Why do so many Atheist and Christians misunderstand what Hell really is ?

[Youwerecreated]

If you believe in something so much as it's seems you do you should be able to give an honest opinion on how human life come to be? You have yet to identify how the origins of the human species began
Animal vegetable mineral?

ok we'll make this an easy question: is that evolution? or not evolution?

You keep up this level of quackery and you're going to sprout feathers soon!

You have not answered one question that has been put to you. You avoid questions by asking if this is evolution.

If life is by a natural process and this natural process is called evolution how and where did life begin on this planet ?

What is our nearest ancestor ?

Are you a Neo darwinist ?

What are transitional fossils ?

 

[Photonic]

If you believe in something so much as it's seems you do you should be able to give an honest opinion on how human life come to be? You have yet to identify how the origins of the human species began
Animal vegetable mineral?

ok we'll make this an easy question: is that evolution? or not evolution?

You keep up this level of quackery and you're going to sprout feathers soon!

You have not answered one question that has been put to you. You avoid questions by asking if this is evolution.

If life is by a natural process and this natural process is called evolution how and where did life begin on this planet ?

What is our nearest ancestor ?

Are you a Neo darwinist ?

What are transitional fossils ?

Transitional fossils technically do not exist, as all species are in a state of permanent transition at any given moment. The only way to classify a new species technically is if it is no longer capable of reproducing with the same species if it where to be thrown back in time to a point where they were sufficiently different.

 

[Montrovant]

3. Scientists do not know the conditions of the earth 3.4 billion years ago.

And neither do you.

Given the state of the ocean today, though, we can conclude it wasn't covered with tap water.

There were probably a few minerals, carbon, and ammonia in there somewhere.

And there goes the premise of your last 50 posts.

Of course i don't know so that shows the test was pointless.

Yes and they were only on this planet after the so called big bang. The big bang would have scattered all the things needed for life throughout the universe but we see it only on this one little planet why ?

Here educate yourself.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

You keep repeating this, and it continues to make no sense. How many planets have we been able to study extensively? How much direct interaction has man had with anything outside even our own solar system?

Let me rephrase your point so you can, perhaps, see how ridiculous it is :
'The things needed to form life would have been scattered throughout the universe by the big bang. Now, this is believed to have happened billions of years ago, which means it's possible life could have sprung up and been wiped out on planets long before humanity came to be. Further, it is thought that there are 200 billion or more stars in the Milky Way galaxy. There are also estimates that 1 of every 200 stars has a planet in the so-called Goldilocks zone, the distance from the star which would be neither too hot nor too cold to sustain life as we know it. There may be hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe, many of which could have the same ratios of stars and planets our own does. We can only see the smallest fragment of the universe so far and we have not had direct interaction with any planets outside our solar system. Despite all of this, I have concluded that our not finding any other life is proof that both the big bang theory and abiogenesis are wrong.'

Let me try an analogy. You go to the beach and pick up a shell. Inside the shell is a crab. You then proceed to pick up all the shells within reach. You find no other crabs. There is five miles of beach in either direction, but you decide that since no other shell within reach had a crab in it, no other shell on the entire beach can have a crab.
Actually, it would be more along the lines of you concluding that no other shell on the planet can contain a crab, or ever has contained a crab.

If god created the universe and created life on this planet, why couldn't he have done so on other worlds? Why would he create such a vast universe but only put life on this one miniscule part of it?

Stop underestimating the vastness of the universe or overestimating mankind's ability to observe it.

 

[Photonic]

And neither do you.

Given the state of the ocean today, though, we can conclude it wasn't covered with tap water.

There were probably a few minerals, carbon, and ammonia in there somewhere.

And there goes the premise of your last 50 posts.

Of course i don't know so that shows the test was pointless.

Yes and they were only on this planet after the so called big bang. The big bang would have scattered all the things needed for life throughout the universe but we see it only on this one little planet why ?

Here educate yourself.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

You keep repeating this, and it continues to make no sense. How many planets have we been able to study extensively? How much direct interaction has man had with anything outside even our own solar system?

