Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

[mzungu]

Yes, stevev please Google "evolution of the eye" and see if there are any mention of the optical nerve, complex digital code and the visual cortex. It's just the eyeball without mention how did the eyeball know if it develop into a camera eye it would result in our brain building visual images. Remember the sun doesn't give off light as we know it but electromagnetic waves. Our brain ability to create images at great speeds is a very complex process that even our best supercomputers can't do. Our eyes detects electromagnetic waves but it's our brain which create the images we see.

There is so much wrong with this post that I do not know where to begin.
1: Evolution of the eye is well documented.
2: Electromagnetic waves is light. We see the visible to humans spectrum of this light. Insects see the ultraviolet spectrum and some animals see the infra red spectrum.

3: Supercomputers and even PCs can generate images much faster than the human brain.

 

[stevevw]

So how did the simple life evolve into more complex multi celled life that has DNA and can reproduce with say an embryo. There would be thousands of unique and complex things that had to happen and much of it would have depended on 2 or even many parts being present at the same time and all interlocking and fitting together like a jig saw puzzle. This had to happen with that prior info being there to create it. So a random and blind process is suppose to build these highly complex prototypes of life. How could some of these things happen all at once and fit all together by a fluke of nature. [/quote

You need to show that they would need to happen all at once, something you haven't done.

[FONT=&quot]I think its the other way around dont you? Wouldn't you need to show how many of these parts and systems can operate without the rest of the things in place? Some have many parts that rely on each other and cannot function or have no purpose with the others. Like the male reproductive system. You can’t have part of it evolve it just wouldn't function. It is very complex and relies on many things to work at the same time. Not just that the female reproductive system has to come about at the precise same time for there to be a use for it. They go perfectly together and are made for each other. Now I'm not a biologist but I'm pretty sure these systems are complex and have many parts working together. How this can all evolve by a blind random process is something hard to believe?

[/FONT]

Do you think reality is limited to your limited knowledge?

[FONT=&quot]Of course not. But I also have the knowledge of many great minds that have done research on the subject.

[/FONT]

Evidence?

The genetic mistake did not produce a new complex structure. It just made an existing complex structure appear in a place where it would not work. We want to see a Hox gene make functional legs or wings appear on a worm. For the theory of evolution to be true, it has to happen often. Reptiles have to grow breasts to become mammals. Every internal organ of every living creature is a complex structure that would have to be produced by a genetic mistake, if the theory of evolution is true.
“Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae, and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. [Scientific American article by John Rennie. Page 82]”
“Once again, there is no new information! Rather, a mutation in the hox gene (see next section) results in already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place. The hox gene merely moved legs to the wrong place; it did not produce any of the information that actually constructs the legs, which in ants and bees include a wondrously complex mechanical and hydraulic mechanism that enables these insects to stick to surfaces.
These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses. [Scientific American article by John Rennie. Page 82]”
“Many experiments have been performed on fruit flies (Drosophila), where poisons and radiation induced mutations. The problem is that they are always harmful. PBS 2 (PBS-TV series ‘Evolution’. episode 2) showed an extra pair of wings on a fly, but failed to mention that they were a hindrance to flying because there are no accompanying muscles. Both these flies would be eliminated by natural selection.“
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/natural_selection.html

So we haven't seen millions of years worth of evolution in the span of fifty years. Why is that a problem?

[FONT=&quot]The experiments with the fruit flies can manipulate things so that they can mimic evolution. They can try to make a flies DNA produce all sorts of effects. In this sense they can leap frog the course of evolution and try to make it happen there and then. But so far they have only been able to make existing features change and move around. They haven't been able to give the fly another insects limbs or features because those genetics are not there in the first place. There would be new genes with their instructions needed to make that happen.

[/FONT]

I can show you animals with tissue and nerves, but no brains. Jellyfish don't have brains, but they do have nerves.

I can show you animals with tissues but no capillaries, no nerves, and no ligaments. Sponges have tissues, but none of the rest.

Contrary to you claims, they don't have to be there all at once.

[FONT=&quot]Aren't you are missing the point? These animals will never need a brain or nervous system ect. They survive as they are and that’s the way they are made. But their own individual systems need to be all there. Sponges will still have networks of complex systems of some sort that needs to be all there at the same time as well. Each creatures unique make has to be all there working together and all at once for it to work. It can't be made up by bits and pieces of the systems that come along gradually. Its like saying the car engine can work without a water cooling system and electrical system. Then you can put in part of the cooling system without the whole lot and it will still work the same. It all has to be there connected to its branches and sections all the way along at the same time and all at once[/FONT] for it to function properly.

