Have you seen the film La La land?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Big Bang Theory is dead.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
One.
You are making a whole lot of claims about the RNA & about amino acids, showing numbers without context, and claims that have no sources.
If you are going to provide numbers to certain biological molecules, then you must cite some actual peer-reviewed sources of where you getting those numbers from, that support your claims.
Two.
Science can only account for life, only on Earth, meaning that we have no information outside of our planet, that the most recent evidence showed that the earliest life have existed as early 3.5 billion years ago, not 13.7 trillion years ago.
The latest estimate of the Universe’s age is 13.7 billion years (from the WMAP mission & the Planck mission), not 13.7 trillion years. Where are you getting this strawman number from?
Three.
if you seriously believe that life isn’t impossible through “natural processes”, then why is that we have life, here on Earth today? Did life simply just pop into existence from nothing, because the superstitious nonsense of God’s divine power?
The “God did it”, isn’t explanation as to how life exist…what “God did it” is, is simply just a bunch of lazy and simple-minded people, who believe in nonexistent magic and fairytale fantasy.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Regardless of your ignorant statement, it matters not to the point.
Origins of life is out of scope for evolution theory.
Different set of facts, different field of study, different branch of science.
Evolution only requires life to exist, regardless how it came about.
Get it into that willfully ignorant head of yours.
Regardless of this ignorant statement, it matters not to the point.
See above.
Even if I bent over backwards and agree that your god of choice created first life, it changes nothing to evolution theory. It changes nothing about its scope, the supporting evidence, the facts of life.
Evolution demonstrable occured and continues to occur. No matter what mud you try to sling at it.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No
No
No
Strawman
It is one part in the case against your strawman version of evolution
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Ludicrous. Even today, we already know that a mere 100 nucleotides is already enough for self-replicating RNA molecules.
You're again just repeating lies from creationist propaganda.
It is not. There's no such thing at the quantum level, for example.
In fact, causality isn't even a law.
Causality re-established
Causality has never gained the status of a ‘law’ or ‘principle’ in physics. Some recent literature has even popularized the false idea that causality is a notion that should be banned from theory. Such misconception relies ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Has nothing to do with sin. How peculiar that you would say such a bizzarre and outlandish thing.
Cancer is the product of mutations in the genome. Cells go rogue and start behaving as if they were independent from the organism, which is what a tumour is. A collection of mutated rogue cells, that can kill the organism, eventually, if it spreads or metastasizes to important organs and tissues. In fact there is a type of cancer for every type of tissue and organ in your body. Since all human cells can mutate, as all cells, except red blood cells contain DNA.
Mutation is also the engine of evolution. Without genetic mutations, evolution could not function.
Describing cancer as a curse upon humanity, gifted from your God, is absurd.
No cancer = no evolution = no stupid ugly humans.
Last edited:
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Correct, the microscopic world has weak causality. Meaning there is no fundamental rule of causality. Again a subjective perception caused by macroscopic bias and disconnect from the quantum mechanical level of reality.
" In quantum physics, the distinction between cause and effect is not made at the most fundamental level and so time-symmetric systems can be viewed as causal or retrocausal"
"Most physical theories are time symmetric: microscopic models like Newton's laws or electromagnetism have no inherent direction of time. The "arrow of time" that distinguishes cause and effect must have another origin.[9]: 116 To reduce confusion, physicists distinguish strong (macroscopic) from weak (microscopic) causality.[10]"
Retrocausality - Wikipedia
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What? No, you can't be serious. Divide that by 1,000 and you would be much more likely to be correct.
But you do not know how to do probabilities. You did not show your assumptions or your math. By the way, I would be willing to bet a huge amount of money that your assumptions are demonstrably incorrect which would make your calculations just as valuable as all of your other posts.
And once again the actual needed number is more on the order of 100. Well probably over 100 but less than 200.
