- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
My model doesn't work for macroscopic organisms coming from nonliving material, because it could potentially take hundreds off millions of years for just simple life to form. And spontaneous generation has been dis-proven.
There is no such thing as simple life. The idea is a sham.
There is no such thing as simple life. The idea is a sham.
Whoa, Kemosabe. Who is this "we" for whom you claim to speak? If you were not working backwards from your presupposition of your pantheistic deity, would you have any need for an eternal universe? No?The point I was making is that your same statements apply to the concept of macroscopic forms of life. For all we *actually* know, the universe is infinite and *eternal*.
How can you know that the universe has had plenty of time to form macroscopic forms of life if you have no scientific evidence to support a claim of the universe being eternal?It's had *plenty* of time to form organized structures in spacetime, just as microscopic life forms have had plenty of time to form organized structures on this planet.
Whoa, Kemosabe. Who is this "we" for whom you claim to speak? If you were not working backwards from your presupposition of your pantheistic deity, would you have any need for an eternal universe? No?
How can you know that the universe has had plenty of time to form macroscopic forms of life if you have no scientific evidence to support a claim of the universe being eternal?
My model doesn't work for macroscopic organisms coming from nonliving material, because it could potentially take hundreds off millions of years for just simple life to form. And spontaneous generation has been disproven.
Laboratory demonstration of modern cosmology concepts. You need a bigger lab. Yours is inadequate. No need to be embarrassed.Too small for what?
People testify that they have seen bigfoot, or that they have been abducted by alien spacecraft. Same book store, BTW.Sure. Pick up any book at the book store related to someone's "experiences" with God. They're all "testifying" for you.
Who is arguing that humans do not have an effect on other humans?Talk about *wild imagination*. You have no right to criticize anyone. At least since humans report an *effect on* humans today on Earth, we have something to *look at* in the lab.
Laboratory demonstration of modern cosmology concepts. You need a bigger lab. Yours is inadequate. No need to be embarrassed.
Ya, and they probably have books on Lambda-big-dark-foot too, same bookstore too by the way.People testify that they have seen bigfoot, or that they have been abducted by alien spacecraft. Same book store, BTW.
That's not what I said. How do you know Guth didn't make up inflation in his head?In terms of demonstrating that God exists outside of their imagination, you're saying they cannot. Got it. So why do you keep bringing it up?
Er, you missed my point. Penrose came up with "tests" of his predictions that could be looked at here on Earth in the lab. Unlike your string of spectacular lab failures with exotic matter, Penrose actually managed to support his theory based on "predicted" structure arrangements in the brain.Who is arguing that humans do not have an effect on other humans?
Why would it even matter if it took a few billion years for it to first form? Even by mainstream standards, the universe is much older than that.
Because we are looking at earth, which is 4.5 billion years old. Unless you want to go with life on earth originated somewhere else, like an asteroid or something, that is how much time at the most we have to work with, probably less.
Uh, no it isn't. You're confusing evolution for abiogenesis.The holy grail of evolution is to simulate life in the laboratory
How presumptuous.It is impossible to prove life is a result of a random process in the laboratory.
The point of the experiment isn't that it is random but rather that it can be demonstrated that life can come from non-life. Once we understand at least one way in which this can occur, we can then ask if there were ever conditions on Earth similar to those in the specific combination used in the experiment.I say this for the simple fact that the experiment must be orchestrated. Any interaction from an external being removes the truly random component from the experiment. Simply by observing the experiment, touching, or measuring any part of it excludes it from being purely random. Hence the experiment becomes immeasurable and proves nothing.
.
When are you going to wake up to the Spiritual Realm?
Like other Naturalists you act like its not there.
You ignore it.
However, its activity is higher life in our midst.
You are ignoring what They are up to!
Does deception and wise in your own eyes ring any bells of what is happening around you every moment?
No, but that doesn't stop both Christians and non-Christians from estimating the odds, anyway. After all, we're reconstructing not any possible scenario, but our own, which we're understanding better each year. In my thread about Dr. Koonin's multiverse hypothesis, he's quoted as estimating the odds against life at about 1:10^1,000. That's in the same ballpark that believers have been estimating for decades. Stymied, he turned to the multiverse to increase his odds, he claims, to 1:1.[serious];65329569 said:Ok, Let's look at a deck of cards that some one drops. The cards go everywhere and get completely randomized. What are the odds of any specific order of the cards? 8.06581752e67 to 1. however, when you pick them up, they will be in that specific order. In hind sight saying that one specific order is unlikely is irrelevant. That's essentially what arguments of "the specific type of life that developed on earth is unlikely" boil down to in the most forgiving interpretation. Some specific sequence that, in retrospect, was special happened. Are there other ways it all could have happened? Yes! at a minimum if the chirality of everything was flipped (everything was switched left hand to right hand or vice versa) life would work just as well. We don't even have a reasonable way of estimating how many alternate systems exist.
