Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Quote:Help me understand your evidence that there is a creator.
Quote:Oh you have discounted it? Well then, stop the presses, inform the media, and get Hawking and is buddies on the line to let them know you've fully debunked the science. Who do you think has more credibility? The scientists of the world or you?
Just to be clear here. You have come to a conclusion with absolutely zero evidence on the matter? Clearly you approaching this very scientifically. So you are going present some evidence at some point? Anything at all?It seems your argument rests solely on science only having some answer and some predictions and not all the answers or all the predictions. That's pretty weak when your opposing view has nothing to stand on.
1.) Did you just try to name drop me? I said it once, i will say it again, i took the time to write a response based on common biological knowledge to demonstrate why i fundamentally disagree with the conclusion you reached about the above link, and frankly i was being kind. For someone who claims to know so much about math physics and biology you should know that a simple organic molecule is several hundred magnitudes below the complexity of a living system capable of cellular mitosis.
2.) I think that there are a lot of people inside and outside of this thread that talk about the science or the evidence and really haven't shown that they know what the actual evidence is or the conclusions that science has already been able to make.
a.) It's not that we know life happens on its own from inanimate matter we just don't know how. It's in all observation we are so certain that life only comes from other living things that we have developed the law of biogenesis.
b.) It's not that we know matter and energy will appear out of thin air but we just don't know how. It's that all the available data points to the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
These two fundamental scientific truths point to something outside the known realm of scientific law as the origin both life and the universe.
Some people believe that this points to a singularity. Some people, like you, believe that this paradox will eventually be answered with the discovery of natural laws and processes that we are not aware of. Both of these are reasonable assumptions and beliefs, but that's what they are.
And then there are people like me who believe that these two truths point to a higher intelligence or being (if anyone sincerely wants to know more about my greater belief system you can pm me.)
You can disagree with me, you can strongly disagree with me and that's fine, but frankly in my lifetime i've done way too much research on my personal time about organic molecules abiogenesis, prions, proposed Darwinian evolution, geotaxis in fruit flies, positive sorting behavior, negative sorting behavior, positive mutation rates, negative mutation rates, fossils and the like from anyone to say that i'm uninformed or grasping at straws.
If you have a meaningful disagreement with the conclusions that i have reached and you can articulate those disagreements based on your scientific understanding then that's great i'm open to dialogue with anyone. But if your just going to keep up with the Bill Nye Stephen Hawking said so routine then i have better uses for my time.
Quote:Eric, you see referring to the law that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed... but I think you are incorrectly applying that law to molecular chemistry/biology...
I don't see how they're not related. All biology and chemistry consist of matter, if matter can not be created how else did it ever arrive without an origin point?
Quote:I don't see how they're not related. All biology and chemistry consist of matter, if matter can not be created how else did it ever arrive without an origin point?
Yeah, but the molecules are already there, they are just arranging themselves randomly over time. An amino acid isn't created or destroyed, it's formed with the atoms that are already in existence in nature. Each element, at the atomic level (besides the noble ones) have a propensity to either gain or lose an electron to bond with other atoms. Over time, these random combinations can "evolve" into biologically beneficial acids that can then, over time, result in RNA, DNA and yes reproducing organisms.
It's a long road, but we're talking over billions of years. A time scale that is hard to fathom to us as humans.
The time scale is irrelevant. This is another example of falsely invoking the law of large numbers. It's not a matter of 1 year or 1 billion years, you're not going to find a hydrogen atom with 6 neutrons anymore than you are going to find a set of amino acids on there own developing into a living system capable of cellular mitosis. The actual science is so sure that this doesn't happen that they have codified it in the law of Biogenesis (that all living systems come from previous living systems.)