Let me rephrase your point so you can, perhaps, see how ridiculous it is :
'The things needed to form life would have been scattered throughout the universe by the big bang. Now, this is believed to have happened billions of years ago, which means it's possible life could have sprung up and been wiped out on planets long before humanity came to be. Further, it is thought that there are 200 billion or more stars in the Milky Way galaxy. There are also estimates that 1 of every 200 stars has a planet in the so-called Goldilocks zone, the distance from the star which would be neither too hot nor too cold to sustain life as we know it. There may be hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe, many of which could have the same ratios of stars and planets our own does. We can only see the smallest fragment of the universe so far and we have not had direct interaction with any planets outside our solar system. Despite all of this, I have concluded that our not finding any other life is proof that both the big bang theory and abiogenesis are wrong.'

Let me try an analogy. You go to the beach and pick up a shell. Inside the shell is a crab. You then proceed to pick up all the shells within reach. You find no other crabs. There is five miles of beach in either direction, but you decide that since no other shell within reach had a crab in it, no other shell on the entire beach can have a crab.
Actually, it would be more along the lines of you concluding that no other shell on the planet can contain a crab, or ever has contained a crab.

If god created the universe and created life on this planet, why couldn't he have done so on other worlds? Why would he create such a vast universe but only put life on this one miniscule part of it?

Stop underestimating the vastness of the universe or overestimating mankind's ability to observe it.

Mathematically it would be more like the surface of a planet that is the same circumference as our galaxy.

 

[Youwerecreated]

He knows he is and don't want to admit to it,because he knows life can't self generate itself. When I have time I will show him why he should not be referring to the miller urey experiment.

Just like he don't want to admit the theory teaches we are related to apes.

Molecular biology, huh?

You should know for FACT that we are genetically related to all chordata members.

And that abiogenesis is the theory you seem to be attacking, not evolution.

If you believe in something so much as it's seems you do you should be able to give an honest opinion on how human life come to be? You have yet to identify how the origins of the human species began
Animal vegetable mineral?

You might as well ignore the hick he won't give you a straight answer. He avoids questions that his textbook couldn't answer for him.

I posted some questions to him to corner him in ,watch the response I get from him.

Nothing of substance only rehtoric.

 

[Montrovant]

And your claiming that human life came from nothing makes you more knowledgeable than I? It would take more faith to believe in what you do than what I believe in. The human body is a complex machine, there is no way that evolutional theory what ever it is now can answer how life begin here on earth without the mention of a creator. If Homo Sapiens evolved from something it wasn't from any sea life or primate monkey species, as science has taught in the past.


The Future of Homo Sapiens, The Future of Human Evolution
Homo sapiens
Evolution of Modern Humans:* Early Modern Homo sapiens
The Evolution of Homo sapiens
Homo Sapiens, Meet Your New Astounding Family | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine

I never claimed "human life came from nothing".

If you want to lecture me on the wonders of the human body, by all means. We are certainly interesting.

While you are at it, you should delve into some pathology. Here are two good areas: cancer and autoimmune diseases.

Okay, now start your lecture.

You are claiming Human life came from nothing if you advocate evolution.

Aren't you claiming human life came from nothing if you advocate god creating life?

There are plenty of people who believe god created life who also believe in evolution. Some on this very board. This insistence that evolution and abiogenesis are inextricably linked is simply incorrect.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And neither do you.

Given the state of the ocean today, though, we can conclude it wasn't covered with tap water.

There were probably a few minerals, carbon, and ammonia in there somewhere.

And there goes the premise of your last 50 posts.

Of course i don't know so that shows the test was pointless.

Yes and they were only on this planet after the so called big bang. The big bang would have scattered all the things needed for life throughout the universe but we see it only on this one little planet why ?

Here educate yourself.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

You keep repeating this, and it continues to make no sense. How many planets have we been able to study extensively? How much direct interaction has man had with anything outside even our own solar system?

Let me rephrase your point so you can, perhaps, see how ridiculous it is :
'The things needed to form life would have been scattered throughout the universe by the big bang. Now, this is believed to have happened billions of years ago, which means it's possible life could have sprung up and been wiped out on planets long before humanity came to be. Further, it is thought that there are 200 billion or more stars in the Milky Way galaxy. There are also estimates that 1 of every 200 stars has a planet in the so-called Goldilocks zone, the distance from the star which would be neither too hot nor too cold to sustain life as we know it. There may be hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe, many of which could have the same ratios of stars and planets our own does. We can only see the smallest fragment of the universe so far and we have not had direct interaction with any planets outside our solar system. Despite all of this, I have concluded that our not finding any other life is proof that both the big bang theory and abiogenesis are wrong.'

