The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[YoursTrue]

Only if you do the computations incorrectly. If you assume independent probabilities when they are not independent, you can get results that are way too small.

If I saw videos of the process as the various emergences from the first cells that would be interesting to śay the least. Nevertheless we can't see God. So even if it happened as suggested it does not diminish God's power.

 

[YoursTrue]

Look around, there is life. So it happened despite your incomprehensible maths.

The likelihood of life happening as we see it by chance and not design is unlikely.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The likelihood of life happening as we see it by chance and not design is unlikely.

Really? And what is your evidence for that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I saw videos of the process as the various emergences from the first cells that would be interesting to śay the least. Nevertheless we can't see God. So even if it happened as suggested it does not diminish God's power.

How would you tell the difference between a cell that was "alive" and one that was "not alive"?

 

[John53]

The likelihood of life happening as we see it by chance and not design is unlikely.

Show me the evidence. All the evidence I've seen points to it as having happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

Show me the evidence. All the evidence I've seen points to it as having happened.

There is no evidence I know about that shows life started by a cell burgeoning to eventual animal life and maybe another cell moving to plant life. Maybe you know of evidence.

 

[John53]

There is no evidence I know about that shows life started by a cell burgeoning to eventual animal life and maybe another cell moving to plant life. Maybe you know of evidence.

I was asking for evidence of your claim.....

The likelihood of life happening as we see it by chance and not design is unlikely.

Soon as you respond to my question I will attempt to respond to yours. That's how discussions work.

 

[Esteban X]

There is no evidence I know about that shows life started by a cell burgeoning to eventual animal life and maybe another cell moving to plant life. Maybe you know of evidence.

You claim that the possibility of life arising by chance is unlikely.. How unlikely? Given and Infinity of space and an Eternity of time (including the space beyond space and time before time prior to the Big Bang)any possibility becomes inevitable . A God may exist but no God is neccessary

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You claim that the possibility of life arising by chance is unlikely.. How unlikely? Given and Infinity of space and an Eternity of time (including the space beyond space and time before time prior to the Big Bang)any possibility becomes inevitable . A God may exist but no God is neccessary

Prove an infinity of space and an eternity of time.
But even then abiogenesis is still impossible.

 

[Esteban X]

Show

Prove an infinity of space and an eternity of time.
But even then abiogenesis is still impossible.

Show me the boundaries of space and time. Spoiler: The boundaries indicate something beyond those boundaries.
Abiogenesis is very possible

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Show

Show me the boundaries of space and time. Spoiler: The boundaries indicate something beyond those boundaries.
Abiogenesis is very possible

Well the universe has not always existed as the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves.
And I have shown that it is only about 6000 years old .

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well the universe has not always existed as the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves.
And I have shown that it is only about 6000 years old .

But then, why would you ever believe in any scientific theories?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

But then, why would you ever believe in any scientific theories?

I do believe in science and that is why I know that evolution and billions of years are false science.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Prove an infinity of space and an eternity of time.

He doesn't need to. He only need assume the possibility. You need to demonstrate that it is impossible to rule it out.

even then abiogenesis is still impossible.

Every creationist accepts that the first life didn't come from previous life, whether he considers his god that first life or not.

What seems to be impossible is a god. Gods certainly seem irrelevant to our lives even if any exist, but no such a thing could arrange itself and maintain structural integrity forever except under the constraints imposed by prior forces to sustain it, making it yet another product of nature. Thus, if creator-god theogenesis ever occurred, it too was naturalistic.

I have shown that [the universe] is only about 6000 years old .

Science has shown that it is much older. Like the rest of us, you don't compete with science as a source of knowledge about how reality works. None of us has a vote from outside the scientific community. You've only shown yourself what your faith-based confirmation bias allows you to see. That's for you to believe, not the critical thinker, who uses a different method to decide what is true about reality - the one that brought us vaccines, manned space travel, electric power, and the Internet, that is, one that actually works and can be used to improve the human condition.

I do believe in science

You reject the science that contradicts your faith-based beliefs. Those are what you "believe in." Science doesn't require your belief or even your understanding of it to be correct and to benefit lives like yours and mine.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I do believe in science and that is why I know that evolution and billions of years are false science.

Oh, so just a little picky and choosy? Even if the majority of scientists would disagree with your particular assessments.

 

[Esteban X]

Well the universe has not always existed as the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves.
And I have shown that it is only about 6000 years old .

The 1st law of thermodynamics demands that the universe- in some form - has always existed.
You merely made a claim but shown nothing

 

[Polymath257]

If I saw videos of the process as the various emergences from the first cells that would be interesting to śay the least.

Especially since video wasn't invented for another 3.8 billion years.

Nevertheless we can't see God.

Not just see. We can't detect God with *any* of our senses, nor any of the extensions of our senses, nor any detector we have yet developed.

That makes the claims of existence problematic at least. What other entity would you accept the existence of if it could not be detected, even in theory?

So even if it happened as suggested it does not diminish God's power.

Which is completely irrelevant to whether it happened at all. I really don't care about "God's power" any more than I do of "Superman's power" or the "power of Saruman".

What I care about is the evidence and where the evidence points.

 

[Polymath257]

The likelihood of life happening as we see it by chance and not design is unlikely.

First, the opposite of design is NOT chance.

The opposite of design is undesigned. For example, the formation of a star happens via processes that are understood, that we see happening today, and that do not involve intelligent intervention. This is a process that is not designed, but it is also not 'by chance'. The simple action of gravity is enough to make it happen.

Second, you *claim* it is unlikely to happen without design, but since we don't know the process for it to happen, we don't know that it would require intelligent intervention. Furthermore, there are no likely intelligent agents that have been verified to be around at that time, so the likelihood of an intelligent intervention is very, very low.

Third, the original life was NOT life 'as we see it' today. For one thing, it was ALL single celled. It was also anaerobic: oxygen was actually poison to early life. But since there was very little oxygen in the atmosphere at that time, this was not a problem for the life that existed then. It wasn't for another 2 billion years or so that more complex cells developed that produced oxygen in abundance (causing a massive die off of previous forms of life). Only after that did plants, animals, and eventually humans develop.

 

[Polymath257]

For those interested in the formation of galaxies in the early universe and how the observations by JWST relate, a recent paper shows that periods of 'starburst' activity explains the unexpected brightness of those galaxies.

Oh, BTW, perfectly consistent with the Big Bang.

[2307.15305] Bursty Star Formation Naturally Explains the Abundance of Bright Galaxies at Cosmic Dawn

arxiv.org

 

[F1fan]

If I saw videos of the process as the various emergences from the first cells that would be interesting to śay the least.

Yet you have been presented factual explanation based on facts and data many, many times, and you end up rejecting it in favor of your adopted religious beliefs. Your failure is explained by pointing out your religious beleifs don't have facts or data behind them. So it is Lucy and the football that you claim you would be convined next time if only the well educated could present some type of explanation. It's the game you play, and others play along with you for some reason.

Nevertheless we can't see God.

Nor is God even described in any coherent way by that many religions through history. There are no facts or data that suggests any sort of God, or supernatural anything, exists. The only assumption that can be somewhat claimed is deism, that being a "power" started the natural processes that we observe working, and can trace back to nearly 14 billion years. Any sort of special creation on this little planet in a solar system on the outer edge of a galaxy, one of trillions of galaxies, doesn't really make sense.

So even if it happened as suggested it does not diminish God's power.

What God? What power? Can you show us a single fact? No. Should we include God in any description of reality? No. Let us know when you find any fact about any of the many Gods in human history, then we can entertain your religioius views.