{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/14/2017 12:27:29 AM
87
You can have your belief, but if you're saying that a theory holds as much ground as law then you are being illogical. You can theorize that there is a spaceship in the garage but it may not be true. Also, the chance of Evolution creating our universe is so small. It is about .0 (add a couple hundred more zeroes) and if you go so far as to theorize that there are multiple universes made the same way, it is impossible. Also, the cell is so complicated it is impossible to make without absolute precision. I believe God created everything (yes microevolution is possible) because there is evidence for it. But have your opinion.
English
-
I would like to see your math on those probabilities. As it stands, Sun was born during peak star birth in the Milky Way, and is one of the most common types of stars that exist. The elements that are found on Earth should be found on Earth because of its proximity to Sun. When planet's form, heavier elements accumulate nearer to Sun due to gravity, which is readily seen through trends in masses and densities of the planets. This is all physically reasonable, and not unlikely whatsoever. Life is composed of the most abundant elements in the universe. Carbon, for instance, is a very abundant element because even small stars can produce it. Carbon is one of two elements that life would readily be able to form from, the other being silicon, also a very abundant element, due to its chemical make up. It will readily make complex bonds because of how many electrons the most abundant isotope can accept. It just so happens that most of the silicon on Earth is underground, while carbon can readily be found on the surface, and that all life is carbon based. This, of course, is also physically reasonable given Earth's mass. Silicon is a heavier element, thus it should be expected to be closer to the center than carbon is. One should expect that for an element to form complex bonds, their needs to be an environment for which that element can move and utilize energy readily. It just so happens that at the same proximity to Sun that carbon should be expected to exist on the surface of a planet, liquid water should be able to form on that surface. Water is a central necessity of life because it has a wide range of temperature for which it is a liquid, and it has a heat capacity that allows something like carbon to readily use the available energy to make these complex bonds. But I guess that this is extremely unlikely, even though it entirely complies with our understanding of physics, right? Furthermore, all life is made out of carbon and all life utilizes the same 20 amino acids (there are more, but they're specific to certain species, where has 20 are used by all). Amino acids are also very abundant molecules, and it is completely physically reasonable to say that these molecules would have been able to readily form on Earth given its proximity to Sun. So, to sum everything up, the conditions for which life would be able to exist and evolve are in complete compliance with physical law for a planet-star system such as Earth and Sun. Also, no, given our physical laws, our universe has evolved [i]exactly[/i] how it should have. No exceptions. Also, no, I can provide you studies with which we've examined genetic code and constructed evolutionary time clocks, and they are all in compliance with the age of Earth. That directly translates to the argument of complexity being false. You're not speaking from an informed perspective.
-
Did you know Darwin said that if the cell was complex his theory would crumble? Well it is. Also, commonality doesn't mean that the universe could suddenly explode into existence. Many of the amino acids and proteins in a cell cancel each other out.
-
Editado por ZoniCat: 5/15/2017 3:30:32 AM1. I want a source or several for that Darwin claim 2. Doesn't matter what he said, because it didn't crumble. It is a solid theory that makes sense and can be scientifically supported. 3. Commonality has nothing to do with the big bang. Too that ends, you have to go into micro and quantum physics. 4. Isn't it great how the Proteins and Amino Acids are designed to be protective of the body? (At least self protective). Isn't it great how they can defend themselves from the most prominent threat to their existence. I wonder how they started to do that? I wonder if through an incredibly long process of trial and error they eventually developed into a suitable form for their environment?
-
There's nothing to suggest that the universe couldn't expand from a uniform state, and all physical laws dictate that it should. Also, stop conflating Big Bang theory with evolution. These are two entirely different subjects, whose validity is certainly not contingent on the other. Both theories have evidence ingrained in literally all of our data, to the point that they're unavoidable scientific truths. Your disbelief due to qualitative factors that seem unlikely to you, means absolutely nothing in the way of quantitative data which proves them to be so. Also, Darwin was a 19th century scientist. And amino acids do not "cancel" each other other, they complement each other, and that in no way is an argument against commonality, nor is it diminishing of the grandiosity of the fact that all life uses the same 20 amino acids. That alone is evidence for common ancestry. Modern science has proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that life is not too complex given the time frame allotted on Earth. Again, an argument to complexity [i]is not[/i] scientific.
-
Editado por mulldoe: 5/14/2017 3:21:00 AMYou don't understand the use of the word theory in science. Your little analogy is wrong, it would be hypothesise not theorise. Also evolution has nothing to do with universal creation. Please educate yourself before you try to comment further on this subject. And btw there is actually zero evidence for god, please stop being an ignorant programmed fool.
