Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page / 7
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 10:20:52 AM EDT
[#1]
The book of Enoch, and the Dead Sea scrolls corroborate, references to cellular and genetic manipulation, by evil doers, before Noah. Trying to explain away God and His work has been happening for a while, it’s nothing new.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 10:27:00 AM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I believe that God created the random chemicals and designed the process that made them become cells.

Don't know why this is so hard.
View Quote


Now you’ve moved the goalposts and have to explain where god came from.

Of course, if you’re on the other side, where did the random chemicals come from?

Origin of life is easy.

Link Posted: 4/1/2024 10:30:53 AM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I was going to post something similar.

Darwin's work doesn't speak to the origins of life (biogenesis) at all.  If someone is arguing for a divine origin of life (or Aliens, or magic, or whatever), they are NOT arguing against, or refuting, "Darwinism" in any way, shape or form.

Darwin's work (and the subsequent work on evolution), is all about how life can change and adapt over time, but has nothing at all to do with how life originated.



View Quote


Bullshit. Life originated on the Galápagos Islands.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 12:41:22 PM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Why are you anthropomorphizing nature?

Nature doesn't "try" to do anything.  I never said infinite combinations.  I said "near-infinite" and that's a very important distinction.  You're making it sound like "nature" kept playing with chemicals in a lab until it made life and that's asinine.  

Why do you keep bringing up "new life"?
View Quote
I'm trying to get you to tell me about the process? But you don't. You assert nature "did" it.

If the conditions are optimum for life, why is not a completely new type still being produced? Why did the production of life stop? It seems that some part of the process should be is observable.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 12:43:08 PM EDT
[#5]
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 12:44:44 PM EDT
[#6]
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 12:47:01 PM EDT
[#7]
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 12:49:10 PM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Now you’ve moved the goalposts and have to explain where god came from.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


I believe that God created the random chemicals and designed the process that made them become cells.

Don't know why this is so hard.


Now you’ve moved the goalposts and have to explain where god came from.




Yeah but when you talk about the origin of God, you might be facing a language problem.  If God created the universe, then He lives outside of it.  Time only exists as a function of combined spacetime.  It's part and parcel of the fabric of this universe.  Anything that exists outside this universe (which the language "outside" is yet another problem of human perception) wouldn't experience time and therefore wouldn't have an origin point IN time.  

Link Posted: 4/1/2024 12:52:50 PM EDT
[#9]
Lysol lies!
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 1:05:46 PM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
So, it's going to take a massive increase in knowledge and technology to even remotely produce something resembling a basic cell, but yet "nature" did it on it's own by a completely and totally unknown process. Nature doesn't have knowledge and tech.

Question...why isn't nature producing new life on Earth today? Aren't the conditions more favorable today than 4 billion years ago?
View Quote

Attachment Attached File


I'm still waiting for all the various transitional forms to start showing up in the fossil record. Waiting...
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 1:15:11 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



It sure as hell would if you start from the assumption that at some point, life didn't evolve on its own but was created.  At that point, you'd stop looking.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:



Think about it.  I already explained it.  Science CAN'T just throw up its hands and say "God did this so I won't try to figure it out anymore."  If God did something, it's not going to be replicable either in theory or experiment and that's the end of the science portion of our program.  Scientists can't just make that call like the old cartoon with the formula that ends with "And then a miracle happened!"  That's not their job.  They have to keep looking whether there's anything to find or not.
Actually, the first Western scientists said something like "Look what God did, let's find out how it works".

I don't see how a belief in God is a hinderance to true science in the least. It's true, a secular scientist, and a religious scientist are going to start from very different presuppositions, but the idea of "God" doesn't preclude the quest for understanding whatsoever.



It sure as hell would if you start from the assumption that at some point, life didn't evolve on its own but was created.  At that point, you'd stop looking.


If, OTOH, you want to test what you consider to be true, then you'll dig deeper to rebut or affirm it, knowing that teal truth will endure infinite scrutiny. But not if you're lazy, or afraid your version of "truth" might not stand up to scrutiny.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 1:57:18 PM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I'm trying to get you to tell me about the process? But you don't. You assert nature "did" it.

