Fine Tuning

Nihilist Virus · Nov 22, 2016

Peter1000 said:
I'm sure the fine tuning of a car engine is a very close analogy to fine tuning the universe.

How have you reached this surety?

You also have decided, with your infinite knowledge of God, that God has no uncompromising or external constraints.

I am addressing the mainstream version of Jehovah, and that deity has no constraints acting upon him. I see little reason to address the insanity that is Mormonism any more than I'd have to address Scientology.

So in your theistic worldview there should be no expectation of a finely tuned universe. How self-serving is this logic.

If your deity who is the ultimate creator of everything has constraints, then is the matter fully settled?

If your deity who is the ultimate creator of everything has no constraints, then I see absolutely no reason for fine tuning whatsoever.

Hello, the demonstration is in the constants and fine tuning.

Re-read the part where I said this:

Calculations concluding that the universe is finely tuned are fallacious because the physical constants were initially defined in the Big Bang. The Big Bang occurred on a scale so small that quantum mechanics must be considered; the Big Bang involved so much mass (all mass in the universe) that effects of relativity must be considered. As of yet we lack the physical language to unite quantum mechanics with relativity, so we lack the ability to describe the Big Bang and that is why we return absurd calculations which imply fine tuning.

These constants, such as R in chemistry or G in physics, are man-made, ad hoc inventions in order to make our equations work, perhaps suggesting that our equations are inexact approximations of reality. Also, I outright reject your input on the issue of fine tuning until you demonstrate an at least competent comprehension of Relativity. I recall you exposing your ignorance in that area in previous discussions.

The only scientific explanation for the incredible universe is 'chance happening'. But the probability of so many (hundreds if not thousands) choreographed special events and functions associated with this universe, (not to speak of the even greater fine tuning associated with the earth), is zero.

I don't know what you are even talking about. What is choreographed? Do you mean, for example, our location in the "Goldilocks Zone" where we can have liquid water on earth? Because as far as I can tell, those chances are not very slim whatsoever.

From this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstellar_habitable_zone

Let's use the 1979 findings so we can work with the most constricted value.

Also refer to this:

Since you seem to think that earth's placement in the Goldilocks Zone is so miraculous, we will assume that every main-sequence star yielding terrestrial planets is similar to our solar system. Therefore, we expect to find five rocky bodies (just as we have Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars) within a radius of 0.3 AU to 1.6 AU. Again I'm being generous to you by widening the range of rocky planet placements. Observe that this extrapolation is necessary for this exercise to occur at all. We can include Ceres and recalculate, if you like.

So this means that within a range of 1.6 AU - 0.3 AU = 1.3 AU we have 1.01 AU - 0.95 AU = 0.06 AU of habitable space. Thus, the probability of a randomly placed planet being in the Goldilocks Zone is (0.06 AU) ÷ (1.3 AU) = 0.046 = 4.6%. It follows that the probability of getting zero planets in the Goldilocks Zone is (1 - 0.046)^5 = 0.79 = 79%, so the probability of getting at least one planet in the Goldilocks Zone is 100% - 79% = 21%.

So please, tell us more about how specially choreographed all of this is.

The onus is really on you, to prove scientifically that the fine tuning is all a 'chance happening'. Remembering that the natural tendancy is to decay or rust, or rot, or slide into chaos.

The onus is on you to read the OP and respond appropriately rather than copy/paste creationist drivel.

I am not even close to being called a scientist,

Agreed.

but I have learned to use the internet. Some of the constants that determine life or not, are fine-tuned to this degree.

The constants are finely tuned by us to make our equations work. Your reasoning is utterly bizarre. Off the top of my head, the only constant we didn't invent is c and I'd love for you to explain how that is finely tuned.

Some are not. Just google 'constants' and start reading. Google fine-tuned universe and start reading. Google incredibly fin-tuned earth and start reading. The sources are legion.

See above.

So you say that 'the big bang initially defined the physical constants'. But then you covered your silly statement by getting into quantum mechanics and relativity and the relationship between the two, and we haven't got physical language to unite them and so that is the reason we return absurd calculations which imply fine tuning. Your like a cat chasing it's tail and you finally give up.