-
One more thing, if you do not believe in things above nature, you will never understand this argument as you are not willing to look outside of yours. I have studied this myself, I was not programmed or fooled. I have viewed the theory of evolution and I believe it is false based in the facts.
-
No, you believe it is false due to programing, misinformation and ignorance of fact.
-
Ok, I have given you my explanation for my belief in God. You don't have to believe it and I don't expect you to. But let's hear where those energies came from that started the Big Bang?
-
They were always there -1+1=0, mass and negative energy cancel each other to make a universal total of zero. Oh and sorry mate but [i]"I don't understand therefore god"[/i] is not now and never will be proof or evidence.
-
Editado por Liam_the_Censor: 5/14/2017 3:56:22 AMYou say there is no evidence for God? Ok, then how was the universe formed? You can't say a bunch of energies comdensed into a tiny ball, because you don't have an explanation for where they came from. Also you r right about hypothesis and theory. However, it is not fact until it is proven and there is no evidence for it. If anything, it contradicts itself. The fossil record for an example. Evolutionists say that we will find fossils of animals undergoing evolution, however not one has been found. They continue to say that the problems will solve themselves, but it has not worked that way for Fraud or Marx. Darwin's fall shall be the greatest of the three. Also many different layers of rock have been somehow tossed on top of each other. People have measured the angles of mountains and they equal that of a sand bar underwater. A flood is the only explanation for this phenomena. Also, you call me a fool. Insults only make your argument look like they need ad hominem to back it up.
-
Holy sh*t you're brainwashed....
-
Whoever taught you this crap should be prosecuted.
-
Let's hear your arguments back. If u don' have anything to argue back then don't say anything. Your comment is completely irrelevant.
-
Editado por Stickman Al: 5/14/2017 12:14:20 PM[i]You can have your belief, but if you're saying that a theory holds as much ground as law then you are being illogical. You can theorize that there is a spaceship in the garage but it may not be true. [/i] You are confusing the colloquial use of the word 'theory' with 'scientific theory'. They actually mean two very different things. This is basic stuff. No one with a smart phone or computer has an excuse for not educating themselves about this. [i]Also, the chance of Evolution creating our universe is so small. It is about .0 (add a couple hundred more zeroes) and if you go so far as to theorize that there are multiple universes made the same way, it is impossible.[/i] This shows you don't understand how we calculate probability or what evolution even means. Evolution did not create the universe. It did not create life. It is simply responsible for the variation of life forms we see in the world. The last bit saying the multiverse is impossible is just an empty assertion. The truth is we don't have a clue whether it's real or not, it's what we call a [i]hypothesis[/i]. [i]Also, the cell is so complicated it is impossible to make without absolute precision. [/i] Again, a meaningless assertion. Using misleading language too. No one 'makes' cells. [i]I believe God created everything (yes microevolution is possible) because there is evidence for it.[/i] At best, the evidence is severely lacking. At worst it is non-existent. My comment about it being criminal to teach you this nonsense is hyperbolic, but the underlying point remains fair; whoever taught you that theories are below laws is either lying to you or so lacking in scientific understanding that they should know not to talk about science. I don't expect you to take my word for it. Feel free to research the difference between a theory and a law, but go to a scientific source not a religious one. You wouldn't go to a doctor for advice about your car and the same applies here.
-
I addressed the 'theory' 'hypothesis' issue. That one was my fault. But whatever. You can have your belief, I can have mine.
-
You literally just asked me to address your points, and now that i have you dont want to discuss it. You might as well have just announced "I don't care whether my beliefs are justified, I'll believe them anyway". You certainly might want to consider why you get involved in a conversation if you don't actually want to talk about it. And don't try to make out out 'beliefs' are equivalent. They are not. Yours are superstition and nonsense.
-
Alright, tell me how cells suddenly are formed through evolution? It is impossible for them to come together since the amino acids and proteins cancel each other out. Also, have you heard of the Fibonacci sequence? Everything in the universe is made with that same sequence. Also, you say matter is everything, but how do we have a mind to think and feel things? You can say information then matter, but where did the information come from?