If the conditions are optimum for life, why is not a completely new type still being produced? Why did the production of life stop? It seems that some part of the process should be is observable.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

Why are you anthropomorphizing nature?

Nature doesn't "try" to do anything.  I never said infinite combinations.  I said "near-infinite" and that's a very important distinction.  You're making it sound like "nature" kept playing with chemicals in a lab until it made life and that's asinine.  

Why do you keep bringing up "new life"?
I'm trying to get you to tell me about the process? But you don't. You assert nature "did" it.

If the conditions are optimum for life, why is not a completely new type still being produced? Why did the production of life stop? It seems that some part of the process should be is observable.

How am I supposed to tell you about the original process when nobody has figured it out yet? You keep asking why the "production of life stopped" and the easy answer is existing microbes consume any precursor substrates before they have a chance to assemble into a more complex structure.  Put another way: living things need food and the "stuff" that could become a living thing ends up as food for the living things.

Science can't answer every question but that just means "we don't know yet", it doesn't mean "we don't know, therefore God did it."  Why do some people think if science doesn't have all the answers, that means their religious beliefs are validated?  That's childish and a mindset that shouldn't exist in 2024.  If you want to believe God initiated the processes by which life evolved, that is much more reasonable.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 2:33:45 PM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

How am I supposed to tell you about the original process when nobody has figured it out yet? You keep asking why the "production of life stopped" and the easy answer is existing microbes consume any precursor substrates before they have a chance to assemble into a more complex structure.  Put another way: living things need food and the "stuff" that could become a living thing ends up as food for the living things.

Science can't answer every question but that just means "we don't know yet", it doesn't mean "we don't know, therefore God did it."  Why do some people think if science doesn't have all the answers, that means their religious beliefs are validated?  That's childish and a mindset that shouldn't exist in 2024.  If you want to believe God initiated the processes by which life evolved, that is much more reasonable.
View Quote


Microbes aren't new forms of life. Thus, if the asserted "random occurrence" model of life is true, then it means some precursors substrates made it through without being consumed, so there's no reason that shouldn't be the case now.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 2:55:59 PM EDT
[#14]
The correct answer is I Don't Know.
When we get to see Bid Daddy, we can ask Him.


Link Posted: 4/1/2024 3:15:00 PM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Microbes aren't new forms of life. Thus, if the asserted "random occurrence" model of life is true, then it means some precursors substrates made it through without being consumed, so there's no reason that shouldn't be the case now.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

How am I supposed to tell you about the original process when nobody has figured it out yet? You keep asking why the "production of life stopped" and the easy answer is existing microbes consume any precursor substrates before they have a chance to assemble into a more complex structure.  Put another way: living things need food and the "stuff" that could become a living thing ends up as food for the living things.

Science can't answer every question but that just means "we don't know yet", it doesn't mean "we don't know, therefore God did it."  Why do some people think if science doesn't have all the answers, that means their religious beliefs are validated?  That's childish and a mindset that shouldn't exist in 2024.  If you want to believe God initiated the processes by which life evolved, that is much more reasonable.


Microbes aren't new forms of life. Thus, if the asserted "random occurrence" model of life is true, then it means some precursors substrates made it through without being consumed, so there's no reason that shouldn't be the case now.

Try not to hurt your back moving those goalposts.  Every one of these discussions ends up the same way with no one's mind being swayed.  I can't make you understand something you've already decided is bullshit.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 3:17:27 PM EDT
[#16]
Yep, one day there was nothing,

Then nothing exploded.

Then nothing became matter.

Which then became the universe.

Then came a single cell.

Then single cell became animals

Then animals became humans

Then humans decided that they are not part of the natural world.


.


Link Posted: 4/1/2024 3:20:35 PM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
And when they finally do find out, what are they then going to do with that info?
View Quote


Terraforming
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 3:20:53 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Yep, one day there was nothing,

Then nothing exploded.

Then nothing became matter.

Which then became the universe.

Then came a single cell.

Then single cell became animals

Then animals became humans

Then humans decided that they are not part of the natural world.


.