I'm not giving up. I'm simply saying that we don't have all the answers yet and a conclusion is premature at this time. Do you think humanity has solved everything?

The calculations are not absurd. The calculations are scientific. They do not imply fine tuning. They point directly to, (with no ambiguity) that there is an intelligent fine tuner, who knows about quantum mechanics and relativity like you know Dick and Jane.

They do? So you are withholding your calculations from the scientific community? Do you care to share your calculations?

You need to read more about the incredible universe and the incredible earth. Go find another earth-like planet that is providing advanced life. Count the planets that we know of that are not providing life and divide that number into 1 for a starting point for a 'scientifical chance happening'. That's all science has, and it is zero.

Are you implying that you'll drop your religion if we find alien life?

So look for an alternative reason for the fine-tuned universe and earth. You will be far more satisfied with an intelligent designer. But then you have to learn His commandments and live His commandments, and that, I suspect, is the real problem.

The demons, provided you Mormons believe in such entities, hold intellectual awareness of God's existence and that does not stop them from being evil. If I simply wanted to sin, then I would do so and I would evaluate God's existence as a completely separate, unrelated issue. Your arguments are terrible and do not even withstand casual scrutiny.

Peter1000 · Nov 22, 2016

="Nihilist Virus, post: 70442523, member: 381700" How have you reached this surety?

I was being sarcastic.

I am addressing the mainstream version of Jehovah, and that deity has no constraints acting upon him. I see little reason to address the insanity that is Mormonism any more than I'd have to address Scientology.

Part of your problem is the mainstream version of Jehovah. He did not create everything out of nothing. He is an intelligent being, that over billions of years has come to know the sum total of what the universe has to offer. Therefore He can control nature and set the constants and fine tune as He wishes. IOW He can boot up a universe and maintain it. It is not insanity, it is quite an interesting study.

Also, I outright reject your input on the issue of fine tuning until you demonstrate an at least competent comprehension of Relativity. I recall you exposing your ignorance in that area in previous discussions.

Isn't that convenient. I guess the discussion is over.
I'm guessing that you and Einstein would be email buddies about the finer points of 'relativity'. I'm also betting that there are less than 10 people on the planet that even know the finer points of 'relativity', and less than that that can articulate what they know.

Since you seem to think that earth's placement in the Goldilocks Zone is so miraculous, we will assume that every main-sequence star yielding terrestrial planets is similar to our solar system.

Your scientific verbiage is showing now.
1) we assume that every main-sequence star yielding terrestrial planets is similar to our solar system?

You cannot even start with the asumption that every main-sequence star yielding... is similar to ours. Where did you get this idea?

There is a 'habitable zone' for every star in our galaxy, but so what? Some of those habitable zones have been found to have water in some form. Does that mean they are going to have life of some sort? We have not found any life so far on thousands of planets that are in the habitable zones of their star anywhere.

So apparently the 'goldilocks hapitable zone', even if it has a form of water, isn't all that is needed. For instance, here is a constant in our solar system: if the 8 planets of our solar system do not orbit around the sun in their precise orbits, there would be no life on earth.

So it is not just what is happening in the habitable zone, but in the entire solar system.

There are also many zones that must overlap in order to have life. 3 of them are:
1) the habitable zone
2) the ultra violet ray zone
3) the ozone zone

So the assumption that other solar systems are like ours is not true. Ours may be a singular (special) solar system compared to other solar systems.

The onus is on you to read the OP and respond appropriately rather than copy/paste creationist drivel.

No, the onus is on you. This could go on a long time.

I'm not giving up. I'm simply saying that we don't have all the answers yet and a conclusion is premature at this time. Do you think humanity has solved everything?

That is a sensible position to take. But it seems you are not willing to be very open to the idea of an intelligent Man that has existed for billions of years and know the secrets of the universe. Knowlegeable enought to actually start a universe, with the hundreds of constants and ratios and just-right settings to produce life, evern advanced life.

They do? So you are withholding your calculations from the scientific community? Do you care to share your calculations?