Cease and effect? That does not look like a typo. And no, there is no such formal scientific law. Try to find it. You will only find it at sites that are not scientific. Quantum mechanics refutes it. Sadly you have never had a class in that. If one gets to the scale of the very very small "cause and effect" are no longer the rules. Probabilities determine outcomes. Add up enough of them and the universe appears to follow cause and effect, except in certain exceptions. On the large scale we can detect when ah atom undergoes radioactive decay. But we can never see why. Why did the tritium atom decay at 11:17 and 26.154616456831993116243 . . . seconds PM and not at some other time? And we can also see uncertainty in certain examples that are addressed in Chaos Theory:
Chaos theory - Wikipedia
Though cause and effect is observed over 99% of the time it does not take very many exceptions to refute a "law" If one claims it something to be a law there can be no exceptions and yet we can find multiple exceptions to that law. That is why physicists never use that law.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
This is nothing more than a repeating of your bold empty claims.
You have not supported any of it with anything other than more bold empty claims..
Your creationist sources are confirmed liars for Jesus and you have as yet to present a peer reviewed article that does not out right refute your claims.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
No it does not violate any laws of conservation.
Sanity is not believing a multi trillion galaxy universe was magically created by a talking ape God.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Sure it violates all conservation laws.
and nothing does not cause something especially all that energy and matter, and all those finely tuned orderly laws of nature.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Conservation laws are the consequence of symmetries in the laws of physics. For example, energy conservation is due to the fact that the laws of physics don't change over time. Conservation of linear momentum is because they don't change from place to place, and angular momentum is conserved because they don't change with direction.
Noether's theorem - Wikipedia
Thus is we are talking about the laws of nature themselves having some sort of start, then conservation laws are irrelevant.
Nobody thinks it did. Causation does not appear to be universal even within space-time, and it certainly requires space-time to make any sense at all, so looking for a cause for space-time itself, is absurd. And, yet again, general relativity gives us a 'picture' of space-time as a four-dimensional object within which time is just an observer dependant direction through it. Looking for the reason why it exists at the start of time-like directions (even if there is a start), is much like looking for the reason the Earth exists at the north pole.
"All that energy" might be zero....
Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia
'Matter' isn't even a precise and well defined term. Its meaning is dependant on context.
Who said that they could have been any different?
Who said they are unique?
We don't really know enough yet to answer these questions.
What about your fine-tuned (with a propensity to make just this sort of universe) and orderly god? Funny thing about theists is that they often bring up all these 'problems' about the existence of the universe and just refuse to look at the existence of their favourite version of god(s) in the same way. It seems to be basically "but, but... err... god is magic!"
Agreed. The creationism apologist doesn't understand that those creationist arguments are for those who can't critically assess them for soundness but need some reassurance that their beliefs are as valid as scientific ones. This is done by making religion seem more like science with arguments like the ones we've seen here (invalid statistical arguments and a few scientific links) as well as by trying to make science look more like religion (saying that it is believed by faith) and atheists religious (I don't have enough faith to be an atheist").
I think the effort to get creationism into public school curricula is also responsible for some of this false equivalency. Maybe some members on school bords who don't believe the claims might agree that they each deserve a platform in the schools if science is just another religion and supports creationism anyway.
The problem for the hapless and uneducated creationist occurs when he takes these arguments to those who reject and know how to refute them. That's always counterproductive to the effort to grow the religion. Consider this piece of deceptive, dishonest creation apologetics from DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very different from human DNA - Laws of Genetics Contradicts Ape to Human Evolution :
"But whenever scientists are confronted with anything that has to do with God or evolution, then scientists on the whole always lie to us and they are brazen about it. For example, until 1956, scientists falsely claimed that humans and apes had the same number of chromosomes and therefore humans evolved from apes. But the fact is, humans actually have 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, etc. all have more chromosomes than humans."
This argument implies that man would have had to have suffered a chromosome dropout to go from 24 pairs of chromosomes to 23 pairs if he evolved from ape ancestors, which would of course be lethal. It depends on the reader NOT knowing about human chromosome 2, and I'm pretty sure that the writer of the above DOESN'T wany his readers bringing it to a venue like this one, where the rebuttal reveals the dishonesty of the argument. How can that be good for the religion?