View Quote

87% of GD's understanding of evolution:

South Park - Ms Garrison Explains Evolution

Link Posted: 4/1/2024 3:38:33 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Yep, one day there was nothing,

Then nothing exploded.

Then nothing became matter.

Which then became the universe.

Then came a single cell.

Then single cell became animals

Then animals became humans

Then humans decided that they are not part of the natural world.


.


View Quote



None of that accurately describes any scientific theory or hypothesis, of course.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 3:44:57 PM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



None of that accurately describes any scientific theory or hypothesis, of course.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep, one day there was nothing,

Then nothing exploded.

Then nothing became matter.

Which then became the universe.

Then came a single cell.

Then single cell became animals

Then animals became humans

Then humans decided that they are not part of the natural world.


.





None of that accurately describes any scientific theory or hypothesis, of course.

Makes it way easier to call bullshit when that's the extent of your knowledge though.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 4:02:27 PM EDT
[#21]
Whats facinating to me is all thats required for just a simple cell. If you really pay attention to his lecture and pause to look up any terms you dont understand (if youre not a chemist/scientist), it really seems absolutelyfucking impossible for life to have come from non-life. Even if the universe had billions of years, the astronomical numbers (like 10^72) to get just ONE thing right? Take lipids and proteins for example. They both have to be there at the same time.

I dont care how many tornados you have on a lifeless planet with all the raw materials on the surface. You're never getting a 747. And life is far FAR more intricate.

A mind was required for all this.

Also this fact; with all the tech and knowledge we have now, no one has yet to make life from non-life (no, that "synthetic" stuff they made was a hack from already existing cell material).
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 5:00:35 PM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

87% of GD's understanding of evolution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkpRrtHzlVs
View Quote



Link Posted: 4/1/2024 5:03:19 PM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Exactly…. That’s called faith. There is no evidence that we will have the knowledge or ability to ever do that or if it’s even possible. But your put your faith in science and scientists to achieve something when we have no evidence that it’s achievable.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


Faith implies a belief in something despite evidence for it.

I believe that some day people much smarter and with much better funding than I have will crack precisely what is required to kickstart life on a cellular level. Any guess as to the methods right now are nothing more than hypothesis that will need to be tested.

I don't make any claims to actually know what those processes were, that's what the scientific method is for.

Exactly…. That’s called faith. There is no evidence that we will have the knowledge or ability to ever do that or if it’s even possible. But your put your faith in science and scientists to achieve something when we have no evidence that it’s achievable.


You are conflating faith with optimism. My hypothesis is that someday scientist will discover how life started, and because I'm not a scientist that's about as refined as I can get with it.

The scientific theory doesn't operate on faith, to any degree. You can believe something all day long, but once tested the data will show whether it's true, false, if a conclusion can't be drawn yet, or if the experiment was flawed rendering the data corrupt.

Every single experiment in the quest for the "formula" for life will provide more data to help shape future hypothesis and testing.

Faith is the belief in something, despite any data to back that belief. A hypothesis is a guess about something, it's the very next step after questioning how or why something works, and is nothing more than an educated guess that is to be refined by experimentation.

Faith is belief, even with evidence to the contrary, simply because you believe.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 5:05:05 PM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Whats facinating to me is all thats required for just a simple cell. If you really pay attention to his lecture and pause to look up any terms you dont understand (if youre not a chemist/scientist), it really seems absolutelyfucking impossible for life to have come from non-life. Even if the universe had billions of years, the astronomical numbers (like 10^72) to get just ONE thing right? Take lipids and proteins for example. They both have to be there at the same time.

I dont care how many tornados you have on a lifeless planet with all the raw materials on the surface. You're never getting a 747. And life is far FAR more intricate.

A mind was required for all this.

Also this fact; with all the tech and knowledge we have now, no one has yet to make life from non-life (no, that "synthetic" stuff they made was a hack from already existing cell material).
View Quote


That number starts to seem pretty plausible when you consider all the stars in the observable universe and then all the planets around those stars over an extremely long period of time. It's like rolling the dice trillions and trillions of times over and over again, eventually your number is likely to hit in a lottery that big.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 5:15:46 PM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



None of that accurately describes any scientific theory or hypothesis, of course.
View Quote
I've actually heard astrophysicists describe that everything came from nothing. Then the nothing got described as a quantum fluctuation.

