Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If I had so much faith in something as you do I could answer the question.
The set of questions is your basic yes or no question
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
Surely human life can be reproduced without a human sperm cell and a human egg, if it happened once before it can happen again.
Science is working on reproducing life, and when they do you'll just move the goal posts anyways. We both know that.
Just because science can't recreate something doesn't mean it didn't happen, can science recreate the planet Earth? Since science can't, does Earth not exist?
if man recreates life then they will be a creator Thanks for playing. I do hope you finally get the point.
Yes it is,because that is the natural system of life according to your theory. If you can't demonstrate how it started the rest of your theory is just simply put, rubbish.
As is every facet of every other part of life. I mean, by your logic, until we can prove where we came from, all other discussion is pointless.
Again, it's a logical canard on your part. You aren't fooling anyone.
If you have no idea how can you say it didn't happen in water ? many scientists have said life had to begin in water. But it did not have to begin in water if there is a creator,does that make sense ?
You are obviously missing the point: Water (or H2O) doesn't have carbon in it. So obviously organic material can't be derived from it.
Again (in regards to "the creator"), you can believe what you want. It's just not a scientific theory.
Yes it is,because that is the natural system of life according to your theory. If you can't demonstrate how it started the rest of your theory is just simply put, rubbish.
As is every facet of every other part of life. I mean, by your logic, until we can prove where we came from, all other discussion is pointless.
Again, it's a logical canard on your part. You aren't fooling anyone.
If you have no idea how can you say it didn't happen in water ? many scientists have said life had to begin in water. But it did not have to begin in water if there is a creator,does that make sense ?
You are obviously missing the point: Water (or H2O) doesn't have carbon in it. So obviously organic material can't be derived from it.
Again (in regards to "the creator"), you can believe what you want. It's just not a scientific theory.
Life is really part of the fabric of a planet like Earth.
Life is also sustained by the planet itself. That is, all of the nutrients that go into the oceans and end up getting incorporated into biology, at first they're locked up in rocks and then they are eroded from rocks, enter the oceans, and take part in a complex recycling that ensures that there's always carbon and nitrogen and phosphorous available for each new generation of organisms.
The most interesting thought of all is that not only does life arise as a product of planetary processes, but in the fullness of time, on this planet at least, life emerged as a suite of planetary processes that are important in their own right. We're sitting here today breathing an oxygen-rich mixture of air. We couldn't be here without that oxygen, but that oxygen wasn't present on the early Earth, and it only became present because of the activity of photosynthetic organisms. So in a nutshell, life is really part of the fabric of a planet like Earth.
NOVA | How Did Life Begin?
Science is working on reproducing life, and when they do you'll just move the goal posts anyways. We both know that.
Just because science can't recreate something doesn't mean it didn't happen, can science recreate the planet Earth? Since science can't, does Earth not exist?
if man recreates life then they will be a creator Thanks for playing. I do hope you finally get the point.
You avoided my question, with good reason. You're realizing how stupid it is to say that since science can't reproduce something it has to mean it was done by a supernatural being.
if man recreates life then they will be a creator Thanks for playing. I do hope you finally get the point.
You avoided my question, with good reason. You're realizing how stupid it is to say that since science can't reproduce something it has to mean it was done by a supernatural being.
No you avoid the question, let's not play that game No one has yet to answer my question without using an insult.
You avoided my question, with good reason. You're realizing how stupid it is to say that since science can't reproduce something it has to mean it was done by a supernatural being.
No you avoid the question, let's not play that game No one has yet to answer my question without using an insult.
Please re-ask it I'm not sure which one it was. But you did avoid my question, science's inability to recreate something doesn't mean you just assume it's done by the supernatural. That's not how science works.
I've seen a lot of straw man questions from you in this thread though.
Angular momentum can still be conserved in the big bang, this point made by him makes mention of a rotating singularity that consitutes the earliest moment of the planck epoch (Planck epoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
By extrapolating from Hawkings & Susskind's assessments of quantum singularity properties, given that the universe at 0-time was a proper quantum singularity (what allows this to be constituted as a singularity is in fact the same properties we assign a black hole are accounted for in the properties of the early universe) there are two theories that can be worked from this.
(Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) The first is that there is no frame of reference, so conservation of angular moment isn't possible because it simply cannot be applied. The second and equally plasuable explaination is that the early universe was rotating from 0-time during the planck epoch which is a very clear possibility of a singularity, especially one like this. The second is more consistent with a multiverse theory of reality, given that the singularity formed was an event in a "parent" universe.
