On Evolution & Creation

[YoursTrue]

So. is science any closer today of creating life where there is none than they in the 1950's?
How many billion years do you think it will take to fix the problem rather than ignore it?

Enjoy,

Not only that, @icant, is science any closer to producing life and then going from there to evolution?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well you just asserted an opinion based on your scientific religion.

Reality is that science or scientist have been unable to produce life.
So, you have faith that somewhere in the future that science will be able to create life.

I believe in reality, why do you think I ask for evidence about everything?

Enjoy,

Reality is that at one time transplanting organs from one person to another was fantasy. Now we do it all the time. In fact, at one time there was an entire world of things that we were unable to do. Just because we couldn't do something for thousands of years doesn't mean it is impossible. It might be, but not for that reason.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So. is science any closer today of creating life where there is none than they in the 1950's?
How many billion years do you think it will take to fix the problem rather than ignore it?

Enjoy,

Yes. How much closer? Probably not very much more, but closer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why not that is the most logical thing to believe.

If that were true, don't you think scientists who actually study this stuff for a living and who are far more qualified then you to evaluate these things would draw the same conclusion?

1. Immutable Laws:Natural laws—gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics—are the cosmic ground rules. They’re like the universal referee, ensuring consistency across the cosmos.

2. These laws are immutable—unchanging and unwavering. They don’t shift with cosmic moods or human desires. If it’s a law of nature, it’s etched in cosmic stone.

So the laws of thermodynamics, makes no difference what you or anyone might want it to do, does not change.

You can't create energy or mass without breaking the law.
Don't mention Alan Guth's zero energy universe that didn't get 2 inches off the ground.
Our universe had to have a source of energy to be transferred into the mass that fills our universe.

Enjoy,

I have no idea how you think any of these things would lead to the conclusions you mentioned in that post.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It an absolute fact even if scientist don't believe it is a fact.

???

If science doesn't accept something as a fact, then how is it a "scientific fact"?
You make very little sense. None, actually.

Scientist study the universe, sun, earth, moon, if they don't exist what are they studying them, and if they didn't build the computer how do I have one? I also believe they are responsible for the fiber optics cable that brings the internet to my house.

Enjoy,

ok/ Not sure what your point is, but ok.

 

[YoursTrue]

If that were true, don't you think scientists who actually study this stuff for a living and who are far more qualified then you to evaluate these things would draw the same conclusion?


I have no idea how you think any of these things would lead to the conclusions you mentioned in that post.

Do you agree that scientists do not really know how life came about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So. is science any closer today of creating life where there is none than they in the 1950's?
How many billion years do you think it will take to fix the problem rather than ignore it?

Enjoy,

Why do you think that science has to create life to confirm abiogenesis? That appears to be quite the non sequitur.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you agree that scientists do not really know how life came about?

This is a poorly asked question. You may be asking something other than what it appears that you are asking. In other words a rational person will likely give you an answer that you do not like.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is a poorly asked question. You may be asking something other than what it appears that you are asking. In other words a rational person will likely give you an answer that you do not like.

Bye again

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you think that science has to create life to confirm abiogenesis? That appears to be quite the non sequitur.

Your rephrase is the non sequitur. Are you ok?

 

[icant]

This is not OK and reflects your perpetual simplistic misrepresentation of our universe and our physical existence in terms of the Laws of Thermodynamics. The following reference provides more a contemporary understanding of our universe in terms of the Laws of Thermodynamics, Our universe my not simply be a closed system.

So the universe is not an entity with no outside? Is that you are saying?

Enjoy,

 

[Audie]

Bye again

Permanent? Plz?

 

[icant]

In the end, therefore, there is no mystery to the energy loss of photons: the energies are being measured by galaxies that are receding from one another, and the drop in energy is just a matter of perspective and relative motion.

Still, when we tried to understand whether the universe as a whole conserves energy we faced a fundamental limitation because there is no unique value we can ever attribute to something called the energy of the universe.

Thus, the universe does not violate the conservation of energy; rather it lies outside that law's jurisdiction.

How is it outside of the law?

The universe is a closed system. Everything inside this universe is subject to the natural laws of this universe.

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

there is no such thing as an "absolute scientific fact".

Are you telling me that the universe, sun, earth, moon, and my laptop are just a figment of my imagination? That they don't really exist.

Talk about eating your cake and still being able to see it on your plate!!!

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

Now you are just trolling. That does not help you.

Do you have evidence that solves the problem of life beginning to exist on earth???

Enjoy,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you telling me that the universe, sun, earth, moon, and my laptop are just a figment of my imagination? That they don't really exist.

Talk about eating your cake and still being able to see it on your plate!!!

Enjoy,

Nope. Not all all. It is pity that you do not understand logic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you have evidence that solves the problem of life beginning to exist on earth???

Enjoy,

Abiogenesis is a clear solution and it is supported by evidence. Not enough to lift it up to the area of being a theory, but it has far more support than any other answer. Of course until you learn what is and what is not evidence you are in no position to demand evidence. That would of course be very hypocritical if you ever did that. Are you willing to learn?

 

[metis]

Do you agree that scientists do not really know how life came about?

How many times has this been answered for you?

 

[YoursTrue]

Bi

How many times has this been answered for you

There are those here that make pronouncements as if I am always wrong no matter what a scientist says...some will simply not admit that scientists truly do not know how life started....

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope. Not all all. It is pity that you do not understand logic.

Like the earth and moon, I suppose this goes on and on until it doesn't...