Let me try an analogy. You go to the beach and pick up a shell. Inside the shell is a crab. You then proceed to pick up all the shells within reach. You find no other crabs. There is five miles of beach in either direction, but you decide that since no other shell within reach had a crab in it, no other shell on the entire beach can have a crab.
Actually, it would be more along the lines of you concluding that no other shell on the planet can contain a crab, or ever has contained a crab.

If god created the universe and created life on this planet, why couldn't he have done so on other worlds? Why would he create such a vast universe but only put life on this one miniscule part of it?

Stop underestimating the vastness of the universe or overestimating mankind's ability to observe it.

Is there life out there yes or no ?

And there should have been life scattered throughout the universe why is it just on this little planet ?

What you just said was nothing but speculation nothing to prove anything you said.

Let me tell you why there is no life out there .no other planet is setup to sustain life like this one .The creator chose this one for a reason.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Man evolved from an animal that is not alive today. This is another concept you've never quite grasped.

So you BELIEVE the bili is part chimp and gorilla? I suggest you try googling that one and reconsidering. Wikipedia might help you. Perhaps you will figure out that the bili ape, which has never throughout all of history been recorded or documented as the result of cross breeding chimps and apes, is actually just a misnomer.

Did you really just try to base the entirety of your claim on a species you don't actually know anything about? You fail once again. Perhaps you should try the google search first next time.

Wrong you say we are a product of a natural process called evolution so you would need to show how evolution got it's start.

Again, doesn't matter how many times you say this, it's still false. I no more need to explain the start of life to prove evolution than I need to explain how my computer is made to turn it on and use it. One process, while coming before the other, is completely separate.

But you've always had problems making such differentiations. If an elevator has buttons, and a tv remote has buttons, you're convinced the remote will get you to the top floor.



Once again: nothing to do with evolution. Are you willfully ignorant to this point or do you just keep forgetting every 5 minutes?


Yes, you did already answer that one...... a few posts back without anyone saying anything about it. This answers my last question: you just get confused and forget things apparently.

Nevertheless, it is still true that the origins of life are distinct from evolution. By the way, your idea about amino acids is wrong. Not only are soluble amino acids able to form building blocks, but all of the hydrophobic amino acids do not dissolve in water. You're wrong on two counts in one sentence. Congrats.

Well i'm sorry but it is a fact,i suffered an Ischemic stroke due to having a hole in my heart I had a patent foramen ovale performed.

These are the effects i deal with on a daily basis.

slurred speech,loss of balance, confusion and memory loss.

These are sound credentials on which to educate the masses about complex topics you don't understand. I wish all the confused people with memory loss could explain things to me like you do.

It is only absurd to the ones who deny the difference between the two,well like you.

Yes. The entirety of the peer-reviewed published scientific community is absurd.

I hope i get the chance to see you explain to God all those peer reviews.

You do nothing to show why you are right and we are wrong you avoid our questions like the plague,why ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I never claimed "human life came from nothing".

If you want to lecture me on the wonders of the human body, by all means. We are certainly interesting.

While you are at it, you should delve into some pathology. Here are two good areas: cancer and autoimmune diseases.

Okay, now start your lecture.

You are claiming Human life came from nothing if you advocate evolution.

Aren't you claiming human life came from nothing if you advocate god creating life?

There are plenty of people who believe god created life who also believe in evolution. Some on this very board. This insistence that evolution and abiogenesis are inextricably linked is simply incorrect.

Yes that is life begetting life, oops, And you're saying non-life is begetting life.

And there are many Christians who believe God is gonna torture people forever so what,when it's clear in the scriptures that is not the case.

 

[InDoctriNation]

Of course i don't know so that shows the test was pointless.

Yes and they were only on this planet after the so called big bang. The big bang would have scattered all the things needed for life throughout the universe but we see it only on this one little planet why ?

Here educate yourself.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

You keep repeating this, and it continues to make no sense. How many planets have we been able to study extensively? How much direct interaction has man had with anything outside even our own solar system?