I will share one calculation with you as an example of the kind of constant I am talking about, and there are literally hundreds of these kinds of constants that are in existence in the universe and the earth:
The neutron (n) weighs 1.00137841870 times greater than a proton (p).

This exact weight difference, allows the neutron to decay readily into protons, electrons, and neutrinos, a process that assures the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium and gave us a universe that is dominated by hydrogen.

If this weight ratio between neutron and proton were just slightly larger, we would be living in a universe with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to come forth.

If this weight ratio was just slightly smaller, protons would decay into neutrons, leaving the universe without atoms.

The result of a smaller or larger ratio would mean NO LIFE ON EARTH.

The demons, provided you Mormons believe in such entities, hold intellectual awareness of God's existence and that does not stop them from being evil. If I simply wanted to sin, then I would do so and I would evaluate God's existence as a completely separate, unrelated issue. Your arguments are terrible and do not even withstand casual scrutiny.

My arguments are spot on. You, I believe, are trying to lose God in your life, so that if you wish to sin, you can with no restraints. I think you do not like the idea that there is a God that commands us not to commit adultery, because that gets in your way of having a good time with certain women. So your solution is to 'loose God' rather than 'obey God'.

I will say, that you may use all your talents (which are many) in the endeavor to loose God, but you cannot succeed. Even if you prove in your own mind that He does not exist, you will just spoof yourself. So use your talents wisely, show us how God exists. Live His commandments. It has taken billions of years for God to know that the commandments He lays down for you are actually the true way to happiness. Not just for you, but for Him, for He keeps His own commandments. He is an intelligent Man/God and knows what is best for His creation, for He has gone through the same process as you are going through today. He knows you.[/QUOTE]

Nihilist Virus · Nov 23, 2016

Peter1000 said:
I was being sarcastic.

Part of your problem is the mainstream version of Jehovah. He did not create everything out of nothing. He is an intelligent being, that over billions of years has come to know the sum total of what the universe has to offer. Therefore He can control nature and set the constants and fine tune as He wishes. IOW He can boot up a universe and maintain it. It is not insanity, it is quite an interesting study.

Isn't that convenient. I guess the discussion is over.
I'm guessing that you and Einstein would be email buddies about the finer points of 'relativity'. I'm also betting that there are less than 10 people on the planet that even know the finer points of 'relativity', and less than that that can articulate what they know.

Your scientific verbiage is showing now.
1) we assume that every main-sequence star yielding terrestrial planets is similar to our solar system?

You cannot even start with the asumption that every main-sequence star yielding... is similar to ours. Where did you get this idea?

There is a 'habitable zone' for every star in our galaxy, but so what? Some of those habitable zones have been found to have water in some form. Does that mean they are going to have life of some sort? We have not found any life so far on thousands of planets that are in the habitable zones of their star anywhere.

So apparently the 'goldilocks hapitable zone', even if it has a form of water, isn't all that is needed. For instance, here is a constant in our solar system: if the 8 planets of our solar system do not orbit around the sun in their precise orbits, there would be no life on earth.

So it is not just what is happening in the habitable zone, but in the entire solar system.

There are also many zones that must overlap in order to have life. 3 of them are:
1) the habitable zone
2) the ultra violet ray zone
3) the ozone zone

So the assumption that other solar systems are like ours is not true. Ours may be a singular (special) solar system compared to other solar systems.

No, the onus is on you. This could go on a long time.

That is a sensible position to take. But it seems you are not willing to be very open to the idea of an intelligent Man that has existed for billions of years and know the secrets of the universe. Knowlegeable enought to actually start a universe, with the hundreds of constants and ratios and just-right settings to produce life, evern advanced life.

I will share one calculation with you as an example of the kind of constant I am talking about, and there are literally hundreds of these kinds of constants that are in existence in the universe and the earth:
The neutron (n) weighs 1.00137841870 times greater than a proton (p).

This exact weight difference, allows the neutron to decay readily into protons, electrons, and neutrinos, a process that assures the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium and gave us a universe that is dominated by hydrogen.

If this weight ratio between neutron and proton were just slightly larger, we would be living in a universe with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to come forth.

If this weight ratio was just slightly smaller, protons would decay into neutrons, leaving the universe without atoms.