Insects show up early in the fossil record, well before flowering plants do.

[FONT=&quot]So the insects that need the flowers to survive lived without the flowers they needed to survive until the flowers came along.?

[/FONT]

Given everything else you have been wrong about, why should we take your word on it?

I am merely asking questions as well. Yet you say that with so much authority and little support. I think its a bit presumptuous of you to be saying that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I expect such sects to be a serious minority, and here's why....

If unbelievers had just as much chance of getting into heaven as believers do... then the religion is pointless and a waste of time.
The church would be rendered obsolete, along with all its religious books, texts, prayers, etc.

Because as so many atheists around the world prove every day: you don't need bronze age myths to be a nice person.

The religion isn't pointless, because it gives people the inspiration and opportunity to worship more (group volunteering, etc.). And why assume that belief can only survive if it makes the believers special in some way?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The religion isn't pointless, because it gives people the inspiration and opportunity to worship more (group volunteering, etc.). And why assume that belief can only survive if it makes the believers special in some way?

For the reason I just stated: it's obsolete.

If I as an atheist have just as much chance of getting into Paradise as the most devout believer (and it thus all depends on how moral we are), then what's the point of religions?

It's just a waste of energy and money that would be better spend helping those in need of help and feeding the hungry.

I don't need any religions to volunteer for charity groups: I do that now as an atheist.

I don't need any religions to have a sense of belonging or a supportive community: I have a large social circle that does exactly that

Really, what's the point?

There's nothing good that religions offer that I can't obtain by purely secular means. In fact, I'ld dare to say that most of the time, the secular means will be better. For example, if we engage in a charity project to feed the homeless for example, we don't make them sit through a sermon first. We don't hold their meal hostage with a bible.

We don't waste energy and money on things that are obsolete anyway.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
If being a devout theist is not a requirement to enter Paradise, then theism is a waste of time.

 

[Michael]

For the reason I just stated: it's obsolete.

If I as an atheist have just as much chance of getting into Paradise as the most devout believer (and it thus all depends on how moral we are), then what's the point of religions?

The point would be to help you live a *happier* and more fulfilling life, one that serves others, not just yourself. The point would be to support you developing a relationship with God while living on Earth rather than getting a huge "surprise" at the end of your life too.

It's just a waste of energy and money that would be better spend helping those in need of help and feeding the hungry.

That must be why we see so many soup kitchens being staffed by atheists, day in, day out in cities all over the world.

I don't need any religions to volunteer for charity groups: I do that now as an atheist.

How many of world's charity groups were actually started by atheists? It's nice that you can "plug in" when you feel like it, but those kinds of organizations works tirelessly for years, not just when it's convenient.

I don't need any religions to have a sense of belonging or a supportive community: I have a large social circle that does exactly that

That's cool.

Really, what's the point?

There's nothing good that religions offer that I can't obtain by purely secular means. In fact, I'ld dare to say that most of the time, the secular means will be better. For example, if we engage in a charity project to feed the homeless for example, we don't make them sit through a sermon first. We don't hold their meal hostage with a bible.

We don't waste energy and money on things that are obsolete anyway.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
If being a devout theist is not a requirement to enter Paradise, then theism is a waste of time.

You sort of missed the entire point of "having a real relationship" with God, while living on Earth didn't you?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think its the other way around dont you?

Nope.

You made the positive claim that all of those features have to be in place all at once. It is up to you to evidence that claim. It is not up to me to disprove your empty assertions.

Of course not. But I also have the knowledge of many great minds that have done research on the subject.

All you have thus far is empty assertions and no evidence.

The genetic mistake did not produce a new complex structure.

Yet another empty assertion that you can not evidence.

We want to see a Hox gene make functional legs or wings appear on a worm.

You want to see millions of years of evolution occur in a single generation. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

For the theory of evolution to be true, it has to happen often. Reptiles have to grow breasts to become mammals.

We can test that theory by comparing fossils and living species. As it so happens, we find reptile to mammal transitional fossils.

CC215: Reptile-mammal transition

Those are the repeatable observations.

These abnormal limbs are not functional,

Yet another empty assertion.