In a way, you are anthropomorphizing inanimate organic molecules. A scientist can see whats more beneficial to create a living system because he knows what a living system would look like. In the case of the inanimate organic molecule they don't care what would be more beneficial. their not seeking out a food supply or a mate. the only thing driving inanimate matter is the universal trend towards lover energy levels (entropy). So if you want to take the time and write out individual equations to demonstrate the biochemical reactions necessary to get from amino acids to a living cell individually and demonstrate how they would happen spontaneously without intelligent interference then please go ahead by all means. I and the nobel committee are waiting with baited breath.
Otherwise you're invoking the concept of evolution and the age of the earth like a ron popeel commercial "Just set it and foget it" to make a living cell.
Quote:Yeah, but the molecules are already there, they are just arranging themselves randomly over time. An amino acid isn't created or destroyed, it's formed with the atoms that are already in existence in nature. Each element, at the atomic level (besides the noble ones) have a propensity to either gain or lose an electron to bond with other atoms. Over time, these random combinations can "evolve" into biologically beneficial acids that can then, over time, result in RNA, DNA and yes reproducing organisms.
It's a long road, but we're talking over billions of years. A time scale that is hard to fathom to us as humans.
Is there such a thing as true randomness? Is anything truly random? I think not, in a strict sense. If you had perfect knowledge of the state of all things, and the motion of all things, you could make perfect predictions about the future. Therefore, nothing is truly random. Everything is caused by something else. Nothing is spontaneous. So there is no such thing as random. There is such a thing as unpredictable, in the sense that we don't have enough knowledge to predict. But if you have perfect knowledge of the state of all things and the motion of all things, then there is nothing that is unpredictable.
I don't have a problem with the idea of creation. My problem is with the way creationists try to use the idea of creation. We know for a fact that the earth is far older than 6,000 years, for example.
Accepted scientific theories hold that before the big bang, there was no time and space. (I guess that means there is no such thing as "before" the big bang, but nonetheless...)
I don't know that science will ever figure out what caused the big bang. But if you believe in science, and if you believe in causal determinism, which is that everything has a cause and that perfect knowledge of both the state of all things and the motion of all things can lead to perfect prediction of the future, and that the universe is 13 billion years old, and that time and space did not exist before the big bang, you still have the question of what caused the big bang. What was the "first cause." In a strict sense, if time and space were created by the big bang, then there was a moment of creation. And if there was a moment of creation, what caused that? Was there a creator?
Science can never refute the idea of a creator, because the universe has only existed for 13 billion years. Therefore the laws of science have only existed for 13 billion years. The laws of time and space came into existence 13 billion years ago. So there was something that caused our existence. Was that a creator?
The laws of science hold that nothing is random. So how could our existence be random? There is a cause to everything. What caused the laws of science to appear 13 billion years ago?
1.) grooovy
2.) few creationists believe strictly in the young earth.
Quote:The time scale is irrelevant. This is another example of falsely invoking the law of large numbers. It's not a matter of 1 year or 1 billion years, you're not going to find a hydrogen atom with 6 neutrons anymore than you are going to find a set of amino acids on there own developing into a living system capable of cellular mitosis. The actual science is so sure that this doesn't happen that they have codified it in the law of Biogenesis (that all living systems come from previous living systems.)
In a way, you are anthropomorphizing inanimate organic molecules. A scientist can see whats more beneficial to create a living system because he knows what a living system would look like. In the case of the inanimate organic molecule they don't care what would be more beneficial. their not seeking out a food supply or a mate. the only thing driving inanimate matter is the universal trend towards lover energy levels (entropy). So if you want to take the time and write out individual equations to demonstrate the biochemical reactions necessary to get from amino acids to a living cell individually and demonstrate how they would happen spontaneously without intelligent interference then please go ahead by all means. I and the nobel committee are waiting with baited breath.
Otherwise you're invoking the concept of evolution and the age of the earth like a ron popeel commercial "Just set it and foget it" to make a living cell.
Your arguement about a hydrogen atom with 6 neutrons undermines any authority you have about the knowledge of the subject. 1. An atom with 6 nuetrons is CARBON, not hydrogen!!!!
Sheesh!!