Moving on, he makes mention of movement in a particular direction, and given this the opposite direction is improbable because of the frame of reference (conservation of angular momentum). What he makes no mention of is that these events ARE quite improbable but mathematically likely to happen given the inclination of energy conservation in proper or retrograde rotation. Successive inclinations of retrograde directive energetic stimulus could easily explain these admittedly extremely rare events.
My assessment of his knowledge of gravity is that he lacks the basic understanding to make assertions about the coelescing of the early hydrogen gas in the universe under gravitational influences in sufficient quantuties to ignite stars. He argues that this is unlikely but we know today that gravity has no limits on it's capability to interact from a long distance. We are being affected by gravity from other galaxies and just because it is not noticable to us personally it's quite observable. A quick glance at the galactic clusters that permiate our universe leave us with little option but to accept this simple notion.
For those who are mathematically inclined I am including the equations that will allow you to calculate the gravitationally binding energy of a system. (Gravitational binding energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
I am going to pause at this point in the assessment of this video to say he seems to favor an incredibly simplified and almost derisive inclination to state evolution as bluntly and unfavorably as possible while still attempting to maintain neutrality. I do not find this becoming of someone claiming to be attempting to give people the facts and allowing them to decide themselves. Anyways, onward.
On the subject of radiometric dating, he fails to mention that more than a single "clock" is used in a sample for dating in billions of years. Uranium-235 and Lead-206. (Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
He mentions non-chrystalized igneous rock is undatable, but he also fails to mention that once it crystalizes it is easily dated almost to the moment. This is due to the inability to obtain a sufficient amount of crystalized (formed atomic structures) isotopes in the material.
His sand analogy doesn't really apply given the instruments used to measure. This is why there is a variable answer given to every dating. (Example: between 250-265,000 years) This is because samples used to date are taken from different geologic areas that are within a given distance and can provide accurate results.
His reference to relativity is unimagintive and lacking and INCREDIBLY insulting. He goes so far as to say it didn't need mentioning. This is not the attitude of someone who is attempting to give people equal footing in both to determine what is true.
Because he made no rational arguments against relativity, and simply relegated it to non-application which, in the context of his own argument, is impossible to do. He proceeds to do it anyways.
At this point in the movie he goes into evolution, which is not my speciality. I am educated on the topic but my opinions are not that of an evolutionary biologist but as someone well versed in evolution.
He begins this section with geological evolution, that is, the formation of the earths crust over time.
Unconformity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you wish to educate yourself as this man clearly avoided doing on this topic (among others) this is enough material to explain just about any inconsistent argument he brings up.
At the end of this film I get very heavy impression he is simply pandering to a Christian crowd with pseudoscientific evidence. I don't appreciate his obvious derision of science in general.
Issues with some "world-wide" flood; there is 3 times less than the required volume of water on Earth to produce such a flood, given that Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on earth. This would mean, in no uncertain terms, that there would be a shell of water with the bottom 2/3 volume MISSING! Empty air!
His little flatness theory is interesting, completely explainable by simply saying that sediments act similarly in air as well.
This poses a number of issues mathematically but I will stop there so I can continue watching.
If I had so much faith in something as you do I could answer the question.
The set of questions is your basic yes or no question
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
Surely human life can be reproduced without a human sperm cell and a human egg, if it happened once before it can happen again.
Science is working on reproducing life, and when they do you'll just move the goal posts anyways. We both know that.
Just because science can't recreate something doesn't mean it didn't happen, can science recreate the planet Earth? Since science can't, does Earth not exist?
if man recreates life then they will be a creator Thanks for playing. I do hope you finally get the point.
No you avoid the question, let's not play that game No one has yet to answer my question without using an insult.
Please re-ask it I'm not sure which one it was. But you did avoid my question, science's inability to recreate something doesn't mean you just assume it's done by the supernatural. That's not how science works.
I've seen a lot of straw man questions from you in this thread though.
tHATS WHAT i AM TALKING ABOUT YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION GO BACK THROUGH THIS HOW THREAD AND YOU WILL SEE THAT i HAVE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
As is every facet of every other part of life. I mean, by your logic, until we can prove where we came from, all other discussion is pointless.
Again, it's a logical canard on your part. You aren't fooling anyone.
You are obviously missing the point: Water (or H2O) doesn't have carbon in it. So obviously organic material can't be derived from it.
Again (in regards to "the creator"), you can believe what you want. It's just not a scientific theory.
Life is really part of the fabric of a planet like Earth.
Life is also sustained by the planet itself. That is, all of the nutrients that go into the oceans and end up getting incorporated into biology, at first they're locked up in rocks and then they are eroded from rocks, enter the oceans, and take part in a complex recycling that ensures that there's always carbon and nitrogen and phosphorous available for each new generation of organisms.
