).


High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of _Pseudomonas aeruginosa_ are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).


Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).


----------



## Weatherman2020

Hollie said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> Haha.  If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short.  They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.
> 
> No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true.  Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories.  Evolution becomes bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.
> 
> I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.
> 
> You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
> And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.
> 
> I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cripes. I just stated the thread is not about evolution but the beginning of life itself. You can’t have evolution without something living. Take a crack at it. Tell us how rocks ended up writing Concerto No 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might try understanding the terms you use. The origin of life on the planet is not fully understood. All the basic building blocks of life are abundant in the universe so it may be only a matter of time before the spark of life occurred.
> 
> Tell us how your gods made a snake talk to human and scolded them for fruit theft.
Click to expand...

The origin of life is fully understood.  You just have a problem with coming up with a plausible spin.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Hollie said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> Haha.  If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short.  They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.
> 
> No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true.  Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories.  Evolution becomes bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.
> 
> I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.
> 
> You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
> And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.
> 
> I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And though it’s off topic, there’s never in history a genetic defect of any living creature that was beneficial.  They always shorten the lifespan, always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you were a graduate of the Henry Morris School for the Silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CB101:  Most mutations harmful?
> 
> 
> *Claim CB101:*
> Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.*Source:*
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
> 
> Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with _E. coli_ found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
> 
> The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
> 
> 
> Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
> Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
> Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
> Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
> A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
> Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
> In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
> 
> Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
> 
> 
> High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of _Pseudomonas aeruginosa_ are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
> 
> 
> Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).
Click to expand...

A submissive gene becoming dominate is not a mutation.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't even explain what the paper was about pops.  Just get a life before you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The paper is an exercise in bullshit, using technical words which mean nothing.  Douglas Axe has shown that for a very simple polypeptide of only 150 amino acid residues in length, only 1 combination in 10 to the 170th power is functional.  The rest are garbage.
> 
> A protein that short is meaningless.  Human hemoglobin is composed of 574 residues.  Titin in our muscles is composed of 33,450 residues.
> Grumblenuts doesn't even know how to raise 1/20 to the 574th power much less to the 33,450th power, both of which decimals are no different from 0 in terms of probability.
> 
> One in 20 to the 574th equates to 1 in 10 to the 650th power. That's, oh, 610 orders of magnitude more impossible than Dickie Dawkins' Definition.
> 
> Richard Dawkins has stated that 1 chance in 10 to the 40th is impossible.
> So what of 1 in 10 to the 170th or much, much less?
Click to expand...


It’s comical that hyper-religious loons would take advice on science matters from a Disco’tute charlatan.





__





						Encyclopedia of American Loons
					

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.




					americanloons.blogspot.com
				




Axe is a zealous creationist associated with the Discovery Institute (he is the director at their “Biologic Institute"). Axe is a molecular biologist, and thus actually knows some science. He uses this knowledge to write mundane papers, at least two of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals - despite being uninteresting and mundane. Axe’s work is hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views. Of course, there is no actual support of intelligent design in these published papers, and Axe himself admits as much: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function

Insofar as Axe is a creationist with real scientific publications to his name, Axe’s work is one of the main contributions to a sheen of legitimacy for the ID movement. But given that his publications do not at all support or even touch on their views (but are willfully interpreted as such by other ID-proponents without Axe complaining) he is an important contributor to erecting the framework of dishonesty that is the ID movement.

Diagnosis: Dishonest wingnut who might pose a genuine if minor threat to science and rationality as a creationist with actually published (though unrelated) material.


----------



## Hollie

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> Haha.  If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short.  They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.
> 
> No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true.  Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories.  Evolution becomes bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.
> 
> I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.
> 
> You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
> And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.
> 
> I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cripes. I just stated the thread is not about evolution but the beginning of life itself. You can’t have evolution without something living. Take a crack at it. Tell us how rocks ended up writing Concerto No 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might try understanding the terms you use. The origin of life on the planet is not fully understood. All the basic building blocks of life are abundant in the universe so it may be only a matter of time before the spark of life occurred.
> 
> Tell us how your gods made a snake talk to human and scolded them for fruit theft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The origin of life is fully understood.  You just have a problem with coming up with a plausible spin.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. Your delicate, hyper-religious sensibilities might be offended but “the gawds did it” is not a viable answer.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Speaking of Silly


ChemEngineer said:


> Richard Dawkins has stated that 1 chance in 10 to the 40th is impossible.


We're not really here, Hollie. Impossible, see? It's all just been in our heads


----------



## Hollie

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.
> 
> Haha.  If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short.  They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.
> 
> No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true.  Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories.  Evolution becomes bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.
> 
> I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.
> 
> You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
> And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.
> 
> I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And though it’s off topic, there’s never in history a genetic defect of any living creature that was beneficial.  They always shorten the lifespan, always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you were a graduate of the Henry Morris School for the Silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CB101:  Most mutations harmful?
> 
> 
> *Claim CB101:*
> Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.*Source:*
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
> 
> Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with _E. coli_ found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
> 
> The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
> 
> 
> Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
> Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
> Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
> Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
> A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
> Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
> In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
> 
> Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
> 
> 
> High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of _Pseudomonas aeruginosa_ are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
> 
> 
> Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A submissive gene becoming dominate is not a mutation.
Click to expand...


Genes mutate. You apparently never had as much as a 7th grade biology class.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.
> 
> Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously._
> 
> To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,



The improbability of abiogenesis happening is shown by the odds.  Someone has done a rough calculation.

Here is the calculation for the number of stars in the universe.

"Since Dr. Driver noted that light from the visible universe has not reached us yet, and that the universe could actually be much larger, let’s increase this estimate of stars in the universe to an amount greater than one million times what can currently be observed, to 10,000,000,000 sextillion stars, or 1031 stars.

Of course, as we mentioned above, Golay’s machine must have all of the parts it needs to make a copy of itself right beside it, without pre-existing life to provide those parts. Again we ask, how often does that happen in nature? Let’s assume it happens _vastly more often than it actually does_, and suppose …


…_every_ star has _ten earth-sized planets _orbiting it.
…these ten planets are composed of nothing but a prebiotic soup containing all the parts needed for all possible SCESR designs to form. (Note that we are presupposing an environment completely hospitable to the_ formation_ of a SCESR design. But this SCESR _must be of a design that could survive in the actual inhospitable_ wild to be a viable candidate that could have led to life.)
We will round the total number of atoms contained in these ten planets up to 10 51, which is a little more than ten times the approximately 8.87•1049 atoms on earth.

Now let’s suppose that each of the atoms on these planets takes part in 1022 chemical events per second. Multiply that by 1021 seconds of cosmic history (an amount higher than 1000 times the current maximum estimated age of the universe, which is 6.3•1017 seconds), and you get 1031•1051 •1022•1021 = 10125 possible chemical events that could have been tried out on these planets since the universe began.

Given these extremely generous assumptions, the odds of the simplest conceivable self-replicating molecular system arising would therefore be 10125 /10413 = 1/10288,
or 1 chance in
1,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000!"






						What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not      Exist?
					

A look at the mathematical odds of abiogenesis, biopoesis, and our universe forming by chance. In light of these odds, is theism or naturalism is the best explanation for our existence?



					www.benotconformed.org
				




The above is why Darwin needed over 3 billions yrs old Earth.  Why do I have to explain to you that the chances of what Darwin has happening is slim and none?  Darwinism and ToE is made up of one improbability after another.  That's why your side has no hard evidence.  I don't expect you to know how long is a billion years, but it's unlikely that we would last that long.  Perhaps you'll be forced to watch a favorable looking warm pond on Mars or Venus after you die and your spirit gets to watch day after day to see if any microbial life appears.  There should be a lot of your other fellow atheists watching, too.  Well, it's been 4.54 billions years and still no microbial life.  You get to try again and again and again and again... ad infinitum.



Hollie said:


> Genes mutate.



Sure, but they do not add new information.  All it can do is work with the old information to mutate it.  Thus, no macroevolution in however number of billions of years.  I don't think our Earth will last that past this century as God has promised Jesus is coming soon.

Is the victory of Joe Biden the start of the Strong Delusion?  The Emerging Church is Catholicism.  As for your finance, why do you think your privacy is being stolen and then being used to track who you are, where you live, what you do, and what your interests are, and what you would like to do?

"_And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie._ (2 Th. 2:11 NKJV)

The primary focus of the deception is use of the controlled corporate media by the Prince of the Power of the Air. TV, radio, Internet, cell phones, PDAs, etc. keep people completely preoccupied and oblivious to the fate that awaits unbelievers. The goal is also to prevent people from hearing the Gospel of Jesus, and if they do hear it to forget about it and be entertained constantly. Most people in developed countries are now in a fog due to the impact of these media that lull them into a false sense of security and into a false sense of right and wrong. This delusion can be seen in three areas:


*Spirituality*, the Emerging Church has become so pervasive that most churches in developed countries will tolerate abortion (murder), fornication (premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality) and almost any other violation of God's law. Just think: how many churches will excommunicate a person for involvement in these sins?
*Finance*, many people are unaware that an international government / banking cartel partnership is stealing their wealth and using the funds to control the world. (See _How Some Rich Bankers Tricked the American People and Gained Control of the World's Economic, Political, Legal and Educational Systems__ and 19 Reasons Why The Federal Reserve Is At the Heart of Our Economic Problems, 20 Questions To Ask Anyone Foolish Enough To Believe The Economic Crisis Is Over._) The stealing is done through the printing of fiat money (money not based on gold or silver but on debt), through interest on money that does not exist (due to fractional reserve banking laws) and through the saw tooth effect of markets that draws people into bad investments over a long period of time and then makes them lose large portions of their life savings when markets drop. (See 200 Year Dow/Gold Ratio, and note how it became much more dramatic after the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. See also *Financial News Updates* on this website.)
*Politics*, most people are also unaware that the international banking cartel and secret societies have taken over all national governments and are quietly re-organizing borders and power centers throughout the world. Evidence of this can be seen in the 911 deception. People who objectively study the facts realize it was a very successful psychological operation (psyop), since jet fuel is not hot enough to do the job, and even if a pancake effect had happened, it would have been much slower than near freefall speed. It had to be done by controlled demolitions. This was part of a plan to cause a second Pearl Harbor and justify the US military getting a foothold in the Middle East and justify the US government in taking away many constitutional rights of the US people.(For more information, see Pearl Harbor, 911 and the Next 'Catastrophic Catalyzing Event' and )"
The following is a dramatization, but it isn't that far off of what is happening behind the scenes (Note:  There are good Catholic believers who believe in Jesus and what God did, so they will be saved.  We just don't know about those in power positions and those that follow blindly):


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.
> 
> Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously._
> 
> To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The improbability of abiogenesis happening is shown by the odds.  Someone has done a rough calculation.
> 
> Here is the calculation for the number of stars in the universe.
> 
> "Since Dr. Driver noted that light from the visible universe has not reached us yet, and that the universe could actually be much larger, let’s increase this estimate of stars in the universe to an amount greater than one million times what can currently be observed, to 10,000,000,000 sextillion stars, or 1031 stars.
> 
> Of course, as we mentioned above, Golay’s machine must have all of the parts it needs to make a copy of itself right beside it, without pre-existing life to provide those parts. Again we ask, how often does that happen in nature? Let’s assume it happens _vastly more often than it actually does_, and suppose …
> 
> 
> …_every_ star has _ten earth-sized planets _orbiting it.
> …these ten planets are composed of nothing but a prebiotic soup containing all the parts needed for all possible SCESR designs to form. (Note that we are presupposing an environment completely hospitable to the_ formation_ of a SCESR design. But this SCESR _must be of a design that could survive in the actual inhospitable_ wild to be a viable candidate that could have led to life.)
> We will round the total number of atoms contained in these ten planets up to 10 51, which is a little more than ten times the approximately 8.87•1049 atoms on earth.
> 
> Now let’s suppose that each of the atoms on these planets takes part in 1022 chemical events per second. Multiply that by 1021 seconds of cosmic history (an amount higher than 1000 times the current maximum estimated age of the universe, which is 6.3•1017 seconds), and you get 1031•1051 •1022•1021 = 10125 possible chemical events that could have been tried out on these planets since the universe began.
> 
> Given these extremely generous assumptions, the odds of the simplest conceivable self-replicating molecular system arising would therefore be 10125 /10413 = 1/10288,
> or 1 chance in
> 1,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not      Exist?
> 
> 
> A look at the mathematical odds of abiogenesis, biopoesis, and our universe forming by chance. In light of these odds, is theism or naturalism is the best explanation for our existence?
> 
> 
> 
> www.benotconformed.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is why Darwin needed over 3 billions yrs old Earth.  Why do I have to explain to you that the chances of what Darwin has happening is slim and none?  Darwinism and ToE is made up of one improbability after another.  That's why your side has no hard evidence.  I don't expect you to know how long is a billion years, but it's unlikely that we would last that long.  Perhaps you'll be forced to watch a favorable looking warm pond on Mars or Venus after you die and your spirit gets to watch day after day to see if any microbial life appears.  There should be a lot of your other fellow atheists watching, too.  Well, it's been 4.54 billions years and still no microbial life.  You get to try again and again and again and again... ad infinitum.
Click to expand...


“What are the odds?” Is a stereotypical ID’iot creationist meme. It’s shown up repeatedly in this thread.

“The odds against abiogenesis are too great” is rather nonsensical as we know with absolute certainty that abiogenesis occurred. You will insist your various gods are responsible for all of existence but that’s rather silly. There are 33 million gods in Hinduism. That means your three gods have a 3 in 33 million chance of being the real gods, even less when stacked up against the totality of gods which existed before your gods.


----------



## Grumblenuts

James quotes the rebuttal then simply repeats the rebutted nonsense. Innumeracy abounds amongst the determined ID'iocracy.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.
> 
> Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously._
> 
> To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The improbability of abiogenesis happening is shown by the odds.  Someone has done a rough calculation.
> 
> Here is the calculation for the number of stars in the universe.
> 
> "Since Dr. Driver noted that light from the visible universe has not reached us yet, and that the universe could actually be much larger, let’s increase this estimate of stars in the universe to an amount greater than one million times what can currently be observed, to 10,000,000,000 sextillion stars, or 1031 stars.
> 
> Of course, as we mentioned above, Golay’s machine must have all of the parts it needs to make a copy of itself right beside it, without pre-existing life to provide those parts. Again we ask, how often does that happen in nature? Let’s assume it happens _vastly more often than it actually does_, and suppose …
> 
> 
> …_every_ star has _ten earth-sized planets _orbiting it.
> …these ten planets are composed of nothing but a prebiotic soup containing all the parts needed for all possible SCESR designs to form. (Note that we are presupposing an environment completely hospitable to the_ formation_ of a SCESR design. But this SCESR _must be of a design that could survive in the actual inhospitable_ wild to be a viable candidate that could have led to life.)
> We will round the total number of atoms contained in these ten planets up to 10 51, which is a little more than ten times the approximately 8.87•1049 atoms on earth.
> 
> Now let’s suppose that each of the atoms on these planets takes part in 1022 chemical events per second. Multiply that by 1021 seconds of cosmic history (an amount higher than 1000 times the current maximum estimated age of the universe, which is 6.3•1017 seconds), and you get 1031•1051 •1022•1021 = 10125 possible chemical events that could have been tried out on these planets since the universe began.
> 
> Given these extremely generous assumptions, the odds of the simplest conceivable self-replicating molecular system arising would therefore be 10125 /10413 = 1/10288,
> or 1 chance in
> 1,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not      Exist?
> 
> 
> A look at the mathematical odds of abiogenesis, biopoesis, and our universe forming by chance. In light of these odds, is theism or naturalism is the best explanation for our existence?
> 
> 
> 
> www.benotconformed.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is why Darwin needed over 3 billions yrs old Earth.  Why do I have to explain to you that the chances of what Darwin has happening is slim and none?  Darwinism and ToE is made up of one improbability after another.  That's why your side has no hard evidence.  I don't expect you to know how long is a billion years, but it's unlikely that we would last that long.  Perhaps you'll be forced to watch a favorable looking warm pond on Mars or Venus after you die and your spirit gets to watch day after day to see if any microbial life appears.  There should be a lot of your other fellow atheists watching, too.  Well, it's been 4.54 billions years and still no microbial life.  You get to try again and again and again and again... ad infinitum.
Click to expand...


When cutting and pasting volumes of text, it’s in good form to attribute that material.

It’s also a courtesy to provide others with the source of the material because, as we know, the hyper-religious tend to be rather dishonest in the data and material they use.

A fundamentalist Christian website is hardly the source of reliable science data.


----------



## Grumblenuts

No worries. All will be forgiven in the end..


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.
> 
> Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously._
> 
> To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The improbability of abiogenesis happening is shown by the odds.  Someone has done a rough calculation.
> 
> Here is the calculation for the number of stars in the universe.
> 
> "Since Dr. Driver noted that light from the visible universe has not reached us yet, and that the universe could actually be much larger, let’s increase this estimate of stars in the universe to an amount greater than one million times what can currently be observed, to 10,000,000,000 sextillion stars, or 1031 stars.
> 
> Of course, as we mentioned above, Golay’s machine must have all of the parts it needs to make a copy of itself right beside it, without pre-existing life to provide those parts. Again we ask, how often does that happen in nature? Let’s assume it happens _vastly more often than it actually does_, and suppose …
> 
> 
> …_every_ star has _ten earth-sized planets _orbiting it.
> …these ten planets are composed of nothing but a prebiotic soup containing all the parts needed for all possible SCESR designs to form. (Note that we are presupposing an environment completely hospitable to the_ formation_ of a SCESR design. But this SCESR _must be of a design that could survive in the actual inhospitable_ wild to be a viable candidate that could have led to life.)
> We will round the total number of atoms contained in these ten planets up to 10 51, which is a little more than ten times the approximately 8.87•1049 atoms on earth.
> 
> Now let’s suppose that each of the atoms on these planets takes part in 1022 chemical events per second. Multiply that by 1021 seconds of cosmic history (an amount higher than 1000 times the current maximum estimated age of the universe, which is 6.3•1017 seconds), and you get 1031•1051 •1022•1021 = 10125 possible chemical events that could have been tried out on these planets since the universe began.
> 
> Given these extremely generous assumptions, the odds of the simplest conceivable self-replicating molecular system arising would therefore be 10125 /10413 = 1/10288,
> or 1 chance in
> 1,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not      Exist?
> 
> 
> A look at the mathematical odds of abiogenesis, biopoesis, and our universe forming by chance. In light of these odds, is theism or naturalism is the best explanation for our existence?
> 
> 
> 
> www.benotconformed.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is why Darwin needed over 3 billions yrs old Earth.  Why do I have to explain to you that the chances of what Darwin has happening is slim and none?  Darwinism and ToE is made up of one improbability after another.  That's why your side has no hard evidence.  I don't expect you to know how long is a billion years, but it's unlikely that we would last that long.  Perhaps you'll be forced to watch a favorable looking warm pond on Mars or Venus after you die and your spirit gets to watch day after day to see if any microbial life appears.  There should be a lot of your other fellow atheists watching, too.  Well, it's been 4.54 billions years and still no microbial life.  You get to try again and again and again and again... ad infinitum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When cutting and pasting volumes of text, it’s in good form to attribute that material.
> 
> It’s also a courtesy to provide others with the source of the material because, as we know, the hyper-religious tend to be rather dishonest in the data and material they use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis is mathematically  impossible
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis is mathematically  impossible https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1279-abiogenesis-is-mathematically-impossible Open questions in prebiotic chem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reasonandscience.catsboard.com
Click to expand...


I don't have the same search engine nor sources as you.  I did post my link where I got the calculations.

What's more important is:
I also want to add that I do not fear atheism at all.  Not like that of Catholicism.  The atheists are just here to follow along with the changes that the world powers that be bring.  To compare it to your ToE, those behind the real power are the mutation.  Of course, you have no idea because you're too busy with abiogenesis, ToE, and aliens and the like which isn't really that important.  All it means is that atheists and you have been misled and will continue to be misled.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.
> 
> Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously._
> 
> To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The improbability of abiogenesis happening is shown by the odds.  Someone has done a rough calculation.
> 
> Here is the calculation for the number of stars in the universe.
> 
> "Since Dr. Driver noted that light from the visible universe has not reached us yet, and that the universe could actually be much larger, let’s increase this estimate of stars in the universe to an amount greater than one million times what can currently be observed, to 10,000,000,000 sextillion stars, or 1031 stars.
> 
> Of course, as we mentioned above, Golay’s machine must have all of the parts it needs to make a copy of itself right beside it, without pre-existing life to provide those parts. Again we ask, how often does that happen in nature? Let’s assume it happens _vastly more often than it actually does_, and suppose …
> 
> 
> …_every_ star has _ten earth-sized planets _orbiting it.
> …these ten planets are composed of nothing but a prebiotic soup containing all the parts needed for all possible SCESR designs to form. (Note that we are presupposing an environment completely hospitable to the_ formation_ of a SCESR design. But this SCESR _must be of a design that could survive in the actual inhospitable_ wild to be a viable candidate that could have led to life.)
> We will round the total number of atoms contained in these ten planets up to 10 51, which is a little more than ten times the approximately 8.87•1049 atoms on earth.
> 
> Now let’s suppose that each of the atoms on these planets takes part in 1022 chemical events per second. Multiply that by 1021 seconds of cosmic history (an amount higher than 1000 times the current maximum estimated age of the universe, which is 6.3•1017 seconds), and you get 1031•1051 •1022•1021 = 10125 possible chemical events that could have been tried out on these planets since the universe began.
> 
> Given these extremely generous assumptions, the odds of the simplest conceivable self-replicating molecular system arising would therefore be 10125 /10413 = 1/10288,
> or 1 chance in
> 1,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not      Exist?
> 
> 
> A look at the mathematical odds of abiogenesis, biopoesis, and our universe forming by chance. In light of these odds, is theism or naturalism is the best explanation for our existence?
> 
> 
> 
> www.benotconformed.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is why Darwin needed over 3 billions yrs old Earth.  Why do I have to explain to you that the chances of what Darwin has happening is slim and none?  Darwinism and ToE is made up of one improbability after another.  That's why your side has no hard evidence.  I don't expect you to know how long is a billion years, but it's unlikely that we would last that long.  Perhaps you'll be forced to watch a favorable looking warm pond on Mars or Venus after you die and your spirit gets to watch day after day to see if any microbial life appears.  There should be a lot of your other fellow atheists watching, too.  Well, it's been 4.54 billions years and still no microbial life.  You get to try again and again and again and again... ad infinitum.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genes mutate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, but they do not add new information.  All it can do is work with the old information to mutate it.  Thus, no macroevolution in however number of billions of years.  I don't think our Earth will last that past this century as God has promised Jesus is coming soon.
> 
> Is the victory of Joe Biden the start of the Strong Delusion?  The Emerging Church is Catholicism.  As for your finance, why do you think your privacy is being stolen and then being used to track who you are, where you live, what you do, and what your interests are, and what you would like to do?
> 
> "_And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie._ (2 Th. 2:11 NKJV)
> 
> The primary focus of the deception is use of the controlled corporate media by the Prince of the Power of the Air. TV, radio, Internet, cell phones, PDAs, etc. keep people completely preoccupied and oblivious to the fate that awaits unbelievers. The goal is also to prevent people from hearing the Gospel of Jesus, and if they do hear it to forget about it and be entertained constantly. Most people in developed countries are now in a fog due to the impact of these media that lull them into a false sense of security and into a false sense of right and wrong. This delusion can be seen in three areas:
> 
> 
> *Spirituality*, the Emerging Church has become so pervasive that most churches in developed countries will tolerate abortion (murder), fornication (premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality) and almost any other violation of God's law. Just think: how many churches will excommunicate a person for involvement in these sins?
> *Finance*, many people are unaware that an international government / banking cartel partnership is stealing their wealth and using the funds to control the world. (See _How Some Rich Bankers Tricked the American People and Gained Control of the World's Economic, Political, Legal and Educational Systems__ and 19 Reasons Why The Federal Reserve Is At the Heart of Our Economic Problems, 20 Questions To Ask Anyone Foolish Enough To Believe The Economic Crisis Is Over._) The stealing is done through the printing of fiat money (money not based on gold or silver but on debt), through interest on money that does not exist (due to fractional reserve banking laws) and through the saw tooth effect of markets that draws people into bad investments over a long period of time and then makes them lose large portions of their life savings when markets drop. (See 200 Year Dow/Gold Ratio, and note how it became much more dramatic after the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. See also *Financial News Updates* on this website.)
> *Politics*, most people are also unaware that the international banking cartel and secret societies have taken over all national governments and are quietly re-organizing borders and power centers throughout the world. Evidence of this can be seen in the 911 deception. People who objectively study the facts realize it was a very successful psychological operation (psyop), since jet fuel is not hot enough to do the job, and even if a pancake effect had happened, it would have been much slower than near freefall speed. It had to be done by controlled demolitions. This was part of a plan to cause a second Pearl Harbor and justify the US military getting a foothold in the Middle East and justify the US government in taking away many constitutional rights of the US people.(For more information, see Pearl Harbor, 911 and the Next 'Catastrophic Catalyzing Event' and )"
> The following is a dramatization, but it isn't that far off of what is happening behind the scenes (Note:  There are good Catholic believers who believe in Jesus and what God did, so they will be saved.  We just don't know about those in power positions and those that follow blindly):
Click to expand...


Apparently, the link you supplied (https://www.benotconformed.org/odds-of-abiogenesis.htm), is a website belonging to a rather....how shall we say...fundie zealot. His credentials as a mathematician, biologist, statistician are non-existent.

https://www.amazon.com/Marshall-Rusty-Entrekin/e/B01A7ZDM48?ref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share

Rusty Entrekin has a B.A. in theology from Louisiana College, which has been furthered by a lifetime love of reading, popular science, apologetics, and contemplation.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> “What are the odds?” Is a stereotypical ID’iot creationist meme. It’s shown up repeatedly in this thread.
> 
> “The odds against abiogenesis are too great” is rather nonsensical as we know with absolute certainty that abiogenesis occurred. You will insist your various gods are responsible for all of existence but that’s rather silly. There are 33 million gods in Hinduism. That means your three gods have a 3 in 33 million chance of being the real gods, even less when stacked up against the totality of gods which existed before your gods.



Yet, your side has no hard evidence for abiogenesis nor aliens.



Grumblenuts said:


> No worries. All will be forgiven in the end..



You're wrong.  If the end happens in our lifetime, then there will plenty to worry about.  Until something changes such a martial law in the US, then we haven't reached the end and won't in our lifetimes.  I don't have a crystal ball to predict everything, but the powers to be are real.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.
> 
> Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously._
> 
> To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The improbability of abiogenesis happening is shown by the odds.  Someone has done a rough calculation.
> 
> Here is the calculation for the number of stars in the universe.
> 
> "Since Dr. Driver noted that light from the visible universe has not reached us yet, and that the universe could actually be much larger, let’s increase this estimate of stars in the universe to an amount greater than one million times what can currently be observed, to 10,000,000,000 sextillion stars, or 1031 stars.
> 
> Of course, as we mentioned above, Golay’s machine must have all of the parts it needs to make a copy of itself right beside it, without pre-existing life to provide those parts. Again we ask, how often does that happen in nature? Let’s assume it happens _vastly more often than it actually does_, and suppose …
> 
> 
> …_every_ star has _ten earth-sized planets _orbiting it.
> …these ten planets are composed of nothing but a prebiotic soup containing all the parts needed for all possible SCESR designs to form. (Note that we are presupposing an environment completely hospitable to the_ formation_ of a SCESR design. But this SCESR _must be of a design that could survive in the actual inhospitable_ wild to be a viable candidate that could have led to life.)
> We will round the total number of atoms contained in these ten planets up to 10 51, which is a little more than ten times the approximately 8.87•1049 atoms on earth.
> 
> Now let’s suppose that each of the atoms on these planets takes part in 1022 chemical events per second. Multiply that by 1021 seconds of cosmic history (an amount higher than 1000 times the current maximum estimated age of the universe, which is 6.3•1017 seconds), and you get 1031•1051 •1022•1021 = 10125 possible chemical events that could have been tried out on these planets since the universe began.
> 
> Given these extremely generous assumptions, the odds of the simplest conceivable self-replicating molecular system arising would therefore be 10125 /10413 = 1/10288,
> or 1 chance in
> 1,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not      Exist?
> 
> 
> A look at the mathematical odds of abiogenesis, biopoesis, and our universe forming by chance. In light of these odds, is theism or naturalism is the best explanation for our existence?
> 
> 
> 
> www.benotconformed.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is why Darwin needed over 3 billions yrs old Earth.  Why do I have to explain to you that the chances of what Darwin has happening is slim and none?  Darwinism and ToE is made up of one improbability after another.  That's why your side has no hard evidence.  I don't expect you to know how long is a billion years, but it's unlikely that we would last that long.  Perhaps you'll be forced to watch a favorable looking warm pond on Mars or Venus after you die and your spirit gets to watch day after day to see if any microbial life appears.  There should be a lot of your other fellow atheists watching, too.  Well, it's been 4.54 billions years and still no microbial life.  You get to try again and again and again and again... ad infinitum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When cutting and pasting volumes of text, it’s in good form to attribute that material.
> 
> It’s also a courtesy to provide others with the source of the material because, as we know, the hyper-religious tend to be rather dishonest in the data and material they use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis is mathematically  impossible
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis is mathematically  impossible https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1279-abiogenesis-is-mathematically-impossible Open questions in prebiotic chem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reasonandscience.catsboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have the same search engine nor sources as you.  I did post my link where I got the calculations.
> 
> What's more important is:
> I also want to add that I do not fear atheism at all.  Not like that of Catholicism.  The atheists are just here to follow along with the changes that the world powers that be bring.  To compare it to your ToE, those behind the real power are the mutation.  Of course, you have no idea because you're too busy with abiogenesis, ToE, and aliens and the like which isn't really that important.  All it means is that atheists and you have been misled and will continue to be misled.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I have work to do.



			snake handling churches - Google Search


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Apparently, the link you supplied (What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not      Exist?), is a website belonging to a rather....how shall we say...fundie zealot. His credentials as a mathematician, biologist, statistician are non-existent.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Marshall-Rusty-Entrekin/e/B01A7ZDM48?ref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
> 
> Rusty Entrekin has a B.A. in theology from Louisiana College, which has been furthered by a lifetime love of reading, popular science, apologetics, and contemplation.



So what is your point?  I think it shows the odds of abiogenesis are very, very, very long.  I mean I don't believe the billions of years that Darwin wanted for our galaxy and Earth.  Our Earth would not survive a billion years just sitting there waiting for abiogenesis.  Look at what is happening in our universe as other galaxies speed away from us and supernovas explode and entire galaxies collide.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> “What are the odds?” Is a stereotypical ID’iot creationist meme. It’s shown up repeatedly in this thread.
> 
> “The odds against abiogenesis are too great” is rather nonsensical as we know with absolute certainty that abiogenesis occurred. You will insist your various gods are responsible for all of existence but that’s rather silly. There are 33 million gods in Hinduism. That means your three gods have a 3 in 33 million chance of being the real gods, even less when stacked up against the totality of gods which existed before your gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, your side has no hard evidence for abiogenesis nor aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> No worries. All will be forgiven in the end..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong.  If the end happens in our lifetime, then there will plenty to worry about.  Until something changes such a martial law in the US, then we haven't reached the end and won't in our lifetimes.  I don't have a crystal ball to predict everything, but the powers to be are real.
Click to expand...

Life on the planet is indisputable evidence of abiogenesis.

You may see life on the planet as evidence of a 6,000 year old planet resulting from the special magic of supernatural gods, but you have no evidence of those gods and the planet is clearly far older than 6,000 years.

Reasonably and rationally excluding your gods and / or space aliens seeding the planet with biological life millions of years ago, we’re left with a compelling case for life that assumes natural, rational and understandable means.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the link you supplied (What Are the Odds Of Life and Our Universe Forming if God Does Not      Exist?), is a website belonging to a rather....how shall we say...fundie zealot. His credentials as a mathematician, biologist, statistician are non-existent.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Marshall-Rusty-Entrekin/e/B01A7ZDM48?ref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
> 
> Rusty Entrekin has a B.A. in theology from Louisiana College, which has been furthered by a lifetime love of reading, popular science, apologetics, and contemplation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what is your point?  I think it shows the odds of abiogenesis are very, very, very long.  I mean I don't believe the billions of years that Darwin wanted for our galaxy and Earth.  Our Earth would not survive a billion years just sitting there waiting for abiogenesis.  Look at what is happening in our universe as other galaxies speed away from us and supernovas explode and entire galaxies collide.
Click to expand...

As we know with certainty that abiogenesis actually occurred on the planet, we know the odds against it happening are not great at all.

Darwin said nothing about billions of years wanted for our galaxy and earth. If you’re going to argue against biological evolution and abiogenesis, you should first learn some basic concepts.



“_Our Earth would not survive a billion years just sitting there waiting for abiogenesis_”

I have no idea what the above means.




_“Look at what is happening in our universe as other galaxies speed away from us and supernovas explode and entire galaxies collide.”_

Kinda’ ruins the “fine tuning” argument.


----------



## Grumblenuts

"At the Royal Society in Great Britain 31 May 2019, Perry Marshall and investor Kevin Ham announced the $10 Million Evolution 2.0 Prize."

Think you got this shit in the bag? Like grubbing for money? Well do ya punk? Then watch this. You can even skip the first 13 boring minutes. Talking here is worthless. Get busy, bitches. Figure it out. You could get rich quick!


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Life on the planet is indisputable evidence of abiogenesis.
> 
> You may see life on the planet as evidence of a 6,000 year old planet resulting from the special magic of supernatural gods, but you have no evidence of those gods and the planet is clearly far older than 6,000 years.
> 
> Reasonably and rationally excluding your gods and / or space aliens seeding the planet with biological life millions of years ago, we’re left with a compelling case for life that assumes natural, rational and understandable means.



Okay, I think I understand now.  Please don't take it the wrong way, but I just can't get behind that scientifically or religiously.  Why?  I don't believe any of it is true.  If I was a biologist, then I would have to practice false science.  There may be parts of my work that I enjoy, but the basic foundation would be something I faked belief in.  Sure, I could write papers on it, but my heart wouldn't be in it.

Not magic, but by a supernatural God.  It's the only explanation of how things could turn out this way.  It clearly explained in the Bible and the Bible explains it in a way that we understand.  Then, as a creationist, we find the Bible states it as such.  Eventually, one begins to trust what it says in the Bible.

Anyway, I don't think the arguments between creationism vs evolution is that important any more.  We will continue to believe what we believe and nothing will change that.  Like I said, if I liked biology or some of atheist sciences, then I would have to fake the fundamentals.  I can see how someone could pay lip service to that and still enjoy their work.  However, it may not last.  I dunno.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> "At the Royal Society in Great Britain 31 May 2019, Perry Marshall and investor Kevin Ham announced the $10 Million Evolution 2.0 Prize."
> 
> Think you got this shit in the bag? Like grubbing for money? Well do ya punk? Then watch this. You can even skip the first 13 boring minutes. Talking here is worthless. Get busy, bitches. Figure it out. You could get rich quick!



Heh.  We talked about it already.  It starts with soil carbon.  That should be the key.  What else was added (by God) to that chemical process?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> As we know with certainty that abiogenesis actually occurred on the planet, we know the odds against it happening are not great at all.



Then a common scientist would be able to demonstrate it by explaining the chemical or other process.  That leaves God the creator or some process that took over 4 billion years.  If God, then we can find the ingredients to make up a human as those are natural, but not be able to have it come to life because ti took God's breath.  There is no explanation on 4 billion year old side unless you have it.  My faking it would be a chemical process where I gather the chemical needed first.  Let's assume it was for a single cell organism.  Then we just have to form an amoeba even though it may not be alive.  We may not be able to have it hold together since it isn't alive.



Hollie said:


> Darwin said nothing about billions of years wanted for our galaxy and earth. If you’re going to argue against biological evolution and abiogenesis, you should first learn some basic concepts.



Then why did he need long time?  The long time itself is countered by Fermi's Paradox.  My point is Earth wouldn't survive that long; It wouldn't survive a billion years because the chances of collision are too great.  You rarely explain what you think are the steps for abiogenesis nor biological evolution.  Why don't you do that and maybe I'll buy it.

As for God, life happened first in a garden.  Not a warm pond.  It all happened in two days.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> "At the Royal Society in Great Britain 31 May 2019, Perry Marshall and investor Kevin Ham announced the $10 Million Evolution 2.0 Prize."
> 
> Think you got this shit in the bag? Like grubbing for money? Well do ya punk? Then watch this. You can even skip the first 13 boring minutes. Talking here is worthless. Get busy, bitches. Figure it out. You could get rich quick!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh.  We talked about it already.  It starts with soil carbon.  That should be the key.  What else was added (by God) to that chemical process?
Click to expand...

Heh. Heh heh.


> *Search results for query: soil carbon*
> 
> [IMG alt="james bond"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/55/55937.jpg?1445126012[/IMG]
> *Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?*
> Heh. We talked about it already. It starts with _soil_ _carbon_.


Don't look now, lazy bones, but _psst, hint, hint, pants on fire.. _


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Not magic, but by a supernatural God.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Life on the planet is indisputable evidence of abiogenesis.



Abiogenesis isn't scientific.  It's not even a hypothesis, but wishful thinking of the atheists and their scientists because of their religious beliefs.  What is life based on abiogenesis?

I already explained Genesis.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> "At the Royal Society in Great Britain 31 May 2019, Perry Marshall and investor Kevin Ham announced the $10 Million Evolution 2.0 Prize."
> 
> Think you got this shit in the bag? Like grubbing for money? Well do ya punk? Then watch this. You can even skip the first 13 boring minutes. Talking here is worthless. Get busy, bitches. Figure it out. You could get rich quick!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh.  We talked about it already.  It starts with soil carbon.  That should be the key.  What else was added (by God) to that chemical process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heh. Heh heh.
> 
> 
> 
> *Search results for query: soil carbon*
> 
> [IMG alt="james bond"]https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/avatars/s/55/55937.jpg?1445126012[/IMG]
> *Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?*
> Heh. We talked about it already. It starts with _soil_ _carbon_.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't look now, lazy bones, but _psst, hint, hint, pants on fire.. _
Click to expand...


Your rear end is on fire and will be for a long time.  

Science backs up the Bible once again as carbon is one of the most important elements in life.  OTOH, you and Hollie couldn't answer what does abiogenesis base itself on?


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Your rear end is on fire and will be for a long time.


And why would that be? Sorry, I'm not the one banging off the walls, reflexively asserting nonsense here..


> Science backs up the Bible once again as carbon is one of the most important elements in life.


What? Was someone here arguing against the importance of carbon for some reason? You best gather your shit and get some rest, son.


----------



## Papageorgio

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't address that at all.    But chaos theories say that there are always chances of organized processes going wrong.   That can be said to be the root of evolution.   A cellular process goes wrong and cellular replication does not produce an accurate process.    Most of those have little effect.  Many have detrimental effects.   And some provide advantages to that life form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathematics, specifically statistics, drive your cockamamey "theory" off a high cliff.
> Let's talk about biochemistry going RIGHT, not wrong.  The random selection of a polypeptide only 150 amino acid residues (You DO know what those are, don't you?) in length being active and useful is 1 in 10 to the 170th power, according to biochemist Douglas Axe. This means for every 10 to the 170th polypeptides synthesized, only 1 of them will work.
> 
> There are only 10 to  the 80th fundamental particles in the universe.  So guess what?
> "Impossible."  No less an evolution proponent than militant bitter atheist, Richard Dawkins, gives his definition of "impossible" as one chance in 10 to the 40th power.  More about this if anyone tries to claim that only zero probability is "impossible."
> 
> Have you the slightest idea of the number and complexity of proteins in the human body?  A clue?
> Please put forth some numbers and I'll respond to whatever you try to guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, yes. The standard ID'iot creationist ''it's impossible'', nonsense.
> 
> I would be hesitant to cite creationer loons as reliable sources for science matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons
> 
> 
> It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> americanloons.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Axe is a zealous creationist associated with the Discovery Institute (he is the director at their “Biologic Institute"). Axe is a molecular biologist, and thus actually knows some science. He uses this knowledge to write mundane papers, at least two of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals - despite being uninteresting and mundane. Axe’s work is hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views. Of course, there is no actual support of intelligent design in these published papers, and Axe himself admits as much: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function
> 
> Insofar as Axe is a creationist with real scientific publications to his name, Axe’s work is one of the main contributions to a sheen of legitimacy for the ID movement. But given that his publications do not at all support or even touch on their views (but are willfully interpreted as such by other ID-proponents without Axe complaining) he is an important contributor to erecting the framework of dishonesty that is the ID movement.
> 
> Diagnosis: Dishonest wingnut who might pose a genuine if minor threat to science and rationality as a creationist with actually published (though unrelated) material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell more about the creationer nonsense and the odds against biological evolution.
> 
> The obvious flaw with the creation claim against biological evolution tgat “the odds are too great” is that the stereotypical creationer argument relies on math they don't understand and biology they find on religious extremist websites.
> 
> Firstly, the silly religioner “calculation of odds” assumes that the biological conditions formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.
> 
> Secondly, the religioner ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions _occurring simultaneously,_
> 
> As we see consistently, the religious extremists are unable to make any affirmative case for their gods and so are left to attack science with meaningless "what are the odds", memes that ignore some very basic elements of biology.
Click to expand...


Great article, you proved that two scientists can disagree and can argue their points. It doesn’t prove anything.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life on the planet is indisputable evidence of abiogenesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis isn't scientific.  It's not even a hypothesis, but wishful thinking of the atheists and their scientists because of their religious beliefs.  What is life based on abiogenesis?
> 
> I already explained Genesis.
Click to expand...

It's very simple, James. "Genesis" with a capital G is a Bible term - you know, something for those stuck dragging around all "of their religious belief" baggage. All the poor bastards who can never free themselves from their youthful indoctrination and who naturally recoil fearfully from any prospect of thinking freely or critically.

Meanwhile, from Wiktionary, here are the roots of the word

"abiogenesis" (a-bio-genesis)

"a" = "without"
"bio" = "life"
"genesis" = "origin", "source", "beginning"

A beginning of life from none. Wikipedia yields "informally the origin of life (OoL),[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds"

_OMG, look! There it is! "organic compounds"! Them damned Atheists are badmouthing carbon again, I just know it... Help!_


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> you and @Hollie couldn't answer what does abiogenesis base itself on?


Continuing...


> Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]
> 
> The study of abiogenesis aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life under conditions strikingly different from those on Earth today.[13] It primarily uses tools from biology, chemistry, and geophysics,[14] with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of all three:[15] more specifically, astrobiology, biochemistry, biophysics, geochemistry, molecular biology, oceanography and paleontology. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids (cell membranes), carbohydrates (sugars, cellulose), amino acids (protein metabolism), and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA). Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules.[16] Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. Researchers generally think that current life descends from an RNA world,[17] although other self-replicating molecules may have preceded RNA.


Ready to try it without the walker now or still too nervous?


----------



## Grumblenuts

What I sense missing from the above is focus upon larger electromagnetic field interactions, stemming from Van der Waals forces of course, but perhaps other field interactions that have been overlooked as potential contributors.  We're clearly considering a process employing sequential logic, as opposed to the combinational logic idiotically presumed necessary by the OP and ChemEngineer. Large molecules turning, twisting, folding, arranging themselves at some distance prior to combining..


----------



## JoeB131

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.



The big bang and evolution are two different theories...  

Try again.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> Abiogenesis isn't scientific. It's not even a hypothesis, but wishful thinking of the atheists and their scientists because of their religious beliefs. What is life based on abiogenesis?



It's more scientific than thinking a Magic Sky Fairy made the universe in six days and made a man out of clay.


----------



## Turtlesoup

ChemEngineer said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically *EVOLUTION* means that all organisms are looking for a trait that makes them better at survival.    Ergo, when one group of anything develops a trait like say thicker hair which keeps them warm (in cooler climates) or making them more attractive to the opposite sex they are more likely to survive and to mate passing this trait down to their offspring creating change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It's better that way."  *Science*, 1850's style.  NO biochemistry necessary. NO statistical analysis of polypeptide synthesis.
> 
> Now let us suppose that this "developer" of a "trait" is a homosexual, or otherwise does not breed, or that it is killed by a predator or competitor before passing on its *advantage*. Where does your tautology go then?
Click to expand...

Then the trait dies off as a dead line unless it is in other members who will survive and reproduce.  Obviously, changes in homosexual populations would be a no harm no foul in most instances as far as evolution is concerned.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Making a woman from a guy's rib was a bit more imaginative.. Still pretty desperate and gross sounding though, not to mention sexist.


----------



## Turtlesoup

ChemEngineer said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is done in TINY TINY TINY steps----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.
> Picking the next amino acid to be added to a new protein capable of your daring "selection" must be done from a base of 20 different amino acids of which humans are built.  One chance in 20 does not change in one month, or one year or 10,000 years.  It's always 1 in 20.  Now raise that to the 33,450th power for titin, in your muscles. That's just ONE protein of th 5,000 that make up your body.  "Tiny, tiny, tiny" numbers indeed.  Equal to 0.  No different from 0.  Impossible is the word.
> Atheist Dawkins himself has defined "impossible" as "one chance in 10 to the 40th power."  Again, what is 1/20 to the 33,450?  Is is smaller than 1 in 10 to the 40th ya think?
Click to expand...



Oh brother---I dumbed down the basics of evolution  to its simpliest goals of it is always attempting to improve an organisms in one tiny way and you try to over complicate things.

Evolution occurs much faster than you realize--we went from wolf to tiny yorkie in just  a few thousand years or so? It did not occur over night---it was one change at time generation after generation. 

Each generation is slightly different than its parents---successful and unsuccessful changes will be passed to the next generation especially when the breeding population is smaller much quicker than in a larger population where finding both parents to have the trait needed to be pass down more unlikely.     In times of stress, populations go down in size, creating fewer breeding partners increasing these odds drastically.  This smaller population survives when the rest of the population hadn't so any traits they have have will be passed down with higher probably that whatever the trait was that kept these fewer organisms alive will passed to the next generation.

CHANGE is always and I do mean always present and occurring in one generation to the next.   Subtle change that is tried out...........most of the time this change isn't used and thusly isn't locked into the gene pool because if you remember your basic of genetics--genes are pass down easier when both parents share the same gene either dominantly or recessively.   it isn't till people with the same gene which usually means an isolated or smaller breeding group start repeatedly interbreeding that these gene changes are locked in quicker. 

And sorry dear but your whole babbling about amino acids 1 in 20 chance thing is nonsense hence the imperfect copies of sequencing in our mRNA and I suspect radiation from the sun and other factors that affect our amino acids as well.


----------



## JoeB131

Grumblenuts said:


> Making a woman from a guy's rib was a bit more imaginative.. Still pretty desperate and gross sounding though, not to mention sexist.



The question is, what was he doing with that dick before Yahweh made a woman to stick it into?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Goats? Tree knots?


----------



## Weatherman2020

JoeB131 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang and evolution are two different theories...
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...

No shit Sherlock. Have a 5 year old explain the OP to you.


----------



## JoeB131

Weatherman2020 said:


> No shit Sherlock. Have a 5 year old explain the OP to you.



Actually, even a five year old would be confused by your statement. 

Five year olds realize dinosaurs were a thing.


----------



## Weatherman2020

JoeB131 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit Sherlock. Have a 5 year old explain the OP to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, even a five year old would be confused by your statement.
> 
> Five year olds realize dinosaurs were a thing.
Click to expand...

Even a 5 year old could fabricate a better strawman.


----------



## JoeB131

Weatherman2020 said:


> Even a 5 year old could fabricate a better strawman.



Well, uh, no.  

The problem you guys have is that if you really believe what the bible says about creation (as opposed to the creation myths of all the other religions, which are equally silly.) then how do you explain dinosaurs?


----------



## Weatherman2020

JoeB131 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even a 5 year old could fabricate a better strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, uh, no.
> 
> The problem you guys have is that if you really believe what the bible says about creation (as opposed to the creation myths of all the other religions, which are equally silly.) then how do you explain dinosaurs?
Click to expand...

Either answer the OP or get reported. 
But you can’t , so you go into childish personal attacks, cuz dats science.


----------



## JoeB131

Weatherman2020 said:


> Either answer the OP or get reported.
> But you can’t , so you go into childish personal attacks, cuz dats science.



I did answer it.

Big Bang and Evolution are two different theories...  

Neither of which you seem to understand, apparently.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As we know with certainty that abiogenesis actually occurred on the planet, we know the odds against it happening are not great at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then a common scientist would be able to demonstrate it by explaining the chemical or other process.  That leaves God the creator or some process that took over 4 billion years.  If God, then we can find the ingredients to make up a human as those are natural, but not be able to have it come to life because ti took God's breath.  There is no explanation on 4 billion year old side unless you have it.  My faking it would be a chemical process where I gather the chemical needed first.  Let's assume it was for a single cell organism.  Then we just have to form an amoeba even though it may not be alive.  We may not be able to have it hold together since it isn't alive.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin said nothing about billions of years wanted for our galaxy and earth. If you’re going to argue against biological evolution and abiogenesis, you should first learn some basic concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did he need long time?  The long time itself is countered by Fermi's Paradox.  My point is Earth wouldn't survive that long; It wouldn't survive a billion years because the chances of collision are too great.  You rarely explain what you think are the steps for abiogenesis nor biological evolution.  Why don't you do that and maybe I'll buy it.
> 
> As for God, life happened first in a garden.  Not a warm pond.  It all happened in two days.
Click to expand...

I understand that you want to defer to ''the gods did it' as a answer to every unanswered question but that is a hopeless existence. Nothing about existence points to your particular gods or anyone else's gods.  Human history is littered with gods which have been abandoned as science has found natural causes for events in nature. You realize that the gods of thunder and lightning are not actually real, right? 

 It does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions of existence-- in fact, it only adds an extra layer of mystery, and one that both materialists and theists alike agree precludes any answering (theists generally agree that their gods are "unknowable, incomprehensible", etc). Materialists don't see why one would add that extra impossibility to existence, and while presently the materialist is burdened with problems of "what was before existence and how do we prove we know what we know?" it is not impossible to conceive a method would be discovered to put those concerns to rest. The theist admits that his incomprehensible god guarantees no such method is available to mankind (other than the self-asserted supernatural one, but even then, the theistic explanation dead-ends at the Cul-de-sac of ''tge gods did it''.


----------



## norwegen

WinterBorn said:


> The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with evolution.


To me, the two seem intricately linked. If the universe were not expanding, evolution would not be occurring.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As we know with certainty that abiogenesis actually occurred on the planet, we know the odds against it happening are not great at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then a common scientist would be able to demonstrate it by explaining the chemical or other process.  That leaves God the creator or some process that took over 4 billion years.  If God, then we can find the ingredients to make up a human as those are natural, but not be able to have it come to life because ti took God's breath.  There is no explanation on 4 billion year old side unless you have it.  My faking it would be a chemical process where I gather the chemical needed first.  Let's assume it was for a single cell organism.  Then we just have to form an amoeba even though it may not be alive.  We may not be able to have it hold together since it isn't alive.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin said nothing about billions of years wanted for our galaxy and earth. If you’re going to argue against biological evolution and abiogenesis, you should first learn some basic concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did he need long time?  The long time itself is countered by Fermi's Paradox.  My point is Earth wouldn't survive that long; It wouldn't survive a billion years because the chances of collision are too great.  You rarely explain what you think are the steps for abiogenesis nor biological evolution.  Why don't you do that and maybe I'll buy it.
> 
> As for God, life happened first in a garden.  Not a warm pond.  It all happened in two days.
Click to expand...

Your insistence that your particular gods magically crested life in a garden (6,000 years ago), is simply partisan dogma. It is a material fact that the planet is several billion years old. That is an unresolvable dilemma for the ''god did it'ists''. You may choose to insist that the man-god Henry Morris is infallible, but such hero worship has a lot of negative consequences. Responding to your post would perhaps be more productive if you had given an actual argument against any of the evidence contained in the science literature. There's not much that can be said to "the gods did it and that's true because Henry Morris said so". The evidence for common descent is overwhwlming. The fact that you personally don't believe it doesn't really affect reality much, especially in light of the fact that your posts contain not a single substantive argument concerning any evidence at all 

Further, the ''life in a warm pond'' slogan is one common among the Henry Morris worshippers. I see that misrepresented slogan routinely from the science loathing. I've noted before that those revile science and argue against it should first make an attempt to understand what they're arguing against. At no point in his published works or correspondence, (as far as I am aware), did Darwin address the origins of the universe, or even the earth. Darwin's theories addressed only the origins of species, of adaptations, and the distribution of organisms around the world. 

For your edification, the ''warm pond'' slogan so often used by the ID'iot creationers is another fraud they use to denigrate science. The slogan was traced back to a letter Darwin wrote to his longstanding friend, Joseph Hooker, on 1 February 1871:



> It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c. present, that a proteine [_sic_] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. [quoted from Janet Browne's _The Power of Place_, New York, Knopf, 2002, 392f]



As you see, Darwin was simply speculating as to one possibility for the emergence of life.

Answers in Genesis, like all creationer cults, grasp at straws to make their views sound halfway rational. In this case, the straws make a strawman.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life on the planet is indisputable evidence of abiogenesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis isn't scientific.  It's not even a hypothesis, but wishful thinking of the atheists and their scientists because of their religious beliefs.  What is life based on abiogenesis?
> 
> I already explained Genesis.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you understand your own comment that ''Abiogenesis isn't scientific.  It's not even a hypothesis''. 

Abiogenesis certainly is a hypothesis. Here's a definition of hypothesis: What Is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis.

I don't believe you understand the terms you use such as, ''Abiogenesis isn't scientific.'' What does that mean?  The study of abiogenesis uses the methods of science to investigate how biological life first formed. 

You never explained Genesis. Your reiteration of Biblical tales and fables is not an explanation of anything. It us simply a reiteration of partisan religious dogma.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> It's very simple, James. "Genesis" with a capital G is a Bible term - you know, something for those stuck dragging around all "of their religious belief" baggage. All the poor bastards who can never free themselves from their youthful indoctrination and who naturally recoil fearfully from any prospect of thinking freely or critically.



Bible term means absolute truth.  It explains why science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book.

It's just your feeble opinion that those who use the Bible, such as I, are stuck 'dragging around all "of their religious belief" baggage.''  Isn't your lying atheist group the "poor bastards who can never free themselves from their youthful indoctrination and who naturally recoil fearfully from any prospect of thinking freely or critically."  My arguments are not weak asf as yours.



Grumblenuts said:


> And why would that be? Sorry, I'm not the one banging off the walls, reflexively asserting nonsense here..



You'll just have to wait to find out.



Grumblenuts said:


> What? Was someone here arguing against the importance of carbon for some reason? You best gather your shit and get some rest, son.



I'm the only one who brought it up.  Your abiogenesis has no carbon explanation, liar.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Ready to try it without the walker now or still too nervous?



Haha, so you admit to using a walker.  It's not I who has the most to lose like their rear end.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life on the planet is indisputable evidence of abiogenesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis isn't scientific.  It's not even a hypothesis, but wishful thinking of the atheists and their scientists because of their religious beliefs.  What is life based on abiogenesis?
> 
> I already explained Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's very simple, James. "Genesis" with a capital G is a Bible term - you know, something for those stuck dragging around all "of their religious belief" baggage. All the poor bastards who can never free themselves from their youthful indoctrination and who naturally recoil fearfully from any prospect of thinking freely or critically.
> 
> Meanwhile, from Wiktionary, here are the roots of the word
> 
> "abiogenesis" (a-bio-genesis)
> 
> "a" = "without"
> "bio" = "life"
> "genesis" = "origin", "source", "beginning"
> 
> A beginning of life from none. Wikipedia yields "informally the origin of life (OoL),[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds"
> 
> _OMG, look! There it is! "organic compounds"! Them damned Atheists are badmouthing carbon again, I just know it... Help!_
Click to expand...


It's a weak and lame explanation as you are with your walker.

You nor Hollie could explain while I did.  Another stinking feces lie from your feces brain.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis isn't scientific. It's not even a hypothesis, but wishful thinking of the atheists and their scientists because of their religious beliefs. What is life based on abiogenesis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's more scientific than thinking a Magic Sky Fairy made the universe in six days and made a man out of clay.
Click to expand...


No, abiogenesis is just make believe hypotheses for the atheists.  There is no explanation of how it happens and you popping do not explain it like the others already being crucified for not explaining it like Grumblenuts and Hollie.

If it _was_ scientific, then someone would have pointed it out by now.  We've gone around 9 pages with no scientific hypotesis, i.e. explanation. for it.


----------



## james bond

Turtlesoup said:


> Evolution occurs much faster than you realize--we went from wolf to tiny yorkie in just a few thousand years or so? It did not occur over night---it was one change at time generation after generation.



This is the kind of comment that make people distrust evolution.  It needed more than 3 billion years according to Darwin and he wasn't given that until 1956.  You need to read more books on evolution.  We can put you down a notch from the other evos here.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> Big Bang and Evolution are two different theories...
> 
> Neither of which you seem to understand, apparently.



Yes, Big Bang was proposed by Father Georges Lemaitre.  The explanation for it is God.  The evolutionary thinkers do not have any one explanation of how time and space could start before it.  Evolution is ToE attributed to Charles Darwin and uniformitarianism by Charles Lyell.  Before that it was atheist farmer James Hutton who influenced Lyell.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As we know with certainty that abiogenesis actually occurred on the planet, we know the odds against it happening are not great at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then a common scientist would be able to demonstrate it by explaining the chemical or other process.  That leaves God the creator or some process that took over 4 billion years.  If God, then we can find the ingredients to make up a human as those are natural, but not be able to have it come to life because ti took God's breath.  There is no explanation on 4 billion year old side unless you have it.  My faking it would be a chemical process where I gather the chemical needed first.  Let's assume it was for a single cell organism.  Then we just have to form an amoeba even though it may not be alive.  We may not be able to have it hold together since it isn't alive.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin said nothing about billions of years wanted for our galaxy and earth. If you’re going to argue against biological evolution and abiogenesis, you should first learn some basic concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did he need long time?  The long time itself is countered by Fermi's Paradox.  My point is Earth wouldn't survive that long; It wouldn't survive a billion years because the chances of collision are too great.  You rarely explain what you think are the steps for abiogenesis nor biological evolution.  Why don't you do that and maybe I'll buy it.
> 
> As for God, life happened first in a garden.  Not a warm pond.  It all happened in two days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that you want to defer to ''the gods did it' as a answer to every unanswered question but that is a hopeless existence. Nothing about existence points to your particular gods or anyone else's gods.  Human history is littered with gods which have been abandoned as science has found natural causes for events in nature. You realize that the gods of thunder and lightning are not actually real, right?
> 
> It does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions of existence-- in fact, it only adds an extra layer of mystery, and one that both materialists and theists alike agree precludes any answering (theists generally agree that their gods are "unknowable, incomprehensible", etc). Materialists don't see why one would add that extra impossibility to existence, and while presently the materialist is burdened with problems of "what was before existence and how do we prove we know what we know?" it is not impossible to conceive a method would be discovered to put those concerns to rest. The theist admits that his incomprehensible god guarantees no such method is available to mankind (other than the self-asserted supernatural one, but even then, the theistic explanation dead-ends at the Cul-de-sac of ''tge gods did it''.
Click to expand...


All this time and you still claim "gods" for me.  It's a waste of time talking with you.  There is only one true God and that is the Trinity of Christianity.  Anyway, we are done.  I rather talk with others than keep repeating myself ad infinitum.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> you popping do not explain it like the others already being crucified for not explaining it like @Grumblenuts and @Hollie.


Um, so terribly sorry there fella..


----------



## ChemEngineer

Weatherman2020 said:


> Joeb:
> 
> Well, uh, no.
> 
> The problem you guys have is that if you really believe what the bible (sic) says about creation (as opposed to the creation myths of all the other religions, which are equally silly.) then how do you explain dinosaurs?



Nested in Weatherman's response was this silliness from Joeb pasted above.

Joeb is a Bible thumper, bringing up the Holy Bible in response to my citing the insuperable statistics of original polypeptide synthesis.    Richard Dawkins and other evolutionary biologists' nonsense of "A>B>C>D" doesn't cut it.  It's nonsense, not science.  No biochemistry book or chemical reaction on earth ever says anything so meaningless and inane as "A>B>C>D" but Darwinists pretend this is "science" and parrot it with straight faces.

Now if you, Joeb, can explain the mechanism for the original synthesis of the very first human hemoglobin molecule, please proceed. We will all be amazed at your scientific prowess.  I will then ask you to provide plausible scientific mechanisms for Cytochrome C, carboxypeptidase, rhodopsin and finally titin, 33,450 amino acid residues in length.  You will find none of these terms in the "bible" (sic), as you so ignorantly and disrespectfully cite it.

P.S.  We cannot synthesize human hemoglobin today in a laboratory despite having the formula for it! The best we can do is pull blood out of one human to transfuse into another.

"Nature laughs at science until we can make one blade of grass."  - Thomas Edison


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As we know with certainty that abiogenesis actually occurred on the planet, we know the odds against it happening are not great at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then a common scientist would be able to demonstrate it by explaining the chemical or other process.  That leaves God the creator or some process that took over 4 billion years.  If God, then we can find the ingredients to make up a human as those are natural, but not be able to have it come to life because ti took God's breath.  There is no explanation on 4 billion year old side unless you have it.  My faking it would be a chemical process where I gather the chemical needed first.  Let's assume it was for a single cell organism.  Then we just have to form an amoeba even though it may not be alive.  We may not be able to have it hold together since it isn't alive.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin said nothing about billions of years wanted for our galaxy and earth. If you’re going to argue against biological evolution and abiogenesis, you should first learn some basic concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did he need long time?  The long time itself is countered by Fermi's Paradox.  My point is Earth wouldn't survive that long; It wouldn't survive a billion years because the chances of collision are too great.  You rarely explain what you think are the steps for abiogenesis nor biological evolution.  Why don't you do that and maybe I'll buy it.
> 
> As for God, life happened first in a garden.  Not a warm pond.  It all happened in two days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that you want to defer to ''the gods did it' as a answer to every unanswered question but that is a hopeless existence. Nothing about existence points to your particular gods or anyone else's gods.  Human history is littered with gods which have been abandoned as science has found natural causes for events in nature. You realize that the gods of thunder and lightning are not actually real, right?
> 
> It does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions of existence-- in fact, it only adds an extra layer of mystery, and one that both materialists and theists alike agree precludes any answering (theists generally agree that their gods are "unknowable, incomprehensible", etc). Materialists don't see why one would add that extra impossibility to existence, and while presently the materialist is burdened with problems of "what was before existence and how do we prove we know what we know?" it is not impossible to conceive a method would be discovered to put those concerns to rest. The theist admits that his incomprehensible god guarantees no such method is available to mankind (other than the self-asserted supernatural one, but even then, the theistic explanation dead-ends at the Cul-de-sac of ''tge gods did it''.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All this time and you still claim "gods" for me.  It's a waste of time talking with you.  There is only one true God and that is the Trinity of Christianity.  Anyway, we are done.  I rather talk with others than keep repeating myself ad infinitum.
Click to expand...

Those in different cultures claim their gods are the true gods. I see nothing that gives your gods primacy over any other gods. I don’t necessarily claim gods for you, I acknowledge your polytheism as noted in a trinity. 

I agree that your repeating yourself is not forming an argument but just repetition of dogma.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> you popping do not explain it like the others already being crucified for not explaining it like @Grumblenuts and @Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, so terribly sorry there fella..
Click to expand...


That's not the point, but you will be and that's when your rear end becomes a target for the flames.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Please! Oh, sweet Jesus! Dear God! Pretty, pretty please! Smite me! Burn me to a crisp in your eternal flames! ASAP! ..

.. and .. crickets .. as usual .. 

Sorry, James. Your attempts to intimidate just make me laugh


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Sorry, James. Your attempts to intimidate just make me laugh



No intimidation.  Just what the Bible states.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ChemEngineer said:


> P.S. We cannot synthesize human hemoglobin today in a laboratory despite having the formula for it! The best we can do is pull blood out of one human to transfuse into another.


Yeah, we can't synthesize a modern automobile under a laboratory fume hood either. But we find ways manufacture both hemoglobin and cars aplenty through other means. Nature provides. Think about it.  Or continue babbling utter nonsense. Whatever floats your dinghy.


----------



## Likkmee

james bond said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big Bang and Evolution are two different theories...
> 
> Neither of which you seem to understand, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Big Bang was proposed by Father Georges Lemaitre.  The explanation for it is God.  The evolutionary thinkers do not have any one explanation of how time and space could start before it.  Evolution is ToE attributed to Charles Darwin and uniformitarianism by Charles Lyell.  Before that it was atheist farmer James Hutton who influenced Lyell.
Click to expand...

Controlled demolition. You idiots cant even drop a building. Altho 911 fooled the masses. Getting closer


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb:
> 
> Well, uh, no.
> 
> The problem you guys have is that if you really believe what the bible (sic) says about creation (as opposed to the creation myths of all the other religions, which are equally silly.) then how do you explain dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nested in Weatherman's response was this silliness from Joeb pasted above.
> 
> Joeb is a Bible thumper, bringing up the Holy Bible in response to my citing the insuperable statistics of original polypeptide synthesis.    Richard Dawkins and other evolutionary biologists' nonsense of "A>B>C>D" doesn't cut it.  It's nonsense, not science.  No biochemistry book or chemical reaction on earth ever says anything so meaningless and inane as "A>B>C>D" but Darwinists pretend this is "science" and parrot it with straight faces.
> 
> Now if you, Joeb, can explain the mechanism for the original synthesis of the very first human hemoglobin molecule, please proceed. We will all be amazed at your scientific prowess.  I will then ask you to provide plausible scientific mechanisms for Cytochrome C, carboxypeptidase, rhodopsin and finally titin, 33,450 amino acid residues in length.  You will find none of these terms in the "bible" (sic), as you so ignorantly and disrespectfully cite it.
> 
> P.S.  We cannot synthesize human hemoglobin today in a laboratory despite having the formula for it! The best we can do is pull blood out of one human to transfuse into another.
> 
> "Nature laughs at science until we can make one blade of grass."  - Thomas Edison
Click to expand...

It’s comical to watch the hyper-religious copy and paste “science sounding” terms from ID’iot creationer websites.

Rather, I’m always struck by how shallow and naive arguments by the hyper-religionists really are. ID’iot creationism is a dead-end because the creationers claim that the reason things are as they are is because their Gods want it that way.

I’m sure the ID’iot creationers can find something in their Bibles to tell us why their hierarchy of gods made it impossible to synthesize human hemoglobin. I suppose that’s just the way the gods want it to be. It’s a sin to ask. Don’t question the gods. It’s odd that where Omni-everything gods might be expected to perform their magic in terms of optimal design, and where mere mortals might demand their gods to be perfectionistic, anal-retentive supernatural designers who must get everything just right, these gods seem to be incompetent designers, designing faulty and over complicated designs. 

How strange that for all the claims made by ID’creationers for their gods, we have no evidence for these gods.


----------



## james bond

And abiogenesis fails.  No mention of it in science.

"In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on. Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.

Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex. Following the E. coli model, a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum:..."

Read what is needed here for the E. coli model -- https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution11.htm


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big Bang and Evolution are two different theories...
> 
> Neither of which you seem to understand, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Big Bang was proposed by Father Georges Lemaitre.  The explanation for it is God.  The evolutionary thinkers do not have any one explanation of how time and space could start before it.  Evolution is ToE attributed to Charles Darwin and uniformitarianism by Charles Lyell.  Before that it was atheist farmer James Hutton who influenced Lyell.
Click to expand...

Since Darwin, Lyell and Hutton, science has brought us astounding discoveries in medicine, science, the planet and the cosmos.

Religion has brought us what?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big Bang and Evolution are two different theories...
> 
> Neither of which you seem to understand, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Big Bang was proposed by Father Georges Lemaitre.  The explanation for it is God.  The evolutionary thinkers do not have any one explanation of how time and space could start before it.  Evolution is ToE attributed to Charles Darwin and uniformitarianism by Charles Lyell.  Before that it was atheist farmer James Hutton who influenced Lyell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since Darwin, Lyell and Hutton, science has brought us astounding discoveries in medicine, science, the planet and the cosmos.
> 
> Religion has brought us what?
Click to expand...


You are too infatuated with me and my posts.

ETA:  I've already answered your "Religion has brought us what?" many times.  You should find someone else to argue with.  I'm more focused on learning the other religions of Christianity and how they are against Catholicism.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> And abiogenesis fails.  No mention of it in science.
> 
> "In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on. Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.
> 
> Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex. Following the E. coli model, a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum:..."
> 
> Read what is needed here for the E. coli model -- How Evolution Works



Ahhh. So you’re reduced to “it’s complicated. Therefore the gods did it”

By the way, the planet is thought to be more like 4.5 billion years old with organic life emerging somewhere around 4.3 billion years ago shortly after oceans formed.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big Bang and Evolution are two different theories...
> 
> Neither of which you seem to understand, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Big Bang was proposed by Father Georges Lemaitre.  The explanation for it is God.  The evolutionary thinkers do not have any one explanation of how time and space could start before it.  Evolution is ToE attributed to Charles Darwin and uniformitarianism by Charles Lyell.  Before that it was atheist farmer James Hutton who influenced Lyell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since Darwin, Lyell and Hutton, science has brought us astounding discoveries in medicine, science, the planet and the cosmos.
> 
> Religion has brought us what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are too infatuated with me and my posts.
> 
> ETA:  I've already answered your "Religion has brought us what?" many times.  You should find someone else to argue with.  I'm more focused on learning the other religions of Christianity and how they are against Catholicism.
Click to expand...

You need to be corrected. You are too comfortable with your misstatements and misinformation


----------



## toobfreak

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.




You mean I CAN'T drop a bomb on an empty field of dirt and result in a big gleaming glass and steel city?


Shit.


----------



## alang1216

ChemEngineer said:


> the mechanism for the original synthesis of the very first human hemoglobin molecule


*Abstract*
Insights into the evolution of hemoglobins and their genes are an abundant source of ideas regarding hemoglobin function and regulation of globin gene expression. This article presents the multiple genes and gene families encoding human globins, summarizes major events in the evolution of the hemoglobin gene clusters, and discusses how these studies provide insights into regulation of globin genes. Although the genes in and around the α-like globin gene complex are relatively stable, the β-like globin gene clusters are more dynamic, showing evidence of transposition to a new locus and frequent lineage-specific expansions and deletions. The _cis_-regulatory modules controlling levels and timing of gene expression are a mix of conserved and lineage-specific DNA, perhaps reflecting evolutionary constraint on core regulatory functions shared broadly in mammals and adaptive fine-tuning in different orders of mammals.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> And abiogenesis fails.  No mention of it in science.
> 
> "In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on. Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.
> 
> Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex. Following the E. coli model, a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum:..."
> 
> Read what is needed here for the E. coli model -- How Evolution Works


Cells took billions of years to evolve.  The first life was infinitely simpler.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Hollie said:


> I’m sure the ID’iot creationers can find something in their Bibles to tell us why their hierarchy of gods made it impossible to synthesize human hemoglobin. I suppose that’s just the way the gods want it to be. It’s a sin to ask. Don’t question the gods. It’s odd that where Omni-everything gods might be expected to perform their magic in terms of optimal design, and where mere mortals might demand their gods to be perfectionistic, anal-retentive supernatural designers who must get everything just right, these gods seem to be incompetent designers, designing faulty and over complicated designs.
> 
> How strange that for all the claims made by ID’creationers for their gods, we have no evidence for these gods.


True, but back in '91 we actually managed to get some human hemoglobin from pigs. What's happened to that tech since seems a well kept secret. But, yeah. Regardless, who the fuck cares? What does producing hemoglobin have to do with the price of tea in China? Wacko city!

_Gee, we can't make spaceships yet to slingshot us around the universe at will. Damn, god musta done it!_


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You need to be corrected. You are too comfortable with your misstatements and misinformation



I am comfortable with the truth.  It's you who are comfortable with lies.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> And abiogenesis fails.  No mention of it in science.
> 
> "In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on. Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.
> 
> Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex. Following the E. coli model, a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum:..."
> 
> Read what is needed here for the E. coli model -- How Evolution Works
> 
> 
> 
> Cells took billions of years to evolve.  The first life was infinitely simpler.
Click to expand...


We haven't lived billions of years.  Earth and the universe haven't been around that long.  Thus, abiogenesis and ToE are wrong.  The ToE side rejects radiometric dates that do not fit their ToE.  Thus, creation science rejects radiometric dates that do not fit their theory.

ETA:  How can one falsify ToE?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to be corrected. You are too comfortable with your misstatements and misinformation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am comfortable with the truth.  It's you who are comfortable with lies.
Click to expand...

Such melodrama.


----------



## james bond

Here is the argument for abiogenesis from the website I use for evolution -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_02.

That said, it didn't happen that way.  The evidence is no other life in our solar system and likely the universe.  The fine tuning facts were discovered by the atheist scientists.  Evolution tries to explain that away by saying okay, we are fine tuned and admit life is rare.  If life is so rare as to Earth being the only planet to have it, then it favors creationism.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Here is the argument for abiogenesis from the website I use for evolution -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_02.
> 
> That said, it didn't happen that way.  The evidence is no other life in our solar system and likely the universe.  The fine tuning facts were discovered by the atheist scientists.  Evolution tries to explain that away by saying okay, we are fine tuned and admit life is rare.  If life is so rare as to Earth being the only planet to have it, then it favors creationism.