[FONT=&quot]The experiments with the fruit flies can manipulate things so that they can mimic evolution.

And yet another empty assertion.

Evolution requires mutations to pass through selection before more mutations are added on. None of those experiments mimic this process.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Aren't you are missing the point? These animals will never need a brain or nervous system ect.

You claimed that they had to have a brain or nervous system, but they don't have one.

So the insects that need the flowers to survive lived without the flowers they needed to survive until the flowers came along.?

There were no insects that needed flowers before there were flowers. Why is that so hard to understand?

Even some flower species today do not need insects. They use wind pollination.

I am merely asking questions as well. Yet you say that with so much authority and little support.

My irony meter just exploded.

 

[stevevw]

Most charities are out there rain, hail or shine tending to the needy and disadvantaged. The salvation army has been doing it for over 100 years. They were one of the originators of organized help and support for people in society. That is how they started. If it wasn't for religions like these society would be in a much worse state. Governments know and rely on these charities to pick up the pieces of damaged life which really secular society has caused. They dont get enough credit for what they do and people diminish their good work. Research has shown that people that belong to a religious group are more likely to help and be charitable. More people give to religious charities as they are trusted more and they have been shown to deliver more bang for the dollar as they use it more to help others. Secular society may be able to do the things that religions do but religion does it as a way of life. It is part and parcel of their creed and it is a fundamental core belief to go out and help others.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The point would be to help you live a *happier* and more fulfilling life, one that serves others, not just yourself

I resent your insinuation that I don't live a happy and fullfilling life.
And I resent even more your insinuation that I only seek to serve myself.

Drop the elitist attitude. I don't need to be part of your elitist club of make-belief to be happy and be charitable.

The point would be to support you developing a relationship with God while living on Earth rather than getting a huge "surprise" at the end of your life too.

Which would be a pointless exercise if belief in god is not a requirement to get to some magical Paradise.

That must be why we see so many soup kitchens being staffed by atheists, day in, day out in cities all over the world.

There are plenty of secular charity organizations around the world doing all kinds of things. Religion is not at all a requirement for being charitable.
That there are more theists engaging in it is like saying that theists eat more apples. Not exactly surprising considering that theists make up a larger portion of the population.

How many of world's charity groups were actually started by atheists?

List of secularist organizations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is an incomplete list off course. There's plenty of small regional groups as well that wouldn't be listed on that page. I know, because I helped kickstart one of them together with a few friends. It's about helping the homeless in our capital (Brussels) during the winter.

It's nice that you can "plug in" when you feel like it, but those kinds of organizations works tirelessly for years, not just when it's convenient.

So, do you do charity work 24/7?

I do what I can. I have a job, a family and some hobbies to attend to as well. Excuse me that I don't devote my life to working for free while neglecting my loved ones.

If you must know, I donate to several projects every month, I volunteer for various things every other Sunday and my band is the regional go-to place for performing for free at money raising events.

You sort of missed the entire point of "having a real relationship" with God, while living on Earth didn't you?

Not at all. You missed the premise of my point.
That premise being: if being a theist or member of a specific religion is not a requirement for getting to Paradise, as in: both a theist and an atheist have exactly the same chances and it is based only on how they acted, behaved etc and NOT on what they believed on faith, then religion is pointless.
Then having a "relationship" with this god is pointless.

Just as pointless as me having a "relationship" with the Judge of a court is irrelevant when it comes to giving me a sentence for a crime I committed.

If I'm innocent, he won't sentence me for anything "unless I had a relationship with him".

If I'm guilty, he won't give me a more severe punishment because I didn't "have a relationship with him".

 

[stevevw]

Nope.

You made the positive claim that all of those features have to be in place all at once. It is up to you to evidence that claim. It is not up to me to disprove your empty assertions.

[FONT=&quot]I think I did before if you think about it. How does a male reproductive system work without all the parts in place? How does a male or female reproductive system work without the opposite sexes reproductive system in place at the same time. What is the use of either one on their own and they would have both had to had come at precisely the same time to mean anything. That in itself is evidence.

[/FONT]

All you have thus far is empty assertions and no evidence.