Let me rephrase your point so you can, perhaps, see how ridiculous it is :
'The things needed to form life would have been scattered throughout the universe by the big bang. Now, this is believed to have happened billions of years ago, which means it's possible life could have sprung up and been wiped out on planets long before humanity came to be. Further, it is thought that there are 200 billion or more stars in the Milky Way galaxy. There are also estimates that 1 of every 200 stars has a planet in the so-called Goldilocks zone, the distance from the star which would be neither too hot nor too cold to sustain life as we know it. There may be hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe, many of which could have the same ratios of stars and planets our own does. We can only see the smallest fragment of the universe so far and we have not had direct interaction with any planets outside our solar system. Despite all of this, I have concluded that our not finding any other life is proof that both the big bang theory and abiogenesis are wrong.'

Let me try an analogy. You go to the beach and pick up a shell. Inside the shell is a crab. You then proceed to pick up all the shells within reach. You find no other crabs. There is five miles of beach in either direction, but you decide that since no other shell within reach had a crab in it, no other shell on the entire beach can have a crab.
Actually, it would be more along the lines of you concluding that no other shell on the planet can contain a crab, or ever has contained a crab.

If god created the universe and created life on this planet, why couldn't he have done so on other worlds? Why would he create such a vast universe but only put life on this one miniscule part of it?

Stop underestimating the vastness of the universe or overestimating mankind's ability to observe it.

Is there life out there yes or no ?

And there should have been life scattered throughout the universe why is it just on this little planet ?

What you just said was nothing but speculation nothing to prove anything you said.

Let me tell you why there is no life out there .no other planet is setup to sustain life like this one .The creator chose this one for a reason.

Not every question has a yes or no answer, especially if the answer simply is "I don't know." No one knows if there is extraterrestrial life in the universe. What we do know is that the elemental building blocks for life are extremely commonplace in the universe, and given the vastness of the cosmos it is reasonable to believe that there very well could be, or could have been, or will be, an earth-like planet existing in a similar orbit around a similar star to our own.

You say that the reason (you believe) there is no extraterrestrial life is because no other planet is setup to sustain life, and that the creator chose this planet for a reason. I gotta tell you, that's a pretty damn unconvincing argument (actually more of a blind assertion) for why there is no extraterrestrial life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

ok we'll make this an easy question: is that evolution? or not evolution?

You keep up this level of quackery and you're going to sprout feathers soon!

You have not answered one question that has been put to you. You avoid questions by asking if this is evolution.

If life is by a natural process and this natural process is called evolution how and where did life begin on this planet ?

What is our nearest ancestor ?

Are you a Neo darwinist ?

What are transitional fossils ?

Transitional fossils technically do not exist, as all species are in a state of permanent transition at any given moment. The only way to classify a new species technically is if it is no longer capable of reproducing with the same species if it where to be thrown back in time to a point where they were sufficiently different.

Oh you're are not a neo darwinist you're are a Punctuated equilibrium believer. Most true evolutionist are now pushing Neo Darwinism though.

And i agree with you there are no transitional fossils in existence but darwin stated in in his own words if his theory be true there would be millions of transitional fossils.

 

[Montrovant]

Of course i don't know so that shows the test was pointless.

Yes and they were only on this planet after the so called big bang. The big bang would have scattered all the things needed for life throughout the universe but we see it only on this one little planet why ?

Here educate yourself.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

You keep repeating this, and it continues to make no sense. How many planets have we been able to study extensively? How much direct interaction has man had with anything outside even our own solar system?

Let me rephrase your point so you can, perhaps, see how ridiculous it is :
'The things needed to form life would have been scattered throughout the universe by the big bang. Now, this is believed to have happened billions of years ago, which means it's possible life could have sprung up and been wiped out on planets long before humanity came to be. Further, it is thought that there are 200 billion or more stars in the Milky Way galaxy. There are also estimates that 1 of every 200 stars has a planet in the so-called Goldilocks zone, the distance from the star which would be neither too hot nor too cold to sustain life as we know it. There may be hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe, many of which could have the same ratios of stars and planets our own does. We can only see the smallest fragment of the universe so far and we have not had direct interaction with any planets outside our solar system. Despite all of this, I have concluded that our not finding any other life is proof that both the big bang theory and abiogenesis are wrong.'