You refuted the silly ID'iot creationer ''fine tuning'' meme in your earlier post.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the argument for abiogenesis from the website I use for evolution -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_02.
> 
> That said, it didn't happen that way.  The evidence is no other life in our solar system and likely the universe.  The fine tuning facts were discovered by the atheist scientists.  Evolution tries to explain that away by saying okay, we are fine tuned and admit life is rare.  If life is so rare as to Earth being the only planet to have it, then it favors creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> You refuted the silly ID'iot creationer ''fine tuning'' meme in your earlier post.
Click to expand...

Hollie we are still waiting to hear about the species that was observed being speciated


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Here is the argument for abiogenesis from the website I use for evolution -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_02.
> 
> That said, it didn't happen that way.  The evidence is no other life in our solar system and likely the universe.  The fine tuning facts were discovered by the atheist scientists.  Evolution tries to explain that away by saying okay, we are fine tuned and admit life is rare.  If life is so rare as to Earth being the only planet to have it, then it favors creationism.


Why cite a source and then immediately reject that source?

Evolution does not say ''we are fine tuned''. Do your gods approve of such dishonesty?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> And abiogenesis fails.  No mention of it in science.
> 
> "In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on. Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.
> 
> Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex. Following the E. coli model, a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum:..."
> 
> Read what is needed here for the E. coli model -- How Evolution Works
> 
> 
> 
> Cells took billions of years to evolve.  The first life was infinitely simpler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We haven't lived billions of years.  Earth and the universe haven't been around that long.  Thus, abiogenesis and ToE are wrong.  The ToE side rejects radiometric dates that do not fit their ToE.  Thus, creation science rejects radiometric dates that do not fit their theory.
> 
> ETA:  How can one falsify ToE?
Click to expand...

What dates have been rejected by evolutionists?

How can one falsify ToE?  Easy, find a fossil that doesn't fit into the ToE.  Every one of the trillions found so far fit just fine.  Maybe find a fossil with wheels?


----------



## Grumblenuts

*FOSSIL*
2010-11-16by Chris



FOSSIL

I think it's a starfish, but more horizontally mobile than most. Linearly at least.


----------



## Grumblenuts

About half of Americans--46 percent, in the latest Gallup Poll--believe human beings weren't created by evolution.

Over at the Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan says this is a grave problem.* "I simply do not know how you construct a civil discourse indispensable to a functioning democracy with this vast a gulf between citizens in their basic understanding of the world."*


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> No, abiogenesis is just make believe hypotheses for the atheists. There is no explanation of how it happens and you popping do not explain it like the others already being crucified for not explaining it like @Grumblenuts and @Hollie.
> 
> If it _was_ scientific, then someone would have pointed it out by now. We've gone around 9 pages with no scientific hypotesis, i.e. explanation. for it.



Actually, the Miller-Uray Experiment demonstrated how it would be possible for chemicals to combine to create organic compounds.  









						Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Grumblenuts

Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment
					

Their results could change the way we imagine life arose on early Earth




					www.scientificamerican.com


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the argument for abiogenesis from the website I use for evolution -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_02.
> 
> That said, it didn't happen that way.  The evidence is no other life in our solar system and likely the universe.  The fine tuning facts were discovered by the atheist scientists.  Evolution tries to explain that away by saying okay, we are fine tuned and admit life is rare.  If life is so rare as to Earth being the only planet to have it, then it favors creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> Why cite a source and then immediately reject that source?
> 
> Evolution does not say ''we are fine tuned''. Do your gods approve of such dishonesty?
Click to expand...


Because the source does not really discuss fine tuning as the reason for no abiogenesis or alien life, not even a microbe.  Instead, it just states Earth is fine tuned.  You should've been able to deduce that life is rare and that we are it.  To their credit, they do admit life is rare.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> the mechanism for the original synthesis of the very first human hemoglobin molecule
> 
> 
> 
> *Abstract*
> Insights into the evolution of hemoglobins and their genes are an abundant source of ideas regarding hemoglobin function and regulation of globin gene expression. This article presents the multiple genes and gene families encoding human globins, summarizes major events in the evolution of the hemoglobin gene clusters, and discusses how these studies provide insights into regulation of globin genes. Although the genes in and around the α-like globin gene complex are relatively stable, the β-like globin gene clusters are more dynamic, showing evidence of transposition to a new locus and frequent lineage-specific expansions and deletions. The _cis_-regulatory modules controlling levels and timing of gene expression are a mix of conserved and lineage-specific DNA, perhaps reflecting evolutionary constraint on core regulatory functions shared broadly in mammals and adaptive fine-tuning in different orders of mammals.
Click to expand...


What a cut and past job.  Looks like card stacking.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, abiogenesis is just make believe hypotheses for the atheists. There is no explanation of how it happens and you popping do not explain it like the others already being crucified for not explaining it like @Grumblenuts and @Hollie.
> 
> If it _was_ scientific, then someone would have pointed it out by now. We've gone around 9 pages with no scientific hypotesis, i.e. explanation. for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Miller-Uray Experiment demonstrated how it would be possible for chemicals to combine to create organic compounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...


It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases.  You can't just have any chemicals.  It has to convert amino acids to protein.  Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the argument for abiogenesis from the website I use for evolution -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_02.
> 
> That said, it didn't happen that way.  The evidence is no other life in our solar system and likely the universe.  The fine tuning facts were discovered by the atheist scientists.  Evolution tries to explain that away by saying okay, we are fine tuned and admit life is rare.  If life is so rare as to Earth being the only planet to have it, then it favors creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> Why cite a source and then immediately reject that source?
> 
> Evolution does not say ''we are fine tuned''. Do your gods approve of such dishonesty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the source does not really discuss fine tuning as the reason for no abiogenesis or alien life, not even a microbe.  Instead, it just states Earth is fine tuned.  You should've been able to deduce that life is rare and that we are it.  To their credit, they do admit life is rare.
Click to expand...

"it just states Earth is fine tuned."

LOL. Yeah, the ultimate "source" (berkeley.edu) does mention both "fine" and "tuning". Simply Googling "earth is fine tuned berkeley" yields:



			https://philosophy.berkeley.edu/courses/detail/1118
		


That's right, fucking philosophy. If you ever really want to go nuts, just ask a philosophy teacher to explain anything of practical use.  This has apparently happened to poor James here. R.I.P.

"does this mean that science is ultimately based on faith?"  "no prior knowledge of philosophy or science is required." Boy, you can say that again!


----------



## Grumblenuts

> Is abiogenesis mostly considered fact by scientists, or is it merely a belief held by atheists due to lack of solid theories concerning the origin of life?


Conclusion:


> “But Krister”, I hear you say, “it really sounds as if scientists assume that abiogenesis happened. Isn’t that unscientific?”
> 
> Well, what scientists don’t assume is that magic or gods were involved. That would be unscientific, and also unfalsifiable and untestable due to the alleged nature of the supernatural (i.e. beyond the natural world). Science does assume that there is a natural process behind everything. And that includes the origin of life.
> 
> What abiogenesis is about is trying to pry out how it could and can happen naturally from the clues that are left.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases. You can't just have any chemicals. It has to convert amino acids to protein. Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.



Actually, it worked just fine...  that amino acids can be created under the right chemical conditions.  

But no problem, you Bible thumpers have your own theory.


----------



## Grumblenuts

"You can't just have any chemicals. It has to convert amino acids to protein."


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the argument for abiogenesis from the website I use for evolution -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_02.
> 
> That said, it didn't happen that way.  The evidence is no other life in our solar system and likely the universe.  The fine tuning facts were discovered by the atheist scientists.  Evolution tries to explain that away by saying okay, we are fine tuned and admit life is rare.  If life is so rare as to Earth being the only planet to have it, then it favors creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> Why cite a source and then immediately reject that source?
> 
> Evolution does not say ''we are fine tuned''. Do your gods approve of such dishonesty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the source does not really discuss fine tuning as the reason for no abiogenesis or alien life, not even a microbe.  Instead, it just states Earth is fine tuned.  You should've been able to deduce that life is rare and that we are it.  To their credit, they do admit life is rare.
Click to expand...

Your source does not say the earth is “fine tuned”.


----------



## Grumblenuts

_It puts the fine tuning in the Earth basket!_


----------



## Grumblenuts

I know. I'm continuing to kid about it..
_{The Silencing of the Lambs}_


----------



## LuckyDuck

Veeeerrrrrrrryyyyy.......slowly,
Mainstream science has established that "evolution" is a FACT (no longer a theory).
What they don't fully understand is its mechanism and thus, how the mechanism works, is still considered a "theory."
What is silly, is believing that a deity whipped up a ball of mud and made a man from it, then ripped out a rib from him and made a woman.  
Sillier still is a serpent talking to a woman in a perfect garden where all things, from the lowest insect to the T-Rex got along just fine.
Time to put away the fairy-tale book and join the 21st century.  It won't hurt you a bit.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> the mechanism for the original synthesis of the very first human hemoglobin molecule
> 
> 
> 
> *Abstract*
> Insights into the evolution of hemoglobins and their genes are an abundant source of ideas regarding hemoglobin function and regulation of globin gene expression. This article presents the multiple genes and gene families encoding human globins, summarizes major events in the evolution of the hemoglobin gene clusters, and discusses how these studies provide insights into regulation of globin genes. Although the genes in and around the α-like globin gene complex are relatively stable, the β-like globin gene clusters are more dynamic, showing evidence of transposition to a new locus and frequent lineage-specific expansions and deletions. The _cis_-regulatory modules controlling levels and timing of gene expression are a mix of conserved and lineage-specific DNA, perhaps reflecting evolutionary constraint on core regulatory functions shared broadly in mammals and adaptive fine-tuning in different orders of mammals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a cut and past job.  Looks like card stacking.
Click to expand...

No idea why you think an answer posted in reaction to a question is biased.  Please explain if you can.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases. You can't just have any chemicals. It has to convert amino acids to protein. Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it worked just fine...  that amino acids can be created under the right chemical conditions.
> 
> But no problem, you Bible thumpers have your own theory.
> 
> View attachment 415060
Click to expand...


You are wrong as Urey-Miller has been relegated to history.  Also, they didn't create proteins.

As for the rest, it's just trolling because your abiogenesis failed.  The creation scientists have shown that amino acids cannot form protein outside of the cell so that falsifies abiogenesis.

"What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are _no exceptions_. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes."









						Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality
					

When the newspaper headline, "Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural processes. In that...




					www.icr.org
				




You've failed and lost again just like Urey-Miller.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases.  You can't just have any chemicals.  It has to convert amino acids to protein.  Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.


A god-of-the-gaps argument.  We don't know exactly how it happened so God must have done it.  Shakey ground to draw your line as all previous gaps have shown to be ephemeral:

A key player has been John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK. In 2009 he demonstrated that two of the four building blocks of RNA form from simple carbon-based chemicals, if they are subjected to simple treatments like being bathed in ultraviolet radiation. He has since shown that the same starter chemicals, given subtly different treatments, can also become the building blocks of proteins, or of the fatty lipids that make up the outer membranes of cells.​


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> No idea why you think an answer posted in reaction to a question is biased. Please explain if you can.



Card stacking is a fallacy in which any evidence that supports an opposing argument is simply rejected, omitted, or ignored. You just post a cut and paste which does nothing to address his point.  Otherwise, please explain.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases.  You can't just have any chemicals.  It has to convert amino acids to protein.  Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> A god-of-the-gaps argument.  We don't know exactly how it happened so God must have done it.  Shakey ground to draw your line as all previous gaps have shown to be ephemeral:
> 
> A key player has been John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK. In 2009 he demonstrated that two of the four building blocks of RNA form from simple carbon-based chemicals, if they are subjected to simple treatments like being bathed in ultraviolet radiation. He has since shown that the same starter chemicals, given subtly different treatments, can also become the building blocks of proteins, or of the fatty lipids that make up the outer membranes of cells.​
Click to expand...


I used no God as the cause of Urey-Miller's failure.  They were wrong in their assumptions of the gases in the primal universe.  If I said, God wouldn't allow amino acids to happen would be a God of the gaps argument.

You complain because without a beginning to life ToE didn't happen.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No idea why you think an answer posted in reaction to a question is biased. Please explain if you can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Card stacking is a fallacy in which any evidence that supports an opposing argument is simply rejected, omitted, or ignored. You just post a cut and paste which does nothing to address his point.  Otherwise, please explain.
Click to expand...

Curious you didn't object to ChemEngineer in his post.  I don't recall him providing any evidence that supports an opposing argument.

If I looked at your past posts would I find any instances of you "Card stacking"?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases. You can't just have any chemicals. It has to convert amino acids to protein. Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it worked just fine...  that amino acids can be created under the right chemical conditions.
> 
> But no problem, you Bible thumpers have your own theory.
> 
> View attachment 415060
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong as Urey-Miller has been relegated to history.  Also, they didn't create proteins.
> 
> As for the rest, it's just trolling because your abiogenesis failed.  The creation scientists have shown that amino acids cannot form protein outside of the cell so that falsifies abiogenesis.
> 
> "What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are _no exceptions_. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality
> 
> 
> When the newspaper headline, "Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural processes. In that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.icr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've failed and lost again just like Urey-Miller.
Click to expand...


Actually, quite a lot is known about chirality. First, it is understood that, of amino acids that form in space, the majority are left-handed. This may be due to the influence of polarized light or a function of beta decay, both conditions have been shown to influence chirality in the lab. The earliest amino acids on earth may have come from space, or they may have formed under the same influences noted above, or both. 


Ultimately, we know with certainty that anything coming from a fundamentalist ministry sush as the ICR with be a product of charlatans who have endorsed a ''Statement of Faith'' that requires them to project a bias in favor of Christian dogma. 



			CB040:  Left-handed amino acids
		

*Claim CB040:*
The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.

*Source:*
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, pg. 43
*Response:*

The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).


Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.


The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.


Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases.  You can't just have any chemicals.  It has to convert amino acids to protein.  Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> A god-of-the-gaps argument.  We don't know exactly how it happened so God must have done it.  Shakey ground to draw your line as all previous gaps have shown to be ephemeral:
> 
> A key player has been John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK. In 2009 he demonstrated that two of the four building blocks of RNA form from simple carbon-based chemicals, if they are subjected to simple treatments like being bathed in ultraviolet radiation. He has since shown that the same starter chemicals, given subtly different treatments, can also become the building blocks of proteins, or of the fatty lipids that make up the outer membranes of cells.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used no God as the cause of Urey-Miller's failure.  They were wrong in their assumptions of the gases in the primal universe.  If I said, God wouldn't allow amino acids to happen would be a God of the gaps argument.
> 
> You complain because without a beginning to life ToE didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Urey-Miller didn't fail.  It successfully demonstrated that simple molecules can spontaneously combine to form more complex ones.

We both believe that abiogenesis happened, we just differ as to the cause, God or nature.  Irrelevant to the ToE.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases.  You can't just have any chemicals.  It has to convert amino acids to protein.  Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> A god-of-the-gaps argument.  We don't know exactly how it happened so God must have done it.  Shakey ground to draw your line as all previous gaps have shown to be ephemeral:
> 
> A key player has been John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK. In 2009 he demonstrated that two of the four building blocks of RNA form from simple carbon-based chemicals, if they are subjected to simple treatments like being bathed in ultraviolet radiation. He has since shown that the same starter chemicals, given subtly different treatments, can also become the building blocks of proteins, or of the fatty lipids that make up the outer membranes of cells.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used no God as the cause of Urey-Miller's failure.  They were wrong in their assumptions of the gases in the primal universe.  If I said, God wouldn't allow amino acids to happen would be a God of the gaps argument.
> 
> You complain because without a beginning to life ToE didn't happen.
Click to expand...


While it’s possible that those fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven had something to do with this...









						Meteorite That Fell in 1969 Still Revealing Secrets of the Early Solar System
					

A new analysis of the Murchison meteorite, which fell to Earth more than 40 years ago, reveals tens of thousands of organic compounds




					www.scientificamerican.com
				




Fragments of a chemically primitive meteorite that landed near Murchison, Australia, in 1969 have long been known to harbor a variety of interesting compounds, including dozens of amino acids. But as analytic techniques become more sophisticated, the Murchison meteorite continues to reveal even more diversity and complexity in the early solar system, and new work by a team of European researchers is no exception.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases.  You can't just have any chemicals.  It has to convert amino acids to protein.  Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> A god-of-the-gaps argument.  We don't know exactly how it happened so God must have done it.  Shakey ground to draw your line as all previous gaps have shown to be ephemeral:
> 
> A key player has been John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK. In 2009 he demonstrated that two of the four building blocks of RNA form from simple carbon-based chemicals, if they are subjected to simple treatments like being bathed in ultraviolet radiation. He has since shown that the same starter chemicals, given subtly different treatments, can also become the building blocks of proteins, or of the fatty lipids that make up the outer membranes of cells.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used no God as the cause of Urey-Miller's failure.  They were wrong in their assumptions of the gases in the primal universe.  If I said, God wouldn't allow amino acids to happen would be a God of the gaps argument.
> 
> You complain because without a beginning to life ToE didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it’s possible that those fat, naked babies playing harps in heaven had something to do with this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meteorite That Fell in 1969 Still Revealing Secrets of the Early Solar System
> 
> 
> A new analysis of the Murchison meteorite, which fell to Earth more than 40 years ago, reveals tens of thousands of organic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fragments of a chemically primitive meteorite that landed near Murchison, Australia, in 1969 have long been known to harbor a variety of interesting compounds, including dozens of amino acids. But as analytic techniques become more sophisticated, the Murchison meteorite continues to reveal even more diversity and complexity in the early solar system, and new work by a team of European researchers is no exception.
Click to expand...

Grow up kid, no one knows where any meteorite came from.


----------



## Grumblenuts

The "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society", through its chosen representative here, declares:


james bond said:


> It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are _no exceptions_. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes."


So much melodrama.. Notice how the "random chance" processes presumed at first inexplicably morph into being the "natural processes" presumed at the end.

What this topic really needs is more films sporting scary Jehovah's Witness Tract cartoons..


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the argument for abiogenesis from the website I use for evolution -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_02.
> 
> That said, it didn't happen that way.  The evidence is no other life in our solar system and likely the universe.  The fine tuning facts were discovered by the atheist scientists.  Evolution tries to explain that away by saying okay, we are fine tuned and admit life is rare.  If life is so rare as to Earth being the only planet to have it, then it favors creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> Why cite a source and then immediately reject that source?
> 
> Evolution does not say ''we are fine tuned''. Do your gods approve of such dishonesty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the source does not really discuss fine tuning as the reason for no abiogenesis or alien life, not even a microbe.  Instead, it just states Earth is fine tuned.  You should've been able to deduce that life is rare and that we are it.  To their credit, they do admit life is rare.
Click to expand...


I should point out that everyone should presume the following is false because it comes from those evilutionist atheist scientists who are only hoping to ‘pray’ on those who are weak of faith.





__





						NASA - Meteorites Reveal Another Way to Make Life's Components
					

Evidence that there is more than one way to make some components of life increases the likelihood that life emerged elsewhere in the Universe.



					www.nasa.gov
				




Meteorites Reveal Another Way to Make Life's Components
03.09.12


Creating some of life's building blocks in space may be a bit like making a sandwich – you can make them cold or hot, according to new NASA research. This evidence that there is more than one way to make crucial components of life increases the likelihood that life emerged elsewhere in the Universe, according to the research team, and gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by impacts from meteorites and comets assisted the origin of life. 

In the study, scientists with the Astrobiology Analytical Laboratory at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., analyzed samples from fourteen carbon-rich meteorites with minerals that indicated they had experienced high temperatures – in some cases, over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. They found amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins, used by life to speed up chemical reactions and build structures like hair, skin, and nails.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> You are wrong as Urey-Miller has been relegated to history. Also, they didn't create proteins.



I never said proteins, I said amino acids.   The point is, they could be created artificially in a lab environment, there's no reason why, over billions of years, they couldn't have formed under the same conditions. 

But, no, it was all a plan by a Magic Sky Fairy so he could knock up a virgin and become his own father.


----------



## Grumblenuts

I mean, just imagine you were the lone Magic Sky Fairy.
Then the odds absolutely favor you getting horny one day and knocking up a young virgin, right?
I mean, why waste your single-use, immaculate wad on just any old hamster? 
Then what? 
I mean, what are you most likely to do now for an encore?
Obviously, yeah. Become your own offspring plus a ghost.
It all fits together so logically! Abiogenesis? _Pshaw!

What??_


----------



## Grumblenuts

I said I get up in the morning, slaving for bread, sir
So that every mouth can be fed
Poor me Meteorites
I said my wife and my kids, they are packed up and leave me
Darling, she said, I was yours to be seen
Poor me Meteorites
Look me shirts them a-tear up, trousers are gone
I don't want to end up like Bonnie and Clyde
Poor me Meteorites
After a storm there must be a calm
They catch me in the farm
You sound your alarm
Poor me Meteorites
Poor me Meteorites, poor me Meteorites, poor me Meteorites


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I should point out that everyone should presume the following is false because it comes from those evilutionist atheist scientists who are only hoping to ‘pray’ on those who are weak of faith.



Such sarcasm unless you finally saw the light and are now questioning _evilution_ because it doesn't have falsification for the origins_  be_.  I have posted my evolution website's article for rare Earth a few times.



Hollie said:


> Meteorites Reveal Another Way to Make Life's Components



That goes against fine tuning and chriality, but that isn't mentioned in such articles.

Since you brought it up, some creation scientists have brought up that other planets could have a microbe from microbes traveling there via panspermia.  Thus, a microbe there isn't a deal breaker.  The atheist scientists would have to verify that it wasn't panspermia.  I suppose this would be due to find one under the surface or showing there was no meteorite or large space rock nearby.  Finding an intelligent alien would be a deal breaker tho and would cause great consternation among the Christians.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong as Urey-Miller has been relegated to history. Also, they didn't create proteins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said proteins, I said amino acids.   The point is, they could be created artificially in a lab environment, there's no reason why, over billions of years, they couldn't have formed under the same conditions.
> 
> But, no, it was all a plan by a Magic Sky Fairy so he could knock up a virgin and become his own father.
Click to expand...


I know what you meant, but I countered with chirality and that is why the amino acids could not form proteins even with a legitimate experiment (which Urey-Miller was not).

Furthermore, your amino acids would be dissolved by water if it comes into contact with water nearby.  Thus, your atheist scientists are in a dilemma in that they need water for life, but the very nature of having it around would dissolve any amino acids that came into contact with the water.  That is demonstrable by the scientific method.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should point out that everyone should presume the following is false because it comes from those evilutionist atheist scientists who are only hoping to ‘pray’ on those who are weak of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such sarcasm unless you finally saw the light and are now questioning _evilution_ because it doesn't have falsification for the origins_ be_.  I have posted my evolution website's article for rare Earth a few times.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meteorites Reveal Another Way to Make Life's Components
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That goes against fine tuning and chriality, but that isn't mentioned in such articles.
> 
> Since you brought it up, some creation scientists have brought up that other planets could have a microbe from microbes traveling there via panspermia.  Thus, a microbe there isn't a deal breaker.  The atheist scientists would have to verify that it wasn't panspermia.  I suppose this would be due to find one under the surface or showing there was no meteorite or large space rock nearby.  Finding an intelligent alien would be a deal breaker tho and would cause great consternation among the Christians.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep arguing with Hollie, she believes that she is pond scum and she might just be that


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> I mean, just imagine you were the lone Magic Sky Fairy.



God may be alone, but wasn't lonely.  He's God so doesn't experience loneliness or horniness like humans.  It is said that God made humans for his pleasure.

What makes you think he's the Magic Sky Fairy, i.e. make believe?  We couldn't have what we have without the supernatural.  Why do you think it's all natural?  Oh yeah, some racist and immoral atheist from the past convinced you that you can be as immoral as you want to be short of breaking human laws.  That genocide (Planned Parenthood and killing of poor minority babies) and abortion are legal.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should point out that everyone should presume the following is false because it comes from those evilutionist atheist scientists who are only hoping to ‘pray’ on those who are weak of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such sarcasm unless you finally saw the light and are now questioning _evilution_ because it doesn't have falsification for the origins_ be_.  I have posted my evolution website's article for rare Earth a few times.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meteorites Reveal Another Way to Make Life's Components
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That goes against fine tuning and chriality, but that isn't mentioned in such articles.
> 
> Since you brought it up, some creation scientists have brought up that other planets could have a microbe from microbes traveling there via panspermia.  Thus, a microbe there isn't a deal breaker.  The atheist scientists would have to verify that it wasn't panspermia.  I suppose this would be due to find one under the surface or showing there was no meteorite or large space rock nearby.  Finding an intelligent alien would be a deal breaker tho and would cause great consternation among the Christians.
Click to expand...

Why would I question evilutionism when there is such a overwhelming body of evidence supporting it?

You dwell in a world where you denigrate everyone who is not a christian who accepts a strictly literal interpretation of the bible.

Being ''saved'' is a priority to you, because you believe that you need to be. That is through indoctrination in one set of ancient tales and fables from just one of hundreds of superstitious ideologies, otherwise called religions. You can be as wary as you want about "evilutionist atheist" doctrines. But are you suggesting that scientists should abandon their studies because it infringes on holy scripture? Should they halt their pursuit of knowledge because it conflicts with your religion-- even if your religion was held by 99% of the population? I think, sadly, that you are suggesting this.

Nothing is more dangerous than the man who thinks he has the god-ordained truth. In the words of Ingersoll:
"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God holds other people in contempt. Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God, there is in that man no spirit of compromise. He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature; he has the arrogance of theological certainty."

Perhaps you should consider that there are others who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of belief, even if it is in opposition to your own. Your supernaturally based descriptions of existence mean something to you because you believe in one partisan doctrine, but what has that got do to with science?


The charlatans you call "creation scientists" invent what they "bring up" only if it confoems to the "Statement of Faith" they agree to as a part of the creationer cult.  If you have any new scientific data on creationism, you should come forward with it. Everything so far submitted by creationers has been completely lacking in evidence and totally unsubstantiated. Science is the process of learning and discovery, not reiterating theology. Have you ever stopped to consider that knowledge derives from _inescapable conclusions_ drawn from the physical evidence that life has descended through millions of years from a common ancestor? Rational people accept biological evolution because that's what the evidence unambiguously tells us, and for no other reason.


----------



## james bond

esalla said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should point out that everyone should presume the following is false because it comes from those evilutionist atheist scientists who are only hoping to ‘pray’ on those who are weak of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such sarcasm unless you finally saw the light and are now questioning _evilution_ because it doesn't have falsification for the origins_ be_.  I have posted my evolution website's article for rare Earth a few times.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meteorites Reveal Another Way to Make Life's Components
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That goes against fine tuning and chriality, but that isn't mentioned in such articles.
> 
> Since you brought it up, some creation scientists have brought up that other planets could have a microbe from microbes traveling there via panspermia.  Thus, a microbe there isn't a deal breaker.  The atheist scientists would have to verify that it wasn't panspermia.  I suppose this would be due to find one under the surface or showing there was no meteorite or large space rock nearby.  Finding an intelligent alien would be a deal breaker tho and would cause great consternation among the Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you keep arguing with Hollie, she believes that she is pond scum and she might just be that
Click to expand...


It's no just her, but she tries to make points using scientific atheism such as from the talk origins website and belittling the Bible, Christianity, and Intelligent Design.  I don't argue ID, but like pointing out how the Bible answers her pov and explains how we are here without evolution or abiogenesis.  The evidence is on the creation science side.  Some Christians also believe in some evolution happening after the Big Bang.  They are wrong, too, and I think they'll be misled.

I am trying to find Christians who believe in evolution as well as finding what other Christian faiths look like.  I'm Methodist, so there's a lot of other Christian faiths that I am not aware of.  It seems the Christians (no Catholicism) who believe in evolution are being misled.  From polls, it appears there are about 33% Christians who believe in God's creation, but that evolution took over after that and disregard Book of Genesis.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should point out that everyone should presume the following is false because it comes from those evilutionist atheist scientists who are only hoping to ‘pray’ on those who are weak of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such sarcasm unless you finally saw the light and are now questioning _evilution_ because it doesn't have falsification for the origins_ be_.  I have posted my evolution website's article for rare Earth a few times.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meteorites Reveal Another Way to Make Life's Components
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That goes against fine tuning and chriality, but that isn't mentioned in such articles.
> 
> Since you brought it up, some creation scientists have brought up that other planets could have a microbe from microbes traveling there via panspermia.  Thus, a microbe there isn't a deal breaker.  The atheist scientists would have to verify that it wasn't panspermia.  I suppose this would be due to find one under the surface or showing there was no meteorite or large space rock nearby.  Finding an intelligent alien would be a deal breaker tho and would cause great consternation among the Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you keep arguing with Hollie, she believes that she is pond scum and she might just be that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's no just her, but she tries to make points using scientific atheism such as from the talk origins website and belittling the Bible, Christianity, and Intelligent Design.  I don't argue ID, but like pointing out how the Bible answers her pov and explains how we are here without evolution or abiogenesis.  The evidence is on the creation science side.  Some Christians also believe in some evolution happening after the Big Bang.  They are wrong, too, and I think they'll be misled.
> 
> I am trying to find Christians who believe in evolution as well as finding what other Christian faiths look like.  I'm Methodist, so there's a lot of other Christian faiths that I am not aware of.  It seems the Christians (no Catholicism) who believe in evolution are being misled.  From polls, it appears there are about 33% Christians who believe in God's creation, but that evolution took over after that and disregard Book of Genesis.
Click to expand...

She wants to believe that she is alone in the Universe.  Not sure why, however science in general is now coming around to the fact that the simplest DNA is millions of times too complicated to write itself because nothing had nothing better to do


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should point out that everyone should presume the following is false because it comes from those evilutionist atheist scientists who are only hoping to ‘pray’ on those who are weak of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such sarcasm unless you finally saw the light and are now questioning _evilution_ because it doesn't have falsification for the origins_ be_.  I have posted my evolution website's article for rare Earth a few times.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meteorites Reveal Another Way to Make Life's Components
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That goes against fine tuning and chriality, but that isn't mentioned in such articles.
> 
> Since you brought it up, some creation scientists have brought up that other planets could have a microbe from microbes traveling there via panspermia.  Thus, a microbe there isn't a deal breaker.  The atheist scientists would have to verify that it wasn't panspermia.  I suppose this would be due to find one under the surface or showing there was no meteorite or large space rock nearby.  Finding an intelligent alien would be a deal breaker tho and would cause great consternation among the Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you keep arguing with Hollie, she believes that she is pond scum and she might just be that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's no just her, but she tries to make points using scientific atheism such as from the talk origins website and belittling the Bible, Christianity, and Intelligent Design.  I don't argue ID, but like pointing out how the Bible answers her pov and explains how we are here without evolution or abiogenesis.  The evidence is on the creation science side.  Some Christians also believe in some evolution happening after the Big Bang.  They are wrong, too, and I think they'll be misled.
> 
> I am trying to find Christians who believe in evolution as well as finding what other Christian faiths look like.  I'm Methodist, so there's a lot of other Christian faiths that I am not aware of.  It seems the Christians (no Catholicism) who believe in evolution are being misled.  From polls, it appears there are about 33% Christians who believe in God's creation, but that evolution took over after that and disregard Book of Genesis.
Click to expand...

If you can’t trust the guy with the big, funny hat, who can you trust?


Elsewhere in his speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope said:
“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.

BTW, the Bible explains how we are here only if you accept magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Such sarcasm unless you finally saw the light and are now questioning _evilution_ because it doesn't have falsification for the origins_ be_.  I have posted my evolution website's article for rare Earth a few times.



I’ve made the point before that I will offer creationers the method to falsify biological evolution. One way to falsify both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago should be a simple matter for the creationers to perform, but cannot.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Why would I question evilutionism when there is such a overwhelming body of evidence supporting it?







That's microevolution or natural selection which Alfred Russel Wallace wrote about.  Not that Origin of Species writer who could not help but express his racism and sexism in the follow up book The Descent of Man.



Hollie said:


> Being ''saved'' is a priority to you, because you believe that you need to be.



While the rapture is important, it is not all there is with being born again.

The Bible guides us and tells us how to be.  One needs to have faith in God first before the Holy Spirit comes and reveals himself and enters our body.  Next, we learn about Jesus and what God did for us and the remembrance of Jesus as Son of Man and Son of God enters our heart like those who lovef us and we loved them, but are gone now.  Then we will rise above the clouds to meet Jesus when he comes again instead of having our dead bodies be together with our spirit again and remain on Earth.  

Today, the science of atheism has taken over our schools and media to the point that even Christians are swayed into believing in evolution and evolutionary thinking.  What this means is that they could be misled before Jesus comes again.  Satan masquerades as the light.  We know that Jesus will come again soon and will have to be ready for him in our lifetimes.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, abiogenesis is just make believe hypotheses for the atheists. There is no explanation of how it happens and you popping do not explain it like the others already being crucified for not explaining it like @Grumblenuts and @Hollie.
> 
> If it _was_ scientific, then someone would have pointed it out by now. We've gone around 9 pages with no scientific hypotesis, i.e. explanation. for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Miller-Uray Experiment demonstrated how it would be possible for chemicals to combine to create organic compounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...


Stop it.  You believe in miracles in science or lies of science.  You can easily discard Urey-Miller as the experiment didn't show anything and was not a valid experiment to show abiogenesis or continue to believe what you want to believe of fake science.  Notice not one microbe has been shown to have been created through these types of experiments.  We haven't had one protein.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I question evilutionism when there is such a overwhelming body of evidence supporting it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 416187
> 
> That's microevolution or natural selection which Alfred Russel Wallace wrote about.  Not that Origin of Species writer who could not help but express his racism and sexism in the follow up book The Descent of Man.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being ''saved'' is a priority to you, because you believe that you need to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the rapture is important, it is not all there is with being born again.
> 
> The Bible guides us and tells us how to be.  One needs to have faith in God first before the Holy Spirit comes and reveals himself and enters our body.  Next, we learn about Jesus and what God did for us and the remembrance of Jesus as Son of Man and Son of God enters our heart like those who lovef us and we loved them, but are gone now.  Then we will rise above the clouds to meet Jesus when he comes again instead of having our dead bodies be together with our spirit again and remain on Earth.
> 
> Today, the science of atheism has taken over our schools and media to the point that even Christians are swayed into believing in evolution and evolutionary thinking.  What this means is that they could be misled before Jesus comes again.  Satan masquerades as the light.  We know that Jesus will come again soon and will have to be ready for him in our lifetimes.
Click to expand...

You might want to consider updating your knowledge base. A great deal has been learned about chemistry, biology, physics and the physical sciences since the mid 1850’s.

You seem unable to get past the definitions of evilution your fed on ID’iot creationer websites. Whatever it is you believe separates evilution from the creationer versions of micro, mini or macro evolution have little to do with the relevant sciences.

If, as you believe, Christians have been misled into believing in evilutionary thinking, well, who are you to question the will of the gods?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases.  You can't just have any chemicals.  It has to convert amino acids to protein.  Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> A god-of-the-gaps argument.  We don't know exactly how it happened so God must have done it.  Shakey ground to draw your line as all previous gaps have shown to be ephemeral:
> 
> A key player has been John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK. In 2009 he demonstrated that two of the four building blocks of RNA form from simple carbon-based chemicals, if they are subjected to simple treatments like being bathed in ultraviolet radiation. He has since shown that the same starter chemicals, given subtly different treatments, can also become the building blocks of proteins, or of the fatty lipids that make up the outer membranes of cells.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used no God as the cause of Urey-Miller's failure.  They were wrong in their assumptions of the gases in the primal universe.  If I said, God wouldn't allow amino acids to happen would be a God of the gaps argument.
> 
> You complain because without a beginning to life ToE didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Urey-Miller didn't fail.  It successfully demonstrated that simple molecules can spontaneously combine to form more complex ones.
> 
> We both believe that abiogenesis happened, we just differ as to the cause, God or nature.  Irrelevant to the ToE.
Click to expand...


Not for life or abiogenesis.  We can have Alka Seltzer as an experiment to show what you just claimed with actual results.

"Uses of Alka-Seltzer: Used as an antacid to relieve indigestion, or an upset stomach. Soothes insect bites. Unclogs drains. Cleans many house hold items, such as vases, jewelry, and removes burned-on grease from pots and pans."


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I’ve made the point before that I will offer creationers the method to falsify biological evolution. One way to falsify both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.



I was wondering when you were going to come up with that falsification argument.

It's your theory, so you have to use a measuring stick of ToE and common descent to falsify it.  Not tell your opponent what to do back up their theory.  IOW, you have to show how one can falsify long time needed for evolution to happen.  We found that was done when the Earth was estimated to be around 3 billion years old.  However, Darwin said it wasn't enough time until someone came up with his long time needed in 1956. 

We see microevolution happen all the time and can do it with artificial selection, so does that falsify Darwin's common ancestor and long time?  I don't think there is a falsification for long time.  We can falsify natural and artificial selection by showing we can't change the family level, but we see that it happens in natural and artificial selection.  That's why JBS Haldane and Richard Dawkins came up with Precambrian rabbit and hippo fossils in the Precambrian to falsify fossils in their claimed time chronology.

As to you argument, creationists do not state what would falsify 6,000 year old Earth as it will lead to measuring arguments.  We don't really have a valid theory for a young Earth except to show the C14 still remains and that it gives us young Earth ages.  However, we do not know how much C14 was there to begin with.  Thus, there is no falsification for YEC theory.  All we have is a theory based on Biblical events in history.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, just imagine you were the lone Magic Sky Fairy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God may be alone, but wasn't lonely.  He's God so doesn't experience loneliness or horniness like humans.  It is said that God made humans for his pleasure.
> 
> What makes you think he's the Magic Sky Fairy, i.e. make believe?  We couldn't have what we have without the supernatural.  Why do you think it's all natural?  Oh yeah, some racist and immoral atheist from the past convinced you that you can be as immoral as you want to be short of breaking human laws.  That genocide (Planned Parenthood and killing of poor minority babies) and abortion are legal.
Click to expand...

Let it all hang out there, big fella. Don't hold back!


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Then we will rise above the clouds to meet Jesus when he comes again


So this Jesus hides behind clouds, does he? Nowhere to be found on a clear day?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve made the point before that I will offer creationers the method to falsify biological evolution. One way to falsify both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering when you were going to come up with that falsification argument.
> 
> It's your theory, so you have to use a measuring stick of ToE and common descent to falsify it.  Not tell your opponent what to do back up their theory.  IOW, you have to show how one can falsify long time needed for evolution to happen.  We found that was done when the Earth was estimated to be around 3 billion years old.  However, Darwin said it wasn't enough time until someone came up with his long time needed in 1956.
> 
> We see microevolution happen all the time and can do it with artificial selection, so does that falsify Darwin's common ancestor and long time?  I don't think there is a falsification for long time.  We can falsify natural and artificial selection by showing we can't change the family level, but we see that it happens in natural and artificial selection.  That's why JBS Haldane and Richard Dawkins came up with Precambrian rabbit and hippo fossils in the Precambrian to falsify fossils in their claimed time chronology.
> 
> As to you argument, creationists do not state what would falsify 6,000 year old Earth as it will lead to measuring arguments.  We don't really have a valid theory for a young Earth except to show the C14 still remains and that it gives us young Earth ages.  However, we do not know how much C14 was there to begin with.  Thus, there is no falsification for YEC theory.  All we have is a theory based on Biblical events in history.
Click to expand...

I was wondering when you would refute micro, mini and macroevolution with one or more of the simple demonstrations I provided for you. The measuring stick as you describe for demonstrating the fact of biological evolution would include the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology and physics which are all used in the testing and verification of biological change over time.

It’s really a simple matter for ID’iot creationers to 9ffer their evidence for a 6,000 year old planet as one measure to falsify evolution. Please present that evidence.

The ID’iot creationers are biblical literalists who insist that their Gods created the world as per Genesis Chapter 1. No metaphors, no interpolations, nothing allegorical. They pushed to have their creation mythology inserted into public school science classrooms, under the premise of "equal time". The courts realized what they were trying to do (force their particular brand of religion), and killed that idea. Now they are left to an internet presence, pounding their Bibles cybernetically.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then we will rise above the clouds to meet Jesus when he comes again
> 
> 
> 
> So this Jesus hides behind clouds, does he? Nowhere to be found on a clear day?
Click to expand...


It is said:






"The Rider on a White Horse

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself.  He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.  And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron.  He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.  On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."





Jesus is coming soon.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases.  You can't just have any chemicals.  It has to convert amino acids to protein.  Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> A god-of-the-gaps argument.  We don't know exactly how it happened so God must have done it.  Shakey ground to draw your line as all previous gaps have shown to be ephemeral:
> 
> A key player has been John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK. In 2009 he demonstrated that two of the four building blocks of RNA form from simple carbon-based chemicals, if they are subjected to simple treatments like being bathed in ultraviolet radiation. He has since shown that the same starter chemicals, given subtly different treatments, can also become the building blocks of proteins, or of the fatty lipids that make up the outer membranes of cells.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used no God as the cause of Urey-Miller's failure.  They were wrong in their assumptions of the gases in the primal universe.  If I said, God wouldn't allow amino acids to happen would be a God of the gaps argument.
> 
> You complain because without a beginning to life ToE didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Urey-Miller didn't fail.  It successfully demonstrated that simple molecules can spontaneously combine to form more complex ones.
> 
> We both believe that abiogenesis happened, we just differ as to the cause, God or nature.  Irrelevant to the ToE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not for life or abiogenesis.  We can have Alka Seltzer as an experiment to show what you just claimed with actual results.
> 
> "Uses of Alka-Seltzer: Used as an antacid to relieve indigestion, or an upset stomach. Soothes insect bites. Unclogs drains. Cleans many house hold items, such as vases, jewelry, and removes burned-on grease from pots and pans."
Click to expand...

What Urey-Miller did was the opposite of what Alka-Seltzer does.  It built up larger molecules from smaller ones.

When Miller repeated the experiment using the correct gas combo in 1983, the brown broth failed to materialize. Instead, the mix created a colorless brew, containing few amino acids. It seemed to refute a long-cherished icon of evolution—and creationists quickly seized on it as supposed evidence of evolution's wobbly foundations.

But Bada's repeat of the experiment—armed with a new insight—seems likely to turn the tables once again.

Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming. Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but *this time it was chock-full of amino acids*.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Yes, James. Your own .. personal .. Jesus is coming .. when hell freezes over, I know. But damn, such a childish, violent mofo!

Meanwhile, that Bada's a REAL badass.


----------



## Grumblenuts

__





						Exclusive Interview: Norman Greenbaum Reveals The True Origin Of “Spirit In The Sky”
					

Classic Rock Interviews with the Greatest Music Legends of our Time.




					www.classicrockhereandnow.com
				





> *Ray: Who would have thought that “Spirit in The Sky” would be written and performed by someone of the Jewish faith?
> Norman:*“Yea, but I’m a writer and I’ve always thought I can write about anything I want to write about. I was into all kinds of music from jug band music to country music. I was taken by Porter Wagoner, he’d wear these snazzy coats that he’d got from Nudie’s in North Hollywood and had a big pompadour. And he was kind of interesting. He had a show on TV and I’d watch it. One day he’s singing this song about a preacher and I said, “Wow that’s a little out of my league to write about preachers and stuff, but I can do it.” And that’s what I did. But it had nothing to do about having a religious background. Many people thought I was tongue- in- cheek and making fun by saying, “Never been a Sinner” but basically I didn’t know any better. I just did it at the top of my head and put music to it that was unbelievable when you think of a spiritual type of song and it was very risky. But as it developed, the producer and I both knew we had something.”
> *Ray: The song still sounds so clear and crisp even today.
> Norman: “*We specifically mixed it on small speakers so it would sound good in a car. We were smart enough to know that and I remember having the conversation with Eric the producer saying, “It’s got to sound good in the car.” People drive and they listen to the radio…back then. There were no cell phones you had to stop and make a call, life was way different. The radio in your car was IT! Wherever you went the first thing you did was started your car and then turn on your radio. That was it (one and two) three didn’t matter.”


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases.  You can't just have any chemicals.  It has to convert amino acids to protein.  Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> A god-of-the-gaps argument.  We don't know exactly how it happened so God must have done it.  Shakey ground to draw your line as all previous gaps have shown to be ephemeral:
> 
> A key player has been John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK. In 2009 he demonstrated that two of the four building blocks of RNA form from simple carbon-based chemicals, if they are subjected to simple treatments like being bathed in ultraviolet radiation. He has since shown that the same starter chemicals, given subtly different treatments, can also become the building blocks of proteins, or of the fatty lipids that make up the outer membranes of cells.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used no God as the cause of Urey-Miller's failure.  They were wrong in their assumptions of the gases in the primal universe.  If I said, God wouldn't allow amino acids to happen would be a God of the gaps argument.
> 
> You complain because without a beginning to life ToE didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Urey-Miller didn't fail.  It successfully demonstrated that simple molecules can spontaneously combine to form more complex ones.
> 
> We both believe that abiogenesis happened, we just differ as to the cause, God or nature.  Irrelevant to the ToE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not for life or abiogenesis.  We can have Alka Seltzer as an experiment to show what you just claimed with actual results.
> 
> "Uses of Alka-Seltzer: Used as an antacid to relieve indigestion, or an upset stomach. Soothes insect bites. Unclogs drains. Cleans many house hold items, such as vases, jewelry, and removes burned-on grease from pots and pans."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Urey-Miller did was the opposite of what Alka-Seltzer does.  It built up larger molecules from smaller ones.
> 
> When Miller repeated the experiment using the correct gas combo in 1983, the brown broth failed to materialize. Instead, the mix created a colorless brew, containing few amino acids. It seemed to refute a long-cherished icon of evolution—and creationists quickly seized on it as supposed evidence of evolution's wobbly foundations.
> 
> But Bada's repeat of the experiment—armed with a new insight—seems likely to turn the tables once again.
> 
> Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming. Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but *this time it was chock-full of amino acids*.
Click to expand...


This is one of what I consider the bad and evil parts of the scientific atheism.  They have to start life by abiogenesis or else ToE cannot happen.  What is bad is that many people will be misled and turn away from God's sacrifice and turn away from Jesus.  Thus, any findings will be lapped up and hailed as that which contradicts the Book of Genesis and promote abiogenesis.

Creation scientists know that amino acids are formed in outer space.  There are plenty floating out there.  However, even with the enormous presence of amino acids out there, it doesn't become proteins due to their atomic structure which causes chirality.  IIRC, it takes 23 of the correct amino acids to form a single protein and it takes life to do that.  No other chemical processes can do that outside of the cell.  Thus, the creator has prevented humans from producing artificial life.  Only life begets life.

Moreover, it becomes even more difficult when amino acids are quickly dissolved as shown in Bada's experiment.  Bada is one of those atheist scientists who want to be published in Nature or Science and I suppose he succeeded in that.  If he were the engineering type, then he would've tried to make money from it, i.e. be practical, but no one is going to pay him money for what he produced.

I will accept you are right about Alka-Seltzer, but an engineer Bada would've been able to make money with that discovery.


----------



## anynameyouwish

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.



evolution is the big lie!

god created the universe! (my god, not yours!)

so the whole universe belongs to my god...

who has gven it to me....

so i get to make all the laws and rules....

your rights come from my god...he has asked me to tell you what those rights are....

all morals, rights, laws must be biblically based....

welcome to trumps christian evangelical America!


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases.  You can't just have any chemicals.  It has to convert amino acids to protein.  Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> A god-of-the-gaps argument.  We don't know exactly how it happened so God must have done it.  Shakey ground to draw your line as all previous gaps have shown to be ephemeral:
> 
> A key player has been John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK. In 2009 he demonstrated that two of the four building blocks of RNA form from simple carbon-based chemicals, if they are subjected to simple treatments like being bathed in ultraviolet radiation. He has since shown that the same starter chemicals, given subtly different treatments, can also become the building blocks of proteins, or of the fatty lipids that make up the outer membranes of cells.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used no God as the cause of Urey-Miller's failure.  They were wrong in their assumptions of the gases in the primal universe.  If I said, God wouldn't allow amino acids to happen would be a God of the gaps argument.
> 
> You complain because without a beginning to life ToE didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Urey-Miller didn't fail.  It successfully demonstrated that simple molecules can spontaneously combine to form more complex ones.
> 
> We both believe that abiogenesis happened, we just differ as to the cause, God or nature.  Irrelevant to the ToE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not for life or abiogenesis.  We can have Alka Seltzer as an experiment to show what you just claimed with actual results.
> 
> "Uses of Alka-Seltzer: Used as an antacid to relieve indigestion, or an upset stomach. Soothes insect bites. Unclogs drains. Cleans many house hold items, such as vases, jewelry, and removes burned-on grease from pots and pans."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Urey-Miller did was the opposite of what Alka-Seltzer does.  It built up larger molecules from smaller ones.
> 
> When Miller repeated the experiment using the correct gas combo in 1983, the brown broth failed to materialize. Instead, the mix created a colorless brew, containing few amino acids. It seemed to refute a long-cherished icon of evolution—and creationists quickly seized on it as supposed evidence of evolution's wobbly foundations.
> 
> But Bada's repeat of the experiment—armed with a new insight—seems likely to turn the tables once again.
> 
> Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming. Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but *this time it was chock-full of amino acids*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is one of what I consider the bad and evil parts of the scientific atheism.  They have to start life by abiogenesis or else ToE cannot happen.  What is bad is that many people will be misled and turn away from God's sacrifice and turn away from Jesus.  Thus, any findings will be lapped up and hailed as that which contradicts the Book of Genesis and promote abiogenesis.
> 
> Creation scientists know that amino acids are formed in outer space.  There are plenty floating out there.  However, even with the enormous presence of amino acids out there, it doesn't become proteins due to their atomic structure which causes chirality.  IIRC, it takes 23 of the correct amino acids to form a single protein and it takes life to do that.  No other chemical processes can do that outside of the cell.  Thus, the creator has prevented humans from producing artificial life.  Only life begets life.
> 
> Moreover, it becomes even more difficult when amino acids are quickly dissolved as shown in Bada's experiment.  Bada is one of those atheist scientists who want to be published in Nature or Science and I suppose he succeeded in that.  If he were the engineering type, then he would've tried to make money from it, i.e. be practical, but no one is going to pay him money for what he produced.
> 
> I will accept you are right about Alka-Seltzer, but an engineer Bada would've been able to make money with that discovery.
Click to expand...

Science is neither bad nor evil if it speaks the truth.  That truth concerns only the natural world.  If there is a supernatural component of the world, you can't expect science to study it.  

I wonder if you would prefer us not to study the natural world since it may conflict with your view of the supernatural one?  What I've never understood is that if you believe God created this world, understanding it is the best way to know Him.  You may feel more comfortable with tales that have been handed down through the generations but if you don't accept the world as it is you don't accept God.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Science is neither bad nor evil if it speaks the truth. That truth concerns only the natural world. If there is a supernatural component of the world, you can't expect science to study it.



I brought up scientific atheism.  It assumes things right off the bat such as no God.  Thus, creation scientists who were allowed to participate in peer reviews were eliminated since the 1850s.  It also was eliminated from being taught in public schools.  Thus, what you only think as the truth isn't so.  Science should be about disagreements and let the best theory rise to the top.  It doesn't anymore, so creation scientists and creationists are relegated to forums such as this. 

What I stated about creation should be considered by people such as yourself and atheist scientists, but it isn't.  We have abiogenesis vs Genesis, but all you do is try to show abiogenesis.  That is the bad and evil part as it is tied to your eternal spiritual life.  Our real life is spirit as our physical life dies.  The spirit life lives forever.  However, you believe death is the the end and abiogenesis is the beginning.  In that way, our science and religion go their opposite ways.

I think that sums it up.



alang1216 said:


> I wonder if you would prefer us not to study the natural world since it may conflict with your view of the supernatural one? What I've never understood is that if you believe God created this world, understanding it is the best way to know Him. You may feel more comfortable with tales that have been handed down through the generations but if you don't accept the world as it is you don't accept God.



Where did I say or infer that???!!!???!!!  What you assume is furthest from the truth as creationists study the natural world, too.  Basically, we both have the same facts and information.  Where we diverge is due to the presuppositions that we have.  Our world is natural.  The supernatural is mostly affected by Satan.  God has an effect, too, but one has to have faith first.  Then they should see how Satan affects our world and how God does, too.  Otherwise, it's mostly Satan and he remains hidden as that is his choice.

I'm not comfortable with tales handed down from generations.  We know that changes as it is passed down.  What we know is that the Bible is God breathed and has been transcribed as the truth.  If that isn't true, then why would I waste my time?  I have faith and let God come into my life.  The Book of Genesis isn't religion so much as it is science.  Today's science and future science will back it up.  The falsification of it would be to find a contradiction.  Just one would do it.

Jesus himself was tried before his own people and before Pontius Pilate.  Pilate, who represented Roman society (secular) at the time, could not find Jesus guilty of any crime, but the Jewish leaders wouldn't allow it.  They had already decided thru a biased trial of their own that he was guilty of lies of being the Messiah.  It came down to what is truth?


Before that was his trial before the Sanhedrin.


Peter is the dark, bearded afraid man in the background.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I brought up scientific atheism.  It assumes things right off the bat such as no God.


Not true, it only acknowledges we can't study God scientifically.  Can He be proven or falsified?  Can we devise an experiment that would reveal the nature of God?  The answers are all NO.  Your faith may tell you that the Bible is proof of God but that can not be confirmed experimentally.  Faith is the opposite of science.


----------



## abu afak

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.


Ahh.
Yet more 'God of the Gaps' 'logic.'
(if we don't know it must be god)

Neanderthal to his Wife:
""How is there lightning if there is no god.""
""How does fire come from wood?""

You ******* stupid simpleton.

`


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I brought up scientific atheism.  It assumes things right off the bat such as no God.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, it only acknowledges we can't study God scientifically.  Can He be proven or falsified?  Can we devise an experiment that would reveal the nature of God?  The answers are all NO.  Your faith may tell you that the Bible is proof of God but that can not be confirmed experimentally.  Faith is the opposite of science.
Click to expand...


That's a lie.  The Bible has history to back it up, too.  I didn't post the movie clips for my health.

Your science is based on faith in no God.  What about letting the creation scientists do peer review?

ETA:  You could not provide falsification for abiogenesis so according to Karl Popper, it is not a valid scientific hypothesis.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then we will rise above the clouds to meet Jesus when he comes again
> 
> 
> 
> So this Jesus hides behind clouds, does he? Nowhere to be found on a clear day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is said:
> 
> View attachment 416312
> 
> "The Rider on a White Horse
> 
> Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself.  He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.  And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron.  He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.  On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."
> 
> View attachment 416313
> 
> Jesus is coming soon.
Click to expand...


When?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> The Bible has history to back it up, too.  I didn't post the movie clips for my health.


Using the Bible to prove the Bible?  Sorry, that is a non-starter.



james bond said:


> Your science is based on faith in no God.  What about letting the creation scientists do peer review?


Science is the absence of faith.  If you can't demonstrate or provide independently verifiable evidence for something you're not doing science.  

I think creation scientists don't do peer review because they can't follow the rules of science.  They might say unscientific things like "Your science is based on faith in no God".



james bond said:


> ETA:  You could not provide falsification for abiogenesis so according to Karl Popper, it is not a valid scientific hypothesis.


There is no need to falsify abiogenesis since it happened and everyone agrees it happened.  It is only the mechanism that is in dispute.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Feeling unknown
And you're all alone
Flesh and bone
By the telephone
Lift up the receiver
I'll make you a believer
Take second best
Put me to the test
Things on your chest
You need to confess
I will deliver
You know I'm a forgiver
Reach out and touch faith
Reach out and touch faith
Your own personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who cares
Your own personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who's there


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> When?



He himself said, “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming soon’" Revelation 22:20  Apostle John replied, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” Revelation 22:20.  That was written 2,000 years ago, so Christians wonder what did Jesus mean by soon.  Even the apostles thought he was coming back in their lifetimes.  

AFAIK, the soonest that was predicted by a reputable source is 2060 by Sir Isaac Newton, but Christians have to be ready if it happens tomorrow.  I thought it would be after our passing, but now I have change my mindset and think it could be tomorrow.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Christians have to be ready if it happens tomorrow. I thought it would be after our passing, but now I have change my mindset and think it could be tomorrow.


So by being "ready" you mean keeping a set of bags packed with extra clothes, a wad of cash, a can of fresh gas in the trunk of the car, vice-grips, duct tape, .. stuff like that?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He himself said, “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming soon’" Revelation 22:20  Apostle John replied, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” Revelation 22:20.  That was written 2,000 years ago, so Christians wonder what did Jesus mean by soon.  Even the apostles thought he was coming back in their lifetimes.
> 
> AFAIK, the soonest that was predicted by a reputable source is 2060 by Sir Isaac Newton, but Christians have to be ready if it happens tomorrow.  I thought it would be after our passing, but now I have change my mindset and think it could be tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe Isaac Newton is a reputable source with reference to end of the world predictions?

Why would he be any more reputable than anyone of the other failed endtimers?









						List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Grumblenuts




----------



## rightwinger

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.



Creatures evolved from simple creatures to complex creatures

There is no denying it


----------



## badger2

Oh wow. OP fails to understand god, while simultaneously projecting atheism.

1. Miller-Urey volcanic spark experiment

2. Iconoclastic Theology: Gilles Deleuze and the Secretion of Atheism

3. Radical Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life


----------



## Grumblenuts

rightwinger said:


> Creatures evolved from simple creatures to complex creatures
> 
> There is no denying it


Oh, let the sun beat down upon my face
And stars fill my dream
I'm a traveler of both time and space
To be where I have been
To sit with elders of the gentle race
This world has seldom seen
They talk of days for which they sit and wait
All will be revealed
Talk in song from tongues of lilting grace
Sounds caress my ear
And not a word I heard could I relate
The story was quite clear
Oh, baby, I been blind
Oh, yeah, mama, there ain't no denyin'
Oh, ooh yes, I been blind
Mama, mama, ain't no denyin', no denyin'


----------



## rightwinger

Grumblenuts said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creatures evolved from simple creatures to complex creatures
> 
> There is no denying it
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, let the sun beat down upon my face
> And stars fill my dream
> I'm a traveler of both time and space
> To be where I have been
> To sit with elders of the gentle race
> This world has seldom seen
> They talk of days for which they sit and wait
> All will be revealed
> Talk in song from tongues of lilting grace
> Sounds caress my ear
> And not a word I heard could I relate
> The story was quite clear
> Oh, baby, I been blind
> Oh, yeah, mama, there ain't no denyin'
> Oh, ooh yes, I been blind
> Mama, mama, ain't no denyin', no denyin'
Click to expand...

Domo Arigato, Mr. Roboto


----------



## Grumblenuts

rightwinger said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creatures evolved from simple creatures to complex creatures
> 
> There is no denying it
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, let the sun beat down upon my face
> And stars fill my dream
> I'm a traveler of both time and space
> To be where I have been
> To sit with elders of the gentle race
> This world has seldom seen
> They talk of days for which they sit and wait
> All will be revealed
> Talk in song from tongues of lilting grace
> Sounds caress my ear
> And not a word I heard could I relate
> The story was quite clear
> Oh, baby, I been blind
> Oh, yeah, mama, there ain't no denyin'
> Oh, ooh yes, I been blind
> Mama, mama, ain't no denyin', no denyin'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Domo Arigato, Mr. Roboto
Click to expand...

LOL. Not even remotely comparable.


----------



## Grumblenuts

I get your point. Styx just sucked so bad compared to Led Zeppelin. I even went to one of their concerts and bought an album or two. But looking back,.. that just seems embarrassing anymore.


----------



## Grumblenuts

I like the "Listener Kids" thing because

my wife sings it like she means it
having young rabbits and raccoons doing it just makes so much sense


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I brought up scientific atheism.  It assumes things right off the bat such as no God.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, it only acknowledges we can't study God scientifically.  Can He be proven or falsified?  Can we devise an experiment that would reveal the nature of God?  The answers are all NO.  Your faith may tell you that the Bible is proof of God but that can not be confirmed experimentally.  Faith is the opposite of science.
Click to expand...


I've already mentioned the falsification of God and destruction of Christianity many times.  You even bring up the Bible.  It goes to show that you do not pay attention to what I said.  The falsification of an eternal spiritual life may not be able to be done with near-death experiences as 

What you avoid is the falsification of atheism as it appears there are none.  Would the second coming be it?  I also asked about the falsification of abiogenesis.

The experiment to show God is the same as the experiment to show abiogenesis.  There are none.  What we can do is show the evidence for things mentioned in the Bible.  There are plenty of experiments to show EMS and its energy.  We also have caught the science of atheism using dark energy (dark energy = God) to explain the acceleration of the expansion of space.  I think there is evidence for the universe having an edge and boundaries.  We did the experiment to get an ape to walk bipedal, but it kept reverting to climbing trees and being quadripedal.  I don't think there was any experiments with birds, but I dunno.  The NDE experiments seem to favor an afterlife.  The falsification is to find a logical or natural explanation for them, but they haven't been all explained away.

As for abiogenesis, I think it has been falsified with no other living organisms in our galaxy by observation and fine tuning facts.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He himself said, “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming soon’" Revelation 22:20  Apostle John replied, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” Revelation 22:20.  That was written 2,000 years ago, so Christians wonder what did Jesus mean by soon.  Even the apostles thought he was coming back in their lifetimes.
> 
> AFAIK, the soonest that was predicted by a reputable source is 2060 by Sir Isaac Newton, but Christians have to be ready if it happens tomorrow.  I thought it would be after our passing, but now I have change my mindset and think it could be tomorrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe Isaac Newton is a reputable source with reference to end of the world predictions?
> 
> Why would he be any more reputable than anyone of the other failed endtimers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...


Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?

Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about.  Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?
> 
> Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about. Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..


Her link,








						List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				



is refreshingly self-explanatory. Unlike you saying _Newton read some stuff in the Bible therefore ..._


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> What you avoid is the falsification of atheism as it appears there are none.  Would the second coming be it?  I also asked about the falsification of abiogenesis.
> 
> As for abiogenesis, I think it has been falsified with no other living organisms in our galaxy by observation and fine tuning facts.


It is you not paying attention.  I already said that neither theism or atheism can be proven or disproven by science since they pertain to the supernatural not the natural world.

There are a billion planets in our galaxy and a billion galaxies.  How many have you visited?


----------



## alang1216

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?
> 
> Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about. Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..
> 
> 
> 
> Her link,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is refreshingly self-explanatory. Unlike you saying _Newton read some stuff in the Bible therefore ..._
Click to expand...

The list omitted the most famous believers in an imminent apocalypse, Jesus and Paul.


----------



## Eric Stratton

In the beginning, there was nothing.
And nothing happened to the nothing until one day, for no apparent reason, the nothing exploded, creating everything and everywhere.
Then some tiny bits of the exploded nothing, again for no apparent reason, magically transformed into the dinosaurs. 

Is that the liberal view of creation?


----------



## Eric Stratton

alang1216 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?
> 
> Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about. Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..
> 
> 
> 
> Her link,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is refreshingly self-explanatory. Unlike you saying _Newton read some stuff in the Bible therefore ..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The list omitted the most famous believers in an imminent apocalypse, Jesus and Paul.
Click to expand...

Better get on board


----------



## Grumblenuts

On board what, Otter?


----------



## Eric Stratton

Grumblenuts said:


> On board what, Otter?



The Jesus and Paul train


----------



## Grumblenuts

Where's the station? Is there a schedule I can download somewhere?


----------



## alang1216

Eric Stratton said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?
> 
> Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about. Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..
> 
> 
> 
> Her link,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is refreshingly self-explanatory. Unlike you saying _Newton read some stuff in the Bible therefore ..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The list omitted the most famous believers in an imminent apocalypse, Jesus and Paul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better get on board
Click to expand...

Sorry, no idea what you mean.


----------



## Eric Stratton

Grumblenuts said:


> Where's the station? Is there a schedule I can download somewhere?


Check your local churches, if you don't have one.  They just about all hold services online right now.  Or just watch one of those TV evangelist.  Not my style but whatever.


----------



## Eric Stratton

alang1216 said:


> Eric Stratton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?
> 
> Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about. Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..
> 
> 
> 
> Her link,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is refreshingly self-explanatory. Unlike you saying _Newton read some stuff in the Bible therefore ..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The list omitted the most famous believers in an imminent apocalypse, Jesus and Paul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better get on board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, no idea what you mean.
Click to expand...

Read my reply to the other atheist.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Toga Party!


----------



## Eric Stratton

Grumblenuts said:


> Toga Party!



That's right, Neidermeyer.


----------



## alang1216

Eric Stratton said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Stratton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?
> 
> Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about. Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..
> 
> 
> 
> Her link,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is refreshingly self-explanatory. Unlike you saying _Newton read some stuff in the Bible therefore ..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The list omitted the most famous believers in an imminent apocalypse, Jesus and Paul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better get on board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, no idea what you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read my reply to the other atheist.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhhh, a theological reference.  Thanks for the advice but I doubt you have a clue about the subject.  Faith isn't knowledge.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Eric Stratton said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the station? Is there a schedule I can download somewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> Check your local churches, if you don't have one.  They just about all hold services online right now.  Or just watch one of those TV evangelist.  Not my style but whatever.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, but what if I want to go the other way? I've been pleading,  year after year, "Dear God, Jesus, or Whatever, smite me now!" "Take me Satan, I'm all yours!" and .. nothing. There's really nobody listening. It's purty darn clear.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He himself said, “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming soon’" Revelation 22:20  Apostle John replied, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” Revelation 22:20.  That was written 2,000 years ago, so Christians wonder what did Jesus mean by soon.  Even the apostles thought he was coming back in their lifetimes.
> 
> AFAIK, the soonest that was predicted by a reputable source is 2060 by Sir Isaac Newton, but Christians have to be ready if it happens tomorrow.  I thought it would be after our passing, but now I have change my mindset and think it could be tomorrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe Isaac Newton is a reputable source with reference to end of the world predictions?
> 
> Why would he be any more reputable than anyone of the other failed endtimers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?
> 
> Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about.  Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..
Click to expand...


Rather, I would ask you to explain why I, or anyone else, should accept any endtimes prediction. Maybe it’s just me but I’d prefer that people operate under the precepts of reason and rationality as opposed to religious fanatics who have a death wish geared toward heralding in the endtimes.

People both before and after Newton have issued such predictions with all of them being wrong. NASA speculating about an asteroid strike is vastly different from claims predicting the return of a religious figure who will try to extinguish all life on the planet.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?
> 
> Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about. Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..
> 
> 
> 
> Her link,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is refreshingly self-explanatory. Unlike you saying _Newton read some stuff in the Bible therefore ..._
Click to expand...


You're hopeless in more ways than one.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you avoid is the falsification of atheism as it appears there are none.  Would the second coming be it?  I also asked about the falsification of abiogenesis.
> 
> As for abiogenesis, I think it has been falsified with no other living organisms in our galaxy by observation and fine tuning facts.
> 
> 
> 
> It is you not paying attention.  I already said that neither theism or atheism can be proven or disproven by science since they pertain to the supernatural not the natural world.
> 
> There are a billion planets in our galaxy and a billion galaxies.  How many have you visited?
Click to expand...


It doesn't have to be science, but falsification can be what falsified the Greek and Roman gods -- Christianity.  Today, it's atheism that tries to falsify Christianity, but can't.  I can now say the falsification of atheism is Christianity.

The falsification of microbes in outer space are the fine tuning facts, observation, and chrality, i.e. no abiogenesis anywhere.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I can now say the falsification of atheism is Christianity.


And I can say the falsification of Christianity is atheism.  Both statements are nonsense since neither are facts that can be proved.  You're welcome to your opinion but don't confuse opinion with truth.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Too late. He's hopeless. In that way and more.


----------



## alang1216

Grumblenuts said:


> Too late. He's hopeless. In that way and more.


I still love him nonetheless.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Yeah, me too.  Well done with home fries.


----------



## Blues Man

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.



There is no real order to the universe.

We think there is because we can predict the movement of celestial bodies and a few other things but there is no real order.

Why couldn't trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over the course of billions of years resulted in life?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you avoid is the falsification of atheism as it appears there are none.  Would the second coming be it?  I also asked about the falsification of abiogenesis.
> 
> As for abiogenesis, I think it has been falsified with no other living organisms in our galaxy by observation and fine tuning facts.
> 
> 
> 
> It is you not paying attention.  I already said that neither theism or atheism can be proven or disproven by science since they pertain to the supernatural not the natural world.
> 
> There are a billion planets in our galaxy and a billion galaxies.  How many have you visited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be science, but falsification can be what falsified the Greek and Roman gods -- Christianity.  Today, it's atheism that tries to falsify Christianity, but can't.  I can now say the falsification of atheism is Christianity.
> 
> The falsification of microbes in outer space are the fine tuning facts, observation, and chrality, i.e. no abiogenesis anywhere.
Click to expand...

Christianity never falsified the Greek, Roman gods or any other gods.


----------



## esalla

alang1216 said:


> Eric Stratton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?
> 
> Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about. Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..
> 
> 
> 
> Her link,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is refreshingly self-explanatory. Unlike you saying _Newton read some stuff in the Bible therefore ..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The list omitted the most famous believers in an imminent apocalypse, Jesus and Paul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better get on board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, no idea what you mean.
Click to expand...

He means you are swimming in a sea of stupidity


----------



## esalla

Blues Man said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no real order to the universe.
> 
> We think there is because we can predict the movement of celestial bodies and a few other things but there is no real order.
> 
> Why couldn't trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over the course of billions of years resulted in life?
Click to expand...

The universe is in perfect order, no matter is missing or dark.  We just do not comprehend the order


----------



## alang1216

esalla said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Stratton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?
> 
> Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about. Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..
> 
> 
> 
> Her link,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is refreshingly self-explanatory. Unlike you saying _Newton read some stuff in the Bible therefore ..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The list omitted the most famous believers in an imminent apocalypse, Jesus and Paul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better get on board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, no idea what you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He means you are swimming in a sea of stupidity
Click to expand...

Saying something is so doesn't make it so.  I'm smart enough to know that.  I may be stupid but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.


----------



## esalla

alang1216 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Stratton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?
> 
> Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about. Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..
> 
> 
> 
> Her link,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is refreshingly self-explanatory. Unlike you saying _Newton read some stuff in the Bible therefore ..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The list omitted the most famous believers in an imminent apocalypse, Jesus and Paul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better get on board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, no idea what you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He means you are swimming in a sea of stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying something is so doesn't make it so.  I'm smart enough to know that.  I may be stupid but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Lol, but whatever you say is so, is so.

The definition of this is delusion


----------



## alang1216

esalla said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Stratton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?
> 
> Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about. Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..
> 
> 
> 
> Her link,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is refreshingly self-explanatory. Unlike you saying _Newton read some stuff in the Bible therefore ..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The list omitted the most famous believers in an imminent apocalypse, Jesus and Paul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better get on board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, no idea what you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He means you are swimming in a sea of stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying something is so doesn't make it so.  I'm smart enough to know that.  I may be stupid but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, but whatever you say is so, is so.
> 
> The definition of this is delusion
Click to expand...

So what did I write that was incorrect?  Do you even know or did you just see a passing bandwagon?


----------



## esalla

alang1216 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Stratton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?
> 
> Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about. Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..
> 
> 
> 
> Her link,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is refreshingly self-explanatory. Unlike you saying _Newton read some stuff in the Bible therefore ..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The list omitted the most famous believers in an imminent apocalypse, Jesus and Paul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better get on board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, no idea what you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He means you are swimming in a sea of stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying something is so doesn't make it so.  I'm smart enough to know that.  I may be stupid but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, but whatever you say is so, is so.
> 
> The definition of this is delusion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what did I write that was incorrect?  Do you even know or did you just see a passing bandwagon?
Click to expand...

What did I write that was incorrect. 

Here is what you wrote

Saying something is so doesn't make it so.  I'm smart enough to know that.  I may be stupid but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

So what are you correct about

Do you even know doctor?

Continue doing as told


----------



## alang1216

esalla said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Stratton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?
> 
> Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about. Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..
> 
> 
> 
> Her link,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is refreshingly self-explanatory. Unlike you saying _Newton read some stuff in the Bible therefore ..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The list omitted the most famous believers in an imminent apocalypse, Jesus and Paul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better get on board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, no idea what you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He means you are swimming in a sea of stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying something is so doesn't make it so.  I'm smart enough to know that.  I may be stupid but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, but whatever you say is so, is so.
> 
> The definition of this is delusion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what did I write that was incorrect?  Do you even know or did you just see a passing bandwagon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did I write that was incorrect.
> 
> Here is what you wrote
> 
> Saying something is so doesn't make it so.  I'm smart enough to know that.  I may be stupid but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
> 
> So what are you correct about
> 
> Do you even know doctor?
> 
> Continue doing as told
Click to expand...

I'm flattered you wish to discuss me but I'll wait until you can bring something more to the table.