The result of a smaller or larger ratio would mean NO LIFE ON EARTH.

My arguments are spot on. You, I believe, are trying to lose God in your life, so that if you wish to sin, you can with no restraints. I think you do not like the idea that there is a God that commands us not to commit adultery, because that gets in your way of having a good time with certain women. So your solution is to 'loose God' rather than 'obey God'.

I will say, that you may use all your talents (which are many) in the endeavor to loose God, but you cannot succeed. Even if you prove in your own mind that He does not exist, you will just spoof yourself. So use your talents wisely, show us how God exists. Live His commandments. It has taken billions of years for God to know that the commandments He lays down for you are actually the true way to happiness. Not just for you, but for Him, for He keeps His own commandments. He is an intelligent Man/God and knows what is best for His creation, for He has gone through the same process as you are going through today. He knows you.

I said the onus is on you to read the OP and respond appropriately. Seeing that you refused, I stopped reading your response.

Peter1000 · Nov 23, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
I said the onus is on you to read the OP and respond appropriately. Seeing that you refused, I stopped reading your response.

You were wise to do that.

Nihilist Virus · Nov 23, 2016

Peter1000 said:
You were wise to do that.

Are you saying that you're deliberately wasting my time?

Mobezom · Nov 25, 2016

Peter1000 said:
I'm sure this is a fine 'theory', but show us the experiment that show how protocells developed.

Inference is a valid scientific process. We know that phospholipids can be spontaneously formed. We know that phospholipids arrange themselves into spherical membranes due to their hydrophily and hydrophoby. Thus, we know that spherical membranes can be formed unintelligently. And so on.

Then once you have dupicated the protocell process, show me an experiment when science combined protocells with phospholipids globules and mixed in a little sturdy RNA and came up with 'competing', 'natural selecting' life.

RNA is a very unique molecule - it acts as both a carrier of genetic information and as a catalyst. One must not stretch the imagination too much to consider an RNA molecule capable of self-replication.

I can give no direct experiment proving this - we do not have the time and space needed to replicate the early Earth. This does not mean that inferences cannot be made.

It is life we are after, not an electrically induced string of sugar produced in a controlled laboratory environment, without oxygen or ultra violet rays and such.

The M-U experiment did not prove that life could be spontaneously formed. It proved that some of the molecules of life could be spontaneously formed.

Where is your life???????????

On the Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TagliatelliMonster · Nov 29, 2016

Ed1wolf said:
They boil down to the same thing, the theory that life can come from non-life. His experiments strongly imply that it can't.

No... "spontanous generation" is a completely different model as opposed to "abiogenesis".

His "experiments" didn't even touch anything remotely connected to abiogenesis. Most of the stuff connected to that field wasn't even known in his day and age.

Peter1000 · Nov 29, 2016

Mobezom said:
Inference is a valid scientific process.

We know that phospholipids can be spontaneously formed.

Click to expand...

We know that phospholipids arrange themselves into spherical membranes due to their hydrophily and hydrophoby.

Thus, we know that spherical membranes can be formed unintelligently. And so on.

Click to expand...

RNA is a very unique molecule - it acts as both a carrier of genetic information and as a catalyst. One must not stretch the imagination too much to consider an RNA molecule capable of self-replication.

I can give no direct experiment proving this - we do not have the time and space needed to replicate the early Earth. This does not mean that inferences cannot be made.

The M-U experiment did not prove that life could be spontaneously formed. It proved that some of the molecules of life could be spontaneously formed.

Click to expand...

On the Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Inference? In all the text on the scientific method that I have read, which is limited, I did not find the word 'inference'. I am sure you will find that word, in the event that the scientific method, including the experiments, fail to give you the results you wish. So 'inference' would be a sub-standard or secondary scientific method, but certainly not the top-of-the-line, flagship method.

We know that phospholipids can be spontaneously formed.

Has this been proven by the real scientific method? Has anyone witnessed the coming together of a fatty acid uniting with a phosphate group, modified by an alcohol? Does that soup exist anywhere naturally?

Thus, we know that spherical membranes can be formed unintelligently. And so on.