-
[i]Alright, tell me how cells suddenly are formed through evolution? It is impossible for them to come together since the amino acids and proteins cancel each other out.[/i] I am not a biologist. However if you want to learn about it you can study biology. It's not some big mystery. [i]Also, have you heard of the Fibonacci sequence? Everything in the universe is made with that same sequence.[/i] I am well aware of it, but it doesn't make up everything in the universe. Even if it did, that's what maths is used for; describing the world. [i]Also, you say matter is everything, but how do we have a mind to think and feel things?[/i] I never said that. But a mind is just the brain processing stimuli, it is not a separate entity it is an emergent property. [i]You can say information then matter, but where did the information come from? [/i] Ill formed question.
-
[quote]You say there is no evidence for God? Ok, then how was the universe formed? You can't say a bunch of energies comdensed into a tiny ball, because you don't have an explanation for where they came from. Also you r right about hypothesis and theory. However, it is not fact until it is proven and there is no evidence for it. If anything, it contradicts itself. The fossil record for an example. Evolutionists say that we will find fossils of animals undergoing evolution, however not one has been found. They continue to say that the problems will solve themselves, but it has not worked that way for Fraud or Marx. Darwin's fall shall be the greatest of the three. Also many different layers of rock have been somehow tossed on top of each other. People have measured the angles of mountains and they equal that of a sand bar underwater. A flood is the only explanation for this phenomena. Also, you call me a fool. Insults only make your argument look like they need ad hominem to back it up.[/quote] Every single fossil is a fossil of an organism undergoing evolution, evolution works from one generation to the next, not random jumps and as such every fossil ever found is a transitional fossil. Take the Peppered moth for example, prior to the industrial revolution the Peppered moth was a vibrant white colour, but due to its colouration it became easy prey for predators as it stood out amongst the smog and smoke produced during the industrial revolution. As such the moths with a greyer, darker colouration were more likely to survive, as a result the Peppered Moth is now a drab dark grey colour. Additionally if evolution were indeed false one would expect to find fossils of modern organisms dated to the same age and found within the same rock layer as more ancient organisms, as they all would have co-existed at the same time, but not one example of such a phenomena has been found. Every single fossil ever found fits perfectly into the evolutionary fossil record, with the older, more ancient organisms found much deeper underground, among lower rock layers, and younger more recent organisms found among higher rock layers, and less deep underground. Evolution [i]is[/i] proven Other examples: The evolution of the peppered moth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution http://www.mothscount.org/text/63/peppered_moth_and_natural_selection.html Human lactose tolerance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070401_lactose The evolution of the Italian wall Lizard. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_wall_lizard https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm The rapid evolution of the Blue Moon Butterfly http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/07/12_butterfly.shtml http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070712-butterflies.html Secondly there was no global flood, there is far too much genetic variation and no evidence of a genetic bottleneck to suggest such an event occurred. If there were a global flood of biblical proportions one would expect to find a massive genetic bottleneck in all life forms, due to the fact that their total population would have been reduced to just a few individuals, resulting in inbreeding, but we don't. Additionally a global flood would completely drown the entire world's (non aquatic) plant life, leaving nothing for the surviving herbivores to eat, resulting in mass death by starvation for both the herbivores and carnivores whom would no longer have a food source.
-
Editado por mulldoe: 5/14/2017 3:59:53 AM[quote]Ok, then how was the universe formed? You can't say a bunch of energies comdensed into a tiny ball, because you don't have an explanation for where they came from.[/quote] Yet you can say it was god even though you have no explanation as to where it came from.......smh, typical religious hypocrisy. Sorry buddy, but your special pleading won't work here. Also plate tectonics, don't be an ignorant cherry picking fool.
-
in divinely revealed religion, God immediately causes/brings things into existence from literal nothing; they existed formerly in His knowledge. It is a divinely revealed truth to be believed, not proven scientifically. Evolution of things may run their course from things already in existence. But initially, religion holds that at one time, nothing existed but God, and at a later time, everything outside communion with God will cease to exist again. These are supernatural truths pertaining to ultimate beginnings & ends, completely out of science's jurisdiction.
-
ie fairy tales than people should know better than to believe.
-
i was just trying to help inform u of religion's limitations and perspective so u dont have to waste ur breath arguing folks on certain issues..but on the flipside, if u r looking for an ultimate beginning strictly via science, then a singular reality or primary substance of sorts may b out of grasp..in other words, scientists may go in the direction of identifying multiple "primary" sources of causes that act as creative phenomena..thats not quite ultimate but nevertheless observed.
-
Dude, former Christian here I know all about it. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of religious thought/argument.
-
Also, I'd like to hear your rebuttals to what else I pointed out.