----------



## esalla

alang1216 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Stratton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?
> 
> Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about. Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..
> 
> 
> 
> Her link,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is refreshingly self-explanatory. Unlike you saying _Newton read some stuff in the Bible therefore ..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The list omitted the most famous believers in an imminent apocalypse, Jesus and Paul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better get on board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, no idea what you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He means you are swimming in a sea of stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying something is so doesn't make it so.  I'm smart enough to know that.  I may be stupid but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually you are correct in that you are stupid, however your admitted stupidity will prevent you from ever knowing just how stupid u r

So ignorance really is bliss


----------



## alang1216

esalla said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Stratton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?
> 
> Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about. Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..
> 
> 
> 
> Her link,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is refreshingly self-explanatory. Unlike you saying _Newton read some stuff in the Bible therefore ..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The list omitted the most famous believers in an imminent apocalypse, Jesus and Paul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better get on board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, no idea what you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He means you are swimming in a sea of stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying something is so doesn't make it so.  I'm smart enough to know that.  I may be stupid but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you are correct in that you are stupid, however your admitted stupidity will prevent you from ever knowing just how stupid u r
> 
> So ignorance really is bliss
Click to expand...

still waiting...


----------



## esalla

alang1216 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Stratton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain your link and argument it is making and why you would not believe Newton?
> 
> Newton based his prediction on the Book of Daniel something which I've only read pieces about. Today, we have the science of the Earth's magnetic field disappearing or even NASA predicting there is about 20% chance of being hit by a large space object like an asteroid or meteor..
> 
> 
> 
> Her link,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is refreshingly self-explanatory. Unlike you saying _Newton read some stuff in the Bible therefore ..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The list omitted the most famous believers in an imminent apocalypse, Jesus and Paul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better get on board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, no idea what you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He means you are swimming in a sea of stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying something is so doesn't make it so.  I'm smart enough to know that.  I may be stupid but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

You are still waiting because you admitted to being stupid.
Sorry I have no cure for your stupidity doc
But if you brush your teeth with a chlorine and ammonia paste the cigarette stains will come out

I promise


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can now say the falsification of atheism is Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> And I can say the falsification of Christianity is atheism.  Both statements are nonsense since neither are facts that can be proved.  You're welcome to your opinion but don't confuse opinion with truth.
Click to expand...


No, you can't because that would be circular logic.  We have Christianity which turned the Greek and Roman gods into mythology.  This was due to the apostles who brought Jesus' word into their country.  However, we find the majority in Italy is Catholic with a minority of that being Christians.  It's interesting that one can apply PHOS Karl Popper's falsification theory to religion and logic as well as science.

Why don't you bring up the origins of atheism instead of just spouting wrong logic?  Then we can further this conversation.  Else arriverderci.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can now say the falsification of atheism is Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> And I can say the falsification of Christianity is atheism.  Both statements are nonsense since neither are facts that can be proved.  You're welcome to your opinion but don't confuse opinion with truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't because that would be circular logic.  We have Christianity which turned the Greek and Roman gods into mythology.  This was due to the apostles who brought Jesus' word into their country.  However, we find the majority in Italy is Catholic with a minority of that being Christians.  It's interesting that one can apply PHOS Karl Popper's falsification theory to religion and logic as well as science.
> 
> Why don't you bring up the origins of atheism instead of just spouting wrong logic?  Then we can further this conversation.  Else arriverderci.
Click to expand...

You say

However, we find the majority in Italy is Catholic with a minority of that being Christians.  

So in your mind all catholics are not christians

R u from venus


----------



## ChemEngineer

Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
					






					AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
				




(Short answer, "No.")


----------



## Blues Man

esalla said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no real order to the universe.
> 
> We think there is because we can predict the movement of celestial bodies and a few other things but there is no real order.
> 
> Why couldn't trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over the course of billions of years resulted in life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The universe is in perfect order, no matter is missing or dark.  We just do not comprehend the order
Click to expand...


Not really.

It is still quite chaotic.

And we only have an understanding of about 5% of the matter and energy that make up the universe so your comment is pure speculation


----------



## esalla

Blues Man said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no real order to the universe.
> 
> We think there is because we can predict the movement of celestial bodies and a few other things but there is no real order.
> 
> Why couldn't trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over the course of billions of years resulted in life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The universe is in perfect order, no matter is missing or dark.  We just do not comprehend the order
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> It is still quite chaotic.
> 
> And we only have an understanding of about 5% of the matter and energy that make up the universe so your comment is pure speculation
Click to expand...

Chaos is merely a human word meaning not understood.  Everything is as it should be. No dark matter is missing, as it is not dependent on humans for its placing


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> arriverderci.


Did you mean: *arrivederci* ? I think you did. Yeah, you're ignorable. Bubbye.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.


This fails as a an appeal to ignorance fallacy.


----------



## ChemEngineer

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
Click to expand...

Clayton, as commendable as your footnote on the Bill of Rights may be, Weatherman's comment that explosions do not result in complex order is anything BUT an appeal to ignorance.

Read over the remarks by many various learned men on the Darwin Fraud by men who are assuredly NOT ignorant:









						A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
					

A topnotch WordPress.com site




					TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com
				




Any time you are ready to discuss the insuperable statistics of original polypeptide synthesis, I will be more than happy to oblige you.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clayton, as commendable as your footnote on the Bill of Rights may be, Weatherman's comment that explosions do not result in complex order is anything BUT an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Read over the remarks by many various learned men on the Darwin Fraud by men who are assuredly NOT ignorant:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
> 
> 
> A topnotch WordPress.com site
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you are ready to discuss the insuperable statistics of original polypeptide synthesis, I will be more than happy to oblige you.
Click to expand...

To suggest that the known universe started with an “explosion” is an appeal to ignorance.

Slogans such as “Darwin Fraud” are straight out of the ICR playbook and suggest that the purveyors are accomplices to the promotion of ignorance.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Simply reading  ChemEngineer's posts is an "insuperable" appeal to ignorance, i.e. pure masochistic indulgence.


----------



## james bond

esalla said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can now say the falsification of atheism is Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> And I can say the falsification of Christianity is atheism.  Both statements are nonsense since neither are facts that can be proved.  You're welcome to your opinion but don't confuse opinion with truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't because that would be circular logic.  We have Christianity which turned the Greek and Roman gods into mythology.  This was due to the apostles who brought Jesus' word into their country.  However, we find the majority in Italy is Catholic with a minority of that being Christians.  It's interesting that one can apply PHOS Karl Popper's falsification theory to religion and logic as well as science.
> 
> Why don't you bring up the origins of atheism instead of just spouting wrong logic?  Then we can further this conversation.  Else arriverderci.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say
> 
> However, we find the majority in Italy is Catholic with a minority of that being Christians.
> 
> So in your mind all catholics are not christians
> 
> R u from venus
Click to expand...


Heh, Frannie.  For someone like you, you get Alberto  --  Alberto


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> arriverderci.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean: *arrivederci* ? I think you did. Yeah, you're ignorable. Bubbye.
Click to expand...


No, I meant *arriverderci* with a drawl .  You're still a creation science troll, so can...


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can now say the falsification of atheism is Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> And I can say the falsification of Christianity is atheism.  Both statements are nonsense since neither are facts that can be proved.  You're welcome to your opinion but don't confuse opinion with truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't because that would be circular logic.  We have Christianity which turned the Greek and Roman gods into mythology.  This was due to the apostles who brought Jesus' word into their country.  However, we find the majority in Italy is Catholic with a minority of that being Christians.  It's interesting that one can apply PHOS Karl Popper's falsification theory to religion and logic as well as science.
> 
> Why don't you bring up the origins of atheism instead of just spouting wrong logic?  Then we can further this conversation.  Else arriverderci.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say
> 
> However, we find the majority in Italy is Catholic with a minority of that being Christians.
> 
> So in your mind all catholics are not christians
> 
> R u from venus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh, Frannie.  For someone like you, you get Alberto  --  Alberto
Click to expand...

Come on Mr. Bond, explain how a minority of catholics are christians.............................

he he he


----------



## Blues Man

esalla said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no real order to the universe.
> 
> We think there is because we can predict the movement of celestial bodies and a few other things but there is no real order.
> 
> Why couldn't trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over the course of billions of years resulted in life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The universe is in perfect order, no matter is missing or dark.  We just do not comprehend the order
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> It is still quite chaotic.
> 
> And we only have an understanding of about 5% of the matter and energy that make up the universe so your comment is pure speculation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chaos is merely a human word meaning not understood.  Everything is as it should be. No dark matter is missing, as it is not dependent on humans for its placing
Click to expand...


We don;'t even know what dark matter and energy are.  Those are just names for things we do not understand.

saying that humans understand the universe with only a working knowledge of 5% of the matter and energy of the universe is ridiculous.



Why couldn't trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over the course of billions of years resulted in life?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Like everything, chaos is relative. For instance, from my perspective it all appears quite settled, orderly, and easily understood. Statistically however, your mileage is reportedly apt to vary, and to an insane degree at that, which I tend to chock up to just being your privilege speaking. Us down-to-earthers can't afford such mental breaks and visits to the men in their clean, white shirts..


----------



## Grumblenuts

alang1216 said:


> did you just see a passing bandwagon?


----------



## esalla

Blues Man said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no real order to the universe.
> 
> We think there is because we can predict the movement of celestial bodies and a few other things but there is no real order.
> 
> Why couldn't trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over the course of billions of years resulted in life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The universe is in perfect order, no matter is missing or dark.  We just do not comprehend the order
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> It is still quite chaotic.
> 
> And we only have an understanding of about 5% of the matter and energy that make up the universe so your comment is pure speculation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chaos is merely a human word meaning not understood.  Everything is as it should be. No dark matter is missing, as it is not dependent on humans for its placing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don;'t even know what dark matter and energy are.  Those are just names for things we do not understand.
> 
> saying that humans understand the universe with only a working knowledge of 5% of the matter and energy of the universe is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Why couldn't trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over the course of billions of years resulted in life?
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I said.  Everything is perfect in the universe, except for our understanding


----------



## Blues Man

esalla said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no real order to the universe.
> 
> We think there is because we can predict the movement of celestial bodies and a few other things but there is no real order.
> 
> Why couldn't trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over the course of billions of years resulted in life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The universe is in perfect order, no matter is missing or dark.  We just do not comprehend the order
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> It is still quite chaotic.
> 
> And we only have an understanding of about 5% of the matter and energy that make up the universe so your comment is pure speculation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chaos is merely a human word meaning not understood.  Everything is as it should be. No dark matter is missing, as it is not dependent on humans for its placing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don;'t even know what dark matter and energy are.  Those are just names for things we do not understand.
> 
> saying that humans understand the universe with only a working knowledge of 5% of the matter and energy of the universe is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Why couldn't trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over the course of billions of years resulted in life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is exactly what I said.  Everything is perfect in the universe, except for our understanding
Click to expand...


It's not perfect or imperfect.

it simply is what it is.


----------



## ChemEngineer

james bond said:


> "The future of humanity is going to bifurcate in two directions: Either it's going to become multi-planetary, or it's going to remain confined to one planet and eventually there's going to be an extinction event." -- Elon Musk



Friend, you are far too smart to be regurgitating Musky nonsense.
"Bifurcate" means split into two sections or groups.  AFTER Musk claimed that humanity "is going to bifurcate," he said it will "either... or" go one direction or the other, contradicting his bifurcation bid.

Now it gets even stupider when he pretends that humans are going anywhere.  We're here, period.  Nowhere else, not the moon, not Mars, not any massive asteroid has water or oxygen or soil to grow food.
BUT IF ONE DID, we would have to bring millions of tons of machinery to build a huge greenhouse to live in and it would be destroyed penetrated by a small meteor and all the oxygen would escape.  BUT IF IT DID NOT, all the problems of recreating little earth were attempted in the Arizona desert in an artificial space habitat.  It failed MISERABLY in short order.

What would prevent this "extinction event" from occuring on Musk's imaginary space platform, wherever he fantasizes it?  Nothing.  Man is not long for this world. The haters/anti-science Leftists continue to riot, destroy, lie, and can't even figure out which bathroom to go into.  They don't know that babies in the womb are humans, and treat them like garbage.  They're unique DNA, and fathers have rights too, not to mention these precious babies.  "Before you were conceived in the womb I knew you." - Nature's God
Do not expect reason or decency from those who do not even know this most fundamental truth.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.



If you're referring to the "big bang", I would submit that the "big bang" has nothing to do with evolution...


----------



## ChemEngineer

Canon Shooter said:


> If you're referring to the "big bang", I would submit that the "big bang" has nothing to do with evolution...



Yes and no. You went too far.  If not for the Big Bang, there would be nothing to "evolve" if you believe in Darwin's archaic tautology, which I do not.









						A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
					

A topnotch WordPress.com site




					TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com


----------



## Canon Shooter

ChemEngineer said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're referring to the "big bang", I would submit that the "big bang" has nothing to do with evolution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. You went too far.  If not for the Big Bang, there would be nothing to "evolve" if you believe in Darwin's archaic tautology, which I do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
> 
> 
> A topnotch WordPress.com site
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com
Click to expand...


Hmmmm... I see your point.

Allow me to ruminate a while...


----------



## james bond

esalla said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can now say the falsification of atheism is Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> And I can say the falsification of Christianity is atheism.  Both statements are nonsense since neither are facts that can be proved.  You're welcome to your opinion but don't confuse opinion with truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't because that would be circular logic.  We have Christianity which turned the Greek and Roman gods into mythology.  This was due to the apostles who brought Jesus' word into their country.  However, we find the majority in Italy is Catholic with a minority of that being Christians.  It's interesting that one can apply PHOS Karl Popper's falsification theory to religion and logic as well as science.
> 
> Why don't you bring up the origins of atheism instead of just spouting wrong logic?  Then we can further this conversation.  Else arriverderci.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say
> 
> However, we find the majority in Italy is Catholic with a minority of that being Christians.
> 
> So in your mind all catholics are not christians
> 
> R u from venus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh, Frannie.  For someone like you, you get Alberto  -- Alberto
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come on Mr. Bond, explain how a minority of catholics are christians.............................
> 
> he he he
Click to expand...


_"It's impossible to turn shit into brainz.  It's impossible to ask a baby not to cry."_ 

Aww... you didn't read Alberto.  Yet, you talk about religion in S&T and state Italy has a minority of Catholics.  So it was you in the assless bear suit...


----------



## james bond

ChemEngineer said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The future of humanity is going to bifurcate in two directions: Either it's going to become multi-planetary, or it's going to remain confined to one planet and eventually there's going to be an extinction event." -- Elon Musk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friend, you are far too smart to be regurgitating Musky nonsense.
> "Bifurcate" means split into two sections or groups.  AFTER Musk claimed that humanity "is going to bifurcate," he said it will "either... or" go one direction or the other, contradicting his bifurcation bid.
> 
> Now it gets even stupider when he pretends that humans are going anywhere.  We're here, period.  Nowhere else, not the moon, not Mars, not any massive asteroid has water or oxygen or soil to grow food.
> BUT IF ONE DID, we would have to bring millions of tons of machinery to build a huge greenhouse to live in and it would be destroyed penetrated by a small meteor and all the oxygen would escape.  BUT IF IT DID NOT, all the problems of recreating little earth were attempted in the Arizona desert in an artificial space habitat.  It failed MISERABLY in short order.
> 
> What would prevent this "extinction event" from occuring on Musk's imaginary space platform, wherever he fantasizes it?  Nothing.  Man is not long for this world. The haters/anti-science Leftists continue to riot, destroy, lie, and can't even figure out which bathroom to go into.  They don't know that babies in the womb are humans, and treat them like garbage.  They're unique DNA, and fathers have rights too, not to mention these precious babies.  "Before you were conceived in the womb I knew you." - Nature's God
> Do not expect reason or decency from those who do not even know this most fundamental truth.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to argue semantics, but Musk meant either one or the other in order to shock the audience into thinking we'll have an extinction event here (which is what the Bible states or as the libs state from global warming).  Also, science shows the magnetic field is weakening.  Musk is clearly in the camp for becoming multiplanetary and living on some other planet.  He created Space-X and another rich guy, Jeff Bezos, created Blue Horizon to get regular people off here and live underground on Mars or Europa.  I suspect they get giant tax breaks for this.

Where I disagree with you about is bringing millions of tons of machinery.  All they're going to do once the best planet or moon to go is send...





just like Noah's family.  In the meantime, I think others, i.e. those who can afford it, will be living in space stations.  Your giant greenhouses and what not will come later.  There isn't a final plan yet as NASA has yet to find the right place.  They'll be looking at Europa missions in this decade and plan to send a manned mission to Mars to look underground in the 2030s.  They've already discovered that a person could get underground on Mars using a shovel to dig through the ice/snow in one of the craters.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can now say the falsification of atheism is Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> And I can say the falsification of Christianity is atheism.  Both statements are nonsense since neither are facts that can be proved.  You're welcome to your opinion but don't confuse opinion with truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't because that would be circular logic.  We have Christianity which turned the Greek and Roman gods into mythology.  This was due to the apostles who brought Jesus' word into their country.  However, we find the majority in Italy is Catholic with a minority of that being Christians.  It's interesting that one can apply PHOS Karl Popper's falsification theory to religion and logic as well as science.
> 
> Why don't you bring up the origins of atheism instead of just spouting wrong logic?  Then we can further this conversation.  Else arriverderci.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say
> 
> However, we find the majority in Italy is Catholic with a minority of that being Christians.
> 
> So in your mind all catholics are not christians
> 
> R u from venus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heh, Frannie.  For someone like you, you get Alberto  -- Alberto
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come on Mr. Bond, explain how a minority of catholics are christians.............................
> 
> he he he
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"It's impossible to turn shit into brainz.  It's impossible to ask a baby not to cry."_
> 
> Aww... you didn't read Alberto.  Yet, you talk about religion in S&T and state Italy has a minority of Catholics.  So it was you in the assless bear suit...
Click to expand...

Again jimbo Catholics are also not a minority in Italy.

Your stupidity is perfect


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.


And that's false. Explosions definitely do result in instances of localized order. So you're not off to a good start.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Blues Man said:


> Why couldn't trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over the course of billions of years resulted in life?


The better question is: why wouldn't it? Life being "selected for" is inevitable, because of the nature of the concept of life. It persists. It consists of the forms that are more fit to persist in their environment. Something meeting the basic definitions of life will try to form in any environment. Talking about what CAUSES life is a silly approach. That question is already answered. The better question is, "What prevents it from persisting?" Yes, we are saying almost the same thing.


----------



## Quasar44

Any time you  have any forms of life ..you will get evolution as even the most basic beings need to adapt to enable future generations to succeed


----------



## Quasar44

Even Jews have evolved with the Merkava tanks , UZi and Fighter Jets


----------



## Quasar44

These  evolution adaptations come from genetic mutations and some are even natural occurring !!
Evolution is based on severe environmental changes


----------



## Quasar44

Evolution is 200 percent proven facts 
You cannot dispute it unless you’re either “Science illiterate or a religious nut “


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dagosa said:


> you don’t have to be an atheist to believe in evolution.


Exactly. Any child can point at anything and say, "God did that!", even evolution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?


It's a stupid question, as stated. Evolution is just physical selection acting on lifeforms. Selection is just an inherent property of the universe. Spheroid shapes of massive objects are "selected for". Streams that run downhill instead of uphill are "selected for". Elliptical orbits are "selected for". The shape of the water molecule is "selected for". Fusiform shapes of marine animals are "selected for"


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?
> 
> 
> 
> It's a stupid question, as stated. Evolution is just physical selection acting on lifeforms. Selection is just an inherent property of the universe. Spheroid shapes of massive objects are "selected for". Streams that run downhill instead of uphill are "selected for". Elliptical orbits are "selected for". The shape of the water molecule is "selected for". Fusiform shapes of marine animals are "selected for"
Click to expand...


Such a stupid comment.  ToE is biology.  You're saying the big bang was like evolution by natural selection when there's no connection.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> ToE is biology.


Well of course. It is physical selection acting on lifeforms. Biology is the study of lifeforms. I already covered all this. Please pay attention.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ToE is biology.
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course. It is physical selection acting on lifeforms. Biology is the study of lifeforms. I already covered all this. Please pay attention.
Click to expand...


There are five natural selections formulated by Gregor Mendel and physical isn't one of them.  C'mon you make up stupid shit on top stupid shit which is circular reasoning.  We had the universe first.  ToE came later.

What you violate is the atheist science's _stupid_ law of "it's all due to chance."  Whenever a professor of ToE writes this on the whiteboard, then leave the class immediately.

We don't know how things are supposed to turn out like the Earth and all the planets revolving around the sun, but somehow it did.  This is called "reaching backwards" in time knowledge and the dumb atheist scientists ascribe it to chance.  Even your "physical selection" describes this it's all due to chance bullsh*t.  If we didn't know how our solar system worked, you would have made up something else.  Today, it's DNA and RNA that's ascribed to chance.  Instead, what's more likely is there was an intelligence behind the cause.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> There are five natural selections formulated by Gregor Mendel and physical isn't one of them.


They are all physical. Evolution is just physical selection operating on generations of lifeforms. There is nothing to argue. These are just simple facts. The Theory of Evolution describes how physical selection produced the diversity of species. This is pretty basic stuff.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ToE is biology.
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course. It is physical selection acting on lifeforms. Biology is the study of lifeforms. I already covered all this. Please pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are five natural selections formulated by Gregor Mendel and physical isn't one of them.  C'mon you make up stupid shit on top stupid shit which is circular reasoning.  We had the universe first.  ToE came later.
> 
> What you violate is the atheist science's _stupid_ law of "it's all due to chance."  Whenever a professor of ToE writes this on the whiteboard, then leave the class immediately.
> 
> We don't know how things are supposed to turn out like the Earth and all the planets revolving around the sun, but somehow it did.  This is called "reaching backwards" in time knowledge and the dumb atheist scientists ascribe it to chance.  Even your "physical selection" describes this it's all due to chance bullsh*t.  If we didn't know how our solar system worked, you would have made up something else.  Today, it's DNA and RNA that's ascribed to chance.  Instead, what's more likely is there was an intelligence behind the cause.
Click to expand...

There is no _atheist science's stupid law of "it's all due to chance."_

I suspect you saw that on one of the crank creationer ministries and though you would use it on this site. Why would you choose to be an accomplice to promoting such nonsense?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> There is no _atheist science's stupid law of "it's all due to chance."_


Right. Selection is precisely the opposite of randomness. A massive object isn't a spheroid "by chance". It's not a roll of the die that determines whether or not a sharper tooth will be better at piercing flesh, for example. Physical laws dictate these outcomes, and these laws are the same everywhere and at all times. There is no "prop bet" on whether or not gravity will cause two massive objects to attract each other not. If someone is willing to take that bet, though, hit me up.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> I am familiar with the theory. There was no explosion.


Right, because looking at it that way dooms one to be wrong from the start. Explosions expand into surrounding medium. There is nothing for the universe to "explode into".


----------



## ChemEngineer

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
					

A topnotch WordPress.com site




					TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com


----------



## Moonglow

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.


I suggest you study polarity and magnetism.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are five natural selections formulated by Gregor Mendel and physical isn't one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> They are all physical. Evolution is just physical selection operating on generations of lifeforms. There is nothing to argue. These are just simple facts. The Theory of Evolution describes how physical selection produced the diversity of species. This is pretty basic stuff.
Click to expand...







It's all basic stuff because we know what happened.  Before we knew, it wasn't basic.  I can only think of Houdini because I was reading about him today.  He had a plan before he could do his magic and escape before dying.  One was hidden keys.  One can't just go in there thinking something will eventually happen because it's not always possible unless one has intelligence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It's all basic stuff because we know what happened. Before we knew, it wasn't basic.


Wow man, that's deep. 

Strangely, you say this, yet you aren't grasping these basic concepts.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ToE is biology.
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course. It is physical selection acting on lifeforms. Biology is the study of lifeforms. I already covered all this. Please pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are five natural selections formulated by Gregor Mendel and physical isn't one of them.  C'mon you make up stupid shit on top stupid shit which is circular reasoning.  We had the universe first.  ToE came later.
> 
> What you violate is the atheist science's _stupid_ law of "it's all due to chance."  Whenever a professor of ToE writes this on the whiteboard, then leave the class immediately.
> 
> We don't know how things are supposed to turn out like the Earth and all the planets revolving around the sun, but somehow it did.  This is called "reaching backwards" in time knowledge and the dumb atheist scientists ascribe it to chance.  Even your "physical selection" describes this it's all due to chance bullsh*t.  If we didn't know how our solar system worked, you would have made up something else.  Today, it's DNA and RNA that's ascribed to chance.  Instead, what's more likely is there was an intelligence behind the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no _atheist science's stupid law of "it's all due to chance."_
> 
> I suspect you saw that on one of the crank creationer ministries and though you would use it on this site. Why would you choose to be an accomplice to promoting such nonsense?
Click to expand...


When we discuss origins like the big bang when there was no spacetime, then we get into the chance part.  Or how life started, then we get into the random chance part.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> When we discuss origins like the big bang when there was no spacetime, then we get into the chance part.


True, to a degree. It is not a necessary concept, but also cannot be ruled out. But nevertheless, the contents of the universe are fine tuned to its laws, not the other way around.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all basic stuff because we know what happened. Before we knew, it wasn't basic.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow man, that's deep.
> 
> Strangely, you say this, yet you aren't grasping these basic concepts.
Click to expand...


Yet, no one is convinced.  We don't know how your basic things happened in the past.  We can't even see the future as it accelerates away from us.  All we see are the collisions and explosions.  Wouldn't you think that was basic?  And then what happens at the black hole in the center?  Why is that there?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Yet, no one is convinced.


Uh... Save for every educated person on the planet whose mind is not addled by some form of silly religious belief. See, this is why most have you on ignore...you intentionally say provably false things, which makes discussion pointless or impossible.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we discuss origins like the big bang when there was no spacetime, then we get into the chance part.
> 
> 
> 
> True, to a degree. It is not a necessary concept, but also cannot be ruled out. But nevertheless, the contents of the universe are fine tuned to its laws, not the other way around.
Click to expand...


Then you should be able to explain what's going to happen in the future, both cosmologically and biologically.  Such as are we going to become multi-planetary?  Will we find life on other planets even if they're microbial?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, no one is convinced.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... Save for every educated person on the planet whose mind is not addled by some form of silly religious belief. See, this is why most have you on ignore...you intentionally say provably false things, which makes discussion pointless or impossible.
Click to expand...


Well, if you could disprove what I said then someone here would've done so already.  I can show genesis while you can't show abiogenesis.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Then you should be able to explain what's going to happen in the future, both cosmologically and biologically.


False. While the universe is deterministic, the predictions would get more inaccurate over time. But this is an irrelevant red herring. The only things being argued as 100% certain by me are that selection will act to select for the formation of life and persistence of some of its forms.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Well, if you could disprove what I said then someone here would've done so already


See, like this. You are literally asking someone to disprove your universal claim that nobody believes "it". Which you didn't clearly define anyway. I cant believe you actually enjoy acting this fundamentally stupidly. I don't see the appeal.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to explain what's going to happen in the future, both cosmologically and biologically.
> 
> 
> 
> False. While the universe is deterministic, the predictions would get more inaccurate over time. But this is an irrelevant red herring. The only things being argued as 100% certain by me are that selection will act to select for the formation of life and persistence of some of its forms.
Click to expand...


I started watching the Tyson - Jones fight.  I can predict that Tyson will ktfo Jones based on the science of boxing.  I'll tell you how I know afterward.

Yet, you give me nothing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I started watching the Tyson - Jones fight. I can predict that Tyson will ktfo Jones based on the science of boxing.


I promise you nobody has any idea how this is relevant to anything being discussed here. Least of all you. Did someone claim, for example, that life as it exists in earth today could have been predicted? Nope. Actually, the irony is that you claim this. You claim this is all designed, andthat, had we known the design, we could have made the aforementioned prediction. So, as is often the case, it is you who is most guilty of that of which you accuse others.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The theory of evolution only explains how we have the diversity of species that we observe.  What offense against God is found, there? The only assault I see is from the religious... that somehow God is great, but not quite great enough to "create" evolution. Why not. If God can 'spin any yarn', then why not evolution?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Did someone claim, for example, that life as it exists in earth today could have been predicted? Nope. Actually, the irony is that you claim this. You claim this is all designed, andthat, had we known the design, we could have made the aforementioned prediction. So, as is often the case, it is you who is most guilty of that of which you accuse others.



Darwin did, but we know that he was wrong about most of what he predicted and said -- What Darwin Got Right (and Wrong) About Evolution



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The theory of evolution only explains how we have the diversity of species that we observe.  What offense against God is found, there? The only assault I see is from the religious... that somehow God is great, but not quite great enough to "create" evolution. Why not. If God can 'spin any yarn', then why not evolution?



Come now.  Evolution isn't fact as you have claimed in the past.  Why?   It fails to explain genetics and its characteristics, it lacks transitional fossil evidence.  its ecological systems are biased, its evolutionary trees are more like bushes of life, doesn't follow enzyme properties, and other facts such as genesis shows evolution could not have started by abiogenesis.  You used to claim proto organisms, plants, and animals caused it.  No such thing and no evidence to back that up.  All evolution is claiming today is natural selection and we know God was responsible for that.  Now, that can be backed up by the fossil evidence and experiment.

As for macroevolution where natural selection isn't involved, we have nothing of the kind.  Darwin's theories could not explain the Cambrian explosion.  The basics are he was wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Evolution isn't fact


We know it is. You couldn't stop it if you tried. Species will change over time. Two isolated populations.of one species, given time, will diverge.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution isn't fact
> 
> 
> 
> We know it is. You couldn't stop it if you tried. Species will change over time. Two isolated populations.of one species, given time, will diverge.
Click to expand...


I think it's the atheist religion that convinced you of that, but it can't explain the origin of life nor the beginning before the big bang.  While the Bible is fact and explains in detail what happened.  You can't demonstrate how humans came to be nor birds.

We're still waiting on abiogenesis and I don't expect you to explain quantum entanglement, but not being able to show how spacetime, i.e. fourth dimension and the other three dimensions started, puts a dent in your hypotheses.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ToE is biology.
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course. It is physical selection acting on lifeforms. Biology is the study of lifeforms. I already covered all this. Please pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are five natural selections formulated by Gregor Mendel and physical isn't one of them.  C'mon you make up stupid shit on top stupid shit which is circular reasoning.  We had the universe first.  ToE came later.
> 
> What you violate is the atheist science's _stupid_ law of "it's all due to chance."  Whenever a professor of ToE writes this on the whiteboard, then leave the class immediately.
> 
> We don't know how things are supposed to turn out like the Earth and all the planets revolving around the sun, but somehow it did.  This is called "reaching backwards" in time knowledge and the dumb atheist scientists ascribe it to chance.  Even your "physical selection" describes this it's all due to chance bullsh*t.  If we didn't know how our solar system worked, you would have made up something else.  Today, it's DNA and RNA that's ascribed to chance.  Instead, what's more likely is there was an intelligence behind the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no _atheist science's stupid law of "it's all due to chance."_
> 
> I suspect you saw that on one of the crank creationer ministries and though you would use it on this site. Why would you choose to be an accomplice to promoting such nonsense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When we discuss origins like the big bang when there was no spacetime, then we get into the chance part.  Or how life started, then we get into the random chance part.
Click to expand...

When you use the term “we”, you make the mistake of including the perspective of fundamentalist religioners in matters of science.

What the ID’iot creationists don’t understand is that the forces that act upon biological organisms are not random. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer.

This results in the corresponding physical trait evolving in the direction of greater fitness. Since these traits already have genes coding for them, they are not acquired. They are therefore completely inheritable. Genetic variation is constantly being added to by random point mutations on the DNA molecule. Some of this new variation makes the animals slightly less fit, some makes it slightly more fit, and most makes no difference whatsoever.

As natural selection continues to act on the genes (both old and new) populations can eventually reach a point where all of the old genes for a certain trait have been replaced by the newly evolved genes.


----------



## PredFan

Weatherman2020 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
Click to expand...

Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic.


----------



## Blues Man

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why couldn't trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over the course of billions of years resulted in life?
> 
> 
> 
> The better question is: why wouldn't it? Life being "selected for" is inevitable, because of the nature of the concept of life. It persists. It consists of the forms that are more fit to persist in their environment. Something meeting the basic definitions of life will try to form in any environment. Talking about what CAUSES life is a silly approach. That question is already answered. The better question is, "What prevents it from persisting?" Yes, we are saying almost the same thing.
Click to expand...


I don't think anything was selected.  the beginning of life was a random thing so it could not have been selected.  Once in existence we can extrapolate that the better configurations led to longer survival and that led to more complexity etc


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution isn't fact
> 
> 
> 
> We know it is. You couldn't stop it if you tried. Species will change over time. Two isolated populations.of one species, given time, will diverge.
Click to expand...


I didn't say that species will not change over time.  Macro changes do not happen even after long time.  Or mutations.


----------



## james bond

PredFan said:


> Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic.



In other words, it's all due to chance.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right. Selection is precisely the opposite of randomness. A massive object isn't a spheroid "by chance".



That's not what the other poster said, "Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic."

You have no evidence nor anything to show what you are talking about.


----------



## PredFan

james bond said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, it's all due to chance.
Click to expand...

That’s an over-simplification, but ok.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Blues Man said:


> I don't think anything was selected. the beginning of life was a random thing so it could not have been selected.


The selection for persistent forms that were the precursors to life was not random. The reason one complex protein persisted and another did not was not a random event. The same rules applied everywhere and the same complex proteins kept forming and persisting. That's nonrandom selection operating.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, it's all due to chance.
Click to expand...

In the rational world, no.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> That's not what the other poster said, "Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic."


Which is not correct. Evolution follows a clear progression. Single cell. Multi cell. Vertebrates. Tetrapods. Nothing out of order. That's neither random nor chaotic. We aren't finding rabbit fossils in the Jurassic period, nor will we ever. We don't have a "random chance" of finding a bird fossil in a 2 billion year old rock. The chance is zero.


----------



## PredFan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the other poster said, "Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic."
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not correct. Evolution follows a clear progression. Single cell. Multi cell. Vertebrates. Tetrapods. Nothing out of order. That's neither random nor chaotic. We aren't finding rabbit fossils in the Jurassic period, nor will we ever. We don't have a "random chance" of finding a bird fossil in a 2 billion year old rock. The chance is zero.
Click to expand...

That isn’t what I meant by random. The mutations are random and sometimes chaotic. Whether they lead to a creature better suited to its environment or to a creature that can’t survive even one day depends on the environment. That part isn’t random.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PredFan said:


> That isn’t what I meant by random. The mutations are random and sometimes chaotic.


Right, i am with you, then.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PredFan said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the other poster said, "Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic."
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not correct. Evolution follows a clear progression. Single cell. Multi cell. Vertebrates. Tetrapods. Nothing out of order. That's neither random nor chaotic. We aren't finding rabbit fossils in the Jurassic period, nor will we ever. We don't have a "random chance" of finding a bird fossil in a 2 billion year old rock. The chance is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn’t what I meant by random. The mutations are random and sometimes chaotic. Whether they lead to a creature better suited to its environment or to a creature that can’t survive even one day depends on the environment. That part isn’t random.
Click to expand...

Genetic drift is inherently random. But the pressures that operate on the resulting populations are not. Two isolated populations may undergo some changes due to random genetic drift. The pressures that decide which forms persist and then dominate are not random. So yes, i think we are on the same page.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I didn't say that species will not change over time



And eventually enough changes will occur that the contemporary individual is a different species than its ancestors. And when two populations of one species are isolated for enough time, they will diverge and become two, distinct species. It's all the exact, same thing. You have already admitted the the truth of evolution, while denying it. This is what iron age magical hooha has done to your brain.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The "mechanisms" of evolution (there are basically 5) are all explanations for how selection acts upon lifeforms, and the inherent properties of lifeforms that cause opportunities for selection to operate. Mutations and genetic drift, for example... these are inherent properties of lifeforms on Earth. They are colloquially called "mechanisms of evolution", but really, the "mechanism" of evolution is physical selection acting upon the lifeforms that have these inherent properties.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Evolution "came into existence" because abiogenesis occurred. Before abiogenesis, there were no lifeforms on which physical selection could act. Abiogenesis is a fact and a foregone conclusion: once there was no life, then there was life. You can say God did it or not, it is still abiogenesis. You can also say that stars form by magic, not deterministic, physical processes. Buut you would get laughed out of a 10th grade astronomy class.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anything was selected. the beginning of life was a random thing so it could not have been selected.
> 
> 
> 
> The selection for persistent forms that were the precursors to life was not random. The reason one complex protein persisted and another did not was not a random event. The same rules applied everywhere and the same complex proteins kept forming and persisting. That's nonrandom selection operating.
Click to expand...


Now, I know you're just making stuff up in your head.  Old age can do that to you.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Evolution "came into existence" because abiogenesis occurred. Before abiogenesis, there were no lifeforms on which physical selection could act. Abiogenesis is a fact and a foregone conclusion: once there was no life, then there was life. You can say God did it or not, it is still abiogenesis. You can also say that stars form by magic, not deterministic, physical processes. Buut you would get laughed out of a 10th grade astronomy class



What God did is called Genesis -- beginning of the spacetime, the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  He created creation science so we could learn from our world.

Now, there is a religious piece to this, too, because there was an angel who was so strong that he challenged God and wanted to be like God.  He lost and was banished to Earth and eventually gained Earth's dominion.  What this anti-God angel created was abiogenesis and the rest stating it's okay for humans to not believe in God and that they can be like gods by not believing.  He's excellent in turning humans to become like gods with his anti-God or scientific atheism and making them believe there is no God since the 1850s.  Scientists who believe in God and his creation science were banished and cannot participate in peer reviews anymore nor teach in public schools.  This is why many people here believe what they were taught in schools.  They can't figure out for themselves what the truth is anymore.

If the atheists and their scientists had the truth, then they would be able show abiogenesis through experiments (but it's all due to chance so they can't) as well as how humans can access the fourth dimension time and control spacetime.  Something or some supernatural being would have had to exist before the big bang in order to cause it, a being who is timeless and spaceless.  He would have be in the fourth dimension to control time.  Moreover, we rule over three dimensions but have no control of the fourth dimension. Time waits for no humans.  All you have to do is die, so I can easily show that.  There's also a piece of what happens after you die, but we don't like to talk about that, do we?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anything was selected. the beginning of life was a random thing so it could not have been selected.
> 
> 
> 
> The selection for persistent forms that were the precursors to life was not random. The reason one complex protein persisted and another did not was not a random event. The same rules applied everywhere and the same complex proteins kept forming and persisting. That's nonrandom selection operating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, I know you're just making stuff up in your head.  Old age can do that to you.
Click to expand...

It must be frustrating to be so ignorant and incapable that you cant even hang with 7th graders in what appears to be your favorite topic. Then you try to dispute the prevailing theory in the global scientific community regarding abiogenesis by spouting a childish insult...and it just gets sad quickly.


----------



## james bond

PredFan said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the other poster said, "Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic."
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not correct. Evolution follows a clear progression. Single cell. Multi cell. Vertebrates. Tetrapods. Nothing out of order. That's neither random nor chaotic. We aren't finding rabbit fossils in the Jurassic period, nor will we ever. We don't have a "random chance" of finding a bird fossil in a 2 billion year old rock. The chance is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn’t what I meant by random. The mutations are random and sometimes chaotic. Whether they lead to a creature better suited to its environment or to a creature that can’t survive even one day depends on the environment. That part isn’t random.
Click to expand...


You're more right than what Fort Fun Indiana is making up.

Yes, I've read of it.  It's called the chaos theory and it's all due to chance (which you bring in as mutations).

"_Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another_

IN 1856, geologist Charles Lyell wrote to Charles Darwin with a question about fossils. Puzzled by types of mollusc that abruptly disappeared from the British fossil record, apparently in response to a glaciation, only to reappear 2 million years later completely unchanged, he asked of Darwin: “Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter.” Darwin never did.

To this day Lyell’s question has never received an adequate answer. I believe that is because there isn’t one. Because of the way evolution works, it is impossible to predict how a given species will respond to environmental change.

This is a long-running debate. In 1972, for example, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould challenged the assumption that evolutionary change was continuous and gradual. Their “punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis argued that change happens in short bursts separated by long periods of stability, as distinct from the more continuous change over long periods expected to be the outcome of natural selection and adaptation.

Later, John Endler, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter, UK, scrutinised claimed examples of natural selection but found a surprising lack of hard evidence (chronicled in his 1986 book _Natural Selection in the Wild_). More recently, and controversially, cognitive scientists Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University at New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson have pointed out philosophical problems with the adaptationist argument (_New Scientist_, 6 February, p 28).









						The chaos theory of evolution
					

Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another




					www.newscientist.com
				







--


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the other poster said, "Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic."
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not correct. Evolution follows a clear progression. Single cell. Multi cell. Vertebrates. Tetrapods. Nothing out of order. That's neither random nor chaotic. We aren't finding rabbit fossils in the Jurassic period, nor will we ever. We don't have a "random chance" of finding a bird fossil in a 2 billion year old rock. The chance is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn’t what I meant by random. The mutations are random and sometimes chaotic. Whether they lead to a creature better suited to its environment or to a creature that can’t survive even one day depends on the environment. That part isn’t random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're more right than what Fort Fun Indiana is making up.
> 
> Yes, I've read of it.  It's called the chaos theory and it's all due to chance (which you bring in as mutations).
> 
> "_Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another_
> 
> IN 1856, geologist Charles Lyell wrote to Charles Darwin with a question about fossils. Puzzled by types of mollusc that abruptly disappeared from the British fossil record, apparently in response to a glaciation, only to reappear 2 million years later completely unchanged, he asked of Darwin: “Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter.” Darwin never did.
> 
> To this day Lyell’s question has never received an adequate answer. I believe that is because there isn’t one. Because of the way evolution works, it is impossible to predict how a given species will respond to environmental change.
> 
> This is a long-running debate. In 1972, for example, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould challenged the assumption that evolutionary change was continuous and gradual. Their “punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis argued that change happens in short bursts separated by long periods of stability, as distinct from the more continuous change over long periods expected to be the outcome of natural selection and adaptation.
> 
> Later, John Endler, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter, UK, scrutinised claimed examples of natural selection but found a surprising lack of hard evidence (chronicled in his 1986 book _Natural Selection in the Wild_). More recently, and controversially, cognitive scientists Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University at New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson have pointed out philosophical problems with the adaptationist argument (_New Scientist_, 6 February, p 28).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chaos theory of evolution
> 
> 
> Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
Click to expand...

The "laws of evolution" are just the laws of physics. Randomness and chaos may lead to different physiologies, but nonrandom selection is what produces the ones that persist. He and i are on the same page. You are that flat earther languishing at odds with all the facts.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It must be frustrating to be so ignorant and incapable that you cant even hang with 7th graders in what appears to be your favorite topic. Then you try to dispute the prevailing theory in the global scientific community regarding abiogenesis by spouting a childish insult...and it just gets sad quickly.



Come on.  You're the one with the advantage as creation scientists have no access to publishing their papers to the general science community.  Moreover, you know very well that creation science cannot be taught in public schools and the universities have completely did away with the Christianity religion and creation science that no one believes in God anymore.  We are coming upon Christmas.  How many nativity scenes do you see outside people's homes?

However, atheist scientists can't get over the chicken coming before the egg.  Or how complex DNA, RNA, and the formations of proteins are.  They may believe their lies of a time chronology of evolution, but the scientific experiments or observations and studies do not back them up.  Even then, they still go back to their basic time chronology and what the consensus believes about how old the fossils are.  The age of the Earth isn't discussed so much anymore because 4.54 billion years (too old) tends to contradict against their best theories.  The bottom line is that It's basically, one research piled upon other research like a deck of cards.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Come on. You're the one with the advantage as creation scientists have no access to publishing their papers to the general science community.


Total horseshit, of course. Any valid science would be published, if creationists had any. You don't. 






james bond said:


> However, atheist scientists can't get over the chicken coming before the egg


False. There are explanations for the appearance of both RNA and DNA that are consistent with everything we know. You always make this same, stupid error: when scientists have not committed to a particular explanation due to waiting for it to be well studied and well evidenced, you make the idiotic claim that "they can't explain it". You cannot escape your fundamental understandings of the scientific process, and it taints everything you say.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The "laws of evolution" are just the laws of physics. Randomness and chaos may lead to different physiologies, but nonrandom selection is what produces the ones that persist. He and i are on the same page. You are that flat earther languishing at odds with all the facts.



We just agreed that there are no laws of evolution since it's random and chaotic.  IOW, it's all due to chance with mutations and the environment (sometimes).  We also agreed that natural selection is the non-random part.  Let's not bring the laws of physics into biology.

Why don't you give us the what non-random selection produces and how can I see it in action?  I already explained there are five types of natural selection and _physical_ and _non-random selection _are NOT part of it.

ETA:  I don't think you know the terms that we are talking about.  How embarrassing is it for your opponent to know more than you about natural selection?

Here are the five types of natural selection (non-random) that I brought up -- The 5 Types of Selection


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the other poster said, "Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic."
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not correct. Evolution follows a clear progression. Single cell. Multi cell. Vertebrates. Tetrapods. Nothing out of order. That's neither random nor chaotic. We aren't finding rabbit fossils in the Jurassic period, nor will we ever. We don't have a "random chance" of finding a bird fossil in a 2 billion year old rock. The chance is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn’t what I meant by random. The mutations are random and sometimes chaotic. Whether they lead to a creature better suited to its environment or to a creature that can’t survive even one day depends on the environment. That part isn’t random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're more right than what Fort Fun Indiana is making up.
> 
> Yes, I've read of it.  It's called the chaos theory and it's all due to chance (which you bring in as mutations).
> 
> "_Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another_
> 
> IN 1856, geologist Charles Lyell wrote to Charles Darwin with a question about fossils. Puzzled by types of mollusc that abruptly disappeared from the British fossil record, apparently in response to a glaciation, only to reappear 2 million years later completely unchanged, he asked of Darwin: “Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter.” Darwin never did.
> 
> To this day Lyell’s question has never received an adequate answer. I believe that is because there isn’t one. Because of the way evolution works, it is impossible to predict how a given species will respond to environmental change.
> 
> This is a long-running debate. In 1972, for example, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould challenged the assumption that evolutionary change was continuous and gradual. Their “punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis argued that change happens in short bursts separated by long periods of stability, as distinct from the more continuous change over long periods expected to be the outcome of natural selection and adaptation.
> 
> Later, John Endler, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter, UK, scrutinised claimed examples of natural selection but found a surprising lack of hard evidence (chronicled in his 1986 book _Natural Selection in the Wild_). More recently, and controversially, cognitive scientists Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University at New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson have pointed out philosophical problems with the adaptationist argument (_New Scientist_, 6 February, p 28).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chaos theory of evolution
> 
> 
> Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
Click to expand...



I think it's important to correct creationers who both don't understand and attempt to falsely attribute what Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould actually presented. Frequently. ID'iot creationers will claim that the theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed by Eldredge and Gould to explain gaps in the fossil record. The fact is, the theory was proposed to explain the (relative) rarity of transitional fossils, not their total absence. They sought to explain why speciation happens relatively quickly in some cases, more gradually in other cases, and seemingly not at all during some time periods for some species. 

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, _Natural History_, May 1994


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> We just agreed that there are no laws of evolution since it's random and chaotic.


No, "we" didn't. And you are misstating that point made by evolutionary scientists. Not one of them would call it completely random or chaotic, but you imply and even state otherwise, because you are just not very honest. Random evolution would mean we would find mammals on the sea floor that evolved directly from eels. We would find fish on mountaintops, and shellfish in trees. Again, you cant escape your fundamental misunderstading of science in general, and the magical, iron age horseshit that causes to to lie your ass off about this topic.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Total horseshit, of course. Any valid science would be published, if creationists had any. You don't.



I wish, but today's creation scientists have to do each others peer reviews.  They aren't going to be published in Nature and Science as pre-1850s.  ICR, AIG, creation.com, and others publish the passed papers.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> False. There are explanations for the appearance of both RNA and DNA that are consistent with everything we know. You always make this same, stupid error: when scientists have not committed to a particular explanation due to waiting for it to be well studied and well evidenced, you make the idiotic claim that "they can't explain it". You cannot escape your fundamental understandings of the scientific process, and it taints everything you say.



I'm not the advocate of scientific atheism here.  Your side still don't have anything.  Even if they had, then it prolly go over your head.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "laws of evolution" are just the laws of physics. Randomness and chaos may lead to different physiologies, but nonrandom selection is what produces the ones that persist. He and i are on the same page. You are that flat earther languishing at odds with all the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We just agreed that there are no laws of evolution since it's random and chaotic.  IOW, it's all due to chance with mutations and the environment (sometimes).  Let's not bring the laws of physics into biology.
> 
> Why don't you give us the what non-random selection produces and how can I see it in action?  I already explained there are five types of natural selection and physical and non-random are part of it.
Click to expand...

_"...there are no laws of evolution since it's random and chaotic'"_

With reference to the above, there is likely no other statement which better indicates that the ID'iot creationer understands nothing about biological evolution. "Chance" will certainly play a part in biological evolution, but the ID'iot creationer completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and natural selection as a function of environment is the very opposite of chance. "Random chance", in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the building block that natural selection acts upon. Beginning there, natural selection assembles and sorts out certain variations. Those genetic variations which provide greater reproductive success to the organisms possessing those advantageous mutations are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. Biology ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable. Environment changes and when organisms are subject to environmental isolation clearly show adaptation, as different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Mutations that are harmful to the process of adaptation usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I think it's important to correct creationers who both don't understand and attempt to falsely attribute what Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould actually presented. Frequently. ID'iot creationers will claim that the theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed by Eldredge and Gould to explain gaps in the fossil record. The fact is, the theory was proposed to explain the (relative) rarity of transitional fossils, not their total absence. They sought to explain why speciation happens relatively quickly in some cases, more gradually in other cases, and seemingly not at all during some time periods for some species.
> 
> "But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, _Natural History_, May 1994



You need to calm down and get over you hate and emotionalism towards creationists and ID people (who aren't ID'iot creationers).  No one takes you seriously anymore because you can't distinguish the different groups.  This is present in all of your posts whether I bring up an ID argument or a creation science one.  Usually, I present creationist arguments and I have explained it to you several times, but you continue to persist in your ramblings and false beliefs, so no need to reply to most of the things you bring up.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the other poster said, "Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic."
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not correct. Evolution follows a clear progression. Single cell. Multi cell. Vertebrates. Tetrapods. Nothing out of order. That's neither random nor chaotic. We aren't finding rabbit fossils in the Jurassic period, nor will we ever. We don't have a "random chance" of finding a bird fossil in a 2 billion year old rock. The chance is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn’t what I meant by random. The mutations are random and sometimes chaotic. Whether they lead to a creature better suited to its environment or to a creature that can’t survive even one day depends on the environment. That part isn’t random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're more right than what Fort Fun Indiana is making up.
> 
> Yes, I've read of it.  It's called the chaos theory and it's all due to chance (which you bring in as mutations).
> 
> "_Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another_
> 
> IN 1856, geologist Charles Lyell wrote to Charles Darwin with a question about fossils. Puzzled by types of mollusc that abruptly disappeared from the British fossil record, apparently in response to a glaciation, only to reappear 2 million years later completely unchanged, he asked of Darwin: “Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter.” Darwin never did.
> 
> To this day Lyell’s question has never received an adequate answer. I believe that is because there isn’t one. Because of the way evolution works, it is impossible to predict how a given species will respond to environmental change.
> 
> This is a long-running debate. In 1972, for example, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould challenged the assumption that evolutionary change was continuous and gradual. Their “punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis argued that change happens in short bursts separated by long periods of stability, as distinct from the more continuous change over long periods expected to be the outcome of natural selection and adaptation.
> 
> Later, John Endler, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter, UK, scrutinised claimed examples of natural selection but found a surprising lack of hard evidence (chronicled in his 1986 book _Natural Selection in the Wild_). More recently, and controversially, cognitive scientists Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University at New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson have pointed out philosophical problems with the adaptationist argument (_New Scientist_, 6 February, p 28).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chaos theory of evolution
> 
> 
> Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's important to correct creationers who both don't understand and attempt to falsely attribute what Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould actually presented. Frequently. ID'iot creationers will claim that the theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed by Eldredge and Gould to explain gaps in the fossil record. The fact is, the theory was proposed to explain the (relative) rarity of transitional fossils, not their total absence. They sought to explain why speciation happens relatively quickly in some cases, more gradually in other cases, and seemingly not at all during some time periods for some species.
> 
> "But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, _Natural History_, May 1994
Click to expand...

Its just so odd to watch him cite scientists, then shit on their entire, life's work in the next breath. This is what "backwards think" does to the human brain. All integrity and honesty go right out the window, in a backwards think. In a backwards think, the conclusion is chosen first. Then all new information is argued to support the preconception. What does not matter to these frauds is that the arguments made regarding the new information actually be consistent with one another; they must only be consistent with the preconception.

So, the result is that a fraud like Bond will cite the authority and ideas of Gould in one breath, then state he is a liar and a fraud in the next breath. No amount of lying, fallacy, or self-contradiction is too much for a person like Bond, especially when this exercise has been undertaken out of survival instinct to protect one's entire identity and belief set. In Bond's case, he defines himself by his magical, iron age religious beliefs.

The easy way, intellectually, to dismiss the backwards think exercise is to point out the contradictions, falsehoods, and fallacies that arise from the backwards think exercise. However, that only compels those NOT engaged in the backwards think because, as previously stated, the fraud engaging it it does not care that these things arise. So, to the fraud, you haven't even dinged their "arguments". So one funny result is that the fraud will "declare victory" in any and every such exchange. You will see Bond do this in this thread, probably more than once.


----------



## ReinyDays

Hollie said:


> I think it's important to correct creationers who both don't understand and attempt to falsely attribute what Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould actually presented. Frequently. ID'iot creationers will claim that the theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed by Eldredge and Gould to explain gaps in the fossil record. The fact is, the theory was proposed to explain the (relative) rarity of transitional fossils, not their total absence. They sought to explain why speciation happens relatively quickly in some cases, more gradually in other cases, and seemingly not at all during some time periods for some species.
> 
> "But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, _Natural History_, May 1994



There's also the process of fossilization that needs to be considered ... that's by no means an automatic ... in fact, one could argue it's rare to occur ... only in very special circumstances will fossils form in the first place, and the species has to be fossilizable ... not all species can form fossils ... 

Out of millions of species, only a very few can be shown to go through tiny steps of change through time ... BUT ... these few do fully demonstrate the ToE ... science is very nitpicky about duplication, but once we have duplication in hand, science says it's a real thing ... 

But that's science ... Genesis is philosophy ... but definition the creation is unique, and science _cannot_ examine unique events ...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's important to correct creationers who both don't understand and attempt to falsely attribute what Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould actually presented. Frequently. ID'iot creationers will claim that the theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed by Eldredge and Gould to explain gaps in the fossil record. The fact is, the theory was proposed to explain the (relative) rarity of transitional fossils, not their total absence. They sought to explain why speciation happens relatively quickly in some cases, more gradually in other cases, and seemingly not at all during some time periods for some species.
> 
> "But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, _Natural History_, May 1994
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to calm down and get over you hate and emotionalism towards creationists and ID people (who aren't ID'iot creationers).  No one takes you seriously anymore because you can't distinguish the different groups.  This is present in all of your posts whether I bring up an ID argument or a creation science one.  Usually, I present creationist arguments and I have explained it to you several times, but you continue to persist in your ramblings and false beliefs, so no need to reply to most of the things you bring up.
Click to expand...

I can see you're angry and lashing out like a petulant child. You obviously don't like being held to account for false claims about biological evolution and for falsely attributing what scientists such as Gould and Eldredge actually presented. 

If you have a defendable argument to present, then do so. If you choose not to respond to what I wrote that is fine, but there's no need for emotional outbursts when religious claims are countered by science data.


----------



## Hollie

ReinyDays said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's important to correct creationers who both don't understand and attempt to falsely attribute what Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould actually presented. Frequently. ID'iot creationers will claim that the theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed by Eldredge and Gould to explain gaps in the fossil record. The fact is, the theory was proposed to explain the (relative) rarity of transitional fossils, not their total absence. They sought to explain why speciation happens relatively quickly in some cases, more gradually in other cases, and seemingly not at all during some time periods for some species.
> 
> "But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, _Natural History_, May 1994
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's also the process of fossilization that needs to be considered ... that's by no means an automatic ... in fact, one could argue it's rare to occur ... only in very special circumstances will fossils form in the first place, and the species has to be fossilizable ... not all species can form fossils ...
> 
> Out of millions of species, only a very few can be shown to go through tiny steps of change through time ... BUT ... these few do fully demonstrate the ToE ... science is very nitpicky about duplication, but once we have duplication in hand, science says it's a real thing ...
> 
> But that's science ... Genesis is philosophy ... but definition the creation is unique, and science _cannot_ examine unique events ...
Click to expand...


I think the above is well stated and I agree. In addition to the _unique_ description of Genesis, I would also add _supernatural _and the limitation of science with regard to examination of supernatural events.


----------



## ReinyDays

A word about chaos ... that's a mathematical structure with some usefulness in macroscopic systems ... looking at atoms and molecules though, things are pretty much set in stone, it's more useful to analysis the individual bonding energies and motion ... casting this microscopically as chaos has no predictive value, so it's pointless ...

There's a non-zero probability that two methane molecules will collide at just the right momentums that they form a chemical bond and become ethane ... ethane is stable, over time ethane builds up in the environment ... for more collisions, more molecules, bigger and bigger ... [shrugs shoulders] ... where common molecules are common, it's common for life to erupt ... not chaos, it's order, driven by solar energy ...


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Its just so odd to watch him cite scientists, then shit on their entire, life's work in the next breath. This is what "backwards think" does to the human brain. All integrity and honesty go right out the window, in a backwards think. In a backwards think, the conclusion is chosen first. Then all new information is argued to support the preconception. What does not matter to these frauds is that the arguments made regarding the new information actually be consistent with one another; they must only be consistent with the preconception.



The truth is the existence of life is an _elementary fact,_ but it cannot be explained by evolutionists.  It cannot be explained with evolutionary thinking and abiogenesis.  One has to have the presence of life first before you can refer to your scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould and I'm fine with that.  That said, the creation scientists and I do not have to agree with him that some mutation was a random and fortuitous occurrence for a single cell to pop into existence.  No one can show something did or didn't happen in a billion years, but that's what the assumption is for scientific atheism.

I was the one who pointed out your backward evolutionary thinking first.  Here is the explanation:






It is based on rationalism.  In my example, your scientists observed a flower and saw that it had design and so had to have an explanation of why that came to be.  This is how you came up with the planets had to become spherical because you've already seen photos of them.  Your rationalism makes you make up evolution to explain for the design of the flower or how it came to be pink.  Thus, we get all the complex explanations and new terminology to make it sound like its actual knowledge or truth.  What is this process of thinking called?  It's called:





Circular thinking.  Or a logical fallacy.  This is one of the most devious tricks upon the mind where one convinces themselves they are right.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> Genesis is philosophy ... but definition the creation is unique, and science _cannot_ examine unique events ...



No, what is written in Genesis is creation science.  It can be backed up by the scientific method.  We know that God created adult animals first such as birds and sea creatures for Earth and Earth only.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The truth is the existence of life is an _elementary fact,_ but it cannot be explained by evolutionists.


And the fact that life once did not exist is another elementary fact. Scientists can explain it. Abiogenesis occurred due to selection by physical forces working on a bunch of chemicals. Explained. No need for any Gods. But feel free to say this was God's plan, if you like. That doesn't intrude on anything.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the existence of life is an _elementary fact,_ but it cannot be explained by evolutionists.
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact that life once did not exist is another elementary fact. Scientists can explain it. Abiogenesis occurred due to selection by physical forces working on a bunch of chemicals. Explained. No need for any Gods. But feel free to say this was God's plan, if you like. That doesn't intrude on anything.
Click to expand...


We found out that even Darwin avoided his mentor's question.  So what you bring up as elementary fact is the crux of the matter between our differences.  I have to say you've changed in terms of not going early with the ad hominems.  Now you just state things that can't be backed up.  I can see your view, but think it's based on rationality and circular logic.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> A word about chaos ... that's a mathematical structure with some usefulness in macroscopic systems ... looking at atoms and molecules though, things are pretty much set in stone, it's more useful to analysis the individual bonding energies and motion ... casting this microscopically as chaos has no predictive value, so it's pointless ...



With biology, we are discussing DNA, RNA, proteins, and such.  Are those what you are referring to as atoms and molecules, i.e. molecular biology,  or do you actually mean atoms and molecules in general?

Aftewards, you start discussing chemistry, so I'll leave that alone.  What you bring up as a non-zero probability is another rationalization that evolutionists like to use.  As long as it is non-zero, they assume it can happen.  I learned in terms of philosophy of science that it is -- an a priori philosophical commitment to chance or the Greek goddess of chance = Fortuna.  It's all about chance.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> We found out that even Darwin avoided his mentor's question.


Irrelevant.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis is philosophy ... but definition the creation is unique, and science _cannot_ examine unique events ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what is written in Genesis is creation science.  It can be backed up by the scientific method.  We know that God created adult animals first such as birds and sea creatures for Earth and Earth only.
Click to expand...

I’m struggling to identify anything scientific or anything that can be backed up by science about the Genesis fable. You refuse to identify how an ancient fable describing supernatural events is supported by science. It’s an odd notion to suggest that Genesis must be a literal rendition of creation because writers of later books of the Bible believed it to be so. That’s an argument straight out of the creation ministries.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> A word about chaos ... that's a mathematical structure with some usefulness in macroscopic systems ... looking at atoms and molecules though, things are pretty much set in stone, it's more useful to analysis the individual bonding energies and motion ... casting this microscopically as chaos has no predictive value, so it's pointless ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With biology, we are discussing DNA, RNA, proteins, and such.  Are those what you are referring to as atoms and molecules, i.e. molecular biology,  or do you actually mean atoms and molecules in general?
> 
> Aftewards, you start discussing chemistry, so I'll leave that alone.  What you bring up as a non-zero probability is another rationalization that evolutionists like to use.  As long as it is non-zero, they assume it can happen.  I learned in terms of philosophy of science that it is -- an a priori philosophical commitment to chance or the Greek goddess of chance = Fortuna.  It's all about chance.
Click to expand...

Substituting “philosophy of science” for science is an obvious error. 
The problem faced by various forms of Biblical creation proponents is that the movement was not intended to be about science. Phillip Johnson, a vocal proponent who was the primary instigator for the movement, acknowledged that it is about religion and philosophy, not science, (Belz).

(Belz, Joel. 1996. Witnesses for the prosecution.  _World Magazine_ 11(28): 18. World Magazine Article)

The problem you face with the “philosophy of science” slogan is that millennia of philosophers and theologians have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.


----------



## Blues Man

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anything was selected. the beginning of life was a random thing so it could not have been selected.
> 
> 
> 
> The selection for persistent forms that were the precursors to life was not random. The reason one complex protein persisted and another did not was not a random event. The same rules applied everywhere and the same complex proteins kept forming and persisting. That's nonrandom selection operating.
Click to expand...

of course it was random.

Trillions upon trillions upon trillions etc etc random events over billions of years so it only makes sense that some of those random events and chemical processes produced the precursors of life as we know it and most likely some life we can't imagine at all


----------



## PredFan

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the other poster said, "Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic."
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not correct. Evolution follows a clear progression. Single cell. Multi cell. Vertebrates. Tetrapods. Nothing out of order. That's neither random nor chaotic. We aren't finding rabbit fossils in the Jurassic period, nor will we ever. We don't have a "random chance" of finding a bird fossil in a 2 billion year old rock. The chance is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn’t what I meant by random. The mutations are random and sometimes chaotic. Whether they lead to a creature better suited to its environment or to a creature that can’t survive even one day depends on the environment. That part isn’t random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're more right than what Fort Fun Indiana is making up.
> 
> Yes, I've read of it.  It's called the chaos theory and it's all due to chance (which you bring in as mutations).
> 
> "_Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another_
> 
> IN 1856, geologist Charles Lyell wrote to Charles Darwin with a question about fossils. Puzzled by types of mollusc that abruptly disappeared from the British fossil record, apparently in response to a glaciation, only to reappear 2 million years later completely unchanged, he asked of Darwin: “Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter.” Darwin never did.
> 
> To this day Lyell’s question has never received an adequate answer. I believe that is because there isn’t one. Because of the way evolution works, it is impossible to predict how a given species will respond to environmental change.
> 
> This is a long-running debate. In 1972, for example, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould challenged the assumption that evolutionary change was continuous and gradual. Their “punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis argued that change happens in short bursts separated by long periods of stability, as distinct from the more continuous change over long periods expected to be the outcome of natural selection and adaptation.
> 
> Later, John Endler, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter, UK, scrutinised claimed examples of natural selection but found a surprising lack of hard evidence (chronicled in his 1986 book _Natural Selection in the Wild_). More recently, and controversially, cognitive scientists Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University at New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson have pointed out philosophical problems with the adaptationist argument (_New Scientist_, 6 February, p 28).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chaos theory of evolution
> 
> 
> Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "laws of evolution" are just the laws of physics. Randomness and chaos may lead to different physiologies, but nonrandom selection is what produces the ones that persist. He and i are on the same page. You are that flat earther languishing at odds with all the facts.
Click to expand...


I have a better than layman's knowledge of evolution, but you two are arguing above me. I'll leave you two to it.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We found out that even Darwin avoided his mentor's question.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
Click to expand...


But his question could be is very important.

I want to make sure you understand this point with the diagrams I showed.  Once you learn the truth or design about something, i.e. gain knowledge and truth, then you can't just unlearn it (unless you get amnesia or something).  Our minds are designed to fill in the blanks.  That's how you know _how_ our universe could've formed.  (We also see that it's being destroyed because of our advanced satellites, telescopes, and technology.  There are forces out there that a supernova or galaxy cannot withstand.)  Without that intelligence behind what you discovered, then you have nothing.

Here's a good example of how your mind is easily tricked.  Even the old pros were fooled by newer ones coming up.  esalla is so _tricked_ that he can't even read straight anymore.


----------



## ChemEngineer

He fooled two homosexual atheists.  How impressive.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis is philosophy ... but definition the creation is unique, and science _cannot_ examine unique events ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what is written in Genesis is creation science.  It can be backed up by the scientific method.  We know that God created adult animals first such as birds and sea creatures for Earth and Earth only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m struggling to identify anything scientific or anything that can be backed up by science about the Genesis fable. You refuse to identify how an ancient fable describing supernatural events is supported by science. It’s an odd notion to suggest that Genesis must be a literal rendition of creation because writers of later books of the Bible believed it to be so. That’s an argument straight out of the creation ministries.
Click to expand...


According to evolution, what had to come first?  The baby or egg.  This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did.  How do I know what happened.  We have God's autobiography.  He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.

That's why I brought up design.  We find there is intelligence behind the design.  Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be.  Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.

For example:

2 + ? = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = ?
16 + ? = ?

and so on.  We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables.  Yet, if we see the _design_, then our minds fill in the blanks.

2 + 2 = ?
4 + ? = ?
8 + ? = 16
16 + ? = ?
...


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We found out that even Darwin avoided his mentor's question.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But his question could be is very important.
> 
> I want to make sure you understand this point with the diagrams I showed.  Once you learn the truth or design about something, i.e. gain knowledge and truth, then you can't just unlearn it (unless you get amnesia or something).  Our minds are designed to fill in the blanks.  That's how you know _how_ our universe could've formed.  (We also see that it's being destroyed because of our advanced satellites, telescopes, and technology.  There are forces out there that a supernova or galaxy cannot withstand.)  Without that intelligence behind what you discovered, then you have nothing.
> 
> Here's a good example of how your mind is easily tricked.  Even the old pros were fooled by newer ones coming up.  esalla is so _tricked_ that he can't even read straight anymore.
Click to expand...

Tell us the truth Mr. Bond


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> With biology, we are discussing DNA, RNA, proteins, and such.  Are those what you are referring to as atoms and molecules, i.e. molecular biology,  or do you actually mean atoms and molecules in general?
> 
> Aftewards, you start discussing chemistry, so I'll leave that alone.  What you bring up as a non-zero probability is another rationalization that evolutionists like to use.  As long as it is non-zero, they assume it can happen.  I learned in terms of philosophy of science that it is -- an a priori philosophical commitment to chance or the Greek goddess of chance = Fortuna.  It's all about chance.



I was addressing your misuse of the term "chaos" ... in every way, Biology can be (and usually is) described in chemical terms ... Biochemistry ... DNA, RNA, proteins, lipids, water, ATP ... these are all chemicals and all obey the laws of chemistry ... and the laws of thermodynamics ...

If you're not in a position to discuss chemistry ... you're in no position to discuss evolution ... the two cannot be separated ... if you don't understand how ethane is made from two methane, you'll never understand how two methane and an ammonia form amino acids ... without understanding the chemical properties of amino acids, you'll never understand what proteins are ... how can we take seriously anything you say about life if you can't grasp the simple energy transfer between ATP and ADP ... something I believe is common and abundant in all cellular life ...

The concept of "non-zero probabilities" comes up in just about all the natural sciences ... weather reports regularly state the chances of rainfall, new cars come with warranties ... try to wrap your head around this fact:  the number of liters of water in all the world's oceans is trivial compared to the number of water molecules in each of those liters ... I know, really only astronomers can grasp the magnitude of astronomical numbers ... but the chemist endures remarkably well ... credit where credit's due I say ...


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> According to evolution, what had to come first?  The baby or egg.  This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did.  How do I know what happened.  We have God's autobiography.  He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.
> 
> That's why I brought up design.  We find there is intelligence behind the design.  Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be.  Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 2 + ? = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = ?
> 16 + ? = ?
> 
> and so on.  We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables.  Yet, if we see the _design_, then our minds fill in the blanks.
> 
> 2 + 2 = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = 16
> 16 + ? = ?
> ...



Babies came first ... and by a couple billion years ... this is covered in high school health class ... did your parents not sign off on this class? ... maybe I'm just old, back in the day, we had to have our parent's permission to take any class where the word "baby" was used ...

Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...

How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> A word about chaos ... that's a mathematical structure with some usefulness in macroscopic systems ... looking at atoms and molecules though, things are pretty much set in stone, it's more useful to analysis the individual bonding energies and motion ... casting this microscopically as chaos has no predictive value, so it's pointless ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With biology, we are discussing DNA, RNA, proteins, and such.  Are those what you are referring to as atoms and molecules, i.e. molecular biology,  or do you actually mean atoms and molecules in general?
> 
> Aftewards, you start discussing chemistry, so I'll leave that alone.  What you bring up as a non-zero probability is another rationalization that evolutionists like to use.  As long as it is non-zero, they assume it can happen.  I learned in terms of philosophy of science that it is -- an a priori philosophical commitment to chance or the Greek goddess of chance = Fortuna.  It's all about chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Substituting “philosophy of science” for science is an obvious error.
> The problem faced by various forms of Biblical creation proponents is that the movement was not intended to be about science. Phillip Johnson, a vocal proponent who was the primary instigator for the movement, acknowledged that it is about religion and philosophy, not science, (Belz).
> 
> (Belz, Joel. 1996. Witnesses for the prosecution.  _World Magazine_ 11(28): 18. World Magazine Article)
> 
> The problem you face with the “philosophy of science” slogan is that millennia of philosophers and theologians have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
Click to expand...


I did nothing of the kind, but pointed out people who use non-zero probability as part of something happening in science aren't following what the philosophy of science recommends.  If you have two chances -- slim and none -- then you shouldn't bank your hypothesis on it.  Yet, we see this with abiogenesis (which Fort Fun Indiana and I were discussing), existence of intelligent aliens, microbes, as well as how the big bang happened.  The atheist scientists have had to propose multiverses and such to counter the fine tuning facts that scientists found.  Creation scientists finally got an admission that life is rare.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis is philosophy ... but definition the creation is unique, and science _cannot_ examine unique events ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what is written in Genesis is creation science.  It can be backed up by the scientific method.  We know that God created adult animals first such as birds and sea creatures for Earth and Earth only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m struggling to identify anything scientific or anything that can be backed up by science about the Genesis fable. You refuse to identify how an ancient fable describing supernatural events is supported by science. It’s an odd notion to suggest that Genesis must be a literal rendition of creation because writers of later books of the Bible believed it to be so. That’s an argument straight out of the creation ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to evolution, what had to come first?  The baby or egg.  This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did.  How do I know what happened.  We have God's autobiography.  He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.
> 
> That's why I brought up design.  We find there is intelligence behind the design.  Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be.  Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 2 + ? = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = ?
> 16 + ? = ?
> 
> and so on.  We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables.  Yet, if we see the _design_, then our minds fill in the blanks.
> 
> 2 + 2 = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = 16
> 16 + ? = ?
> ...
Click to expand...


Your baby or egg dilemma involves magical thinking and is best left to those at your creation ministries. The first shelled egg appears to have evolved about 300 million years ago or so. That timeline represents quite a dilemma to the YEC’ists. While there is overwhelming evidence of a very ancient planet, resolving supernaturalism, 900 year old men and Arks sailing the oceans just a few thousand years ago represents magical thinking.

In order to find intelligence behind design, you first need to make a defendable case for ID’creationism. Absent any demonstration that your gods had a hand in any supernatural creation, you make the initial mistake of  providing no support for the existence of your gods. I find it comical that you rail against any association with the term intelligent design (ID’creationism), yet you acknowledge that is precisely the ideology you embrace.

I‘m not so sure you have a grasp on your Bible’ology or some basic definitions. None of the gods wrote any of the Bibles. Therefore, you don’t have any of the god’s autobiography. There were many authors, most of them unknown, who wrote the tales and fables you call the Bibles.