Let me try an analogy. You go to the beach and pick up a shell. Inside the shell is a crab. You then proceed to pick up all the shells within reach. You find no other crabs. There is five miles of beach in either direction, but you decide that since no other shell within reach had a crab in it, no other shell on the entire beach can have a crab.
Actually, it would be more along the lines of you concluding that no other shell on the planet can contain a crab, or ever has contained a crab.

If god created the universe and created life on this planet, why couldn't he have done so on other worlds? Why would he create such a vast universe but only put life on this one miniscule part of it?

Stop underestimating the vastness of the universe or overestimating mankind's ability to observe it.

Is there life out there yes or no ?

And there should have been life scattered throughout the universe why is it just on this little planet ?

What you just said was nothing but speculation nothing to prove anything you said.

Let me tell you why there is no life out there .no other planet is setup to sustain life like this one .The creator chose this one for a reason.

*sigh*
I have no idea if there is other life; that's the whole point. We have only seen a tiny, tiny, TINY portion of the universe. Even if life was scattered throughout the universe, because we can see so little of it, there could be life on billions of planets and we would have no way of knowing.

I wasn't attempting to prove there is life. I was trying to show you that assuming we would have seen life on other planets is foolish and completely ignores how limited our knowledge and observational capacity is.

How do you know no other planet is set up to sustain life? Does the bible tell you this? Aren't you both assuming you know the mind of god and putting extreme limits on his power to say that god did not put life elsewhere? First, if god created it all, could he not have created other planets like earth? Second, being all powerful, could he not create a form of life that would survive on planets that the life we know could not survive on?

If there is a god that created everything, I see no reason to assume that being only created life on this one planet of the possibly trillions or more planets in the universe. It strikes me as arrogant to think that way, actually; humanity is so important that god created this almost inconceivably vast universe to put humans on this one tiny planet.

I am quite curious to see the scriptures that show god did not create life elsewhere as well as the scriptures that show no other planet could sustain life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Have a good night all,my drugs are kicking in.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I never claimed "human life came from nothing".

If you want to lecture me on the wonders of the human body, by all means. We are certainly interesting.

While you are at it, you should delve into some pathology. Here are two good areas: cancer and autoimmune diseases.

Okay, now start your lecture.

You are claiming Human life came from nothing if you advocate evolution.

Aren't you claiming human life came from nothing if you advocate god creating life?

There are plenty of people who believe god created life who also believe in evolution. Some on this very board. This insistence that evolution and abiogenesis are inextricably linked is simply incorrect.

God would be something, God would be life, so you have life coming from life. Something from something equals something. evolution nothing into something.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you believe in something so much as it's seems you do you should be able to give an honest opinion on how human life come to be? You have yet to identify how the origins of the human species began
Animal vegetable mineral?

ok we'll make this an easy question: is that evolution? or not evolution?

You keep up this level of quackery and you're going to sprout feathers soon!

And you never answer the question. You respond to the question with tap dancing comments but never answer the question.

If you believe in something so much as it's seems you do you should be able to give an honest opinion on how human life come to be?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Molecular biology, huh?

You should know for FACT that we are genetically related to all chordata members.

And that abiogenesis is the theory you seem to be attacking, not evolution.

If you believe in something so much as it's seems you do you should be able to give an honest opinion on how human life come to be? You have yet to identify how the origins of the human species began
Animal vegetable mineral?

You might as well ignore the hick he won't give you a straight answer. He avoids questions that his textbook couldn't answer for him.

I posted some questions to him to corner him in ,watch the response I get from him.

Nothing of substance only rehtoric.

I never thought I would see the day come that anti creationist would be arguing against darwins theory of evolution or any form of evolution. But these two firecrackers are a beat all for me.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You keep repeating this, and it continues to make no sense. How many planets have we been able to study extensively? How much direct interaction has man had with anything outside even our own solar system?

Let me rephrase your point so you can, perhaps, see how ridiculous it is :
'The things needed to form life would have been scattered throughout the universe by the big bang. Now, this is believed to have happened billions of years ago, which means it's possible life could have sprung up and been wiped out on planets long before humanity came to be. Further, it is thought that there are 200 billion or more stars in the Milky Way galaxy. There are also estimates that 1 of every 200 stars has a planet in the so-called Goldilocks zone, the distance from the star which would be neither too hot nor too cold to sustain life as we know it. There may be hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe, many of which could have the same ratios of stars and planets our own does. We can only see the smallest fragment of the universe so far and we have not had direct interaction with any planets outside our solar system. Despite all of this, I have concluded that our not finding any other life is proof that both the big bang theory and abiogenesis are wrong.'

