Somehow,somewhere,somewhen

[Subduction Zone]

New evidence supports the big bang and that the universe did have a beginning and has an age associated with that.

Then where is that evidence.

supports my position

You can't just claim it supports your position. You have to show how it supports your position. Until you do that it does not support your position.

The laws of physics are constant and that is what makes science work.

Again, so what. If you cannot explain why you have nothing.

4. Nope. Not even close.



Sorry you are wrong.
The Hoyle state plays a crucial role in the helium burning of stars that have reached the red giant stage. The close proximity of this state to the triple-alpha threshold is needed for the production of carbon, oxygen, and other elements necessary for life. We investigate whether this life-essential condition is robust or delicately fine-tuned by measuring its dependence on the fundamental constants of nature, specifically the light quark mass and the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. We show that there exist strong correlations between the alpha-particle binding energy and the various energies relevant to the triple-alpha process. We derive limits on the variation of these fundamental parameters from the requirement that sufficient amounts of carbon and oxygen be generated in stars. We also discuss the implications of our results for an anthropic view of the Universe.

Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 112502 (2013): Viability of Carbon-Based Life as a Function of the Light Quark Mass

I have others, many others.

You finally gave a little something. You forgot that one of the current strong hypotheses on the formation of the universe is the many universe hypothesis. This along with the aforementioned anthropic principle throws your claim out the window.

So tell me how intelligence arose from mindless process. In nature we only see intelligence arising from intelligence.

Wrong. We know we evolved. No intelligence necessary. And you need to define "intelligence". Is a dove intelligent? A dog? An ape? Why or why not?

DNA?

DNA is just a naturally occurring molecule. What of it?

So there you go. Support to my claims.

Very very very weak support. Again, you have to do much better than that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then where is that evidence.

Google Hangout: A New Baby Picture Of The Universe - Space News - redOrbit

You can't just claim it supports your position. You have to show how it supports your position. Until you do that it does not support your position.

Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Isaiah 42:5​

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Isaiah 44:24​

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Isaiah 45:12​

Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: [when] I call unto them, they stand up together.
Isaiah 48:13​

And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where [is] the fury of the oppressor?
Isaiah 51:13


He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
Jeremiah 10:12​

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.
Jeremiah 51:15​

​

Again, so what. If you cannot explain why you have nothing.

"Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? . . . Where is the way that the light is divided? . . . Where is the way to the dwelling of light?" (Job 38:33

You finally gave a little something. You forgot that one of the current strong hypotheses on the formation of the universe is the many universe hypothesis. This along with the aforementioned anthropic principle throws your claim out the window.

There is no testable falsifiable evidence of other universes. However, the multiverse only makes the fine tuning problem more apparent. The universe "generator" would have to be even more finely tuned to turn out ours.

Wrong. We know we evolved. No intelligence necessary. And you need to define "intelligence". Is a dove intelligent? A dog? An ape? Why or why not?

Intelligence is intelligence. The fact that intelligence exists is not explained by evolution. It is more cohesive and rational to believe that God an intelligent being created intelligence.

1 Corinthians 2:16

“For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

DNA is just a naturally occurring molecule. What of it?

How Much Information is Stored in the Human Genome? | Bitesize Bio

So if DNA is a natural occurring molecule please provide your evidence. How did DNA arise?

Very very very weak support. Again, you have to do much better than that.

Again, just your opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Google Hangout: A New Baby Picture Of The Universe - Space News - redOrbit

How does this support your claims? By the way, if you use this then you are admitting that the universe is 13 odd billion years old, that galaxies, stars and planets formed naturally. Do you really want to go there?

Thus saith God the LORD..... <snip of hysterical superstitious material>​

Reinterpreting a book of myth after the fact is perhaps the worst "evidence" of all.

There is no testable falsifiable evidence of other universes. However, the multiverse only makes the fine tuning problem more apparent. The universe "generator" would have to be even more finely tuned to turn out ours.

That is why I pointed out that they are hypotheses. And to correct your statement, there is no way to test the multi-universe hypothesis now.

Intelligence is intelligence. The fact that intelligence exists is not explained by evolution. It is more cohesive and rational to believe that God an intelligent being created intelligence.

Fail. You cannot define intelligence so you punt it to God. What a joke

So if DNA is a natural occurring molecule please provide your evidence. How did DNA arise?

All life has DNA. All life is "natural".

Now you change your question. And this is still hypothetical but RNA has been shown to self assemble and one hypothesis is that DNA came from RNA.

Again, just your opinion.

No, fact. The flaws of the Bible are almost uncountable, there are so many. It is a terrible source. It contradicts itself many times. It has no true prophesies, it does have failed prophesies.​

 

[Oncedeceived]

How does this support your claims? By the way, if you use this then you are admitting that the universe is 13 odd billion years old, that galaxies, stars and planets formed naturally. Do you really want to go there?

The universe had a beginning just as God said. The age of the universe is not a problem. Galaxies, stars and planets formed naturally, you know this how?