It‘s really concerning that you have so little understanding of the “genesis” of the books you worship.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to evolution, what had to come first?  The baby or egg.  This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did.  How do I know what happened.  We have God's autobiography.  He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.
> 
> That's why I brought up design.  We find there is intelligence behind the design.  Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be.  Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 2 + ? = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = ?
> 16 + ? = ?
> 
> and so on.  We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables.  Yet, if we see the _design_, then our minds fill in the blanks.
> 
> 2 + 2 = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = 16
> 16 + ? = ?
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Babies came first ... and by a couple billion years ... this is covered in high school health class ... did your parents not sign off on this class? ... maybe I'm just old, back in the day, we had to have our parent's permission to take any class where the word "baby" was used ...
> 
> Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
> 
> How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
Click to expand...


I can't argue what you are taught in HS classes or even university classes today, but recognize its taught that babies and eggs came first.  However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen.  Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first.  Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.



ReinyDays said:


> Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...



C'mon, I'm talking to simpleton atheist and ID and creationist, hater Hollie.  Anyway, the math wasn't my point, but the design or pattern behind it; It shows how we recognize a pattern or design and gain a bit of simple knowledge.  I can give you more complex examples if you want. 



ReinyDays said:


> How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...



I presented the scientific evidence of the chicken came before the egg.  We also find that all the energy the universe ever needs is found in the electromagnetic spectrum which God created as light -- 'And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.' Genesis 1:3  Notice, he didn't create the sun.  He created Earth, EMS, and day and night the first day.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> A word about chaos ... that's a mathematical structure with some usefulness in macroscopic systems ... looking at atoms and molecules though, things are pretty much set in stone, it's more useful to analysis the individual bonding energies and motion ... casting this microscopically as chaos has no predictive value, so it's pointless ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With biology, we are discussing DNA, RNA, proteins, and such.  Are those what you are referring to as atoms and molecules, i.e. molecular biology,  or do you actually mean atoms and molecules in general?
> 
> Aftewards, you start discussing chemistry, so I'll leave that alone.  What you bring up as a non-zero probability is another rationalization that evolutionists like to use.  As long as it is non-zero, they assume it can happen.  I learned in terms of philosophy of science that it is -- an a priori philosophical commitment to chance or the Greek goddess of chance = Fortuna.  It's all about chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Substituting “philosophy of science” for science is an obvious error.
> The problem faced by various forms of Biblical creation proponents is that the movement was not intended to be about science. Phillip Johnson, a vocal proponent who was the primary instigator for the movement, acknowledged that it is about religion and philosophy, not science, (Belz).
> 
> (Belz, Joel. 1996. Witnesses for the prosecution.  _World Magazine_ 11(28): 18. World Magazine Article)
> 
> The problem you face with the “philosophy of science” slogan is that millennia of philosophers and theologians have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did nothing of the kind, but pointed out people who use non-zero probability as part of something happening in science aren't following what the philosophy of science recommends.  If you have two chances -- slim and none -- then you shouldn't bank your hypothesis on it.  Yet, we see this with abiogenesis (which Fort Fun Indiana and I were discussing), existence of intelligent aliens, microbes, as well as how the big bang happened.  The atheist scientists have had to propose multiverses and such to counter the fine tuning facts that scientists found.  Creation scientists finally got an admission that life is rare.
Click to expand...

You have never provided anything that supports your claimed non-zero probability. The standard ID’creationist argument against both abiogenesis and biological evolution is nothing more than “the odds are too great”. That’s not an argument as it is obviously false. We know with certainty that abiogenesis occurred and secondly that the “odds” are typically presented by ID’creatiinist ministries which have a predefined agenda. 

You’re hoping to substitute the methods of science with something you call “philosophy of science”. What separates science from philosophy is that philosophers ”ponder” ideas while scientists experiment, test, observe, and test again to see if their theory meets standards of demonstration. Experimentation and observation have always been the foundation on which scientific understanding progresses.


----------



## esalla

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> With biology, we are discussing DNA, RNA, proteins, and such.  Are those what you are referring to as atoms and molecules, i.e. molecular biology,  or do you actually mean atoms and molecules in general?
> 
> Aftewards, you start discussing chemistry, so I'll leave that alone.  What you bring up as a non-zero probability is another rationalization that evolutionists like to use.  As long as it is non-zero, they assume it can happen.  I learned in terms of philosophy of science that it is -- an a priori philosophical commitment to chance or the Greek goddess of chance = Fortuna.  It's all about chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was addressing your misuse of the term "chaos" ... in every way, Biology can be (and usually is) described in chemical terms ... Biochemistry ... DNA, RNA, proteins, lipids, water, ATP ... these are all chemicals and all obey the laws of chemistry ... and the laws of thermodynamics ...
> 
> If you're not in a position to discuss chemistry ... you're in no position to discuss evolution ... the two cannot be separated ... if you don't understand how ethane is made from two methane, you'll never understand how two methane and an ammonia form amino acids ... without understanding the chemical properties of amino acids, you'll never understand what proteins are ... how can we take seriously anything you say about life if you can't grasp the simple energy transfer between ATP and ADP ... something I believe is common and abundant in all cellular life ...
> 
> The concept of "non-zero probabilities" comes up in just about all the natural sciences ... weather reports regularly state the chances of rainfall, new cars come with warranties ... try to wrap your head around this fact:  the number of liters of water in all the world's oceans is trivial compared to the number of water molecules in each of those liters ... I know, really only astronomers can grasp the magnitude of astronomical numbers ... but the chemist endures remarkably well ... credit where credit's due I say ...
Click to expand...

Evolution is not chemistry, evolution is the running of the code that is transmitted by chemicals, as DNA is a molecular operating system, without the code which must come first there is nothing to evolve


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to evolution, what had to come first?  The baby or egg.  This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did.  How do I know what happened.  We have God's autobiography.  He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.
> 
> That's why I brought up design.  We find there is intelligence behind the design.  Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be.  Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 2 + ? = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = ?
> 16 + ? = ?
> 
> and so on.  We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables.  Yet, if we see the _design_, then our minds fill in the blanks.
> 
> 2 + 2 = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = 16
> 16 + ? = ?
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Babies came first ... and by a couple billion years ... this is covered in high school health class ... did your parents not sign off on this class? ... maybe I'm just old, back in the day, we had to have our parent's permission to take any class where the word "baby" was used ...
> 
> Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
> 
> How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't argue what you are taught in HS classes or even university classes today, but recognize its taught that babies and eggs came first.  However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen.  Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first.  Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon, I'm talking to simpleton atheist and ID and creationist, hater Hollie.  Anyway, the math wasn't my point, but the design or pattern behind it; It shows how we recognize a pattern or design and gain a bit of simple knowledge.  I can give you more complex examples if you want.
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I presented the scientific evidence of the chicken came before the egg.  We also find that all the energy the universe ever needs is found in the electromagnetic spectrum which God created as light -- 'And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.' Genesis 1:3  Notice, he didn't create the sun.  He created Earth, EMS, and day and night the first day.
Click to expand...

You spend a great of time railing against evilutionist atheists such as me. There’s nothing ‘hateful’ about requiring ID’creationers to present a defendable argument. I think you let your emotions steer your argument as opposed to presenting supportable statements.

BTW, “God said....” is a misnomer. The gods didn’t write the Bibles. The gods never dictated any part of Genesis to humankind. You do know that Genesis was not recited to any human from a first-person directive, right?


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to evolution, what had to come first?  The baby or egg.  This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did.  How do I know what happened.  We have God's autobiography.  He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.
> 
> That's why I brought up design.  We find there is intelligence behind the design.  Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be.  Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 2 + ? = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = ?
> 16 + ? = ?
> 
> and so on.  We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables.  Yet, if we see the _design_, then our minds fill in the blanks.
> 
> 2 + 2 = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = 16
> 16 + ? = ?
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Babies came first ... and by a couple billion years ... this is covered in high school health class ... did your parents not sign off on this class? ... maybe I'm just old, back in the day, we had to have our parent's permission to take any class where the word "baby" was used ...
> 
> Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
> 
> How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't argue what you are taught in HS classes or even university classes today, but recognize its taught that babies and eggs came first.  However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen.  Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first.  Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon, I'm talking to simpleton atheist and ID and creationist, hater Hollie.  Anyway, the math wasn't my point, but the design or pattern behind it; It shows how we recognize a pattern or design and gain a bit of simple knowledge.  I can give you more complex examples if you want.
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I presented the scientific evidence of the chicken came before the egg.  We also find that all the energy the universe ever needs is found in the electromagnetic spectrum which God created as light -- 'And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.' Genesis 1:3  Notice, he didn't create the sun.  He created Earth, EMS, and day and night the first day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You spend a great of time railing against evilutionist atheists such as me. There’s nothing ‘hateful’ about requiring ID’creationers to present a defendable argument. I think you let your emotions steer your argument as opposed to presenting supportable statements.
> 
> BTW, “God said....” is a misnomer. The gods didn’t write the Bibles. The gods never dictated any part of Genesis to humankind. You do know that Genesis was not recited to any human from a first-person directive, right?
Click to expand...

AS if Hollie has a credible argument.   

LOL you find out the names of species that were observed speciating yet?

Play on


----------



## anynameyouwish

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to evolution, what had to come first?  The baby or egg.  This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did.  How do I know what happened.  We have God's autobiography.  He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.
> 
> That's why I brought up design.  We find there is intelligence behind the design.  Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be.  Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 2 + ? = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = ?
> 16 + ? = ?
> 
> and so on.  We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables.  Yet, if we see the _design_, then our minds fill in the blanks.
> 
> 2 + 2 = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = 16
> 16 + ? = ?
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Babies came first ... and by a couple billion years ... this is covered in high school health class ... did your parents not sign off on this class? ... maybe I'm just old, back in the day, we had to have our parent's permission to take any class where the word "baby" was used ...
> 
> Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
> 
> How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't argue what you are taught in HS classes or even university classes today, but recognize its taught that babies and eggs came first.  However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen.  Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first.  Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon, I'm talking to simpleton atheist and ID and creationist, hater Hollie.  Anyway, the math wasn't my point, but the design or pattern behind it; It shows how we recognize a pattern or design and gain a bit of simple knowledge.  I can give you more complex examples if you want.
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I presented the scientific evidence of the chicken came before the egg.  We also find that all the energy the universe ever needs is found in the electromagnetic spectrum which God created as light -- 'And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.' Genesis 1:3  Notice, he didn't create the sun.  He created Earth, EMS, and day and night the first day.
Click to expand...



you can present NO ARGUMENT that would cause me to worship YOUR rotten god.

if YOUR god does exist then as a FREE MAN with MORALS and ETHICS I denounce him

I would rather burn in hell for all eternity than worship YOUR devil


----------



## esalla

anynameyouwish said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to evolution, what had to come first?  The baby or egg.  This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did.  How do I know what happened.  We have God's autobiography.  He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.
> 
> That's why I brought up design.  We find there is intelligence behind the design.  Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be.  Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 2 + ? = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = ?
> 16 + ? = ?
> 
> and so on.  We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables.  Yet, if we see the _design_, then our minds fill in the blanks.
> 
> 2 + 2 = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = 16
> 16 + ? = ?
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Babies came first ... and by a couple billion years ... this is covered in high school health class ... did your parents not sign off on this class? ... maybe I'm just old, back in the day, we had to have our parent's permission to take any class where the word "baby" was used ...
> 
> Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
> 
> How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't argue what you are taught in HS classes or even university classes today, but recognize its taught that babies and eggs came first.  However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen.  Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first.  Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon, I'm talking to simpleton atheist and ID and creationist, hater Hollie.  Anyway, the math wasn't my point, but the design or pattern behind it; It shows how we recognize a pattern or design and gain a bit of simple knowledge.  I can give you more complex examples if you want.
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I presented the scientific evidence of the chicken came before the egg.  We also find that all the energy the universe ever needs is found in the electromagnetic spectrum which God created as light -- 'And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.' Genesis 1:3  Notice, he didn't create the sun.  He created Earth, EMS, and day and night the first day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you can present NO ARGUMENT that would cause me to worship YOUR rotten god.
> 
> if YOUR god does exist then as a FREE MAN with MORALS and ETHICS I denounce him
> 
> I would rather burn in hell for all eternity than worship YOUR devil
Click to expand...

So you believe that you are the product of pond scum.

LOL


----------



## anynameyouwish

esalla said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to evolution, what had to come first?  The baby or egg.  This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did.  How do I know what happened.  We have God's autobiography.  He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.
> 
> That's why I brought up design.  We find there is intelligence behind the design.  Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be.  Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 2 + ? = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = ?
> 16 + ? = ?
> 
> and so on.  We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables.  Yet, if we see the _design_, then our minds fill in the blanks.
> 
> 2 + 2 = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = 16
> 16 + ? = ?
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Babies came first ... and by a couple billion years ... this is covered in high school health class ... did your parents not sign off on this class? ... maybe I'm just old, back in the day, we had to have our parent's permission to take any class where the word "baby" was used ...
> 
> Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
> 
> How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't argue what you are taught in HS classes or even university classes today, but recognize its taught that babies and eggs came first.  However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen.  Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first.  Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon, I'm talking to simpleton atheist and ID and creationist, hater Hollie.  Anyway, the math wasn't my point, but the design or pattern behind it; It shows how we recognize a pattern or design and gain a bit of simple knowledge.  I can give you more complex examples if you want.
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I presented the scientific evidence of the chicken came before the egg.  We also find that all the energy the universe ever needs is found in the electromagnetic spectrum which God created as light -- 'And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.' Genesis 1:3  Notice, he didn't create the sun.  He created Earth, EMS, and day and night the first day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you can present NO ARGUMENT that would cause me to worship YOUR rotten god.
> 
> if YOUR god does exist then as a FREE MAN with MORALS and ETHICS I denounce him
> 
> I would rather burn in hell for all eternity than worship YOUR devil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe that you are the product of pond scum.
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...



No .

I believe YOU are the product of pond scum

I am a more highly evolved specimen of civility

you are human garbage.

Do you not kill  because killing is wrong or because you are afraid of god?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Blues Man said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anything was selected. the beginning of life was a random thing so it could not have been selected.
> 
> 
> 
> The selection for persistent forms that were the precursors to life was not random. The reason one complex protein persisted and another did not was not a random event. The same rules applied everywhere and the same complex proteins kept forming and persisting. That's nonrandom selection operating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of course it was random.
> 
> Trillions upon trillions upon trillions etc etc random events over billions of years so it only makes sense that some of those random events and chemical processes produced the precursors of life as we know it and most likely some life we can't imagine at all
Click to expand...

Yes, the environments and chemicals that appear can be considered "random", when, for example, talking about what an unknown planet may have on it. We are on the same page, there. But the physical selection operating on the system is nonrandom. The precursors to life kept emerging due to this nonrandom selection. The same new chemicals, appearing over and over and over. That's what i mean.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PredFan said:


> I have a better than layman's knowledge of evolution, but you two are arguing above me.


i doubt i know much more than you do. I am getting into mathematical concepts, at this point. What is random and what is not random about events in abiogenesis & evolution.


----------



## esalla

anynameyouwish said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to evolution, what had to come first?  The baby or egg.  This is part of evolutionary thinking that contradicts what God did.  How do I know what happened.  We have God's autobiography.  He tells us he did this and that and creation science backs it up.
> 
> That's why I brought up design.  We find there is intelligence behind the design.  Our minds can easily grasp the design when one understands what the end result should be.  Fort Fun Indiana wrote what he wrote because he knows the end result, i.e. target, already.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 2 + ? = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = ?
> 16 + ? = ?
> 
> and so on.  We don't know what the numbers could be because of two unknown variables.  Yet, if we see the _design_, then our minds fill in the blanks.
> 
> 2 + 2 = ?
> 4 + ? = ?
> 8 + ? = 16
> 16 + ? = ?
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Babies came first ... and by a couple billion years ... this is covered in high school health class ... did your parents not sign off on this class? ... maybe I'm just old, back in the day, we had to have our parent's permission to take any class where the word "baby" was used ...
> 
> Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
> 
> How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't argue what you are taught in HS classes or even university classes today, but recognize its taught that babies and eggs came first.  However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen.  Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first.  Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your math is substandard ... the first set of equations are vectors ... we know exactly what those numbers are ... in fact, all the derivatives are equal to 1 ... you can impose your own design on them, but that design lacks usefulness unless you can state otherwise ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon, I'm talking to simpleton atheist and ID and creationist, hater Hollie.  Anyway, the math wasn't my point, but the design or pattern behind it; It shows how we recognize a pattern or design and gain a bit of simple knowledge.  I can give you more complex examples if you want.
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does creation science verify what God did? ... how are we showing these processes as duplicatable? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I presented the scientific evidence of the chicken came before the egg.  We also find that all the energy the universe ever needs is found in the electromagnetic spectrum which God created as light -- 'And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.' Genesis 1:3  Notice, he didn't create the sun.  He created Earth, EMS, and day and night the first day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you can present NO ARGUMENT that would cause me to worship YOUR rotten god.
> 
> if YOUR god does exist then as a FREE MAN with MORALS and ETHICS I denounce him
> 
> I would rather burn in hell for all eternity than worship YOUR devil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe that you are the product of pond scum.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No .
> 
> I believe YOU are the product of pond scum
> 
> I am a more highly evolved specimen of civility
> 
> you are human garbage.
> 
> Do you not kill  because killing is wrong or because you are afraid of god?
Click to expand...

See I knew that you would see it my way.

LOL and you thought you were Darwins pond scum

I bet you feel better now


----------



## esalla

PredFan said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the other poster said, "Evolution is not order. It’s random and chaotic."
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not correct. Evolution follows a clear progression. Single cell. Multi cell. Vertebrates. Tetrapods. Nothing out of order. That's neither random nor chaotic. We aren't finding rabbit fossils in the Jurassic period, nor will we ever. We don't have a "random chance" of finding a bird fossil in a 2 billion year old rock. The chance is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn’t what I meant by random. The mutations are random and sometimes chaotic. Whether they lead to a creature better suited to its environment or to a creature that can’t survive even one day depends on the environment. That part isn’t random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're more right than what Fort Fun Indiana is making up.
> 
> Yes, I've read of it.  It's called the chaos theory and it's all due to chance (which you bring in as mutations).
> 
> "_Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another_
> 
> IN 1856, geologist Charles Lyell wrote to Charles Darwin with a question about fossils. Puzzled by types of mollusc that abruptly disappeared from the British fossil record, apparently in response to a glaciation, only to reappear 2 million years later completely unchanged, he asked of Darwin: “Be so good as to explain all this in your next letter.” Darwin never did.
> 
> To this day Lyell’s question has never received an adequate answer. I believe that is because there isn’t one. Because of the way evolution works, it is impossible to predict how a given species will respond to environmental change.
> 
> This is a long-running debate. In 1972, for example, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould challenged the assumption that evolutionary change was continuous and gradual. Their “punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis argued that change happens in short bursts separated by long periods of stability, as distinct from the more continuous change over long periods expected to be the outcome of natural selection and adaptation.
> 
> Later, John Endler, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter, UK, scrutinised claimed examples of natural selection but found a surprising lack of hard evidence (chronicled in his 1986 book _Natural Selection in the Wild_). More recently, and controversially, cognitive scientists Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University at New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson have pointed out philosophical problems with the adaptationist argument (_New Scientist_, 6 February, p 28).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chaos theory of evolution
> 
> 
> Forget finding the laws of evolution. The history of life is just one damn thing after another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "laws of evolution" are just the laws of physics. Randomness and chaos may lead to different physiologies, but nonrandom selection is what produces the ones that persist. He and i are on the same page. You are that flat earther languishing at odds with all the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a better than layman's knowledge of evolution, but you two are arguing above me. I'll leave you two to it.
Click to expand...

There is no knowledge of evolution so you know exactly as mush as the other fool who knows nothing


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Abiogenesis was a deterministic, physical process. Anyone is free to sprinkle god on it ("God did that! It's his plan!)...but any claims abiogenesis wasn't a deterministic, physical process -- like star formation -- do not belong in the science section. Those go in the paranormal section or the religion section.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen.  Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first.  Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.



Do you have a citation that says enzymes from chicken ovaries are on the outer shell of lizard eggs, fish eggs, daisy eggs? ... what about the vast majority of organisms that don't produce eggs, bacteria, yeast, many forms of algae? ... eggs appear in the fossil record 100's of millions of years before life occurs on land ... chickens are strictly Holocene ... 

Enzymes are easy to make from basic chemicals ... one of the more profound pieces of evidence that supports evolution ... just two methanes and an ammonia ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

esalla said:


> There is no knowledge of evolution


Then get out of the science section, Frannie sock troll


----------



## james bond

ChemEngineer said:


> He fooled two homosexual atheists.  How impressive.





Hollie said:


> You have never provided anything that supports your claimed non-zero probability.



It wasn't me who said it first.  I just pointed out > non-zero probability means the chances are really small as in no chance and slim chance.  It's all about chances, remember?  This is why we get these close to infinite type examples such as aliens exist because of near infinite number of planets, etc.  Or near infinite conditions where life could pop up.  Instead, we observe it doesn't happen.  What I did say was if your professor writes on the whiteboard "It's all about chances," then leave the class.  He's gonna be BS'ing you.

Let's look at Hawking's final paper on the multiverse.  Surprisingly, he admits the universe is finite like the creation scientists claim (he doesn't mention edge nor boundaries).  Maybe you can explain what he means.  I haven't read much on string theory.

'"The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean," said Hawking in an interview last autumn. "The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested. "

In their new paper, Hawking and Hertog say this account of eternal inflation as a theory of the big bang is wrong. "The problem with the usual account of eternal inflation is that it assumes an existing background universe that evolves according to Einstein's theory of general relativity and treats the quantum effects as small fluctuations around this," said Hertog. "However, the dynamics of eternal inflation wipes out the separation between classical and quantum physics. As a consequence, Einstein's theory breaks down in eternal inflation."

"We predict that our universe, on the largest scales, is reasonably smooth and globally finite. So it is not a fractal structure," said Hawking."'









						Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang
					

Professor Stephen Hawking's final theory on the origin of the universe, which he worked on in collaboration with Professor Thomas Hertog from KU Leuven, has been published today in the Journal of High Energy Physics.




					phys.org


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, in 2010 we found the chicken came before the egg due to an enzyme on the outer shell of an egg could only come from the ovaries of a hen.  Thus, that is scientific evidence that the chicken came first.  Moreover, the egg is very complex so something like it could not have just happened due to evolutionary processes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a citation that says enzymes from chicken ovaries are on the outer shell of lizard eggs, fish eggs, daisy eggs? ... what about the vast majority of organisms that don't produce eggs, bacteria, yeast, many forms of algae? ... eggs appear in the fossil record 100's of millions of years before life occurs on land ... chickens are strictly Holocene ...
> 
> Enzymes are easy to make from basic chemicals ... one of the more profound pieces of evidence that supports evolution ... just two methanes and an ammonia ...
Click to expand...


Paid




__





						Error - Cookies Turned Off
					






					onlinelibrary.wiley.com
				




News Article




__





						They've cracked it at last! The chicken DID come before the egg
					

Researchers found that the formation of egg shells relies on a protein that is only found in a chicken's ovaries.




					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Abiogenesis was a deterministic, physical process. Anyone is free to sprinkle god on it ("God did that! It's his plan!)...but any claims abiogenesis wasn't a deterministic, physical process -- like star formation -- do not belong in the science section. Those go in the paranormal section or the religion section.



You're too confusing.  I already provided the five types of natural selection to counter your non-scientific "physical selection."  Moreover, you are stating now abiogenesis is a "deterministic, physical process."  Where is your citation?  

Most of us know that Miller-Urey was a chemical experiment.  Usually, the argument for abiogenesis starts from there.  The Miller-Urey experiment was a failure.  We know they had the wrong amounts of gases for an early Earth and it failed to explain why they got amino acids.  So what have you found since?


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> Enzymes are easy to make from basic chemicals ... one of the more profound pieces of evidence that supports evolution ... just two methanes and an ammonia



Apparently, not this enzyme as it could only be produced in the ovaries of a hen.

Besides, the egg with the chick inside is a complex system similar to the eye.  It would have to be developed as a fully functional organic system.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> News Article
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've cracked it at last! The chicken DID come before the egg
> 
> 
> Researchers found that the formation of egg shells relies on a protein that is only found in a chicken's ovaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk



"Metadynamics simulations show that the eggshell protein ovocleidin‐17 induces the formation of calcite crystals from amorphous calcium carbonate nanoparticles. Multiple spontaneous crystallization and amorphization events were simulated; these simulations suggest a catalytic cycle that explains the role of ovocleidin‐17 in the first stages of eggshell formation"

Computer simulations ... that "suggest" the results you claim ... no where do they claim chicken enzymes are found on willow eggs ...

Is your claim the first chicken came out of a red junglefowl's egg? ... where did the first red junglefowl come from? ...

*Besides, the egg with the chick inside is a complex system similar to the eye.  It would have to be developed as a fully functional organic system.*

Where's your proof? ... why couldn't the first chicken come from a red junglefowl's egg? ...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> He fooled two homosexual atheists.  How impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never provided anything that supports your claimed non-zero probability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't me who said it first.  I just pointed out > non-zero probability means the chances are really small as in no chance and slim chance.  It's all about chances, remember?  This is why we get these close to infinite type examples such as aliens exist because of near infinite number of planets, etc.  Or near infinite conditions where life could pop up.  Instead, we observe it doesn't happen.  What I did say was if your professor writes on the whiteboard "It's all about chances," then leave the class.  He's gonna be BS'ing you.
> 
> Let's look at Hawking's final paper on the multiverse.  Surprisingly, he admits the universe is finite like the creation scientists claim (he doesn't mention edge nor boundaries).  Maybe you can explain what he means.  I haven't read much on string theory.
> 
> '"The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean," said Hawking in an interview last autumn. "The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested. "
> 
> In their new paper, Hawking and Hertog say this account of eternal inflation as a theory of the big bang is wrong. "The problem with the usual account of eternal inflation is that it assumes an existing background universe that evolves according to Einstein's theory of general relativity and treats the quantum effects as small fluctuations around this," said Hertog. "However, the dynamics of eternal inflation wipes out the separation between classical and quantum physics. As a consequence, Einstein's theory breaks down in eternal inflation."
> 
> "We predict that our universe, on the largest scales, is reasonably smooth and globally finite. So it is not a fractal structure," said Hawking."'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang
> 
> 
> Professor Stephen Hawking's final theory on the origin of the universe, which he worked on in collaboration with Professor Thomas Hertog from KU Leuven, has been published today in the Journal of High Energy Physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
Click to expand...

I have to question why you bother ''quoting'' anything from scientists when the science text of the Bible answers all questions about existence. The fact is, Hawking's hypothesis is no more valid than some others. There are still unknowns about the universe that are being studied. There lies the great divide between science and religious claims. Science will explore and discover where religion is forever constrained by dogma that supports the religious ideology.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enzymes are easy to make from basic chemicals ... one of the more profound pieces of evidence that supports evolution ... just two methanes and an ammonia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, not this enzyme as it could only be produced in the ovaries of a hen.
> 
> Besides, the egg with the chick inside is a complex system similar to the eye.  It would have to be developed as a fully functional organic system.
Click to expand...

Ah. The all-knowing, all-seeing eye. Only the gods could have developed the eye. That's one of the classically retrograde arguments of the ID creationer ministries.



			CB301:  Eye complexity
		

*Claim CB301:*
The eye is too complex to have evolved.

*Source:*
Brown, Walt, 1995. _In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood_. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. _The Neck of the Giraffe_, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.

*Response:*

This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the _Ciona_ βγ-crystallin gene.  _Ciona_ is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. _Ciona_'s single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> News Article
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've cracked it at last! The chicken DID come before the egg
> 
> 
> Researchers found that the formation of egg shells relies on a protein that is only found in a chicken's ovaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Metadynamics simulations show that the eggshell protein ovocleidin‐17 induces the formation of calcite crystals from amorphous calcium carbonate nanoparticles. Multiple spontaneous crystallization and amorphization events were simulated; these simulations suggest a catalytic cycle that explains the role of ovocleidin‐17 in the first stages of eggshell formation"
> 
> Computer simulations ... that "suggest" the results you claim ... no where do they claim chicken enzymes are found on willow eggs ...
> 
> Is your claim the first chicken came out of a red junglefowl's egg? ... where did the first red junglefowl come from? ...
> 
> *Besides, the egg with the chick inside is a complex system similar to the eye.  It would have to be developed as a fully functional organic system.*
> 
> Where's your proof? ... why couldn't the first chicken come from a red junglefowl's egg? ...
Click to expand...


The proof is in on the eggshell of the egg that the adult hen produced.

Again, the egg is too complex an organism to form by itself.  It has to start from the inside out that only the hen can do.  Furthermore, you argument loses because a rooster has to exist to fertilize it in order to have a baby chick.  

I claim another abiogenesis and evolution fail as it can't produce life from non-life nor can it have sexual reproduction from an egg .


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enzymes are easy to make from basic chemicals ... one of the more profound pieces of evidence that supports evolution ... just two methanes and an ammonia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, not this enzyme as it could only be produced in the ovaries of a hen.
> 
> Besides, the egg with the chick inside is a complex system similar to the eye.  It would have to be developed as a fully functional organic system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah. The all-knowing, all-seeing eye. Only the gods could have developed the eye. That's one of the classically retrograde arguments of the ID creationer ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> CB301:  Eye complexity
> 
> 
> *Claim CB301:*
> The eye is too complex to have evolved.
> 
> *Source:*
> Brown, Walt, 1995. _In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood_. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
> Hitching, Francis, 1982. _The Neck of the Giraffe_, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
> photosensitive cell
> aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
> an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
> pigment cells forming a small depression
> pigment cells forming a deeper depression
> the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
> muscles allowing the lens to adjust
> 
> All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
> 
> Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the _Ciona_ βγ-crystallin gene.  _Ciona_ is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. _Ciona_'s single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
> 
> Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.
Click to expand...


You posted this before.  Not only is my argument is from incredulity, but argument that the eye or ear just can't happen from parts lying around.  The chances of it are practically zero as we do not know how it happened except that animals have complex parts such as eyes to see and ears to hear.  Your side hasn't been able to produce even a photosensitive cell from chemicals or primordial soup.  Not even a protein from amino acids.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> He fooled two homosexual atheists.  How impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never provided anything that supports your claimed non-zero probability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't me who said it first.  I just pointed out > non-zero probability means the chances are really small as in no chance and slim chance.  It's all about chances, remember?  This is why we get these close to infinite type examples such as aliens exist because of near infinite number of planets, etc.  Or near infinite conditions where life could pop up.  Instead, we observe it doesn't happen.  What I did say was if your professor writes on the whiteboard "It's all about chances," then leave the class.  He's gonna be BS'ing you.
> 
> Let's look at Hawking's final paper on the multiverse.  Surprisingly, he admits the universe is finite like the creation scientists claim (he doesn't mention edge nor boundaries).  Maybe you can explain what he means.  I haven't read much on string theory.
> 
> '"The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean," said Hawking in an interview last autumn. "The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested. "
> 
> In their new paper, Hawking and Hertog say this account of eternal inflation as a theory of the big bang is wrong. "The problem with the usual account of eternal inflation is that it assumes an existing background universe that evolves according to Einstein's theory of general relativity and treats the quantum effects as small fluctuations around this," said Hertog. "However, the dynamics of eternal inflation wipes out the separation between classical and quantum physics. As a consequence, Einstein's theory breaks down in eternal inflation."
> 
> "We predict that our universe, on the largest scales, is reasonably smooth and globally finite. So it is not a fractal structure," said Hawking."'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang
> 
> 
> Professor Stephen Hawking's final theory on the origin of the universe, which he worked on in collaboration with Professor Thomas Hertog from KU Leuven, has been published today in the Journal of High Energy Physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to question why you bother ''quoting'' anything from scientists when the science text of the Bible answers all questions about existence. The fact is, Hawking's hypothesis is no more valid than some others. There are still unknowns about the universe that are being studied. There lies the great divide between science and religious claims. Science will explore and discover where religion is forever constrained by dogma that supports the religious ideology.
Click to expand...


Now you are complaining because your side died agreeing with their opponents about the universe being finite based on general relativity.  This is what gaining truth and knowledge is.  It doesn't always turn out the way you think it will.  What you should start to see is the design in some of the things we are discussing as this is what observation provides us.  Fort Fun Indiana mentioned the spherical type of objects that "formed" due to evolutionary thinking.  Actually, they were designed that way because if they were formed, then we would not see nice spherical objects.  There would be all types of malformed objects such as asteroids and meteors.  This demonstrates there was an intelligence behind it.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enzymes are easy to make from basic chemicals ... one of the more profound pieces of evidence that supports evolution ... just two methanes and an ammonia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, not this enzyme as it could only be produced in the ovaries of a hen.
> 
> Besides, the egg with the chick inside is a complex system similar to the eye.  It would have to be developed as a fully functional organic system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah. The all-knowing, all-seeing eye. Only the gods could have developed the eye. That's one of the classically retrograde arguments of the ID creationer ministries.
> 
> 
> 
> CB301:  Eye complexity
> 
> 
> *Claim CB301:*
> The eye is too complex to have evolved.
> 
> *Source:*
> Brown, Walt, 1995. _In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood_. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
> Hitching, Francis, 1982. _The Neck of the Giraffe_, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
> photosensitive cell
> aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
> an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
> pigment cells forming a small depression
> pigment cells forming a deeper depression
> the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
> muscles allowing the lens to adjust
> 
> All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
> 
> Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the _Ciona_ βγ-crystallin gene.  _Ciona_ is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. _Ciona_'s single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
> 
> Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You posted this before.  Not only is my argument is from incredulity, but argument that the eye or ear just can't happen from parts lying around.  The chances of it are practically zero as we do not know how it happened except that animals have complex parts such as eyes to see and ears to hear.  Your side hasn't been able to produce even a photosensitive cell from chemicals or primordial soup.  Not even a protein from amino acids.
Click to expand...

You are retreating to the stereotypical ID'creationer "it's complicated, therefore the odds are it didn't happen'', meme. 

So, lets look at an example. The odds of you winning the lottery are 1 in 100 million,. If you win, and are convinced that the incredible odds against your winning are evidence that there was some sort of 'intelligent design' acting on you behalf, that would be a rather nonsensical explanation, and irrational. 

I have to note that the example above is pretty meaningless because biological organisms interact in complex ways and all those interactions are taking place simultaneously so the ''odds'' are greatly in favor of natural, biological evolution as opposed to various gods you can't hope to demonstrate. 

More importantly, any true calculation of ''odds'' carry some obvious limitations. The most obvious limitation is that for any calculation of chance, you must assume that all present functional life forms are the *goal*, and not the *result* of the process, and then calculate backwards.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> The proof is in on the eggshell of the egg that the adult hen produced.
> 
> Again, the egg is too complex an organism to form by itself.  It has to start from the inside out that only the hen can do.  Furthermore, you argument loses because a rooster has to exist to fertilize it in order to have a baby chick.
> 
> I claim another abiogenesis and evolution fail as it can't produce life from non-life nor can it have sexual reproduction from an egg .



Only on chicken eggs ... what about red junglefowl eggs? ... wait, WHAT ... is the first chicken a hen or a rooster? ... do you know the difference? ... hate to break your bubble, but chickens are developed into embryos long before the shell forms ... open up a laying hen and you'll find 6 or 8 eggs in different stages of development within the birth canal ... the eggs you buy in the supermarket are not fertilized ... are you some manner of city-slicker who doesn't know anything about raising chickens? ... 

I asked for proof that chicken eggs couldn't have occurred after 800 million years ... you don't seem to know what the word means ...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> He fooled two homosexual atheists.  How impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never provided anything that supports your claimed non-zero probability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't me who said it first.  I just pointed out > non-zero probability means the chances are really small as in no chance and slim chance.  It's all about chances, remember?  This is why we get these close to infinite type examples such as aliens exist because of near infinite number of planets, etc.  Or near infinite conditions where life could pop up.  Instead, we observe it doesn't happen.  What I did say was if your professor writes on the whiteboard "It's all about chances," then leave the class.  He's gonna be BS'ing you.
> 
> Let's look at Hawking's final paper on the multiverse.  Surprisingly, he admits the universe is finite like the creation scientists claim (he doesn't mention edge nor boundaries).  Maybe you can explain what he means.  I haven't read much on string theory.
> 
> '"The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean," said Hawking in an interview last autumn. "The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested. "
> 
> In their new paper, Hawking and Hertog say this account of eternal inflation as a theory of the big bang is wrong. "The problem with the usual account of eternal inflation is that it assumes an existing background universe that evolves according to Einstein's theory of general relativity and treats the quantum effects as small fluctuations around this," said Hertog. "However, the dynamics of eternal inflation wipes out the separation between classical and quantum physics. As a consequence, Einstein's theory breaks down in eternal inflation."
> 
> "We predict that our universe, on the largest scales, is reasonably smooth and globally finite. So it is not a fractal structure," said Hawking."'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang
> 
> 
> Professor Stephen Hawking's final theory on the origin of the universe, which he worked on in collaboration with Professor Thomas Hertog from KU Leuven, has been published today in the Journal of High Energy Physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to question why you bother ''quoting'' anything from scientists when the science text of the Bible answers all questions about existence. The fact is, Hawking's hypothesis is no more valid than some others. There are still unknowns about the universe that are being studied. There lies the great divide between science and religious claims. Science will explore and discover where religion is forever constrained by dogma that supports the religious ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are complaining because your side died agreeing with their opponents about the universe being finite based on general relativity.  This is what gaining truth and knowledge is.  It doesn't always turn out the way you think it will.  What you should start to see is the design in some of the things we are discussing as this is what observation provides us.  Fort Fun Indiana mentioned the spherical type of objects that "formed" due to evolutionary thinking.  Actually, they were designed that way because if they were formed, then we would not see nice spherical objects.  There would be all types of malformed objects such as asteroids and meteors.  This demonstrates there was an intelligence behind it.
Click to expand...

When did any side agree with their opponents about the universe being finite based on general relativity? Who are the opponents? You're making some rather odd claims that you can neither explain nor support. 

While you see ''design'' in things that you insist is of supernatural origin, I'll note that nothing in all of human history has shown any indication of supernaturalism. 

Please identify what spherical objects are formed due to evolutionary thinking. But first, please identify what constitutes ''evolutionary thinking'' and second, how that affects spherical objects.

Please identify a single event, circumstance or instance, at aby time in human history that has had a supernatural cause.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> It wasn't me who said it first.  I just pointed out > non-zero probability means the chances are really small as in no chance and slim chance.



You need to stay away from anything mathematical ... 1 is non-zero, and expresses certainty ... 99% is also non-zero, near certainty ... 

Two methanes make an ethane ... 0.00001% = 10,000,000,000,000,000 per 16 grams ... ten quadrillion is slim? ... in every half ounce? ... that's nuts ...


----------



## ReinyDays

Hollie said:


> Please identify a single event, circumstance or instance, at aby time in human history that has had a supernatural cause.



The eye structures in hurricanes defy all know natural laws ... it's unknown why they exist ... no other vortex structure has been observed to have eyes ... just hurricanes ... 

Supernatural today ... above and beyond our understanding so far ... we can assume someday we'll understand why, but then again, maybe not ...


----------



## deanrd

Instead of asking opinion questions on a messageboard, perhaps go take a couple of college courses on evolution?  You would be surprised what you could learn.


----------



## Hollie

ReinyDays said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please identify a single event, circumstance or instance, at aby time in human history that has had a supernatural cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The eye structures in hurricanes defy all know natural laws ... it's unknown why they exist ... no other vortex structure has been observed to have eyes ... just hurricanes ...
> 
> Supernatural today ... above and beyond our understanding so far ... we can assume someday we'll understand why, but then again, maybe not ...
Click to expand...

I'm going to grab a handful of snakes and go to church. A vision will come to me. It may be induced by the venom but I'll come to an understanding.


----------



## ReinyDays

Hollie said:


> I'm going to grab a handful of snakes and go to church. A vision will come to me. It may be induced by the venom but I'll come to an understanding.



That would work in the United States ... but I wouldn't try that in Australia ... [shivers] ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is in on the eggshell of the egg that the adult hen produced.
> 
> Again, the egg is too complex an organism to form by itself.  It has to start from the inside out that only the hen can do.  Furthermore, you argument loses because a rooster has to exist to fertilize it in order to have a baby chick.
> 
> I claim another abiogenesis and evolution fail as it can't produce life from non-life nor can it have sexual reproduction from an egg .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only on chicken eggs ... what about red junglefowl eggs? ... wait, WHAT ... is the first chicken a hen or a rooster? ... do you know the difference? ... hate to break your bubble, but chickens are developed into embryos long before the shell forms ... open up a laying hen and you'll find 6 or 8 eggs in different stages of development within the birth canal ... the eggs you buy in the supermarket are not fertilized ... are you some manner of city-slicker who doesn't know anything about raising chickens? ...
> 
> I asked for proof that chicken eggs couldn't have occurred after 800 million years ... you don't seem to know what the word means ...
Click to expand...


The creation scientists can repeat the experiment on another adult hen and egg and get the same results.  Moreover, one needs a hen to fertilize it for a chick.  One needs more than asymmetric reproduction, different reproductive glands, a complex egg structure, etc.  Yet, after 23 pages, we haven't even got past how a single cell happened nor what was there before the big bang.  

I'm ready to call victory and say it is what it is in scientific method terms.  While you're struggling with possibility >= zero and sound gleeful about that, it is the evolutionists who can't have life appear from non-life.  Nor how an object in place becomes spherical as the norm instead of asymmetrical.  It would have to end up in just the right location or life could not happen.  

Who can't face the music in this experiment?  Just look in the mirror.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Please identify what spherical objects are formed due to evolutionary thinking. But first, please identify what constitutes ''evolutionary thinking'' and second, how that affects spherical objects.



Ask Fort Fun Indiana.  That was his claim with no further evidence provided and request for it ignored.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I'm going to grab a handful of snakes and go to church. A vision will come to me. It may be induced by the venom but I'll come to an understanding.



I knew you having to face design and intelligence behind it would make you go haywire.


----------



## james bond

deanrd said:


> Instead of asking opinion questions on a messageboard, perhaps go take a couple of college courses on evolution?  You would be surprised what you could learn.



I use evolution.berkeley.edu to keep up.  Here is where they state now that _intelligent_ life is rare -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/astrobio_habitat_04.  Notice they're not admitting life, i.e. any kind of living organism such as plants, is rare.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Please identify a single event, circumstance or instance, at aby time in human history that has had a supernatural cause.








I already have .  On the first day of creation, "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." Genesis 1:3.  This had to be the electromagnetic spectrum because it says he created the sun later.  This is enough for all the energy we have in our universe.

Where did the energy come from evolution's big bang?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to grab a handful of snakes and go to church. A vision will come to me. It may be induced by the venom but I'll come to an understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you having to face design and intelligence behind it would make you go haywire.
Click to expand...

What supernatural design and intelligence would that be?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please identify a single event, circumstance or instance, at aby time in human history that has had a supernatural cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have .  On the first day of creation, "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." Genesis 1:3.  This had to be the electromagnetic spectrum because it says he created the sun later.  This is enough for all the energy we have in our universe.
> 
> Where did the energy come from evolution's big bang?
Click to expand...

Everything in that cartoon is explained by natural mechanisms. I don't see any indications that the gods were involved. 

The gods never said, “Let there be light,” Your gods didn't write the Bible.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is in on the eggshell of the egg that the adult hen produced.
> 
> Again, the egg is too complex an organism to form by itself.  It has to start from the inside out that only the hen can do.  Furthermore, you argument loses because a rooster has to exist to fertilize it in order to have a baby chick.
> 
> I claim another abiogenesis and evolution fail as it can't produce life from non-life nor can it have sexual reproduction from an egg .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only on chicken eggs ... what about red junglefowl eggs? ... wait, WHAT ... is the first chicken a hen or a rooster? ... do you know the difference? ... hate to break your bubble, but chickens are developed into embryos long before the shell forms ... open up a laying hen and you'll find 6 or 8 eggs in different stages of development within the birth canal ... the eggs you buy in the supermarket are not fertilized ... are you some manner of city-slicker who doesn't know anything about raising chickens? ...
> 
> I asked for proof that chicken eggs couldn't have occurred after 800 million years ... you don't seem to know what the word means ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creation scientists can repeat the experiment on another adult hen and egg and get the same results.  Moreover, one needs a hen to fertilize it for a chick.  One needs more than asymmetric reproduction, different reproductive glands, a complex egg structure, etc.  Yet, after 23 pages, we haven't even got past how a single cell happened nor what was there before the big bang.
> 
> I'm ready to call victory and say it is what it is in scientific method terms.  While you're struggling with possibility >= zero and sound gleeful about that, it is the evolutionists who can't have life appear from non-life.  Nor how an object in place becomes spherical as the norm instead of asymmetrical.  It would have to end up in just the right location or life could not happen.
> 
> Who can't face the music in this experiment?  Just look in the mirror.
Click to expand...


*Moreover, one needs a hen to fertilize it for a chick.*

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

You haven't taken high school health class have you? ...

*Yet, after 23 pages, we haven't even got past how a single cell happened*

This starts with two methane molecules colliding and forming an ethane molecule ... do I need to back up and explain why carbon is common in the universe? ...


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please identify a single event, circumstance or instance, at aby time in human history that has had a supernatural cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have .  On the first day of creation, "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." Genesis 1:3.  This had to be the electromagnetic spectrum because it says he created the sun later.  This is enough for all the energy we have in our universe.
> 
> Where did the energy come from evolution's big bang?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything in that cartoon is explained by natural mechanisms. I don't see any indications that the gods were involved.
> 
> The gods never said, “Let there be light,” Your gods didn't write the Bible.
Click to expand...







Please explain how that happened by "natural mechanisms?"  How can ancient people write that kind of stuff up when they had no idea?  Yet, we end up finding science backs the energy up; It's enough there to power our entire universe.

We can't match the power of a supernova explosion -- The Incomprehensible Power of a Supernova | RealClearScience.  Some evos think we'll die when our sun explodes, but no it will be something more powerful.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> Moreover, one needs a hen *rooster* to fertilize it for a chick.



There.  Corrected it for you haha.

So what else have you got?  Nothing to cause time to start and space to follow it.  That's beyond our science.  

We can go forward in time by going out into space and then coming back years later according Einstein's Special Theory, but we can't go backward in time.  Do you believe that BS, too?  Hawking believed it.  If he changed his mind before death, then he didn't admit that error.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please identify a single event, circumstance or instance, at aby time in human history that has had a supernatural cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have .  On the first day of creation, "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." Genesis 1:3.  This had to be the electromagnetic spectrum because it says he created the sun later.  This is enough for all the energy we have in our universe.
> 
> Where did the energy come from evolution's big bang?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything in that cartoon is explained by natural mechanisms. I don't see any indications that the gods were involved.
> 
> The gods never said, “Let there be light,” Your gods didn't write the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how that happened by "natural mechanisms?"  How can ancient people write that kind of stuff up when they had no idea?  Yet, we end up finding science backs the energy up; It's enough there to power our entire universe.
> 
> We can't match the power of a supernova explosion -- The Incomprehensible Power of a Supernova | RealClearScience.  Some evos think we'll die when our sun explodes, but no it will be something more powerful.
Click to expand...

Please identify what ancient people you believe wrote some stuff up. What stuff?  You posted a new cartoon similar to one you posted earlier. What was the point? 

Are you suggesting your gods assembled transistor radios?

Science backs the energy up? What does that mean?

What's an evos?

Why will the sun explode? I thought the universe was fine tuned for life.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> There.  Corrected it for you haha.
> 
> So what else have you got?  Nothing to cause time to start and space to follow it.  That's beyond our science.
> 
> We can go forward in time by going out into space and then coming back years later according Einstein's Special Theory, but we can't go backward in time.  Do you believe that BS, too?  Hawking believed it.  If he changed his mind before death, then he didn't admit that error.



... and about methane? ... are you admitting you wouldn't understand abiogenesis even if it was explained to you? ...


----------



## ReinyDays

Hollie said:


> Why will the sun explode? I thought the universe was fine tuned for life.



The sun won't explode, just more sci-babble ... er ... life is fined tuned to the universe ...


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Why will the sun explode?



It happens when the sun runs out of fuel and reaches critical mass or if another star collides with it.  The latter I wasn't aware until this year, so this is likely to do it if the object doesn't hit Earth first.  It explains the big news of some massive object coming "close" to Earth only a few million miles away.  Read about Tycho.

"But what causes these explosions? There are currently two explanations involving theoretical mechanisms that are related to the two ways in which stars die. Stars cannot shine forever for the simple reason that their energy supply—nuclear burning—is finite. What happens to stars once they exhaust their nuclear fuel (mainly hydrogen) is believed to depend crucially on their mass. One of the most important theoretical discoveries in astrophysics is that a critical mass exists above which stars cannot sustain themselves against their own gravitational pull without a continuous supply of energy. The two types of star endings depend on whether their mass is above or below this critical mass, which is called the Chandrasekhar mass limit, named after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (Member, 1941, 1976), one of its discoverers. If, by the time a star exhausts its fuel, it has a mass greater than this limit, the core of the star cannot sustain itself and collapses. A huge amount of energy is released when the core collapses to the tiny size of a few kilometers, becoming a black hole or a neutron star. While most of this energy is emitted in invisible neutrinos, a small fraction of this energy ejects the outer parts of the star, creating an explosion sufficient to produce a supernova. Such a theoretical event is called a core-collapse supernova."

...

"In a combined effort led by Member Doron Kushnir with Katz, Dong, Member Rodrigo Fernandez, and Eli Livne of Hebrew University, the detailed process of white dwarf collisions was calculated and shown to reproduce several features of the broad distribution of type Ia supernovae. For the first time since their discovery by Tycho more than four centuries ago, a detailed scenario for a significant fraction of supernovae was studied in which the explosions could be numerically calculated from first principles based on the physically well understood processes of Newtonian dynamics, hydrodynamics, and thermonuclear burning. In a paper published by our group, the model was shown to successfully pass three independent and robust observational tests, including the successful recovery of the wide distribution of Ni56 masses. It is thus very likely that what Tycho thought was the sudden birth of a new star was actually the violent death of two. He might have been gratified to learn that the two stars collided due to the application of the same law of gravity that would later be deduced based on his dedicated observations."









						What Causes Supernovae Explosions?
					

On the evening of November 11, 1572, twenty-six-year-old astronomer Tycho Brahe was about to make a discovery that would change his life and consequentially boost the scientific revolution significantly. While casually staring at the night sky, he suddenly noticed a very bright unfamiliar star...




					www.ias.edu
				




ETA:  What you casually add to what God created as EMS in not natural.  What we have discovered in nature is that energy is neither created or lost.  It is only converted.  Thus, you are wrong again and you just received a notice from the all-powerful God.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why will the sun explode?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It happens when the sun runs out of fuel and reaches critical mass or if another star collides with it.  The latter I wasn't aware until this year, so this is likely to do it if the object doesn't hit Earth first.  It explains the big news of some massive object coming "close" to Earth only a few million miles away.  Read about Tycho.
> 
> "But what causes these explosions? There are currently two explanations involving theoretical mechanisms that are related to the two ways in which stars die. Stars cannot shine forever for the simple reason that their energy supply—nuclear burning—is finite. What happens to stars once they exhaust their nuclear fuel (mainly hydrogen) is believed to depend crucially on their mass. One of the most important theoretical discoveries in astrophysics is that a critical mass exists above which stars cannot sustain themselves against their own gravitational pull without a continuous supply of energy. The two types of star endings depend on whether their mass is above or below this critical mass, which is called the Chandrasekhar mass limit, named after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (Member, 1941, 1976), one of its discoverers. If, by the time a star exhausts its fuel, it has a mass greater than this limit, the core of the star cannot sustain itself and collapses. A huge amount of energy is released when the core collapses to the tiny size of a few kilometers, becoming a black hole or a neutron star. While most of this energy is emitted in invisible neutrinos, a small fraction of this energy ejects the outer parts of the star, creating an explosion sufficient to produce a supernova. Such a theoretical event is called a core-collapse supernova."
> 
> ...
> 
> "In a combined effort led by Member Doron Kushnir with Katz, Dong, Member Rodrigo Fernandez, and Eli Livne of Hebrew University, the detailed process of white dwarf collisions was calculated and shown to reproduce several features of the broad distribution of type Ia supernovae. For the first time since their discovery by Tycho more than four centuries ago, a detailed scenario for a significant fraction of supernovae was studied in which the explosions could be numerically calculated from first principles based on the physically well understood processes of Newtonian dynamics, hydrodynamics, and thermonuclear burning. In a paper published by our group, the model was shown to successfully pass three independent and robust observational tests, including the successful recovery of the wide distribution of Ni56 masses. It is thus very likely that what Tycho thought was the sudden birth of a new star was actually the violent death of two. He might have been gratified to learn that the two stars collided due to the application of the same law of gravity that would later be deduced based on his dedicated observations."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Causes Supernovae Explosions?
> 
> 
> On the evening of November 11, 1572, twenty-six-year-old astronomer Tycho Brahe was about to make a discovery that would change his life and consequentially boost the scientific revolution significantly. While casually staring at the night sky, he suddenly noticed a very bright unfamiliar star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ias.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:  What you casually add to what God created as EMS in not natural.  What we have discovered in nature is that energy is neither created or lost.  It is only converted.  Thus, you are wrong again and you just received a notice from the all-powerful God.
Click to expand...

I checked my phone and email and received no notice from any of the gods.  Unless of course I'm to assume you are relaying that message on behalf of the gods which makes you a pretty important guy.

I'm suspicious of any link that may direct to anything from those evilutionist atheist scientists. 

Otherwise, how can we resolve a universe fine tune for life with explosions of stars and the destruction of this planet?


----------



## Hollie

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> What explosion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You tell me.
Click to expand...

There was no explosion. There, I told you.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why will the sun explode?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It happens when the sun runs out of fuel and reaches critical mass or if another star collides with it.  The latter I wasn't aware until this year, so this is likely to do it if the object doesn't hit Earth first.  It explains the big news of some massive object coming "close" to Earth only a few million miles away.  Read about Tycho.
> 
> "But what causes these explosions? There are currently two explanations involving theoretical mechanisms that are related to the two ways in which stars die. Stars cannot shine forever for the simple reason that their energy supply—nuclear burning—is finite. What happens to stars once they exhaust their nuclear fuel (mainly hydrogen) is believed to depend crucially on their mass. One of the most important theoretical discoveries in astrophysics is that a critical mass exists above which stars cannot sustain themselves against their own gravitational pull without a continuous supply of energy. The two types of star endings depend on whether their mass is above or below this critical mass, which is called the Chandrasekhar mass limit, named after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (Member, 1941, 1976), one of its discoverers. If, by the time a star exhausts its fuel, it has a mass greater than this limit, the core of the star cannot sustain itself and collapses. A huge amount of energy is released when the core collapses to the tiny size of a few kilometers, becoming a black hole or a neutron star. While most of this energy is emitted in invisible neutrinos, a small fraction of this energy ejects the outer parts of the star, creating an explosion sufficient to produce a supernova. Such a theoretical event is called a core-collapse supernova."
> 
> ...
> 
> "In a combined effort led by Member Doron Kushnir with Katz, Dong, Member Rodrigo Fernandez, and Eli Livne of Hebrew University, the detailed process of white dwarf collisions was calculated and shown to reproduce several features of the broad distribution of type Ia supernovae. For the first time since their discovery by Tycho more than four centuries ago, a detailed scenario for a significant fraction of supernovae was studied in which the explosions could be numerically calculated from first principles based on the physically well understood processes of Newtonian dynamics, hydrodynamics, and thermonuclear burning. In a paper published by our group, the model was shown to successfully pass three independent and robust observational tests, including the successful recovery of the wide distribution of Ni56 masses. It is thus very likely that what Tycho thought was the sudden birth of a new star was actually the violent death of two. He might have been gratified to learn that the two stars collided due to the application of the same law of gravity that would later be deduced based on his dedicated observations."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Causes Supernovae Explosions?
> 
> 
> On the evening of November 11, 1572, twenty-six-year-old astronomer Tycho Brahe was about to make a discovery that would change his life and consequentially boost the scientific revolution significantly. While casually staring at the night sky, he suddenly noticed a very bright unfamiliar star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ias.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:  What you casually add to what God created as EMS in not natural.  What we have discovered in nature is that energy is neither created or lost.  It is only converted.  Thus, you are wrong again and you just received a notice from the all-powerful God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I checked my phone and email and received no notice from any of the gods.  Unless of course I'm to assume you are relaying that message on behalf of the gods which makes you a pretty important guy.
> 
> I'm suspicious of any link that may direct to anything from those evilutionist atheist scientists.
> 
> Otherwise, how can we resolve a universe fine tune for life with explosions of stars and the destruction of this planet?
Click to expand...


I beat the atheist's backsides here pretty raw, don't I?

Tycho's collision was a power "equivalent to the output of a few billion billion billion H-bombs.  At the current rate of emission, it would take our Sun several billion years, of order of its lifetime, to release the same amount of energy."  We don't want that to happen like with Tycho and fortunately it is rare.  It's probability > 0.0, and estimated to be one-in-a-million and may happen in 2022.  It's a small non-zero probability, but I would say > abiogenesis as that probability is = 0.0.  I can now say that as Louis Pasteur proved it with scientific method.  However, the atheists still think it's a small and tiny percentage, but > non-zero.  The atheists have been fooled once more.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why will the sun explode?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It happens when the sun runs out of fuel and reaches critical mass or if another star collides with it.  The latter I wasn't aware until this year, so this is likely to do it if the object doesn't hit Earth first.  It explains the big news of some massive object coming "close" to Earth only a few million miles away.  Read about Tycho.
> 
> "But what causes these explosions? There are currently two explanations involving theoretical mechanisms that are related to the two ways in which stars die. Stars cannot shine forever for the simple reason that their energy supply—nuclear burning—is finite. What happens to stars once they exhaust their nuclear fuel (mainly hydrogen) is believed to depend crucially on their mass. One of the most important theoretical discoveries in astrophysics is that a critical mass exists above which stars cannot sustain themselves against their own gravitational pull without a continuous supply of energy. The two types of star endings depend on whether their mass is above or below this critical mass, which is called the Chandrasekhar mass limit, named after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (Member, 1941, 1976), one of its discoverers. If, by the time a star exhausts its fuel, it has a mass greater than this limit, the core of the star cannot sustain itself and collapses. A huge amount of energy is released when the core collapses to the tiny size of a few kilometers, becoming a black hole or a neutron star. While most of this energy is emitted in invisible neutrinos, a small fraction of this energy ejects the outer parts of the star, creating an explosion sufficient to produce a supernova. Such a theoretical event is called a core-collapse supernova."
> 
> ...
> 
> "In a combined effort led by Member Doron Kushnir with Katz, Dong, Member Rodrigo Fernandez, and Eli Livne of Hebrew University, the detailed process of white dwarf collisions was calculated and shown to reproduce several features of the broad distribution of type Ia supernovae. For the first time since their discovery by Tycho more than four centuries ago, a detailed scenario for a significant fraction of supernovae was studied in which the explosions could be numerically calculated from first principles based on the physically well understood processes of Newtonian dynamics, hydrodynamics, and thermonuclear burning. In a paper published by our group, the model was shown to successfully pass three independent and robust observational tests, including the successful recovery of the wide distribution of Ni56 masses. It is thus very likely that what Tycho thought was the sudden birth of a new star was actually the violent death of two. He might have been gratified to learn that the two stars collided due to the application of the same law of gravity that would later be deduced based on his dedicated observations."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Causes Supernovae Explosions?
> 
> 
> On the evening of November 11, 1572, twenty-six-year-old astronomer Tycho Brahe was about to make a discovery that would change his life and consequentially boost the scientific revolution significantly. While casually staring at the night sky, he suddenly noticed a very bright unfamiliar star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ias.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:  What you casually add to what God created as EMS in not natural.  What we have discovered in nature is that energy is neither created or lost.  It is only converted.  Thus, you are wrong again and you just received a notice from the all-powerful God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I checked my phone and email and received no notice from any of the gods.  Unless of course I'm to assume you are relaying that message on behalf of the gods which makes you a pretty important guy.
> 
> I'm suspicious of any link that may direct to anything from those evilutionist atheist scientists.
> 
> Otherwise, how can we resolve a universe fine tune for life with explosions of stars and the destruction of this planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I beat the atheist's backsides here pretty raw, don't I?
> 
> Tycho's collision was a power "equivalent to the output of a few billion billion billion H-bombs.  At the current rate of emission, it would take our Sun several billion years, of order of its lifetime, to release the same amount of energy."  We don't want that to happen like with Tycho and fortunately it is rare.  It's probability > 0.0, and estimated to be one-in-a-million and may happen in 2022.  It's a small non-zero probability, but I would say > abiogenesis as that probability is = 0.0.  I can now say that as Louis Pasteur proved it with scientific method.  However, the atheists still think it's a small and tiny percentage, but > non-zero.  The atheists have been fooled once more.
Click to expand...

Offering nothing more than ID'iot creationer slogans, I'm not clear whose backside you were fondling.

I'm not clear that you fooled anyone. It's odd that you attempt to make a case for a universe ''fine tuned'' by the gods and subsequently offer something about the sun exploding and destroying the earth.

Your abiogenesis probability of 0.0 seems amiss as the fact of biological life on the planet puts that probability at 100. Perhaps you're using that new-fangled  ID'creationer math?


----------



## anynameyouwish

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why will the sun explode?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It happens when the sun runs out of fuel and reaches critical mass or if another star collides with it.  The latter I wasn't aware until this year, so this is likely to do it if the object doesn't hit Earth first.  It explains the big news of some massive object coming "close" to Earth only a few million miles away.  Read about Tycho.
> 
> "But what causes these explosions? There are currently two explanations involving theoretical mechanisms that are related to the two ways in which stars die. Stars cannot shine forever for the simple reason that their energy supply—nuclear burning—is finite. What happens to stars once they exhaust their nuclear fuel (mainly hydrogen) is believed to depend crucially on their mass. One of the most important theoretical discoveries in astrophysics is that a critical mass exists above which stars cannot sustain themselves against their own gravitational pull without a continuous supply of energy. The two types of star endings depend on whether their mass is above or below this critical mass, which is called the Chandrasekhar mass limit, named after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (Member, 1941, 1976), one of its discoverers. If, by the time a star exhausts its fuel, it has a mass greater than this limit, the core of the star cannot sustain itself and collapses. A huge amount of energy is released when the core collapses to the tiny size of a few kilometers, becoming a black hole or a neutron star. While most of this energy is emitted in invisible neutrinos, a small fraction of this energy ejects the outer parts of the star, creating an explosion sufficient to produce a supernova. Such a theoretical event is called a core-collapse supernova."
> 
> ...
> 
> "In a combined effort led by Member Doron Kushnir with Katz, Dong, Member Rodrigo Fernandez, and Eli Livne of Hebrew University, the detailed process of white dwarf collisions was calculated and shown to reproduce several features of the broad distribution of type Ia supernovae. For the first time since their discovery by Tycho more than four centuries ago, a detailed scenario for a significant fraction of supernovae was studied in which the explosions could be numerically calculated from first principles based on the physically well understood processes of Newtonian dynamics, hydrodynamics, and thermonuclear burning. In a paper published by our group, the model was shown to successfully pass three independent and robust observational tests, including the successful recovery of the wide distribution of Ni56 masses. It is thus very likely that what Tycho thought was the sudden birth of a new star was actually the violent death of two. He might have been gratified to learn that the two stars collided due to the application of the same law of gravity that would later be deduced based on his dedicated observations."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Causes Supernovae Explosions?
> 
> 
> On the evening of November 11, 1572, twenty-six-year-old astronomer Tycho Brahe was about to make a discovery that would change his life and consequentially boost the scientific revolution significantly. While casually staring at the night sky, he suddenly noticed a very bright unfamiliar star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ias.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:  What you casually add to what God created as EMS in not natural.  What we have discovered in nature is that energy is neither created or lost.  It is only converted.  Thus, you are wrong again and you just received a notice from the all-powerful God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I checked my phone and email and received no notice from any of the gods.  Unless of course I'm to assume you are relaying that message on behalf of the gods which makes you a pretty important guy.
> 
> I'm suspicious of any link that may direct to anything from those evilutionist atheist scientists.
> 
> Otherwise, how can we resolve a universe fine tune for life with explosions of stars and the destruction of this planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I beat the atheist's backsides here pretty raw, don't I?
> 
> Tycho's collision was a power "equivalent to the output of a few billion billion billion H-bombs.  At the current rate of emission, it would take our Sun several billion years, of order of its lifetime, to release the same amount of energy."  We don't want that to happen like with Tycho and fortunately it is rare.  It's probability > 0.0, and estimated to be one-in-a-million and may happen in 2022.  It's a small non-zero probability, but I would say > abiogenesis as that probability is = 0.0.  I can now say that as Louis Pasteur proved it with scientific method.  However, the atheists still think it's a small and tiny percentage, but > non-zero.  The atheists have been fooled once more.
Click to expand...

no
you dont


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> ... but I would say > abiogenesis as that probability is = 0.0 ...



So ... you're claiming it's impossible for methane to collide and form ethane? ...


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why will the sun explode?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It happens when the sun runs out of fuel and reaches critical mass or if another star collides with it.  The latter I wasn't aware until this year, so this is likely to do it if the object doesn't hit Earth first.  It explains the big news of some massive object coming "close" to Earth only a few million miles away.  Read about Tycho.
> 
> "But what causes these explosions? There are currently two explanations involving theoretical mechanisms that are related to the two ways in which stars die. Stars cannot shine forever for the simple reason that their energy supply—nuclear burning—is finite. What happens to stars once they exhaust their nuclear fuel (mainly hydrogen) is believed to depend crucially on their mass. One of the most important theoretical discoveries in astrophysics is that a critical mass exists above which stars cannot sustain themselves against their own gravitational pull without a continuous supply of energy. The two types of star endings depend on whether their mass is above or below this critical mass, which is called the Chandrasekhar mass limit, named after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (Member, 1941, 1976), one of its discoverers. If, by the time a star exhausts its fuel, it has a mass greater than this limit, the core of the star cannot sustain itself and collapses. A huge amount of energy is released when the core collapses to the tiny size of a few kilometers, becoming a black hole or a neutron star. While most of this energy is emitted in invisible neutrinos, a small fraction of this energy ejects the outer parts of the star, creating an explosion sufficient to produce a supernova. Such a theoretical event is called a core-collapse supernova."
> 
> ...
> 
> "In a combined effort led by Member Doron Kushnir with Katz, Dong, Member Rodrigo Fernandez, and Eli Livne of Hebrew University, the detailed process of white dwarf collisions was calculated and shown to reproduce several features of the broad distribution of type Ia supernovae. For the first time since their discovery by Tycho more than four centuries ago, a detailed scenario for a significant fraction of supernovae was studied in which the explosions could be numerically calculated from first principles based on the physically well understood processes of Newtonian dynamics, hydrodynamics, and thermonuclear burning. In a paper published by our group, the model was shown to successfully pass three independent and robust observational tests, including the successful recovery of the wide distribution of Ni56 masses. It is thus very likely that what Tycho thought was the sudden birth of a new star was actually the violent death of two. He might have been gratified to learn that the two stars collided due to the application of the same law of gravity that would later be deduced based on his dedicated observations."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Causes Supernovae Explosions?
> 
> 
> On the evening of November 11, 1572, twenty-six-year-old astronomer Tycho Brahe was about to make a discovery that would change his life and consequentially boost the scientific revolution significantly. While casually staring at the night sky, he suddenly noticed a very bright unfamiliar star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ias.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:  What you casually add to what God created as EMS in not natural.  What we have discovered in nature is that energy is neither created or lost.  It is only converted.  Thus, you are wrong again and you just received a notice from the all-powerful God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I checked my phone and email and received no notice from any of the gods.  Unless of course I'm to assume you are relaying that message on behalf of the gods which makes you a pretty important guy.
> 
> I'm suspicious of any link that may direct to anything from those evilutionist atheist scientists.
> 
> Otherwise, how can we resolve a universe fine tune for life with explosions of stars and the destruction of this planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I beat the atheist's backsides here pretty raw, don't I?
> 
> Tycho's collision was a power "equivalent to the output of a few billion billion billion H-bombs.  At the current rate of emission, it would take our Sun several billion years, of order of its lifetime, to release the same amount of energy."  We don't want that to happen like with Tycho and fortunately it is rare.  It's probability > 0.0, and estimated to be one-in-a-million and may happen in 2022.  It's a small non-zero probability, but I would say > abiogenesis as that probability is = 0.0.  I can now say that as Louis Pasteur proved it with scientific method.  However, the atheists still think it's a small and tiny percentage, but > non-zero.  The atheists have been fooled once more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Offering nothing more than ID'iot creationer slogans, I'm not clear whose backside you were fondling.
> 
> I'm not clear that you fooled anyone. It's odd that you attempt to make a case for a universe ''fine tuned'' by the gods and subsequently offer something about the sun exploding and destroying the earth.
> 
> Your abiogenesis probability of 0.0 seems amiss as the fact of biological life on the planet puts that probability at 100. Perhaps you're using that new-fangled  ID'creationer math?
Click to expand...


It's hilarious that you thought the energy of the EMS came about naturally.  No wonder that we have idiot atheist scientists who believe in multiverses.  For any universe, I just showed that it takes God's power to create.  The EMS cannot possibly form by itself nor invisible quantum particles.

I'll get to abiogenesis in my next post.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but I would say > abiogenesis as that probability is = 0.0 ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So ... you're claiming it's impossible for methane to collide and form ethane? ...
Click to expand...








You're stuck on methane.  Aren't farts comprised of methane and flammable gas?  You get the ass mushroom award.


----------



## james bond

Before abiogenesis, there was spontaneous generation.  Now, the make believe scientists are just spouting a new version of SG.  Dr. Louis Pasteur showed only life begets other life.

Here is a new video:


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why will the sun explode?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It happens when the sun runs out of fuel and reaches critical mass or if another star collides with it.  The latter I wasn't aware until this year, so this is likely to do it if the object doesn't hit Earth first.  It explains the big news of some massive object coming "close" to Earth only a few million miles away.  Read about Tycho.
> 
> "But what causes these explosions? There are currently two explanations involving theoretical mechanisms that are related to the two ways in which stars die. Stars cannot shine forever for the simple reason that their energy supply—nuclear burning—is finite. What happens to stars once they exhaust their nuclear fuel (mainly hydrogen) is believed to depend crucially on their mass. One of the most important theoretical discoveries in astrophysics is that a critical mass exists above which stars cannot sustain themselves against their own gravitational pull without a continuous supply of energy. The two types of star endings depend on whether their mass is above or below this critical mass, which is called the Chandrasekhar mass limit, named after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (Member, 1941, 1976), one of its discoverers. If, by the time a star exhausts its fuel, it has a mass greater than this limit, the core of the star cannot sustain itself and collapses. A huge amount of energy is released when the core collapses to the tiny size of a few kilometers, becoming a black hole or a neutron star. While most of this energy is emitted in invisible neutrinos, a small fraction of this energy ejects the outer parts of the star, creating an explosion sufficient to produce a supernova. Such a theoretical event is called a core-collapse supernova."
> 
> ...
> 
> "In a combined effort led by Member Doron Kushnir with Katz, Dong, Member Rodrigo Fernandez, and Eli Livne of Hebrew University, the detailed process of white dwarf collisions was calculated and shown to reproduce several features of the broad distribution of type Ia supernovae. For the first time since their discovery by Tycho more than four centuries ago, a detailed scenario for a significant fraction of supernovae was studied in which the explosions could be numerically calculated from first principles based on the physically well understood processes of Newtonian dynamics, hydrodynamics, and thermonuclear burning. In a paper published by our group, the model was shown to successfully pass three independent and robust observational tests, including the successful recovery of the wide distribution of Ni56 masses. It is thus very likely that what Tycho thought was the sudden birth of a new star was actually the violent death of two. He might have been gratified to learn that the two stars collided due to the application of the same law of gravity that would later be deduced based on his dedicated observations."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Causes Supernovae Explosions?
> 
> 
> On the evening of November 11, 1572, twenty-six-year-old astronomer Tycho Brahe was about to make a discovery that would change his life and consequentially boost the scientific revolution significantly. While casually staring at the night sky, he suddenly noticed a very bright unfamiliar star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ias.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:  What you casually add to what God created as EMS in not natural.  What we have discovered in nature is that energy is neither created or lost.  It is only converted.  Thus, you are wrong again and you just received a notice from the all-powerful God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I checked my phone and email and received no notice from any of the gods.  Unless of course I'm to assume you are relaying that message on behalf of the gods which makes you a pretty important guy.
> 
> I'm suspicious of any link that may direct to anything from those evilutionist atheist scientists.
> 
> Otherwise, how can we resolve a universe fine tune for life with explosions of stars and the destruction of this planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I beat the atheist's backsides here pretty raw, don't I?
> 
> Tycho's collision was a power "equivalent to the output of a few billion billion billion H-bombs.  At the current rate of emission, it would take our Sun several billion years, of order of its lifetime, to release the same amount of energy."  We don't want that to happen like with Tycho and fortunately it is rare.  It's probability > 0.0, and estimated to be one-in-a-million and may happen in 2022.  It's a small non-zero probability, but I would say > abiogenesis as that probability is = 0.0.  I can now say that as Louis Pasteur proved it with scientific method.  However, the atheists still think it's a small and tiny percentage, but > non-zero.  The atheists have been fooled once more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Offering nothing more than ID'iot creationer slogans, I'm not clear whose backside you were fondling.
> 
> I'm not clear that you fooled anyone. It's odd that you attempt to make a case for a universe ''fine tuned'' by the gods and subsequently offer something about the sun exploding and destroying the earth.
> 
> Your abiogenesis probability of 0.0 seems amiss as the fact of biological life on the planet puts that probability at 100. Perhaps you're using that new-fangled  ID'creationer math?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hilarious that you thought the energy of the EMS came about naturally.  No wonder that we have idiot atheist scientists who believe in multiverses.  For any universe, I just showed that it takes God's power to create.  The EMS cannot possibly form by itself nor invisible quantum particles.
> 
> I'll get to abiogenesis in my next post.
Click to expand...