Let me try an analogy. You go to the beach and pick up a shell. Inside the shell is a crab. You then proceed to pick up all the shells within reach. You find no other crabs. There is five miles of beach in either direction, but you decide that since no other shell within reach had a crab in it, no other shell on the entire beach can have a crab.
Actually, it would be more along the lines of you concluding that no other shell on the planet can contain a crab, or ever has contained a crab.

If god created the universe and created life on this planet, why couldn't he have done so on other worlds? Why would he create such a vast universe but only put life on this one miniscule part of it?

Stop underestimating the vastness of the universe or overestimating mankind's ability to observe it.

Is there life out there yes or no ?

And there should have been life scattered throughout the universe why is it just on this little planet ?

What you just said was nothing but speculation nothing to prove anything you said.

Let me tell you why there is no life out there .no other planet is setup to sustain life like this one .The creator chose this one for a reason.

Not every question has a yes or no answer, especially if the answer simply is "I don't know." No one knows if there is extraterrestrial life in the universe. What we do know is that the elemental building blocks for life are extremely commonplace in the universe, and given the vastness of the cosmos it is reasonable to believe that there very well could be, or could have been, or will be, an earth-like planet existing in a similar orbit around a similar star to our own.

You say that the reason (you believe) there is no extraterrestrial life is because no other planet is setup to sustain life, and that the creator chose this planet for a reason. I gotta tell you, that's a pretty damn unconvincing argument (actually more of a blind assertion) for why there is no extraterrestrial life.

The begining of human life would have a yes or no answer for the question. If life came from nothing Science should be able to be reproduced life from nothing. Yes or No

You must have a human sperm cell and a human egg to create human life. Yes or No

 

[Youwerecreated]

Except you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to this subject, and you've demonstrated it time and time again. You claiming some magical (and non quantifiable) intellectual prowess in the guise of "common sense" non-withstanding. STH is right to "bust your chops" for saying "man came from apes". Terminology aside, evolution does not, and never has, said that "man comes from (insert ape here)". In other words, you don't even have a grasp of what you are arguing about.

In other words, you can not formulate your own thoughts because you are ignorant (in the purest sense of the word) about what you are arguing against.

And your claiming that human life came from nothing makes you more knowledgeable than I? It would take more faith to believe in what you do than what I believe in. The human body is a complex machine, there is no way that evolutional theory what ever it is now can answer how life begin here on earth without the mention of a creator. If Homo Sapiens evolved from something it wasn't from any sea life or primate monkey species, as science has taught in the past.


The Future of Homo Sapiens, The Future of Human Evolution
Homo sapiens
Evolution of Modern Humans:* Early Modern Homo sapiens
The Evolution of Homo sapiens
Homo Sapiens, Meet Your New Astounding Family | Human Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine

I never claimed "human life came from nothing".

If you want to lecture me on the wonders of the human body, by all means. We are certainly interesting.

While you are at it, you should delve into some pathology. Here are two good areas: cancer and autoimmune diseases.

Okay, now start your lecture.

Then you need to prove that matter has always existed.

You need to show life on other planets.

Time began with the so called big bang you can't have matter without time. If the universe had a beginning then time had a beginning.

Did you watch the video I posted ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You keep repeating this, and it continues to make no sense. How many planets have we been able to study extensively? How much direct interaction has man had with anything outside even our own solar system?

Let me rephrase your point so you can, perhaps, see how ridiculous it is :
'The things needed to form life would have been scattered throughout the universe by the big bang. Now, this is believed to have happened billions of years ago, which means it's possible life could have sprung up and been wiped out on planets long before humanity came to be. Further, it is thought that there are 200 billion or more stars in the Milky Way galaxy. There are also estimates that 1 of every 200 stars has a planet in the so-called Goldilocks zone, the distance from the star which would be neither too hot nor too cold to sustain life as we know it. There may be hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe, many of which could have the same ratios of stars and planets our own does. We can only see the smallest fragment of the universe so far and we have not had direct interaction with any planets outside our solar system. Despite all of this, I have concluded that our not finding any other life is proof that both the big bang theory and abiogenesis are wrong.'