Reinterpreting a book of myth after the fact is perhaps the worst "evidence" of all.

So how do people living thousands of years ago know the universe is stretching?

That is why I pointed out that they are hypotheses. And to correct your statement, there is no way to test the multi-universe hypothesis now.

When and if that hypothesis can be shown it does nothing to eliminate the fine tuning of the universe and the fact that it supports my position.

Fail. You cannot define intelligence so you punt it to God. What a joke

Really? So provide evidence in your naturalistic worldview that is more consistent and cohesive.

All life has DNA. All life is "natural".

How do you know?

Now you change your question. And this is still hypothetical but RNA has been shown to self assemble and one hypothesis is that DNA came from RNA.

Yes, that is a hypothetical theory but unfortunately it is not feasible as it stands.

No, fact. The flaws of the Bible are almost uncountable, there are so many. It is a terrible source. It contradicts itself many times. It has no true prophesies, it does have failed prophesies.

Strange that most of these "flaws" are can be explained either by using the original language or understanding of Bible flow.

 

[FatBurk]

Galaxies, stars and planets formed naturally, you know this how?

What other explanation can there be? you try and come up with something, something by the way that does not involve the supernatural because we have no way of finding out if the supernatural even exists, so let's not make things worse by adding another mystery.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The universe had a beginning just as God said. The age of the universe is not a problem. Galaxies, stars and planets formed naturally, you know this how?

Talk to a cosmologist. Seriously, you should not ask foolish questions.

So how do people living thousands of years ago know the universe is stretching?

They didn't. In fact they thought the world was a flat disc. The Bible describes the Earth that way several times and never describes it as a sphere. You are making the mistake of reinterpreting the Bible in the light of current knowledge. This is an error on your part and is not evidence for anything.

When and if that hypothesis can be shown it does nothing to eliminate the fine tuning of the universe and the fact that it supports my position.

.

What!? Wrong. The many universe hypothesis along with the Anthropic Principle merely points out that of the many universes possible we could only exist in one like ours.

Really? So provide evidence in your naturalistic worldview that is more consistent and cohesive.

No problem. All observable phenomenon on the Earth have been shown to be naturalistic. To posit something that is unnatural requires strong evidence to believe.

How do you know?

I, unlike you, have been educated. All you have to do to prove me wrong is to find life without DNA.

Yes, that is a hypothetical theory but unfortunately it is not feasible as it stands.

Why is it not feasible? It sounds like you think that it has been shown to be wrong. That is not the case. Of course it is still a hypothesis, it has not shown to be right.... yet.

Strange that most of these "flaws" are can be explained either by using the original language or understanding of Bible flow.

Sorry, they can't. Most of them can be "explained" away by apologists, but that is just another word for "liar".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oncedeceived before we go on I need to know exactly what your beliefs are. Are you a YEC? An OEC? Do you believe the Noah's Ark myth?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Talk to a cosmologist. Seriously, you should not ask foolish questions.

So how do you know that it is natural?

They didn't. In fact they thought the world was a flat disc. The Bible describes the Earth that way several times and never describes it as a sphere. You are making the mistake of reinterpreting the Bible in the light of current knowledge. This is an error on your part and is not evidence for anything.

No they didn't. That is a false assumption.

2 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for &#8220;circle&#8221; (&#1495;&#1493;&#1490;&#8212;chuwg) can also mean &#8220;round&#8221; or &#8220;sphere.&#8221;

In the book of Luke Jesus describes His return and says that their will be both in that day and in that night alluding to the light on one side of the globe and night on the other.

What!? Wrong. The many universe hypothesis along with the Anthropic Principle merely points out that of the many universes possible we could only exist in one like ours.

Why would the multiverse have laws that were favorable to produce a fine tuned universe such as ours? Where did the multiverse come from and how was it fine tuned to produce our fine tuned universe? How far back must we go back to show how the multiverse comes into being? How does this prove to be more reasonable or causal than the god of the gaps explanation? How is this more scientific than God?

No problem. All observable phenomenon on the Earth have been shown to be naturalistic. To posit something that is unnatural requires strong evidence to believe.

How has all observable phenomenon on earth been shown to be naturalistic? If God created the universe you are the one adding to things.
BE BACK:

I, unlike you, have been educated. All you have to do to prove me wrong is to find life without DNA.




Why is it not feasible? It sounds like you think that it has been shown to be wrong. That is not the case. Of course it is still a hypothesis, it has not shown to be right.... yet.






Sorry, they can't. Most of them can be "explained" away by apologists, but that is just another word for "liar".[/quote]

 

[Subduction Zone]

So how do you know that it is natural?[

By observation and creating theories.

No they didn't. That is a false assumption.

2 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle” (&#1495;&#1493;&#1490;—chuwg) can also mean “round” or “sphere.”