Nothing seems to mean something. They love to tell yarns.

But as a theist, I don't have a problem with something coming from nothing. I just happen to believe that a really powerful eternal mind caused that something to come out of that nothing.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 5:27:31 PM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I've actually heard astrophysicists describe that everything came from nothing. Then the nothing got described as a quantum fluctuation.

Nothing seems to mean something. They love to tell yarns.

But as a theist, I don't have a problem with something coming from nothing. I just happen to believe that a really powerful eternal mind caused that something to come out of that nothing.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:



None of that accurately describes any scientific theory or hypothesis, of course.
I've actually heard astrophysicists describe that everything came from nothing. Then the nothing got described as a quantum fluctuation.

Nothing seems to mean something. They love to tell yarns.

But as a theist, I don't have a problem with something coming from nothing. I just happen to believe that a really powerful eternal mind caused that something to come out of that nothing.



I think you heard an astrophysicist talking to laypeople in a popular science interview.  That is not the same thing as a serious scientific theory or even an hypothesis.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 5:28:46 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

How am I supposed to tell you about the original process when nobody has figured it out yet? You keep asking why the "production of life stopped" and the easy answer is existing microbes consume any precursor substrates before they have a chance to assemble into a more complex structure.  Put another way: living things need food and the "stuff" that could become a living thing ends up as food for the living things.

Science can't answer every question but that just means "we don't know yet", it doesn't mean "we don't know, therefore God did it."  Why do some people think if science doesn't have all the answers, that means their religious beliefs are validated?  That's childish and a mindset that shouldn't exist in 2024.  If you want to believe God initiated the processes by which life evolved, that is much more reasonable.
View Quote
Your faith in science (men) is showing. You assume a "process", because you're a "materialist". I mean, what else could it be? You assume that new life forms are actually being made...TODAY...but are being consumed. You didn't say anything about this only happening in the distant past. So if there is no reason to believe the process ceased, some scientist, somewhere could have observed at least a bit of the process. But none of that is true is it? Science today thinks the process of chemicals evolving into life has ceased. At least on this planet. Amazingly, at least to me, that comports nicely with God rested on the 7th day from all his works.

Early scientists...again...had zero problem with idea of "God".

And everyone I've ever known in the Christian world didn't come to some idea about God did it because, well, science doesn't have the answers to profound questions. I doesn't work that way.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 5:32:10 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

/media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/417453-877.jpg

I'm still waiting for all the various transitional forms to start showing up in the fossil record. Waiting...
View Quote
Basically, someone on another similar thread said "every life form" is a transitional life form, including us. Life is always in a state of change. I think that probably proves too much and denies stasis
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 5:36:39 PM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



I think you heard an astrophysicist talking to laypeople in a popular science interview.  That is not the same thing as a serious scientific theory or even an hypothesis.
View Quote
Either he was telling the truth, in lay terms or he wasn't. Dumbing it down for people like me doesn't absolve him of at least using accurate terms to describe the theory.

When scientists say things like this, are they making a SWAG, or do they actually know?
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 5:41:52 PM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Scientists figured out how to make organic matter from inorganic matter back in the 1950's.

Supposedly Jimmy Carter was given the answer to his questions about life on earth during his presidency and it mentally broke him.
View Quote
Cool story bro.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 5:42:21 PM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Is this another "man walked with dinosaurs" and "carbon dating is wrong" assholes?
View Quote

Is this another "but science can find the truth" and "you can physically see the truth" pile of nonsense?

When both of those are radically irrational.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 5:42:47 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
That number starts to seem pretty plausible when you consider all the stars in the observable universe and then all the planets around those stars over an extremely long period of time. It's like rolling the dice trillions and trillions of times over and over again, eventually your number is likely to hit in a lottery that big.
View Quote
listening to his lecture very closely, Ive realized how we trivialize the odds with examples like rolling dice, monkeys on typwriters or even mine: tornadoes and 747s.