What you fail to understand is that it matters not where life began so long as it did. It can be on Earth and a multiple of other planets throughout the universe. After all the universe is made up of the same elements.No, but that doesn't stop both Christians and non-Christians from estimating the odds, anyway. After all, we're reconstructing not any possible scenario, but our own, which we're understanding better each year. In my thread about Dr. Koonin's multiverse hypothesis, he's quoted as estimating the odds against life at about 1:10^1,000. That's in the same ballpark that believers have been estimating for decades. Stymied, he turned to the multiverse to increase his odds, he claims, to 1:1.
So guess what: God did it, just as he has said. And is that so hard to accept?
Hmmm, why do you think that Dr. Koonin's calculations, or mine, are limited to the earth? While I can't speak for him, the ones I've seen and experimented with take into account the mass of the universe. They still don't work, thus the impetus to consider multiple universes.What you fail to understand is that it matters not where life began so long as it did. It can be on Earth and a multiple of other planets throughout the universe. After all the universe is made up of the same elements.
I don't feel compelled to convince you, so I feel no onus.As for God did it; the onus is on you to prove that a God exists and that he created life. A bronze age book is not evidence. Unless you can come up with something tangible then suffice it to say science has the last word.
I asked, if you were not working backwards from your presupposition of your pantheistic deity, would you have any need for an eternal universe? No?Yes, actually if I'm going to limit myself to *empirical physics*, I most certainly do.
I asked, how can you know that the universe has had plenty of time to form macroscopic forms of life if you have no scientific evidence to support a claim of the universe being eternal?Unless you can demonstrate that energy can be created or destroyed, I have the laws of physics which insist that *energy* has existed eternally in some form or another.
I asked, if you were not working backwards from your presupposition of your pantheistic deity, would you have any need for an eternal universe? No?
I asked, how can you know that the universe has had plenty of time to form macroscopic forms of life if you have no scientific evidence to support a claim of the universe being eternal?
How many galaxies can you fit into your lab? Is the number less that 2?I don't need a bigger lab to demonstrate any cause/effect relationships. I will eventually have to "scale" any theory to size of course.
Show me some of your testimonies about gods books that have a place in the science section of the bookstore.Ya, and they probably have books on Lambda-big-dark-foot too, same bookstore too by the way.
Argument from popularity. Must you use fallacies?The shear percentages however tell a different story. Bigfoot experiences aren't exactly "typical".
You have been asked to provide the name of anyone that would testify that they have had contact with what they would call "God" that can demonstrate that is it something outside of their imagination. If your response is anything other than that name, you are admitting that you cannot provide such a name.That's not what I said.
No, I suspect you just mistyped the sentence, and put 'humans' where you meant you write 'a god'. I just responded as it was written (imagine that!)Er, you missed my point.
You have a very unusual concept of evidence IMO. On one hand you seem to bypass the need for demonstrated cause/effect relationships when it comes to your impotent on Earth sky thingies. On the other hand, you blatantly reject human testimony of contact with something they call "God". It sure *seem* rather hypocritical from the outside looking in. Care to explain that huge double standard as it relates to "evidence"?
That last line is a *riot* from a guy that has *three* invisible friends in their cosmology beliefs.The whole inflation deity exists only in the heads of Lambda-CDM proponents and has no tangible effect on anyone on Earth.
Like I said, you're need for demonstrating cause/effect relationships as it relates to the topic of God stands in stark contrast to your astronomy beliefs where apparently 'any invisible thing goes' as long as you say so.
How many galaxies can you fit into your lab? Is the number less that 2?
Show me some of your testimonies about gods books that have a place in the science section of the bookstore.
Argument from popularity. Must you use fallacies?
You have been asked to provide the name of anyone that would testify that they have had contact with what they would call "God" that can demonstrate that is it something outside of their imagination. If your response is anything other than that name, you are admitting that you cannot provide such a name.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?