Hydrogen becomes helium during the fission process that occurs in stars. Things happen over a large scale of time. It's the way the universe works.
Come on man... You know that.
The ron popeel theory... I like it... Because at the end of the day, if you took the time to pay attention during your college sciences, you'd know that these laws are what govern the universe. And life has occurred naturally though those processes.... You may not like it. But the universe doesn't care.
If you want to look for a creationist slant on it, I'd suggest concerning yourself with who created those laws. There's why you can find some spriituality. At least that's my thoughts on it.
I'm not sure how one can discount how via a large amount of time things can occur. Theoretical physists have verified as such. You may ignore time, but scientists don't. As for me writing equations... i am not so in love with myselfthat I will come on this message board are write large posts that bloviat about things I am not a PhD in.
Quote:Is there such a thing as true randomness? Is anything truly random? I think not, in a strict sense. If you had perfect knowledge of the state of all things, and the motion of all things, you could make perfect predictions about the future. Therefore, nothing is truly random. Everything is caused by something else. Nothing is spontaneous. So there is no such thing as random. There is such a thing as unpredictable, in the sense that we don't have enough knowledge to predict. But if you have perfect knowledge of the state of all things and the motion of all things, then there is nothing that is unpredictable.
I don't have a problem with the idea of creation. My problem is with the way creationists try to use the idea of creation. We know for a fact that the earth is far older than 6,000 years, for example.
Accepted scientific theories hold that before the big bang, there was no time and space. (I guess that means there is no such thing as "before" the big bang, but nonetheless...)
I don't know that science will ever figure out what caused the big bang. But if you believe in science, and if you believe in causal determinism, which is that everything has a cause and that perfect knowledge of both the state of all things and the motion of all things can lead to perfect prediction of the future, and that the universe is 13 billion years old, and that time and space did not exist before the big bang, you still have the question of what caused the big bang. What was the "first cause." In a strict sense, if time and space were created by the big bang, then there was a moment of creation. And if there was a moment of creation, what caused that? Was there a creator?
Science can never refute the idea of a creator, because the universe has only existed for 13 billion years. Therefore the laws of science have only existed for 13 billion years. The laws of time and space came into existence 13 billion years ago. So there was something that caused our existence. Was that a creator?
The laws of science hold that nothing is random. So how could our existence be random? There is a cause to everything. What caused the laws of science to appear 13 billion years ago?
I think in a theoretical perspective, you are right... There is no randomness, but just probability. If given a certain set of outcomes and a certain amount of time, one can predict almost anything. At least, that's how my puny brain understands it. These concepts are probably well beyond my education and intellect.
But I see you point, and appreciated reading your thoughts.
One thing to consider... The idea of a multiverse and string theory discusses that the bing bang potentially could have occurred via 2 other universes knocking into eachother, which then "bubbled" up into the big bang... Or something like that... Again, something that is beyond my education, but fascinating to think about.
To me, I think you can have a creator and still have science AND evolutionary theory. One does not necessarily have to discount the other. Yet creationist must try and destroy evolution because they think it belittles thier thoughts and beliefs. I just don't see why it has to be that way. In my mind the creator made up the laws that govern the universe.
1.) elements are identified by the number of PROTONS. the number of neutrons can vary with certain isotopes of said elements. For the most part said isotopes that occur naturally have been observed.
2.) FUSION is the process of combinong atoms to form new elements that powers the stars. Fission is the process of splitting atoms that powers nuclear plants and nuclear weapons.
3.) no it hasnt and we gave you a chance to show ur proof.
4.) those theories are articulated through equations based on observed law not just hey maybe if we wait a long time.
5.) I can see where ur confusion is coming from.
Carbon has 6 neutrons. It's not that hard to figure out. It's called the periodic table. Generally speaking, when you have 6 neutrons, you have a Carbon atom. (yes there are isotopes that have more or less than 6 neutrons, but that clearly wasn't what you were implying.)