What it requires to just come up with a simple cell is beyond time and dumb luck. Like lightyears beyond  that. Just as an example I'll use computer parts because Im not a biologist. Lets say after 10 billion years time and dumb luck produces a RAM chip. Now wheres the digital info that goes on it? (Lets say thats the RNA). That alone is INFORMATION. You absolutely cant have organized info from nothing. Moving along, now you cant have a simple operating A.I. without a motherboard to go with the RAM chip. Wheres that? Wheres the HDD?

Think of all the processes and discoveries we've had to make over the last 300yrs. Thats information, will power, determination, etc..... A mindless universe has those characteristics??

Simple life is FAR more complicated than a RAM chip by far. I no longer believe that given enough time, even quad-trillions of years, that something as complicated as a simple cell, or a ram chip would ever come about without a mind behind it. To many complicated and Complimentary things have to come togather at the same time.

My .02

Link Posted: 4/1/2024 5:44:08 PM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I've actually heard astrophysicists describe that everything came from nothing. Then the nothing got described as a quantum fluctuation.

Nothing seems to mean something. They love to tell yarns.

But as a theist, I don't have a problem with something coming from nothing. I just happen to believe that a really powerful eternal mind caused that something to come out of that nothing.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:



None of that accurately describes any scientific theory or hypothesis, of course.
I've actually heard astrophysicists describe that everything came from nothing. Then the nothing got described as a quantum fluctuation.

Nothing seems to mean something. They love to tell yarns.

But as a theist, I don't have a problem with something coming from nothing. I just happen to believe that a really powerful eternal mind caused that something to come out of that nothing.


We don't know what came before the universe, and we never can. The laws of physics as we will ever understand them did not exist until that instant.

In common language "nothing" is about the best descriptor for what came before and what the universe sprang from. "Everything" would also probably work.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 5:45:05 PM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Either he was telling the truth, in lay terms or he wasn't. Dumbing it down for people like me doesn't absolve him of at least using accurate terms to describe the theory.

When scientists say things like this, are they making a SWAG, or do they actually know?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:



I think you heard an astrophysicist talking to laypeople in a popular science interview.  That is not the same thing as a serious scientific theory or even an hypothesis.
Either he was telling the truth, in lay terms or he wasn't. Dumbing it down for people like me doesn't absolve him of at least using accurate terms to describe the theory.

When scientists say things like this, are they making a SWAG, or do they actually know?


How would anyone know?  They're making an educated guess that may be wrong.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 5:46:10 PM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Faith implies a belief in something despite evidence for it.

I believe that some day people much smarter and with much better funding than I have will crack precisely what is required to kickstart life on a cellular level. Any guess as to the methods right now are nothing more than hypothesis that will need to be tested.

I don't make any claims to actually know what those processes were, that's what the scientific method is for.
View Quote
That's not a Christian definition of faith. Christian's talk about evidence quite a bit. But there is never enough or the right kind of evidence to convince the fallen mind.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 5:51:51 PM EDT
[#36]
I read "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" and I get flashbacks to the disingenuous BS demonstrated in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial exemplified by "cdesign proponentsists."
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 5:55:56 PM EDT
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
listening to his lecture very closely, Ive realized how we trivialize the odds with examples like rolling dice, monkeys on typwriters or even mine: tornadoes and 747s.

What it requires to just come up with a simple cell is beyond time and dumb luck. Like lightyears beyond  that. Just as an example I'll use computer parts because Im not a biologist. Lets say after 10 billion years time and dumb luck produces a RAM chip. Now wheres the digital info that goes on it? (Lets say thats the RNA). That alone is INFORMATION. You absolutely cant have organized info from nothing. Moving along, now you cant have a simple operating A.I. without a motherboard to go with the RAM chip. Wheres that? Wheres the HDD?

Think of all the processes and discoveries we've had to make over the last 300yrs for it to Culminate into a smart phone today.

Simple life is FAR more complicated than a RAM chip by far. I no longer believe that given enough time, even quad-trillions of years, that something as complicated as a simple cell, or a ram chip would ever come about without a mind behind it. To many complicated and Complimentary things have to come togathet at the same time.

