The Belief That Life Was the Result of an Accident Is Unscientific

[JimBowie1958]

The Big Bang explains the development of our Universe. But doesn't attempt to explain the conditions that created a universal singularity.
It's very safe to assume there is some very 'next-level' stuff going on that clearly defies our current understanding of physics.

It could be that the Brane theory explains why the Big Bang happened in a material way, but that is merely kicking the can down the road a bit more.

The Infinite Regression Fallacy proves that the flow of time itself cannot be infinite. It must have a beginning point.

 

[alang1216]

I believe that God is constantly making an infinite number of universes.

We have physical evidence of a pre-existing universe when our Big Bang erupted within it and destroyed it.

I'm not aware of any physical evidence of a pre-existing universe? At any rate, I predict we'll learn that the very structure of space gave rise to our universe when the conditions were right.

Of course you are God-like, as all human beings are in that we are made in His image, to be able to make moral choices and to think rationally.

Well, most of us anyway.

It seems like God's morality has changed dramatically over the ages. Any idea why that would be?

 

[edthecynic]

No, God is not a slave. God is perfect and Holy and outside the flow of time, thus He CANNOT change.

Thank you for admitting that your God is not omnipotent.

That has nothing to do with omnipotence.

There is no amount of power that can make God unholy, thus omnipotence is irrelevant, and my observation affecting nothing in the regard to His omnipotence.

So now changing is unholy.
So that makes Jesus unholy when he was persuaded by Mary to change his refusal to create wine from water.

 

[alang1216]

He cannot change His own nature. He is a Creator and so He creates.

So he is not all-powerful?

 

[JimBowie1958]

So now changing is unholy.

For God to change from Holy would be by definition unholy, dude.

BTW, your reading comprehension blows big chunks, roflmao

So that makes Jesus unholy when he was persuaded by Mary to change his refusal to create wine from water.

roflmao, no it does not as I am referring to God outside the flow of time, aka the Father. Jesus is a manifestation by the Father into the flow of time, His conceptualization of what He was going to create. As God has always constantly Creates, and Jesus is the Logos of each of them, Jesus is also of infinite duration, but exists within time.

 

[JimBowie1958]

He cannot change His own nature. He is a Creator and so He creates.

So he is not all-powerful?

What does inability to change due to not being within the flow of time have to do with the amount of power God has?

 

[alang1216]

He cannot change His own nature. He is a Creator and so He creates.

So he is not all-powerful?

What does inability to change due to not being within the flow of time have to do with the amount of power God has?

I was surprised to learn there was something God could not do and there was a place he could not go.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I believe that God is constantly making an infinite number of universes.

We have physical evidence of a pre-existing universe when our Big Bang erupted within it and destroyed it.

I'm not aware of any physical evidence of a pre-existing universe? At any rate, I predict we'll learn that the very structure of space gave rise to our universe when the conditions were right.

Yes, this article is old, but I cant find anything else at the moment.

Space Circles Are Proof of a Pre-Big Bang Universe?

Of course you are God-like, as all human beings are in that we are made in His image, to be able to make moral choices and to think rationally.

Well, most of us anyway.

It seems like God's morality has changed dramatically over the ages. Any idea why that would be?

What changed?

 

[Weatherman2020]

So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?

Time needed? No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.

Yet no new life.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I was surprised to learn there was something God could not do and there was a place he could not go.

As a Christian, I believe that God's interface with the flow of time space to be the Logos, or Jesus Christ.

it is not so much that God does not go there, but what He emanates into Space Time is not the father Himself, who is Eternal and always outside the flow of time.

At least this is my comprehension of it, and a priest might brand me a heretic, but this is how I understand it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

He cannot change His own nature. He is a Creator and so He creates.

So he is not all-powerful?

What does inability to change due to not being within the flow of time have to do with the amount of power God has?

I was surprised to learn there was something God could not do and there was a place he could not go.

Intellectual dishonesty is a trademark leftist tactic.

 

[rightwinger]

So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?

Time needed? No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.

Yet no new life.

You are doing it all wrong

You don't start with a human right away. You start with some primordial slime containing the correct hydrocarbons at a reasonable temperature with plenty of water. Maybe a lightning bolt or solar energy and a living organism is created. Wait a billion years and let evolution take its course

 

[Weatherman2020]

So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?

Time needed? No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.

Yet no new life.

You are doing it all wrong

You don't start with a human right away. You start with some primordial slime containing the correct hydrocarbons at a reasonable temperature with plenty of water. Maybe a lightning bolt or solar energy and a living organism is created. Wait a billion years and let evolution take its course

OK, why no new life forms in the past 500 million years? All life is traced back to a single lump of goo.

 

[rightwinger]

So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?

Time needed? No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.

Yet no new life.