Yet it lives on alongside all of the other scientific theories and hypotheses that creationists claim are in crisis such as abiogenesis and biological evolution, which also are on firm ground.
The same argument supports the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the creator of our world just as well, or, more correctly, just as badly. Your claim is is a non sequitur even if we could get to an intelligent designer using evidence and valid reasoning.
You don't have truth as I define the word. One must be able to demonstrate an idea to be correct empirically for it to deserve to be called fact, truth, or knowledge.
Gods are more likely impossible. None have manifest directly, and nothing in nature appears to require intelligent supervision to have assembled itself from filaments of galaxies of solar systems down to atoms and molecules. Nonliving ingredients are assembled into new life every day without intelligent oversight. Whatever gaps in knowledge remain to be uncovered become the last hiding place of gods, and the creationists have retreated with it into those crevices.
What would have assembled a god and from what? What is its substance that preserves knowledge, generates consciousness, generates will? What are the laws that allow it to act? What preserves its structural integrity and prevents it from dissipating into a chaotic state? Where did those laws come from?
Much of Genesis has been falsified. Educated people have moved on, including educated Abrahamic theists. It's the fundamentalists that remain stuck at the starting gate arguing that argument to an increasingly incredulous world.
No, that's those defending this superfluous god of the gaps, fingers in ears, eyes closed, and muttering, "Imposible, impossible!" who are hiding in those gaps. They NEED for abiogenesis to be incorrect because they have decided by faith a priori that it is, but they have guessed incorrectly and have cut themselves off from learning that. They're wrapped in a faith-based confirmation bias that blinds them to reality, and they have no means of burrowing out. Many have done it, but those who have are generally in the first half of life and must have acquired and retained some ability to think critically.
Abiogenesis is the second step in the evolution of the universe. It's preceded by material evolution, which generated the ingredients and habitats for life, and is followed by biological then psychological evolution, which lead to life, then to animal life, then to consciousness, then to intellect (symbolic thought).
Last edited:
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
There is now speculation that there may have been a second Big Bang?
So was it just 1 Big Bang or 2?
And if there was a second Big Bang where they just as Big or was one smaller than the other and which one?
So was it 1, 2, or 1 1/2?
But wait what is to preclude even more Big Bangs?
So was it 1, 2, 3, or more, or 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 or any number greater than 1?
But wait some are questioning whether there was any Big Bang at all?
So was it 0, 2, 3, or more, or 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 or any number greater than 1?
But wait some are saying it is Big Crunch.
So was it -1, 0, 2, 3, or more, or 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 or any number greater than 1?
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Not true. Please list a physical law, the theory violates.
For example, there is no reason to believe the big bang event violates the law of conservation of energy.
Since the negative gravitational energy of the universe, is theoretically equal to the positive mass energy of the universe.
Therefore the net energy cost of the universe is zero and the law of conservation of energy, is intact.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Who knows? The fun is in the uncertainty and the possibility of discovery. Which is partly why I find your absolutist creationist "explanations" so intellectually unsatisfying and dry. Not to mention, highly improbable. Not that invoking a God to explain anything, explains anything. It just raises more questions. Like what is a God and how does it make universes?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I explain this to you and linked to an article. this is pure evasion. You are running away again. Is your faith really so weak and fragile?
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Dishonesty lies at the heart of every theological claim/argument.
exchemist
Veteran Member
This is overreach, surely? You can get a degree in theology from many respected universities. Theology - WikipediaDishonesty lies at the heart of every theological claim/argument.
Dishonesty and/or ignorance lie at the heat of every creationist claim, I agree, but that is very different, of course.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
No in the slightest, imo.
Since every theological argument or claim. Is founded on article of faith not testable fact. Therefore in order to disseminate arguments not based on fact, by definition there must be some degree of misrepresentation involved. One must be aware that what they are promoting or defending, has no basis in testable fact. This is dishonest imo. Whether they have faith in it or not, whether they are well meaning or not. It's still a lie. It's still a betrayal of the determinable truth.