My .02

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
That number starts to seem pretty plausible when you consider all the stars in the observable universe and then all the planets around those stars over an extremely long period of time. It's like rolling the dice trillions and trillions of times over and over again, eventually your number is likely to hit in a lottery that big.
listening to his lecture very closely, Ive realized how we trivialize the odds with examples like rolling dice, monkeys on typwriters or even mine: tornadoes and 747s.

What it requires to just come up with a simple cell is beyond time and dumb luck. Like lightyears beyond  that. Just as an example I'll use computer parts because Im not a biologist. Lets say after 10 billion years time and dumb luck produces a RAM chip. Now wheres the digital info that goes on it? (Lets say thats the RNA). That alone is INFORMATION. You absolutely cant have organized info from nothing. Moving along, now you cant have a simple operating A.I. without a motherboard to go with the RAM chip. Wheres that? Wheres the HDD?

Think of all the processes and discoveries we've had to make over the last 300yrs for it to Culminate into a smart phone today.

Simple life is FAR more complicated than a RAM chip by far. I no longer believe that given enough time, even quad-trillions of years, that something as complicated as a simple cell, or a ram chip would ever come about without a mind behind it. To many complicated and Complimentary things have to come togathet at the same time.

My .02



A ram chip won't ever randomly appear in our universe, it's a tool designed by us, in the long history of tools since the very first one. It's like saying a human would randomly appear, there was a lot of steps before humans and to imply intelligent design and having one just pop into existence goes against the data. To see it happen would actually make all the data instantly corrupt....it's never been observed.

I supposed if you adhere to the infinite universe theory though, then anything is possible, there may be an entire universe made out of ram chips.

Life at simplest is rather simple, just microbes that are solar powered. I am really interested in how amino acids would have formed, interacted, and then began behaving like microbes as we know them. I hope science cracks it some day.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 5:56:30 PM EDT
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
That's not a Christian definition of faith. Christian's talk about evidence quite a bit. But there is never enough or the right kind of evidence to convince the fallen mind.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


Faith implies a belief in something despite evidence for it.

I believe that some day people much smarter and with much better funding than I have will crack precisely what is required to kickstart life on a cellular level. Any guess as to the methods right now are nothing more than hypothesis that will need to be tested.

I don't make any claims to actually know what those processes were, that's what the scientific method is for.
That's not a Christian definition of faith. Christian's talk about evidence quite a bit. But there is never enough or the right kind of evidence to convince the fallen mind.


Present your evidence. It doesn't hold up well to any kind of scrutiny.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 6:05:06 PM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
That's not a Christian definition of faith. Christian's talk about evidence quite a bit. But there is never enough or the right kind of evidence to convince the fallen mind.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


Faith implies a belief in something despite evidence for it.

I believe that some day people much smarter and with much better funding than I have will crack precisely what is required to kickstart life on a cellular level. Any guess as to the methods right now are nothing more than hypothesis that will need to be tested.

I don't make any claims to actually know what those processes were, that's what the scientific method is for.
That's not a Christian definition of faith. Christian's talk about evidence quite a bit. But there is never enough or the right kind of evidence to convince the fallen mind.

People would rather lie through their teeth about what christians believe than take the tiniest loss and correct what they think.

Stupid hate is more fun than following what's true.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 6:08:20 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

"But religious beleivers are irrational and believe things with no evidence!!!"
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
To my mind, it’s akin to the allegory of the monkeys and the typewriters.

Put a hundred monkeys in front of a hundred typewriters for 100 years and chances are one of them will bang out MacBeth.

"But religious beleivers are irrational and believe things with no evidence!!!"



A hundred monkeys in a hundred  years?  Much doubt.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 6:10:26 PM EDT
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Present your evidence. It doesn't hold up well to any kind of scrutiny.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


Faith implies a belief in something despite evidence for it.

I believe that some day people much smarter and with much better funding than I have will crack precisely what is required to kickstart life on a cellular level. Any guess as to the methods right now are nothing more than hypothesis that will need to be tested.

I don't make any claims to actually know what those processes were, that's what the scientific method is for.
That's not a Christian definition of faith. Christian's talk about evidence quite a bit. But there is never enough or the right kind of evidence to convince the fallen mind.


