0 + 0 = nothing....soooo

[Athiest#278]

if you have nothing to begin with, in the universe, you will NEVER have anything.

So we dont exist, cant exist, because nothing could have helped in our creation.

you cant get something out of nothing, and nothing could exist forever, something had to create it.

so in my opinion, we dont exist in the way we believe we do.
As morpheus says "what is real? something you can touch or taste?" using some principles from that scene, we dont exist.

more on this later....of the top of my head so its kinda confusing

 

[GREG]

huh?

 

[oddchild]

the first cell in the big bang theory is flawed. It would have to be a complicated cell because it would have to produce its own food since it would have nothing to feed off of. It would have to have all the organells that a modern cell would otherwise it could not be able to live it would have to be able to reproduce, gain energy, store energy, expell waste, and somehow thrive in a difficult enviroment. How would it ever live?

 

[revolutio]

Quantum fluctuations take care of that initial 'bump' quite nicely from what I have read.

And since when do cells have anything to do with the Big Bang Theory? Or were you referring to cell metaphorically?

 

[Arikay]

Actually there is an idea that the universe is just a complicated nothing.

0+0=0

However,
the idea is that if the universes net energy equal 0, then we are just a complicated way of saying No energy. Since,
2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9=0
The universe is the left side of this equation, and the net energy is the right. We live on a very tiny planet, and dont add much or take away much from the universe, thus you could say we exist entirely inside the 2 in that equation.

Of course, we need a first cause, and like Rev said, qunatum fluctions do not need a cause, thus they could have been the first cause. Although there are a couple other competing first cause propositions (including god) and none of them have been falsified yet.

 

[troodon]

the first cell in the big bang theory is flawed.

Cells have nothing to do with the big bang

It would have to be a complicated cell because it would have to produce its own food since it would have nothing to feed off of.

Not all cells must undergo photosynthesis to be autotrophic.

It would have to have all the organells that a modern cell would otherwise it could not be able to live

You'd better tell that to every single prokaryote on the face of the planet.

it would have to be able to reproduce

Easy, simple fission works wonders.

gain energy

As I said, not all cells need to perform photosynthesis in order to be autotrophic. Also, the ocean would have been filled with amino acids back then so I suppose it could thrive off free-floating amino acids and their ilk.

store energy

Not if it existed in a place with a constant food supply.

expell waste

Not sure about this one. Vacuoles do seem to be sorta important.

and somehow thrive in a difficult enviroment. How would it ever live?

What would you consider a "difficult environment"?

 

[Meatros]

the first cell in the big bang theory is flawed. It would have to be a complicated cell because it would have to produce its own food since it would have nothing to feed off of. It would have to have all the organells that a modern cell would otherwise it could not be able to live it would have to be able to reproduce, gain energy, store energy, expell waste, and somehow thrive in a difficult enviroment. How would it ever live?

Uh....Cells?

Where did you learn about the BB theory?

 

[armed2010]

Uh....Cells?

Where did you learn about the BB theory?

probably various creationist sites

 

[Jet Black]

the first cell in the big bang theory is flawed. It would have to be a complicated cell because it would have to produce its own food since it would have nothing to feed off of. It would have to have all the organells that a modern cell would otherwise it could not be able to live it would have to be able to reproduce, gain energy, store energy, expell waste, and somehow thrive in a difficult enviroment. How would it ever live?

LOL you think the big bang theory is abiogenesis? I have never read anything so funny.

The Big Bang

Abiogenesis

 

[ZaraDurden]

I smell troll... is this that knuckle head roaming around here about a week ago that couldn't spell "atheist" correct if his life depended on it?

 

[ThePhoenix]

if you have nothing to begin with, in the universe, you will NEVER have anything.

So we dont exist, cant exist, because nothing could have helped in our creation.

you cant get something out of nothing, and nothing could exist forever, something had to create it.

so in my opinion, we dont exist in the way we believe we do.
As morpheus says "what is real? something you can touch or taste?" using some principles from that scene, we dont exist.

more on this later....of the top of my head so its kinda confusing

But 0/0 is a very useful mathmatical concept i.e. derivatives, so I'll choose to ignore your stupidity.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

the first cell in the big bang theory is flawed. It would have to be a complicated cell because it would have to produce its own food since it would have nothing to feed off of. It would have to have all the organells that a modern cell would otherwise it could not be able to live it would have to be able to reproduce, gain energy, store energy, expell waste, and somehow thrive in a difficult enviroment. How would it ever live?

I think the only thing that is flawed is your understanding of the big bang theory...

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

the first cell in the big bang theory is flawed. It would have to be a complicated cell because it would have to produce its own food since it would have nothing to feed off of. It would have to have all the organells that a modern cell would otherwise it could not be able to live it would have to be able to reproduce, gain energy, store energy, expell waste, and somehow thrive in a difficult enviroment. How would it ever live?

Let us count the obvious factual errors in the post:

1) The first cell did not arise in the big bang.
2) Not every organism has to sit down to a meal derived from other organisms
3) Bacteria today do not have organelles like eukaryotic organisms. Oddly enough, they're also often the ones referred to in point 2.
4) You do not need organelles to do any of the things listed. Bacteria, again, manage them perfectly well without.
5) The first replicators' environment would not be difficult for them. Since they would have developed in it, it would be highly conducive to their existence.

Right.

[Mode=Rant]

This is typical of the bovine egesta creationists post around. Here we have oddchild, so completely ignorant of science that he confuses the big bang with abiogenesis, coming on and telling people that established science - yes, established for decades - figured out and demonstrated by people who make the study of these phenomena their lifes' work, is completely wrong.

He really thinks that although he knows bugger all about science, he knows more than those of us who do. More than those intellectual giants who formed the big bang theory, who devised evolutionary theories, who actually spent years working on the evidence. But he knows more. But he's wrong. He knows absolutely jack, as he has demonstrated with his ignorant post here.

Does the arrogance of the young earth creationist have any bounds?

[/Mode]