You're silly arguement was that you cant find 6 neutrons in a hydrogen atom. This is obviously true, first, I doubt the hydogen atom could remain stable with 6 neutrons within it's nucleus... But more importantly, in nature, if you have 6 neutrons, you'll more than likely have 6 protons, and thus you have Carbon. No offense, but like your 1970's car versus 1970's truck thing you mentioned a few hundred pages ago, you are the one that seems to be confused. Either that, or you're not quite sure what you are trying to explain...
You are correct, Fusion is what I meant. I was typing too quickly. But the point remains, Elements are created over huge periods of time via fusion.
Aas far as point 3: What hasn't? The fact that over time, things have gotten more and more complex? I'm not sure what proof you want me to provide, I'm not a PhD. But I think you could start by looking looking into the work of Stanley Miller...
And yes, theoretical probability is alot of math. Math that is too complex for me to understand. And again, I'm not such a blow-hard to write a wall of paragraphs trying to pretend I know more than I do...
But the nuts and bolts of it are pretty simple. Given X number of outcomes and X amount of time for outcomes to occur, there is X likely-hood that a specific outcome will occur based on the time period allotted. The Universe is billions of years old. Seems like the outcome of life, given all the elements and other environmental circumstances does provide a good likelihood for the creation based on the elements available during the earlier periods of the Earth's history and the amount of time allotted. It's really not that much of a stretch, in my opinion.
Lol. You're ridiculing me for being obviously right while u misunderstand my analogy. Lol.
Take the natural occuance rate of hydrogen atoms with 6 neutrons and multiply it by infinity. How many hydroden 7 atoms would u have?
LOL, I'm honestly not trying to ridicule you... I was showing you that you either have a very poor way of explaining yourself, or you do not know what you speak of...
The discussion regarding Hydrogen was me trying to educate you on your incorrect discussion of neutrons in a hydrogen atom.
You deflected my original point into this discussion of hydrogen atoms...
My orginal point was that over time, Hydrogen atoms through FUSION, become other atoms... So in effect I just blew up your argument. Hydrogen atoms don't magically become other elements. There is a function that creates the other elements---That is found in stars... You understand how stars have created all the other elements in nature, right? Like that's pretty easy stuff...
Get it now?
I never said that. I said that there is no hydrogen atom with 6 neutrons. in 14 billion years it hasnt happened and in 14 billion more it wont happen.
And the periodic table is organized by the number of protons because the number of neutrons is variable. Just as an aside.
In the future if you dont understand something just ask. And you still havent answered the simple math problem i gave you.
Ok now you guys are to deep into science for my simple mind. I'll see myself out now lol
Quote:I never said that. I said that there is no hydrogen atom with 6 neutrons. in 14 billion years it hasnt happened and in 14 billion more it wont happen.
And the periodic table is organized by the number of protons because the number of neutrons is variable. Just as an aside.
In the future if you dont understand something just ask. And you still havent answered the simple math problem i gave you.
smh... Man, you really are not very good at reading are you? You sure like to write, but it's hard for you to read... Well, I tried.
Take care
yeh you tried. You tried to cover the fact that you don't have a firm grasp of high school chemistry with sarcasm and insults.
If at this point you a.) can't understand a simple analogy about an isotope and b.) are too self conscious to ask a clarifying question then you are in no position to lecture me or anyone about what should or should not be taught in schools.
More over, to everyone else following along my point was simple. The things that we know about chemistry specifically organic chemistry don't say its improbable for life to spontaneously generate, they don't say its one in a billion, they don't say its one in a trillion, they say we have never seen it happen, can't conceive how it would happen and justify it when equations to demonstrate that each step in the biochemical process would happen spontaneously.
What does that mean? That means that if the earth is 1 billion years old or if the earth is 1 trillion years old if the occurrence rate of any phenomenon is zero then the amount of expected occurrences is still ZERO. If you're talking about life spontaneously generating or a hydrogen atom with an atomic weight of seven, it just doesn't happen.