You are doing it all wrong

You don't start with a human right away. You start with some primordial slime containing the correct hydrocarbons at a reasonable temperature with plenty of water. Maybe a lightning bolt or solar energy and a living organism is created. Wait a billion years and let evolution take its course

OK, why no new life forms in the past 500 million years? All life is traced back to a single lump of goo.

Who says new life forms are not being formed?
Any new life would be single cell....man has only been able to see things that small for about a hundred years
A hundred years vs the billion years of evolution is a mere blink of the eye

 

[PoliticalChic]

I understand that my posts are far too nuanced for a buffoon like you.

As I stated.....the 'evolution' taught to buffoons...Darwin's version....is certainly not a fact.

Darwin wrote on many subjects, on some he was correct and on some seriously wrong.

His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. His theory that tried to establish the mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is mostly accepted but Darwin changed his theory over time and it became less accepted as it "evolved". So you are incorrect, not all of Darwin's theories are taught as fact.

"His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. "

Only by buffoons.
Raise your paw.



Not only is there no evidence that supports Darwinian theory, but there is evidence that it is false.

1. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182


2. " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex, but different from any living animals.[14][15] The most common organism, Marrella, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed Opabinia and spiny slug-like Wiwaxia were so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. Stephen Jay Gould’s popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia


3. As Darwinian evolution is little more than a guess, I yearn for the day when the burning question makes it's way to the consciousness of its devotees.....

...why do you suppose it is mandatory in a secular society that every knee be bent and all obeisance be directed toward this view?

Why?


"But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms." The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker
BYLINE: Alan Linton
Nowe trendy w biznesie - Kolejna witryna oparta na WordPressie



Really....stop being afraid to actually pick up a book, or to question Liberal orthodoxy.

 

[Weatherman2020]

So if I pile all of the elements in the right ratios that makes a human, why does that pile not move?

Time needed? No, those elements have been in my backyard for a very very long time. Geology around my home is at least 6 million years.

Yet no new life.

You are doing it all wrong

You don't start with a human right away. You start with some primordial slime containing the correct hydrocarbons at a reasonable temperature with plenty of water. Maybe a lightning bolt or solar energy and a living organism is created. Wait a billion years and let evolution take its course

OK, why no new life forms in the past 500 million years? All life is traced back to a single lump of goo.

Who says new life forms are not being formed?
Any new life would be single cell....man has only been able to see things that small for about a hundred years
A hundred years vs the billion years of evolution is a mere blink of the eye

Nope, everything is linked back to a single point.

DNA.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Consider the following as ....indirect.....evidence for both.

Please don't cut & paste these rants and then ask why someone would not discuss an issue.

I've noticed that when buffoons are stumped and recognize that they have no way to dispute what I've posted, they pretend that 'cut and paste' is some sort of pejorative.

It isn't.

1. If there were not a cogent, well constructed thesis that destroys your Liberal worldview, you would not have come slithering out from under your rock.

2. The phrase 'cut and paste' is an attempted pejorative reference to a well supported post buttressed with quotes, links and sources.

3. Let's see what real authority has to say:

a. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml)
Composition Patterns: Developing an Argument

b. What has been pejoratively referred to as ‘simply cut and paste,’ is, in fact, carefully chosen to substantiate a point. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts.(LibGuides: Critically Analyzing Information Sources: Critical Appraisal and Analysis)

c. What has been called ‘cut and paste’ is frequently the message board version of footnotes and endnotes of an academic essay. “…footnotes were declared outmoded just before the era of the word-processors which make using footnotes so much easier. Still, because of its relative ease in both writing and reading, parenthetical documentation is greatly preferred by most instructors.” http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml
websites.wnc.edu/~kille/Fred/researchpaper.rtf

Wasn't that masterful????

 

[PoliticalChic]

But those atheistic Liberals never seem to want to discuss the existence of evil.

We do not deny the existence of the pure evil of CON$ervoFascism. Nor do we deny that if evil exists then God is the creator of evil.

Pure evil?

Watch: Leftism....
Communism, Nazism, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, Fascism...

...is responsible for over 100 million slaughtered since its origin.

Conservatism.....endorsing individualism, free markets and limited constitutional government....

...is responsible for liberty and freedom.


There is no disputing that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Because if they accept the traditional view of God....then they would be forced to accept the corollary, the view that Evil, or Satan, or Lucifer, exist as well.....and the evidence would prove that Leftism is animated by that evil.

Actually their existence would require they were created by your God and therefore YOUR religion of hate is animated by that Godly evil.

1. You don't know my religion.

2. America's basis, Judeo-Christian doctrine is based on free will.
Hence, if some are evil it is there choice, just as being stupid is your choice.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Morals are established by society. Before 160 years ago slavery was the norm in America. People changed the norm.

Now we have abolished slavery, decriminalized abortion (under certain conditions), legalized gay marriage, prohibited gender and other discrimination. I think we're making progress.

So you support the new bill banning abortion after 20 weeks?

That’s 14 weeks after normal brain activity starts.