[FONT=&quot]They are not empty assertions they are fully self evident. Anyone who just stops to think about it can see it for themselves. I.e. a reproductive system. A heart with veins and arteries in place. A nervous system without connections to the spinal chord which is connected to the brain. Unless you are saying these things can exist without all that being there and together at the same time. What is the use of a heart if it cant pump blood through a system of veins.
[/FONT]

Yet another empty assertion that you can not evidence.

[FONT=&quot]We have tried to prove this with fruit flies for many years and they are still fruit flies no matter how hard we try. 99.9% of mutations or harmful or neutral. There is a mechanism for correcting any errors in the copying of genes. So it is very rare to have any beneficial change in genetics in the first place from mutations. Even so these are only giving changes within the same creature. Fruit flies are still fruit flies and there is no evidence for them becoming anything but fruit flies. They may become bigger, fatter, have bigger or smaller wings. They may get shrivels wings , they may end up with wings on their heads or legs on their stomachs. But they are all still fruit flies.
[/FONT]

You want to see millions of years of evolution occur in a single generation. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Bacteria and fruits can have many generations in a lab. We can manipulate things so that they can make the processes happen faster or get to points where it may take a long time to see if they can produce results. In other words they can speed up the natural selection process. But still you would think there would be some indication of a creature beginning to take on new features and turn into something different from what it is. But they are still the same just with new abilities or shapes and colors. But overall they gradually become less healthy and sterile. Primarily mutations are not good and gradually take away from the original strength and health or a creature.

Using fruit flies as a model organism allows us to more rapidly unravel the complexity of biological networks, many of which have similar structure and dynamics across flies, mice and humans.

One reason is that, due to their short lifespan, it is possible to evolve many generations of fruit flies in a relatively short time period.
[FONT=&quot]http://www.genescient.com/research/why-fruit-flies/

[/FONT]

We can test that theory by comparing fossils and living species. As it so happens, we find reptile to mammal transitional fossils.

[FONT=&quot]Comparing fossils visually is very unreliable. You are relying on observational evidence which can be open to interpretation. It has been shown to be incorrect in the past. You cannot see and have the creature there before you to test and verify which is what science requires to prove it a fact.

[/FONT]

Yet another empty assertion.

[FONT=&quot]Then why are they bothering to do the experiments to see if they can change fruit flies through mutations in in lab then. Isn't that the purpose of the experiments to see evolution at work in the lab. Didn't they choose the bacteria and fruit flies because they can increase the process so they can observe many generations of evolution at work.
[/FONT]

And yet another empty assertion.

[FONT=&quot]Then why are they doing the experiments in the lab if they cant mimic and manipulate the process of evolution..

[/FONT]

Evolution requires mutations to pass through selection before more mutations are added on. None of those experiments mimic this process.

[FONT=&quot]Then they are wasting their time. But i agree. In the wild it would be even harder for mutations to make a creature turn into a completely different one. If they cant do it in the lab then its going to be harder in the wild.

[/FONT]

You claimed that they had to have a brain or nervous system, but they don't have one.

[FONT=&quot]No I said that a brain or nervous system needs to be complete to function. If the creature has a brain then it needs something to operate. Whatever is operated by the brain needs the brain to operate it. A heart needs veins, veins need the heart if its there in the first place. If the creature was made without a brain or heart or nervous system then that’s the way it’s made and it doesn't need them. But how ever its made it cannot operate with half of any of its systems. It can have those systems gradually bit by bit mutated into existence. The whole system need to be born in one go because it relies on many connections and supports many functions all at once and in conjunction with each other.[/FONT]

There were no insects that needed flowers before there were flowers. Why is that so hard to understand?

[FONT=&quot]So then how did the flowers that needed insects survive without insects. Either way they both need each other to function and survive.

[/FONT]

Even some flower species today do not need insects. They use wind pollination.

[FONT=&quot]But many do need insects to pollinate and have in the past.

[/FONT]

My irony meter just exploded.

fair enough it must be broken.

 

[Loudmouth]

[FONT=&quot]I think I did before if you think about it. How does a male reproductive system work without all the parts in place? How does a male or female reproductive system work without the opposite sexes reproductive system in place at the same time. What is the use of either one on their own and they would have both had to had come at precisely the same time to mean anything. That in itself is evidence.

Those are questions, not evidence.

Want to try again?

They are not empty assertions they are fully self evident.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to make stuff up, and then put "it's self evident" a the end of it to make it true. That is the epitome of intellectual laziness.

Anyone who just stops to think about it can see it for themselves. I.e. a reproductive system.