Can you give us defendable argument about how the EMS came about supernaturally? Your repeated “... because I say so” arguments are lacking credibility.

Where have you shown it takes the power of the gods to create anything?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Before abiogenesis, there was spontaneous generation.  Now, the make believe scientists are just spouting a new version of SG.  Dr. Louis Pasteur showed only life begets other life.
> 
> Here is a new video:


Pasteur never showed that life begets other life. It was explained to you earlier. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently _spontaneously_ arise in _complex f_orm from non-life in nature.



			CB000:  Law of Biogenesis
		


*Claim CB000:*
Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.

Not surprisingly, your claim is one that comes from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

*Source:*
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.
*Response:*

The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but I would say > abiogenesis as that probability is = 0.0 ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So ... you're claiming it's impossible for methane to collide and form ethane? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuck on methane.  Aren't farts comprised of methane and flammable gas?  You get the ass mushroom award.
Click to expand...


Very mature ... most children your age aren't near this sophisticated ... fart jokes are at least 10-year-old material ...


----------



## james bond

anynameyouwish said:


> no
> you dont



I think I do.  Otherwise, where does the energy in all of the universe come from?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Can you give us defendable argument about how the EMS came about supernaturally? Your repeated “... because I say so” arguments are lacking credibility.
> 
> Where have you shown it takes the power of the gods to create anything?



Before that, you claimed EMS came about naturally, why don't you back that up?


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but I would say > abiogenesis as that probability is = 0.0 ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So ... you're claiming it's impossible for methane to collide and form ethane? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuck on methane.  Aren't farts comprised of methane and flammable gas?  You get the ass mushroom award.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very mature ... most children your age aren't near this sophisticated ... fart jokes are at least 10-year-old material ...
Click to expand...


C'mon.  Have some ribald fun.  Why do you keep mentioning methane?  That was explained with the ovaries of the hen.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before abiogenesis, there was spontaneous generation.  Now, the make believe scientists are just spouting a new version of SG.  Dr. Louis Pasteur showed only life begets other life.
> 
> Here is a new video:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pasteur never showed that life begets other life. It was explained to you earlier. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently _spontaneously_ arise in _complex f_orm from non-life in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> CB000:  Law of Biogenesis
> 
> 
> 
> *Claim CB000:*
> Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.
> 
> Not surprisingly, your claim is one that comes from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
> 
> *Source:*
> Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.
> *Response:*
> 
> The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
Click to expand...


So you finally explain your links and provide an argument instead of just linking.

>>*Pasteur never showed that life begets other life.* It was explained to you earlier. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently _spontaneously_ arise in _complex f_orm from non-life in nature.<<

Sure he did.



Hollie said:


> Can you give us defendable argument about how the EMS came about supernaturally? Your repeated “... because I say so” arguments are lacking credibility.
> 
> Where have you shown it takes the power of the gods to create anything?



No me.  God the Father.

Please don't attribute to me nor call God the Father as gods.  You are playing with fire.  Remember how powerful God the Father is.

All I am trying to present is show powerful God the Father as creator is.  Compare it to what evolutionary thinking tells you?  Any thinking person should ask well, where did all the energy in the universe come from since the 3 Laws of Energy states -- The Three Laws of Energy – The Book of Threes and

*“Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.”*

― Einstein

Even Newton said the same before him.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> C'mon.  Have some ribald fun.  Why do you keep mentioning methane?  That was explained with the ovaries of the hen.



That's what this thread is about ... the explanation starts with methane, not chickens ...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give us defendable argument about how the EMS came about supernaturally? Your repeated “... because I say so” arguments are lacking credibility.
> 
> Where have you shown it takes the power of the gods to create anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before that, you claimed EMS came about naturally, why don't you back that up?
Click to expand...

I should first point out that you may have difficulty resolving anything claimed to be naturally occurring as you proceed from a position that all of existence is the result of supernaturalism at the hands of magical gods. You proceed from there with the “prove it isn’t” admonition. 

Secondly and as a very basic assumption, if you don’t understand the four states of matter, you have no business in a science discussion: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Now, your obvious question will be, “who made up that matter”? Your obvious answer will be, “the gods. Prove it isn’t”.

My obvious response would be, “prove your gods.”

Radiant heat and light are forms of electromagnetic radiation, as are radio waves. I have found nothing supernatural or “godly” about heat, light or radio waves. Electrical current to power a table lamp is the flow of electrons along a wire. Yes, that’s a difficult concept to understand but it doesn’t suggest that the gods are herding those electrons along the wire.

The more important question is “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”.


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why will the sun explode?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It happens when the sun runs out of fuel and reaches critical mass or if another star collides with it.  The latter I wasn't aware until this year, so this is likely to do it if the object doesn't hit Earth first.  It explains the big news of some massive object coming "close" to Earth only a few million miles away.  Read about Tycho.
> 
> "But what causes these explosions? There are currently two explanations involving theoretical mechanisms that are related to the two ways in which stars die. Stars cannot shine forever for the simple reason that their energy supply—nuclear burning—is finite. What happens to stars once they exhaust their nuclear fuel (mainly hydrogen) is believed to depend crucially on their mass. One of the most important theoretical discoveries in astrophysics is that a critical mass exists above which stars cannot sustain themselves against their own gravitational pull without a continuous supply of energy. The two types of star endings depend on whether their mass is above or below this critical mass, which is called the Chandrasekhar mass limit, named after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (Member, 1941, 1976), one of its discoverers. If, by the time a star exhausts its fuel, it has a mass greater than this limit, the core of the star cannot sustain itself and collapses. A huge amount of energy is released when the core collapses to the tiny size of a few kilometers, becoming a black hole or a neutron star. While most of this energy is emitted in invisible neutrinos, a small fraction of this energy ejects the outer parts of the star, creating an explosion sufficient to produce a supernova. Such a theoretical event is called a core-collapse supernova."
> 
> ...
> 
> "In a combined effort led by Member Doron Kushnir with Katz, Dong, Member Rodrigo Fernandez, and Eli Livne of Hebrew University, the detailed process of white dwarf collisions was calculated and shown to reproduce several features of the broad distribution of type Ia supernovae. For the first time since their discovery by Tycho more than four centuries ago, a detailed scenario for a significant fraction of supernovae was studied in which the explosions could be numerically calculated from first principles based on the physically well understood processes of Newtonian dynamics, hydrodynamics, and thermonuclear burning. In a paper published by our group, the model was shown to successfully pass three independent and robust observational tests, including the successful recovery of the wide distribution of Ni56 masses. It is thus very likely that what Tycho thought was the sudden birth of a new star was actually the violent death of two. He might have been gratified to learn that the two stars collided due to the application of the same law of gravity that would later be deduced based on his dedicated observations."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Causes Supernovae Explosions?
> 
> 
> On the evening of November 11, 1572, twenty-six-year-old astronomer Tycho Brahe was about to make a discovery that would change his life and consequentially boost the scientific revolution significantly. While casually staring at the night sky, he suddenly noticed a very bright unfamiliar star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ias.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:  What you casually add to what God created as EMS in not natural.  What we have discovered in nature is that energy is neither created or lost.  It is only converted.  Thus, you are wrong again and you just received a notice from the all-powerful God.
Click to expand...

Our sun won't explode as it doesn't have enough mass to go super nova.

What will happen is as the sun runs out of fuel it will expand to become a red giant star because there will be insufficient mass for gravity to keep the gases confined.

The sun will engulf the inner planets and burn them to cinder after the all that will be left is a white dwarf, a very dense cool star remnant.


The other looming catastrophe is the inevitable collision of the Milky Way with the Andromeda galaxy.


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why will the sun explode?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It happens when the sun runs out of fuel and reaches critical mass or if another star collides with it.  The latter I wasn't aware until this year, so this is likely to do it if the object doesn't hit Earth first.  It explains the big news of some massive object coming "close" to Earth only a few million miles away.  Read about Tycho.
> 
> "But what causes these explosions? There are currently two explanations involving theoretical mechanisms that are related to the two ways in which stars die. Stars cannot shine forever for the simple reason that their energy supply—nuclear burning—is finite. What happens to stars once they exhaust their nuclear fuel (mainly hydrogen) is believed to depend crucially on their mass. One of the most important theoretical discoveries in astrophysics is that a critical mass exists above which stars cannot sustain themselves against their own gravitational pull without a continuous supply of energy. The two types of star endings depend on whether their mass is above or below this critical mass, which is called the Chandrasekhar mass limit, named after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (Member, 1941, 1976), one of its discoverers. If, by the time a star exhausts its fuel, it has a mass greater than this limit, the core of the star cannot sustain itself and collapses. A huge amount of energy is released when the core collapses to the tiny size of a few kilometers, becoming a black hole or a neutron star. While most of this energy is emitted in invisible neutrinos, a small fraction of this energy ejects the outer parts of the star, creating an explosion sufficient to produce a supernova. Such a theoretical event is called a core-collapse supernova."
> 
> ...
> 
> "In a combined effort led by Member Doron Kushnir with Katz, Dong, Member Rodrigo Fernandez, and Eli Livne of Hebrew University, the detailed process of white dwarf collisions was calculated and shown to reproduce several features of the broad distribution of type Ia supernovae. For the first time since their discovery by Tycho more than four centuries ago, a detailed scenario for a significant fraction of supernovae was studied in which the explosions could be numerically calculated from first principles based on the physically well understood processes of Newtonian dynamics, hydrodynamics, and thermonuclear burning. In a paper published by our group, the model was shown to successfully pass three independent and robust observational tests, including the successful recovery of the wide distribution of Ni56 masses. It is thus very likely that what Tycho thought was the sudden birth of a new star was actually the violent death of two. He might have been gratified to learn that the two stars collided due to the application of the same law of gravity that would later be deduced based on his dedicated observations."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Causes Supernovae Explosions?
> 
> 
> On the evening of November 11, 1572, twenty-six-year-old astronomer Tycho Brahe was about to make a discovery that would change his life and consequentially boost the scientific revolution significantly. While casually staring at the night sky, he suddenly noticed a very bright unfamiliar star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ias.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:  What you casually add to what God created as EMS in not natural.  What we have discovered in nature is that energy is neither created or lost.  It is only converted.  Thus, you are wrong again and you just received a notice from the all-powerful God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our sun won't explode as it doesn't have enough mass to go super nova.
> 
> What will happen is as the sun runs out of fuel it will expand to become a red giant star because there will be insufficient mass for gravity to keep the gases confined.
> 
> The sun will engulf the inner planets and burn them to cinder after the all that will be left is a white dwarf, a very dense cool star remnant.
> 
> 
> The other looming catastrophe is the inevitable collision of the Milky Way with the Andromeda galaxy.
Click to expand...


What I said was there is better chance for another star to collide with our sun like what happened with Tycho before our sun runs out of fuel. 

We can also have galaxies collide or even an asteroid strike on Earth. 

All of these would result in enormous amounts of energy transfer which creationists can explain while evolutionists fail.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> That's what this thread is about ... the explanation starts with methane, not chickens ...



I used to live in Silicon Valley when younger and went to this theater when opened.  Yes, it had a problem and why people only went if they could get the better seats away from the grass.









						How a venue built on a city dump became a Bay Area icon
					

There are Bay Area concert venues that are more historic, more beautiful or more...




					www.sfgate.com
				




ETA:  Okay, where is the new stinky life  ?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before abiogenesis, there was spontaneous generation.  Now, the make believe scientists are just spouting a new version of SG.  Dr. Louis Pasteur showed only life begets other life.
> 
> Here is a new video:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pasteur never showed that life begets other life. It was explained to you earlier. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently _spontaneously_ arise in _complex f_orm from non-life in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> CB000:  Law of Biogenesis
> 
> 
> 
> *Claim CB000:*
> Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.
> 
> Not surprisingly, your claim is one that comes from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
> 
> *Source:*
> Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.
> *Response:*
> 
> The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you finally explain your links and provide an argument instead of just linking.
> 
> >>*Pasteur never showed that life begets other life.* It was explained to you earlier. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently _spontaneously_ arise in _complex f_orm from non-life in nature.<<
> 
> Sure he did.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give us defendable argument about how the EMS came about supernaturally? Your repeated “... because I say so” arguments are lacking credibility.
> 
> Where have you shown it takes the power of the gods to create anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No me.  God the Father.
> 
> Please don't attribute to me nor call God the Father as gods.  You are playing with fire.  Remember how powerful God the Father is.
> 
> All I am trying to present is show powerful God the Father as creator is.  Compare it to what evolutionary thinking tells you?  Any thinking person should ask well, where did all the energy in the universe come from since the 3 Laws of Energy states -- The Three Laws of Energy – The Book of Threes and
> 
> *“Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.”*
> 
> ― Einstein
> 
> Even Newton said the same before him.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone blindly accept your claims to partisan gods?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why will the sun explode?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It happens when the sun runs out of fuel and reaches critical mass or if another star collides with it.  The latter I wasn't aware until this year, so this is likely to do it if the object doesn't hit Earth first.  It explains the big news of some massive object coming "close" to Earth only a few million miles away.  Read about Tycho.
> 
> "But what causes these explosions? There are currently two explanations involving theoretical mechanisms that are related to the two ways in which stars die. Stars cannot shine forever for the simple reason that their energy supply—nuclear burning—is finite. What happens to stars once they exhaust their nuclear fuel (mainly hydrogen) is believed to depend crucially on their mass. One of the most important theoretical discoveries in astrophysics is that a critical mass exists above which stars cannot sustain themselves against their own gravitational pull without a continuous supply of energy. The two types of star endings depend on whether their mass is above or below this critical mass, which is called the Chandrasekhar mass limit, named after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (Member, 1941, 1976), one of its discoverers. If, by the time a star exhausts its fuel, it has a mass greater than this limit, the core of the star cannot sustain itself and collapses. A huge amount of energy is released when the core collapses to the tiny size of a few kilometers, becoming a black hole or a neutron star. While most of this energy is emitted in invisible neutrinos, a small fraction of this energy ejects the outer parts of the star, creating an explosion sufficient to produce a supernova. Such a theoretical event is called a core-collapse supernova."
> 
> ...
> 
> "In a combined effort led by Member Doron Kushnir with Katz, Dong, Member Rodrigo Fernandez, and Eli Livne of Hebrew University, the detailed process of white dwarf collisions was calculated and shown to reproduce several features of the broad distribution of type Ia supernovae. For the first time since their discovery by Tycho more than four centuries ago, a detailed scenario for a significant fraction of supernovae was studied in which the explosions could be numerically calculated from first principles based on the physically well understood processes of Newtonian dynamics, hydrodynamics, and thermonuclear burning. In a paper published by our group, the model was shown to successfully pass three independent and robust observational tests, including the successful recovery of the wide distribution of Ni56 masses. It is thus very likely that what Tycho thought was the sudden birth of a new star was actually the violent death of two. He might have been gratified to learn that the two stars collided due to the application of the same law of gravity that would later be deduced based on his dedicated observations."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Causes Supernovae Explosions?
> 
> 
> On the evening of November 11, 1572, twenty-six-year-old astronomer Tycho Brahe was about to make a discovery that would change his life and consequentially boost the scientific revolution significantly. While casually staring at the night sky, he suddenly noticed a very bright unfamiliar star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ias.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:  What you casually add to what God created as EMS in not natural.  What we have discovered in nature is that energy is neither created or lost.  It is only converted.  Thus, you are wrong again and you just received a notice from the all-powerful God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our sun won't explode as it doesn't have enough mass to go super nova.
> 
> What will happen is as the sun runs out of fuel it will expand to become a red giant star because there will be insufficient mass for gravity to keep the gases confined.
> 
> The sun will engulf the inner planets and burn them to cinder after the all that will be left is a white dwarf, a very dense cool star remnant.
> 
> 
> The other looming catastrophe is the inevitable collision of the Milky Way with the Andromeda galaxy.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said was there is better chance for another star to collide with our sun before our sun runs out of fuel like Tycho.
> 
> We can also have galaxies collide or even an asteroid strike on Earth.
> 
> All of these would result in enormous amounts of energy transfer which creationists can explain while evolutionists fail.
Click to expand...

How do ID’iot creationers explain that fine tuned universe notion amidst collisions of galaxies and stars colliding with our sun?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I should first point out that you may have difficulty resolving anything claimed to be naturally occurring as you proceed from a position that all of existence is the result of supernaturalism at the hands of magical gods. You proceed from there with the “prove it isn’t” admonition.



I was answering your question about what happened that was supernatural?  I would think creating the EMS would be.  There is no explanation of it from the big bang theory.  To that, you replied my graph was cartoonish and that it was natural.  Nothing with all of the energy in the universe could just rise up out of nothing or quantum physics.  I even gave you the amount of energy per photon and had to refute your statement because of what Newton and Einstein stated as facts that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transferred.  If I was an atheist, I would accept that as supernatural.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> How do ID’iot creationers explain that fine tuned universe notion amidst collisions of galaxies and stars colliding with our sun?



Now, I know you're admitting defeat.  Fine tuning has been admitted by the more reputable evolution websites and explains why there is lack of life on other planets besides Earth.

As for the collision of stars and galaxies, it means that our universe is dying due to catastrophism.  By light, i.e. EMS, we were born.  By light we will be destroyed.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should first point out that you may have difficulty resolving anything claimed to be naturally occurring as you proceed from a position that all of existence is the result of supernaturalism at the hands of magical gods. You proceed from there with the “prove it isn’t” admonition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was answering your question about what happened that was supernatural?  I would think creating the EMS would be.  There is no explanation of it from the big bang theory.  To that, you replied my graph was cartoonish and that it was natural.  Nothing with all of the energy in the universe could just rise up out of nothing or quantum physics.  I even gave you the amount of energy per photon and had to refute your statement because of what Newton and Einstein stated as facts that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transferred.  If I was an atheist, I would accept that as supernatural.
Click to expand...

You offered nothing to support your claim that any of your gods created electro-magnetism. 

Your only refutation was that of your own argument. Alleging as fact anything from evilutionist atheist scientists is hypocritical and contrary to your earlier statements.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> What I said was there is better chance for another star to collide with our sun before our sun runs out of fuel like Tycho.
> We can also have galaxies collide or even an asteroid strike on Earth.
> All of these would result in enormous amounts of energy transfer which creationists can explain while evolutionists fail.



Galaxies pass through one another without any of their member stars colliding ... basic astronomy ... stars colliding is about as likely as our current planets colliding, and for the same reason, they're in stable orbits around the galactic nucleus ... you're just spouting nonsense ...

Asteroids strike the Earth daily, hourly ... up to every minute in mid-April ... basic astronomy ...


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> I used to live in Silicon Valley when younger and went to this theater when opened.  Yes, it had a problem and why people only went if they could get the better seats away from the grass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How a venue built on a city dump became a Bay Area icon
> 
> 
> There are Bay Area concert venues that are more historic, more beautiful or more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfgate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:  Okay, where is the new stinky life  ?



Is the Sea-View theater still open in Pacifica? ... I watched so many movies there it was like my second home ... back when Silicon Valley was still orchards and pig farms ... Intel was the world's foremost manufacturer of bi-magnetic cores ... so computers could "fit inside a _single_ room" running at an astonishing rate of 300 bytes per second ...

I understand you don't want abiogenesis explained to you ... better to claim ignorance than to have to think ... and The Bible lays everything out for you so you don't have to think ... "God did it" is all you need to know ... sad but you're young still, someday you'll discover girls ...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do ID’iot creationers explain that fine tuned universe notion amidst collisions of galaxies and stars colliding with our sun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I know you're admitting defeat.  Fine tuning has been admitted by the more reputable evolution websites and explains why there is lack of life on other planets besides Earth.
> 
> As for the collision of stars and galaxies, it means that our universe is dying due to catastrophism.  By light, i.e. EMS, we were born.  By light we will be destroyed.
Click to expand...

I know its a sign of desperation when you claim others are admitting defeat in spite of that not happening. Fine tuning is not admitted by the relevant sciences as it applies to the actions of your particular gods. It‘s a rather desperate tactic to attempt to impose your religious beliefs on others. I should point out the absurdity in your “fine tuning” meme when you acknowledge collisions of galaxies. “Fine tuning” would not suggest collisions of galaxies or meteor / asteroid strikes of this planet.

The ID’iot creationer claim that "fine-tuning" of the universe's parameters requires a particular set of gods is exactly as fallacious as claiming that the "fine-tuning" of biological structures requires those same gods. Natural selection and evolution allow structures to self-organize by themselves using only natural laws of physics and chemistry. Of course, applying this argument to the universe presupposes that it is possible for the parameters of the universe to change. 

How do you resolve “fine tuning” with the universe being utterly hostile to life as we know it on this planet?


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> I was answering your question about what happened that was supernatural?  I would think creating the EMS would be.  There is no explanation of it from the big bang theory.  To that, you replied my graph was cartoonish and that it was natural.  Nothing with all of the energy in the universe could just rise up out of nothing or quantum physics.  I even gave you the amount of energy per photon and had to refute your statement because of what Newton and Einstein stated as facts that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transferred.  If I was an atheist, I would accept that as supernatural.



Max Planck explained EM radiation in full a little over 100 years ago ... to date no counter-example has been found ... no, the theory isn't in The Bible ...


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why will the sun explode?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It happens when the sun runs out of fuel and reaches critical mass or if another star collides with it.  The latter I wasn't aware until this year, so this is likely to do it if the object doesn't hit Earth first.  It explains the big news of some massive object coming "close" to Earth only a few million miles away.  Read about Tycho.
> 
> "But what causes these explosions? There are currently two explanations involving theoretical mechanisms that are related to the two ways in which stars die. Stars cannot shine forever for the simple reason that their energy supply—nuclear burning—is finite. What happens to stars once they exhaust their nuclear fuel (mainly hydrogen) is believed to depend crucially on their mass. One of the most important theoretical discoveries in astrophysics is that a critical mass exists above which stars cannot sustain themselves against their own gravitational pull without a continuous supply of energy. The two types of star endings depend on whether their mass is above or below this critical mass, which is called the Chandrasekhar mass limit, named after Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (Member, 1941, 1976), one of its discoverers. If, by the time a star exhausts its fuel, it has a mass greater than this limit, the core of the star cannot sustain itself and collapses. A huge amount of energy is released when the core collapses to the tiny size of a few kilometers, becoming a black hole or a neutron star. While most of this energy is emitted in invisible neutrinos, a small fraction of this energy ejects the outer parts of the star, creating an explosion sufficient to produce a supernova. Such a theoretical event is called a core-collapse supernova."
> 
> ...
> 
> "In a combined effort led by Member Doron Kushnir with Katz, Dong, Member Rodrigo Fernandez, and Eli Livne of Hebrew University, the detailed process of white dwarf collisions was calculated and shown to reproduce several features of the broad distribution of type Ia supernovae. For the first time since their discovery by Tycho more than four centuries ago, a detailed scenario for a significant fraction of supernovae was studied in which the explosions could be numerically calculated from first principles based on the physically well understood processes of Newtonian dynamics, hydrodynamics, and thermonuclear burning. In a paper published by our group, the model was shown to successfully pass three independent and robust observational tests, including the successful recovery of the wide distribution of Ni56 masses. It is thus very likely that what Tycho thought was the sudden birth of a new star was actually the violent death of two. He might have been gratified to learn that the two stars collided due to the application of the same law of gravity that would later be deduced based on his dedicated observations."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Causes Supernovae Explosions?
> 
> 
> On the evening of November 11, 1572, twenty-six-year-old astronomer Tycho Brahe was about to make a discovery that would change his life and consequentially boost the scientific revolution significantly. While casually staring at the night sky, he suddenly noticed a very bright unfamiliar star...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ias.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:  What you casually add to what God created as EMS in not natural.  What we have discovered in nature is that energy is neither created or lost.  It is only converted.  Thus, you are wrong again and you just received a notice from the all-powerful God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our sun won't explode as it doesn't have enough mass to go super nova.
> 
> What will happen is as the sun runs out of fuel it will expand to become a red giant star because there will be insufficient mass for gravity to keep the gases confined.
> 
> The sun will engulf the inner planets and burn them to cinder after the all that will be left is a white dwarf, a very dense cool star remnant.
> 
> 
> The other looming catastrophe is the inevitable collision of the Milky Way with the Andromeda galaxy.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said was there is better chance for another star to collide with our sun like what happened with Tycho before our sun runs out of fuel.
> 
> We can also have galaxies collide or even an asteroid strike on Earth.
> 
> All of these would result in enormous amounts of energy transfer which creationists can explain while evolutionists fail.
Click to expand...


The laws of physics work well for the movement of celestial bodies how else do you think we know that Andromeda will collide with the Milky way?  We can calculate with great accuracy the energy any star puts out and we can calculate the energy release in a collision of celestial bodies.

And in my experience, creationists explain everything by saying , " God did it"


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do ID’iot creationers explain that fine tuned universe notion amidst collisions of galaxies and stars colliding with our sun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I know you're admitting defeat.  Fine tuning has been admitted by the more reputable evolution websites and explains why there is lack of life on other planets besides Earth.
> 
> As for the collision of stars and galaxies, it means that our universe is dying due to catastrophism.  By light, i.e. EMS, we were born.  By light we will be destroyed.
Click to expand...


So you're sure that in the entire universe that this and only this planet supports life?

Please tell me how you ruled out the possibility of life existing in these galaxies that are nearest to us





__





						List of nearest galaxies - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> I know its a sign of desperation when you claim others are admitting defeat


Like i said...every single time... The psychology of this is very simple, and Bond is just another simpleton following the known algorithm unwillingly.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to live in Silicon Valley when younger and went to this theater when opened.  Yes, it had a problem and why people only went if they could get the better seats away from the grass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How a venue built on a city dump became a Bay Area icon
> 
> 
> There are Bay Area concert venues that are more historic, more beautiful or more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfgate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:  Okay, where is the new stinky life  ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Sea-View theater still open in Pacifica? ... I watched so many movies there it was like my second home ... back when Silicon Valley was still orchards and pig farms ... Intel was the world's foremost manufacturer of bi-magnetic cores ... so computers could "fit inside a _single_ room" running at an astonishing rate of 300 bytes per second ...
> 
> I understand you don't want abiogenesis explained to you ... better to claim ignorance than to have to think ... and The Bible lays everything out for you so you don't have to think ... "God did it" is all you need to know ... sad but you're young still, someday you'll discover girls ...
Click to expand...


You've had plenty of chances to explain.  I'm not the only one here.  Instead, I've had the opp to make fun of you at every turn.

What we found is Fort Fun Indiana makes up a lot of stuff based on design and what we all already know.  Hollie doesn't really know and thinks magic happens in the natural world without any need for further explanation.  If I'm wrong and evolutionists are right, then this should've been over years ago.  Instead, it is I who has come up my own arguments from learning to understand God better.  I would not say the Bible lays out everything as we have to wait for science to catch up like everyone else.  It was believed the universe was eternal before.  Then what happened on the first day doesn't make any sense; It wasn't until the big bang that it did and then came KCA.

Anyway, I'm moving on and won't be participating much in these types of discussions anymore with _atheists_.  Will see how I do with believers.


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> So you're sure that in the entire universe that this and only this planet supports life?



Only planet with intelligent life or else we would've found the evidence already.



Blues Man said:


> Please tell me how you ruled out the possibility of life existing in these galaxies that are nearest to us



Where is your evidence for aliens?

Already gone over it many times.  NASA has sent out many probes for our galaxy and is now left with below the surface of Mars and Europa in our galaxy.  There is fine tuning or the Anthropic Principle that Earth is special and life elsewhere is rare, the Drake Equation, Fermi Paradox. The Great Filter Theory, and
this year, I had -- More Evidence for No Aliens?.

Put this in your pipe and smoke it,

"The researchers discovered that the Drake Equation does not accurately account for uncertainty and so its calculations are not realistic by any degree.

“The expectation that the universe should be teeming with intelligent life is linked to models like the Drake equation, which suggest that even if the probability of intelligent life developing at a given site is small, the sheer multitude of possible sites should nonetheless yield a large number of potentially observable civilizations,” the researchers say. “We show that this conflict arises from the use of Drake-like equations, which implicitly assume certainty regarding highly uncertain parameters.”

Once the researchers added uncertainty to the Drake Equation, the model showed a high probability that we are alone in the universe.

To put it in numbers, the results showed that there was a 53 to 99.6 percent chance that humanity is the only intelligent civilization in the galaxy and a 39 to 85 percent chance in the observable universe."









						New research claims it’s highly likely that aliens don’t exist
					

New research claims it’s highly likely that aliens don’t exist • Earth.com



					www.earth.com


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Already gone over it many times. NASA has sent out many probes for our galaxy and is now left with below the surface of Mars and Europa in our galaxy


You really are a shameless weasel. You know this is stupid. You intentionally say stupid things like this, because you think making people sort through your piles of crap is a debate tactic.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already gone over it many times. NASA has sent out many probes for our galaxy and is now left with below the surface of Mars and Europa in our galaxy
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a shameless weasel. You know this is stupid. You intentionally say stupid things like this, because you think making people sort through your piles of crap is a debate tactic.
Click to expand...


Why don't you tell us what rovers NASA sent to Mars, what they found, and what does it mean (in general terms)?  Also, what rover will reach Mars in 2021 and what it will do?  These are all part of your side.


----------



## LittleNipper

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to live in Silicon Valley when younger and went to this theater when opened.  Yes, it had a problem and why people only went if they could get the better seats away from the grass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How a venue built on a city dump became a Bay Area icon
> 
> 
> There are Bay Area concert venues that are more historic, more beautiful or more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfgate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:  Okay, where is the new stinky life  ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Sea-View theater still open in Pacifica? ... I watched so many movies there it was like my second home ... back when Silicon Valley was still orchards and pig farms ... Intel was the world's foremost manufacturer of bi-magnetic cores ... so computers could "fit inside a _single_ room" running at an astonishing rate of 300 bytes per second ...
> 
> I understand you don't want abiogenesis explained to you ... better to claim ignorance than to have to think ... and The Bible lays everything out for you so you don't have to think ... "God did it" is all you need to know ... sad but you're young still, someday you'll discover girls ...
Click to expand...

The realization that GOD did do somethings in an unexplainable way (though there is nothing wrong with trying to figure such out) isn't the real issue. The issue is that there are those who insist that GOD cannot be part of an equation, no matter how obvious HIS existence is. Because to realize GOD is capable of doing things HIS own way and in HIS own timing is to link what is often referenced as "natural process" with Supernatural intent.


----------



## ReinyDays

LittleNipper said:


> The realization that GOD did do somethings in an unexplainable way (though there is nothing wrong with trying to figure such out) isn't the real issue. The issue is that there are those who insist that GOD cannot be part of an equation, no matter how obvious HIS existence is. Because to realize GOD is capable of doing things HIS own way and in HIS own timing is to link what is often referenced as "natural process" with Supernatural intent.



Well ... the problem is when we do figure something out ... we need to accept what we find as God's will and not question it ... so why would someone question what we find? ...

Science is what it is ... nothing more, nothing less ... it's only one way to describe the world around us ... I'm perfectly fine accepting these results in the context of science, doesn't shake my faith in Our Lord one little bit ... I use so little of science when dealing day-to-day with my friends and neighbors ... God wants us to learn, just keep it in context and we're fine with Him ...

What philosophical debate can we have about the average sheepherder using evolutionary science to decide which rams and ewes to mate? ...


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to live in Silicon Valley when younger and went to this theater when opened.  Yes, it had a problem and why people only went if they could get the better seats away from the grass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How a venue built on a city dump became a Bay Area icon
> 
> 
> There are Bay Area concert venues that are more historic, more beautiful or more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfgate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:  Okay, where is the new stinky life  ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Sea-View theater still open in Pacifica? ... I watched so many movies there it was like my second home ... back when Silicon Valley was still orchards and pig farms ... Intel was the world's foremost manufacturer of bi-magnetic cores ... so computers could "fit inside a _single_ room" running at an astonishing rate of 300 bytes per second ...
> 
> I understand you don't want abiogenesis explained to you ... better to claim ignorance than to have to think ... and The Bible lays everything out for you so you don't have to think ... "God did it" is all you need to know ... sad but you're young still, someday you'll discover girls ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The realization that GOD did do somethings in an unexplainable way (though there is nothing wrong with trying to figure such out) isn't the real issue. The issue is that there are those who insist that GOD cannot be part of an equation, no matter how obvious HIS existence is. Because to realize GOD is capable of doing things HIS own way and in HIS own timing is to link what is often referenced as "natural process" with Supernatural intent.
Click to expand...

You're attributing actions and intent to entities that Christians admit is beyond their understanding and comprehension; Romans 11:36 for one example.

Substitute ''the Easter Bunny" for 'God' in your paragraph above. Does it still make sense?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to live in Silicon Valley when younger and went to this theater when opened.  Yes, it had a problem and why people only went if they could get the better seats away from the grass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How a venue built on a city dump became a Bay Area icon
> 
> 
> There are Bay Area concert venues that are more historic, more beautiful or more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfgate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:  Okay, where is the new stinky life  ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Sea-View theater still open in Pacifica? ... I watched so many movies there it was like my second home ... back when Silicon Valley was still orchards and pig farms ... Intel was the world's foremost manufacturer of bi-magnetic cores ... so computers could "fit inside a _single_ room" running at an astonishing rate of 300 bytes per second ...
> 
> I understand you don't want abiogenesis explained to you ... better to claim ignorance than to have to think ... and The Bible lays everything out for you so you don't have to think ... "God did it" is all you need to know ... sad but you're young still, someday you'll discover girls ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've had plenty of chances to explain.  I'm not the only one here.  Instead, I've had the opp to make fun of you at every turn.
> 
> What we found is Fort Fun Indiana makes up a lot of stuff based on design and what we all already know.  Hollie doesn't really know and thinks magic happens in the natural world without any need for further explanation.  If I'm wrong and evolutionists are right, then this should've been over years ago.  Instead, it is I who has come up my own arguments from learning to understand God better.  I would not say the Bible lays out everything as we have to wait for science to catch up like everyone else.  It was believed the universe was eternal before.  Then what happened on the first day doesn't make any sense; It wasn't until the big bang that it did and then came KCA.
> 
> Anyway, I'm moving on and won't be participating much in these types of discussions anymore with _atheists_.  Will see how I do with believers.
Click to expand...

I’ve been consistent in maintaining that magic _does_ _not_ happen in the natural world. My assertions about the natural world derive from the sciences of paleontology, anthropology, geology, oceanography, physics, archaeology, and other branches of science that conflict with Biblical accounts of history and claimed “miracles”. I suppose “miracles” could be defined as “deviations from natural order”. But that begs the question “when have such deviations from natural order ever occurred"? When is the last time a “miracle” occurred? If you have any evidence of Biblical miracles, please present that evidence.


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're sure that in the entire universe that this and only this planet supports life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only planet with intelligent life or else we would've found the evidence already.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me how you ruled out the possibility of life existing in these galaxies that are nearest to us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence for aliens?
> 
> Already gone over it many times.  NASA has sent out many probes for our galaxy and is now left with below the surface of Mars and Europa in our galaxy.  There is fine tuning or the Anthropic Principle that Earth is special and life elsewhere is rare, the Drake Equation, Fermi Paradox. The Great Filter Theory, and
> this year, I had -- More Evidence for No Aliens?.
> 
> Put this in your pipe and smoke it,
> 
> "The researchers discovered that the Drake Equation does not accurately account for uncertainty and so its calculations are not realistic by any degree.
> 
> “The expectation that the universe should be teeming with intelligent life is linked to models like the Drake equation, which suggest that even if the probability of intelligent life developing at a given site is small, the sheer multitude of possible sites should nonetheless yield a large number of potentially observable civilizations,” the researchers say. “We show that this conflict arises from the use of Drake-like equations, which implicitly assume certainty regarding highly uncertain parameters.”
> 
> Once the researchers added uncertainty to the Drake Equation, the model showed a high probability that we are alone in the universe.
> 
> To put it in numbers, the results showed that there was a 53 to 99.6 percent chance that humanity is the only intelligent civilization in the galaxy and a 39 to 85 percent chance in the observable universe."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New research claims it’s highly likely that aliens don’t exist
> 
> 
> New research claims it’s highly likely that aliens don’t exist • Earth.com
> 
> 
> 
> www.earth.com
Click to expand...


I never said I have evidence.  But the probability does exist.  The universe is vast almost beyond comprehension and the probability that there is life somewhere else out there is certainly statistically possible.


And I never mentioned the Drake equation because I know it cannot be accurate as it is based on.  Besides the Drake Equation was never proposed as a way of quantifying extra terrestrial civilizations.









						Drake equation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




*The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake, not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the first scientific meeting on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).[3][4] *

Tell what evidence would we have found of life in other galaxies?  Are you talking about EM signals like radio and television?

That's hardly a good metric since we only started emitting those in the 20th century and the fact that those signals won't reach some galaxies for many many years and by the time they do would be extremely weak it's not a good indicator.

You cannot claim there is absolutely no other life intelligent or otherwise in the entire universe with any certainty .


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're sure that in the entire universe that this and only this planet supports life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only planet with intelligent life or else we would've found the evidence already.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me how you ruled out the possibility of life existing in these galaxies that are nearest to us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence for aliens?
> 
> Already gone over it many times.  NASA has sent out many probes for our galaxy and is now left with below the surface of Mars and Europa in our galaxy.  There is fine tuning or the Anthropic Principle that Earth is special and life elsewhere is rare, the Drake Equation, Fermi Paradox. The Great Filter Theory, and
> this year, I had -- More Evidence for No Aliens?.
> 
> Put this in your pipe and smoke it,
> 
> "The researchers discovered that the Drake Equation does not accurately account for uncertainty and so its calculations are not realistic by any degree.
> 
> “The expectation that the universe should be teeming with intelligent life is linked to models like the Drake equation, which suggest that even if the probability of intelligent life developing at a given site is small, the sheer multitude of possible sites should nonetheless yield a large number of potentially observable civilizations,” the researchers say. “We show that this conflict arises from the use of Drake-like equations, which implicitly assume certainty regarding highly uncertain parameters.”
> 
> Once the researchers added uncertainty to the Drake Equation, the model showed a high probability that we are alone in the universe.
> 
> To put it in numbers, the results showed that there was a 53 to 99.6 percent chance that humanity is the only intelligent civilization in the galaxy and a 39 to 85 percent chance in the observable universe."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New research claims it’s highly likely that aliens don’t exist
> 
> 
> New research claims it’s highly likely that aliens don’t exist • Earth.com
> 
> 
> 
> www.earth.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I have evidence.  But the probability does exist.  The universe is vast almost beyond comprehension and the probability that there is life somewhere else out there is certainly statistically possible.
> 
> 
> And I never mentioned the Drake equation because I know it cannot be accurate as it is based on.  Besides the Drake Equation was never proposed as a way of quantifying extra terrestrial civilizations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drake equation - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake, not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the first scientific meeting on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).[3][4] *
> 
> Tell what evidence would we have found of life in other galaxies?  Are you talking about EM signals like radio and television?
> 
> That's hardly a good metric since we only started emitting those in the 20th century and the fact that those signals won't reach some galaxies for many many years and by the time they do would be extremely weak it's not a good indicator.
> 
> You cannot claim there is absolutely no other life intelligent or otherwise in the entire universe with any certainty .
Click to expand...


That's what I'm trying to tell you.  There is 0.0% probability that intelligent life elsewhere exists.  Again, if there was, then we would've found them by now.

So what's left alien microbial life?  No.  There is very slim chance of it and if there are, then it's probably microbes from Earth but even those would have died in the harsh solar wind.

Thus, there are zero aliens anywhere besides life on Earth.  What we find is the atheist scientists won't admit it because of the lies they believe of evolution.


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're sure that in the entire universe that this and only this planet supports life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only planet with intelligent life or else we would've found the evidence already.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me how you ruled out the possibility of life existing in these galaxies that are nearest to us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence for aliens?
> 
> Already gone over it many times.  NASA has sent out many probes for our galaxy and is now left with below the surface of Mars and Europa in our galaxy.  There is fine tuning or the Anthropic Principle that Earth is special and life elsewhere is rare, the Drake Equation, Fermi Paradox. The Great Filter Theory, and
> this year, I had -- More Evidence for No Aliens?.
> 
> Put this in your pipe and smoke it,
> 
> "The researchers discovered that the Drake Equation does not accurately account for uncertainty and so its calculations are not realistic by any degree.
> 
> “The expectation that the universe should be teeming with intelligent life is linked to models like the Drake equation, which suggest that even if the probability of intelligent life developing at a given site is small, the sheer multitude of possible sites should nonetheless yield a large number of potentially observable civilizations,” the researchers say. “We show that this conflict arises from the use of Drake-like equations, which implicitly assume certainty regarding highly uncertain parameters.”
> 
> Once the researchers added uncertainty to the Drake Equation, the model showed a high probability that we are alone in the universe.
> 
> To put it in numbers, the results showed that there was a 53 to 99.6 percent chance that humanity is the only intelligent civilization in the galaxy and a 39 to 85 percent chance in the observable universe."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New research claims it’s highly likely that aliens don’t exist
> 
> 
> New research claims it’s highly likely that aliens don’t exist • Earth.com
> 
> 
> 
> www.earth.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I have evidence.  But the probability does exist.  The universe is vast almost beyond comprehension and the probability that there is life somewhere else out there is certainly statistically possible.
> 
> 
> And I never mentioned the Drake equation because I know it cannot be accurate as it is based on.  Besides the Drake Equation was never proposed as a way of quantifying extra terrestrial civilizations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drake equation - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake, not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the first scientific meeting on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).[3][4] *
> 
> Tell what evidence would we have found of life in other galaxies?  Are you talking about EM signals like radio and television?
> 
> That's hardly a good metric since we only started emitting those in the 20th century and the fact that those signals won't reach some galaxies for many many years and by the time they do would be extremely weak it's not a good indicator.
> 
> You cannot claim there is absolutely no other life intelligent or otherwise in the entire universe with any certainty .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I'm trying to tell you.  There is 0.0% probability that intelligent life elsewhere exists.  Again, if there was, then we would've found them by now.
> 
> So what's left alien microbial life?  No.  There is very slim chance of it and if there are, then it's probably microbes from Earth but even those would have died in the harsh solar wind.
> 
> Thus, there are zero aliens anywhere besides life on Earth.  What we find is the atheist scientists won't admit it because of the lies they believe of evolution.
Click to expand...


And how can you be so absolutely certain?

I know you haven't traveled light years to other galaxies and performed an exhaustive search for life.

You are simply unable to think beyond your religious indoctrination.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> That's what I'm trying to tell you.  There is 0.0% probability that intelligent life elsewhere exists.  Again, if there was, then we would've found them by now.
> So what's left alien microbial life?  No.  There is very slim chance of it and if there are, then it's probably microbes from Earth but even those would have died in the harsh solar wind.
> Thus, there are zero aliens anywhere besides life on Earth.  What we find is the atheist scientists won't admit it because of the lies they believe of evolution.



How are you making this conclusion without a long-base interferometer? ... the first exoplanet was discovered only 28 years ago ... nowhere close to being able to take the spectrum of the atmosphere ... not until we piggy-back on the scaled up version of the LIGO experiment ...


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're sure that in the entire universe that this and only this planet supports life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only planet with intelligent life or else we would've found the evidence already.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me how you ruled out the possibility of life existing in these galaxies that are nearest to us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence for aliens?
> 
> Already gone over it many times.  NASA has sent out many probes for our galaxy and is now left with below the surface of Mars and Europa in our galaxy.  There is fine tuning or the Anthropic Principle that Earth is special and life elsewhere is rare, the Drake Equation, Fermi Paradox. The Great Filter Theory, and
> this year, I had -- More Evidence for No Aliens?.
> 
> Put this in your pipe and smoke it,
> 
> "The researchers discovered that the Drake Equation does not accurately account for uncertainty and so its calculations are not realistic by any degree.
> 
> “The expectation that the universe should be teeming with intelligent life is linked to models like the Drake equation, which suggest that even if the probability of intelligent life developing at a given site is small, the sheer multitude of possible sites should nonetheless yield a large number of potentially observable civilizations,” the researchers say. “We show that this conflict arises from the use of Drake-like equations, which implicitly assume certainty regarding highly uncertain parameters.”
> 
> Once the researchers added uncertainty to the Drake Equation, the model showed a high probability that we are alone in the universe.
> 
> To put it in numbers, the results showed that there was a 53 to 99.6 percent chance that humanity is the only intelligent civilization in the galaxy and a 39 to 85 percent chance in the observable universe."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New research claims it’s highly likely that aliens don’t exist
> 
> 
> New research claims it’s highly likely that aliens don’t exist • Earth.com
> 
> 
> 
> www.earth.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I have evidence.  But the probability does exist.  The universe is vast almost beyond comprehension and the probability that there is life somewhere else out there is certainly statistically possible.
> 
> 
> And I never mentioned the Drake equation because I know it cannot be accurate as it is based on.  Besides the Drake Equation was never proposed as a way of quantifying extra terrestrial civilizations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drake equation - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake, not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the first scientific meeting on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).[3][4] *
> 
> Tell what evidence would we have found of life in other galaxies?  Are you talking about EM signals like radio and television?
> 
> That's hardly a good metric since we only started emitting those in the 20th century and the fact that those signals won't reach some galaxies for many many years and by the time they do would be extremely weak it's not a good indicator.
> 
> You cannot claim there is absolutely no other life intelligent or otherwise in the entire universe with any certainty .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I'm trying to tell you.  There is 0.0% probability that intelligent life elsewhere exists.  Again, if there was, then we would've found them by now.
> 
> So what's left alien microbial life?  No.  There is very slim chance of it and if there are, then it's probably microbes from Earth but even those would have died in the harsh solar wind.
> 
> Thus, there are zero aliens anywhere besides life on Earth.  What we find is the atheist scientists won't admit it because of the lies they believe of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how can you be so absolutely certain?
> 
> I know you haven't traveled light years to other galaxies and performed an exhaustive search for life.
> 
> You are simply unable to think beyond your religious indoctrination.
Click to expand...


You are wrong again.  I used no religious unless you mean evolution -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/astrobio_habitat_04.  Aren't you the one who can't accept science?

Several atheist scientists are starting to believe in no aliens:








						Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff
					

In his final paper on the multiverse hypothesis, the world’s best-known atheist made a supernatural creator more plausible, says academic and author Philip Goff




					www.theguardian.com
				




ETA:  I think this shows that Stephen Hawking finally confessed (on his death bed?) that he and his scientists found the fine tuning facts while looking to describe the big bang as I have been claiming for years.  Eventually, NASA will be convinced and give up looking.  Instead, they may just focus on other planets where humans can colonize.  Not one atheist here could explain what they are planning to do with the Mars Rover mission in 2021 (launched in 2020).  This goes to show the atheists are lying about what science they know.  I mean I would think the Mars mission would be important to them.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I'm trying to tell you.  There is 0.0% probability that intelligent life elsewhere exists.  Again, if there was, then we would've found them by now.
> So what's left alien microbial life?  No.  There is very slim chance of it and if there are, then it's probably microbes from Earth but even those would have died in the harsh solar wind.
> Thus, there are zero aliens anywhere besides life on Earth.  What we find is the atheist scientists won't admit it because of the lies they believe of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are you making this conclusion without a long-base interferometer? ... the first exoplanet was discovered only 28 years ago ... nowhere close to being able to take the spectrum of the atmosphere ... not until we piggy-back on the scaled up version of the LIGO experiment ...
Click to expand...


Your religious indoctrination of atheism is too wacky and made you unable to read and comprehend actual science.  Just read my thread above.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I'm trying to tell you.  There is 0.0% probability that intelligent life elsewhere exists.  Again, if there was, then we would've found them by now.
> So what's left alien microbial life?  No.  There is very slim chance of it and if there are, then it's probably microbes from Earth but even those would have died in the harsh solar wind.
> Thus, there are zero aliens anywhere besides life on Earth.  What we find is the atheist scientists won't admit it because of the lies they believe of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are you making this conclusion without a long-base interferometer? ... the first exoplanet was discovered only 28 years ago ... nowhere close to being able to take the spectrum of the atmosphere ... not until we piggy-back on the scaled up version of the LIGO experiment ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your religious indoctrination of atheism is too wacky and made you unable to read and comprehend actual science.  Just read my thread above.
Click to expand...


You didn't answer my question:  How are you making this conclusion without a long-base interferometer? ... astronomy is an actual science ... your post above doesn't mention any science, just judgements of the character of a few scientists ... whoopy ... in a few years, take a high school class in a lab science ... learn the basics of a scientific field ... seems like all you're learning is how to take the 8th grade assessment test ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I'm trying to tell you.  There is 0.0% probability that intelligent life elsewhere exists.  Again, if there was, then we would've found them by now.
> So what's left alien microbial life?  No.  There is very slim chance of it and if there are, then it's probably microbes from Earth but even those would have died in the harsh solar wind.
> Thus, there are zero aliens anywhere besides life on Earth.  What we find is the atheist scientists won't admit it because of the lies they believe of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are you making this conclusion without a long-base interferometer? ... the first exoplanet was discovered only 28 years ago ... nowhere close to being able to take the spectrum of the atmosphere ... not until we piggy-back on the scaled up version of the LIGO experiment ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your religious indoctrination of atheism is too wacky and made you unable to read and comprehend actual science.  Just read my thread above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question:  How are you making this conclusion without a long-base interferometer? ... astronomy is an actual science ... your post above doesn't mention any science, just judgements of the character of a few scientists ... whoopy ... in a few years, take a high school class in a lab science ... learn the basics of a scientific field ... seems like all you're learning is how to take the 8th grade assessment test ...
Click to expand...


I think I answered the long-term effects with the EMS.  When we look at the EMS there isn't any place for other beings.  One would have to a particular electromagnetic field in order for that kind of life to appear.  Now, does the EMS take into account for every form of life and its energy?  I think it does or else we would've seen it by now as we have a complete field.  (Now, when specialization occurs, then they are similar in energy, so they still fit and change unless they change through metamorphosis.)  You can argue that the EMS doesn't, but you can't even explain how the fields got there in the first place.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> I think I answered the long-term effects with the EMS.  When we look at the EMS there isn't any place for other beings.  One would have to a particular electromagnetic field in order for that kind of life to appear.  Now, does the EMS take into account for every form of life and its energy?  I think it does or else we would've seen it by now as we have a complete field.  (Now, when specialization occurs, then they are similar in energy, so they still fit and change unless they change through metamorphosis.)  You can argue that the EMS doesn't, but you can't even explain how the fields got there in the first place.



Are you speaking about the electro-magnetic fields associated with individual atoms? ... as this field is reduced in magnitude, the atom emits a photon of energy as radiation? ... or gains by absorbing a photon? ... the EMS is the sum total of all the atoms' photon emissions in all their transitions ... 

Or are you speaking about the specific EMS from our Sun as being critical to life on Earth ... sure, stars like our own Sun are common ... and we are focusing on these types of stars for our search for life ... also consider our Sun is the only one in our system, a surprising number of solar systems contain two or more stars, the gravity stresses could easily sterilize any planet ...

Only photosynthesis uses the EMS to any great degree ... converting radiative energy into chemical energy ... the cow only uses this chemical energy, not any radiative energy ... indeed the cow has skin and hair to protect her from radiative energy ... causes sunburns ... there doesn't seem to be anything that would stop any other G2 star with a rocky planet 1 A.U. away from developing life ...

Starting with methane ... do I need to explain why carbon is common in the universe? ...


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're sure that in the entire universe that this and only this planet supports life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only planet with intelligent life or else we would've found the evidence already.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me how you ruled out the possibility of life existing in these galaxies that are nearest to us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence for aliens?
> 
> Already gone over it many times.  NASA has sent out many probes for our galaxy and is now left with below the surface of Mars and Europa in our galaxy.  There is fine tuning or the Anthropic Principle that Earth is special and life elsewhere is rare, the Drake Equation, Fermi Paradox. The Great Filter Theory, and
> this year, I had -- More Evidence for No Aliens?.
> 
> Put this in your pipe and smoke it,
> 
> "The researchers discovered that the Drake Equation does not accurately account for uncertainty and so its calculations are not realistic by any degree.
> 
> “The expectation that the universe should be teeming with intelligent life is linked to models like the Drake equation, which suggest that even if the probability of intelligent life developing at a given site is small, the sheer multitude of possible sites should nonetheless yield a large number of potentially observable civilizations,” the researchers say. “We show that this conflict arises from the use of Drake-like equations, which implicitly assume certainty regarding highly uncertain parameters.”
> 
> Once the researchers added uncertainty to the Drake Equation, the model showed a high probability that we are alone in the universe.
> 
> To put it in numbers, the results showed that there was a 53 to 99.6 percent chance that humanity is the only intelligent civilization in the galaxy and a 39 to 85 percent chance in the observable universe."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New research claims it’s highly likely that aliens don’t exist
> 
> 
> New research claims it’s highly likely that aliens don’t exist • Earth.com
> 
> 
> 
> www.earth.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I have evidence.  But the probability does exist.  The universe is vast almost beyond comprehension and the probability that there is life somewhere else out there is certainly statistically possible.
> 
> 
> And I never mentioned the Drake equation because I know it cannot be accurate as it is based on.  Besides the Drake Equation was never proposed as a way of quantifying extra terrestrial civilizations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drake equation - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake, not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the first scientific meeting on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).[3][4] *
> 
> Tell what evidence would we have found of life in other galaxies?  Are you talking about EM signals like radio and television?
> 
> That's hardly a good metric since we only started emitting those in the 20th century and the fact that those signals won't reach some galaxies for many many years and by the time they do would be extremely weak it's not a good indicator.
> 
> You cannot claim there is absolutely no other life intelligent or otherwise in the entire universe with any certainty .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I'm trying to tell you.  There is 0.0% probability that intelligent life elsewhere exists.  Again, if there was, then we would've found them by now.
> 
> So what's left alien microbial life?  No.  There is very slim chance of it and if there are, then it's probably microbes from Earth but even those would have died in the harsh solar wind.
> 
> Thus, there are zero aliens anywhere besides life on Earth.  What we find is the atheist scientists won't admit it because of the lies they believe of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how can you be so absolutely certain?
> 
> I know you haven't traveled light years to other galaxies and performed an exhaustive search for life.
> 
> You are simply unable to think beyond your religious indoctrination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong again.  I used no religious unless you mean evolution -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/astrobio_habitat_04.  Aren't you the one who can't accept science?
> 
> Several atheist scientists are starting to believe in no aliens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff
> 
> 
> In his final paper on the multiverse hypothesis, the world’s best-known atheist made a supernatural creator more plausible, says academic and author Philip Goff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:  I think this shows that Stephen Hawking finally confessed (on his death bed?) that he and his scientists found the fine tuning facts while looking to describe the big bang as I have been claiming for years.  Eventually, NASA will be convinced and give up looking.  Instead, they may just focus on other planets where humans can colonize.  Not one atheist here could explain what they are planning to do with the Mars Rover mission in 2021 (launched in 2020).  This goes to show the atheists are lying about what science they know.  I mean I would think the Mars mission would be important to them.
Click to expand...

I have no issues with scientific findings.

You however seem to think that because we haven't found something that it doesn't exist.

That is very unscientific especially when you realize how little of the universe we have any access to.

And if you think evolution is a lie then aren't you saying that some supreme being is responsible for life?

Oh and that happens to be a supreme being that no one has ever seen so if we keep to your logic if we can't find something that it must not exist then your designer of the universe doesn't exist either.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're sure that in the entire universe that this and only this planet supports life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only planet with intelligent life or else we would've found the evidence already.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me how you ruled out the possibility of life existing in these galaxies that are nearest to us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence for aliens?
> 
> Already gone over it many times.  NASA has sent out many probes for our galaxy and is now left with below the surface of Mars and Europa in our galaxy.  There is fine tuning or the Anthropic Principle that Earth is special and life elsewhere is rare, the Drake Equation, Fermi Paradox. The Great Filter Theory, and
> this year, I had -- More Evidence for No Aliens?.
> 
> Put this in your pipe and smoke it,
> 
> "The researchers discovered that the Drake Equation does not accurately account for uncertainty and so its calculations are not realistic by any degree.
> 
> “The expectation that the universe should be teeming with intelligent life is linked to models like the Drake equation, which suggest that even if the probability of intelligent life developing at a given site is small, the sheer multitude of possible sites should nonetheless yield a large number of potentially observable civilizations,” the researchers say. “We show that this conflict arises from the use of Drake-like equations, which implicitly assume certainty regarding highly uncertain parameters.”
> 
> Once the researchers added uncertainty to the Drake Equation, the model showed a high probability that we are alone in the universe.
> 
> To put it in numbers, the results showed that there was a 53 to 99.6 percent chance that humanity is the only intelligent civilization in the galaxy and a 39 to 85 percent chance in the observable universe."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New research claims it’s highly likely that aliens don’t exist
> 
> 
> New research claims it’s highly likely that aliens don’t exist • Earth.com
> 
> 
> 
> www.earth.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I have evidence.  But the probability does exist.  The universe is vast almost beyond comprehension and the probability that there is life somewhere else out there is certainly statistically possible.
> 
> 
> And I never mentioned the Drake equation because I know it cannot be accurate as it is based on.  Besides the Drake Equation was never proposed as a way of quantifying extra terrestrial civilizations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drake equation - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake, not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the first scientific meeting on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).[3][4] *
> 
> Tell what evidence would we have found of life in other galaxies?  Are you talking about EM signals like radio and television?
> 
> That's hardly a good metric since we only started emitting those in the 20th century and the fact that those signals won't reach some galaxies for many many years and by the time they do would be extremely weak it's not a good indicator.
> 
> You cannot claim there is absolutely no other life intelligent or otherwise in the entire universe with any certainty .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I'm trying to tell you.  There is 0.0% probability that intelligent life elsewhere exists.  Again, if there was, then we would've found them by now.
> 
> So what's left alien microbial life?  No.  There is very slim chance of it and if there are, then it's probably microbes from Earth but even those would have died in the harsh solar wind.
> 
> Thus, there are zero aliens anywhere besides life on Earth.  What we find is the atheist scientists won't admit it because of the lies they believe of evolution.
Click to expand...

To claim with certainty that you know there is 0.0% probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe (or this galaxy), is nonsense. Unfortunately, the ID creationer "probability" accounts are completely meaningless, being based on mere speculation and assumption. We do not as yet have a good idea of the probability that life will form in any given situation; whether it is exceedingly low or not is as yet not known.

Claims to absolute authority and which contain 0.0% credibility are not uncommon for ID creationers. However, It doesn't matter what you believe or what you want to be true. In all cases of claims such as yours, more than simple “... because I say so”, statements are required.


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> You however seem to think that because we haven't found something that it doesn't exist.
> 
> That is very unscientific especially when you realize how little of the universe we have any access to.
> 
> And if you think evolution is a lie then aren't you saying that some supreme being is responsible for life?
> 
> Oh and that happens to be a supreme being that no one has ever seen so if we keep to your logic if we can't find something that it must not exist then your designer of the universe doesn't exist either.



Stop it.  I already addressed the size issue while you had no reply you dumbass.  I'm tired of your stupid replies.  It is you who is unscientific. 

Where do your aliens come from?  How did they come into existence?  Can you answer that my boobie?

I doubt it because you are such a dumbass .


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Stop it.  I already addressed the size issue while you had no reply you dumbass.  I'm tired of your stupid replies.  It is you who is unscientific.
> Where do your aliens come from?  How did they come into existence?  Can you answer that my boobie?
> I doubt it because you are a dumbass .



Can we start with methane ... or do I need to explain why carbon is common in the universe first? ...


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You however seem to think that because we haven't found something that it doesn't exist.
> 
> That is very unscientific especially when you realize how little of the universe we have any access to.
> 
> And if you think evolution is a lie then aren't you saying that some supreme being is responsible for life?
> 
> Oh and that happens to be a supreme being that no one has ever seen so if we keep to your logic if we can't find something that it must not exist then your designer of the universe doesn't exist either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it.  I already addressed the size issue while you had no reply you dumbass.  I'm tired of your stupid replies.  It is you who is unscientific.
> 
> Where do your aliens come from?  How did they come into existence?  Can you answer that my boobie?
> 
> I doubt it because you are such a dumbass .
Click to expand...


If you insist that evolution is impossible and that all life must have been created by some outside force then it is up to you to prove that outside force exists.

If there was a supreme being we would have discovered it by now right?

Like I said you are blinded by your preconceptions and indoctrination


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You however seem to think that because we haven't found something that it doesn't exist.
> 
> That is very unscientific especially when you realize how little of the universe we have any access to.
> 
> And if you think evolution is a lie then aren't you saying that some supreme being is responsible for life?
> 
> Oh and that happens to be a supreme being that no one has ever seen so if we keep to your logic if we can't find something that it must not exist then your designer of the universe doesn't exist either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it.  I already addressed the size issue while you had no reply you dumbass.  I'm tired of your stupid replies.  It is you who is unscientific.
> 
> Where do your aliens come from?  How did they come into existence?  Can you answer that my boobie?
> 
> I doubt it because you are such a dumbass .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you insist that evolution is impossible and that all life must have been created by some outside force then it is up to you to prove that outside force exists.
> 
> If there was a supreme being we would have discovered it by now right?
> 
> Like I said you are blinded by your preconceptions and indoctrination
Click to expand...


Facts, reasoning, and historical truth backs me up.  We haven't found any evidence for aliens.  That's your lie of atheism rattling around in your brain. The earliest atheist scientist I heard of who believed in aliens (even derided people who claimed they saw UFOs) was Carl Sagan.  He wanted hard evidence instead of just imaginary and mythical beliefs and sci-fi.  That I can respect (not a POS troll like you).  He died w/o finding any evidence for aliens.  We recently had Stephen Hawking die.  No aliens.  There are probably quite a few scientists, and sci-fi writers, who have died with no aliens.  You'll die with no aliens.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> That's what I'm trying to tell you.  There is 0.0% probability that intelligent life elsewhere exists.  Again, if there was, then we would've found them by now.


Wouldn’t that same theme apply to your gods? The human search for life beyond this planet is mere decades old. On the other hand, Christian’ism has had far longer to demonstrate its various gods and still nothing, at least nothing beyond the occasional appearance of gods on buttered toast or in a bowl of cereal.


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You however seem to think that because we haven't found something that it doesn't exist.
> 
> That is very unscientific especially when you realize how little of the universe we have any access to.
> 
> And if you think evolution is a lie then aren't you saying that some supreme being is responsible for life?
> 
> Oh and that happens to be a supreme being that no one has ever seen so if we keep to your logic if we can't find something that it must not exist then your designer of the universe doesn't exist either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it.  I already addressed the size issue while you had no reply you dumbass.  I'm tired of your stupid replies.  It is you who is unscientific.
> 
> Where do your aliens come from?  How did they come into existence?  Can you answer that my boobie?
> 
> I doubt it because you are such a dumbass .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you insist that evolution is impossible and that all life must have been created by some outside force then it is up to you to prove that outside force exists.
> 
> If there was a supreme being we would have discovered it by now right?
> 
> Like I said you are blinded by your preconceptions and indoctrination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts, reasoning, and historical truth backs me up.  We haven't found any evidence for aliens.  That's your lie of atheism rattling around in your brain. The earliest atheist scientist I heard of who believed in aliens (even derided people who claimed they saw UFOs) was Carl Sagan.  He wanted hard evidence instead of just imaginary and mythical beliefs and sci-fi.  That I can respect (not a POS troll like you).  He died w/o finding any evidence for aliens.  We recently had Stephen Hawking die.  No aliens.  There are probably quite a few scientists, and sci-fi writers, who have died with no aliens.  You'll die with no aliens.
Click to expand...

we haven't found any evidence of a supreme being either


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> we haven't found any evidence of a supreme being either



Sure we have.  The Bible for one.  The universe, Earth, and everything in it.  We discovered the universe had the big bang or a beginning with the CMB.  Before that, it was considered an eternal universe.  This finding backed up the Bible.  Also, having a beginning produced the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  

You're such a dumbass and a POS troll.  Best to ignore stupid people like you.


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> we haven't found any evidence of a supreme being either
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we have.  The Bible for one.  The universe, Earth, and everything in it.  We discovered the universe had the big bang or a beginning with the CMB.  Before that, it was considered an eternal universe.  This finding backed up the Bible.  Also, having a beginning produced the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
> 
> You're such a dumbass and a POS troll.  Best to ignore stupid people like you.
Click to expand...

The Bible is NOT scientific proof of anything.

So if there is a supreme being show it to me.

I want to know where it is, what it looks like, and exactly what supernatural powers it has.

And i find it amusing that you are so brainwashed by religion that you think anyone else who isn't is a "dumbass troll".

That type of hostility in response to someone who challenges your beliefs is more telling of your own intellectual weakness than it is of mine.


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> So if there is a supreme being show it to me.








That's easy.  You just have to die.  You'll get everything you want to know on a silver platter -- Chick.com: Big Daddy?

I became hostile because I didn't discuss religion at all until you brought it up and kept stating that I'm the one being religious.  You were the one who used his atheism first.


----------



## Weatherman2020

ChemEngineer said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clayton, as commendable as your footnote on the Bill of Rights may be, Weatherman's comment that explosions do not result in complex order is anything BUT an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Read over the remarks by many various learned men on the Darwin Fraud by men who are assuredly NOT ignorant:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
> 
> 
> A topnotch WordPress.com site
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you are ready to discuss the insuperable statistics of original polypeptide synthesis, I will be more than happy to oblige you.
Click to expand...

It’s your Right to choose to believe inanimate objects can write concertos given enough time.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clayton, as commendable as your footnote on the Bill of Rights may be, Weatherman's comment that explosions do not result in complex order is anything BUT an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Read over the remarks by many various learned men on the Darwin Fraud by men who are assuredly NOT ignorant:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
> 
> 
> A topnotch WordPress.com site
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you are ready to discuss the insuperable statistics of original polypeptide synthesis, I will be more than happy to oblige you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s your Right to choose to believe inanimate objects can write concertos given enough time.
Click to expand...

Or believe an invisible sky daddy poofed everything into existence and cares where you put your peepee.


----------



## ReinyDays

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Or believe an invisible sky daddy poofed everything into existence and cares where you put your peepee.



We do need to be careful where we put our pee-pees ... babies are just the beginning of the hazards if we're not careful ...


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Or believe an invisible sky daddy poofed everything into existence and cares where you put your peepee.



Maybe your d*ck just got cut off.  Just because something is invisible doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  We're supposed to believe in your fairy tale science of everything invisible particles did.






Thus, the Bible has science backing up the evidence and showing it is true.  I'm glad God gave me self-preservation to figure out where to put my peepee.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or believe an invisible sky daddy poofed everything into existence and cares where you put your peepee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe your d*ck just got cut off.  Just because something is invisible doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  We're supposed to believe in your fairy tale science of everything invisible particles did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the Bible has science backing up the evidence and showing it is true.  I'm glad God gave me self-preservation to figure out where to put my peepee.
Click to expand...

Science does not “back up” the Bibles.

Please identify where science “backs up” a flat earth, people living to be 900 years old, talking snakes, a 6,000 year old earth, etc.


----------



## ReinyDays

Hollie said:


> Please identify where science “backs up” a flat earth, people living to be 900 years old, talking snakes, a 6,000 year old earth, etc.



The Earth is flat ... locally ...


----------



## AMart

I remember the hey we evolved from apes and chimps argument. Where did apes and chimps come from. As I understand it when the Earth was formed (like all planets I suppose) it was void of life. So where did life come from. Some say some an organism on a rock (or space dust wtf that is) fell to Earth and then some basic thing crawled out of an ocean and humans evolved from that. 

Intelligent design, a creator I will go with that.


----------



## ReinyDays

2 CH4 --> C2H6 + H2 ...

In any given liter of methane ... this reaction will proceed within milliseconds ... no intelligent design required ...


----------



## Hollie

ReinyDays said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please identify where science “backs up” a flat earth, people living to be 900 years old, talking snakes, a 6,000 year old earth, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Earth is flat ... locally ...
Click to expand...

Mostly.


----------



## ChemEngineer

james bond said:


> Thus, the Bible has science backing up the evidence and showing it is true.



*Science of the Bible*​


As a chemical engineer, I understand, and subscribe to the tenets of the scientific method. If anything has given me an appreciation for the Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies* which make life possible, it is the objectivity engendered by my scientific background, coupled with common sense so often lacking in many well educated people. How anti-intellectual it is of the godless Left to denigrate Christians, often maliciously so. Calling Christians “fundies” and “believers in a flat earth” seems to give many people the perverse notion that they are erudite, and can consign Christians to the backwaters of ignorance. Just as Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers in His Temple, so too is it my intention to overturn the tables of the intolerant Left with these personally written observations correlating science with its Creator.



*Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.*


The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate island universe, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.


In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. The penning of Genesis 1:1 was not.


Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.

So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie”), before anyone else.

*Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.*

Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals.


*Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every foul of the air;*

The same elements which form humans also form animals everywhere. However, there is no Biblical reference to “a living soul” with respect to animals. Nor do animals have the capacity to worship and appreciate the spirituality and hope that is one of the premier hallmarks of mankind, and our supreme bequest.

*Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.*

One would think that as a result of the disciplines and analyses and benefits of human enlightenment, mankind should have been able to eliminate corruption and violence so prevalent thousands of years ago. Today, we have tools of production and health and social enlightenment unimaginable when the book of Genesis was written. But the earth today is still full of corruption and violence. Cornucopias of goods and services have not satisfied mankind’s lust for more, nor have psychologists and sociologists resolved the complex issues that lead people into destructive behavior. With burgeoning prison populations, and monstrous acts of evil on the increase worldwide, there seems little hope that corruption and violence will ever be eradicated.

*Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.*

Although the North American Continent was unknown when the Bible was written, paleontologists confirm that the interior of North America was once covered by shallow seas. Fossil evidence from distant parts of the globe that were unknown to inhabitants of ancient Israel lends scientific confirmation to the Noachian Flood described in the most ancient book of science known to man, the Holy Bible. I do not pretend to know the length of the six "days" of creation. However it is abundantly clear to me that the Elegance of Everything and the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis1 and the Anthropic Principle2 are eternally inexplicable by any exclusively naturalistic method. To those with eyes, God’s Hand is clearly visible everywhere one looks.

*Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. *

We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested. – *Flourish*, by Martin Seligman, psychologist

If you want to be happy, do good, be kind, give.

*Exodus 3:14 I am hath sent me unto you.....

John 9:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.*

The naturalistic, if you will, “scientific” approach to explaining how man and energy and matter and space originated is to examine what is observable, and formulate hypotheses and theories based on observation and reason. There is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter and energy and information at the Moment of Creation, the Singularity, and obviously no experiment can examine, much less confirm any hypothesis of what first happened to lead to us and everything we see.

In contrast, God defies scientific explanation because He is outside its purview. If miracles were scientifically explicable, they would not be miracles. After all, God created the physical realm that is the subject of scientific inquiry and we are still desperately trying to understand that aspect of His handiwork. Had mere mortals written where God came from without divine inspiration, they surely could not have presented such an elegant explanation as “I am” – an explanation that suffices even two thousand years later. Where did God come from? "I am." The universe is not eternal, but God is.

I have only a vague notion of how my computer works as I type this on it. Although I don’t know how it works, I do know that it is real and that it operates in a marvelous, almost magical way. I don’t need to understand things to believe in and use them. And how much more marvelous is my brain and yours than these primitive computers, not one of which designed, much less built itself.

“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley


Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them (people); for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they (non-believers) are without excuse:

"Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order." – Paul Davies

Some of leading scientists whose work was motivated by their faith were: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestley, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Mendel.


*Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.*

Has anyone the slightest doubt as to how “empty” the North Pole is? Nobody living in the Middle East could possibly have visited “the north” so as to confirm what was then being written. These immutable scientific truths – two here in a single sentence - were far too coincidental to be attributable to luck. No, they were divinely inspired, as were so many things in the Bible. The earth truly hangs “upon nothing”, as confirmed by countless photographs from satellites and space stations, not to mention men on the moon, and the north is indeed an “empty place” by any measure.

*Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?*

With all our wisdom, and all our science, and all our research, “who can understand” anything today. Ultimate scientific answers continue to elude us everywhere one looks, from the submicroscopic to the supermacroscopic ! The pretense is that all this magnificent science that we see and study arose from nothing, based solely on megatime and megauniverses. Insuperable statistical impossibilities are explained away with clever wordplay and nebulous theories – anything at all to deny the Hand of the Creator so evident to casual observers, of all educational backgrounds, and all nationalities, and all times. That is, except for those who will not see.