Present your evidence. It doesn't hold up well to any kind of scrutiny.

(I Thessalonians 5:21-22)
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;
abstain from every form of evil.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 6:13:17 PM EDT
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


thank you! The masses (and the dumbasses) either don’t know that or refuse to believe it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


I was going to post something similar.

Darwin's work doesn't speak to the origins of life (biogenesis) at all.  If someone is arguing for a divine origin of life (or Aliens, or magic, or whatever), they are NOT arguing against, or refuting, "Darwinism" in any way, shape or form.

Darwin's work (and the subsequent work on evolution), is all about how life can change and adapt over time, but has nothing at all to do with how life originated.



thank you! The masses (and the dumbasses) either don’t know that or refuse to believe it.


Darwin is their ultimate boogie man, and the irony is they can't read the final sentence in his seminal book which they hate so much.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.


No, instead, they build up this entire worldview based on evil atheists trying to hide evidence of God. It's part silly, part annoying, in its pervasive use of outright lies and deceit to advance its agenda.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 6:14:28 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Faith implies a belief in something despite evidence for it.

I believe that some day people much smarter and with much better funding than I have will crack precisely what is required to kickstart life on a cellular level. Any guess as to the methods right now are nothing more than hypothesis that will need to be tested.

I don't make any claims to actually know what those processes were, that's what the scientific metunderstanding
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


I'm sure at some point scientists will be able to emulate the conditions required to "spark" random chemicals into cells of some kind, but there's just so many variables and unknowns it's going to be long time before enough research is done into it to really understand how it happened.


Random chemicals into cells? I guess you’ll just have to keep having “faith” that happened.


Faith implies a belief in something despite evidence for it.

I believe that some day people much smarter and with much better funding than I have will crack precisely what is required to kickstart life on a cellular level. Any guess as to the methods right now are nothing more than hypothesis that will need to be tested.

I don't make any claims to actually know what those processes were, that's what the scientific metunderstanding


Incorrect. What you describe is blind faith, which is an important distinction. Faith absolutely has an evidentiary aspect.

Epistemologically, a significant number of the fundamental questions we wrestle with around the origin of matter and the origins of life cannot be described by science.

And for the record, the numerical case for a purely Darwinian model of evolution of advanced creatures is so highly improbable based on our current understanding as to be no plausible explanation for the development of new traits on the scale that would be necessary.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 6:22:04 PM EDT
[#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I am really interested in how amino acids would have formed, interacted, and then began behaving like microbes as we know them. I hope science cracks it some day.
View Quote
Maybe they will crack it, but still, even for amino acids to form microbes, thats a lot of things that need to come togather at once from abiogenesis just to form a microbe.

BTW, have you watched OPs vid?
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 6:24:32 PM EDT
[#45]
Faith just means you understand something and you believe that what it says is true ... is true.


The necessary and unavoidable consequence of this is that you will behave according to that belief.

The behavior that comes after is NOT the belief it is based on.

Christian faith is just belief, no different than any other.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 6:36:00 PM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

People would rather lie through their teeth about what christians believe than take the tiniest loss and correct what they think.

Stupid hate is more fun than following what's true.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


Faith implies a belief in something despite evidence for it.

I believe that some day people much smarter and with much better funding than I have will crack precisely what is required to kickstart life on a cellular level. Any guess as to the methods right now are nothing more than hypothesis that will need to be tested.

I don't make any claims to actually know what those processes were, that's what the scientific method is for.
That's not a Christian definition of faith. Christian's talk about evidence quite a bit. But there is never enough or the right kind of evidence to convince the fallen mind.

People would rather lie through their teeth about what christians believe than take the tiniest loss and correct what they think.

Stupid hate is more fun than following what's true.

Please tell us what "Christians believe".

There is no universal set of beliefs that every Christian shares.  There are always variables.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 6:42:37 PM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Incorrect. What you describe is blind faith, which is an important distinction. Faith absolutely has an evidentiary aspect.

Epistemologically, a significant number of the fundamental questions we wrestle with around the origin of matter and the origins of life cannot be described by science.