No. The word used actually is very strongly used for circle, not sphere. And you are making the same errors again and again. The verse about the "circle of the Earth" is clearly a flat Earth verse. A sphere is not a circle. Plus you are forgetting the other verses where they describe a Two-D verse by action. There are none that refer to a spherical Earth. Please note that I am being reasonable. I am not demanding that you show that they knew the Earth was an imperfect oblate spheroid.

In the book of Luke Jesus describes His return and says that their will be both in that day and in that night alluding to the light on one side of the globe and night on the other.

Why didn't you link the verse then? Are you sure that you are reading it in context?

Why would the multiverse have laws that were favorable to produce a fine tuned universe such as ours? Where did the multiverse come from and how was it fine tuned to produce our fine tuned universe? How far back must we go back to show how the multiverse comes into being? How does this prove to be more reasonable or causal than the god of the gaps explanation? How is this more scientific than God?

Good question. The answer is that the multi-verse would have many many different universes with different constants. Life would only appear in universes like ours.

You do know what the "God of the gaps" is a referral to, don't you? The gaps keep getting tinier and tinier. leaving less and less room for your "God".

How has all observable phenomenon on earth been shown to be naturalistic? If God created the universe you are the one adding to things.

All we have ever observed are natural phenomena. If you can find an unnatural one I would love to see it. And your "If" is an awfully big "If". No evidence of it has been found so far.

 

[Oncedeceived]

By observation and creating theories.

Observation and creating theories about what we find in our universe. That doesn't tell us whether it arose naturally or supernaturally. Man has learned about his environment due to the fact that he is intelligent, that the universe is comprehensible, uniform and constant. Without this man could know nothing. This ability to know and learn about a uniform and constant universe can be seen as something that just happened from chance with no purpose or it can be seen as God creating a universe for mankind to learn and study that declares His work to mankind.

Now what is more of a reasonable conclusion....chance which has no explanatory power for the origin of the universe with precise fine tuning allowing for life to arise or by God who says that is what He did? The universe and mankind are products of either chance or God. I find that God is a more reasonable and logical conclusion.

No. The word used actually is very strongly used for circle, not sphere. And you are making the same errors again and again. The verse about the "circle of the Earth" is clearly a flat Earth verse. A sphere is not a circle. Plus you are forgetting the other verses where they describe a Two-D verse by action. There are none that refer to a spherical Earth. Please note that I am being reasonable. I am not demanding that you show that they knew the Earth was an imperfect oblate spheroid.

What verses are you referring to as a two-D by action? First of all a circle is round it can be flat or it can be round like a ball. Circle does not have a certain dimension unless given one. If the circle was flat, it would be assumed that all the earth would be day when it was day and all the earth would be night when it was night but that is not what is found in the Bible.

Luke 17:30-36 "Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife. Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

So some places it will be night and in some it will be day when Christ returns. This falsifies your conclusion that the earth is flat.

Why didn't you link the verse then? Are you sure that you are reading it in context?

See above.

Good question. The answer is that the multi-verse would have many many different universes with different constants. Life would only appear in universes like ours.

This is just ad hoc and is not scientific. Even if it was the case you would still have to explain how the multiverse has the fine tuning available for our universe. Where multiverse come from, and if there are an infinite number of them what explanatory mechanism can be used to determine them. It only moves the fine tuning back one step. It is still there.

You do know what the "God of the gaps" is a referral to, don't you? The gaps keep getting tinier and tinier. leaving less and less room for your "God".

I agree. I've never felt that was the case. God designed the universe and each and every aspect has explanatory power. Naturalism however does not. Even if we know every mechanism of every facet of the overall universe that still does not explain nor does it prohibit God from being the creator of it all.

All we have ever observed are natural phenomena. If you can find an unnatural one I would love to see it. And your "If" is an awfully big "If". No evidence of it has been found so far.

All science can study is the natural world. Does it explain it satisfactorily? I think not. Naturalism does not explain intelligence, it uses science to study it. Naturalism does not explain the origin of life or the universe but it uses science to study it. Evolution does not explain the creation of life but the ongoing exploration of it. Which explains more, naturalism that is only looking back in time to interpret what could have happened and not knowing why there is a universe that is fine tuned for life like us to emerge or God being an intelligent being creating a universe for the purpose of life and designing it just right for that purpose?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Originally posted by SZ:

I, unlike you, have been educated. All you have to do to prove me wrong is to find life without DNA.

You don't know what degree I hold, how do you assume you are more educated than I? Your arguments seem somewhat opinionated rather than scientific or reasonable would you want me to assume your education based on that? However, why would you say that only by finding life without DNA would prove you wrong? That has nothing to do with the argument at hand. DNA is common throughout life and is information intensive. How does naturalism explain this extensive information in the first life forms that we have on earth? I don't think it does satisfactorily.

Why is it not feasible? It sounds like you think that it has been shown to be wrong. That is not the case. Of course it is still a hypothesis, it has not shown to be right.... yet.