"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder." - Ralph W. Sockman

* Job 28:5 As for the earth, out of it cometh bread: and under it is turned up as it were fire.*

The molten iron core of the earth was inconceivable because it was not discoverable when this passage was written. “Under (earth) it is turned up as it were fire.”

Ah, some may say, “But there were volcanoes even then.” True enough. But are not volcanoes both isolated and rare, and not so much “under” the earth as above it? The molten core of the earth accords far better with this passage. Their scientific agreement is not coincidental, but rather Divinely inspired and guided.

*Job 38:1,2 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said

Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?*

How often one hears words uttered without knowledge by pretenders of science and enlightenment. "The universe is a free lunch." (Physicist Michio Kaku) The Lord does not take foolishness lightly. Neither should we.

*Job 38:24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?*

The most learned scientist of antiquity could not have imagined the depth of this question. When light is "parted" by a diffraction grating, it can be shown to act both as particles as well as waves. These combinations of properties are difficult to understand much less explain. And the prodigious amounts of energy transmitted by solar radiation does indeed scatter the wind upon the earth as it heats different substances at different rates. Job could not have offered an adequate answer to the question, along the lines of: "Discrete photons of light travel together as a wave until parted into disparate visible components by striking and reflecting from solid objects into our eyes, while other wavelengths give up their energy as they are absorbed by solids and water. Temperature differentials established by ambient sunlight striking dissimilar surfaces create 'the east wind' so described."

*Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork*.

NASA maintains a website which is updated daily. Its purpose, however unintended, is to “declare the glory of God” and to “show his handiwork.”

Astronomy Picture of the Day

How remarkable that so repetitive and well known a phenomenon as sunset can delight people of all ages, and all times, and all civilizations. How much more delightful are the glories and handiworks seen in national parks and sightseeing attractions worldwide, so many of which could scarcely have been known by the Bible’s authors. Nor had the first telescope been invented 2000 years ago. How is it that the more deeply we have seen, the more handiwork we have seen? How is it?

*Psalms 118:24 This is the day the Lord hath made; We will rejoice and be glad in it.*

Twenty-first century medicine confirms the benefits of joyfulness for both our mental health as well as our physical health. "We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested." – Martin Seligman, psychologist, in his book, *Flourish

Psalms 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.*

Mankind is indeed “fearfully and wonderfully made.” The sophistication of our construction begins at the atomic level with atoms that are one part in 1017 nucleus and the rest empty space. Then consider our DNA, which is 45 trillion times more compact and efficient at data storage than today’s sophisticated computer microchips.

Our brains have the memory capacity of 100 billion megabytes, which far exceeds anything conceivably necessary from a “selection” point of view.

Our optic nerves transmit information at 4 gigabaud, which is 71,000 times faster than a dial up modem, and 1,000 times faster than an ultra-high speed T-1 line for a computer.

The human eye sees in exquisite detail, over about 13 orders of magnitude of light intensity. Although the eye is often said to be flawed in its design by Darwinists and atheists, I would very much like to see them replace a human eye with something better which they have designed and built from lab reagents.

Our ears hear over 13 orders of magnitude in sound intensity. Even more amazing, the ears perform a Fourier Analysis. In other words, our eardrums receive a single wave function at the eardrum. Then they break down this single wave function into its constituent sounds. For example, at a concert, your ears hear drums, brass, violins, solo arias, and the person behind you coughing, only because this blended noise is separated inside your ear. If your eyes performed a similar function, they would break down white just as a prism does, into disparate pure colors.

Finally, our two eyes enable us to discern distance (and relative size) by triangulation. Our brains automatically compute the angle of the object seen, and compute its approximate distance. Similarly, our two ears enable us to discern the direction from which noises emanate not only because we have two ears, but also because of the relatively slow speed of sound. A difference in the arrival time from one ear to another of one thousandth to one ten-thousandth of a second is sufficient to discern, so that we can tell generally where a sound originated. If sound were substantially faster, both our ears would hear the sound at about the same time, and we could not enjoy stereophonic music, nor tell where sounds came from.

In His wisdom, God made these velocities profoundly useful to us (as well, of course, as many, many other physical constants besides). They did not "evolve" to such values. And should they have been substantially different, no evolutionary "modification" could possibly compensate to give us what we now have.

Biochemistry is so profoundly complex that we are only beginning to appreciate how “wonderfully” we are made. Human blood defies LeChatelier’s Principle, in that when one molecule of oxygen is adsorbed by a hemoglobin molecule, its affinity for oxygen grows, instead of diminishing. The second molecule increases the affinity for the third, and the third for the fourth. This is precisely the reverse of normal chemistry principles and experimental observations. Our bodies’ powers of endurance and healing are absolutely astounding.

The list of features of our wonderful construction begins with conception, continues through growth, and concludes with our spiritual transformations evidenced time and again by the scientific observations of such people as Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Dr. Kubler-Ross documented hundreds of instances of scientific evidence of a spiritual nature. She convincingly testified that she could not be persuaded of any naturalistic (scientific) explanation for it.

*Proverbs 3:20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.*

Not only does the mid-Atlantic ridge constitute the continuing breakup of tectonic plates, but also in the depths of the Pacific Ocean also "the depths are broken up," as discovered by modern science, unknown almost two thousand years ago.

*Ecclesiastes 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven;*

“To seek out and search by wisdom.” This is the very definition of science, is it not? "Scientia," Latin for "truth," is the root word of science.

*Ecclesiastes 1:7 All rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence rivers come, thither they return again.*

The cyclical nature of nature encompasses us wherever we look. The water cycle is described only with utmost brevity in Ecclesiastes. Today we understand (considerably better than did Biblical authors) water and its importance in most chemical processes, as well as its profoundly fortuitous cyclical nature, as originally shown in the Bible. Beyond this, we can see and describe cycles of carbon, and nitrogen, and oxygen, and hydrogen. We are able to comprehend the nature of energy, and the conservation of not only energy, but also of matter itself. More complex by far is the transformation of matter into energy, which gives us sunlight continuously. Why should all these things be? And why so reliably? Why are chemical reactions so wonderfully and perfectly reversible? Why? For the same reason that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”. For that reason. These Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies did not just fall into place with Megaluck over Megatime, as some scientists posit, with their fingers crossed.

*Ecclesiastes 2:13 Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.*

Can you name even one aspect of our universe that is known “from the beginning to the end”? Research continues everywhere, with absolutely no end remotely in sight. Research at the subatomic level, at the molecular level, at the cellular level, at the human level, at the planetary level, and at the galactic level.

How is it that we don’t know everything about anything, if all that we see came about from nothing, as materialists contend? How is that possible? Infinite complexity from nothing is infinitely absurd and infinitely improbable. There is not the slightest scientific basis or law for their grand proposal. Profound organization and information and consistency and physical laws, originating…. HOW ! An infinite God makes spiritual sense. He is utterly beyond the purview of science - which is merely another of God’s brilliant creations. As to the mocking question of “Who made God,” Professor John Lennox of Cambridge University gives us the answer: “If anybody made God, then He wouldn’t be God, would He!” (See Lennox’ one hour lecture, “A Matter of Gravity” on YouTube.)

Two things are incomprehensible. First, the origin of everything from nothing, and second, God Himself, Who so wondrously explains and accounts for everything else. Everyone must choose his own incomprehensible option. The first is random and meaningless, literally and figuratively. The second option is elegant, beautiful, hopeful, and wonderful beyond understanding. This second option matches the creative genius that surrounds us.

*Ecclesiastes 7:9 Anger rests in the bosom of fools.*

Atheists are exceedingly angry and bitter.

*Philipians 4:8 ...whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.*

Psychological professionals in the 21st Century have affirmed the substantial benefits, both mental and physical, of positive thinking in countless scholarly experiments, published papers and books.

*Proverbs 3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.*

Twenty-first century social science confirms that Christians are happier than atheists. When confronted with this scientific truth, atheists angrily and snidely reply, “Ignorance is bliss.” It’s a lie, and lies are all they have. To contend otherwise is to claim that wisdom decreases your happiness. Why then do we strive for, and achieve wisdom?

*Proverbs 3:21 My son, let them not depart from your eyes. Keep sound wisdom and discretion;

Proverbs 16:16 How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! And to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver.*

Again and again there are Biblical references to wisdom, prudence, diligence, and other virtues. The essence of science is the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and facts. However, wisdom requires more than mere knowledge. Wisdom requires the integration of scientific truths with integrity, and far more virtuous conduct than the mere accretion of facts, which are value neutral.

Hitler and Stalin appreciated the science of Darwinism for its atheistic implications, but of wisdom, they had none.

*Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.*

Wisdom excelleth folly as far as light excelleth darkness. The Creator of mankind does not want anyone to be fooled; He does not wish that we be gullible, or duped by clever sounding words, whether they be from scientists wearing white robes, or priests wearing white robes. It is the essence of science to search for truth, and ask questions, and seek to answer them. Toward this end, we must acknowledge the extremely transitional nature of scientific “fact”, and the pretexts of contemporary scientific infallibility. Nowhere is the attempt to deceive us more malicious and destructive than when it seeks to deny the very existence of our Creator, and separate us from Him – permanently.


Forty percent of those listed in Who’s Who In Science acknowledge a personal belief in God. You must ask yourself why. Surely these people are not the fools that some scientific atheists accuse you and me of being.


*John 3:11, 12 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?*


The timeless veracity and wisdom of this statement is prophetic. After over two thousand years, what is often called the “myth” that is the Holy Bible, cannot remotely be discredited. To the contrary, the obvious and manifest benefits to mankind of Christianity have been repeatedly addressed by professionals in psychology, criminology, and other modern disciplines. The deep and abiding science, beginning with the first sentence in the first Book, is compelling testimony. For these reasons and more, Christianity is today the most popular human organization there has ever been. Yet many still “receive not our witness.” How can this be? Why will mankind not learn?


*I Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast that which is good.*

Is there a more concise explanation of the scientific method? “Test all things”? The essence of modern science is the proof of testable hypotheses, as scientists like to say. Such technique was proposed in the Scriptures which are mocked by so many who are proud of their lack of belief.

*Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.*

This is confirmation of Genesis 1:1. Natural Theology, written in 1809 by William Paley, makes a similar argument from design. Just as a Boeing 747 can never be the product of an explosion in a junkyard, neither can the far more intricate construction of a human being be the ultimate product of random mutations, selectively but blindly “chosen.” See also www.2001Principle.net

*Mark 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.*

Although not strictly “scientific”, the foregoing verse demonstrates a profound economic truth notwithstanding the astonishing achievements of modern science. Had one the vision to see forward more than 2000 years to witness the abundance of food and material goods we now produce, surely one would have surmised that “the poor” would be no more than a relic of the ancient past. Not so. In fact, nowhere are “the poor” more common and more destitute than in socialist countries led by atheist despots.

*Acts 17:26 (God) hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.*

Notwithstanding the vast differences in outward appearance of the peoples of the earth, from fair skinned Norwegians, to African pygmies, “all nations of men” are Homo sapiens. All humans can, within the constraints of blood typing, be transfused by the blood from men of “all nations.” This close biological relationship of mankind was cited before blood types and biological classifications were ever imagined. Moreover, Charles Darwin repeatedly expressed his disdain for what he considered to be the “lower forms of life,” the Africans. This vile racist, who was an admittedly mediocre student in school, originated the hypothesis, not even a theory, of common descent, now called “evolution” or “Darwinian evolution.” From a letter to Asa Gray, a close friend and Professor of Biology at Harvard University:

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

*John 18:37 Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?*

Eighty-two percent of Americans believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey taken by Princeton Survey Research Associates on Dec 2 and 3, 2004 for Newsweek Magazine. Jesus Christ said that people of the truth hear his voice. Today one especially hears atheists, most of them liberals, reply just as Pontius Pilate did two thousand years ago with a mockingly dishonest question: “What is truth?” when even a ten year old has the capacity to know what truth is. Some things never change.

*Luke 21:33; Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.*

Just as Genesis 1:1 foretold the scientific truth of the Big Bang, or as it is almost universally called today, “The Moment of Creation”, so too does the Gospel of Luke describe the passing away of matter. Stars like our own sun are consuming their own hydrogen, fusing it into helium, losing vast amounts of mass, and radiating that energy into the heavens. All starlight will eventually pass away, and the universe will ultimately become dark and absolutely cold (“heat death”), devoid of life as we know it. Numerous massive black holes have been indirectly observed. They attract matter and light into their domain, never to be seen again. Or so scientists thought before they once again changed their mind. It is now posited that Black Holes can radiate away energy, which is to say, mass. Even Black Holes seem to pass away.


The duration of primary elements of matter we call protons have a lifetime estimated to be 10 to the 33rd power years. The heaven and the earth shall pass into cold, dark oblivion, just as stated in the Holy Bible, a book ceaselessly mocked and ridiculed by the left. Thousands of years after the Bible said heaven and earth shall pass away, the Second Law of Thermodynamics simply repeated it, in the name of “science.” Universal heat death is the ultimate and final increase in entropy, or disorder. The origin of our universe as well as its demise were both described in an ancient book with astonishing precision. The universe has not always existed, as previously thought by scientists, nor was it assembled piecemeal. It was “created” with a Big Bang. The universe will not continue on forever; it will, it must pass away. These were not lucky guesses. They were inspirations from our Creator who made science.



Footnote 1: By “the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis, I mean the utter impossibility of any naturalistic explanation for synthesizing even a single polypeptide, much less the enormous variety of proteins, enzymes, and related structures which constitute every living cell. Our polypeptides, as they are called, are so profoundly complex that even with a blueprint, contemporary scientists cannot produce them in a laboratory from reagents. How much more hopeless it would be to expect a pool of dirty water to produce hundreds proteins necessary for the first living cell.



Footnote 2: By “insuperable statistics of the Anthropic Principle, I refer to the several dozen physical constants, such as the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, and the fine structure constant, which are so finely tuned that if they were as little as one part in 1040th larger or smaller, there would be no planet earth and no human beings. The gravitational constant in particular is precise within one part in 10 to the 10120th. What has been so desperately offered as an explanation for the Anthropic Principle is the preposterous fantasy of “Multiverse,” an infinite number of universes, of which we live in “just the right one.” It is not remotely connected to science or reality.





* Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies, a term I originated, refers to the interrelated factors surrounding us that are utterly essential to life as civilized people know and enjoy. There is a pervasive elegance throughout our world and indeed our universe which far transcends the atheistic nihilism so popular today in what they call "intellectual" circles.



First example of Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies: Oxygen happens to be one of the more reactive elements, and it exists in the most reactive phase, viz. gas. This dynamic equilibrium producing our essential breath of life is possible only because: 1. Reactions are reversible (how profoundly fortuitous!) and; 2. The reversibility of such reactions is, so far as we can tell, 100% and; 3. Natural laws are consistent and harmonious and discoverable, and; 4. Plants recycle oxygen from carbon dioxide, and water.


Second example of PFIs: The sophisticated engineering of matter, constructed primarily out of three simple building blocks, electrons, protons, and neutrons, is evidenced by the fact that only one part in 1017 is matter, and the rest is empty space. Moreover these three foundational components can be combined with only slight variations to give us unique characteristics as found in metals, including high shear strength, malleability, ductility, high heat and electrical conductivity, profound availability, high melting points, and other features without which there could be no airplanes, cars, or even internal combustion engines. As essential as metals** are to internal combustion engines, they would be virtually worthless without hydrocarbons to burn in them, which hydrocarbons just happen to be available in wondrous, underground storage tanks, to be refined and used worldwide.

But without oxygen, and without its dispersal throughout our atmosphere, there could be no cars, no plane rides to faraway places, and no fires, even inside engines. Fire, a simple chemical reaction we have always taken for granted, is but one of the countless Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies.



** In contrast to water, plastic, glass, and fused quartz, which transmit light with near perfection, unlike metals.


Third example of PFIs: Vision, made possible only through the combined PFIs of the elegant properties of electromagnetic radiation in the visible portion of that spectrum, including the capacity to transmit both energy as well as information, over unimaginable distances, with almost perfect fidelity and reliability, and to be magically bent by a wide variety of readily available transparent materials, so as to enable wide-angle vision instead of 1:1 tunnel vision of an image roughly the same size as the receiving retina, and all the while photons pass through photons in every direction and in every wavelength, utterly unaffected in the slightest.



Additional reading: Science and the Bible


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the Bible has science backing up the evidence and showing it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Science of the Bible*​
> 
> 
> As a chemical engineer, I understand, and subscribe to the tenets of the scientific method. If anything has given me an appreciation for the Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies* which make life possible, it is the objectivity engendered by my scientific background, coupled with common sense so often lacking in many well educated people. How anti-intellectual it is of the godless Left to denigrate Christians, often maliciously so. Calling Christians “fundies” and “believers in a flat earth” seems to give many people the perverse notion that they are erudite, and can consign Christians to the backwaters of ignorance. Just as Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers in His Temple, so too is it my intention to overturn the tables of the intolerant Left with these personally written observations correlating science with its Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.*
> 
> 
> The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate island universe, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.
> 
> 
> In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. The penning of Genesis 1:1 was not.
> 
> 
> Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.
> 
> So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie”), before anyone else.
> 
> *Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.*
> 
> Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every foul of the air;*
> 
> The same elements which form humans also form animals everywhere. However, there is no Biblical reference to “a living soul” with respect to animals. Nor do animals have the capacity to worship and appreciate the spirituality and hope that is one of the premier hallmarks of mankind, and our supreme bequest.
> 
> *Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.*
> 
> One would think that as a result of the disciplines and analyses and benefits of human enlightenment, mankind should have been able to eliminate corruption and violence so prevalent thousands of years ago. Today, we have tools of production and health and social enlightenment unimaginable when the book of Genesis was written. But the earth today is still full of corruption and violence. Cornucopias of goods and services have not satisfied mankind’s lust for more, nor have psychologists and sociologists resolved the complex issues that lead people into destructive behavior. With burgeoning prison populations, and monstrous acts of evil on the increase worldwide, there seems little hope that corruption and violence will ever be eradicated.
> 
> *Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.*
> 
> Although the North American Continent was unknown when the Bible was written, paleontologists confirm that the interior of North America was once covered by shallow seas. Fossil evidence from distant parts of the globe that were unknown to inhabitants of ancient Israel lends scientific confirmation to the Noachian Flood described in the most ancient book of science known to man, the Holy Bible. I do not pretend to know the length of the six "days" of creation. However it is abundantly clear to me that the Elegance of Everything and the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis1 and the Anthropic Principle2 are eternally inexplicable by any exclusively naturalistic method. To those with eyes, God’s Hand is clearly visible everywhere one looks.
> 
> *Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. *
> 
> We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested. – *Flourish*, by Martin Seligman, psychologist
> 
> If you want to be happy, do good, be kind, give.
> 
> *Exodus 3:14 I am hath sent me unto you.....
> 
> John 9:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.*
> 
> The naturalistic, if you will, “scientific” approach to explaining how man and energy and matter and space originated is to examine what is observable, and formulate hypotheses and theories based on observation and reason. There is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter and energy and information at the Moment of Creation, the Singularity, and obviously no experiment can examine, much less confirm any hypothesis of what first happened to lead to us and everything we see.
> 
> In contrast, God defies scientific explanation because He is outside its purview. If miracles were scientifically explicable, they would not be miracles. After all, God created the physical realm that is the subject of scientific inquiry and we are still desperately trying to understand that aspect of His handiwork. Had mere mortals written where God came from without divine inspiration, they surely could not have presented such an elegant explanation as “I am” – an explanation that suffices even two thousand years later. Where did God come from? "I am." The universe is not eternal, but God is.
> 
> I have only a vague notion of how my computer works as I type this on it. Although I don’t know how it works, I do know that it is real and that it operates in a marvelous, almost magical way. I don’t need to understand things to believe in and use them. And how much more marvelous is my brain and yours than these primitive computers, not one of which designed, much less built itself.
> 
> “Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley
> 
> 
> Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them (people); for God hath shewed it unto them.
> 
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they (non-believers) are without excuse:
> 
> "Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order." – Paul Davies
> 
> Some of leading scientists whose work was motivated by their faith were: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestley, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Mendel.
> 
> 
> *Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.*
> 
> Has anyone the slightest doubt as to how “empty” the North Pole is? Nobody living in the Middle East could possibly have visited “the north” so as to confirm what was then being written. These immutable scientific truths – two here in a single sentence - were far too coincidental to be attributable to luck. No, they were divinely inspired, as were so many things in the Bible. The earth truly hangs “upon nothing”, as confirmed by countless photographs from satellites and space stations, not to mention men on the moon, and the north is indeed an “empty place” by any measure.
> 
> *Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?*
> 
> With all our wisdom, and all our science, and all our research, “who can understand” anything today. Ultimate scientific answers continue to elude us everywhere one looks, from the submicroscopic to the supermacroscopic ! The pretense is that all this magnificent science that we see and study arose from nothing, based solely on megatime and megauniverses. Insuperable statistical impossibilities are explained away with clever wordplay and nebulous theories – anything at all to deny the Hand of the Creator so evident to casual observers, of all educational backgrounds, and all nationalities, and all times. That is, except for those who will not see.
> 
> "The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder." - Ralph W. Sockman
> 
> * Job 28:5 As for the earth, out of it cometh bread: and under it is turned up as it were fire.*
> 
> The molten iron core of the earth was inconceivable because it was not discoverable when this passage was written. “Under (earth) it is turned up as it were fire.”
> 
> Ah, some may say, “But there were volcanoes even then.” True enough. But are not volcanoes both isolated and rare, and not so much “under” the earth as above it? The molten core of the earth accords far better with this passage. Their scientific agreement is not coincidental, but rather Divinely inspired and guided.
> 
> *Job 38:1,2 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said
> 
> Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?*
> 
> How often one hears words uttered without knowledge by pretenders of science and enlightenment. "The universe is a free lunch." (Physicist Michio Kaku) The Lord does not take foolishness lightly. Neither should we.
> 
> *Job 38:24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?*
> 
> The most learned scientist of antiquity could not have imagined the depth of this question. When light is "parted" by a diffraction grating, it can be shown to act both as particles as well as waves. These combinations of properties are difficult to understand much less explain. And the prodigious amounts of energy transmitted by solar radiation does indeed scatter the wind upon the earth as it heats different substances at different rates. Job could not have offered an adequate answer to the question, along the lines of: "Discrete photons of light travel together as a wave until parted into disparate visible components by striking and reflecting from solid objects into our eyes, while other wavelengths give up their energy as they are absorbed by solids and water. Temperature differentials established by ambient sunlight striking dissimilar surfaces create 'the east wind' so described."
> 
> *Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork*.
> 
> NASA maintains a website which is updated daily. Its purpose, however unintended, is to “declare the glory of God” and to “show his handiwork.”
> 
> Astronomy Picture of the Day
> 
> How remarkable that so repetitive and well known a phenomenon as sunset can delight people of all ages, and all times, and all civilizations. How much more delightful are the glories and handiworks seen in national parks and sightseeing attractions worldwide, so many of which could scarcely have been known by the Bible’s authors. Nor had the first telescope been invented 2000 years ago. How is it that the more deeply we have seen, the more handiwork we have seen? How is it?
> 
> *Psalms 118:24 This is the day the Lord hath made; We will rejoice and be glad in it.*
> 
> Twenty-first century medicine confirms the benefits of joyfulness for both our mental health as well as our physical health. "We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested." – Martin Seligman, psychologist, in his book, *Flourish
> 
> Psalms 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.*
> 
> Mankind is indeed “fearfully and wonderfully made.” The sophistication of our construction begins at the atomic level with atoms that are one part in 1017 nucleus and the rest empty space. Then consider our DNA, which is 45 trillion times more compact and efficient at data storage than today’s sophisticated computer microchips.
> 
> Our brains have the memory capacity of 100 billion megabytes, which far exceeds anything conceivably necessary from a “selection” point of view.
> 
> Our optic nerves transmit information at 4 gigabaud, which is 71,000 times faster than a dial up modem, and 1,000 times faster than an ultra-high speed T-1 line for a computer.
> 
> The human eye sees in exquisite detail, over about 13 orders of magnitude of light intensity. Although the eye is often said to be flawed in its design by Darwinists and atheists, I would very much like to see them replace a human eye with something better which they have designed and built from lab reagents.
> 
> Our ears hear over 13 orders of magnitude in sound intensity. Even more amazing, the ears perform a Fourier Analysis. In other words, our eardrums receive a single wave function at the eardrum. Then they break down this single wave function into its constituent sounds. For example, at a concert, your ears hear drums, brass, violins, solo arias, and the person behind you coughing, only because this blended noise is separated inside your ear. If your eyes performed a similar function, they would break down white just as a prism does, into disparate pure colors.
> 
> Finally, our two eyes enable us to discern distance (and relative size) by triangulation. Our brains automatically compute the angle of the object seen, and compute its approximate distance. Similarly, our two ears enable us to discern the direction from which noises emanate not only because we have two ears, but also because of the relatively slow speed of sound. A difference in the arrival time from one ear to another of one thousandth to one ten-thousandth of a second is sufficient to discern, so that we can tell generally where a sound originated. If sound were substantially faster, both our ears would hear the sound at about the same time, and we could not enjoy stereophonic music, nor tell where sounds came from.
> 
> In His wisdom, God made these velocities profoundly useful to us (as well, of course, as many, many other physical constants besides). They did not "evolve" to such values. And should they have been substantially different, no evolutionary "modification" could possibly compensate to give us what we now have.
> 
> Biochemistry is so profoundly complex that we are only beginning to appreciate how “wonderfully” we are made. Human blood defies LeChatelier’s Principle, in that when one molecule of oxygen is adsorbed by a hemoglobin molecule, its affinity for oxygen grows, instead of diminishing. The second molecule increases the affinity for the third, and the third for the fourth. This is precisely the reverse of normal chemistry principles and experimental observations. Our bodies’ powers of endurance and healing are absolutely astounding.
> 
> The list of features of our wonderful construction begins with conception, continues through growth, and concludes with our spiritual transformations evidenced time and again by the scientific observations of such people as Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Dr. Kubler-Ross documented hundreds of instances of scientific evidence of a spiritual nature. She convincingly testified that she could not be persuaded of any naturalistic (scientific) explanation for it.
> 
> *Proverbs 3:20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.*
> 
> Not only does the mid-Atlantic ridge constitute the continuing breakup of tectonic plates, but also in the depths of the Pacific Ocean also "the depths are broken up," as discovered by modern science, unknown almost two thousand years ago.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven;*
> 
> “To seek out and search by wisdom.” This is the very definition of science, is it not? "Scientia," Latin for "truth," is the root word of science.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 1:7 All rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence rivers come, thither they return again.*
> 
> The cyclical nature of nature encompasses us wherever we look. The water cycle is described only with utmost brevity in Ecclesiastes. Today we understand (considerably better than did Biblical authors) water and its importance in most chemical processes, as well as its profoundly fortuitous cyclical nature, as originally shown in the Bible. Beyond this, we can see and describe cycles of carbon, and nitrogen, and oxygen, and hydrogen. We are able to comprehend the nature of energy, and the conservation of not only energy, but also of matter itself. More complex by far is the transformation of matter into energy, which gives us sunlight continuously. Why should all these things be? And why so reliably? Why are chemical reactions so wonderfully and perfectly reversible? Why? For the same reason that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”. For that reason. These Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies did not just fall into place with Megaluck over Megatime, as some scientists posit, with their fingers crossed.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 2:13 Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.
> 
> Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.*
> 
> Can you name even one aspect of our universe that is known “from the beginning to the end”? Research continues everywhere, with absolutely no end remotely in sight. Research at the subatomic level, at the molecular level, at the cellular level, at the human level, at the planetary level, and at the galactic level.
> 
> How is it that we don’t know everything about anything, if all that we see came about from nothing, as materialists contend? How is that possible? Infinite complexity from nothing is infinitely absurd and infinitely improbable. There is not the slightest scientific basis or law for their grand proposal. Profound organization and information and consistency and physical laws, originating…. HOW ! An infinite God makes spiritual sense. He is utterly beyond the purview of science - which is merely another of God’s brilliant creations. As to the mocking question of “Who made God,” Professor John Lennox of Cambridge University gives us the answer: “If anybody made God, then He wouldn’t be God, would He!” (See Lennox’ one hour lecture, “A Matter of Gravity” on YouTube.)
> 
> Two things are incomprehensible. First, the origin of everything from nothing, and second, God Himself, Who so wondrously explains and accounts for everything else. Everyone must choose his own incomprehensible option. The first is random and meaningless, literally and figuratively. The second option is elegant, beautiful, hopeful, and wonderful beyond understanding. This second option matches the creative genius that surrounds us.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 7:9 Anger rests in the bosom of fools.*
> 
> Atheists are exceedingly angry and bitter.
> 
> *Philipians 4:8 ...whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.*
> 
> Psychological professionals in the 21st Century have affirmed the substantial benefits, both mental and physical, of positive thinking in countless scholarly experiments, published papers and books.
> 
> *Proverbs 3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.*
> 
> Twenty-first century social science confirms that Christians are happier than atheists. When confronted with this scientific truth, atheists angrily and snidely reply, “Ignorance is bliss.” It’s a lie, and lies are all they have. To contend otherwise is to claim that wisdom decreases your happiness. Why then do we strive for, and achieve wisdom?
> 
> *Proverbs 3:21 My son, let them not depart from your eyes. Keep sound wisdom and discretion;
> 
> Proverbs 16:16 How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! And to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver.*
> 
> Again and again there are Biblical references to wisdom, prudence, diligence, and other virtues. The essence of science is the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and facts. However, wisdom requires more than mere knowledge. Wisdom requires the integration of scientific truths with integrity, and far more virtuous conduct than the mere accretion of facts, which are value neutral.
> 
> Hitler and Stalin appreciated the science of Darwinism for its atheistic implications, but of wisdom, they had none.
> 
> *Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.*
> 
> Wisdom excelleth folly as far as light excelleth darkness. The Creator of mankind does not want anyone to be fooled; He does not wish that we be gullible, or duped by clever sounding words, whether they be from scientists wearing white robes, or priests wearing white robes. It is the essence of science to search for truth, and ask questions, and seek to answer them. Toward this end, we must acknowledge the extremely transitional nature of scientific “fact”, and the pretexts of contemporary scientific infallibility. Nowhere is the attempt to deceive us more malicious and destructive than when it seeks to deny the very existence of our Creator, and separate us from Him – permanently.
> 
> 
> Forty percent of those listed in Who’s Who In Science acknowledge a personal belief in God. You must ask yourself why. Surely these people are not the fools that some scientific atheists accuse you and me of being.
> 
> 
> *John 3:11, 12 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
> 
> If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?*
> 
> 
> The timeless veracity and wisdom of this statement is prophetic. After over two thousand years, what is often called the “myth” that is the Holy Bible, cannot remotely be discredited. To the contrary, the obvious and manifest benefits to mankind of Christianity have been repeatedly addressed by professionals in psychology, criminology, and other modern disciplines. The deep and abiding science, beginning with the first sentence in the first Book, is compelling testimony. For these reasons and more, Christianity is today the most popular human organization there has ever been. Yet many still “receive not our witness.” How can this be? Why will mankind not learn?
> 
> 
> *I Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast that which is good.*
> 
> Is there a more concise explanation of the scientific method? “Test all things”? The essence of modern science is the proof of testable hypotheses, as scientists like to say. Such technique was proposed in the Scriptures which are mocked by so many who are proud of their lack of belief.
> 
> *Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.*
> 
> This is confirmation of Genesis 1:1. Natural Theology, written in 1809 by William Paley, makes a similar argument from design. Just as a Boeing 747 can never be the product of an explosion in a junkyard, neither can the far more intricate construction of a human being be the ultimate product of random mutations, selectively but blindly “chosen.” See also www.2001Principle.net
> 
> *Mark 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.*
> 
> Although not strictly “scientific”, the foregoing verse demonstrates a profound economic truth notwithstanding the astonishing achievements of modern science. Had one the vision to see forward more than 2000 years to witness the abundance of food and material goods we now produce, surely one would have surmised that “the poor” would be no more than a relic of the ancient past. Not so. In fact, nowhere are “the poor” more common and more destitute than in socialist countries led by atheist despots.
> 
> *Acts 17:26 (God) hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.*
> 
> Notwithstanding the vast differences in outward appearance of the peoples of the earth, from fair skinned Norwegians, to African pygmies, “all nations of men” are Homo sapiens. All humans can, within the constraints of blood typing, be transfused by the blood from men of “all nations.” This close biological relationship of mankind was cited before blood types and biological classifications were ever imagined. Moreover, Charles Darwin repeatedly expressed his disdain for what he considered to be the “lower forms of life,” the Africans. This vile racist, who was an admittedly mediocre student in school, originated the hypothesis, not even a theory, of common descent, now called “evolution” or “Darwinian evolution.” From a letter to Asa Gray, a close friend and Professor of Biology at Harvard University:
> 
> "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
> 
> *John 18:37 Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
> 
> 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?*
> 
> Eighty-two percent of Americans believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey taken by Princeton Survey Research Associates on Dec 2 and 3, 2004 for Newsweek Magazine. Jesus Christ said that people of the truth hear his voice. Today one especially hears atheists, most of them liberals, reply just as Pontius Pilate did two thousand years ago with a mockingly dishonest question: “What is truth?” when even a ten year old has the capacity to know what truth is. Some things never change.
> 
> *Luke 21:33; Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.*
> 
> Just as Genesis 1:1 foretold the scientific truth of the Big Bang, or as it is almost universally called today, “The Moment of Creation”, so too does the Gospel of Luke describe the passing away of matter. Stars like our own sun are consuming their own hydrogen, fusing it into helium, losing vast amounts of mass, and radiating that energy into the heavens. All starlight will eventually pass away, and the universe will ultimately become dark and absolutely cold (“heat death”), devoid of life as we know it. Numerous massive black holes have been indirectly observed. They attract matter and light into their domain, never to be seen again. Or so scientists thought before they once again changed their mind. It is now posited that Black Holes can radiate away energy, which is to say, mass. Even Black Holes seem to pass away.
> 
> 
> The duration of primary elements of matter we call protons have a lifetime estimated to be 10 to the 33rd power years. The heaven and the earth shall pass into cold, dark oblivion, just as stated in the Holy Bible, a book ceaselessly mocked and ridiculed by the left. Thousands of years after the Bible said heaven and earth shall pass away, the Second Law of Thermodynamics simply repeated it, in the name of “science.” Universal heat death is the ultimate and final increase in entropy, or disorder. The origin of our universe as well as its demise were both described in an ancient book with astonishing precision. The universe has not always existed, as previously thought by scientists, nor was it assembled piecemeal. It was “created” with a Big Bang. The universe will not continue on forever; it will, it must pass away. These were not lucky guesses. They were inspirations from our Creator who made science.
> 
> 
> 
> Footnote 1: By “the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis, I mean the utter impossibility of any naturalistic explanation for synthesizing even a single polypeptide, much less the enormous variety of proteins, enzymes, and related structures which constitute every living cell. Our polypeptides, as they are called, are so profoundly complex that even with a blueprint, contemporary scientists cannot produce them in a laboratory from reagents. How much more hopeless it would be to expect a pool of dirty water to produce hundreds proteins necessary for the first living cell.
> 
> 
> 
> Footnote 2: By “insuperable statistics of the Anthropic Principle, I refer to the several dozen physical constants, such as the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, and the fine structure constant, which are so finely tuned that if they were as little as one part in 1040th larger or smaller, there would be no planet earth and no human beings. The gravitational constant in particular is precise within one part in 10 to the 10120th. What has been so desperately offered as an explanation for the Anthropic Principle is the preposterous fantasy of “Multiverse,” an infinite number of universes, of which we live in “just the right one.” It is not remotely connected to science or reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies, a term I originated, refers to the interrelated factors surrounding us that are utterly essential to life as civilized people know and enjoy. There is a pervasive elegance throughout our world and indeed our universe which far transcends the atheistic nihilism so popular today in what they call "intellectual" circles.
> 
> 
> 
> First example of Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies: Oxygen happens to be one of the more reactive elements, and it exists in the most reactive phase, viz. gas. This dynamic equilibrium producing our essential breath of life is possible only because: 1. Reactions are reversible (how profoundly fortuitous!) and; 2. The reversibility of such reactions is, so far as we can tell, 100% and; 3. Natural laws are consistent and harmonious and discoverable, and; 4. Plants recycle oxygen from carbon dioxide, and water.
> 
> 
> Second example of PFIs: The sophisticated engineering of matter, constructed primarily out of three simple building blocks, electrons, protons, and neutrons, is evidenced by the fact that only one part in 1017 is matter, and the rest is empty space. Moreover these three foundational components can be combined with only slight variations to give us unique characteristics as found in metals, including high shear strength, malleability, ductility, high heat and electrical conductivity, profound availability, high melting points, and other features without which there could be no airplanes, cars, or even internal combustion engines. As essential as metals** are to internal combustion engines, they would be virtually worthless without hydrocarbons to burn in them, which hydrocarbons just happen to be available in wondrous, underground storage tanks, to be refined and used worldwide.
> 
> But without oxygen, and without its dispersal throughout our atmosphere, there could be no cars, no plane rides to faraway places, and no fires, even inside engines. Fire, a simple chemical reaction we have always taken for granted, is but one of the countless Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies.
> 
> 
> 
> ** In contrast to water, plastic, glass, and fused quartz, which transmit light with near perfection, unlike metals.
> 
> 
> Third example of PFIs: Vision, made possible only through the combined PFIs of the elegant properties of electromagnetic radiation in the visible portion of that spectrum, including the capacity to transmit both energy as well as information, over unimaginable distances, with almost perfect fidelity and reliability, and to be magically bent by a wide variety of readily available transparent materials, so as to enable wide-angle vision instead of 1:1 tunnel vision of an image roughly the same size as the receiving retina, and all the while photons pass through photons in every direction and in every wavelength, utterly unaffected in the slightest.
> 
> 
> 
> Additional reading: Science and the Bible
Click to expand...


How many more times are you going to spam a thread with that cut and paste wall of Bible “quotes”

Give us a number.


----------



## ReinyDays

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the Bible has science backing up the evidence and showing it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Science of the Bible*​
> 
> 
> As a chemical engineer, I understand, and subscribe to the tenets of the scientific method. If anything has given me an appreciation for the Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies* which make life possible, it is the objectivity engendered by my scientific background, coupled with common sense so often lacking in many well educated people. How anti-intellectual it is of the godless Left to denigrate Christians, often maliciously so. Calling Christians “fundies” and “believers in a flat earth” seems to give many people the perverse notion that they are erudite, and can consign Christians to the backwaters of ignorance. Just as Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers in His Temple, so too is it my intention to overturn the tables of the intolerant Left with these personally written observations correlating science with its Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.*
> 
> 
> The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate island universe, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.
> 
> 
> In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. The penning of Genesis 1:1 was not.
> 
> 
> Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.
> 
> So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie”), before anyone else.
> 
> *Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.*
> 
> Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every foul of the air;*
> 
> The same elements which form humans also form animals everywhere. However, there is no Biblical reference to “a living soul” with respect to animals. Nor do animals have the capacity to worship and appreciate the spirituality and hope that is one of the premier hallmarks of mankind, and our supreme bequest.
> 
> *Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.*
> 
> One would think that as a result of the disciplines and analyses and benefits of human enlightenment, mankind should have been able to eliminate corruption and violence so prevalent thousands of years ago. Today, we have tools of production and health and social enlightenment unimaginable when the book of Genesis was written. But the earth today is still full of corruption and violence. Cornucopias of goods and services have not satisfied mankind’s lust for more, nor have psychologists and sociologists resolved the complex issues that lead people into destructive behavior. With burgeoning prison populations, and monstrous acts of evil on the increase worldwide, there seems little hope that corruption and violence will ever be eradicated.
> 
> *Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.*
> 
> Although the North American Continent was unknown when the Bible was written, paleontologists confirm that the interior of North America was once covered by shallow seas. Fossil evidence from distant parts of the globe that were unknown to inhabitants of ancient Israel lends scientific confirmation to the Noachian Flood described in the most ancient book of science known to man, the Holy Bible. I do not pretend to know the length of the six "days" of creation. However it is abundantly clear to me that the Elegance of Everything and the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis1 and the Anthropic Principle2 are eternally inexplicable by any exclusively naturalistic method. To those with eyes, God’s Hand is clearly visible everywhere one looks.
> 
> *Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. *
> 
> We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested. – *Flourish*, by Martin Seligman, psychologist
> 
> If you want to be happy, do good, be kind, give.
> 
> *Exodus 3:14 I am hath sent me unto you.....
> 
> John 9:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.*
> 
> The naturalistic, if you will, “scientific” approach to explaining how man and energy and matter and space originated is to examine what is observable, and formulate hypotheses and theories based on observation and reason. There is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter and energy and information at the Moment of Creation, the Singularity, and obviously no experiment can examine, much less confirm any hypothesis of what first happened to lead to us and everything we see.
> 
> In contrast, God defies scientific explanation because He is outside its purview. If miracles were scientifically explicable, they would not be miracles. After all, God created the physical realm that is the subject of scientific inquiry and we are still desperately trying to understand that aspect of His handiwork. Had mere mortals written where God came from without divine inspiration, they surely could not have presented such an elegant explanation as “I am” – an explanation that suffices even two thousand years later. Where did God come from? "I am." The universe is not eternal, but God is.
> 
> I have only a vague notion of how my computer works as I type this on it. Although I don’t know how it works, I do know that it is real and that it operates in a marvelous, almost magical way. I don’t need to understand things to believe in and use them. And how much more marvelous is my brain and yours than these primitive computers, not one of which designed, much less built itself.
> 
> “Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley
> 
> 
> Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them (people); for God hath shewed it unto them.
> 
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they (non-believers) are without excuse:
> 
> "Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order." – Paul Davies
> 
> Some of leading scientists whose work was motivated by their faith were: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestley, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Mendel.
> 
> 
> *Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.*
> 
> Has anyone the slightest doubt as to how “empty” the North Pole is? Nobody living in the Middle East could possibly have visited “the north” so as to confirm what was then being written. These immutable scientific truths – two here in a single sentence - were far too coincidental to be attributable to luck. No, they were divinely inspired, as were so many things in the Bible. The earth truly hangs “upon nothing”, as confirmed by countless photographs from satellites and space stations, not to mention men on the moon, and the north is indeed an “empty place” by any measure.
> 
> *Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?*
> 
> With all our wisdom, and all our science, and all our research, “who can understand” anything today. Ultimate scientific answers continue to elude us everywhere one looks, from the submicroscopic to the supermacroscopic ! The pretense is that all this magnificent science that we see and study arose from nothing, based solely on megatime and megauniverses. Insuperable statistical impossibilities are explained away with clever wordplay and nebulous theories – anything at all to deny the Hand of the Creator so evident to casual observers, of all educational backgrounds, and all nationalities, and all times. That is, except for those who will not see.
> 
> "The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder." - Ralph W. Sockman
> 
> * Job 28:5 As for the earth, out of it cometh bread: and under it is turned up as it were fire.*
> 
> The molten iron core of the earth was inconceivable because it was not discoverable when this passage was written. “Under (earth) it is turned up as it were fire.”
> 
> Ah, some may say, “But there were volcanoes even then.” True enough. But are not volcanoes both isolated and rare, and not so much “under” the earth as above it? The molten core of the earth accords far better with this passage. Their scientific agreement is not coincidental, but rather Divinely inspired and guided.
> 
> *Job 38:1,2 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said
> 
> Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?*
> 
> How often one hears words uttered without knowledge by pretenders of science and enlightenment. "The universe is a free lunch." (Physicist Michio Kaku) The Lord does not take foolishness lightly. Neither should we.
> 
> *Job 38:24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?*
> 
> The most learned scientist of antiquity could not have imagined the depth of this question. When light is "parted" by a diffraction grating, it can be shown to act both as particles as well as waves. These combinations of properties are difficult to understand much less explain. And the prodigious amounts of energy transmitted by solar radiation does indeed scatter the wind upon the earth as it heats different substances at different rates. Job could not have offered an adequate answer to the question, along the lines of: "Discrete photons of light travel together as a wave until parted into disparate visible components by striking and reflecting from solid objects into our eyes, while other wavelengths give up their energy as they are absorbed by solids and water. Temperature differentials established by ambient sunlight striking dissimilar surfaces create 'the east wind' so described."
> 
> *Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork*.
> 
> NASA maintains a website which is updated daily. Its purpose, however unintended, is to “declare the glory of God” and to “show his handiwork.”
> 
> Astronomy Picture of the Day
> 
> How remarkable that so repetitive and well known a phenomenon as sunset can delight people of all ages, and all times, and all civilizations. How much more delightful are the glories and handiworks seen in national parks and sightseeing attractions worldwide, so many of which could scarcely have been known by the Bible’s authors. Nor had the first telescope been invented 2000 years ago. How is it that the more deeply we have seen, the more handiwork we have seen? How is it?
> 
> *Psalms 118:24 This is the day the Lord hath made; We will rejoice and be glad in it.*
> 
> Twenty-first century medicine confirms the benefits of joyfulness for both our mental health as well as our physical health. "We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested." – Martin Seligman, psychologist, in his book, *Flourish
> 
> Psalms 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.*
> 
> Mankind is indeed “fearfully and wonderfully made.” The sophistication of our construction begins at the atomic level with atoms that are one part in 1017 nucleus and the rest empty space. Then consider our DNA, which is 45 trillion times more compact and efficient at data storage than today’s sophisticated computer microchips.
> 
> Our brains have the memory capacity of 100 billion megabytes, which far exceeds anything conceivably necessary from a “selection” point of view.
> 
> Our optic nerves transmit information at 4 gigabaud, which is 71,000 times faster than a dial up modem, and 1,000 times faster than an ultra-high speed T-1 line for a computer.
> 
> The human eye sees in exquisite detail, over about 13 orders of magnitude of light intensity. Although the eye is often said to be flawed in its design by Darwinists and atheists, I would very much like to see them replace a human eye with something better which they have designed and built from lab reagents.
> 
> Our ears hear over 13 orders of magnitude in sound intensity. Even more amazing, the ears perform a Fourier Analysis. In other words, our eardrums receive a single wave function at the eardrum. Then they break down this single wave function into its constituent sounds. For example, at a concert, your ears hear drums, brass, violins, solo arias, and the person behind you coughing, only because this blended noise is separated inside your ear. If your eyes performed a similar function, they would break down white just as a prism does, into disparate pure colors.
> 
> Finally, our two eyes enable us to discern distance (and relative size) by triangulation. Our brains automatically compute the angle of the object seen, and compute its approximate distance. Similarly, our two ears enable us to discern the direction from which noises emanate not only because we have two ears, but also because of the relatively slow speed of sound. A difference in the arrival time from one ear to another of one thousandth to one ten-thousandth of a second is sufficient to discern, so that we can tell generally where a sound originated. If sound were substantially faster, both our ears would hear the sound at about the same time, and we could not enjoy stereophonic music, nor tell where sounds came from.
> 
> In His wisdom, God made these velocities profoundly useful to us (as well, of course, as many, many other physical constants besides). They did not "evolve" to such values. And should they have been substantially different, no evolutionary "modification" could possibly compensate to give us what we now have.
> 
> Biochemistry is so profoundly complex that we are only beginning to appreciate how “wonderfully” we are made. Human blood defies LeChatelier’s Principle, in that when one molecule of oxygen is adsorbed by a hemoglobin molecule, its affinity for oxygen grows, instead of diminishing. The second molecule increases the affinity for the third, and the third for the fourth. This is precisely the reverse of normal chemistry principles and experimental observations. Our bodies’ powers of endurance and healing are absolutely astounding.
> 
> The list of features of our wonderful construction begins with conception, continues through growth, and concludes with our spiritual transformations evidenced time and again by the scientific observations of such people as Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Dr. Kubler-Ross documented hundreds of instances of scientific evidence of a spiritual nature. She convincingly testified that she could not be persuaded of any naturalistic (scientific) explanation for it.
> 
> *Proverbs 3:20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.*
> 
> Not only does the mid-Atlantic ridge constitute the continuing breakup of tectonic plates, but also in the depths of the Pacific Ocean also "the depths are broken up," as discovered by modern science, unknown almost two thousand years ago.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven;*
> 
> “To seek out and search by wisdom.” This is the very definition of science, is it not? "Scientia," Latin for "truth," is the root word of science.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 1:7 All rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence rivers come, thither they return again.*
> 
> The cyclical nature of nature encompasses us wherever we look. The water cycle is described only with utmost brevity in Ecclesiastes. Today we understand (considerably better than did Biblical authors) water and its importance in most chemical processes, as well as its profoundly fortuitous cyclical nature, as originally shown in the Bible. Beyond this, we can see and describe cycles of carbon, and nitrogen, and oxygen, and hydrogen. We are able to comprehend the nature of energy, and the conservation of not only energy, but also of matter itself. More complex by far is the transformation of matter into energy, which gives us sunlight continuously. Why should all these things be? And why so reliably? Why are chemical reactions so wonderfully and perfectly reversible? Why? For the same reason that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”. For that reason. These Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies did not just fall into place with Megaluck over Megatime, as some scientists posit, with their fingers crossed.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 2:13 Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.
> 
> Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.*
> 
> Can you name even one aspect of our universe that is known “from the beginning to the end”? Research continues everywhere, with absolutely no end remotely in sight. Research at the subatomic level, at the molecular level, at the cellular level, at the human level, at the planetary level, and at the galactic level.
> 
> How is it that we don’t know everything about anything, if all that we see came about from nothing, as materialists contend? How is that possible? Infinite complexity from nothing is infinitely absurd and infinitely improbable. There is not the slightest scientific basis or law for their grand proposal. Profound organization and information and consistency and physical laws, originating…. HOW ! An infinite God makes spiritual sense. He is utterly beyond the purview of science - which is merely another of God’s brilliant creations. As to the mocking question of “Who made God,” Professor John Lennox of Cambridge University gives us the answer: “If anybody made God, then He wouldn’t be God, would He!” (See Lennox’ one hour lecture, “A Matter of Gravity” on YouTube.)
> 
> Two things are incomprehensible. First, the origin of everything from nothing, and second, God Himself, Who so wondrously explains and accounts for everything else. Everyone must choose his own incomprehensible option. The first is random and meaningless, literally and figuratively. The second option is elegant, beautiful, hopeful, and wonderful beyond understanding. This second option matches the creative genius that surrounds us.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 7:9 Anger rests in the bosom of fools.*
> 
> Atheists are exceedingly angry and bitter.
> 
> *Philipians 4:8 ...whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.*
> 
> Psychological professionals in the 21st Century have affirmed the substantial benefits, both mental and physical, of positive thinking in countless scholarly experiments, published papers and books.
> 
> *Proverbs 3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.*
> 
> Twenty-first century social science confirms that Christians are happier than atheists. When confronted with this scientific truth, atheists angrily and snidely reply, “Ignorance is bliss.” It’s a lie, and lies are all they have. To contend otherwise is to claim that wisdom decreases your happiness. Why then do we strive for, and achieve wisdom?
> 
> *Proverbs 3:21 My son, let them not depart from your eyes. Keep sound wisdom and discretion;
> 
> Proverbs 16:16 How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! And to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver.*
> 
> Again and again there are Biblical references to wisdom, prudence, diligence, and other virtues. The essence of science is the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and facts. However, wisdom requires more than mere knowledge. Wisdom requires the integration of scientific truths with integrity, and far more virtuous conduct than the mere accretion of facts, which are value neutral.
> 
> Hitler and Stalin appreciated the science of Darwinism for its atheistic implications, but of wisdom, they had none.
> 
> *Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.*
> 
> Wisdom excelleth folly as far as light excelleth darkness. The Creator of mankind does not want anyone to be fooled; He does not wish that we be gullible, or duped by clever sounding words, whether they be from scientists wearing white robes, or priests wearing white robes. It is the essence of science to search for truth, and ask questions, and seek to answer them. Toward this end, we must acknowledge the extremely transitional nature of scientific “fact”, and the pretexts of contemporary scientific infallibility. Nowhere is the attempt to deceive us more malicious and destructive than when it seeks to deny the very existence of our Creator, and separate us from Him – permanently.
> 
> 
> Forty percent of those listed in Who’s Who In Science acknowledge a personal belief in God. You must ask yourself why. Surely these people are not the fools that some scientific atheists accuse you and me of being.
> 
> 
> *John 3:11, 12 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
> 
> If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?*
> 
> 
> The timeless veracity and wisdom of this statement is prophetic. After over two thousand years, what is often called the “myth” that is the Holy Bible, cannot remotely be discredited. To the contrary, the obvious and manifest benefits to mankind of Christianity have been repeatedly addressed by professionals in psychology, criminology, and other modern disciplines. The deep and abiding science, beginning with the first sentence in the first Book, is compelling testimony. For these reasons and more, Christianity is today the most popular human organization there has ever been. Yet many still “receive not our witness.” How can this be? Why will mankind not learn?
> 
> 
> *I Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast that which is good.*
> 
> Is there a more concise explanation of the scientific method? “Test all things”? The essence of modern science is the proof of testable hypotheses, as scientists like to say. Such technique was proposed in the Scriptures which are mocked by so many who are proud of their lack of belief.
> 
> *Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.*
> 
> This is confirmation of Genesis 1:1. Natural Theology, written in 1809 by William Paley, makes a similar argument from design. Just as a Boeing 747 can never be the product of an explosion in a junkyard, neither can the far more intricate construction of a human being be the ultimate product of random mutations, selectively but blindly “chosen.” See also www.2001Principle.net
> 
> *Mark 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.*
> 
> Although not strictly “scientific”, the foregoing verse demonstrates a profound economic truth notwithstanding the astonishing achievements of modern science. Had one the vision to see forward more than 2000 years to witness the abundance of food and material goods we now produce, surely one would have surmised that “the poor” would be no more than a relic of the ancient past. Not so. In fact, nowhere are “the poor” more common and more destitute than in socialist countries led by atheist despots.
> 
> *Acts 17:26 (God) hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.*
> 
> Notwithstanding the vast differences in outward appearance of the peoples of the earth, from fair skinned Norwegians, to African pygmies, “all nations of men” are Homo sapiens. All humans can, within the constraints of blood typing, be transfused by the blood from men of “all nations.” This close biological relationship of mankind was cited before blood types and biological classifications were ever imagined. Moreover, Charles Darwin repeatedly expressed his disdain for what he considered to be the “lower forms of life,” the Africans. This vile racist, who was an admittedly mediocre student in school, originated the hypothesis, not even a theory, of common descent, now called “evolution” or “Darwinian evolution.” From a letter to Asa Gray, a close friend and Professor of Biology at Harvard University:
> 
> "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
> 
> *John 18:37 Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
> 
> 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?*
> 
> Eighty-two percent of Americans believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey taken by Princeton Survey Research Associates on Dec 2 and 3, 2004 for Newsweek Magazine. Jesus Christ said that people of the truth hear his voice. Today one especially hears atheists, most of them liberals, reply just as Pontius Pilate did two thousand years ago with a mockingly dishonest question: “What is truth?” when even a ten year old has the capacity to know what truth is. Some things never change.
> 
> *Luke 21:33; Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.*
> 
> Just as Genesis 1:1 foretold the scientific truth of the Big Bang, or as it is almost universally called today, “The Moment of Creation”, so too does the Gospel of Luke describe the passing away of matter. Stars like our own sun are consuming their own hydrogen, fusing it into helium, losing vast amounts of mass, and radiating that energy into the heavens. All starlight will eventually pass away, and the universe will ultimately become dark and absolutely cold (“heat death”), devoid of life as we know it. Numerous massive black holes have been indirectly observed. They attract matter and light into their domain, never to be seen again. Or so scientists thought before they once again changed their mind. It is now posited that Black Holes can radiate away energy, which is to say, mass. Even Black Holes seem to pass away.
> 
> 
> The duration of primary elements of matter we call protons have a lifetime estimated to be 10 to the 33rd power years. The heaven and the earth shall pass into cold, dark oblivion, just as stated in the Holy Bible, a book ceaselessly mocked and ridiculed by the left. Thousands of years after the Bible said heaven and earth shall pass away, the Second Law of Thermodynamics simply repeated it, in the name of “science.” Universal heat death is the ultimate and final increase in entropy, or disorder. The origin of our universe as well as its demise were both described in an ancient book with astonishing precision. The universe has not always existed, as previously thought by scientists, nor was it assembled piecemeal. It was “created” with a Big Bang. The universe will not continue on forever; it will, it must pass away. These were not lucky guesses. They were inspirations from our Creator who made science.
> 
> 
> 
> Footnote 1: By “the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis, I mean the utter impossibility of any naturalistic explanation for synthesizing even a single polypeptide, much less the enormous variety of proteins, enzymes, and related structures which constitute every living cell. Our polypeptides, as they are called, are so profoundly complex that even with a blueprint, contemporary scientists cannot produce them in a laboratory from reagents. How much more hopeless it would be to expect a pool of dirty water to produce hundreds proteins necessary for the first living cell.
> 
> 
> 
> Footnote 2: By “insuperable statistics of the Anthropic Principle, I refer to the several dozen physical constants, such as the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, and the fine structure constant, which are so finely tuned that if they were as little as one part in 1040th larger or smaller, there would be no planet earth and no human beings. The gravitational constant in particular is precise within one part in 10 to the 10120th. What has been so desperately offered as an explanation for the Anthropic Principle is the preposterous fantasy of “Multiverse,” an infinite number of universes, of which we live in “just the right one.” It is not remotely connected to science or reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies, a term I originated, refers to the interrelated factors surrounding us that are utterly essential to life as civilized people know and enjoy. There is a pervasive elegance throughout our world and indeed our universe which far transcends the atheistic nihilism so popular today in what they call "intellectual" circles.
> 
> 
> 
> First example of Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies: Oxygen happens to be one of the more reactive elements, and it exists in the most reactive phase, viz. gas. This dynamic equilibrium producing our essential breath of life is possible only because: 1. Reactions are reversible (how profoundly fortuitous!) and; 2. The reversibility of such reactions is, so far as we can tell, 100% and; 3. Natural laws are consistent and harmonious and discoverable, and; 4. Plants recycle oxygen from carbon dioxide, and water.
> 
> 
> Second example of PFIs: The sophisticated engineering of matter, constructed primarily out of three simple building blocks, electrons, protons, and neutrons, is evidenced by the fact that only one part in 1017 is matter, and the rest is empty space. Moreover these three foundational components can be combined with only slight variations to give us unique characteristics as found in metals, including high shear strength, malleability, ductility, high heat and electrical conductivity, profound availability, high melting points, and other features without which there could be no airplanes, cars, or even internal combustion engines. As essential as metals** are to internal combustion engines, they would be virtually worthless without hydrocarbons to burn in them, which hydrocarbons just happen to be available in wondrous, underground storage tanks, to be refined and used worldwide.
> 
> But without oxygen, and without its dispersal throughout our atmosphere, there could be no cars, no plane rides to faraway places, and no fires, even inside engines. Fire, a simple chemical reaction we have always taken for granted, is but one of the countless Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies.
> 
> 
> 
> ** In contrast to water, plastic, glass, and fused quartz, which transmit light with near perfection, unlike metals.
> 
> 
> Third example of PFIs: Vision, made possible only through the combined PFIs of the elegant properties of electromagnetic radiation in the visible portion of that spectrum, including the capacity to transmit both energy as well as information, over unimaginable distances, with almost perfect fidelity and reliability, and to be magically bent by a wide variety of readily available transparent materials, so as to enable wide-angle vision instead of 1:1 tunnel vision of an image roughly the same size as the receiving retina, and all the while photons pass through photons in every direction and in every wavelength, utterly unaffected in the slightest.
> 
> 
> 
> Additional reading: Science and the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many more times are you going to spam a thread with that cut and paste wall of Bible “quotes”
> 
> Give us a number.
Click to expand...


Wall-of-text means nothing to say ...


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the Bible has science backing up the evidence and showing it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Science of the Bible*​
> 
> 
> As a chemical engineer, I understand, and subscribe to the tenets of the scientific method. If anything has given me an appreciation for the Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies* which make life possible, it is the objectivity engendered by my scientific background, coupled with common sense so often lacking in many well educated people. How anti-intellectual it is of the godless Left to denigrate Christians, often maliciously so. Calling Christians “fundies” and “believers in a flat earth” seems to give many people the perverse notion that they are erudite, and can consign Christians to the backwaters of ignorance. Just as Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers in His Temple, so too is it my intention to overturn the tables of the intolerant Left with these personally written observations correlating science with its Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.*
> 
> 
> The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate island universe, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.
> 
> 
> In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. The penning of Genesis 1:1 was not.
> 
> 
> Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.
> 
> So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie”), before anyone else.
> 
> *Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.*
> 
> Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every foul of the air;*
> 
> The same elements which form humans also form animals everywhere. However, there is no Biblical reference to “a living soul” with respect to animals. Nor do animals have the capacity to worship and appreciate the spirituality and hope that is one of the premier hallmarks of mankind, and our supreme bequest.
> 
> *Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.*
> 
> One would think that as a result of the disciplines and analyses and benefits of human enlightenment, mankind should have been able to eliminate corruption and violence so prevalent thousands of years ago. Today, we have tools of production and health and social enlightenment unimaginable when the book of Genesis was written. But the earth today is still full of corruption and violence. Cornucopias of goods and services have not satisfied mankind’s lust for more, nor have psychologists and sociologists resolved the complex issues that lead people into destructive behavior. With burgeoning prison populations, and monstrous acts of evil on the increase worldwide, there seems little hope that corruption and violence will ever be eradicated.
> 
> *Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.*
> 
> Although the North American Continent was unknown when the Bible was written, paleontologists confirm that the interior of North America was once covered by shallow seas. Fossil evidence from distant parts of the globe that were unknown to inhabitants of ancient Israel lends scientific confirmation to the Noachian Flood described in the most ancient book of science known to man, the Holy Bible. I do not pretend to know the length of the six "days" of creation. However it is abundantly clear to me that the Elegance of Everything and the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis1 and the Anthropic Principle2 are eternally inexplicable by any exclusively naturalistic method. To those with eyes, God’s Hand is clearly visible everywhere one looks.
> 
> *Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. *
> 
> We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested. – *Flourish*, by Martin Seligman, psychologist
> 
> If you want to be happy, do good, be kind, give.
> 
> *Exodus 3:14 I am hath sent me unto you.....
> 
> John 9:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.*
> 
> The naturalistic, if you will, “scientific” approach to explaining how man and energy and matter and space originated is to examine what is observable, and formulate hypotheses and theories based on observation and reason. There is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter and energy and information at the Moment of Creation, the Singularity, and obviously no experiment can examine, much less confirm any hypothesis of what first happened to lead to us and everything we see.
> 
> In contrast, God defies scientific explanation because He is outside its purview. If miracles were scientifically explicable, they would not be miracles. After all, God created the physical realm that is the subject of scientific inquiry and we are still desperately trying to understand that aspect of His handiwork. Had mere mortals written where God came from without divine inspiration, they surely could not have presented such an elegant explanation as “I am” – an explanation that suffices even two thousand years later. Where did God come from? "I am." The universe is not eternal, but God is.
> 
> I have only a vague notion of how my computer works as I type this on it. Although I don’t know how it works, I do know that it is real and that it operates in a marvelous, almost magical way. I don’t need to understand things to believe in and use them. And how much more marvelous is my brain and yours than these primitive computers, not one of which designed, much less built itself.
> 
> “Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley
> 
> 
> Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them (people); for God hath shewed it unto them.
> 
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they (non-believers) are without excuse:
> 
> "Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order." – Paul Davies
> 
> Some of leading scientists whose work was motivated by their faith were: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestley, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Mendel.
> 
> 
> *Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.*
> 
> Has anyone the slightest doubt as to how “empty” the North Pole is? Nobody living in the Middle East could possibly have visited “the north” so as to confirm what was then being written. These immutable scientific truths – two here in a single sentence - were far too coincidental to be attributable to luck. No, they were divinely inspired, as were so many things in the Bible. The earth truly hangs “upon nothing”, as confirmed by countless photographs from satellites and space stations, not to mention men on the moon, and the north is indeed an “empty place” by any measure.
> 
> *Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?*
> 
> With all our wisdom, and all our science, and all our research, “who can understand” anything today. Ultimate scientific answers continue to elude us everywhere one looks, from the submicroscopic to the supermacroscopic ! The pretense is that all this magnificent science that we see and study arose from nothing, based solely on megatime and megauniverses. Insuperable statistical impossibilities are explained away with clever wordplay and nebulous theories – anything at all to deny the Hand of the Creator so evident to casual observers, of all educational backgrounds, and all nationalities, and all times. That is, except for those who will not see.
> 
> "The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder." - Ralph W. Sockman
> 
> * Job 28:5 As for the earth, out of it cometh bread: and under it is turned up as it were fire.*
> 
> The molten iron core of the earth was inconceivable because it was not discoverable when this passage was written. “Under (earth) it is turned up as it were fire.”
> 
> Ah, some may say, “But there were volcanoes even then.” True enough. But are not volcanoes both isolated and rare, and not so much “under” the earth as above it? The molten core of the earth accords far better with this passage. Their scientific agreement is not coincidental, but rather Divinely inspired and guided.
> 
> *Job 38:1,2 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said
> 
> Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?*
> 
> How often one hears words uttered without knowledge by pretenders of science and enlightenment. "The universe is a free lunch." (Physicist Michio Kaku) The Lord does not take foolishness lightly. Neither should we.
> 
> *Job 38:24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?*
> 
> The most learned scientist of antiquity could not have imagined the depth of this question. When light is "parted" by a diffraction grating, it can be shown to act both as particles as well as waves. These combinations of properties are difficult to understand much less explain. And the prodigious amounts of energy transmitted by solar radiation does indeed scatter the wind upon the earth as it heats different substances at different rates. Job could not have offered an adequate answer to the question, along the lines of: "Discrete photons of light travel together as a wave until parted into disparate visible components by striking and reflecting from solid objects into our eyes, while other wavelengths give up their energy as they are absorbed by solids and water. Temperature differentials established by ambient sunlight striking dissimilar surfaces create 'the east wind' so described."
> 
> *Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork*.
> 
> NASA maintains a website which is updated daily. Its purpose, however unintended, is to “declare the glory of God” and to “show his handiwork.”
> 
> Astronomy Picture of the Day
> 
> How remarkable that so repetitive and well known a phenomenon as sunset can delight people of all ages, and all times, and all civilizations. How much more delightful are the glories and handiworks seen in national parks and sightseeing attractions worldwide, so many of which could scarcely have been known by the Bible’s authors. Nor had the first telescope been invented 2000 years ago. How is it that the more deeply we have seen, the more handiwork we have seen? How is it?
> 
> *Psalms 118:24 This is the day the Lord hath made; We will rejoice and be glad in it.*
> 
> Twenty-first century medicine confirms the benefits of joyfulness for both our mental health as well as our physical health. "We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested." – Martin Seligman, psychologist, in his book, *Flourish
> 
> Psalms 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.*
> 
> Mankind is indeed “fearfully and wonderfully made.” The sophistication of our construction begins at the atomic level with atoms that are one part in 1017 nucleus and the rest empty space. Then consider our DNA, which is 45 trillion times more compact and efficient at data storage than today’s sophisticated computer microchips.
> 
> Our brains have the memory capacity of 100 billion megabytes, which far exceeds anything conceivably necessary from a “selection” point of view.
> 
> Our optic nerves transmit information at 4 gigabaud, which is 71,000 times faster than a dial up modem, and 1,000 times faster than an ultra-high speed T-1 line for a computer.
> 
> The human eye sees in exquisite detail, over about 13 orders of magnitude of light intensity. Although the eye is often said to be flawed in its design by Darwinists and atheists, I would very much like to see them replace a human eye with something better which they have designed and built from lab reagents.
> 
> Our ears hear over 13 orders of magnitude in sound intensity. Even more amazing, the ears perform a Fourier Analysis. In other words, our eardrums receive a single wave function at the eardrum. Then they break down this single wave function into its constituent sounds. For example, at a concert, your ears hear drums, brass, violins, solo arias, and the person behind you coughing, only because this blended noise is separated inside your ear. If your eyes performed a similar function, they would break down white just as a prism does, into disparate pure colors.
> 
> Finally, our two eyes enable us to discern distance (and relative size) by triangulation. Our brains automatically compute the angle of the object seen, and compute its approximate distance. Similarly, our two ears enable us to discern the direction from which noises emanate not only because we have two ears, but also because of the relatively slow speed of sound. A difference in the arrival time from one ear to another of one thousandth to one ten-thousandth of a second is sufficient to discern, so that we can tell generally where a sound originated. If sound were substantially faster, both our ears would hear the sound at about the same time, and we could not enjoy stereophonic music, nor tell where sounds came from.
> 
> In His wisdom, God made these velocities profoundly useful to us (as well, of course, as many, many other physical constants besides). They did not "evolve" to such values. And should they have been substantially different, no evolutionary "modification" could possibly compensate to give us what we now have.
> 
> Biochemistry is so profoundly complex that we are only beginning to appreciate how “wonderfully” we are made. Human blood defies LeChatelier’s Principle, in that when one molecule of oxygen is adsorbed by a hemoglobin molecule, its affinity for oxygen grows, instead of diminishing. The second molecule increases the affinity for the third, and the third for the fourth. This is precisely the reverse of normal chemistry principles and experimental observations. Our bodies’ powers of endurance and healing are absolutely astounding.
> 
> The list of features of our wonderful construction begins with conception, continues through growth, and concludes with our spiritual transformations evidenced time and again by the scientific observations of such people as Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Dr. Kubler-Ross documented hundreds of instances of scientific evidence of a spiritual nature. She convincingly testified that she could not be persuaded of any naturalistic (scientific) explanation for it.
> 
> *Proverbs 3:20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.*
> 
> Not only does the mid-Atlantic ridge constitute the continuing breakup of tectonic plates, but also in the depths of the Pacific Ocean also "the depths are broken up," as discovered by modern science, unknown almost two thousand years ago.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven;*
> 
> “To seek out and search by wisdom.” This is the very definition of science, is it not? "Scientia," Latin for "truth," is the root word of science.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 1:7 All rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence rivers come, thither they return again.*
> 
> The cyclical nature of nature encompasses us wherever we look. The water cycle is described only with utmost brevity in Ecclesiastes. Today we understand (considerably better than did Biblical authors) water and its importance in most chemical processes, as well as its profoundly fortuitous cyclical nature, as originally shown in the Bible. Beyond this, we can see and describe cycles of carbon, and nitrogen, and oxygen, and hydrogen. We are able to comprehend the nature of energy, and the conservation of not only energy, but also of matter itself. More complex by far is the transformation of matter into energy, which gives us sunlight continuously. Why should all these things be? And why so reliably? Why are chemical reactions so wonderfully and perfectly reversible? Why? For the same reason that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”. For that reason. These Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies did not just fall into place with Megaluck over Megatime, as some scientists posit, with their fingers crossed.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 2:13 Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.
> 
> Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.*
> 
> Can you name even one aspect of our universe that is known “from the beginning to the end”? Research continues everywhere, with absolutely no end remotely in sight. Research at the subatomic level, at the molecular level, at the cellular level, at the human level, at the planetary level, and at the galactic level.
> 
> How is it that we don’t know everything about anything, if all that we see came about from nothing, as materialists contend? How is that possible? Infinite complexity from nothing is infinitely absurd and infinitely improbable. There is not the slightest scientific basis or law for their grand proposal. Profound organization and information and consistency and physical laws, originating…. HOW ! An infinite God makes spiritual sense. He is utterly beyond the purview of science - which is merely another of God’s brilliant creations. As to the mocking question of “Who made God,” Professor John Lennox of Cambridge University gives us the answer: “If anybody made God, then He wouldn’t be God, would He!” (See Lennox’ one hour lecture, “A Matter of Gravity” on YouTube.)
> 
> Two things are incomprehensible. First, the origin of everything from nothing, and second, God Himself, Who so wondrously explains and accounts for everything else. Everyone must choose his own incomprehensible option. The first is random and meaningless, literally and figuratively. The second option is elegant, beautiful, hopeful, and wonderful beyond understanding. This second option matches the creative genius that surrounds us.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 7:9 Anger rests in the bosom of fools.*
> 
> Atheists are exceedingly angry and bitter.
> 
> *Philipians 4:8 ...whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.*
> 
> Psychological professionals in the 21st Century have affirmed the substantial benefits, both mental and physical, of positive thinking in countless scholarly experiments, published papers and books.
> 
> *Proverbs 3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.*
> 
> Twenty-first century social science confirms that Christians are happier than atheists. When confronted with this scientific truth, atheists angrily and snidely reply, “Ignorance is bliss.” It’s a lie, and lies are all they have. To contend otherwise is to claim that wisdom decreases your happiness. Why then do we strive for, and achieve wisdom?
> 
> *Proverbs 3:21 My son, let them not depart from your eyes. Keep sound wisdom and discretion;
> 
> Proverbs 16:16 How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! And to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver.*
> 
> Again and again there are Biblical references to wisdom, prudence, diligence, and other virtues. The essence of science is the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and facts. However, wisdom requires more than mere knowledge. Wisdom requires the integration of scientific truths with integrity, and far more virtuous conduct than the mere accretion of facts, which are value neutral.
> 
> Hitler and Stalin appreciated the science of Darwinism for its atheistic implications, but of wisdom, they had none.
> 
> *Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.*
> 
> Wisdom excelleth folly as far as light excelleth darkness. The Creator of mankind does not want anyone to be fooled; He does not wish that we be gullible, or duped by clever sounding words, whether they be from scientists wearing white robes, or priests wearing white robes. It is the essence of science to search for truth, and ask questions, and seek to answer them. Toward this end, we must acknowledge the extremely transitional nature of scientific “fact”, and the pretexts of contemporary scientific infallibility. Nowhere is the attempt to deceive us more malicious and destructive than when it seeks to deny the very existence of our Creator, and separate us from Him – permanently.
> 
> 
> Forty percent of those listed in Who’s Who In Science acknowledge a personal belief in God. You must ask yourself why. Surely these people are not the fools that some scientific atheists accuse you and me of being.
> 
> 
> *John 3:11, 12 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
> 
> If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?*
> 
> 
> The timeless veracity and wisdom of this statement is prophetic. After over two thousand years, what is often called the “myth” that is the Holy Bible, cannot remotely be discredited. To the contrary, the obvious and manifest benefits to mankind of Christianity have been repeatedly addressed by professionals in psychology, criminology, and other modern disciplines. The deep and abiding science, beginning with the first sentence in the first Book, is compelling testimony. For these reasons and more, Christianity is today the most popular human organization there has ever been. Yet many still “receive not our witness.” How can this be? Why will mankind not learn?
> 
> 
> *I Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast that which is good.*
> 
> Is there a more concise explanation of the scientific method? “Test all things”? The essence of modern science is the proof of testable hypotheses, as scientists like to say. Such technique was proposed in the Scriptures which are mocked by so many who are proud of their lack of belief.
> 
> *Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.*
> 
> This is confirmation of Genesis 1:1. Natural Theology, written in 1809 by William Paley, makes a similar argument from design. Just as a Boeing 747 can never be the product of an explosion in a junkyard, neither can the far more intricate construction of a human being be the ultimate product of random mutations, selectively but blindly “chosen.” See also www.2001Principle.net
> 
> *Mark 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.*
> 
> Although not strictly “scientific”, the foregoing verse demonstrates a profound economic truth notwithstanding the astonishing achievements of modern science. Had one the vision to see forward more than 2000 years to witness the abundance of food and material goods we now produce, surely one would have surmised that “the poor” would be no more than a relic of the ancient past. Not so. In fact, nowhere are “the poor” more common and more destitute than in socialist countries led by atheist despots.
> 
> *Acts 17:26 (God) hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.*
> 
> Notwithstanding the vast differences in outward appearance of the peoples of the earth, from fair skinned Norwegians, to African pygmies, “all nations of men” are Homo sapiens. All humans can, within the constraints of blood typing, be transfused by the blood from men of “all nations.” This close biological relationship of mankind was cited before blood types and biological classifications were ever imagined. Moreover, Charles Darwin repeatedly expressed his disdain for what he considered to be the “lower forms of life,” the Africans. This vile racist, who was an admittedly mediocre student in school, originated the hypothesis, not even a theory, of common descent, now called “evolution” or “Darwinian evolution.” From a letter to Asa Gray, a close friend and Professor of Biology at Harvard University:
> 
> "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
> 
> *John 18:37 Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
> 
> 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?*
> 
> Eighty-two percent of Americans believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey taken by Princeton Survey Research Associates on Dec 2 and 3, 2004 for Newsweek Magazine. Jesus Christ said that people of the truth hear his voice. Today one especially hears atheists, most of them liberals, reply just as Pontius Pilate did two thousand years ago with a mockingly dishonest question: “What is truth?” when even a ten year old has the capacity to know what truth is. Some things never change.
> 
> *Luke 21:33; Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.*
> 
> Just as Genesis 1:1 foretold the scientific truth of the Big Bang, or as it is almost universally called today, “The Moment of Creation”, so too does the Gospel of Luke describe the passing away of matter. Stars like our own sun are consuming their own hydrogen, fusing it into helium, losing vast amounts of mass, and radiating that energy into the heavens. All starlight will eventually pass away, and the universe will ultimately become dark and absolutely cold (“heat death”), devoid of life as we know it. Numerous massive black holes have been indirectly observed. They attract matter and light into their domain, never to be seen again. Or so scientists thought before they once again changed their mind. It is now posited that Black Holes can radiate away energy, which is to say, mass. Even Black Holes seem to pass away.
> 
> 
> The duration of primary elements of matter we call protons have a lifetime estimated to be 10 to the 33rd power years. The heaven and the earth shall pass into cold, dark oblivion, just as stated in the Holy Bible, a book ceaselessly mocked and ridiculed by the left. Thousands of years after the Bible said heaven and earth shall pass away, the Second Law of Thermodynamics simply repeated it, in the name of “science.” Universal heat death is the ultimate and final increase in entropy, or disorder. The origin of our universe as well as its demise were both described in an ancient book with astonishing precision. The universe has not always existed, as previously thought by scientists, nor was it assembled piecemeal. It was “created” with a Big Bang. The universe will not continue on forever; it will, it must pass away. These were not lucky guesses. They were inspirations from our Creator who made science.
> 
> 
> 
> Footnote 1: By “the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis, I mean the utter impossibility of any naturalistic explanation for synthesizing even a single polypeptide, much less the enormous variety of proteins, enzymes, and related structures which constitute every living cell. Our polypeptides, as they are called, are so profoundly complex that even with a blueprint, contemporary scientists cannot produce them in a laboratory from reagents. How much more hopeless it would be to expect a pool of dirty water to produce hundreds proteins necessary for the first living cell.
> 
> 
> 
> Footnote 2: By “insuperable statistics of the Anthropic Principle, I refer to the several dozen physical constants, such as the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, and the fine structure constant, which are so finely tuned that if they were as little as one part in 1040th larger or smaller, there would be no planet earth and no human beings. The gravitational constant in particular is precise within one part in 10 to the 10120th. What has been so desperately offered as an explanation for the Anthropic Principle is the preposterous fantasy of “Multiverse,” an infinite number of universes, of which we live in “just the right one.” It is not remotely connected to science or reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies, a term I originated, refers to the interrelated factors surrounding us that are utterly essential to life as civilized people know and enjoy. There is a pervasive elegance throughout our world and indeed our universe which far transcends the atheistic nihilism so popular today in what they call "intellectual" circles.
> 
> 
> 
> First example of Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies: Oxygen happens to be one of the more reactive elements, and it exists in the most reactive phase, viz. gas. This dynamic equilibrium producing our essential breath of life is possible only because: 1. Reactions are reversible (how profoundly fortuitous!) and; 2. The reversibility of such reactions is, so far as we can tell, 100% and; 3. Natural laws are consistent and harmonious and discoverable, and; 4. Plants recycle oxygen from carbon dioxide, and water.
> 
> 
> Second example of PFIs: The sophisticated engineering of matter, constructed primarily out of three simple building blocks, electrons, protons, and neutrons, is evidenced by the fact that only one part in 1017 is matter, and the rest is empty space. Moreover these three foundational components can be combined with only slight variations to give us unique characteristics as found in metals, including high shear strength, malleability, ductility, high heat and electrical conductivity, profound availability, high melting points, and other features without which there could be no airplanes, cars, or even internal combustion engines. As essential as metals** are to internal combustion engines, they would be virtually worthless without hydrocarbons to burn in them, which hydrocarbons just happen to be available in wondrous, underground storage tanks, to be refined and used worldwide.
> 
> But without oxygen, and without its dispersal throughout our atmosphere, there could be no cars, no plane rides to faraway places, and no fires, even inside engines. Fire, a simple chemical reaction we have always taken for granted, is but one of the countless Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies.
> 
> 
> 
> ** In contrast to water, plastic, glass, and fused quartz, which transmit light with near perfection, unlike metals.
> 
> 
> Third example of PFIs: Vision, made possible only through the combined PFIs of the elegant properties of electromagnetic radiation in the visible portion of that spectrum, including the capacity to transmit both energy as well as information, over unimaginable distances, with almost perfect fidelity and reliability, and to be magically bent by a wide variety of readily available transparent materials, so as to enable wide-angle vision instead of 1:1 tunnel vision of an image roughly the same size as the receiving retina, and all the while photons pass through photons in every direction and in every wavelength, utterly unaffected in the slightest.
> 
> 
> 
> Additional reading: Science and the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many more times are you going to spam a thread with that cut and paste wall of Bible “quotes”
> 
> Give us a number.
Click to expand...