You're point was wrong. As I pointed out with stars and how elements are made. And I even explained isotopes in my explanation!!! It's not that hard to read, JJ. Just take the time and read the words I typed.
But that's the problem with you, isn't it jj? You don't read other peoples words... You just keep bloviating, thinking that you are the smartest person on the board. The sad thing is that because you have a difficult time understanding what you are reading, you have a hard time following a discussion or making a point.
But keep on, trucking. Speaking of trucking.. Seen any old 1970's cars that look like trucks, lately?
Quote:You're point was wrong. As I pointed out with stars and how elements are made. And I even explained isotopes in my explanation!!! It's not that hard to read, JJ. Just take the time and read the words I typed.
But that's the problem with you, isn't it jj? You don't read other peoples words... You just keep bloviating, thinking that you are the smartest person on the board. The sad thing is that because you have a difficult time understanding what you are reading, you have a hard time following a discussion or making a point.
But keep on, trucking. Speaking of trucking.. Seen any old 1970's cars that look like trucks, lately?
I have read the words that you wrote. As such i can tell that you don't understand enough about chemistry to be embarrassed! There is no isotope of hydrogen that has 6 neutrons. If i was talking about another element i would have named the element. That's a simple enough concept for anyone who knows what they're talking about to grasp. the sad thing is that in the face of being blatantly wrong and demonstrating that you get even the simplest concepts of basic chemistry wrong you still have the audacity to try and insult people. I am amazed at your continued level of willful ignorance on the subject in the face of your blatant inability to process simple reason.
1. I think you have already forgotten the stupid thing you said, and as such are now projecting your own dumb words back to me.
2. My point still stands. Stars create other elements over a long period of time. Hydrogen, the original fuel of stars creates other elements (including Carbon--which mostly has 6 neutrons, except for the isotopes) over time as the process of fusion occurs.
3. But yeah, my reasoning is bad.
I can't write it up any easier than that... Anyways, I'm done trying to teaching you the folly of your silliness on this topic. Why don't you go try to read something else you won't understand. :thanks:
Quote:1. I think you have already forgotten the stupid thing you said, and as such are now projecting your own dumb words back to me.
2. My point still stands. Stars create other elements over a long period of time. Hydrogen, the original fuel of stars creates other elements (including Carbon--which mostly has 6 neutrons, except for the isotopes) over time as the process of fusion occurs.
3. But yeah, my reasoning is bad.
I can't write it up any easier than that... Anyways, I'm done trying to teaching you the folly of your silliness on this topic. Why don't you go try to read something else you won't understand. :thanks:
Just for the record, it's not the fact that you aren't familiar with this concept that makes me loose respect for you. That's understandable. 99% of the working public doesn't use chemistry in their everyday lives. It's the fact that you are arrogant enough to keep trying to hurl insults when you have been proven out of your depth.
I said "You will find a HYDROGEN atom with 6 neutrons (which doesn't exist) before you find inanimate organic molecules assembling themselves into a living system capable of cellular mitosis. (which doesn't happen and has never been observed)"
I didn't say there were no atoms on the periodic table that had 6 neutrons, i didn't say that there was no such thing as fusion i didn't say to support one sentence of your misguided rambling. It was a simple analogy.
You're response was "well Carbon (12) has 6 neutrons.)" which is correct, and has absolutely nothing to do with an isotope of HYDROGEN that doesn't exist.
Sadder still, why did i choose Hydrogen for the example? because it among almost all other elements is best known for its predictable isotopes protium, deuterium and tritium the latter of which i have previously named in this thread. Anyone with common knowledge of isotope v. creation of another element and the basic presentations of the element hydrogen would have known exactly what i was talking about. Anyone who wasn't familiar could have asked. The path you took was to insult someone out of pride in spite of your own ignorance. I frankly don't know what to say to that. What i will say, is that for someone who worships at the alter of nature, i expect you to know a little bit more about the lady if your going to go around telling people that she alone holds all the secrets of the universe.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18