The most interesting thought of all is that not only does life arise as a product of planetary processes, but in the fullness of time, on this planet at least, life emerged as a suite of planetary processes that are important in their own right. We're sitting here today breathing an oxygen-rich mixture of air. We couldn't be here without that oxygen, but that oxygen wasn't present on the early Earth, and it only became present because of the activity of photosynthetic organisms. So in a nutshell, life is really part of the fabric of a planet like Earth.
NOVA | How Did Life Begin?
Kudos, providing a link from a Harvard scientist interview. He says nothing about a creator, talks a lot about scientific facts like the Earth being billions of years old, he referenced the Miller experiment in terms of amino acids, maybe you are coming around.
Science is working on reproducing life, and when they do you'll just move the goal posts anyways. We both know that.
Just because science can't recreate something doesn't mean it didn't happen, can science recreate the planet Earth? Since science can't, does Earth not exist?
if man recreates life then they will be a creator Thanks for playing. I do hope you finally get the point.
Hook, line ,and sinker.
Touche !
Life is really part of the fabric of a planet like Earth.
Life is also sustained by the planet itself. That is, all of the nutrients that go into the oceans and end up getting incorporated into biology, at first they're locked up in rocks and then they are eroded from rocks, enter the oceans, and take part in a complex recycling that ensures that there's always carbon and nitrogen and phosphorous available for each new generation of organisms.
The most interesting thought of all is that not only does life arise as a product of planetary processes, but in the fullness of time, on this planet at least, life emerged as a suite of planetary processes that are important in their own right. We're sitting here today breathing an oxygen-rich mixture of air. We couldn't be here without that oxygen, but that oxygen wasn't present on the early Earth, and it only became present because of the activity of photosynthetic organisms. So in a nutshell, life is really part of the fabric of a planet like Earth.
NOVA | How Did Life Begin?
Kudos, providing a link from a Harvard scientist interview. He says nothing about a creator, talks a lot about scientific facts like the Earth being billions of years old, he referenced the Miller experiment in terms of amino acids, maybe you are coming around.
Nope just simply pointing out he is referring to the nurients to forming life were formed in rocks which is a stretch in the least and found their way to the ocean to produce life.
Please re-ask it I'm not sure which one it was. But you did avoid my question, science's inability to recreate something doesn't mean you just assume it's done by the supernatural. That's not how science works.
I've seen a lot of straw man questions from you in this thread though.
tHATS WHAT i AM TALKING ABOUT YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION GO BACK THROUGH THIS HOW THREAD AND YOU WILL SEE THAT i HAVE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
Cut and paste, you've asked a lot of questions.
If it's not a straw man, I'll happily answer it to the best of my ability.
I'm posting a partial review of the presentation now. I haven't had time lately to finish it but I will at some point.
Angular momentum can still be conserved in the big bang, this point made by him makes mention of a rotating singularity that consitutes the earliest moment of the planck epoch (Planck epoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
By extrapolating from Hawkings & Susskind's assessments of quantum singularity properties, given that the universe at 0-time was a proper quantum singularity (what allows this to be constituted as a singularity is in fact the same properties we assign a black hole are accounted for in the properties of the early universe) there are two theories that can be worked from this.
(Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) The first is that there is no frame of reference, so conservation of angular moment isn't possible because it simply cannot be applied. The second and equally plasuable explaination is that the early universe was rotating from 0-time during the planck epoch which is a very clear possibility of a singularity, especially one like this. The second is more consistent with a multiverse theory of reality, given that the singularity formed was an event in a "parent" universe.
Moving on, he makes mention of movement in a particular direction, and given this the opposite direction is improbable because of the frame of reference (conservation of angular momentum). What he makes no mention of is that these events ARE quite improbable but mathematically likely to happen given the inclination of energy conservation in proper or retrograde rotation. Successive inclinations of retrograde directive energetic stimulus could easily explain these admittedly extremely rare events.
My assessment of his knowledge of gravity is that he lacks the basic understanding to make assertions about the coelescing of the early hydrogen gas in the universe under gravitational influences in sufficient quantuties to ignite stars. He argues that this is unlikely but we know today that gravity has no limits on it's capability to interact from a long distance. We are being affected by gravity from other galaxies and just because it is not noticable to us personally it's quite observable. A quick glance at the galactic clusters that permiate our universe leave us with little option but to accept this simple notion.