The problems associated with the RNA world hypothesis are well known. In the following I discuss some of these difficulties, some of the alternative hypotheses that have been proposed, and some of the problems with these alternative models. From a biosynthetic - as well as, arguably, evolutionary - perspective, DNA is a modified RNA, and so the chicken-and-egg dilemma of "which came first?" boils down to a choice between RNA and protein. This is not just a question of cause and effect, but also one of statistical likelihood, as the chance of two such different types of macromolecule arising simultaneously would appear unlikely. The RNA world hypothesis is an example of a 'top down' (or should it be 'present back'?) approach to early evolution: how can we simplify modern biological systems to give a plausible evolutionary pathway that preserves continuity of function? The discovery that RNA possesses catalytic ability provides a potential solution: a single macromolecule could have originally carried out both replication and catalysis. RNA - which constitutes the genome of RNA viruses, and catalyzes peptide synthesis on the ribosome - could have been both the chicken and the egg! However, the following objections have been raised to the RNA world hypothesis: (i) RNA is too complex a molecule to have arisen prebiotically; (ii) RNA is inherently unstable; (iii) catalysis is a relatively rare property of long RNA sequences only; and (iv) the catalytic repertoire of RNA is too limited. I will offer some possible responses to these objections in the light of work by our and other labs. Finally, I will critically discuss an alternative theory to the RNA world hypothesis known as 'proteins first', which holds that proteins either preceded RNA in evolution, or - at the very least - that proteins and RNA coevolved. I will argue that, while theoretically possible, such a hypothesis is probably unprovable, and that the RNA world hypothesis, although far from perfect or complete, is the best we currently have to help understand the backstory to contemporary biology.

The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of th... [Biol Direct. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

However, I am not using a god of the gaps argument. Even if RNA was found to be the first step of the evolutionary process what does that mean? If life was found to start a certain way that looks to be a natural process it would still rely on the universe and its properties. All are interconnected and shown to be just what the Bible states it would be. Hardly a case against God.

Sorry, they can't. Most of them can be "explained" away by apologists, but that is just another word for "liar".

Pretty strong words here and completely your opinion. Which in the scheme of things means about zero. No one can generalize to the point of everyone that is a believer is a liar and the small percentage of those that don't believe are the ones telling all the truth. IN fact, truth is not a true facet of naturalism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Observation and creating theories about what we find in our universe. That doesn't tell us whether it arose naturally or supernaturally. Man has learned about his environment due to the fact that he is intelligent, that the universe is comprehensible, uniform and constant. Without this man could know nothing. This ability to know and learn about a uniform and constant universe can be seen as something that just happened from chance with no purpose or it can be seen as God creating a universe for mankind to learn and study that declares His work to mankind.

The point is that we all we ever see, and find evidence for, are natural events. For example if there was a magical world wide flood ala Noah we would have massive evidence for it. There is not a lick. If anything there is evidence against it. Even supernatural events should leave natural evidence. Without evidence of some sort there is no logical reason to believe in something.

Now what is more of a reasonable conclusion....chance which has no explanatory power for the origin of the universe with precise fine tuning allowing for life to arise or by God who says that is what He did? The universe and mankind are products of either chance or God. I find that God is a more reasonable and logical conclusion.

I am not a physicist and cannot go into how you are misusing the Fine Tuning argument. I assure you that you are. Physicists have no problem with the idea of a natural occurring universe. There are perhaps more physicist atheists percentage wise than any other science. I am pretty sure they could explain how you are not using this argument correctly. When you have a problem, if you cannot work it out yourself, I always go to the experts. You think a magical being is more reasonable than what we observe in nature. Interesting.

What verses are you referring to as a two-D by action? First of all a circle is round it can be flat or it can be round like a ball. Circle does not have a certain dimension unless given one. If the circle was flat, it would be assumed that all the earth would be day when it was day and all the earth would be night when it was night but that is not what is found in the Bible.

Daniel 4:10-11. Matthew 4:8, Revelation 1:7. All have actions that could only take place on a flat Earth. And a circle has only 2 dimensions. Didn't you ever take geometry? Circles are by definition flat. There are no verses that translate as "round". The ancient Hebrews had a word that would describe a spherical Earth and it was never used. The actual word used translates best as "inscribed circle" or a circle drawn with a compass. It describes a flat world. Why do you think that in this day and age we still have Flat Earthers?

Luke 17:30-36 "Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife. Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

So some places it will be night and in some it will be day when Christ returns. This falsifies your conclusion that the earth is flat.

No, it does not say that is the same time of day, nor does it even imply that. It does not say that all will go up at once. If anything it seems to imply that these events would occur at different times on that day. Once again you are making the mistake of reinterpreting the Bible in light of today's knowledge.

And yes, you did not read it in context.

This is just ad hoc and is not scientific. Even if it was the case you would still have to explain how the multiverse has the fine tuning available for our universe. Where multiverse come from, and if there are an infinite number of them what explanatory mechanism can be used to determine them. It only moves the fine tuning back one step. It is still there.