Help me see it. Show me why there could not be a reproductive system with fewer parts than that found in humans. It is your assertion, now support it.

A heart with veins and arteries in place.

Sponges have circulation between cells without hearts or arteries.

A nervous system without connections to the spinal chord which is connected to the brain.

Jellyfish have a nervous system without a brain or a spinal chord. Cephalopods have a nervous system with a brain but no spinal chord. Even living organisms prove your assertions false.

All of your claims are based on nothing more than your ignorance of biology. You think that just because you are ignorant of biology that everyone else shares your ignorance.

What is the use of a heart if it cant pump blood through a system of veins.

Show us that a muscles around a major vein would be useless in every case.

We have tried to prove this with fruit flies for many years and they are still fruit flies no matter how hard we try.

We are still primates, still mammals, and still vertebrates. Your point.

99.9% of mutations or harmful or neutral.

Of those 99.9%, the vast majority are neutral. You alwasy forget to mention that.

There is a mechanism for correcting any errors in the copying of genes.

Those mechanisms do not catch all mutations, and every child is born with around 50 mutations. Are we going to keep going over the same stuff that we have covered before? Are you going to keep feigning ignorance of material that people have shown you over and over?

So it is very rare to have any beneficial change in genetics in the first place from mutations. Even so these are only giving changes within the same creature.

Yet another empty assertion that you refuse to evidence.

Fruit flies are still fruit flies and there is no evidence for them becoming anything but fruit flies. They may become bigger, fatter, have bigger or smaller wings. They may get shrivels wings , they may end up with wings on their heads or legs on their stomachs. But they are all still fruit flies.
[/FONT]

Humans are still primates, still mammals, and still vertebrates. Your point?

Bacteria and fruits can have many generations in a lab.

They can have orders of magnitude more generations over millions of years which is the time scale needed for the changes you want to see.

We can manipulate things so that they can make the processes happen faster . . .

Prove it.

In other words they can speed up the natural selection process.

False. Natural selection requires numbers of generations and multiple interactions between alleles. This can not be done in a tiny population over a few generations in a lab. We can add population genetics to the things you are ignorant of.

But still you would think there would be some indication of a creature beginning to take on new features and turn into something different from what it is.

No, we wouldn't. Humans are still primates. We are still mammals. We are still vertebrates. You don't evolve out of your ancestry.

But they are still the same just with new abilities or shapes and colors.

The evolution of new abilities is not evolution? Seriously?

But overall they gradually become less healthy and sterile.

Humans are less healthy than chimps or our common ancestor with chimps? Really? Want to think that one over again?

Primarily mutations are not good .. . .

Absolutely false. Primarily, mutations are neutral. You have been told this time and time again.

and gradually take away from the original strength and health or a creature.

Prove it.

Using fruit flies as a model organism allows us to more rapidly unravel the complexity of biological networks, many of which have similar structure and dynamics across flies, mice and humans.

One reason is that, due to their short lifespan, it is possible to evolve many generations of fruit flies in a relatively short time period.

False. Fruit flies are not used to evolve anything. Fruit flies are used as a model organism because you can quickly clone genomes that contain genetic knockouts created by humans. They are also chosen because they have a basic developmental pathway common to all deuterostomes, and an innate immunce system (toll proteins) that is found in the same group. Fruit flies are not used because scientists are trying to evolve a new species, despite your fantasies.

Comparing fossils visually is very unreliable. You are relying on observational evidence which can be open to interpretation. It has been shown to be incorrect in the past. You cannot see and have the creature there before you to test and verify which is what science requires to prove it a fact.

Hate to break it to you, but the whole point of the scientific method is to interpret observations. You are complaining that we are doing science.

Then why are they bothering to do the experiments to see if they can change fruit flies through mutations in in lab then. Isn't that the purpose of the experiments to see evolution at work in the lab.

I have a suggestion out of left field. Why don't you read their papers and find out why they are using fruit flies, and what their research actually is.

No I said that a brain or nervous system needs to be complete to function.

You said that a nervous system had to have a brain and a spinal cord. You are wrong.

 

[Michael]

I resent your insinuation that I don't live a happy and fullfilling life.

I didn't insinuate that. You read that in there all on your own.

And I resent even more your insinuation that I only seek to serve myself.