For those who are mathematically inclined I am including the equations that will allow you to calculate the gravitationally binding energy of a system. (Gravitational binding energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
I am going to pause at this point in the assessment of this video to say he seems to favor an incredibly simplified and almost derisive inclination to state evolution as bluntly and unfavorably as possible while still attempting to maintain neutrality. I do not find this becoming of someone claiming to be attempting to give people the facts and allowing them to decide themselves. Anyways, onward.
On the subject of radiometric dating, he fails to mention that more than a single "clock" is used in a sample for dating in billions of years. Uranium-235 and Lead-206. (Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
He mentions non-chrystalized igneous rock is undatable, but he also fails to mention that once it crystalizes it is easily dated almost to the moment. This is due to the inability to obtain a sufficient amount of crystalized (formed atomic structures) isotopes in the material.
His sand analogy doesn't really apply given the instruments used to measure. This is why there is a variable answer given to every dating. (Example: between 250-265,000 years) This is because samples used to date are taken from different geologic areas that are within a given distance and can provide accurate results.
His reference to relativity is unimagintive and lacking and INCREDIBLY insulting. He goes so far as to say it didn't need mentioning. This is not the attitude of someone who is attempting to give people equal footing in both to determine what is true.
Because he made no rational arguments against relativity, and simply relegated it to non-application which, in the context of his own argument, is impossible to do. He proceeds to do it anyways.
At this point in the movie he goes into evolution, which is not my speciality. I am educated on the topic but my opinions are not that of an evolutionary biologist but as someone well versed in evolution.
He begins this section with geological evolution, that is, the formation of the earths crust over time.
Unconformity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you wish to educate yourself as this man clearly avoided doing on this topic (among others) this is enough material to explain just about any inconsistent argument he brings up.
At the end of this film I get very heavy impression he is simply pandering to a Christian crowd with pseudoscientific evidence. I don't appreciate his obvious derision of science in general.
Issues with some "world-wide" flood; there is 3 times less than the required volume of water on Earth to produce such a flood, given that Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on earth. This would mean, in no uncertain terms, that there would be a shell of water with the bottom 2/3 volume MISSING! Empty air!
His little flatness theory is interesting, completely explainable by simply saying that sediments act similarly in air as well.
This poses a number of issues mathematically but I will stop there so I can continue watching.
tHATS WHAT i AM TALKING ABOUT YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION GO BACK THROUGH THIS HOW THREAD AND YOU WILL SEE THAT i HAVE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
Cut and paste, you've asked a lot of questions.
If it's not a straw man, I'll happily answer it to the best of my ability.
I have asked the same question about 100 times sometimes in a different way. It's still the same question that you and your other three buddy's do not answer.
Kudos, providing a link from a Harvard scientist interview. He says nothing about a creator, talks a lot about scientific facts like the Earth being billions of years old, he referenced the Miller experiment in terms of amino acids, maybe you are coming around.
Nope just simply pointing out he is referring to the nurients to forming life were formed in rocks which is a stretch in the least and found their way to the ocean to produce life.
So your newest denial is that carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous can't come out of rocks?
Well at least we're both laughing
Cut and paste, you've asked a lot of questions.
If it's not a straw man, I'll happily answer it to the best of my ability.
I have asked the same question about 100 times sometimes in a different way. It's still the same question that you and your other three buddy's do not answer.
I'm simply asking you to cut and paste the specific question again or re-type it.
Thank you
This has to be the most idiotic rhetorical question I've seen on here. It demonstrates such a vast ignorance of scientific thoery that it's beyond the point of being egregious and is simply "laughable".
No.
Hydatidiform mole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cancer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Would you shut the hell up about sperm and eggs now?
If I had so much faith in something as you do I could answer the question.This has to be the most idiotic rhetorical question I've seen on here. It demonstrates such a vast ignorance of scientific thoery that it's beyond the point of being egregious and is simply "laughable".
The set of questions is your basic yes or no question
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
Surely human life can be reproduced without a human sperm cell and a human egg, if it happened once before it can happen again.
Science is working on reproducing life, and when they do you'll just move the goal posts anyways. We both know that.
Just because science can't recreate something doesn't mean it didn't happen, can science recreate the planet Earth? Since science can't, does Earth not exist?
No you avoid the question, let's not play that game No one has yet to answer my question without using an insult.
Please re-ask it I'm not sure which one it was. But you did avoid my question, science's inability to recreate something doesn't mean you just assume it's done by the supernatural. That's not how science works.
I've seen a lot of straw man questions from you in this thread though.
tHATS WHAT i AM TALKING ABOUT YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION GO BACK THROUGH THIS HOW THREAD AND YOU WILL SEE THAT i HAVE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
I'm posting a partial review of the presentation now. I haven't had time lately to finish it but I will at some point.