No, simply wrong. You do not understand the multiverse hypothesis. Your problem is as bad as that of earlier Christians who oohed and aahed about how our planet is in the Goldilocks zone. I could link it but scientists have now roughly calculated how many stars there are in our galaxy alone with planets that would be roughly Earth sized in their Goldilocks zone and the number is 8 billion. With multiple universes some would have our constants or close enough to them, perhaps even better, some would not. The fact that there is life in our universe is not strong evidence for God at all.

I agree. I've never felt that was the case. God designed the universe and each and every aspect has explanatory power. Naturalism however does not. Even if we know every mechanism of every facet of the overall universe that still does not explain nor does it prohibit God from being the creator of it all.

Correction. Naturalism does not have an explanation for you. You are too quick to run and say God did it and perhaps I am a bit too slow. I am not saying that there definitely is no God. That would be a foolish claim. I am saying there is no evidence for God and until there is there is no valid reason to believe in any one specific God.

All science can study is the natural world. Does it explain it satisfactorily? I think not. Naturalism does not explain intelligence, it uses science to study it. Naturalism does not explain the origin of life or the universe but it uses science to study it. Evolution does not explain the creation of life but the ongoing exploration of it. Which explains more, naturalism that is only looking back in time to interpret what could have happened and not knowing why there is a universe that is fine tuned for life like us to emerge or God being an intelligent being creating a universe for the purpose of life and designing it just right for that purpose?

Evolution is not concerned overly with the creation of life. That is a related but different problem. And again with the fine tuning. I would suggest that you bring it up with Essential Saltes here (I hope I spelled his user name correctly). When it comes to scientific claims that disagree with your interpretation of the Bible it is best to go to experts in the field and not sites that have been caught lying many times over.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Originally posted by SZ:




You don't know what degree I hold, how do you assume you are more educated than I? Your arguments seem somewhat opinionated rather than scientific or reasonable would you want me to assume your education based on that? However, why would you say that only by finding life without DNA would prove you wrong? That has nothing to do with the argument at hand. DNA is common throughout life and is information intensive. How does naturalism explain this extensive information in the first life forms that we have on earth? I don't think it does satisfactorily.

Life is very probably possible without DNA. The fact that we find only DNA based life on the Earth is evidence for abiogenesis. Scientists have been able to create molecules that are like DNA in the laboratory that self assemble easier than RNA or DNA does. That implies there are other molecules that could have been the base for life. If we go to another planet in the far future we may find life based upon another molecule. And by the way, you have yet to define "information" in regards to how it is in DNA. By not investigating and naming information you are allowing yourself to be swayed by your lack of knowledge in that topic.


Now clearly you are well educated. So forgive me for implying that you weren't. Your degree also is not in the sciences. You are too quick to make "god of the gaps" leaps for that to be the case.

The problems associated with the RNA world hypothesis are well known. In the following I discuss some of these difficulties, some of the alternative hypotheses that have been proposed, and some of the problems with these alternative models. From a biosynthetic - as well as, arguably, evolutionary - perspective, DNA is a modified RNA, and so the chicken-and-egg dilemma of "which came first?" boils down to a choice between RNA and protein. This is not just a question of cause and effect, but also one of statistical likelihood, as the chance of two such different types of macromolecule arising simultaneously would appear unlikely. The RNA world hypothesis is an example of a 'top down' (or should it be 'present back'?) approach to early evolution: how can we simplify modern biological systems to give a plausible evolutionary pathway that preserves continuity of function? The discovery that RNA possesses catalytic ability provides a potential solution: a single macromolecule could have originally carried out both replication and catalysis. RNA - which constitutes the genome of RNA viruses, and catalyzes peptide synthesis on the ribosome - could have been both the chicken and the egg! However, the following objections have been raised to the RNA world hypothesis: (i) RNA is too complex a molecule to have arisen prebiotically; (ii) RNA is inherently unstable; (iii) catalysis is a relatively rare property of long RNA sequences only; and (iv) the catalytic repertoire of RNA is too limited. I will offer some possible responses to these objections in the light of work by our and other labs. Finally, I will critically discuss an alternative theory to the RNA world hypothesis known as 'proteins first', which holds that proteins either preceded RNA in evolution, or - at the very least - that proteins and RNA coevolved. I will argue that, while theoretically possible, such a hypothesis is probably unprovable, and that the RNA world hypothesis, although far from perfect or complete, is the best we currently have to help understand the backstory to contemporary biology.

The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of th... [Biol Direct. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

Yes, there is some disagreement yet of how life first arose. That is why it is still in the hypothetical stage. As that abstract pointed out there are problems with the RNA world hypothesis and perhaps it was a combination of RNA and proteins. Did you see any doubt at all that they think abiogenesis was not the cause of life on the Earth?