When are u going to answer questions like, "How many ice ages?" and "Why does the Mandelbrot set show intelligence behind the design of everything?"


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the Bible has science backing up the evidence and showing it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Science of the Bible*​
> 
> 
> As a chemical engineer, I understand, and subscribe to the tenets of the scientific method. If anything has given me an appreciation for the Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies* which make life possible, it is the objectivity engendered by my scientific background, coupled with common sense so often lacking in many well educated people. How anti-intellectual it is of the godless Left to denigrate Christians, often maliciously so. Calling Christians “fundies” and “believers in a flat earth” seems to give many people the perverse notion that they are erudite, and can consign Christians to the backwaters of ignorance. Just as Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers in His Temple, so too is it my intention to overturn the tables of the intolerant Left with these personally written observations correlating science with its Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.*
> 
> 
> The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate island universe, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.
> 
> 
> In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. The penning of Genesis 1:1 was not.
> 
> 
> Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.
> 
> So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie”), before anyone else.
> 
> *Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.*
> 
> Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every foul of the air;*
> 
> The same elements which form humans also form animals everywhere. However, there is no Biblical reference to “a living soul” with respect to animals. Nor do animals have the capacity to worship and appreciate the spirituality and hope that is one of the premier hallmarks of mankind, and our supreme bequest.
> 
> *Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.*
> 
> One would think that as a result of the disciplines and analyses and benefits of human enlightenment, mankind should have been able to eliminate corruption and violence so prevalent thousands of years ago. Today, we have tools of production and health and social enlightenment unimaginable when the book of Genesis was written. But the earth today is still full of corruption and violence. Cornucopias of goods and services have not satisfied mankind’s lust for more, nor have psychologists and sociologists resolved the complex issues that lead people into destructive behavior. With burgeoning prison populations, and monstrous acts of evil on the increase worldwide, there seems little hope that corruption and violence will ever be eradicated.
> 
> *Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.*
> 
> Although the North American Continent was unknown when the Bible was written, paleontologists confirm that the interior of North America was once covered by shallow seas. Fossil evidence from distant parts of the globe that were unknown to inhabitants of ancient Israel lends scientific confirmation to the Noachian Flood described in the most ancient book of science known to man, the Holy Bible. I do not pretend to know the length of the six "days" of creation. However it is abundantly clear to me that the Elegance of Everything and the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis1 and the Anthropic Principle2 are eternally inexplicable by any exclusively naturalistic method. To those with eyes, God’s Hand is clearly visible everywhere one looks.
> 
> *Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. *
> 
> We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested. – *Flourish*, by Martin Seligman, psychologist
> 
> If you want to be happy, do good, be kind, give.
> 
> *Exodus 3:14 I am hath sent me unto you.....
> 
> John 9:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.*
> 
> The naturalistic, if you will, “scientific” approach to explaining how man and energy and matter and space originated is to examine what is observable, and formulate hypotheses and theories based on observation and reason. There is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter and energy and information at the Moment of Creation, the Singularity, and obviously no experiment can examine, much less confirm any hypothesis of what first happened to lead to us and everything we see.
> 
> In contrast, God defies scientific explanation because He is outside its purview. If miracles were scientifically explicable, they would not be miracles. After all, God created the physical realm that is the subject of scientific inquiry and we are still desperately trying to understand that aspect of His handiwork. Had mere mortals written where God came from without divine inspiration, they surely could not have presented such an elegant explanation as “I am” – an explanation that suffices even two thousand years later. Where did God come from? "I am." The universe is not eternal, but God is.
> 
> I have only a vague notion of how my computer works as I type this on it. Although I don’t know how it works, I do know that it is real and that it operates in a marvelous, almost magical way. I don’t need to understand things to believe in and use them. And how much more marvelous is my brain and yours than these primitive computers, not one of which designed, much less built itself.
> 
> “Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley
> 
> 
> Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them (people); for God hath shewed it unto them.
> 
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they (non-believers) are without excuse:
> 
> "Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order." – Paul Davies
> 
> Some of leading scientists whose work was motivated by their faith were: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestley, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Mendel.
> 
> 
> *Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.*
> 
> Has anyone the slightest doubt as to how “empty” the North Pole is? Nobody living in the Middle East could possibly have visited “the north” so as to confirm what was then being written. These immutable scientific truths – two here in a single sentence - were far too coincidental to be attributable to luck. No, they were divinely inspired, as were so many things in the Bible. The earth truly hangs “upon nothing”, as confirmed by countless photographs from satellites and space stations, not to mention men on the moon, and the north is indeed an “empty place” by any measure.
> 
> *Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?*
> 
> With all our wisdom, and all our science, and all our research, “who can understand” anything today. Ultimate scientific answers continue to elude us everywhere one looks, from the submicroscopic to the supermacroscopic ! The pretense is that all this magnificent science that we see and study arose from nothing, based solely on megatime and megauniverses. Insuperable statistical impossibilities are explained away with clever wordplay and nebulous theories – anything at all to deny the Hand of the Creator so evident to casual observers, of all educational backgrounds, and all nationalities, and all times. That is, except for those who will not see.
> 
> "The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder." - Ralph W. Sockman
> 
> * Job 28:5 As for the earth, out of it cometh bread: and under it is turned up as it were fire.*
> 
> The molten iron core of the earth was inconceivable because it was not discoverable when this passage was written. “Under (earth) it is turned up as it were fire.”
> 
> Ah, some may say, “But there were volcanoes even then.” True enough. But are not volcanoes both isolated and rare, and not so much “under” the earth as above it? The molten core of the earth accords far better with this passage. Their scientific agreement is not coincidental, but rather Divinely inspired and guided.
> 
> *Job 38:1,2 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said
> 
> Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?*
> 
> How often one hears words uttered without knowledge by pretenders of science and enlightenment. "The universe is a free lunch." (Physicist Michio Kaku) The Lord does not take foolishness lightly. Neither should we.
> 
> *Job 38:24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?*
> 
> The most learned scientist of antiquity could not have imagined the depth of this question. When light is "parted" by a diffraction grating, it can be shown to act both as particles as well as waves. These combinations of properties are difficult to understand much less explain. And the prodigious amounts of energy transmitted by solar radiation does indeed scatter the wind upon the earth as it heats different substances at different rates. Job could not have offered an adequate answer to the question, along the lines of: "Discrete photons of light travel together as a wave until parted into disparate visible components by striking and reflecting from solid objects into our eyes, while other wavelengths give up their energy as they are absorbed by solids and water. Temperature differentials established by ambient sunlight striking dissimilar surfaces create 'the east wind' so described."
> 
> *Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork*.
> 
> NASA maintains a website which is updated daily. Its purpose, however unintended, is to “declare the glory of God” and to “show his handiwork.”
> 
> Astronomy Picture of the Day
> 
> How remarkable that so repetitive and well known a phenomenon as sunset can delight people of all ages, and all times, and all civilizations. How much more delightful are the glories and handiworks seen in national parks and sightseeing attractions worldwide, so many of which could scarcely have been known by the Bible’s authors. Nor had the first telescope been invented 2000 years ago. How is it that the more deeply we have seen, the more handiwork we have seen? How is it?
> 
> *Psalms 118:24 This is the day the Lord hath made; We will rejoice and be glad in it.*
> 
> Twenty-first century medicine confirms the benefits of joyfulness for both our mental health as well as our physical health. "We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested." – Martin Seligman, psychologist, in his book, *Flourish
> 
> Psalms 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.*
> 
> Mankind is indeed “fearfully and wonderfully made.” The sophistication of our construction begins at the atomic level with atoms that are one part in 1017 nucleus and the rest empty space. Then consider our DNA, which is 45 trillion times more compact and efficient at data storage than today’s sophisticated computer microchips.
> 
> Our brains have the memory capacity of 100 billion megabytes, which far exceeds anything conceivably necessary from a “selection” point of view.
> 
> Our optic nerves transmit information at 4 gigabaud, which is 71,000 times faster than a dial up modem, and 1,000 times faster than an ultra-high speed T-1 line for a computer.
> 
> The human eye sees in exquisite detail, over about 13 orders of magnitude of light intensity. Although the eye is often said to be flawed in its design by Darwinists and atheists, I would very much like to see them replace a human eye with something better which they have designed and built from lab reagents.
> 
> Our ears hear over 13 orders of magnitude in sound intensity. Even more amazing, the ears perform a Fourier Analysis. In other words, our eardrums receive a single wave function at the eardrum. Then they break down this single wave function into its constituent sounds. For example, at a concert, your ears hear drums, brass, violins, solo arias, and the person behind you coughing, only because this blended noise is separated inside your ear. If your eyes performed a similar function, they would break down white just as a prism does, into disparate pure colors.
> 
> Finally, our two eyes enable us to discern distance (and relative size) by triangulation. Our brains automatically compute the angle of the object seen, and compute its approximate distance. Similarly, our two ears enable us to discern the direction from which noises emanate not only because we have two ears, but also because of the relatively slow speed of sound. A difference in the arrival time from one ear to another of one thousandth to one ten-thousandth of a second is sufficient to discern, so that we can tell generally where a sound originated. If sound were substantially faster, both our ears would hear the sound at about the same time, and we could not enjoy stereophonic music, nor tell where sounds came from.
> 
> In His wisdom, God made these velocities profoundly useful to us (as well, of course, as many, many other physical constants besides). They did not "evolve" to such values. And should they have been substantially different, no evolutionary "modification" could possibly compensate to give us what we now have.
> 
> Biochemistry is so profoundly complex that we are only beginning to appreciate how “wonderfully” we are made. Human blood defies LeChatelier’s Principle, in that when one molecule of oxygen is adsorbed by a hemoglobin molecule, its affinity for oxygen grows, instead of diminishing. The second molecule increases the affinity for the third, and the third for the fourth. This is precisely the reverse of normal chemistry principles and experimental observations. Our bodies’ powers of endurance and healing are absolutely astounding.
> 
> The list of features of our wonderful construction begins with conception, continues through growth, and concludes with our spiritual transformations evidenced time and again by the scientific observations of such people as Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Dr. Kubler-Ross documented hundreds of instances of scientific evidence of a spiritual nature. She convincingly testified that she could not be persuaded of any naturalistic (scientific) explanation for it.
> 
> *Proverbs 3:20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.*
> 
> Not only does the mid-Atlantic ridge constitute the continuing breakup of tectonic plates, but also in the depths of the Pacific Ocean also "the depths are broken up," as discovered by modern science, unknown almost two thousand years ago.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven;*
> 
> “To seek out and search by wisdom.” This is the very definition of science, is it not? "Scientia," Latin for "truth," is the root word of science.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 1:7 All rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence rivers come, thither they return again.*
> 
> The cyclical nature of nature encompasses us wherever we look. The water cycle is described only with utmost brevity in Ecclesiastes. Today we understand (considerably better than did Biblical authors) water and its importance in most chemical processes, as well as its profoundly fortuitous cyclical nature, as originally shown in the Bible. Beyond this, we can see and describe cycles of carbon, and nitrogen, and oxygen, and hydrogen. We are able to comprehend the nature of energy, and the conservation of not only energy, but also of matter itself. More complex by far is the transformation of matter into energy, which gives us sunlight continuously. Why should all these things be? And why so reliably? Why are chemical reactions so wonderfully and perfectly reversible? Why? For the same reason that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”. For that reason. These Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies did not just fall into place with Megaluck over Megatime, as some scientists posit, with their fingers crossed.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 2:13 Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.
> 
> Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.*
> 
> Can you name even one aspect of our universe that is known “from the beginning to the end”? Research continues everywhere, with absolutely no end remotely in sight. Research at the subatomic level, at the molecular level, at the cellular level, at the human level, at the planetary level, and at the galactic level.
> 
> How is it that we don’t know everything about anything, if all that we see came about from nothing, as materialists contend? How is that possible? Infinite complexity from nothing is infinitely absurd and infinitely improbable. There is not the slightest scientific basis or law for their grand proposal. Profound organization and information and consistency and physical laws, originating…. HOW ! An infinite God makes spiritual sense. He is utterly beyond the purview of science - which is merely another of God’s brilliant creations. As to the mocking question of “Who made God,” Professor John Lennox of Cambridge University gives us the answer: “If anybody made God, then He wouldn’t be God, would He!” (See Lennox’ one hour lecture, “A Matter of Gravity” on YouTube.)
> 
> Two things are incomprehensible. First, the origin of everything from nothing, and second, God Himself, Who so wondrously explains and accounts for everything else. Everyone must choose his own incomprehensible option. The first is random and meaningless, literally and figuratively. The second option is elegant, beautiful, hopeful, and wonderful beyond understanding. This second option matches the creative genius that surrounds us.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 7:9 Anger rests in the bosom of fools.*
> 
> Atheists are exceedingly angry and bitter.
> 
> *Philipians 4:8 ...whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.*
> 
> Psychological professionals in the 21st Century have affirmed the substantial benefits, both mental and physical, of positive thinking in countless scholarly experiments, published papers and books.
> 
> *Proverbs 3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.*
> 
> Twenty-first century social science confirms that Christians are happier than atheists. When confronted with this scientific truth, atheists angrily and snidely reply, “Ignorance is bliss.” It’s a lie, and lies are all they have. To contend otherwise is to claim that wisdom decreases your happiness. Why then do we strive for, and achieve wisdom?
> 
> *Proverbs 3:21 My son, let them not depart from your eyes. Keep sound wisdom and discretion;
> 
> Proverbs 16:16 How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! And to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver.*
> 
> Again and again there are Biblical references to wisdom, prudence, diligence, and other virtues. The essence of science is the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and facts. However, wisdom requires more than mere knowledge. Wisdom requires the integration of scientific truths with integrity, and far more virtuous conduct than the mere accretion of facts, which are value neutral.
> 
> Hitler and Stalin appreciated the science of Darwinism for its atheistic implications, but of wisdom, they had none.
> 
> *Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.*
> 
> Wisdom excelleth folly as far as light excelleth darkness. The Creator of mankind does not want anyone to be fooled; He does not wish that we be gullible, or duped by clever sounding words, whether they be from scientists wearing white robes, or priests wearing white robes. It is the essence of science to search for truth, and ask questions, and seek to answer them. Toward this end, we must acknowledge the extremely transitional nature of scientific “fact”, and the pretexts of contemporary scientific infallibility. Nowhere is the attempt to deceive us more malicious and destructive than when it seeks to deny the very existence of our Creator, and separate us from Him – permanently.
> 
> 
> Forty percent of those listed in Who’s Who In Science acknowledge a personal belief in God. You must ask yourself why. Surely these people are not the fools that some scientific atheists accuse you and me of being.
> 
> 
> *John 3:11, 12 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
> 
> If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?*
> 
> 
> The timeless veracity and wisdom of this statement is prophetic. After over two thousand years, what is often called the “myth” that is the Holy Bible, cannot remotely be discredited. To the contrary, the obvious and manifest benefits to mankind of Christianity have been repeatedly addressed by professionals in psychology, criminology, and other modern disciplines. The deep and abiding science, beginning with the first sentence in the first Book, is compelling testimony. For these reasons and more, Christianity is today the most popular human organization there has ever been. Yet many still “receive not our witness.” How can this be? Why will mankind not learn?
> 
> 
> *I Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast that which is good.*
> 
> Is there a more concise explanation of the scientific method? “Test all things”? The essence of modern science is the proof of testable hypotheses, as scientists like to say. Such technique was proposed in the Scriptures which are mocked by so many who are proud of their lack of belief.
> 
> *Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.*
> 
> This is confirmation of Genesis 1:1. Natural Theology, written in 1809 by William Paley, makes a similar argument from design. Just as a Boeing 747 can never be the product of an explosion in a junkyard, neither can the far more intricate construction of a human being be the ultimate product of random mutations, selectively but blindly “chosen.” See also www.2001Principle.net
> 
> *Mark 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.*
> 
> Although not strictly “scientific”, the foregoing verse demonstrates a profound economic truth notwithstanding the astonishing achievements of modern science. Had one the vision to see forward more than 2000 years to witness the abundance of food and material goods we now produce, surely one would have surmised that “the poor” would be no more than a relic of the ancient past. Not so. In fact, nowhere are “the poor” more common and more destitute than in socialist countries led by atheist despots.
> 
> *Acts 17:26 (God) hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.*
> 
> Notwithstanding the vast differences in outward appearance of the peoples of the earth, from fair skinned Norwegians, to African pygmies, “all nations of men” are Homo sapiens. All humans can, within the constraints of blood typing, be transfused by the blood from men of “all nations.” This close biological relationship of mankind was cited before blood types and biological classifications were ever imagined. Moreover, Charles Darwin repeatedly expressed his disdain for what he considered to be the “lower forms of life,” the Africans. This vile racist, who was an admittedly mediocre student in school, originated the hypothesis, not even a theory, of common descent, now called “evolution” or “Darwinian evolution.” From a letter to Asa Gray, a close friend and Professor of Biology at Harvard University:
> 
> "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
> 
> *John 18:37 Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
> 
> 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?*
> 
> Eighty-two percent of Americans believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey taken by Princeton Survey Research Associates on Dec 2 and 3, 2004 for Newsweek Magazine. Jesus Christ said that people of the truth hear his voice. Today one especially hears atheists, most of them liberals, reply just as Pontius Pilate did two thousand years ago with a mockingly dishonest question: “What is truth?” when even a ten year old has the capacity to know what truth is. Some things never change.
> 
> *Luke 21:33; Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.*
> 
> Just as Genesis 1:1 foretold the scientific truth of the Big Bang, or as it is almost universally called today, “The Moment of Creation”, so too does the Gospel of Luke describe the passing away of matter. Stars like our own sun are consuming their own hydrogen, fusing it into helium, losing vast amounts of mass, and radiating that energy into the heavens. All starlight will eventually pass away, and the universe will ultimately become dark and absolutely cold (“heat death”), devoid of life as we know it. Numerous massive black holes have been indirectly observed. They attract matter and light into their domain, never to be seen again. Or so scientists thought before they once again changed their mind. It is now posited that Black Holes can radiate away energy, which is to say, mass. Even Black Holes seem to pass away.
> 
> 
> The duration of primary elements of matter we call protons have a lifetime estimated to be 10 to the 33rd power years. The heaven and the earth shall pass into cold, dark oblivion, just as stated in the Holy Bible, a book ceaselessly mocked and ridiculed by the left. Thousands of years after the Bible said heaven and earth shall pass away, the Second Law of Thermodynamics simply repeated it, in the name of “science.” Universal heat death is the ultimate and final increase in entropy, or disorder. The origin of our universe as well as its demise were both described in an ancient book with astonishing precision. The universe has not always existed, as previously thought by scientists, nor was it assembled piecemeal. It was “created” with a Big Bang. The universe will not continue on forever; it will, it must pass away. These were not lucky guesses. They were inspirations from our Creator who made science.
> 
> 
> 
> Footnote 1: By “the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis, I mean the utter impossibility of any naturalistic explanation for synthesizing even a single polypeptide, much less the enormous variety of proteins, enzymes, and related structures which constitute every living cell. Our polypeptides, as they are called, are so profoundly complex that even with a blueprint, contemporary scientists cannot produce them in a laboratory from reagents. How much more hopeless it would be to expect a pool of dirty water to produce hundreds proteins necessary for the first living cell.
> 
> 
> 
> Footnote 2: By “insuperable statistics of the Anthropic Principle, I refer to the several dozen physical constants, such as the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, and the fine structure constant, which are so finely tuned that if they were as little as one part in 1040th larger or smaller, there would be no planet earth and no human beings. The gravitational constant in particular is precise within one part in 10 to the 10120th. What has been so desperately offered as an explanation for the Anthropic Principle is the preposterous fantasy of “Multiverse,” an infinite number of universes, of which we live in “just the right one.” It is not remotely connected to science or reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies, a term I originated, refers to the interrelated factors surrounding us that are utterly essential to life as civilized people know and enjoy. There is a pervasive elegance throughout our world and indeed our universe which far transcends the atheistic nihilism so popular today in what they call "intellectual" circles.
> 
> 
> 
> First example of Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies: Oxygen happens to be one of the more reactive elements, and it exists in the most reactive phase, viz. gas. This dynamic equilibrium producing our essential breath of life is possible only because: 1. Reactions are reversible (how profoundly fortuitous!) and; 2. The reversibility of such reactions is, so far as we can tell, 100% and; 3. Natural laws are consistent and harmonious and discoverable, and; 4. Plants recycle oxygen from carbon dioxide, and water.
> 
> 
> Second example of PFIs: The sophisticated engineering of matter, constructed primarily out of three simple building blocks, electrons, protons, and neutrons, is evidenced by the fact that only one part in 1017 is matter, and the rest is empty space. Moreover these three foundational components can be combined with only slight variations to give us unique characteristics as found in metals, including high shear strength, malleability, ductility, high heat and electrical conductivity, profound availability, high melting points, and other features without which there could be no airplanes, cars, or even internal combustion engines. As essential as metals** are to internal combustion engines, they would be virtually worthless without hydrocarbons to burn in them, which hydrocarbons just happen to be available in wondrous, underground storage tanks, to be refined and used worldwide.
> 
> But without oxygen, and without its dispersal throughout our atmosphere, there could be no cars, no plane rides to faraway places, and no fires, even inside engines. Fire, a simple chemical reaction we have always taken for granted, is but one of the countless Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies.
> 
> 
> 
> ** In contrast to water, plastic, glass, and fused quartz, which transmit light with near perfection, unlike metals.
> 
> 
> Third example of PFIs: Vision, made possible only through the combined PFIs of the elegant properties of electromagnetic radiation in the visible portion of that spectrum, including the capacity to transmit both energy as well as information, over unimaginable distances, with almost perfect fidelity and reliability, and to be magically bent by a wide variety of readily available transparent materials, so as to enable wide-angle vision instead of 1:1 tunnel vision of an image roughly the same size as the receiving retina, and all the while photons pass through photons in every direction and in every wavelength, utterly unaffected in the slightest.
> 
> 
> 
> Additional reading: Science and the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many more times are you going to spam a thread with that cut and paste wall of Bible “quotes”
> 
> Give us a number.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wall-of-text means nothing to say ...
Click to expand...


Pick any three and it shows creation science or real science backs up the Bible.  For example, we had humans living with dinosaurs and the Earth is still young (compared to billions of years of evolution theory.  The world and universe could not possibly last that long because of evil.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> The world and universe could not possibly last that long because of evil.



What lab experiment can we conduct to test your claim? ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world and universe could not possibly last that long because of evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What lab experiment can we conduct to test your claim? ...
Click to expand...


You first, pick any three off the wall.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world and universe could not possibly last that long because of evil.
> 
> 
> 
> What lab experiment can we conduct to test your claim? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You first, pick any three off the wall.
Click to expand...


So, your answer is there are no experiments we can perform ...


----------



## james bond

Here's the Mandelbrot equation that applies to everything in the world.  IBM hired him to help solve a problem with computers and communications, but he helped sell IBM computers and he did it in a different way.

His equation blows up when trying to calculate, so scientists, corporations, and governments need an IBM computer.


Start at 0:53 for why IBM hired Mandelbrot.

How his equation would blow up with a few examples show early in the following vid.


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> And how can you be so absolutely certain?
> 
> I know you haven't traveled light years to other galaxies and performed an exhaustive search for life.
> 
> You are simply unable to think beyond your religious indoctrination.



I'm not sure I answered this (b/c of your dumb trolling), but I am certain because of the theories for intelligent aliens would have contacted us already or we found them but nothing of the kind has happened in several lifetimes.  You do not understand how we can know statistically how no aliens can happen and is the conclusion, as well as why physically they can't happen from the fine tuning facts.  They also can't happen because the scientific method has disproved abiogenesis.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world and universe could not possibly last that long because of evil.
> 
> 
> 
> What lab experiment can we conduct to test your claim? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You first, pick any three off the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, your answer is there are no experiments we can perform ...
Click to expand...


It means you refuse to answer my questions while I answered most of yours, so are ignorant and have nothing further to contribute to the discussion.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the Bible has science backing up the evidence and showing it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Science of the Bible*​
> 
> 
> As a chemical engineer, I understand, and subscribe to the tenets of the scientific method. If anything has given me an appreciation for the Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies* which make life possible, it is the objectivity engendered by my scientific background, coupled with common sense so often lacking in many well educated people. How anti-intellectual it is of the godless Left to denigrate Christians, often maliciously so. Calling Christians “fundies” and “believers in a flat earth” seems to give many people the perverse notion that they are erudite, and can consign Christians to the backwaters of ignorance. Just as Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers in His Temple, so too is it my intention to overturn the tables of the intolerant Left with these personally written observations correlating science with its Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.*
> 
> 
> The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate island universe, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.
> 
> 
> In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. The penning of Genesis 1:1 was not.
> 
> 
> Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.
> 
> So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie”), before anyone else.
> 
> *Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.*
> 
> Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every foul of the air;*
> 
> The same elements which form humans also form animals everywhere. However, there is no Biblical reference to “a living soul” with respect to animals. Nor do animals have the capacity to worship and appreciate the spirituality and hope that is one of the premier hallmarks of mankind, and our supreme bequest.
> 
> *Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.*
> 
> One would think that as a result of the disciplines and analyses and benefits of human enlightenment, mankind should have been able to eliminate corruption and violence so prevalent thousands of years ago. Today, we have tools of production and health and social enlightenment unimaginable when the book of Genesis was written. But the earth today is still full of corruption and violence. Cornucopias of goods and services have not satisfied mankind’s lust for more, nor have psychologists and sociologists resolved the complex issues that lead people into destructive behavior. With burgeoning prison populations, and monstrous acts of evil on the increase worldwide, there seems little hope that corruption and violence will ever be eradicated.
> 
> *Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.*
> 
> Although the North American Continent was unknown when the Bible was written, paleontologists confirm that the interior of North America was once covered by shallow seas. Fossil evidence from distant parts of the globe that were unknown to inhabitants of ancient Israel lends scientific confirmation to the Noachian Flood described in the most ancient book of science known to man, the Holy Bible. I do not pretend to know the length of the six "days" of creation. However it is abundantly clear to me that the Elegance of Everything and the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis1 and the Anthropic Principle2 are eternally inexplicable by any exclusively naturalistic method. To those with eyes, God’s Hand is clearly visible everywhere one looks.
> 
> *Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. *
> 
> We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested. – *Flourish*, by Martin Seligman, psychologist
> 
> If you want to be happy, do good, be kind, give.
> 
> *Exodus 3:14 I am hath sent me unto you.....
> 
> John 9:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.*
> 
> The naturalistic, if you will, “scientific” approach to explaining how man and energy and matter and space originated is to examine what is observable, and formulate hypotheses and theories based on observation and reason. There is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter and energy and information at the Moment of Creation, the Singularity, and obviously no experiment can examine, much less confirm any hypothesis of what first happened to lead to us and everything we see.
> 
> In contrast, God defies scientific explanation because He is outside its purview. If miracles were scientifically explicable, they would not be miracles. After all, God created the physical realm that is the subject of scientific inquiry and we are still desperately trying to understand that aspect of His handiwork. Had mere mortals written where God came from without divine inspiration, they surely could not have presented such an elegant explanation as “I am” – an explanation that suffices even two thousand years later. Where did God come from? "I am." The universe is not eternal, but God is.
> 
> I have only a vague notion of how my computer works as I type this on it. Although I don’t know how it works, I do know that it is real and that it operates in a marvelous, almost magical way. I don’t need to understand things to believe in and use them. And how much more marvelous is my brain and yours than these primitive computers, not one of which designed, much less built itself.
> 
> “Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley
> 
> 
> Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them (people); for God hath shewed it unto them.
> 
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they (non-believers) are without excuse:
> 
> "Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order." – Paul Davies
> 
> Some of leading scientists whose work was motivated by their faith were: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestley, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Mendel.
> 
> 
> *Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.*
> 
> Has anyone the slightest doubt as to how “empty” the North Pole is? Nobody living in the Middle East could possibly have visited “the north” so as to confirm what was then being written. These immutable scientific truths – two here in a single sentence - were far too coincidental to be attributable to luck. No, they were divinely inspired, as were so many things in the Bible. The earth truly hangs “upon nothing”, as confirmed by countless photographs from satellites and space stations, not to mention men on the moon, and the north is indeed an “empty place” by any measure.
> 
> *Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?*
> 
> With all our wisdom, and all our science, and all our research, “who can understand” anything today. Ultimate scientific answers continue to elude us everywhere one looks, from the submicroscopic to the supermacroscopic ! The pretense is that all this magnificent science that we see and study arose from nothing, based solely on megatime and megauniverses. Insuperable statistical impossibilities are explained away with clever wordplay and nebulous theories – anything at all to deny the Hand of the Creator so evident to casual observers, of all educational backgrounds, and all nationalities, and all times. That is, except for those who will not see.
> 
> "The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder." - Ralph W. Sockman
> 
> * Job 28:5 As for the earth, out of it cometh bread: and under it is turned up as it were fire.*
> 
> The molten iron core of the earth was inconceivable because it was not discoverable when this passage was written. “Under (earth) it is turned up as it were fire.”
> 
> Ah, some may say, “But there were volcanoes even then.” True enough. But are not volcanoes both isolated and rare, and not so much “under” the earth as above it? The molten core of the earth accords far better with this passage. Their scientific agreement is not coincidental, but rather Divinely inspired and guided.
> 
> *Job 38:1,2 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said
> 
> Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?*
> 
> How often one hears words uttered without knowledge by pretenders of science and enlightenment. "The universe is a free lunch." (Physicist Michio Kaku) The Lord does not take foolishness lightly. Neither should we.
> 
> *Job 38:24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?*
> 
> The most learned scientist of antiquity could not have imagined the depth of this question. When light is "parted" by a diffraction grating, it can be shown to act both as particles as well as waves. These combinations of properties are difficult to understand much less explain. And the prodigious amounts of energy transmitted by solar radiation does indeed scatter the wind upon the earth as it heats different substances at different rates. Job could not have offered an adequate answer to the question, along the lines of: "Discrete photons of light travel together as a wave until parted into disparate visible components by striking and reflecting from solid objects into our eyes, while other wavelengths give up their energy as they are absorbed by solids and water. Temperature differentials established by ambient sunlight striking dissimilar surfaces create 'the east wind' so described."
> 
> *Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork*.
> 
> NASA maintains a website which is updated daily. Its purpose, however unintended, is to “declare the glory of God” and to “show his handiwork.”
> 
> Astronomy Picture of the Day
> 
> How remarkable that so repetitive and well known a phenomenon as sunset can delight people of all ages, and all times, and all civilizations. How much more delightful are the glories and handiworks seen in national parks and sightseeing attractions worldwide, so many of which could scarcely have been known by the Bible’s authors. Nor had the first telescope been invented 2000 years ago. How is it that the more deeply we have seen, the more handiwork we have seen? How is it?
> 
> *Psalms 118:24 This is the day the Lord hath made; We will rejoice and be glad in it.*
> 
> Twenty-first century medicine confirms the benefits of joyfulness for both our mental health as well as our physical health. "We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested." – Martin Seligman, psychologist, in his book, *Flourish
> 
> Psalms 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.*
> 
> Mankind is indeed “fearfully and wonderfully made.” The sophistication of our construction begins at the atomic level with atoms that are one part in 1017 nucleus and the rest empty space. Then consider our DNA, which is 45 trillion times more compact and efficient at data storage than today’s sophisticated computer microchips.
> 
> Our brains have the memory capacity of 100 billion megabytes, which far exceeds anything conceivably necessary from a “selection” point of view.
> 
> Our optic nerves transmit information at 4 gigabaud, which is 71,000 times faster than a dial up modem, and 1,000 times faster than an ultra-high speed T-1 line for a computer.
> 
> The human eye sees in exquisite detail, over about 13 orders of magnitude of light intensity. Although the eye is often said to be flawed in its design by Darwinists and atheists, I would very much like to see them replace a human eye with something better which they have designed and built from lab reagents.
> 
> Our ears hear over 13 orders of magnitude in sound intensity. Even more amazing, the ears perform a Fourier Analysis. In other words, our eardrums receive a single wave function at the eardrum. Then they break down this single wave function into its constituent sounds. For example, at a concert, your ears hear drums, brass, violins, solo arias, and the person behind you coughing, only because this blended noise is separated inside your ear. If your eyes performed a similar function, they would break down white just as a prism does, into disparate pure colors.
> 
> Finally, our two eyes enable us to discern distance (and relative size) by triangulation. Our brains automatically compute the angle of the object seen, and compute its approximate distance. Similarly, our two ears enable us to discern the direction from which noises emanate not only because we have two ears, but also because of the relatively slow speed of sound. A difference in the arrival time from one ear to another of one thousandth to one ten-thousandth of a second is sufficient to discern, so that we can tell generally where a sound originated. If sound were substantially faster, both our ears would hear the sound at about the same time, and we could not enjoy stereophonic music, nor tell where sounds came from.
> 
> In His wisdom, God made these velocities profoundly useful to us (as well, of course, as many, many other physical constants besides). They did not "evolve" to such values. And should they have been substantially different, no evolutionary "modification" could possibly compensate to give us what we now have.
> 
> Biochemistry is so profoundly complex that we are only beginning to appreciate how “wonderfully” we are made. Human blood defies LeChatelier’s Principle, in that when one molecule of oxygen is adsorbed by a hemoglobin molecule, its affinity for oxygen grows, instead of diminishing. The second molecule increases the affinity for the third, and the third for the fourth. This is precisely the reverse of normal chemistry principles and experimental observations. Our bodies’ powers of endurance and healing are absolutely astounding.
> 
> The list of features of our wonderful construction begins with conception, continues through growth, and concludes with our spiritual transformations evidenced time and again by the scientific observations of such people as Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Dr. Kubler-Ross documented hundreds of instances of scientific evidence of a spiritual nature. She convincingly testified that she could not be persuaded of any naturalistic (scientific) explanation for it.
> 
> *Proverbs 3:20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.*
> 
> Not only does the mid-Atlantic ridge constitute the continuing breakup of tectonic plates, but also in the depths of the Pacific Ocean also "the depths are broken up," as discovered by modern science, unknown almost two thousand years ago.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven;*
> 
> “To seek out and search by wisdom.” This is the very definition of science, is it not? "Scientia," Latin for "truth," is the root word of science.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 1:7 All rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence rivers come, thither they return again.*
> 
> The cyclical nature of nature encompasses us wherever we look. The water cycle is described only with utmost brevity in Ecclesiastes. Today we understand (considerably better than did Biblical authors) water and its importance in most chemical processes, as well as its profoundly fortuitous cyclical nature, as originally shown in the Bible. Beyond this, we can see and describe cycles of carbon, and nitrogen, and oxygen, and hydrogen. We are able to comprehend the nature of energy, and the conservation of not only energy, but also of matter itself. More complex by far is the transformation of matter into energy, which gives us sunlight continuously. Why should all these things be? And why so reliably? Why are chemical reactions so wonderfully and perfectly reversible? Why? For the same reason that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”. For that reason. These Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies did not just fall into place with Megaluck over Megatime, as some scientists posit, with their fingers crossed.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 2:13 Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.
> 
> Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.*
> 
> Can you name even one aspect of our universe that is known “from the beginning to the end”? Research continues everywhere, with absolutely no end remotely in sight. Research at the subatomic level, at the molecular level, at the cellular level, at the human level, at the planetary level, and at the galactic level.
> 
> How is it that we don’t know everything about anything, if all that we see came about from nothing, as materialists contend? How is that possible? Infinite complexity from nothing is infinitely absurd and infinitely improbable. There is not the slightest scientific basis or law for their grand proposal. Profound organization and information and consistency and physical laws, originating…. HOW ! An infinite God makes spiritual sense. He is utterly beyond the purview of science - which is merely another of God’s brilliant creations. As to the mocking question of “Who made God,” Professor John Lennox of Cambridge University gives us the answer: “If anybody made God, then He wouldn’t be God, would He!” (See Lennox’ one hour lecture, “A Matter of Gravity” on YouTube.)
> 
> Two things are incomprehensible. First, the origin of everything from nothing, and second, God Himself, Who so wondrously explains and accounts for everything else. Everyone must choose his own incomprehensible option. The first is random and meaningless, literally and figuratively. The second option is elegant, beautiful, hopeful, and wonderful beyond understanding. This second option matches the creative genius that surrounds us.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 7:9 Anger rests in the bosom of fools.*
> 
> Atheists are exceedingly angry and bitter.
> 
> *Philipians 4:8 ...whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.*
> 
> Psychological professionals in the 21st Century have affirmed the substantial benefits, both mental and physical, of positive thinking in countless scholarly experiments, published papers and books.
> 
> *Proverbs 3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.*
> 
> Twenty-first century social science confirms that Christians are happier than atheists. When confronted with this scientific truth, atheists angrily and snidely reply, “Ignorance is bliss.” It’s a lie, and lies are all they have. To contend otherwise is to claim that wisdom decreases your happiness. Why then do we strive for, and achieve wisdom?
> 
> *Proverbs 3:21 My son, let them not depart from your eyes. Keep sound wisdom and discretion;
> 
> Proverbs 16:16 How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! And to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver.*
> 
> Again and again there are Biblical references to wisdom, prudence, diligence, and other virtues. The essence of science is the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and facts. However, wisdom requires more than mere knowledge. Wisdom requires the integration of scientific truths with integrity, and far more virtuous conduct than the mere accretion of facts, which are value neutral.
> 
> Hitler and Stalin appreciated the science of Darwinism for its atheistic implications, but of wisdom, they had none.
> 
> *Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.*
> 
> Wisdom excelleth folly as far as light excelleth darkness. The Creator of mankind does not want anyone to be fooled; He does not wish that we be gullible, or duped by clever sounding words, whether they be from scientists wearing white robes, or priests wearing white robes. It is the essence of science to search for truth, and ask questions, and seek to answer them. Toward this end, we must acknowledge the extremely transitional nature of scientific “fact”, and the pretexts of contemporary scientific infallibility. Nowhere is the attempt to deceive us more malicious and destructive than when it seeks to deny the very existence of our Creator, and separate us from Him – permanently.
> 
> 
> Forty percent of those listed in Who’s Who In Science acknowledge a personal belief in God. You must ask yourself why. Surely these people are not the fools that some scientific atheists accuse you and me of being.
> 
> 
> *John 3:11, 12 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
> 
> If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?*
> 
> 
> The timeless veracity and wisdom of this statement is prophetic. After over two thousand years, what is often called the “myth” that is the Holy Bible, cannot remotely be discredited. To the contrary, the obvious and manifest benefits to mankind of Christianity have been repeatedly addressed by professionals in psychology, criminology, and other modern disciplines. The deep and abiding science, beginning with the first sentence in the first Book, is compelling testimony. For these reasons and more, Christianity is today the most popular human organization there has ever been. Yet many still “receive not our witness.” How can this be? Why will mankind not learn?
> 
> 
> *I Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast that which is good.*
> 
> Is there a more concise explanation of the scientific method? “Test all things”? The essence of modern science is the proof of testable hypotheses, as scientists like to say. Such technique was proposed in the Scriptures which are mocked by so many who are proud of their lack of belief.
> 
> *Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.*
> 
> This is confirmation of Genesis 1:1. Natural Theology, written in 1809 by William Paley, makes a similar argument from design. Just as a Boeing 747 can never be the product of an explosion in a junkyard, neither can the far more intricate construction of a human being be the ultimate product of random mutations, selectively but blindly “chosen.” See also www.2001Principle.net
> 
> *Mark 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.*
> 
> Although not strictly “scientific”, the foregoing verse demonstrates a profound economic truth notwithstanding the astonishing achievements of modern science. Had one the vision to see forward more than 2000 years to witness the abundance of food and material goods we now produce, surely one would have surmised that “the poor” would be no more than a relic of the ancient past. Not so. In fact, nowhere are “the poor” more common and more destitute than in socialist countries led by atheist despots.
> 
> *Acts 17:26 (God) hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.*
> 
> Notwithstanding the vast differences in outward appearance of the peoples of the earth, from fair skinned Norwegians, to African pygmies, “all nations of men” are Homo sapiens. All humans can, within the constraints of blood typing, be transfused by the blood from men of “all nations.” This close biological relationship of mankind was cited before blood types and biological classifications were ever imagined. Moreover, Charles Darwin repeatedly expressed his disdain for what he considered to be the “lower forms of life,” the Africans. This vile racist, who was an admittedly mediocre student in school, originated the hypothesis, not even a theory, of common descent, now called “evolution” or “Darwinian evolution.” From a letter to Asa Gray, a close friend and Professor of Biology at Harvard University:
> 
> "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
> 
> *John 18:37 Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
> 
> 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?*
> 
> Eighty-two percent of Americans believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey taken by Princeton Survey Research Associates on Dec 2 and 3, 2004 for Newsweek Magazine. Jesus Christ said that people of the truth hear his voice. Today one especially hears atheists, most of them liberals, reply just as Pontius Pilate did two thousand years ago with a mockingly dishonest question: “What is truth?” when even a ten year old has the capacity to know what truth is. Some things never change.
> 
> *Luke 21:33; Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.*
> 
> Just as Genesis 1:1 foretold the scientific truth of the Big Bang, or as it is almost universally called today, “The Moment of Creation”, so too does the Gospel of Luke describe the passing away of matter. Stars like our own sun are consuming their own hydrogen, fusing it into helium, losing vast amounts of mass, and radiating that energy into the heavens. All starlight will eventually pass away, and the universe will ultimately become dark and absolutely cold (“heat death”), devoid of life as we know it. Numerous massive black holes have been indirectly observed. They attract matter and light into their domain, never to be seen again. Or so scientists thought before they once again changed their mind. It is now posited that Black Holes can radiate away energy, which is to say, mass. Even Black Holes seem to pass away.
> 
> 
> The duration of primary elements of matter we call protons have a lifetime estimated to be 10 to the 33rd power years. The heaven and the earth shall pass into cold, dark oblivion, just as stated in the Holy Bible, a book ceaselessly mocked and ridiculed by the left. Thousands of years after the Bible said heaven and earth shall pass away, the Second Law of Thermodynamics simply repeated it, in the name of “science.” Universal heat death is the ultimate and final increase in entropy, or disorder. The origin of our universe as well as its demise were both described in an ancient book with astonishing precision. The universe has not always existed, as previously thought by scientists, nor was it assembled piecemeal. It was “created” with a Big Bang. The universe will not continue on forever; it will, it must pass away. These were not lucky guesses. They were inspirations from our Creator who made science.
> 
> 
> 
> Footnote 1: By “the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis, I mean the utter impossibility of any naturalistic explanation for synthesizing even a single polypeptide, much less the enormous variety of proteins, enzymes, and related structures which constitute every living cell. Our polypeptides, as they are called, are so profoundly complex that even with a blueprint, contemporary scientists cannot produce them in a laboratory from reagents. How much more hopeless it would be to expect a pool of dirty water to produce hundreds proteins necessary for the first living cell.
> 
> 
> 
> Footnote 2: By “insuperable statistics of the Anthropic Principle, I refer to the several dozen physical constants, such as the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, and the fine structure constant, which are so finely tuned that if they were as little as one part in 1040th larger or smaller, there would be no planet earth and no human beings. The gravitational constant in particular is precise within one part in 10 to the 10120th. What has been so desperately offered as an explanation for the Anthropic Principle is the preposterous fantasy of “Multiverse,” an infinite number of universes, of which we live in “just the right one.” It is not remotely connected to science or reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies, a term I originated, refers to the interrelated factors surrounding us that are utterly essential to life as civilized people know and enjoy. There is a pervasive elegance throughout our world and indeed our universe which far transcends the atheistic nihilism so popular today in what they call "intellectual" circles.
> 
> 
> 
> First example of Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies: Oxygen happens to be one of the more reactive elements, and it exists in the most reactive phase, viz. gas. This dynamic equilibrium producing our essential breath of life is possible only because: 1. Reactions are reversible (how profoundly fortuitous!) and; 2. The reversibility of such reactions is, so far as we can tell, 100% and; 3. Natural laws are consistent and harmonious and discoverable, and; 4. Plants recycle oxygen from carbon dioxide, and water.
> 
> 
> Second example of PFIs: The sophisticated engineering of matter, constructed primarily out of three simple building blocks, electrons, protons, and neutrons, is evidenced by the fact that only one part in 1017 is matter, and the rest is empty space. Moreover these three foundational components can be combined with only slight variations to give us unique characteristics as found in metals, including high shear strength, malleability, ductility, high heat and electrical conductivity, profound availability, high melting points, and other features without which there could be no airplanes, cars, or even internal combustion engines. As essential as metals** are to internal combustion engines, they would be virtually worthless without hydrocarbons to burn in them, which hydrocarbons just happen to be available in wondrous, underground storage tanks, to be refined and used worldwide.
> 
> But without oxygen, and without its dispersal throughout our atmosphere, there could be no cars, no plane rides to faraway places, and no fires, even inside engines. Fire, a simple chemical reaction we have always taken for granted, is but one of the countless Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies.
> 
> 
> 
> ** In contrast to water, plastic, glass, and fused quartz, which transmit light with near perfection, unlike metals.
> 
> 
> Third example of PFIs: Vision, made possible only through the combined PFIs of the elegant properties of electromagnetic radiation in the visible portion of that spectrum, including the capacity to transmit both energy as well as information, over unimaginable distances, with almost perfect fidelity and reliability, and to be magically bent by a wide variety of readily available transparent materials, so as to enable wide-angle vision instead of 1:1 tunnel vision of an image roughly the same size as the receiving retina, and all the while photons pass through photons in every direction and in every wavelength, utterly unaffected in the slightest.
> 
> 
> 
> Additional reading: Science and the Bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many more times are you going to spam a thread with that cut and paste wall of Bible “quotes”
> 
> Give us a number.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are u going to answer questions like, "How many ice ages?" and "Why does the Mandelbrot set show intelligence behind the design of everything?"
Click to expand...

The number of Ice Ages has little to do with the subject of this thread or the willingness of the hyper-religious to ignore the vast evidence for evolutionary processes and change over time in biological organisms. You wish to somehow denigrate the conceptual and factual status of biological evolution, and yet can not do so using the operational definition of “fact.” So, instead you attempt to invent a category of “fact” that is superior to “scientific fact,” which you label as “religious dogma”. That is a tool of philosophers, partisan religioners and pulp fiction detectives, but not of scientists. As your rejection of “scientific facts” is somehow inferior to outlandish tales and fables, clearly unsupportable, you do conceptual violence to most of human knowledge. It is one of the triumphs of evolutionary theory that so many completely independent sources of evidence support and reconcile with each other. 

Spare me the "... but, but, but, but Mandelbrot says...'  Mandelbrot set shows nothing of what you claim. You read something about the Mandelbrot set at creation.com and thought you would dump it here. Complexity arises from simplicity all the time. Scientists and mathematicians are still seeking to better understand how systems with simple rules can develop complicated behaviors. Fractals are an example such as the Mandelbrot and Julia sets. They exhibit both complex and unpredictable behavior even though they derive from simple equations. "Chaos" research is still a growing field, and there's much work to be done. As opposed to creation.com or any of the other loopy, ID creationer sites, look up the Santa Fe Institute. They do actual research in the field. I'm not aware that Answers in Genesis does much research but perhaps you know better. Add some reading from "_The Quark and the Jaguar_" by Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann while you're reading about talking snakes.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world and universe could not possibly last that long because of evil.
> 
> 
> 
> What lab experiment can we conduct to test your claim? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You first, pick any three off the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, your answer is there are no experiments we can perform ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means you refuse to answer my questions while I answered most of yours, so are ignorant and have nothing further to contribute to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Edited to add, "... the gods command you".

I thought your shrill screeching needed some actual authority.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

AMart said:


> I remember the hey we evolved from apes and chimps argument.


No you don't, because nobody has ever claimed we evolved from chimps. 

Where did life come from? Abiogenesis. So your gawd is all powerful, but could not have devised a plan for abiogenesis to occur? Do you think he is incapable of this?


----------



## AMart

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> AMart said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember the hey we evolved from apes and chimps argument.
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't,* because nobody has ever claimed we evolved from chimps.*
> 
> Where did life come from? Abiogenesis. So your gawd is all powerful, but could not have devised a plan for abiogenesis to occur? Do you think he is incapable of this?
Click to expand...

Same shit apes chimps whatever and no on the dumb space dust crap. Evolution exists within a species. Some basic organism that crawls out of the ocean did evolve into a human LOL.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

AMart said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMart said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember the hey we evolved from apes and chimps argument.
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't,* because nobody has ever claimed we evolved from chimps.*
> 
> Where did life come from? Abiogenesis. So your gawd is all powerful, but could not have devised a plan for abiogenesis to occur? Do you think he is incapable of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same shit apes chimps whatever and no on the dumb space dust crap. Evolution exists within a species. Some basic organism that crawls out of the ocean did evolve into a human LOL.
Click to expand...

Why couldn't that happen? God isn't capable of that?


----------



## AMart

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> AMart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMart said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember the hey we evolved from apes and chimps argument.
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't,* because nobody has ever claimed we evolved from chimps.*
> 
> Where did life come from? Abiogenesis. So your gawd is all powerful, but could not have devised a plan for abiogenesis to occur? Do you think he is incapable of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same shit apes chimps whatever and no on the dumb space dust crap. Evolution exists within a species. Some basic organism that crawls out of the ocean did evolve into a human LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why couldn't that happen? God isn't capable of that?
Click to expand...

Why would God mess with the space dust as opposed to creating man, king of species, in his image. God isn't capable of this?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

AMart said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMart said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember the hey we evolved from apes and chimps argument.
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't,* because nobody has ever claimed we evolved from chimps.*
> 
> Where did life come from? Abiogenesis. So your gawd is all powerful, but could not have devised a plan for abiogenesis to occur? Do you think he is incapable of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same shit apes chimps whatever and no on the dumb space dust crap. Evolution exists within a species. Some basic organism that crawls out of the ocean did evolve into a human LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why couldn't that happen? God isn't capable of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would God mess with the space dust as opposed to creating man, king of species, in his image. God isn't capable of this?
Click to expand...

I don't claim to know the mind of god. Do you? You don't seem to have any problem with other theories, like star formation, or electromagnetism. Arent those all just studies of how god did it? Why would evolution be any dfferent?


----------



## AMart

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> AMart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMart said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember the hey we evolved from apes and chimps argument.
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't,* because nobody has ever claimed we evolved from chimps.*
> 
> Where did life come from? Abiogenesis. So your gawd is all powerful, but could not have devised a plan for abiogenesis to occur? Do you think he is incapable of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same shit apes chimps whatever and no on the dumb space dust crap. Evolution exists within a species. Some basic organism that crawls out of the ocean did evolve into a human LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why couldn't that happen? God isn't capable of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would God mess with the space dust as opposed to creating man, king of species, in his image. God isn't capable of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't claim to know the mind of god. Do you? You don't seem to have any problem with other theories, like star formation, or electromagnetism. Arent those all just studies of how god did it? Why would evolution be any dfferent?
Click to expand...

Is there any scientific fact that various species morph into something else? There is none. Some basic amoeba thing that crawled out of the ocean never evolved into humans. I do agree with "scientists" that about 5 times virtually all life was destroyed on Earth by asteroids and volcanic activity. When Earth became ready for Humans (and other mammals) the Creator did his thing. Intelligent design by God, be that Adam and Eve or the Sumerian text is much more logical.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

AMart said:


> Is there any scientific fact that various species morph into something else?


Only mountains of it. It's not even up for debate. That debate is for the rubber room, not the science section.


----------



## AMart

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> AMart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any scientific fact that various species morph into something else?
> 
> 
> 
> Only mountains of it. It's not even up for debate. That debate is for the rubber room, not the science section.
Click to expand...

Great please post evidence that roaches, ants, and snakes, birds evolved into humans OK retard.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> The number of Ice Ages has little to do with the subject of this thread



Only one so far.



Hollie said:


> Spare me the "... but, but, but, but Mandelbrot says...' Mandelbrot set shows nothing of what you claim.



You didn't watch the video.  Mandelbrot set is the evidence of God and his fingerprint.  Did you ever wonder why trees are like












Hollie said:


> You read something about the Mandelbrot set at creation.com and thought you would dump it here.



No, I learned why IBM hired people like Mandelbrot and how he helped IBM as well as find God's fingerprint and design behind the intelligence.  Why can't you show evolution does this?  Because there is no intelligence behind it haha.  That explains why you don't know how many ice ages.



Hollie said:


> Add some reading from "_The Quark and the Jaguar_" by Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann while you're reading about talking snakes.



Why don't you explain what the book is about and what you got?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Where did life come from? Abiogenesis.



I'm still waiting for what was there before the big bang?  Abiogenesis was already debunked by the scientific method (swan flask).  There are wine decanters that are shaped that way so bacteria doesn't get in.


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how can you be so absolutely certain?
> 
> I know you haven't traveled light years to other galaxies and performed an exhaustive search for life.
> 
> You are simply unable to think beyond your religious indoctrination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I answered this (b/c of your dumb trolling), but I am certain because of the theories for intelligent aliens would have contacted us already or we found them but nothing of the kind has happened in several lifetimes.  You do not understand how we can know statistically how no aliens can happen and is the conclusion, as well as why physically they can't happen from the fine tuning facts.  They also can't happen because the scientific method has disproved abiogenesis.
Click to expand...


there is no theory that states intelligent aliens would or could have contacted us already.

FAster than light travel is an impossibility at least as far as we know and it could take literally millions of years for any electromagnetic signals from another life form to reach earth and then they would be so weak we probably wouldn't be able to detect them.

you fail to grasp the distances involved and the limitations of communications based on EM transmissions


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The number of Ice Ages has little to do with the subject of this thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only one so far.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me the "... but, but, but, but Mandelbrot says...' Mandelbrot set shows nothing of what you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't watch the video.  Mandelbrot set is the evidence of God and his fingerprint.  Did you ever wonder why trees are like
> 
> View attachment 435820
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You read something about the Mandelbrot set at creation.com and thought you would dump it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I learned why IBM hired people like Mandelbrot and how he helped IBM as well as find God's fingerprint and design behind the intelligence.  Why can't you show evolution does this?  Because there is no intelligence behind it haha.  That explains why you don't know how many ice ages.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Add some reading from "_The Quark and the Jaguar_" by Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann while you're reading about talking snakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you explain what the book is about and what you got?
Click to expand...

It’s odd that no one, other than you, is making the claim that IBM has discovered the Christian gods fingerprint.

I think you put too much stock in YouTube videos. You might want to research the supermarket tabloids. They discover all sorts of things like the actual Bigfoot, space alien abductions and the clapper for turning your table lamps on and off.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did life come from? Abiogenesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for what was there before the big bang?  Abiogenesis was already debunked by the scientific method (swan flask).  There are wine decanters that are shaped that way so bacteria doesn't get in.
> 
> View attachment 435821
Click to expand...

That’s very telling. You’re drinking wine and then posting, right?

I’ve not read, except from you of course, that items on sale any Macy’s debunks the scientific method.

How much wine have you had?


----------



## ChemEngineer

AMart said:


> Is there any scientific fact that various species morph into something else?



Dear Friend,
Cast not pearls before swine.
Go from the presence of a foolish man. (Fort Fun)

In modern parlance:  Don't feed the trolls. 
If you ignore him, he will be far less harassing, and the rest of us will not have to wade through your responses to him which waste everyone's time and cause headaches.

Now if I may address your very correct point, there are countless studies of biologists trying desperately to "prove" Darwin's Ignorant Tautology.
Fruit flies have short lifespans and breed like.... flies, producing copious quantities of maggots.  They exposed millions of them to radiation to hasten the *evolution* and they got nothing but monsters which could not survive outside the lab.  This is a reproduceable scientific refutation of Darwinism as is the same effort with bacteria! 

Mutations, yes. Monsters, yes.  NOT "evolution."  Q.E.D. Scientifically.

And you too, James Bond. Ignore FortFun and others like him.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> AMart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any scientific fact that various species morph into something else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Friend,
> Cast not pearls before swine.
> Go from the presence of a foolish man. (Fort Fun)
> 
> In modern parlance:  Don't feed the trolls.
> If you ignore him, he will be far less harassing, and the rest of us will not have to wade through your responses to him which waste everyone's time and cause headaches.
> 
> Now if I may address your very correct point, there are countless studies of biologists trying desperately to "prove" Darwin's Ignorant Tautology.
> Fruit flies have short lifespans and breed like.... flies, producing copious quantities of maggots.  They exposed millions of them to radiation to hasten the *evolution* and they got nothing but monsters which could not survive outside the lab.  This is a reproduceable scientific refutation of Darwinism as is the same effort with bacteria!
> 
> Mutations, yes. Monsters, yes.  NOT "evolution."  Q.E.D. Scientifically.
> 
> And you too, James Bond. Ignore FortFun and others like him.
Click to expand...

Descent with modification is proven. Descent with modification is an underlying concept in the Theory of Evolution. That theory is a basic framework tying together all of biology. The hyper-religious tend to rail at science when they don’t have even a basic understanding of the principles involved.

Rather than issuing edicts commanding others to do as you tell them (who made you a Mullah.), why not be silent, read and learn about the elements of science that were neglected at your madrassah.


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> there is no theory that states intelligent aliens would or could have contacted us already.



That's because you are ignorant of science and a fool.



Blues Man said:


> FAster than light travel is an impossibility at least as far as we know and it could take literally millions of years for any electromagnetic signals from another life form to reach earth and then they would be so weak we probably wouldn't be able to detect them.
> 
> you fail to grasp the distances involved and the limitations of communications based on EM transmissions



Again, you go off on your delusional tangents due to not understanding statistics.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did life come from? Abiogenesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for what was there before the big bang?  Abiogenesis was already debunked by the scientific method (swan flask).  There are wine decanters that are shaped that way so bacteria doesn't get in.
> 
> View attachment 435821
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s very telling. You’re drinking wine and then posting, right?
> 
> I’ve not read, except from you of course, that items on sale any Macy’s debunks the scientific method.
> 
> How much wine have you had?
Click to expand...


I know how to have a good time, do you?  Also, I know abiogenesis never happens.

I got another question for you.  Does evolution claim abiogenesis happened or is it Fort Fun Indiana just believes in fairy tales?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

AMart said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any scientific fact that various species morph into something else?
> 
> 
> 
> Only mountains of it. It's not even up for debate. That debate is for the rubber room, not the science section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great please post evidence that roaches, ants, and snakes, birds evolved into humans OK retard.
Click to expand...

Well only someone who knows nothing about evolution would say something so stupid. You need to go learn about it before commenting in the science section again.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did life come from? Abiogenesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for what was there before the big bang?  Abiogenesis was already debunked by the scientific method (swan flask).  There are wine decanters that are shaped that way so bacteria doesn't get in.
> 
> View attachment 435821
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s very telling. You’re drinking wine and then posting, right?
> 
> I’ve not read, except from you of course, that items on sale any Macy’s debunks the scientific method.
> 
> How much wine have you had?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know how to have a good time, do you?  Also, I know abiogenesis never happens.
> 
> I got another question for you.  Does evolution claim abiogenesis happened or is it Fort Fun Indiana just believes in fairy tales?
Click to expand...

You obviously know nothing about evolution or abiogenesis. Evolution doesn’t claim anything. The science which supports the process of evolution is undeniable only to the hyper-religious and science illiterate. Biological evolution is a proven fact and is independent of abiogenesis. The thinking part of the world knows with certainty that abiogenesis did, in fact, happen.


----------



## ChemEngineer

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”  (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.”  (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”  (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.”  (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.”  (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

“. . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” – G.R. Taylor, _*The Great Evolution Mystery,* _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

“. . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” – David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

“The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.”  (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)

“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.”  (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)
> 
> “My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)
> 
> “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)
> 
> “When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”  (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
> 
> “Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.”  (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)
> 
> “It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).
> 
> “250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”  (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)
> 
> “A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.”  (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)
> 
> “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.”  (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)
> 
> “. . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” – G.R. Taylor, _*The Great Evolution Mystery,* _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> “. . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” – David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> “The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.”  (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University.)
> 
> “The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.”  (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)



Oh, my. The boy is on a cut and paste Jihad.

Another Harun Yahya groupie.


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no theory that states intelligent aliens would or could have contacted us already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are ignorant of science and a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> FAster than light travel is an impossibility at least as far as we know and it could take literally millions of years for any electromagnetic signals from another life form to reach earth and then they would be so weak we probably wouldn't be able to detect them.
> 
> you fail to grasp the distances involved and the limitations of communications based on EM transmissions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you go off on your delusional tangents due to not understanding statistics.
Click to expand...

statistics don't mean shit if we are talking thousands or millions of light years.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did life come from? Abiogenesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for what was there before the big bang?  Abiogenesis was already debunked by the scientific method (swan flask).  There are wine decanters that are shaped that way so bacteria doesn't get in.
> 
> View attachment 435821
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s very telling. You’re drinking wine and then posting, right?
> 
> I’ve not read, except from you of course, that items on sale any Macy’s debunks the scientific method.
> 
> How much wine have you had?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know how to have a good time, do you?  Also, I know abiogenesis never happens.
> 
> I got another question for you.  Does evolution claim abiogenesis happened or is it Fort Fun Indiana just believes in fairy tales?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously know nothing about evolution or abiogenesis. Evolution doesn’t claim anything. The science which supports the process of evolution is undeniable only to the hyper-religious and science illiterate. Biological evolution is a proven fact and is independent of abiogenesis. The thinking part of the world knows with certainty that abiogenesis did, in fact, happen.
Click to expand...


>>Evolution doesn’t claim anything.<<

So Fort Fun Indiana just believes in fairy tales and there is no evidence of evolution or abiogenesis.

>>The thinking part of the world knows with certainty that abiogenesis did, in fact, happen.<<

That's your claim.  But the knowing part of the world knows with certainty that abiogenesis didn't happen due to no aliens and it doesn't happen with the scientific method.


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no theory that states intelligent aliens would or could have contacted us already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are ignorant of science and a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> FAster than light travel is an impossibility at least as far as we know and it could take literally millions of years for any electromagnetic signals from another life form to reach earth and then they would be so weak we probably wouldn't be able to detect them.
> 
> you fail to grasp the distances involved and the limitations of communications based on EM transmissions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you go off on your delusional tangents due to not understanding statistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> statistics don't mean shit if we are talking thousands or millions of light years.
Click to expand...


Sure it does.  It means no aliens and no abiogenesis haha.  Didn't I say you were a fool?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did life come from? Abiogenesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for what was there before the big bang?  Abiogenesis was already debunked by the scientific method (swan flask).  There are wine decanters that are shaped that way so bacteria doesn't get in.
> 
> View attachment 435821
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s very telling. You’re drinking wine and then posting, right?
> 
> I’ve not read, except from you of course, that items on sale any Macy’s debunks the scientific method.
> 
> How much wine have you had?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know how to have a good time, do you?  Also, I know abiogenesis never happens.
> 
> I got another question for you.  Does evolution claim abiogenesis happened or is it Fort Fun Indiana just believes in fairy tales?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously know nothing about evolution or abiogenesis. Evolution doesn’t claim anything. The science which supports the process of evolution is undeniable only to the hyper-religious and science illiterate. Biological evolution is a proven fact and is independent of abiogenesis. The thinking part of the world knows with certainty that abiogenesis did, in fact, happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>Evolution doesn’t claim anything.<<
> 
> So Fort Fun Indiana just believes in fairy tales and there is no evidence of evolution or abiogenesis.
> 
> >>The thinking part of the world knows with certainty that abiogenesis did, in fact, happen.<<
> 
> That's your claim.  But the knowing part of the world knows with certainty that abiogenesis didn't happen due to no aliens and it doesn't happen with the scientific method.
Click to expand...


No. Evolution doesn't claim anything because the term "evolution" is a description of biological processes. It is the supporting data for evolution that claims and demonstrates how those biological processes work. 

You have a rather odd fascination with space aliens. Space aliens have no connection with abiogenesis. You are being taken advantage of by the ID'iot creation ministries which feed you some rather strange notions.


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no theory that states intelligent aliens would or could have contacted us already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are ignorant of science and a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> FAster than light travel is an impossibility at least as far as we know and it could take literally millions of years for any electromagnetic signals from another life form to reach earth and then they would be so weak we probably wouldn't be able to detect them.
> 
> you fail to grasp the distances involved and the limitations of communications based on EM transmissions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you go off on your delusional tangents due to not understanding statistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> statistics don't mean shit if we are talking thousands or millions of light years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it does.  It means no aliens and no abiogenesis haha.  Didn't I say you were a fool?
Click to expand...


you are utterly incapable of grasping the concept of the distances involved.

We have only been broadcasting EM signals for about 100 years which means that if there happen to be any intelligent life forms living 10000 light years away from us there is no way they will even be able to pick up any of those EM signals for 9900 years.

but you think they should just know we are here and travel at FTL speeds to get here to talk to us.