Angular momentum can still be conserved in the big bang, this point made by him makes mention of a rotating singularity that consitutes the earliest moment of the planck epoch (Planck epoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
By extrapolating from Hawkings & Susskind's assessments of quantum singularity properties, given that the universe at 0-time was a proper quantum singularity (what allows this to be constituted as a singularity is in fact the same properties we assign a black hole are accounted for in the properties of the early universe) there are two theories that can be worked from this.
(Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) The first is that there is no frame of reference, so conservation of angular moment isn't possible because it simply cannot be applied. The second and equally plasuable explaination is that the early universe was rotating from 0-time during the planck epoch which is a very clear possibility of a singularity, especially one like this. The second is more consistent with a multiverse theory of reality, given that the singularity formed was an event in a "parent" universe.
Moving on, he makes mention of movement in a particular direction, and given this the opposite direction is improbable because of the frame of reference (conservation of angular momentum). What he makes no mention of is that these events ARE quite improbable but mathematically likely to happen given the inclination of energy conservation in proper or retrograde rotation. Successive inclinations of retrograde directive energetic stimulus could easily explain these admittedly extremely rare events.
My assessment of his knowledge of gravity is that he lacks the basic understanding to make assertions about the coelescing of the early hydrogen gas in the universe under gravitational influences in sufficient quantuties to ignite stars. He argues that this is unlikely but we know today that gravity has no limits on it's capability to interact from a long distance. We are being affected by gravity from other galaxies and just because it is not noticable to us personally it's quite observable. A quick glance at the galactic clusters that permiate our universe leave us with little option but to accept this simple notion.
For those who are mathematically inclined I am including the equations that will allow you to calculate the gravitationally binding energy of a system. (Gravitational binding energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
I am going to pause at this point in the assessment of this video to say he seems to favor an incredibly simplified and almost derisive inclination to state evolution as bluntly and unfavorably as possible while still attempting to maintain neutrality. I do not find this becoming of someone claiming to be attempting to give people the facts and allowing them to decide themselves. Anyways, onward.
On the subject of radiometric dating, he fails to mention that more than a single "clock" is used in a sample for dating in billions of years. Uranium-235 and Lead-206. (Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
He mentions non-chrystalized igneous rock is undatable, but he also fails to mention that once it crystalizes it is easily dated almost to the moment. This is due to the inability to obtain a sufficient amount of crystalized (formed atomic structures) isotopes in the material.
His sand analogy doesn't really apply given the instruments used to measure. This is why there is a variable answer given to every dating. (Example: between 250-265,000 years) This is because samples used to date are taken from different geologic areas that are within a given distance and can provide accurate results.
His reference to relativity is unimagintive and lacking and INCREDIBLY insulting. He goes so far as to say it didn't need mentioning. This is not the attitude of someone who is attempting to give people equal footing in both to determine what is true.
Because he made no rational arguments against relativity, and simply relegated it to non-application which, in the context of his own argument, is impossible to do. He proceeds to do it anyways.
At this point in the movie he goes into evolution, which is not my speciality. I am educated on the topic but my opinions are not that of an evolutionary biologist but as someone well versed in evolution.
He begins this section with geological evolution, that is, the formation of the earths crust over time.
Unconformity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you wish to educate yourself as this man clearly avoided doing on this topic (among others) this is enough material to explain just about any inconsistent argument he brings up.
At the end of this film I get very heavy impression he is simply pandering to a Christian crowd with pseudoscientific evidence. I don't appreciate his obvious derision of science in general.
Issues with some "world-wide" flood; there is 3 times less than the required volume of water on Earth to produce such a flood, given that Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on earth. This would mean, in no uncertain terms, that there would be a shell of water with the bottom 2/3 volume MISSING! Empty air!
His little flatness theory is interesting, completely explainable by simply saying that sediments act similarly in air as well.
This poses a number of issues mathematically but I will stop there so I can continue watching.
You have missed a very important part of the video that is irrefutable.
Your side say's strata was laid dowm over millions of years these are the two problems. Mind you I did take a trip in the Grand Canyon with many others with varying degrees in science.
We saw exactly what the gentlemen in the video described,layers of strata laying nicely on top of each other. They had flat surfaces with no signs of errosion,but the top layer of strata had plenty of errosion. Each layer of strata was solid rock.
How did one layer of strata get into the layer of strata above it ?
Why is it that none of the lower layers of strata show any errosion except on the outward wall that was exposed ?