However, I am not using a god of the gaps argument. Even if RNA was found to be the first step of the evolutionary process what does that mean? If life was found to start a certain way that looks to be a natural process it would still rely on the universe and its properties. All are interconnected and shown to be just what the Bible states it would be. Hardly a case against God.

I have never said that evolution is evidence against god. It is evidence against the god of Genesis. You can reinterpret your Bible to fit what we observe, but there are still severe problems with it.

Pretty strong words here and completely your opinion. Which in the scheme of things means about zero. No one can generalize to the point of everyone that is a believer is a liar and the small percentage of those that don't believe are the ones telling all the truth. IN fact, truth is not a true facet of naturalism.

That is because I have seen the work of too many apologists. Look into the Tyre Prophesy. One of the worst failed prophesies in the entire Bible. In defending that prophesy apologists make all other prophesies worthless.

 

[FatBurk]

I have at least learnt one thing about myself from posting on this forum, I am not equipped to handle idiotic ideas posing as beliefs, my brain will just not process them, I also know why, in the past when I have talked to people with such ideas I have either stopped talking or just walked away, which is what I intend to do now.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The point is that we all we ever see, and find evidence for, are natural events. For example if there was a magical world wide flood ala Noah we would have massive evidence for it. There is not a lick. If anything there is evidence against it. Even supernatural events should leave natural evidence. Without evidence of some sort there is no logical reason to believe in something.

I am not a physicist and cannot go into how you are misusing the Fine Tuning argument. I assure you that you are. Physicists have no problem with the idea of a natural occurring universe. There are perhaps more physicist atheists percentage wise than any other science. I am pretty sure they could explain how you are not using this argument correctly. When you have a problem, if you cannot work it out yourself, I always go to the experts. You think a magical being is more reasonable than what we observe in nature. Interesting.

There is a consensus of physicists and cosmologists is that fine tuning is real. That being said they are scientists and are looking for a natural cause for it.

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". (emphasis mine) However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently".[2] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the anthropic principle along with multiple universes. George F. R. Ellis observes "that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained."[3]

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This anthropic principle is a theory for the precise measurements of the constants of the universe.



Embedded within the laws of physics are roughly 30 numbers—including the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces—that must be specified to describe the universe as we know it. Why do these numbers take the values that they do? We have not been able to derive them from any other laws of physics. Yet, it’s plausible that changing just a few of these parameters would have rEmbedded within the laws of physics are roughly 30 numbers—including the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces—that mesulted in a starkly different universe: one without stars or galaxies and even without a diversity of stable atoms to combine into the fantastically complex molecules that compose our bodies and our world. Put another way, if these fundamental parameters had been different from the time of the Big Bang onward, our universe would be a far less complex universe. This is called the “fine tuning observation.” The fine-tuning problem is to find out why this is.

Lee Smolin « NOVA&#039;s Physics Blog: The Nature of Reality

So how fine tuned as an example: Think about the Planck time, when the universe was 10^-43 seconds old. If the density of matter at the Planck time had differed from the critical density by as little as one part in 10^60, the universe would have either exploded so rapidly that galaxies wouldn’t have formed, or collapsed so quickly that life would never have appeared. In practical terms: if our universe, which contans 10^80 protons and neutrons, had even one more grain of sand in it – or one grain less – we wouldn’t be here. Analysis in link below.

Cosmology Tutorial - Part 3


more to come:

 

[Oncedeceived]

Daniel 4:10-11. Matthew 4:8, Revelation 1:7. All have actions that could only take place on a flat Earth. And a circle has only 2 dimensions. Didn't you ever take geometry? Circles are by definition flat. There are no verses that translate as "round". The ancient Hebrews had a word that would describe a spherical Earth and it was never used. The actual word used translates best as "inscribed circle" or a circle drawn with a compass. It describes a flat world. Why do you think that in this day and age we still have Flat Earthers?

This is the definition of round:

1. shaped like or approximately like a circle or cylinder.
   "she was seated at a small, round table"
   synonyms:circular, ring-shaped, disk-shaped, hoop-shaped; Morespherical, spheroidal, globular, globe-shaped, orb-shaped;
   cylindrical;
   bulbous, rounded, rotund;
   technicalannular, discoid
   "a round window"
   • having a curved shape like part of the circumference of a circle.
     "round arches"
2. 2.
   shaped like or approximately like a sphere.
   "a round glass ball"

