The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[SkepticThinker]

I used facts and science of course.

Really? Where? When?

 

[SkepticThinker]

And abolition is child sacrifice to the Devil of over 2 billion innocent children through heinous methods.
And it is a result of evolution.
Pagans were deceived into that over the centuaries,

More gibberish.

 

[Sargonski]

And abolition is child sacrifice to the Devil of over 2 billion innocent children through heinous methods.
And it is a result of evolution.
Pagans were deceived into that over the centuaries,

What is this "thought stopping" deflection of a response to the fact that your DNA calculation contains assumptions .. and thus by your own formula is deeply flawed .. do you not remember your own proclaimation "No Assumptions" ? That is what is said about those who practice to deceive .. they forget the various nodes in the vast web of deception .. a tangled web.

You then fail to show us the Truth in the Bible -- What is this True God's word in the Bible .. do we kill the child for the sins of the parents .. or do we not ? First you claim the Bible is God's True word .. then next thing you are running from this claim.

The Bible says we are not to kill the Child for the sins of the Father .. is this the True word of God .. or is it not ?

 

[F1fan]

And abolition is child sacrifice to the Devil of over 2 billion innocent children through heinous methods.

Like the cancer that your God created and won’t eliminate.

And it is a result of evolution.

But you reject evolution so it can’t be a problem.

Pagans were deceived into that over the centuaries,

But no one else?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Like the cancer that your God created and won’t eliminate.


But you reject evolution so it can’t be a problem.


But no one else?

Not a problem in the respect to eternity for those going to heaven.
To all others it is the least of their problems .

 

[F1fan]

Not a problem in the respect to eternity for those going to heaven.

This isn't a factual statement, so irrelevant. Religious folk believe all sort of non-factual ideas to create meaning for themselves.

To all others it is the least of their problems .

Atheists are free from these problems. Only theists create these "problems" and they only are applicable to others, which they don't recognize. Jews and Muslims don't recognize salvation through Jesus. Do they worry? No. Christianity isn't factual. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc. can just ignore what Christians claim. Christian dogma, including creationism, has no authority over others, and that's because it isn't factual. That's means it can't be shown to be true or truth.

So when we atheists hear Christians talk about heaven and hell, and how people are destined for one, and the select get to heaven, it means nothing. That's because Christian dogma isn't factual. Even Christians don't agree amongst themselves what a "true Christian" is, and who gets to heaven and who doesn't. So we atheists just watch the catastrophe of Christianity and its confusion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We know what your assumptions are.

Your assumptions appear in science texts.

I make very very few assumptions. Among them are a belief that an objective universe exists.

Now, are you ready to answer their question and tell us what your assumptions are?

 

[cladking]

I make very very few assumptions. Among them are a belief that an objective universe exists.

Now, are you ready to answer their question and tell us what your assumptions are?

I've already said many times.

Reality exists as we perceive it.
Cause precedes effect.
Everybody always makes perfect sense.
To understand science one must understand metaphysics and every underlying assumption and definition.

From this I have come to believe;

Life is consciousness.
Consciousness is logic incarnate.
Math is logic quantified.
Reality is logic manifest.
People choose the beliefs needed in order to think they know everything.

Science is any logical methodology used to understand reality. There are an infinite number of sciences possible to homo omnisciencis and an infinite number of sciences unique to every species. Every science has unique metaphysics.

People today generally don't understand science so tend to accept the opinion of "Peers" who suffer the same challenges of every member of our species. This is why so many believe in the "big bang" even though most don't understand it. This isn't to say there could have been no "big bang" merely that there is far from a 100% chance that it exists.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What is the recipe for primordial soup, and can I buy a can of it?

Will the first living creature be in there or should I get a bolt of lightning to hit it?

Why use the deceptive phrase?

 

[Valjean]

What is the recipe for primordial soup, and can I buy a can of it?

What's your point? It's just a catchy name for whatever media life originally developed in.

Will the first living creature be in there or should I get a bolt of lightning to hit it?

Are you trying to mock chemistry? in favor of magic poofing!
You're not supporting your claim. Making fun of a different claim neither harns the different claim nor supports yours.

Why use the deceptive phrase?

What deceptive phrase are you talking about?

 

[cladking]

What is the recipe for primordial soup, and can I buy a can of it?

Anything that science can determine probably existed at that time plus everything that would make a good soup based on current knowledge. Just by invoking the term "primordial soup" it poofs into existence and life follows right behind. It's the magic of belief and knowing a little bit about reality and how it works. Every year we know more and more but every year we need know less and less to know everything.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Anything that science can determine probably existed at that time plus everything that would make a good soup based on current knowledge. Just by invoking the term "primordial soup" it poofs into existence and life follows right behind. It's the magic of belief and knowing a little bit about reality and how it works. Every year we know more and more but every year we need know less and less to know everything.

So what was the first living thing and what features did it have?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So what was the first living thing and what features did it have?

We have very little idea about the first living thing. The archeological evidence tells us that the oldest known life were single celled organisms that lived in water. How non-life became life? We have only guesses.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

We have very little idea about the first living thing. The archeological evidence tells us that the oldest known life were single celled organisms that lived in water. How non-life became life? We have only guesses.

You mean that you know exactly nothing, but believe fables.
what was the first living thing?
What features did it have?
Was it RNA, DNA or protein based?
Was it some mix of these?
what were the different amino acid sequences?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You mean that you know exactly nothing, but believe fables.
what was the first living thing?
What features did it have?
Was it RNA, DNA or protein based?
Was it some mix of these?
what were the different amino acid sequences?

fables? no. we know about single celled organisms being the oldest known life, becauase we find fossils of them in the oldest rocks. It's called evidence. I recommend it.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

fables? no. we know about single celled organisms being the oldest known life, becauase we find fossils of them in the oldest rocks. It's called evidence. I recommend it.

Some one said they find the traces and they could not find fossils and now you say they actually find the fossils.
Which is the current official lie?

Since you have their fossils, what were its features?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Some one said they find the traces and they could not find fossils and now you say they actually find the fossils.
Which is the current official lie?

Since you have their fossils, what were its features?

"The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old! Cyanobacteria are among the easiest microfossils to recognize." Please feel free to visit the site and read more.

Fossil Record of the Cyanobacteria

 

[SavedByTheLord]

"The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old! Cyanobacteria are among the easiest microfossils to recognize." Please feel free to visit the site and read more.

Fossil Record of the Cyanobacteria

Refuted already.
First, the Earth is only about 6000 years old.
Second, I already showed that a first living creature is impossible.

 

[McBell]

Refuted already.

Nope.
Not even close.

First, the Earth is only about 6000 years old.

You have merely repeated this bold empty claim over and over.
You have not shown it to be true.

Second, I already showed that a first living creature is impossible.

Nope.
Not even close.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Refuted already.
First, the Earth is only about 6000 years old.
Second, I already showed that a first living creature is impossible.

Do you remember what I said about evidence? I recommend you stop taking literally a religious text that was never meant to be taken for history, and start looking at the overwhelming evidence that contradicts you.