Are you sure it is unintelligently? Do you mean by a chance happening?
So when you use the verbiage 'and so on' are you 'infering' that the rest of the cell can come togther spontaneously too? That should be rather simple to duplicate. Has science done it yet?

The M-U experiment did not prove that life could be spontaneously formed. It proved that some of the molecules of life could be spontaneously formed.

That's right, but when that experiment was reported, it was hailed as the experiment of the ages that proved that life started from non-life. Well, as they tried to prove other things from this experiment, they ran into one failure after another until the original report looked like a big lie. So they did modify their rhetoric and downsize the experiment to: some molecules of life could be formed under a laboratory (not spontaneous) controlled environment. It was controlled to reduce oxygen and ultra violet rays to zero, which is unreal.

So again, I ask, has any experiment proved the spontaneous formation of a single celled animal. The answer is no. So there must be another answer to the question, how did life start on earth? It has not been shown to start by a happen chance (spontaneous generation or abiogenesis).

So why not look at an intelligent designer? You have to have less 'faith' to believe there is an intelligent designer than there is to believe in abiogenesis.

Peter1000 · Nov 29, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
Are you saying that you're deliberately wasting my time?

No, I am just saying that if you cannot connect hundreds of precision constants to a superior intelligence, then our discussion over this subject will just terribly frustrate you. I do not want to be a part of frustrating a person as we try to discover God, therefore you were wise to step out of the discussion.

I hope you find what you are looking for.

It takes much more 'faith' to believe in a chance happening universe and earth, than the 'faith' required to believe in a superior intelligence that made the heavens and the earth.

Peter1000 · Nov 29, 2016

TagliatelliMonster said:
No... "spontanous generation" is a completely different model as opposed to "abiogenesis".

His "experiments" didn't even touch anything remotely connected to abiogenesis. Most of the stuff connected to that field wasn't even known in his day and age.

Abiogenesis is simply a more modern concept for the older concept of 'spontaneous generation'. See this definition found on the internet:
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
ˌābīōˈjenəsəs/
noun

the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"
- historical
  another term for spontaneous generation.

Nihilist Virus · Nov 29, 2016

Peter1000 said:
No, I am just saying that if you cannot connect hundreds of precision constants to a superior intelligence, then our discussion over this subject will just terribly frustrate you. I do not want to be a part of frustrating a person as we try to discover God, therefore you were wise to step out of the discussion.

I hope you find what you are looking for.

It takes much more 'faith' to believe in a chance happening universe and earth, than the 'faith' required to believe in a superior intelligence that made the heavens and the earth.

Chance? It's you who rely on chance. What's the chance your religion is the right one out of the thousands that exist?

Eudaimonist · Nov 29, 2016

Peter1000 said:
Abiogenesis is simply a more modern concept for the older concept of 'spontaneous generation'.

No, it isn't.

It might be a similar word if you want to talk about etymology, but it isn't even close to the same phenomenon, and requires vastly different sorts of experiments to properly investigate. Blurring the two ideas is not helpful.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Eight Foot Manchild · Nov 30, 2016

Peter1000 said:
Abiogenesis is simply a more modern concept for the older concept of 'spontaneous generation'.

No it isn't.

Abiogenesis describes the gradual, incremental development of biological processes - cellular differentiation, morphogenesis, physiological traits, digestion, stimulus, reproduction etc.

'Spontaneous generation' - fully formed organisms magically popping into existence with all biological processes intact - is what creationists believe, not scientists.

TagliatelliMonster · Nov 30, 2016

Peter1000 said:
Abiogenesis is simply a more modern concept for the older concept of 'spontaneous generation'. See this definition found on the internet:
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
ˌābīōˈjenəsəs/
noun

the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"

historical
another term for spontaneous generation.

The only thing it has in common with spontaneous generation is that both are / were models proposing an explanation for the origins of life.

But these are different models, offering different explanations.

Abiogenesis is about molecular biology, bio-chemistry, etc.
The model didn't even exist at the time, so how could any experiment test a model that didn't even exist, using knowledge that wasn't yet known???