Flat Earth Myth:
Historical writers have identified a number of different historical circumstances that contributed to the origin and widespread acceptance of the flat-earth myth. Medievalist Jeffrey Burton Russell traced the nineteenth-century origins of what he called the Flat Error to a group of anticlerical French scholars, particularly to Antoine-Jean Letronne and, indirectly, to his teachers Jean-Baptiste Gail and Edme Mentelle. Mentelle had described the Middle Ages as twelve ignorant centuries of "profound night," a theme exemplified by the flat-earth myth in Letronne's "On the Cosmological Opinions of the Church Fathers".[39]
Historian of Science Edward Grant saw a fertile ground for the development of the flat-earth myth in a more general assault upon the middle ages and upon scholastic thought, which can be traced back to Francesco Petrarch in the fourteenth century.[40] Grant sees "one of the most extreme assaults against the Middle Ages" in Draper's History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,[41] which appeared a decade before Draper presented the flat-earth myth in his History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science.[42]
Andrew Dickson White's motives were more complex. As the first president of Cornell University, he had advocated that it be established without any religious ties but be "an asylum for science". In addition, he was a strong advocate for Darwinism, saw religious figures as the main opponents of the Darwinian evolution, and sought to project that conflict of theology and science back through the entire Christian Era.[43] But as some historians have pointed out, the nineteenth-century conflict over Darwinism incorporated disputes over the relative authority of professional scientists and clergy in the fields of science and education.[44] White made this concern manifest in the preface to his History of the Warfare of Science and Theology in Christendom, where he explained the lack of advanced instruction in many American colleges and universities by their "sectarian character".[45]

The flat-earth myth, like other myths, took on artistic form in the many works of art displaying Columbus defending the sphericity of the Earth before the Council of Salamanca. American artists depicted a forceful Columbus challenging the "prejudices, the mingled ignorance and erudition, and the pedantic bigotry" of the churchmen. Abrams sees this image of a Romantic hero, a practical man of business, and a Yankee go-getter as crafted to appeal to nineteenth-century Americans.[46]
Russell suggests that the flat-earth error was able to take such deep hold on the modern imagination because of prejudice and presentism. He specifically mentions "the Protestant prejudice against the Middle Ages for Being Catholic ... the Rationalist prejudice against Judeo-Christianity as a whole", and "the assumption of the superiority of 'our' views to those of older cultures

Myth of the Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Daniel 4:10-11 is about a dream. Taken in context this is not saying the world is flat, it is telling about the vision in a dream. It is symbolism for the interpretation of the dream.

Matthew 4:8 is a supernatural event. Taken in context the supernatural vision of the entire world is explained by the Devil having dominion over the earth. It is a spiritual vision.

Revelation 1:7 is again a supernatural occurrence. It will happen when Jesus returns to earth. In context it is nothing about the natural world.

No, it does not say that is the same time of day, nor does it even imply that. It does not say that all will go up at once. If anything it seems to imply that these events would occur at different times on that day. Once again you are making the mistake of reinterpreting the Bible in light of today's knowledge.

And yes, you did not read it in context

I think that you should read it in context. This is about the rapture of the church/believers. This happens in a split second. This is the problem with unbelievers trying to assume anything about Biblical meaning. In context the rapture this happens in a blink of an eye:

…51Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.…

No, simply wrong. You do not understand the multiverse hypothesis. Your problem is as bad as that of earlier Christians who oohed and aahed about how our planet is in the Goldilocks zone. I could link it but scientists have now roughly calculated how many stars there are in our galaxy alone with planets that would be roughly Earth sized in their Goldilocks zone and the number is 8 billion. With multiple universes some would have our constants or close enough to them, perhaps even better, some would not. The fact that there is life in our universe is not strong evidence for God at all.

You are the one that doesn't understand:

Another hypothesis that fails the test is what we may call the “anthropic multiverse.” Though there are many variations on this theme, the essential idea is that our universe is one of a large or infinite set of worlds that exist simultaneously, each with different, random values for those 30-some physical parameters. Hence, our universe has the very rare property of having parameters that give rise to sufficient complexity to make it hospitable to intelligent life. To connect this hypothesis with observations we have to limit ourselves to the study of the subpopulation of universes in which we could live. This is called using the anthropic principle.
The anthropic multiverse cannot make any falsifiable predictions, though. Here is one proof: We can divide all the parameters that define each universe into two classes. First, there are those that matter to the existence of life—change one of those, and your universe is no longer hospitable to life. But since we already know, or could deduce from our existence, the values of these parameters, they can’t be used to falsify predictions of the anthropic multiverse. Second, there are parameters that don’t matter to the development of intelligent life. Those parameters can take any value and still yield up a universe teeming with life. These parameters are distributed randomly, so they might take any value in our universe. Because any and every value is allowed, this second set of parameters can’t be used to falsify predictions of the anthropic multiverse either.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/12/scientific-approaches-to-the-fine-tuning-problem/

Correction. Naturalism does not have an explanation for you. You are too quick to run and say God did it and perhaps I am a bit too slow. I am not saying that there definitely is no God. That would be a foolish claim. I am saying there is no evidence for God and until there is there is no valid reason to believe in any one specific God.

Your assumption fails. I do not run to God due to the unanswered questions of naturalism. However, when looking at the universe what I see fits more with God as the explanation than for naturalism. Although I think that saying that there is no evidence for God is from your own pre-suppositional worldview. You have a world view for naturalism and that is what you accept.