I didn't insinuate that either. You read that in there all on your own *again*. Religions don't teach *anything* at all to atheists, however they tend to teach the value of community and the importance of selfless service to others, to other *theists*.

Drop the elitist attitude. I don't need to be part of your elitist club of make-belief to be happy and be charitable.

Had I suggested that, you'd have a *real* complaint. As it stands, it's more imaginary than real I'm afraid. You can choose to be indignant however if it suits you.

Which would be a pointless exercise if belief in god is not a requirement to get to some magical Paradise.

When did I even make that claim in the first place? Jesus said the Kingdom of heaven was found *within* and he didn't say anything about *waiting* to meet God until *after* death. If you choose to do so, that's no skin off my nose of course.

There are plenty of secular charity organizations around the world doing all kinds of things. Religion is not at all a requirement for being charitable.

Perhaps not, but it still *teaches* charity to *theists* the world over.

For brevity sake, I'm simply going to skip some of the redundant stuff, or the places you took *personally* that weren't meant that way to begin with. If you think I missed anything important, let me know.

So, do you do charity work 24/7?

No, nor did I ever imply such thing. Wow, you really took stuff *personally*. You asked what the point/value of religion was. I gave you a *theistic* perspective. It wasn't a condemnation of atheism. Get over it already. Holy smokes.

Not at all. You missed the premise of my point.
That premise being: if being a theist or member of a specific religion is not a requirement for getting to Paradise,

I think we better define "Paradise" here because Jesus told me that the Kingdom of heaven is *within us*, not someplace we go *after death*.

as in: both a theist and an atheist have exactly the same chances and it is based only on how they acted, behaved etc and NOT on what they believed on faith, then religion is pointless.

What I'm suggesting is that God isn't likely to judge me after my physical death based upon my *dogma*, but rather how I have *acted*, how I have treated others, whether I've helped the least among us, or not. I'm not expecting a ticker tape parade simply by virtue of the label "Christian". I'm also not trying to claim that someone like Hellen Keller is incapable of having a relationship with God or Christ, simply because she has no concept of *language* let alone the term "Christianity". Care to explain that?

Then having a "relationship" with this god is pointless.

I doubt Helen felt that way. I don't feel that way. Just because it's pointless to *you* at the moment, doesn't mean it's pointless to *everyone else*, including folks with a healthy relationship with God *right now*. Just because ignorance is bliss to you, doesn't mean everyone feels that very same way.

Just as pointless as me having a "relationship" with the Judge of a court is irrelevant when it comes to giving me a sentence for a crime I committed.

I guess you've never seen someone be sentenced to extra time in jail for contempt of court eh?

If I'm innocent, he won't sentence me for anything "unless I had a relationship with him".

Er no. The first thing he'll probably ask you is why you *didn't* have a relationship with him, when folks like Helen Keller managed to develop internal relationship with him even *before* they understood the concept of language.

Do you pray? Do you meditate? Do you even bother to *ask* God within yourself for enlightenment on a daily basis, and are you setting the standards of the enlightenment process or is God?

If I'm guilty, he won't give me a more severe punishment because I didn't "have a relationship with him".

He's not likely to be any more lenient either.

IMO you've missed the *entire* point of Christ's teachings. He wasn't *just* talking about finding some future happiness in some future realm in some way off place, long after physical death. He was talking about finding the kingdom of heaven, and our connection to God *within ourselves*, right here, right now, in the present moment, like he enjoyed while living on Earth.

He talked about our connection to God right now through the "Holy Spirit" which he said would "testify for him" in the present moment.

Our relationships with God need not *wait* until after death. You're welcome to do that if you so choose, but like I said, it's no skin off my nose.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are not to bright in scientific matters it seems but let me explain this. Evolution is the origin of species not the origin of life. Evolution has nothing to do with how life came about. This is called abiogenesis and by the way, DNA has already proved evolution which is why it is called a theory.

No, DNA has prooved that there is no upward branching tree, merely sideways variation and a forest of individual trees now. All branching sideways and not upward. Can we say variation and kind after kind.

Not the least of which your grand design of mutation falls flat in describing anything as 50+ years of experiments has shown.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Science says the exact opposite of what the theory claims.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, DNA has prooved that there is no upward branching tree, merely sideways variation and a forest of individual trees now. All branching sideways and not upward. Can we say variation and kind after kind.

Not the least of which your grand design of mutation falls flat in describing anything as 50+ years of experiments has shown.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Science says the exact opposite of what the theory claims.