Let me try an analogy. You go to the beach and pick up a shell. Inside the shell is a crab. You then proceed to pick up all the shells within reach. You find no other crabs. There is five miles of beach in either direction, but you decide that since no other shell within reach had a crab in it, no other shell on the entire beach can have a crab.
Actually, it would be more along the lines of you concluding that no other shell on the planet can contain a crab, or ever has contained a crab.

If god created the universe and created life on this planet, why couldn't he have done so on other worlds? Why would he create such a vast universe but only put life on this one miniscule part of it?

Stop underestimating the vastness of the universe or overestimating mankind's ability to observe it.

Is there life out there yes or no ?

And there should have been life scattered throughout the universe why is it just on this little planet ?

What you just said was nothing but speculation nothing to prove anything you said.

Let me tell you why there is no life out there .no other planet is setup to sustain life like this one .The creator chose this one for a reason.

Not every question has a yes or no answer, especially if the answer simply is "I don't know." No one knows if there is extraterrestrial life in the universe. What we do know is that the elemental building blocks for life are extremely commonplace in the universe, and given the vastness of the cosmos it is reasonable to believe that there very well could be, or could have been, or will be, an earth-like planet existing in a similar orbit around a similar star to our own.

You say that the reason (you believe) there is no extraterrestrial life is because no other planet is setup to sustain life, and that the creator chose this planet for a reason. I gotta tell you, that's a pretty damn unconvincing argument (actually more of a blind assertion) for why there is no extraterrestrial life.

I should have asked the question like this,is there life out there that we know of ?

But you're right I can't say whether there is life on other planets but by what we know it is reasonable to assume there is not.

But my main question is if the big bang happened there should be life springing up from every body of water and every planet and that is not what we see why ? There is so much bacteria on this planet we should see new life popping up all around us if it happens naturally.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You keep repeating this, and it continues to make no sense. How many planets have we been able to study extensively? How much direct interaction has man had with anything outside even our own solar system?

Let me rephrase your point so you can, perhaps, see how ridiculous it is :
'The things needed to form life would have been scattered throughout the universe by the big bang. Now, this is believed to have happened billions of years ago, which means it's possible life could have sprung up and been wiped out on planets long before humanity came to be. Further, it is thought that there are 200 billion or more stars in the Milky Way galaxy. There are also estimates that 1 of every 200 stars has a planet in the so-called Goldilocks zone, the distance from the star which would be neither too hot nor too cold to sustain life as we know it. There may be hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe, many of which could have the same ratios of stars and planets our own does. We can only see the smallest fragment of the universe so far and we have not had direct interaction with any planets outside our solar system. Despite all of this, I have concluded that our not finding any other life is proof that both the big bang theory and abiogenesis are wrong.'

Let me try an analogy. You go to the beach and pick up a shell. Inside the shell is a crab. You then proceed to pick up all the shells within reach. You find no other crabs. There is five miles of beach in either direction, but you decide that since no other shell within reach had a crab in it, no other shell on the entire beach can have a crab.
Actually, it would be more along the lines of you concluding that no other shell on the planet can contain a crab, or ever has contained a crab.

If god created the universe and created life on this planet, why couldn't he have done so on other worlds? Why would he create such a vast universe but only put life on this one miniscule part of it?

Stop underestimating the vastness of the universe or overestimating mankind's ability to observe it.

Is there life out there yes or no ?

And there should have been life scattered throughout the universe why is it just on this little planet ?

What you just said was nothing but speculation nothing to prove anything you said.

Let me tell you why there is no life out there .no other planet is setup to sustain life like this one .The creator chose this one for a reason.

Not every question has a yes or no answer, especially if the answer simply is "I don't know." No one knows if there is extraterrestrial life in the universe. What we do know is that the elemental building blocks for life are extremely commonplace in the universe, and given the vastness of the cosmos it is reasonable to believe that there very well could be, or could have been, or will be, an earth-like planet existing in a similar orbit around a similar star to our own.

You say that the reason (you believe) there is no extraterrestrial life is because no other planet is setup to sustain life, and that the creator chose this planet for a reason. I gotta tell you, that's a pretty damn unconvincing argument (actually more of a blind assertion) for why there is no extraterrestrial life.

Why do you believe there is life out there ?