Evolution is not concerned overly with the creation of life. That is a related but different problem. And again with the fine tuning. I would suggest that you bring it up with Essential Saltes here (I hope I spelled his user name correctly). When it comes to scientific claims that disagree with your interpretation of the Bible it is best to go to experts in the field and not sites that have been caught lying many times over.

1. Evolution must be concerned about abiogenesis. It may separate it as a study but evolution must rest on abiogenesis for it to get off the ground.
2. I am using scientific claims to support my position. You can either deny it like other non-believers on here, believe the physicists/cosmologists/astrophysicists that it is real and know that it is supportive of God which even they agree but disbelieve or allow. It is a choice. Which is what it is all about ...right?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Life is very probably possible without DNA. The fact that we find only DNA based life on the Earth is evidence for abiogenesis.

What equations do you have that shows that life is very probable without DNA? How do you arrive at that conclusion? Evidence of abiogenesis? What evidence is there for abiogenesis? Abiogenesis is the supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter, so I ask again, what evidence do you have for this to support your claim that DNA is evidence for it?

Scientists have been able to create molecules that are like DNA in the laboratory that self assemble easier than RNA or DNA does. That implies there are other molecules that could have been the base for life. If we go to another planet in the far future we may find life based upon another molecule. And by the way, you have yet to define "information" in regards to how it is in DNA. By not investigating and naming information you are allowing yourself to be swayed by your lack of knowledge in that topic.

I assume you are talking about proteins? IF I am wrong let me know. In fact, you tell me about this molecule that is like DNA that they have created.

The complete set of information in an organism's DNA is called its genome, and it carries the information for all the proteins the organism will ever synthesize. (The term genome is also used to describe the DNA that carries this information.) The amount of information contained in genomes is staggering: for example, a typical human cell contains 2 meters of DNA. Written out in the four-letter nucleotide alphabet, the nucleotide sequence of a very small human gene occupies a quarter of a page of text (Figure 4-7), while the complete sequence of nucleotides in the human genome would fill more than a thousand books the size of this one. In addition to other critical information, it carries the instructions for about 30,000 distinct proteins
The Structure and Function of DNA - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

Again you are claiming I have a lack of knowledge. Perhaps you should worry more about the argument than the ad hominem statements.

Now clearly you are well educated. So forgive me for implying that you weren't. Your degree also is not in the sciences. You are too quick to make "god of the gaps" leaps for that to be the case.

I forgive you but Really?

According to a much-discussed survey reported in the journal Nature in 1997, 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God - and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer."

Yes, there is some disagreement yet of how life first arose. That is why it is still in the hypothetical stage. As that abstract pointed out there are problems with the RNA world hypothesis and perhaps it was a combination of RNA and proteins. Did you see any doubt at all that they think abiogenesis was not the cause of life on the Earth?

Is there any doubt that they would think that? Science is a naturalistic study of the universe and life in it. We always must assume naturalistic causes but that does not mean it is true, or that it eliminates God in the mix. I don't find it remarkable that anyone that is studying abiogensis in any nature would assume God as a hypothesis. That is what science does. Science however is a systematic undertaking that acquires and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions of the universe and life therein. It has no absolute authority and can be wrong.

I have never said that evolution is evidence against god. It is evidence against the god of Genesis. You can reinterpret your Bible to fit what we observe, but there are still severe problems with it.

Severe? What do you define as severe? There are problems with all mankind's interpretation of the world. We are taking a very general description of creation and applying that to what we know. It is totally reasonable and predictable for us to make assumptions based on our presuppositions and the evidence we have.

That is because I have seen the work of too many apologists. Look into the Tyre Prophesy. One of the worst failed prophesies in the entire Bible. In defending that prophesy apologists make all other prophesies worthless.

Yes, true. However, there is just as much story telling in regard to abiogenesis and other elements of evolution. So we all have stories that fit with our worldviews. Tyre is a hard one and one in which I don't have an answer but do we throw out all the ones that have been fulfilled and those to come. I think not.

 

[Skaloop]

What equations do you have that shows that life is very probable without DNA?

He didn't say it is very probable, or even that it is probable. He said it is very probably possible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

He didn't say it is very probable, or even that it is probable. He said it is very probably possible.

Ok so I stand corrected. The question remains using the correct wording.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A few corrections. Your Wiki article also listed problems with applying the fine tuned argument in the manner that you have been using it. Why did you ignore those?

Second your flat Earth Myth is in the wrong millennium. That was the Middle-Ages, not 2,000 BC to very very early AD.

Third, the problem is that they did not use a word that translated as "round". They used a word that translates as "circle". All circles are round but not all round things are circles, do you understand your mistake yet?

Fourth you are making the mistake of equating evolution with atheism. Though the vast majority of atheists probably accept the theory of evolution world wide most Christians do too. Just because somebody believes in God does not mean they don't accept the theory of evolution. In fact over 99% of biologists believe the theory of evolution. If you doubt me I would be more than happy to find sites that support this, Wikipedia for example.