Fucking idiot


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did life come from? Abiogenesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for what was there before the big bang?  Abiogenesis was already debunked by the scientific method (swan flask).  There are wine decanters that are shaped that way so bacteria doesn't get in.
> 
> View attachment 435821
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s very telling. You’re drinking wine and then posting, right?
> 
> I’ve not read, except from you of course, that items on sale any Macy’s debunks the scientific method.
> 
> How much wine have you had?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know how to have a good time, do you?  Also, I know abiogenesis never happens.
> 
> I got another question for you.  Does evolution claim abiogenesis happened or is it Fort Fun Indiana just believes in fairy tales?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously know nothing about evolution or abiogenesis. Evolution doesn’t claim anything. The science which supports the process of evolution is undeniable only to the hyper-religious and science illiterate. Biological evolution is a proven fact and is independent of abiogenesis. The thinking part of the world knows with certainty that abiogenesis did, in fact, happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>Evolution doesn’t claim anything.<<
> 
> So Fort Fun Indiana just believes in fairy tales and there is no evidence of evolution or abiogenesis.
> 
> >>The thinking part of the world knows with certainty that abiogenesis did, in fact, happen.<<
> 
> That's your claim.  But the knowing part of the world knows with certainty that abiogenesis didn't happen due to no aliens and it doesn't happen with the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Evolution doesn't claim anything because the term "evolution" is a description of biological processes. It is the supporting data for evolution that claims and demonstrates how those biological processes work.
> 
> You have a rather odd fascination with space aliens. Space aliens have no connection with abiogenesis. You are being taken advantage of by the ID'iot creation ministries which feed you some rather strange notions.
Click to expand...


If ToE does not claim anything, then it isn't _true_.  You admitted it more than once already.  There would be no evidence that it happened.







My claim is there are no aliens and no abiogenesis because of statistics and science.  It also backs up the scientific theories against no intelligent aliens nor any kind of life due to fine tuning facts.  There may be panspermia, but I don't think people have gotten far with their hypothesis because the science experiments have failed.  The largest may be sending humans to Mars.  They couldn't survive on the moon or didn't you know that?  

Isn't there a better chance for a large asteroid or even another star to hit our star than having aliens or abiogenesis?  Put that in your wacky tabacky and smoke it.


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> Fucking idiot



You shouldn't brag about your IQ score.  I will assume that the expletive makes it more lower than idiot.

We have found there is no other life in our solar system with our probes, fly bys, Hubble telescope, etc.  It means Earth is the only place as God created it.  More evidence for God.

The atheist scientists are desperate.  They know they are doomed.  They have built the most expensive telescope ever and are launching it in October 31, 2021.  Do you know what I say about finding aliens lol?


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't brag about your IQ score.  I will assume that the expletive makes it more lower than idiot.
> 
> We have found there is no other life in our solar system with our probes, fly bys, Hubble telescope, etc.  It means Earth is the only place as God created it.  More evidence for God.
> 
> The atheist scientists are desperate.  They know they are doomed.  They have built the most expensive telescope ever and are launching it in October 31, 2021.  Do you know what I say about finding aliens lol?
> 
> View attachment 436417
Click to expand...

you do know that there is a whole fuck of a lot more to the universe than our puny little solar system don't you?

So let's see you went from there is absolutely no life besides us in the entire universe to there is no life in our solar system.

You don't even seem to understand that our solar system is but a minuscule part of a single galaxy that is about 200000 light years across and that there are billions of other galaxies in the universe.


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't brag about your IQ score.  I will assume that the expletive makes it more lower than idiot.
> 
> We have found there is no other life in our solar system with our probes, fly bys, Hubble telescope, etc.  It means Earth is the only place as God created it.  More evidence for God.
> 
> The atheist scientists are desperate.  They know they are doomed.  They have built the most expensive telescope ever and are launching it in October 31, 2021.  Do you know what I say about finding aliens lol?
> 
> View attachment 436417
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you do know that there is a whole fuck of a lot more to the universe than our puny little solar system don't you?
> 
> So let's see you went from there is absolutely no life besides us in the entire universe to there is no life in our solar system.
> 
> You don't even seem to understand that our solar system is but a minuscule part of a single galaxy that is about 200000 light years across and that there are billions of other galaxies in the universe.
Click to expand...


As usual the truth is NOT getting into your brain because of your fucking idiocy and lunacy.

What I said was our search has found no aliens in our solar system, but I also brought up the James Webb telescope.  However, it didn't occur to you we found no aliens with the power and all the years our Hubble telescope has been in service (which I helped launch).  Thus, our search shows nothing BEYOND our solar system and galaxy.  You got a whole lotta fuck of no aliens Blues Man.  How do you like them apples?





AY LMAO


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did life come from? Abiogenesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for what was there before the big bang?  Abiogenesis was already debunked by the scientific method (swan flask).  There are wine decanters that are shaped that way so bacteria doesn't get in.
> 
> View attachment 435821
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s very telling. You’re drinking wine and then posting, right?
> 
> I’ve not read, except from you of course, that items on sale any Macy’s debunks the scientific method.
> 
> How much wine have you had?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know how to have a good time, do you?  Also, I know abiogenesis never happens.
> 
> I got another question for you.  Does evolution claim abiogenesis happened or is it Fort Fun Indiana just believes in fairy tales?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously know nothing about evolution or abiogenesis. Evolution doesn’t claim anything. The science which supports the process of evolution is undeniable only to the hyper-religious and science illiterate. Biological evolution is a proven fact and is independent of abiogenesis. The thinking part of the world knows with certainty that abiogenesis did, in fact, happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>Evolution doesn’t claim anything.<<
> 
> So Fort Fun Indiana just believes in fairy tales and there is no evidence of evolution or abiogenesis.
> 
> >>The thinking part of the world knows with certainty that abiogenesis did, in fact, happen.<<
> 
> That's your claim.  But the knowing part of the world knows with certainty that abiogenesis didn't happen due to no aliens and it doesn't happen with the scientific method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Evolution doesn't claim anything because the term "evolution" is a description of biological processes. It is the supporting data for evolution that claims and demonstrates how those biological processes work.
> 
> You have a rather odd fascination with space aliens. Space aliens have no connection with abiogenesis. You are being taken advantage of by the ID'iot creation ministries which feed you some rather strange notions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If ToE does not claim anything, then it isn't _true_.  You admitted it more than once already.  There would be no evidence that it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My claim is there are no aliens and no abiogenesis because of statistics and science.  It also backs up the scientific theories against no intelligent aliens nor any kind of life due to fine tuning facts.  There may be panspermia, but I don't think people have gotten far with their hypothesis because the science experiments have failed.  The largest may be sending humans to Mars.  They couldn't survive on the moon or didn't you know that?
> 
> Isn't there a better chance for a large asteroid or even another star to hit our star than having aliens or abiogenesis?  Put that in your wacky tabacky and smoke it.
Click to expand...


Actually, you’re just a little befuddled. To suggest that evolution never happened is something of that alternate reality where the hyper-religious dwell.

Your many claims about space aliens, magical realms inhabited by supernatural gods, science being a collection of conspiracy theories, etc.,  are fine for when you get together with like minded folks at your Flat Earth Society meetings but they’re literally useless in a science thread.


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't brag about your IQ score.  I will assume that the expletive makes it more lower than idiot.
> 
> We have found there is no other life in our solar system with our probes, fly bys, Hubble telescope, etc.  It means Earth is the only place as God created it.  More evidence for God.
> 
> The atheist scientists are desperate.  They know they are doomed.  They have built the most expensive telescope ever and are launching it in October 31, 2021.  Do you know what I say about finding aliens lol?
> 
> View attachment 436417
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you do know that there is a whole fuck of a lot more to the universe than our puny little solar system don't you?
> 
> So let's see you went from there is absolutely no life besides us in the entire universe to there is no life in our solar system.
> 
> You don't even seem to understand that our solar system is but a minuscule part of a single galaxy that is about 200000 light years across and that there are billions of other galaxies in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual the truth is NOT getting into your brain because of your fucking idiocy and lunacy.
> 
> What I said was our search has found no aliens in our solar system, but I also brought up the James Webb telescope.  However, it didn't occur to you we found no aliens with the power and all the years our Hubble telescope has been in service (which I helped launch).  Thus, our search shows nothing BEYOND our solar system and galaxy.  You got a whole lotta fuck of no aliens Blues Man.  How do you like them apples?
> 
> View attachment 436429
> 
> AY LMAO
Click to expand...

post 497

you said we are alone in the universe

and you do know that any telescope is seeing light that is thousands, millions or billions of years old don't you?

By the time we see the light from a star it could no longer exist


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> So let's see you went from there is absolutely no life besides us in the entire universe to there is no life in our solar system.



I never claimed that.  I said no aliens not even a microbe (doubt panspermia from Earth could happen as chances are very small).  What you don't understand is no life besides us in the universe includes no life in our solar system (which we have explored).  We've also explored using the Hubble telescope.  Get it right.  It's more of your frustration coming out becuase I have kicked your idiot arse in every post. 



Blues Man said:


> You don't even seem to understand that our solar system is but a minuscule part of a single galaxy that is about 200000 light years across and that there are billions of other galaxies in the universe.



Your idiocy keeps you from accepting real science and statistics, so no need to go over again.

If we take up a collection, then will you be willing to go to Mars on Elon Musk's Space-X ship to show us your alien life microbe ?



Blues Man said:


> post 497
> 
> you said we are alone in the universe
> 
> and you do know that any telescope is seeing light that is thousands, millions or billions of years old don't you?
> 
> By the time we see the light from a star it could no longer exist



Please explain your claim using your own words.

I want to see an idiot die of embarrassment.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.


They reckon a big bang of energy created matter. So a big bang of matter created the energy for that big bang. But before that, a big bang of energy created the matter to give the matter for the big bang. Then a bing bang of matter..........

That's the Atheists religion.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's see you went from there is absolutely no life besides us in the entire universe to there is no life in our solar system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that.  I said no aliens not even a microbe (doubt panspermia from Earth could happen as chances are very small).  What you don't understand is no life besides us in the universe includes no life in our solar system (which we have explored).  We've also explored using the Hubble telescope.  Get it right.  It's more of your frustration coming out becuase I have kicked your idiot arse in every post.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even seem to understand that our solar system is but a minuscule part of a single galaxy that is about 200000 light years across and that there are billions of other galaxies in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your idiocy keeps you from accepting real science and statistics, so no need to go over again.
> 
> If we take up a collection, then will you be willing to go to Mars on Elon Musk's Space-X ship to show us your alien life microbe ?
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> post 497
> 
> you said we are alone in the universe
> 
> and you do know that any telescope is seeing light that is thousands, millions or billions of years old don't you?
> 
> By the time we see the light from a star it could no longer exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain your claim using your own words.
> 
> I want to see an idiot die of embarrassment.
Click to expand...

Fascinating that you claim to know with 100% certainty  things about which you possess 0% facts.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Captain Caveman said:


> ///
> That's the Atheists religion.



All of which arose from, as the atheists claim, "a quantum vacuum."
So nothing made everything. So simple, so anti-science, so anti-common sense.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Captain Caveman said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> They reckon a big bang of energy created matter. So a big bang of matter created the energy for that big bang. But before that, a big bang of energy created the matter to give the matter for the big bang. Then a bing bang of matter..........
> 
> That's the Atheists religion.
Click to expand...

No. The evidence shows the big bang happened. We don't know what happened before the big bang. So the only fantasy is the made up stuff in your post.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Captain Caveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ///
> That's the Atheists religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which arose from, as the atheists claim, "a quantum vacuum."
> So nothing made everything. So simple, so anti-science, so anti-common sense.
Click to expand...

What evilutionist atheists claim all of existence arose from a quantum vacuum?

Is that what they teach you at your madrassah?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's see you went from there is absolutely no life besides us in the entire universe to there is no life in our solar system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that.  I said no aliens not even a microbe (doubt panspermia from Earth could happen as chances are very small).  What you don't understand is no life besides us in the universe includes no life in our solar system (which we have explored).  We've also explored using the Hubble telescope.  Get it right.  It's more of your frustration coming out becuase I have kicked your idiot arse in every post.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even seem to understand that our solar system is but a minuscule part of a single galaxy that is about 200000 light years across and that there are billions of other galaxies in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your idiocy keeps you from accepting real science and statistics, so no need to go over again.
> 
> If we take up a collection, then will you be willing to go to Mars on Elon Musk's Space-X ship to show us your alien life microbe ?
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> post 497
> 
> you said we are alone in the universe
> 
> and you do know that any telescope is seeing light that is thousands, millions or billions of years old don't you?
> 
> By the time we see the light from a star it could no longer exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain your claim using your own words.
> 
> I want to see an idiot die of embarrassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fascinating that you claim to know with 100% certainty  things about which you possess 0% facts.
Click to expand...


We both have the same facts.  I know with 100% certainty there are no aliens and no abiogenesis because of what I told you and Blues Man.


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's see you went from there is absolutely no life besides us in the entire universe to there is no life in our solar system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that.  I said no aliens not even a microbe (doubt panspermia from Earth could happen as chances are very small).  What you don't understand is no life besides us in the universe includes no life in our solar system (which we have explored).  We've also explored using the Hubble telescope.  Get it right.  It's more of your frustration coming out becuase I have kicked your idiot arse in every post.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even seem to understand that our solar system is but a minuscule part of a single galaxy that is about 200000 light years across and that there are billions of other galaxies in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your idiocy keeps you from accepting real science and statistics, so no need to go over again.
> 
> If we take up a collection, then will you be willing to go to Mars on Elon Musk's Space-X ship to show us your alien life microbe ?
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> post 497
> 
> you said we are alone in the universe
> 
> and you do know that any telescope is seeing light that is thousands, millions or billions of years old don't you?
> 
> By the time we see the light from a star it could no longer exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain your claim using your own words.
> 
> I want to see an idiot die of embarrassment.
Click to expand...

I don't need to use my own words I used yours.

you have been saying there is no intelligent life in the universe but us then you changed that to there is no life in our solar system.

and if you can't understand that it can take tens of thousands of years or longer for light from a star in our own galaxy to reach us here on earth then you fail to have the most rudimentary grasp of physics.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Captain Caveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> 
> 
> They reckon a big bang of energy created matter. So a big bang of matter created the energy for that big bang. But before that, a big bang of energy created the matter to give the matter for the big bang. Then a bing bang of matter..........
> 
> That's the Atheists religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The evidence shows the big bang happened. We don't know what happened before the big bang. So the only fantasy is the made up stuff in your post.
Click to expand...


There must have been energy in the big bang to make matter. So where did this energy come from? Another big bang? Do you have to keep banging matter and then energy, then energy then matter.

If they know there was a big bang, have you replicated their experiment to confirm theirs?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's see you went from there is absolutely no life besides us in the entire universe to there is no life in our solar system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that.  I said no aliens not even a microbe (doubt panspermia from Earth could happen as chances are very small).  What you don't understand is no life besides us in the universe includes no life in our solar system (which we have explored).  We've also explored using the Hubble telescope.  Get it right.  It's more of your frustration coming out becuase I have kicked your idiot arse in every post.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even seem to understand that our solar system is but a minuscule part of a single galaxy that is about 200000 light years across and that there are billions of other galaxies in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your idiocy keeps you from accepting real science and statistics, so no need to go over again.
> 
> If we take up a collection, then will you be willing to go to Mars on Elon Musk's Space-X ship to show us your alien life microbe ?
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> post 497
> 
> you said we are alone in the universe
> 
> and you do know that any telescope is seeing light that is thousands, millions or billions of years old don't you?
> 
> By the time we see the light from a star it could no longer exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain your claim using your own words.
> 
> I want to see an idiot die of embarrassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fascinating that you claim to know with 100% certainty  things about which you possess 0% facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We both have the same facts.  I know with 100% certainty there are no aliens and no abiogenesis because of what I told you and Blues Man.
Click to expand...

No, we do not have the same facts. No, your claim to know with certainty there are no aliens and no abiogenesis is a false claim you obviously do not know with certainty. 

So, we have again circled around to a fact we actually do know. You falsely claim 100% certainty  about which you possess 0% facts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Captain Caveman said:


> must have been energy in the big bang to make matter. So where did this energy come from?


We don't know. That means you don't know.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Captain Caveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> must have been energy in the big bang to make matter. So where did this energy come from?
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know. That means you don't know.
Click to expand...

A big bang from matter created the energy that was in the big bang that banged and made current day matter. I can see how these Atheist big bang's work. There's a pattern.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Captain Caveman said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captain Caveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> must have been energy in the big bang to make matter. So where did this energy come from?
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know. That means you don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A big bang from matter created the energy that was in the big bang that banged and made current day matter. I can see how these Atheist big bang's work. There's a pattern.
Click to expand...

No, you have it wrong. We don't know what happened before the big bang. That includes you. No, making up magical myths to explain it doesn't cut it. Also, it is quite possible (even likely) that our universe has net zero energy.


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> I don't need to use my own words I used yours.



This goes to show I understand and can explain myself with certainty while you are ignorant.



Blues Man said:


> you have been saying there is no intelligent life in the universe but us then you changed that to there is no life in our solar system.



Again, that's not what I said, but what your stupid, foolish mind thinks he heard.



Blues Man said:


> and if you can't understand that it can take tens of thousands of years or longer for light from a star in our own galaxy to reach us here on earth then you fail to have the most rudimentary grasp of physics.



This is what I want you to explain how it works, but you don't understand it enough to explain because of your stupidity.

Even the moron Biden is







at you.

We are done.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> No, we do not have the same facts. No, your claim to know with certainty there are no aliens and no abiogenesis is a false claim you obviously do not know with certainty.



You are wrong.

The facts should be the same for everybody.

Can I help it if you do not admit to the fine tuning facts (discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang) nor the Biblical facts just because it goes against your fake science and atheist religion?  I also have the scientific method of Dr. Louis Pasteur which disproves abiogenesis experimentally.  That's a fact.  The other stuff like Drake's equation, Fermi's paradox, Great filter, etc. are theories like ToE and evolutionary thinking.

My certainty is backed up by no aliens found in our solar system and none in the universe that we can see with Hubble.  Even my evolution website admits life is rare now.



Hollie said:


> So, we have again circled around to a fact we actually do know. You falsely claim 100% certainty about which you possess 0% facts.








You sound like a flat earther haha.  It's not I who have gone in circles, but you.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we do not have the same facts. No, your claim to know with certainty there are no aliens and no abiogenesis is a false claim you obviously do not know with certainty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> The facts should be the same for everybody.
> 
> Can I help it if you do not admit to the fine tuning facts (discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang) nor the Biblical facts just because it goes against your fake science and atheist religion?  I also have the scientific method of Dr. Louis Pasteur which disproves abiogenesis experimentally.  That's a fact.  The other stuff like Drake's equation, Fermi's paradox, Great filter, etc. are theories like ToE and evolutionary thinking.
> 
> My certainty is backed up by no aliens found in our solar system and none in the universe that we can see with Hubble.  Even my evolution website admits life is rare now.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, we have again circled around to a fact we actually do know. You falsely claim 100% certainty about which you possess 0% facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a flat earther haha.  It's not I who have gone in circles, but you.
Click to expand...

You seem to be fact challenged.

Stephen Hawking did not discover any fine-tuning facts. Your claim he did is false, misleading and a misrepresentation of fact. Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts.

Your “Bible facts” hysterics are for what point? While your ID’creationer crowd views the Bible as a literal, inerrant science text, the obvious science errors, contradictions and absurdities utterly refute Biblical magic and miracles.

You have no certainty of ‘no aliens’ so it seems your entire narrative is just so much error, miscalculation and falsehood.

You are wrong about Pasteur.Pasteur never showed that life begets other life. It was explained to you earlier. What Pasteur's experiment showed was that life does not currently _spontaneously_ arise in _complex f_orm from non-life in nature.

CB000: Law of Biogenesis

Claim CB000:
Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.

Not surprisingly, your claim is one that comes from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.
Response:

The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to use my own words I used yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This goes to show I understand and can explain myself with certainty while you are ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have been saying there is no intelligent life in the universe but us then you changed that to there is no life in our solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, that's not what I said, but what your stupid, foolish mind thinks he heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> and if you can't understand that it can take tens of thousands of years or longer for light from a star in our own galaxy to reach us here on earth then you fail to have the most rudimentary grasp of physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what I want you to explain how it works, but you don't understand it enough to explain because of your stupidity.
> 
> Even the moron Biden is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at you.
> 
> We are done.
Click to expand...

it's exactly what you said.

Your whole argument is that if there was intelligent life in the universe that they would have been found by now becuase you obviously don't understand the distances involved within our own galaxy never mind the entire universe and you don't grasp the limits of light speed communication over such vast distances


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You seem to be fact challenged.
> 
> Stephen Hawking did not discover any fine-tuning facts. Your claim he did is false, misleading and a misrepresentation of fact. Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts.



Yes, Hawking admitted it in 2010 (read The Grand Design), but then babbled on about multiverse.  What a maroon.  Anyway, he is another atheist scientist who died without any aliens or abiogenesis just like Carl Sagan.  All of us here will die before aliens or abiogenesis because science shows that it does not happen.  It means there are no aliens and abiogenesis.

As for the rest, it's you getting all emo about this.  Poor baby.


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to use my own words I used yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This goes to show I understand and can explain myself with certainty while you are ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have been saying there is no intelligent life in the universe but us then you changed that to there is no life in our solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, that's not what I said, but what your stupid, foolish mind thinks he heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> and if you can't understand that it can take tens of thousands of years or longer for light from a star in our own galaxy to reach us here on earth then you fail to have the most rudimentary grasp of physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what I want you to explain how it works, but you don't understand it enough to explain because of your stupidity.
> 
> Even the moron Biden is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at you.
> 
> We are done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's exactly what you said.
> 
> Your whole argument is that if there was intelligent life in the universe that they would have been found by now becuase you obviously don't understand the distances involved within our own galaxy never mind the entire universe and you don't grasp the limits of light speed communication over such vast distances
Click to expand...




 Dumbass.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be fact challenged.
> 
> Stephen Hawking did not discover any fine-tuning facts. Your claim he did is false, misleading and a misrepresentation of fact. Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Hawking admitted it in 2010 (read The Grand Design), but then babbled on about multiverse.  What a maroon.  Anyway, he is another atheist scientist who died without any aliens or abiogenesis just like Carl Sagan.  All of us here will die before aliens or abiogenesis because science shows that it does not happen.  It means there are no aliens and abiogenesis.
> 
> As for the rest, it's you getting all emo about this.  Poor baby.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Your claim regarding "fine tuning" specifically stated it was "discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang  admit to the fine tuning facts " 

That simply is false and a fraud. 


In his book_ A Brief History of Time_ (1996 edition)  Hawking quite clearly does not propose any "fine tuning".  (p. 133):



> "Moreover, the rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen."



Once again. it falls to you to support your claim.  Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts. Let's have you provide the _*Exact Citation *_wherein_*  "*_fine tuning facts (discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang)"



Coincidently, page 133 of _The Grand Design_ has this statement:

But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be fact challenged.
> 
> Stephen Hawking did not discover any fine-tuning facts. Your claim he did is false, misleading and a misrepresentation of fact. Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Hawking admitted it in 2010 (read The Grand Design), but then babbled on about multiverse.  What a maroon.  Anyway, he is another atheist scientist who died without any aliens or abiogenesis just like Carl Sagan.  All of us here will die before aliens or abiogenesis because science shows that it does not happen.  It means there are no aliens and abiogenesis.
> 
> As for the rest, it's you getting all emo about this.  Poor baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Your claim regarding "fine tuning" specifically stated it was "discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang  admit to the fine tuning facts "
> 
> That simply is false and a fraud.
> 
> 
> In his book_ A Brief History of Time_ (1996 edition)  Hawking quite clearly does not propose any "fine tuning".  (p. 133):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Moreover, the rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again. it falls to you to support your claim.  Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts. Let's have you provide the _*Exact Citation *_wherein_*  "*_fine tuning facts (discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang)"
> 
> 
> 
> Coincidently, page 133 of _The Grand Design_ has this statement:
> 
> But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.
Click to expand...


Did you actually read The Grand Design?  Or did you do a cut and paste job?

What about p. 155, p. 159, p. 161, and p. 162?

p. 155
"The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints not just on our _environment_ but on the possible _form and content of the laws of nature_ themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life but also the characteristics of our entire universe, and that is much more difficult to explain."

p. 159
"Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4 percent in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it."

p. 161
"The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system hat is extremely fine-tuned, and very litle in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being."

p. 162
"Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way."

It goes to show you that Hawking admitted to fine tuning and a STRONG Anthropic Principle.  He still wouldn't admit that it's just Earth and no other life besides humans.

However, the articles from around the same time discussing fine tuning have been deleted.

Here's an article and atheist opinion piece from 2018:

Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God?
"Scientists have discovered a surprising fact about our universe in the past 40 years: against incredible odds, the numbers in basic physics are exactly as they need to be to accommodate the possibility of life. If gravity had been slightly weaker, stars would not have exploded into supernovae, a crucial source of many of the heavier elements involved in life. Conversely, if gravity had been slightly stronger, stars would have lived for thousands rather than billions of years, not leaving enough time for biological evolution to take place. This is just one example – there are many others – of the “fine-tuning” of the laws of physics for life."

The rest is just atheist blabber and opinion.









						Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff
					

In his final paper on the multiverse hypothesis, the world’s best-known atheist made a supernatural creator more plausible, says academic and author Philip Goff




					www.theguardian.com
				




*So can you admit that there are no aliens and no abiogenesis now?  That creation scientists, Dr. William Lane Craig, and I were right and you were wrong after your disbeliefs for so long?




*


----------



## dblack

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.


Beats me. Don't care much.


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to use my own words I used yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This goes to show I understand and can explain myself with certainty while you are ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have been saying there is no intelligent life in the universe but us then you changed that to there is no life in our solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, that's not what I said, but what your stupid, foolish mind thinks he heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> and if you can't understand that it can take tens of thousands of years or longer for light from a star in our own galaxy to reach us here on earth then you fail to have the most rudimentary grasp of physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what I want you to explain how it works, but you don't understand it enough to explain because of your stupidity.
> 
> Even the moron Biden is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at you.
> 
> We are done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's exactly what you said.
> 
> Your whole argument is that if there was intelligent life in the universe that they would have been found by now becuase you obviously don't understand the distances involved within our own galaxy never mind the entire universe and you don't grasp the limits of light speed communication over such vast distances
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 437681 Dumbass.
Click to expand...

when you can't argue post a stupid picture


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be fact challenged.
> 
> Stephen Hawking did not discover any fine-tuning facts. Your claim he did is false, misleading and a misrepresentation of fact. Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Hawking admitted it in 2010 (read The Grand Design), but then babbled on about multiverse.  What a maroon.  Anyway, he is another atheist scientist who died without any aliens or abiogenesis just like Carl Sagan.  All of us here will die before aliens or abiogenesis because science shows that it does not happen.  It means there are no aliens and abiogenesis.
> 
> As for the rest, it's you getting all emo about this.  Poor baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Your claim regarding "fine tuning" specifically stated it was "discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang  admit to the fine tuning facts "
> 
> That simply is false and a fraud.
> 
> 
> In his book_ A Brief History of Time_ (1996 edition)  Hawking quite clearly does not propose any "fine tuning".  (p. 133):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Moreover, the rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again. it falls to you to support your claim.  Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts. Let's have you provide the _*Exact Citation *_wherein_*  "*_fine tuning facts (discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang)"
> 
> 
> 
> Coincidently, page 133 of _The Grand Design_ has this statement:
> 
> But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you actually read The Grand Design?  Or did you do a cut and paste job?
> 
> What about p. 155, p. 159, p. 161, and p. 162?
> 
> p. 155
> "The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints not just on our _environment_ but on the possible _form and content of the laws of nature_ themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life but also the characteristics of our entire universe, and that is much more difficult to explain."
> 
> p. 159
> "Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4 percent in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it."
> 
> p. 161
> "The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system hat is extremely fine-tuned, and very litle in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being."
> 
> p. 162
> "Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way."
> 
> It goes to show you that Hawking admitted to fine tuning and a STRONG Anthropic Principle.  He still wouldn't admit that it's just Earth and no other life besides humans.
> 
> However, the articles from around the same time discussing fine tuning have been deleted.
> 
> Here's an article and atheist opinion piece from 2018:
> 
> Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God?
> "Scientists have discovered a surprising fact about our universe in the past 40 years: against incredible odds, the numbers in basic physics are exactly as they need to be to accommodate the possibility of life. If gravity had been slightly weaker, stars would not have exploded into supernovae, a crucial source of many of the heavier elements involved in life. Conversely, if gravity had been slightly stronger, stars would have lived for thousands rather than billions of years, not leaving enough time for biological evolution to take place. This is just one example – there are many others – of the “fine-tuning” of the laws of physics for life."
> 
> The rest is just atheist blabber and opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff
> 
> 
> In his final paper on the multiverse hypothesis, the world’s best-known atheist made a supernatural creator more plausible, says academic and author Philip Goff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So can you admit that there are no aliens and no abiogenesis now?  That creation scientists, Dr. William Lane Craig, and I were right and you were wrong after your disbeliefs for so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...

You apparently did read the quotations you posted. No mention of “fine tuning” by your gods. That seems odd because your claim regarding “fine tuning” was: "discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang admit to the fine tuning facts". If Hawking discovered that your gods “fine tuned” the universe, why do you think ha never made that statement?

Why is “fine tuning” by your gods not identified in the quotes you posted when you insist such a discovery was made by Hawking? Did Hawking forget to announce his discovery?


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to use my own words I used yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This goes to show I understand and can explain myself with certainty while you are ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have been saying there is no intelligent life in the universe but us then you changed that to there is no life in our solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, that's not what I said, but what your stupid, foolish mind thinks he heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> and if you can't understand that it can take tens of thousands of years or longer for light from a star in our own galaxy to reach us here on earth then you fail to have the most rudimentary grasp of physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what I want you to explain how it works, but you don't understand it enough to explain because of your stupidity.
> 
> Even the moron Biden is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at you.
> 
> We are done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's exactly what you said.
> 
> Your whole argument is that if there was intelligent life in the universe that they would have been found by now becuase you obviously don't understand the distances involved within our own galaxy never mind the entire universe and you don't grasp the limits of light speed communication over such vast distances
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 437681 Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when you can't argue post a stupid picture
Click to expand...


I actually lol when u post.  It perfectly describes stupid, stupid, stupid you (who can't explain himself, but just repeat).  You make me laugh like...


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be fact challenged.
> 
> Stephen Hawking did not discover any fine-tuning facts. Your claim he did is false, misleading and a misrepresentation of fact. Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Hawking admitted it in 2010 (read The Grand Design), but then babbled on about multiverse.  What a maroon.  Anyway, he is another atheist scientist who died without any aliens or abiogenesis just like Carl Sagan.  All of us here will die before aliens or abiogenesis because science shows that it does not happen.  It means there are no aliens and abiogenesis.
> 
> As for the rest, it's you getting all emo about this.  Poor baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Your claim regarding "fine tuning" specifically stated it was "discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang  admit to the fine tuning facts "
> 
> That simply is false and a fraud.
> 
> 
> In his book_ A Brief History of Time_ (1996 edition)  Hawking quite clearly does not propose any "fine tuning".  (p. 133):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Moreover, the rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again. it falls to you to support your claim.  Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts. Let's have you provide the _*Exact Citation *_wherein_*  "*_fine tuning facts (discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang)"
> 
> 
> 
> Coincidently, page 133 of _The Grand Design_ has this statement:
> 
> But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you actually read The Grand Design?  Or did you do a cut and paste job?
> 
> What about p. 155, p. 159, p. 161, and p. 162?
> 
> p. 155
> "The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints not just on our _environment_ but on the possible _form and content of the laws of nature_ themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life but also the characteristics of our entire universe, and that is much more difficult to explain."
> 
> p. 159
> "Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4 percent in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it."
> 
> p. 161
> "The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system hat is extremely fine-tuned, and very litle in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being."
> 
> p. 162
> "Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way."
> 
> It goes to show you that Hawking admitted to fine tuning and a STRONG Anthropic Principle.  He still wouldn't admit that it's just Earth and no other life besides humans.
> 
> However, the articles from around the same time discussing fine tuning have been deleted.
> 
> Here's an article and atheist opinion piece from 2018:
> 
> Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God?
> "Scientists have discovered a surprising fact about our universe in the past 40 years: against incredible odds, the numbers in basic physics are exactly as they need to be to accommodate the possibility of life. If gravity had been slightly weaker, stars would not have exploded into supernovae, a crucial source of many of the heavier elements involved in life. Conversely, if gravity had been slightly stronger, stars would have lived for thousands rather than billions of years, not leaving enough time for biological evolution to take place. This is just one example – there are many others – of the “fine-tuning” of the laws of physics for life."
> 
> The rest is just atheist blabber and opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff
> 
> 
> In his final paper on the multiverse hypothesis, the world’s best-known atheist made a supernatural creator more plausible, says academic and author Philip Goff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So can you admit that there are no aliens and no abiogenesis now?  That creation scientists, Dr. William Lane Craig, and I were right and you were wrong after your disbeliefs for so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently did read the quotations you posted. No mention of “fine tuning” by your gods. That seems odd because your claim regarding “fine tuning” was: "discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang admit to the fine tuning facts". If Hawking discovered that your gods “fine tuned” the universe, why do you think ha never made that statement?
> 
> Why is “fine tuning” by your gods not identified in the quotes you posted when you insist such a discovery was made by Hawking? Did Hawking forget to announce his discovery?
Click to expand...


Now, you are in denial.  This is die hard ATHEIST Stephen Hawking.  He's using CIRCULAR reasoning to try and explain his findings.  Do you think he actually believes the stuff that he makes up?  Even Fort Fun Indiana isn't dumb enough to believe that multiverse stuff.  Instead, he's stuck on the older book of there are aliens and abiogenesis happens.  Look at this dumb bunny.  Do you still believe?  You can't accept the truth?

Former Israeli space security chief says extraterrestrials exist, and Trump knows about it
A "galactic federation" has been waiting for humans to "reach a stage where we will understand... what space and spaceships are," Haim Eshed said.








						Former Israeli space chief says aliens exist, and Trump knows about it
					

A "galactic federation" has been waiting for humans to "reach a stage where we will understand... what space and spaceships are," Haim Eshed said.




					www.nbcnews.com


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to use my own words I used yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This goes to show I understand and can explain myself with certainty while you are ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have been saying there is no intelligent life in the universe but us then you changed that to there is no life in our solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, that's not what I said, but what your stupid, foolish mind thinks he heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> and if you can't understand that it can take tens of thousands of years or longer for light from a star in our own galaxy to reach us here on earth then you fail to have the most rudimentary grasp of physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what I want you to explain how it works, but you don't understand it enough to explain because of your stupidity.
> 
> Even the moron Biden is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at you.
> 
> We are done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's exactly what you said.
> 
> Your whole argument is that if there was intelligent life in the universe that they would have been found by now becuase you obviously don't understand the distances involved within our own galaxy never mind the entire universe and you don't grasp the limits of light speed communication over such vast distances
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 437681 Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when you can't argue post a stupid picture
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually lol when u post.  It perfectly describes stupid, stupid, stupid you (who can't explain himself, but just repeat).  You make me laugh like...
Click to expand...


I get it you can't reply intelligently so you resort to juvenile picture posting


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be fact challenged.
> 
> Stephen Hawking did not discover any fine-tuning facts. Your claim he did is false, misleading and a misrepresentation of fact. Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Hawking admitted it in 2010 (read The Grand Design), but then babbled on about multiverse.  What a maroon.  Anyway, he is another atheist scientist who died without any aliens or abiogenesis just like Carl Sagan.  All of us here will die before aliens or abiogenesis because science shows that it does not happen.  It means there are no aliens and abiogenesis.
> 
> As for the rest, it's you getting all emo about this.  Poor baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Your claim regarding "fine tuning" specifically stated it was "discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang  admit to the fine tuning facts "
> 
> That simply is false and a fraud.
> 
> 
> In his book_ A Brief History of Time_ (1996 edition)  Hawking quite clearly does not propose any "fine tuning".  (p. 133):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Moreover, the rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again. it falls to you to support your claim.  Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts. Let's have you provide the _*Exact Citation *_wherein_*  "*_fine tuning facts (discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang)"
> 
> 
> 
> Coincidently, page 133 of _The Grand Design_ has this statement:
> 
> But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you actually read The Grand Design?  Or did you do a cut and paste job?
> 
> What about p. 155, p. 159, p. 161, and p. 162?
> 
> p. 155
> "The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints not just on our _environment_ but on the possible _form and content of the laws of nature_ themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life but also the characteristics of our entire universe, and that is much more difficult to explain."
> 
> p. 159
> "Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4 percent in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it."
> 
> p. 161
> "The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system hat is extremely fine-tuned, and very litle in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being."
> 
> p. 162
> "Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way."
> 
> It goes to show you that Hawking admitted to fine tuning and a STRONG Anthropic Principle.  He still wouldn't admit that it's just Earth and no other life besides humans.
> 
> However, the articles from around the same time discussing fine tuning have been deleted.
> 
> Here's an article and atheist opinion piece from 2018:
> 
> Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God?
> "Scientists have discovered a surprising fact about our universe in the past 40 years: against incredible odds, the numbers in basic physics are exactly as they need to be to accommodate the possibility of life. If gravity had been slightly weaker, stars would not have exploded into supernovae, a crucial source of many of the heavier elements involved in life. Conversely, if gravity had been slightly stronger, stars would have lived for thousands rather than billions of years, not leaving enough time for biological evolution to take place. This is just one example – there are many others – of the “fine-tuning” of the laws of physics for life."
> 
> The rest is just atheist blabber and opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff
> 
> 
> In his final paper on the multiverse hypothesis, the world’s best-known atheist made a supernatural creator more plausible, says academic and author Philip Goff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So can you admit that there are no aliens and no abiogenesis now?  That creation scientists, Dr. William Lane Craig, and I were right and you were wrong after your disbeliefs for so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently did read the quotations you posted. No mention of “fine tuning” by your gods. That seems odd because your claim regarding “fine tuning” was: "discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang admit to the fine tuning facts". If Hawking discovered that your gods “fine tuned” the universe, why do you think ha never made that statement?
> 
> Why is “fine tuning” by your gods not identified in the quotes you posted when you insist such a discovery was made by Hawking? Did Hawking forget to announce his discovery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, you are in denial.  This is die hard ATHEIST Stephen Hawking.  He's using CIRCULAR reasoning to try and explain his findings.  Do you think he actually believes the stuff that he makes up?  Even Fort Fun Indiana isn't dumb enough to believe that multiverse stuff.  Instead, he's stuck on the older book of there are aliens and abiogenesis happens.  Look at this dumb bunny.  Do you still believe?  You can't accept the truth?
> 
> Former Israeli space security chief says extraterrestrials exist, and Trump knows about it
> A "galactic federation" has been waiting for humans to "reach a stage where we will understand... what space and spaceships are," Haim Eshed said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Former Israeli space chief says aliens exist, and Trump knows about it
> 
> 
> A "galactic federation" has been waiting for humans to "reach a stage where we will understand... what space and spaceships are," Haim Eshed said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
Click to expand...

I'm simply requiring you to support your claim about any gods mentioned by Hawking. BTW, I can't help but notice your false claims to Hawking invoking your gods is now the subject of sidestepping and backpedaling with some rather frantic tirades about since aliens. Funny stuff. 

Further, why would you accept anything from Hawking who you admit is an evilutionist atheist?


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to use my own words I used yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This goes to show I understand and can explain myself with certainty while you are ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have been saying there is no intelligent life in the universe but us then you changed that to there is no life in our solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, that's not what I said, but what your stupid, foolish mind thinks he heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> and if you can't understand that it can take tens of thousands of years or longer for light from a star in our own galaxy to reach us here on earth then you fail to have the most rudimentary grasp of physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what I want you to explain how it works, but you don't understand it enough to explain because of your stupidity.
> 
> Even the moron Biden is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at you.
> 
> We are done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's exactly what you said.
> 
> Your whole argument is that if there was intelligent life in the universe that they would have been found by now becuase you obviously don't understand the distances involved within our own galaxy never mind the entire universe and you don't grasp the limits of light speed communication over such vast distances
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 437681 Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when you can't argue post a stupid picture
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually lol when u post.  It perfectly describes stupid, stupid, stupid you (who can't explain himself, but just repeat).  You make me laugh like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it you can't reply intelligently so you resort to juvenile picture posting
Click to expand...


smh.  Rinse, repeat.

Do I have to go to my smh pictures now?


----------



## Blues Man

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to use my own words I used yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This goes to show I understand and can explain myself with certainty while you are ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have been saying there is no intelligent life in the universe but us then you changed that to there is no life in our solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, that's not what I said, but what your stupid, foolish mind thinks he heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> and if you can't understand that it can take tens of thousands of years or longer for light from a star in our own galaxy to reach us here on earth then you fail to have the most rudimentary grasp of physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what I want you to explain how it works, but you don't understand it enough to explain because of your stupidity.
> 
> Even the moron Biden is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at you.
> 
> We are done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's exactly what you said.
> 
> Your whole argument is that if there was intelligent life in the universe that they would have been found by now becuase you obviously don't understand the distances involved within our own galaxy never mind the entire universe and you don't grasp the limits of light speed communication over such vast distances
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 437681 Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when you can't argue post a stupid picture
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually lol when u post.  It perfectly describes stupid, stupid, stupid you (who can't explain himself, but just repeat).  You make me laugh like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it you can't reply intelligently so you resort to juvenile picture posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> smh.  Rinse, repeat.
> 
> Do I have to go to my smh pictures now?
Click to expand...


hey if you need a picture book to communicate go right ahead.

I don't like to make fun of people who have learning disabilities


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I'm simply requiring you to support your claim about any gods mentioned by Hawking. BTW, I can't help but notice your false claims to Hawking invoking your gods is now the subject of sidestepping and backpedaling with some rather frantic tirades about since aliens. Funny stuff.
> 
> Further, why would you accept anything from Hawking who you admit is an evilutionist atheist?



There are plenty of articles on what Hawking thought of God.  I think he believed not in creator God, but the impersonal god of physics.  What an idiot.  The evidence was right in front of face, but he couldn't admit it.  His atheist faith prevented him from the TRUTH -- no aliens and no abiogenesis.  Instead, he went circular.

(I think I told you what would convince me if I was an atheist to stop my atheism.)

Finally, I'm glad you now state "evilutionist atheist" and are seeing evolution as evil.


----------



## james bond

Here's something from the OP.  How can the big bang or expansion cause our solar system?  The solar system appears to have been designed exactly the way it is.  If it was a hair off, then it would not exist according to the _fine tuning facts_.


----------



## james bond

Blues Man said:


> hey if you need a picture book to communicate go right ahead.
> 
> I don't like to make fun of people who have learning disabilities








You still haven't explained how out solar system is just right from a _random_ big expansion.  Which two planets do not rotate counter-clockwise and why?






You won't be able to explain, so I'll lol in the same post.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm simply requiring you to support your claim about any gods mentioned by Hawking. BTW, I can't help but notice your false claims to Hawking invoking your gods is now the subject of sidestepping and backpedaling with some rather frantic tirades about since aliens. Funny stuff.
> 
> Further, why would you accept anything from Hawking who you admit is an evilutionist atheist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of articles on what Hawking thought of God.  I think he believed not in creator God, but the impersonal god of physics.  What an idiot.  The evidence was right in front of face, but he couldn't admit it.  His atheist faith prevented him from the TRUTH -- no aliens and no abiogenesis.  Instead, he went circular.
> 
> (I think I told you what would convince me if I was an atheist to stop my atheism.)
> 
> Finally, I'm glad you now state "evilutionist atheist" and are seeing evolution as evil.
Click to expand...


What, exactly, is an “impersonal god of physics”? Religioners seem to have invented more gods than anyone can keep track of. Humans have created gods to manage most things in nature they didn’t understand. Most of those gods have been replaced by a few, one-stop-shopping gods of convenience who now manage the affairs of humans. Were those older gods relegated to administrative duties to free up time for the newer gods?

Reading through your comments, I have to suggest that you contact Hawkin’s publisher and arrange to correct the errors made in _The Grand Design. _It seems a shame that Hawkin’s legacy should be tarnished as being ‘an idiot’ for not researching your work and reaching your conclusions about space aliens and such.

Am I seeing evolution as evil? I never stated that so it seems you might want to visit your local Walmart and see if they have _integrity_ on sale.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey if you need a picture book to communicate go right ahead.
> 
> I don't like to make fun of people who have learning disabilities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't explained how out solar system is just right from a _random_ big expansion.  Which two planets do not rotate counter-clockwise and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't be able to explain, so I'll lol in the same post.
Click to expand...


Apparently, your gods were up late at a party and missed the morning class on that gravity lecture. That little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago or that Schumacher-Levy thing suggests that would have been a lecture they needed to attend.

I noticed the earth was not depicted as firm and immovable in the graphic you posted. It was rather.... round, not flat.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> What, exactly, is an “impersonal god of physics”?



That's Hawking's term.  Did u read The Grand Design?

It appears that I have the answers once again while you avoid the truth and be obscure.  If you knew abiogenesis and aliens were true, then it would be fact rn.



Hollie said:


> Religioners seem to have invented more gods than anyone can keep track of.



What are religioners?  It sounds condescending.  Ad hominem?  Atheists are religioners, too.  You might as well admit you were wrong, lost the argument, and that there are no aliens and no abiogenesis.



Hollie said:


> Humans have created gods to manage most things in nature they didn’t understand.



Atheist humans invented ToE and non-God-as-creator origins.



Hollie said:


> Reading through your comments, I have to suggest that you contact Hawkin’s publisher and arrange to correct the errors made in _The Grand Design. _It seems a shame that Hawkin’s legacy should be tarnished as being ‘an idiot’ for not researching your work and reaching your conclusions about space aliens and such.



Lol, lol, lol.  It's Hawking.



Hollie said:


> Am I seeing evolution as evil? I never stated that so it seems you might want to visit your local Walmart and see if they have _integrity_ on sale.



So you admit u didn't read The Grand Design.  No way could that book be _integrity_ nor the _truth_.  It's made up scientific fairy tales based on circular logic.  I doubt even Walmart carries books like that.

You're the one who called it evilution and I thought it was an excellent name for your fairy tales.



Hollie said:


> Apparently, your gods were up late at a party and missed the morning class on that gravity lecture. That little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago or that Schumacher-Levy thing suggests that would have been a lecture they needed to attend.
> 
> I noticed the earth was not depicted as firm and immovable in the graphic you posted. It was rather.... round, not flat.



Please explain what dalliance occurred on Earth 65 M yrs ago.  What is the Schumacher-Levy thing?

Again, you are mixing up atheists and flat Earthers with people who know the truth such as creation scientists and creationists.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is an “impersonal god of physics”?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Hawking's term.  Did u read The Grand Design?
> 
> It appears that I have the answers once again while you avoid the truth and be obscure.  If you knew abiogenesis and aliens were true, then it would be fact rn.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religioners seem to have invented more gods than anyone can keep track of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are religioners?  It sounds condescending.  Ad hominem?  Atheists are religioners, too.  You might as well admit you were wrong, lost the argument, and that there are no aliens and no abiogenesis.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans have created gods to manage most things in nature they didn’t understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheist humans invented ToE and non-God-as-creator origins.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading through your comments, I have to suggest that you contact Hawkin’s publisher and arrange to correct the errors made in _The Grand Design. _It seems a shame that Hawkin’s legacy should be tarnished as being ‘an idiot’ for not researching your work and reaching your conclusions about space aliens and such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol, lol, lol.  It's Hawking.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I seeing evolution as evil? I never stated that so it seems you might want to visit your local Walmart and see if they have _integrity_ on sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit u didn't read The Grand Design.  No way could that book be _integrity_ nor the _truth_.  It's made up scientific fairy tales based on circular logic.  I doubt even Walmart carries books like that.
> 
> You're the one who called it evilution and I thought it was an excellent name for your fairy tales.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, your gods were up late at a party and missed the morning class on that gravity lecture. That little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago or that Schumacher-Levy thing suggests that would have been a lecture they needed to attend.
> 
> I noticed the earth was not depicted as firm and immovable in the graphic you posted. It was rather.... round, not flat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain what dalliance occurred on Earth 65 M yrs ago.  What is the Schumacher-Levy thing?
> 
> Again, you are mixing up atheists and flat Earthers with people who know the truth such as creation scientists and creationists.
Click to expand...


I can understand you desperation to attach Hawking to your version of the gods but you should invest in a bit more study time of Hawking’s conclusions.


God is the name people give to the reason we are here. But I think that reason is the laws of physics rather than someone with whom one can have a personal relationship. An impersonal God.

Stephen Hawking


Ultimately, it makes no difference if Hawking believed in gods, your gods or someone else’s gods. Evidence is what separates mere claims vs. facts and I see you have no facts.

It’s stereotypical for the hyper-religious to denigrate the sciences and to include the complimentary sciences that support biological evolution. Your grand conspiracy theories that involve a worldwide conspiracy of evilutionist atheist scientists who are conspiring to fabricate scientific evidence is fairly typical for the hyper-religious. Your conspiracy theories are just time wasting, though.

You may believe Schumacher-Levy was a part of the grand conspiracy that haunts your world and a planet far older than 6,000 years may rock your world but it all suggests you live in a very dark world of fear and superstition.

I find it comical that you suggest Flat Earthers and ID creationers know some “twoof” when that “twoof” requires belief in magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey if you need a picture book to communicate go right ahead.
> 
> I don't like to make fun of people who have learning disabilities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't explained how out solar system is just right from a _random_ big expansion.  Which two planets do not rotate counter-clockwise and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't be able to explain, so I'll lol in the same post.
Click to expand...

Why is the earth rotating around the sun in the graphic you posted?

I thought the Bibles described the earth as fixed and immovable

Have the gods played a cruel joke on you?


----------



## forkup

Weatherman2020 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
Click to expand...

A lot of them. For instance, individual rocks can exert gravity on another. If enough of those rocks coalesce you get the formation of planets.


----------



## Ringtone

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
Click to expand...


No.  The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of strictly natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time.  The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.  

The evolutionist begs the question.  He assumes his conclusion, i.e., his interpretation of the available evidence, in his metaphysical premise.  While his conclusion axiomatically follows from his premise, it does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence.  While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not.  The actual predicate of his belief flies right over his head.

_Hocus Pocus_ 

We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry.  All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time.  This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation and extinction per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.


----------



## Ringtone

Weatherman2020 said:


> Be specific.
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.



Assuming that you're alluding to Big Bang cosmogony, it does not entail an explosion of such at all, but an expansion of matter and energy.


----------



## Ringtone

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None. Why do you think biological life forms represent "order"? Please define "order" for us, in a precise scientific fashion.
Click to expand...


You need to take your own advice and get a clue as to what _conservation_ means in terms of biological speciation.


----------



## Ringtone

Dagosa said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, you don’t have to be an atheist to believe in evolution.
Click to expand...


No, you don't.  You just have to mindlessly presuppose that naturalism is necessarily true.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did you not know that abiogenesis, the study of how life first began, is not yet determined?
> 
> How did you not know that ''supernatural gods did it'' is not an answer?
> 
> How did I know nobody could answer how your gods, and everyone else's gods, came into existence?
Click to expand...


God did not come into existence, you nincompoop; however, _your_ god, the material realm of being, did.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did you not know that abiogenesis, the study of how life first began, is not yet determined?
> 
> How did you not know that ''supernatural gods did it'' is not an answer?
> 
> How did I know nobody could answer how your gods, and everyone else's gods, came into existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God did not come into existence, you nincompoop; however, _your_ god, the material realm of being, did.
Click to expand...

You forgot to close your saliva-slinging tirade with “... because I say so”.

Yours are standard, ID’iot creationer claims. Your gods are the forever gods sharing an irrational, supernatural realm with all the other gods invented by others whose attributes are the same as your gods.

It’s a truism that ID’iot creationers of all hysterical tirades object to a rationally / reality-based world requiring a standard of demonstration. There is nothing that separates your alleged gods from any of the other versions of gods. Your immaterial gods are no better demonstrated from any of the other immaterial gods.

Your claims to three versions of gods cannot be reconciled with any natural theory so you are relegated to putting your gods in a supernatural realm. Why should anyone accept that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gods? Gods are, by definition, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an asserted immaterial, eternal realm.

Others are expected to accept “.. it’s true because I say so”?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did you not know that abiogenesis, the study of how life first began, is not yet determined?
> 
> How did you not know that ''supernatural gods did it'' is not an answer?
> 
> How did I know nobody could answer how your gods, and everyone else's gods, came into existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God did not come into existence, you nincompoop; however, _your_ god, the material realm of being, did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot to close your saliva-slinging tirade with “... because I say so”.
> 
> Yours are standard, ID’iot creationer claims. Your gods are the forever gods sharing an irrational, supernatural realm with all the other gods invented by others whose attributes are the same as your gods.
> 
> It’s a truism that ID’iot creationers of all hysterical tirades object to a rationally / reality-based world requiring a standard of demonstration. There is nothing that separates your alleged gods from any of the other versions of gods. Your immaterial gods are no better demonstrated from any of the other immaterial gods.
> 
> Your claims to three versions of gods cannot be reconciled with any natural theory so you are relegated to putting your gods in a supernatural realm. Why should anyone accept that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gods? Gods are, by definition, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an asserted immaterial, eternal realm.
> 
> Others are expected to accept “.. it’s true because I say so”?
Click to expand...

The gods of the Greeks, Romans, and other pagan cultures were city gods. Each city had its own deity. They were all superhuman in character and pretty much behaved as humans except they did everything in a big way. GOD isn't at all like that. HE isn't hurling lightning bolts or stealing pretty girls and procreating demigods. GOD simply isn't one in a group and HIS attributes are spotless to the point that HE sacrificed HIMSELF that all maybe saved.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did you not know that abiogenesis, the study of how life first began, is not yet determined?
> 
> How did you not know that ''supernatural gods did it'' is not an answer?
> 
> How did I know nobody could answer how your gods, and everyone else's gods, came into existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God did not come into existence, you nincompoop; however, _your_ god, the material realm of being, did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot to close your saliva-slinging tirade with “... because I say so”.
> 
> Yours are standard, ID’iot creationer claims. Your gods are the forever gods sharing an irrational, supernatural realm with all the other gods invented by others whose attributes are the same as your gods.
> 
> It’s a truism that ID’iot creationers of all hysterical tirades object to a rationally / reality-based world requiring a standard of demonstration. There is nothing that separates your alleged gods from any of the other versions of gods. Your immaterial gods are no better demonstrated from any of the other immaterial gods.
> 
> Your claims to three versions of gods cannot be reconciled with any natural theory so you are relegated to putting your gods in a supernatural realm. Why should anyone accept that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gods? Gods are, by definition, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an asserted immaterial, eternal realm.
> 
> Others are expected to accept “.. it’s true because I say so”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gods of the Greeks, Romans, and other pagan cultures were city gods. Each city had its own deity. They were all superhuman in character and pretty much behaved as humans except they did everything in a big way. GOD isn't at all like that. HE isn't hurling lightning bolts or stealing pretty girls and procreating demigods. GOD simply isn't one in a group and HIS attributes are spotless to the point that HE sacrificed HIMSELF that all maybe saved.
Click to expand...

Your description of the Greek, Roman and other Pagan gods vs. your gods are different only in scale. There was apparently some one-upsmanship taking place by the time your gods came along. Creating the heavens and earth is doing things in a big way. Flooding the planet and wiping most of their creation from the planet is pretty big. Those Greek, Roman and other Pagan gods got nothin’ on your gods.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did I know nobody could answer how evolution came into existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did you not know that abiogenesis, the study of how life first began, is not yet determined?
> 
> How did you not know that ''supernatural gods did it'' is not an answer?
> 
> How did I know nobody could answer how your gods, and everyone else's gods, came into existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God did not come into existence, you nincompoop; however, _your_ god, the material realm of being, did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot to close your saliva-slinging tirade with “... because I say so”.
> 
> Yours are standard, ID’iot creationer claims. Your gods are the forever gods sharing an irrational, supernatural realm with all the other gods invented by others whose attributes are the same as your gods.
> 
> It’s a truism that ID’iot creationers of all hysterical tirades object to a rationally / reality-based world requiring a standard of demonstration. There is nothing that separates your alleged gods from any of the other versions of gods. Your immaterial gods are no better demonstrated from any of the other immaterial gods.
> 
> Your claims to three versions of gods cannot be reconciled with any natural theory so you are relegated to putting your gods in a supernatural realm. Why should anyone accept that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gods? Gods are, by definition, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an asserted immaterial, eternal realm.
> 
> Others are expected to accept “.. it’s true because I say so”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gods of the Greeks, Romans, and other pagan cultures were city gods. Each city had its own deity. They were all superhuman in character and pretty much behaved as humans except they did everything in a big way. GOD isn't at all like that. HE isn't hurling lightning bolts or stealing pretty girls and procreating demigods. GOD simply isn't one in a group and HIS attributes are spotless to the point that HE sacrificed HIMSELF that all maybe saved.
Click to expand...

Job 36:32

American Standard Bible
“He covers _His_ hands with the lightning, And commands it to strike the target.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Job 36:32
> 
> American Standard Bible
> “He covers _His_ hands with the lightning, And commands it to strike the target.



Don't you think it means God is angry?  What do you think he means?


----------



## james bond

So there are no aliens and no abiogenesis.  Does that mean the atheists and their scientists admit that something is wrong with their origins of evolution and the universe (cosmology)?

What does it mean?  It means...







 and


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> The world and universe could not possibly last that long because of evil.


YHWH is helpless against that of course.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Hollie said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captain Caveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ///
> That's the Atheists religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which arose from, as the atheists claim, "a quantum vacuum."
> So nothing made everything. So simple, so anti-science, so anti-common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What evilutionist atheists claim all of existence arose from a quantum vacuum?
> 
> Is that what they teach you at your madrassah?
Click to expand...

What do christians believe?  that a God just appeared in a quantum vacuum?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Job 36:32
> 
> American Standard Bible
> “He covers _His_ hands with the lightning, And commands it to strike the target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think it means God is angry?  What do you think he means?
Click to expand...

I think it means that your gods, like the other gods invented by humans have been given human attributes.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Turtlesoup said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captain Caveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ///
> That's the Atheists religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which arose from, as the atheists claim, "a quantum vacuum."
> So nothing made everything. So simple, so anti-science, so anti-common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What evilutionist atheists claim all of existence arose from a quantum vacuum?
> 
> Is that what they teach you at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do christians believe?  that a God just appeared in a quantum vacuum?
Click to expand...


I think they do.


----------



## james bond

cnm said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world and universe could not possibly last that long because of evil.
> 
> 
> 
> YHWH is helpless against that of course.
Click to expand...


If Jesus hadn't come yet, then I just have to believe he's coming.  Yet, we are way past that stage where Jesus came as _servant_ to rescue all of humankind. Today, we wait until Jesus comes back again; This time as conqueror and angry God. It will be the real end of the world. Not due to a large asteroid, star collision, or even global warming (LMAO on the last one ; How can people be so stupid?)

Thus, we know the Earth could not have lasted as long as the atheist scientists claim.  It was born of catastrophism and it shall die of catastrophism.  The mid Atlantic ridge proves that.  Instead, the atheist scientists will think that the slow evolutionary processes will continue on and Earth will die a slow lingering death of more millions of years.  I can't breath.  I can't breath.  Suffer.  You shall live on just working to catch a breath and just breath.  You see how ridiculous that sounds?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I think it means that your gods, like the other gods invented by humans have been given human attributes.



It's the opposite.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it means that your gods, like the other gods invented by humans have been given human attributes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the opposite.
Click to expand...

No, its not. 

Why do religion'aires insist on describing their gods as displaying human attributes, emotions, such as anger, vengeance, retribution? 

Why make your gods teenage drama queens?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it means that your gods, like the other gods invented by humans have been given human attributes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, its not.
> 
> Why do religion'aires insist on describing their gods as displaying human attributes, emotions, such as anger, vengeance, retribution?
> 
> Why make your gods teenage drama queens?
Click to expand...


Aren't u the one being a teenage drama queen?  Using ad hominems like calling us "religion'aires?"  

The Bible took over 1500 years to write, complete, and put together.  It means different peoples from different walks of life wrote it as we have learned.  It's not like the serial paperbacks that you prolly read.  Why are you so ignorant?

Why can't you just admit that evolution has some difficult questions to answer since its origins are under the gun?  Will you all start to believe in multiverse next?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it means that your gods, like the other gods invented by humans have been given human attributes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, its not.
> 
> Why do religion'aires insist on describing their gods as displaying human attributes, emotions, such as anger, vengeance, retribution?
> 
> Why make your gods teenage drama queens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't u the one being a teenage drama queen?  Using ad hominems like calling us "religion'aires?"
> 
> The Bible took over 1500 years to write, complete, and put together.  It means different peoples from different walks of life wrote it as we have learned.  It's not like the serial paperbacks that you prolly read.  Why are you so ignorant?
> 
> Why can't you just admit that evolution has some difficult questions to answer since its origins are under the gun?  Will you all start to believe in multiverse next?
Click to expand...

I can’t be held responsible for your perceived hurt feelings.

And yes, the Bibles were written by many men, most of whom are unknown. Most of the tales and fables of the Bible were written, as you noted, hundreds of years after the claimed, supernatural events. Tales and fables told and retold such that legend building would account for mundane accounts to morph into tales of the supernatural.

Why can’t you admit that biological evolution is among the best supported theories in science? You must have noticed that the ID’iot creation ministries have become symbols of fraud.









						Intelligent design think tank's “institute” is a Shutterstock image
					

A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility.




					arstechnica.com
				







_“As a think tank focused on intelligent design, the Discovery Institute presumably has no need for physical laboratories—its research is mostly imagination-based. So it seemed odd to Richard Hoppe of Panda’s Thumb when he saw a video of one of the Institute’s researchers spouting all sorts of bad science from a lab setting. Although the video was datelined from the “Biologic Institute” of the Discovery Institute, it turns out that the nonsensical rant was green-screened in front of a stock image.

The Discovery Institute is a nonprofit think tank for the advancement of intelligent design theories, but it seems to spend much of its time attacking evolution via videos in which its resident scientists question all matters of, well, science. In the video, senior research scientist Ann Gauger puts the entire model of population genetics on trial.”_


Heh, just a bunch of dishonest hacks. In the meantime, real scientists, in real labs, doing real research are submitting their works to peer reviewed science journals all the time.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I can’t be held responsible for your perceived hurt feelings.



I'm going to take this as an admission of your wrongness about ID and creation science as it was your side that was shown the _painful_ truth about no aliens and no abiogenesis and the facts of no aliens and no abiogenesis backs it up.



Hollie said:


> And yes, the Bibles were written by many men, most of whom are unknown.



Most put their names on it .  The book you deny  was written by Moses.



Hollie said:


> Why can’t you admit that biological evolution is among the best supported theories in science?



It would be considered in a better light if creation scientists were not banned from peer reviews.  Now, it's just atheist and sycophantic boobs trying to get a consensus.  Are you a sycophant?  It shows from your statement.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Bond, James Bond, go from the presence of a foolish man, or woman as the case may be.  You are wasting your time trying to reason with Hollie and her godless cohorts.

“The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” – Brandolini’s Law









						Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
					






					AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
				




The short answer is "NO!"  Emphatically.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can’t be held responsible for your perceived hurt feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to take this as an admission of your wrongness about ID and creation science as it was your side that was shown the _painful_ truth about no aliens and no abiogenesis and the facts of no aliens and no abiogenesis backs it up.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, the Bibles were written by many men, most of whom are unknown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most put their names on it .  The book you deny  was written by Moses.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can’t you admit that biological evolution is among the best supported theories in science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be considered in a better light if creation scientists were not banned from peer reviews.  Now, it's just atheist and sycophantic boobs trying to get a consensus.  Are you a sycophant?  It shows from your statement.
Click to expand...

I will have to take this as your admission to making false claims.

What I posted about ID’iot creationer frauds (Ann Gauger and the Disco’tute) was factual and accurate.

As you don’t know that abiogenesis occurred, I have to think you’re promoting propaganda and betraying the very tenets of a Christian’ista.

As you don’t know that space aliens exist do or do not exist, your absolutist propaganda is really pretty meaningless.

ID’iot creationers are not banned from publishing in peer reviewed science journals. Yet another falsehood in your string of falsehoods. ID’iot creationers can publish what data / experiments / models they have for miracles, talking snakes, Ark pleasure cruises, whatever. The problem faced by ID’iot creationers is that they do no research and do no experiments. Ann Gauger and the Disco’tute attempting a fraud by green screening her image against an actual lab is callous and dishonest. I have to recognize however, that the ID’iot creation ministries are serial perpetrators of fraud.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Bond, James Bond, go from the presence of a foolish man, or woman as the case may be.  You are wasting your time trying to reason with Hollie and her godless cohorts.
> 
> “The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” – Brandolini’s Law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The short answer is "NO!"  Emphatically.


Listen to your masterj, Bond. He is mixing up a fresh batch of Kool-aid for you.

ChemEngineer has realized he can’t possibly participate in a forum where objective standards, supportable arguments and knowledge of the subject material is required which is why he cuts and pastes from a blog to shield himself from criticism of arguments based on supernaturalism.

He reminds of an Islamic terrorist insurgent. He pops in, spreads a lot of grief and then high tails it when the incoming starts.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I will have to take this as your admission to making false claims.



What did I claim?  You being a sycophant?  You rarely answer my questions, so I'm not sure.  You were wrong about not knowing the author's names of the Bible.

Just having a talking head in front of a green screen (and adding a background later) isn't a big deal.  Isn't it done regularly on tv shows?  It makes you look like an evolutionary sycophant.  Did she tell a lie or something?  Made a faux pas?

I watched a news program where the tv news host had an expert of the covid-19 vaccine from its local area.  Instead of asking the expert questions and letting the guest talk through most of the show, the host took over and explained how covid-19 gets transmitted from a facial touch.  It was stupid as he just repeated what most of us know in front of a giant video screen.  The guest stood next to him and wasn't asked to make a comment or answer any questions.  I had to turn it off as it was a waste of time.  Wouldn't something like that be a big deal to you?



Hollie said:


> As you don’t know that abiogenesis occurred,



That was my point.  No one knows if it occurred or not as no one was there.  With God as creator, he was also there as witness and he had his autobiography written by various authors.  Do you remember what I said that would convince me to change my mind if I was an atheist (it had to do with the greatest thing I ever heard an atheist say)?



Hollie said:


> As you don’t know that space aliens exist do or do not exist, your absolutist propaganda is really pretty meaningless.



That's what bugs me about you (besides not answering my questions) because you didn't listen as I answered your questions about fine tuning, Hawking, and the no intelligent aliens theories.  My claims about no aliens and no abiogenesis are backed by facts, scientific reasoning, and history.  The evidence shows no aliens and no abiogenesis for 4.54 billion atheist science year old Earth and 13.7 billion atheist science year old universe.



Hollie said:


> ID’iot creationers are not banned from publishing in peer reviewed science journals. Yet another falsehood in your string of falsehoods. ID’iot creationers can publish what data / experiments / models they have for miracles, talking snakes, Ark pleasure cruises, whatever. The problem faced by ID’iot creationers is that they do no research and do no experiments. Ann Gauger and the Disco’tute attempting a fraud by green screening her image against an actual lab is callous and dishonest. I have to recognize however, that the ID’iot creation ministries are serial perpetrators of fraud.



More ad hominems.  They're not allowed to do so, so they do their own peer reviews.  Got a link to what you claim?  I'll be glad to pass it on to AIG, creation.com, and ICR.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will have to take this as your admission to making false claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did I claim?  You being a sycophant?  You rarely answer my questions, so I'm not sure.  You were wrong about not knowing the author's names of the Bible.
> 
> Just having a talking head in front of a green screen (and adding a background later) isn't a big deal.  Isn't it done regularly on tv shows?  It makes you look like an evolutionary sycophant.  Did she tell a lie or something?  Made a faux pas?
> 
> I watched a news program where the tv news host had an expert of the covid-19 vaccine from its local area.  Instead of asking the expert questions and letting the guest talk through most of the show, the host took over and explained how covid-19 gets transmitted from a facial touch.  It was stupid as he just repeated what most of us know in front of a giant video screen.  The guest stood next to him and wasn't asked to make a comment or answer any questions.  I had to turn it off as it was a waste of time.  Wouldn't something like that be a big deal to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you don’t know that abiogenesis occurred,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was my point.  No one knows if it occurred or not as no one was there.  With God as creator, he was also there as witness and he had his autobiography written by various authors.  Do you remember what I said that would convince me to change my mind if I was an atheist (it had to do with the greatest thing I ever heard an atheist say)?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you don’t know that space aliens exist do or do not exist, your absolutist propaganda is really pretty meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what bugs me about you (besides not answering my questions) because you didn't listen as I answered your questions about fine tuning, Hawking, and the no intelligent aliens theories.  My claims about no aliens and no abiogenesis are backed by facts, scientific reasoning, and history.  The evidence shows no aliens and no abiogenesis for 4.54 billion atheist science year old Earth and 13.7 billion atheist science year old universe.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ID’iot creationers are not banned from publishing in peer reviewed science journals. Yet another falsehood in your string of falsehoods. ID’iot creationers can publish what data / experiments / models they have for miracles, talking snakes, Ark pleasure cruises, whatever. The problem faced by ID’iot creationers is that they do no research and do no experiments. Ann Gauger and the Disco’tute attempting a fraud by green screening her image against an actual lab is callous and dishonest. I have to recognize however, that the ID’iot creation ministries are serial perpetrators of fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More ad hominems.  They're not allowed to do so, so they do their own peer reviews.  Got a link to what you claim?  I'll be glad to pass it on to AIG, creation.com, and ICR.
Click to expand...

Well, it is comical to read the hyper-religious claim to know the authors of the Bibles, If the hyper-religious were willing to be objective; they would admit they have no corroboration that any of the gospels were authored by Luke, Matthew, Mark or John. They are simply accepting they were. So what happens if they were written by priests who were trying to codify messianic fervor of the time, and they did so writing a fictional account of a messiah? What if the real Jesus is an Essene priest who lived 100 years before? Suddenly that could explain a few things. I am suggesting that Jesus _could be_ an amalgam of existing messiahs of the time, most notably a rabbi of the Essenes who lived about 100 years before what is commonly referred to as the years of Jesus Christ. If memory serves, there's biblical notation that the Jews did not _initially_ reject the messiah, not until they discovered his way was not that of the sword. 

I would expect you to excuse the fraud perpetrated by Ann Gauger and the Disco'tute. I'm sure you're willing to excuse the lies and misrepresentations of those pressing a religious agenda as opposed to one of honesty and integrity.  I suppose you're perfectly fine with frauds and charlatans attempting to represent that the creation ministries do actual research. Of course, they don't. They spend time trying to fraudulently pass themselves off as something they are not. 

As to abiogenesis, we know with certainty it occurred. Life in the planet obviously exists so either natural mechanisms caused life to spark, or, one of any number of gods caused life to begin. There is no reason to accept that your gods were any more likely than the Hindu or Greek or any number of other gods were responsible. We see again that your various claims to know things with 100% certainty is supported with 0% facts. 

You really would do yourself a favor by not falsely and fraudulently representing that Hawking supports your claims to the various gods "fine tuning'' anything. There is nothing in Hawking's writing that indicates he accepts you gods as ''fine tuning'' anything. 

Between Ann Gauger, the Disco'tute, the various extremist Christian ministries and your comments, we have a disturbing pattern of behavior that accepts fraud, misrepresentation and falsehood as acceptable patterns of behavior.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Bond, if you don't stop wasting time mud wrestling with the likes of Hollie, I'm going to put you on ignore.  It seems that all you want to do is restate your same points to the same atheists. Never anything new or interesting. Come on man.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Bond, if you don't stop wasting time mud wrestling with the likes of Hollie, I'm going to put you on ignore.  It seems that all you want to do is restate your same points to the same atheists. Never anything new or interesting. Come on man.


The Ayatollah has issued his fatwa!


----------



## james bond

ChemEngineer said:


> Bond, if you don't stop wasting time mud wrestling with the likes of Hollie, I'm going to put you on ignore.  It seems that all you want to do is restate your same points to the same atheists. Never anything new or interesting. Come on man.



Why don't you say something to her then?  She'll just keep yapping.  Why don't you ignore her instead?

Anyway, I'm done with this thread for now.  I think I demonstrated there are no aliens and no abiogenesis.  Observation and common sense would tell us if there were.  Only life begets life.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bond, if you don't stop wasting time mud wrestling with the likes of Hollie, I'm going to put you on ignore.  It seems that all you want to do is restate your same points to the same atheists. Never anything new or interesting. Come on man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you say something to her then?  She'll just keep yapping.  Why don't you ignore her instead?
> 
> Anyway, I'm done with this thread for now.  I think I demonstrated there are no aliens and no abiogenesis.  Observation and common sense would tell us if there were.  Only life begets life.
Click to expand...

Where have you demonstrated there are no aliens and no abiogenesis? You made no demonstration in this thread.

Only “... because I say so” begets “... because I say so”.


----------



## ChemEngineer

james bond said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bond, if you don't stop wasting time mud wrestling with the likes of Hollie, I'm going to put you on ignore.  It seems that all you want to do is restate your same points to the same atheists. Never anything new or interesting. Come on man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you say something to her then?  She'll just keep yapping.  Why don't you ignore her instead?
> 
> Anyway, I'm done with this thread for now.  I think I demonstrated there are no aliens and no abiogenesis.  Observation and common sense would tell us if there were.  Only life begets life.
Click to expand...


I put her on Ignore LONG AGO and with her, countless other inane Leftists.  Life is too short for you to waste your time and ours.  
*
Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. *
You do the same thing over and over to Hollie and other Leftists and you expect them to change or learn?   Homie don't think so.


----------