This is simply how it is. And I fail to see what you hope to accomplish by conflating the two. Inform yourself.

http://www.actforlibraries.org/difference-between-spontaneous-generation-and-abiogenesis/
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
https://gotquestions.org/abiogenesis-definition-theory.html

Furthermore, "abiogenesis" isn't a single theory. It's so vast that we migh as well call it a field on its own. It's a collection of hypothesis detailing various different aspects and stages.

In a way, you could say that "spontaneous generation" is a model of the field "abiogenesis" which has been falsified and discarded.

But the field remains. Life began in some way, some how. Abiogenesis is the ongoing study of how, when and where that occured.

Peter1000 · Nov 30, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
Chance? It's you who rely on chance. What's the chance your religion is the right one out of the thousands that exist?

We are not talking about my religion, we are talking about who or what created the universe and the earth that you live on.

The idea that the universe and earth simply happened by an unintelligent chance is so small that you have to have much more faith than to believe that an intelligent being with superior knowledge designed and brought forth the universe and earth in a orderly manner. The precision of the constants bear record of this surety.

The real challenge is to connect the dots, and find out how this superior being was able to bring the universe and earth into existence in a natural way.

Use your extensive talents to prove that hypothesis and you will find the answers you are looking for.

Mormonism comes later.

Peter1000 · Nov 30, 2016

TagliatelliMonster said:
The only thing it has in common with spontaneous generation is that both are / were models proposing an explanation for the origins of life.

But these are different models, offering different explanations.

Abiogenesis is about molecular biology, bio-chemistry, etc.
The model didn't even exist at the time, so how could any experiment test a model that didn't even exist, using knowledge that wasn't yet known???

This is simply how it is. And I fail to see what you hope to accomplish by conflating the two. Inform yourself.

http://www.actforlibraries.org/difference-between-spontaneous-generation-and-abiogenesis/
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
https://gotquestions.org/abiogenesis-definition-theory.html

Furthermore, "abiogenesis" isn't a single theory. It's so vast that we migh as well call it a field on its own. It's a collection of hypothesis detailing various different aspects and stages.

In a way, you could say that "spontaneous generation" is a model of the field "abiogenesis" which has been falsified and discarded.

But the field remains. Life began in some way, some how. Abiogenesis is the ongoing study of how, when and where that occured.

You can say all you want about what abiogenesis is. But after all the dust settles and the clouds lift, it still boils down to a very simple definition of: 'life from non-life'.

For 300 years, science has tried to prove that life can come from non-living matter and they have not been able to do it. I believe some biology books no longer talk about abiogenesis because it is such a descredited hypothesis.

Biogenesis is still the only credible way that life came about on earth, life from living matter. Wow that even sounds sensible. How difficult would it have been for a superior intelligence to place already existing 1 celled life on earth? How difficult would it have been for a superior intelligence to put multi celled life on earth.

Your 'faith' in abiogenesis has to be 100 times more than the 'faith' required to believe in an intelligent being with superior knowledge to make the universe come into reality, and to provide for a life-bearing earth. The precisional nature of the universal constants and the hundreds of goldilock conditions about our galaxy, solar system, and earth, point directly to a superior intelligence that designed and rolled into existence this life giving theatre.

Your challenge too, is to use your talents and your intellect to prove how an intelligent designer brought life to this earth and allowed it to grow in a naturalistic way. Persue this course and you will answer 2 big questions: 1) is there a God: yes. 2) how did life begin on earth: nature, with the help from God.

Eudaimonist · Nov 30, 2016

Peter1000 said:
You can say all you want about what abiogenesis is. But after all the dust settles and the clouds lift, it still boils down to a very simple definition of: 'life from non-life'.

It doesn't boil down to definitions, but to claims or models. Treating this as a game of definitions only obscures the real issues.

I believe some biology books no longer talk about abiogenesis because it is such a descredited hypothesis.

Which biology books would those be? Who is saying that abiogenesis is discredited?

Biogenesis is still the only credible way that life came about on earth, life from living matter.

According to whom? Not according to scientists.

Your 'faith' in abiogenesis has to be 100 times more than the 'faith' required to believe in an intelligent being with superior knowledge to make the universe come into reality, and to provide for a life-bearing earth.