Actually, the best model of evolutionary "branches" is 3 dimensional now, with the first life from which everything shares ancestry at the center.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I think we better define "Paradise" here because Jesus told me that the Kingdom of heaven is *within us*, not someplace we go *after death*.

Just curious. Jesus told you? As in spoke to you? Not just something you read in the bible or heard in a sermon, but jesus actually took time out to tell you personally?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Actually, the best model of evolutionary "branches" is 3 dimensional now, with the first life from which everything shares ancestry at the center.

Says who? The same ones that once said it showed one tree? The same ones that said mutations explained everything when they can explain nothing? The same ones that said Coelacanth and Archaeopteryx were an intermediary? The same ones that classify Lions and Tigers as separate species when they interbreed and produce fertile offspring, the prime definition of species? The same ones that every time the data contradicts their theory just imagine a new process and never reconsider the correctness of the original theory at all?

Those people? Those the ones you relying upon?

 

[Smidlee]

Says who? The same ones that once said it showed one tree? The same ones that said mutations explained everything when they can explain nothing? The same ones that said Coelacanth and Archaeopteryx were an intermediary? The same ones that classify Lions and Tigers as separate species when they interbreed and produce fertile offspring, the prime definition of species? The same ones that every time the data contradicts their theory just imagine a new process and never reconsider the correctness of the original theory at all?

Those people? Those the ones you relying upon?

Some guys?
I like how this guy puts it.
PJ Media » There Are No Such Things as ‘Scientists’

... but think of the most famous living scientists. Like Stephen Hawking. I mean, everyone has heard of him. He has to be an outstanding scientist doing useful things, right? Well, do you have evidence of that? What has Stephen Hawking’s science led to? Maybe one day it will help us make a warp drive or something, but if I said, “Stephen Hawking is a complete and utter fraud. Everything he says is nonsense,” would you have any way to prove me right or wrong? Hawking’s stuff is all far out theory built upon more far out theory. What are you going to do? Blow up a black hole and demonstrate that he’s wrong?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Says who? The same ones that once said it showed one tree? The same ones that said mutations explained everything when they can explain nothing? The same ones that said Coelacanth and Archaeopteryx were an intermediary? The same ones that classify Lions and Tigers as separate species when they interbreed and produce fertile offspring, the prime definition of species? The same ones that every time the data contradicts their theory just imagine a new process and never reconsider the correctness of the original theory at all?

Those people? Those the ones you relying upon?

You can look at it yourself, and see that it makes logical sense to put it that way.

 

[[serious]]

Some guys?
I like how this guy puts it.
PJ Media » There Are No Such Things as ‘Scientists’

You could check the math.

Advanced physics tends to do the calculations well before we can check the result. Let's say someone has a box that you see them put $5 in. Then you see them put $3 in. Then they lock the box so you can't look inside. Would it be 'unverifiable nonsense' if stephen hawking said "there are at least $8 in there"?

What exactly is the difference between 5+3=8 and Hawking's work other than complexity of the equations?

 

[Smidlee]

You could check the math.

Advanced physics tends to do the calculations well before we can check the result. Let's say someone has a box that you see them put $5 in. Then you see them put $3 in. Then they lock the box so you can't look inside. Would it be 'unverifiable nonsense' if stephen hawking said "there are at least $8 in there"?

What exactly is the difference between 5+3=8 and Hawking's work other than complexity of the equations?

The difference is as big as man going to the moon vs man going to the next galaxy.
And what happens when the math does not add up with the current theory? They just add in fudge factors like inflation, dark matter and dark energy. (of course "some guys" don't like the idea of involving the tooth fairy more than once in order to save a theory from the data. You are only suppose to use the tooth fairy once.)
Boy, don't we wish the math was as simple as 5+3=8.

 

[Belk]

The difference is as big as man going to the moon vs man going to the next galaxy.
And what happens when the math does not add up with the current theory? They just add in fudge factors like inflation, dark matter and dark energy. (of course "some guys" don't like the idea of involving the tooth fairy more than once in order to save a theory from the data. You are only suppose to use the tooth fairy once.)
Boy, don't we wish the math was as simple as 5+3=8.

Cool story. When you prove Stephen Hawking wrong you let us know. Till then I find him more credible then people who claim things that have large quantities of evidence are false.