And for the record, the numerical case for a purely Darwinian model of evolution of advanced creatures is so highly improbable based on our current understanding as to be no plausible explanation for the development of new traits on the scale that would be necessary.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


I'm sure at some point scientists will be able to emulate the conditions required to "spark" random chemicals into cells of some kind, but there's just so many variables and unknowns it's going to be long time before enough research is done into it to really understand how it happened.


Random chemicals into cells? I guess you’ll just have to keep having “faith” that happened.


Faith implies a belief in something despite evidence for it.

I believe that some day people much smarter and with much better funding than I have will crack precisely what is required to kickstart life on a cellular level. Any guess as to the methods right now are nothing more than hypothesis that will need to be tested.

I don't make any claims to actually know what those processes were, that's what the scientific metunderstanding


Incorrect. What you describe is blind faith, which is an important distinction. Faith absolutely has an evidentiary aspect.

Epistemologically, a significant number of the fundamental questions we wrestle with around the origin of matter and the origins of life cannot be described by science.

And for the record, the numerical case for a purely Darwinian model of evolution of advanced creatures is so highly improbable based on our current understanding as to be no plausible explanation for the development of new traits on the scale that would be necessary.


The origins of life can not be explained yet...you forgot the yet part.

Evolution has a massive body of evidence that grows by the year, it's well established science at this point.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 7:00:38 PM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Please tell us what "Christians believe".

There is no universal set of beliefs that every Christian shares.  There are always variables.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


Faith implies a belief in something despite evidence for it.

I believe that some day people much smarter and with much better funding than I have will crack precisely what is required to kickstart life on a cellular level. Any guess as to the methods right now are nothing more than hypothesis that will need to be tested.

I don't make any claims to actually know what those processes were, that's what the scientific method is for.
That's not a Christian definition of faith. Christian's talk about evidence quite a bit. But there is never enough or the right kind of evidence to convince the fallen mind.

People would rather lie through their teeth about what christians believe than take the tiniest loss and correct what they think.

Stupid hate is more fun than following what's true.

Please tell us what "Christians believe".

There is no universal set of beliefs that every Christian shares.  There are always variables.

So you know all the "sets of beliefs" of every christian?

YOu know what's required to be able to say there are always variables?

--------

"People don't all think the same things are true"

Is not

"The things they disagree about cannot be true or false."


Rank skepticism masquerading as a tool for finding truth ...
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 7:02:29 PM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


The origins of life can not be explained yet...you forgot the yet part.

Evolution has a massive body of evidence that grows by the year, it's well established science at this point.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


I'm sure at some point scientists will be able to emulate the conditions required to "spark" random chemicals into cells of some kind, but there's just so many variables and unknowns it's going to be long time before enough research is done into it to really understand how it happened.


Random chemicals into cells? I guess you’ll just have to keep having “faith” that happened.


Faith implies a belief in something despite evidence for it.

I believe that some day people much smarter and with much better funding than I have will crack precisely what is required to kickstart life on a cellular level. Any guess as to the methods right now are nothing more than hypothesis that will need to be tested.

I don't make any claims to actually know what those processes were, that's what the scientific metunderstanding


Incorrect. What you describe is blind faith, which is an important distinction. Faith absolutely has an evidentiary aspect.

Epistemologically, a significant number of the fundamental questions we wrestle with around the origin of matter and the origins of life cannot be described by science.

And for the record, the numerical case for a purely Darwinian model of evolution of advanced creatures is so highly improbable based on our current understanding as to be no plausible explanation for the development of new traits on the scale that would be necessary.


The origins of life can not be explained yet...you forgot the yet part.

Evolution has a massive body of evidence that grows by the year, it's well established science at this point.

People who say these kind of things about science and evolution (eta: in my experience) have never meaningfully looked into the "how do you know" of either.

Science can't make any truth knowable.

Evolution is in the field of science.
Link Posted: 4/1/2024 7:07:18 PM EDT
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

You might want to do some reading about extremophiles.  We keep finding life in conditions where it's supposedly "impossible".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile
View Quote
I doubt many of those were present in the Payload Integration room.
Page / 7
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top