That turns out not to be the case. The belief that life arose through a natural process requires far less faith (perhaps no faith at all) compared to the view that (1) a divine being used (2) supernatural powers to (3) create an entire universe. Listen to yourself. Abiogenesis is trivial compared to those views.

The precisional nature of the universal constants and the hundreds of goldilock conditions about our galaxy, solar system, and earth, point directly to a superior intelligence that designed and rolled into existence this life giving theatre.

Not really. Even if one is amazed by such conditions, that doesn't point to a God. It points to something that isn't clearly understood. Unknowns =/= God.

Your challenge too, is to use your talents and your intellect to prove how an intelligent designer brought life to this earth and allowed it to grow in a naturalistic way.

The challenge is to use talents and intellect to arrive at the truth, whatever it may be, not to assume the conclusion in advance.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Peter1000 · Nov 30, 2016

Eight Foot Manchild said:
No it isn't.

Abiogenesis describes the gradual, incremental development of biological processes - cellular differentiation, morphogenesis, physiological traits, digestion, stimulus, reproduction etc.

'Spontaneous generation' - fully formed organisms magically popping into existence with all biological processes intact - is what creationists believe, not scientists.

Spontaneous generation (fully formed organisms) seems to fit the fossil record better than your description of abiogenesis (slow-plodding, unintelligent, incremental evolution), This is textbook Darwin, which has been found to be far short of fossil reality.

The Devonian explosion put thousands of fully developed plants on the earth and some fully developed bony fish. This is what the fossil record indicates. Not a lot of slow, methodical, incremental development. Some of these fully formed plants still exist today, in their same form.

The Cambrian explosion put thousands of fully developed animals of all kinds on the earth. The fossil record does not indicate a slow, methodical, incremental evolution. Many of these animals still exist today in the exact same form.

So, no to abiogenesis, and no to spontaneous generation, and yes to the book of Genesis, that tells us simply that God made and covered the earth with plants (Devonian explosion) and animals (Cambrian explosion) and yes to the fossil record that confirms the book of Genesis.

Larniavc · Nov 30, 2016

Peter1000 said:
Spontaneous generation (fully formed organisms) seems to fit the fossil record better than your description of abiogenesis (slow-plodding, unintelligent, incremental evolution), This is textbook Darwin, which has been found to be far short of fossil reality.

The Devonian explosion put thousands of fully developed plants on the earth and some fully developed bony fish. This is what the fossil record indicates. Not a lot of slow, methodical, incremental development. Some of these fully formed plants still exist today, in their same form.

The Cambrian explosion put thousands of fully developed animals of all kinds on the earth. The fossil record does not indicate a slow, methodical, incremental evolution. Many of these animals still exist today in the exact same form.

So, no to abiogenesis, and no to spontaneous generation, and yes to the book of Genesis, that tells us simply that God made and covered the earth with plants (Devonian explosion) and animals (Cambrian explosion) and yes to the fossil record that confirms the book of Genesis.

Do you know how long the Cambrian explosion took?

Was it actually a long time?

CrystalDragon · Nov 30, 2016

Peter1000 said:
My arguments are spot on. You, I believe, are trying to lose God in your life, so that if you wish to sin, you can with no restraints. I think you do not like the idea that there is a God that commands us not to commit adultery, because that gets in your way of having a good time with certain women. So your solution is to 'loose God' rather than 'obey God'.

I will say, that you may use all your talents (which are many) in the endeavor to loose God, but you cannot succeed. Even if you prove in your own mind that He does not exist, you will just spoof yourself. So use your talents wisely, show us how God exists. Live His commandments. It has taken billions of years for God to know that the commandments He lays down for you are actually the true way to happiness. Not just for you, but for Him, for He keeps His own commandments.

Um, have you by any chance read the parts of the Bible where God commands to kill people in other tribes, enslave people who aren't Hebrews, and kill everyone in a town except the virgins to keep as war spoils? Those aren't exactly keeping the Golden Rule commandments and are much worse than committing adultery.

Fine Tuning

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

I believe in life before death!

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I believe in life before death!

Well-Known Member

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency