O
o_mlly
Guest
? Nope. I demonstrated that any imaginary being, i.e., unicorn could be conjured up without an actual observation.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
O
o_mlly
Guest
You’re still misremembering. I’m a scientist looking for an actual observation. Wanna see my lab coat?Oh I forgot you don’t believe in science.
A
Abrosz
Guest
You mean… angels and demons? Ghosts? Poltergeists?? Nope. I demonstrated that any imaginary being, i.e., unicorn could be conjured up without an actual observation.
What kind of “scientist” do you purport to be? Did you borrow that lab coat?I’m a scientist looking for an actual observation. Wanna see my lab coat?
O
o_mlly
Guest
No, I wrote what I meant - unicorns.You mean… angels and demons? Ghosts? Poltergeists?
One looking for an actual observation. Got one?What kind of “scientist” do you purport to be? Did you borrow that lab coat?
I gave my lab coat to Igor, my undergrad assistant.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
R
rossum
Guest
We are anxiously awaiting an actual observation of either purines or pyrimidines directly created by any deity. Got anything yet?We are anxiously awaiting an actual observation of either something from nothing or life from non-life. Got anything yet?
R
rossum
Guest
So, God does not exist “today” because He would have to go through an infinite number of events to get here.We cannot have a cyclical universe because of the impossibility of infinite regress. How would we ever arrive at “today” if we have to go through an infinite number of events to get here?
That is why I asked for your proof that God is not an infinite regress.
A
Abrosz
Guest
So not just any imaginary beings, in general. If you are only interested in actual observations, then you should discard all the imaginary beings.No, I wrote what I meant - unicorns.
R
rossum
Guest
Very very dangerous that. You need to think a lot more carefully about what you are saying here, especially how it might be taken by the non-Christian posters. Unicorns are not the only ‘imaginary beings’.I demonstrated that any imaginary being, i.e., unicorn could be conjured up without an actual observation.
M
MJCarzon
Guest
That’s not a problem as God, by definition, is timeless, changeless, spaceless, immaterial and operates outside of space-time constraint.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
That would be a new thread. Start one as it seems you are quite fixated by the question.We are anxiously awaiting an actual observation of either purines or pyrimidines directly created by any deity. Got anything yet?
O
o_mlly
Guest
As a scientist, absolutely. See Rossum’s Rule. Why does it take so many repeats to get this simple message across?So not just any imaginary beings, in general. If you are only interested in actual observations, then you should discard all the imaginary beings.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Not dangerous at all. Rather that is very, very scientific. And only applies to scientific knowledge. No scientist could, or at least should, take offense.Very very dangerous that. You need to think a lot more carefully about what you are saying here, especially how it might be taken by the non-Christian posters. Unicorns are not the only ‘imaginary beings’.
R
rossum
Guest
God is not changeless. He changed from ‘not creating the world’ to ‘creating the world’. Or do you think that the world is as old as God.That’s not a problem as God, by definition, is timeless, changeless, spaceless, immaterial and operates outside of space-time constraint.
The God of the Bible is not changeless. If He were, then the Bible would read very differently:
God also operates inside time as well. He is omnipresent, so He is present inside space-time. He parted the sea for Moses inside space-time. Again, your changeless God is not the God of the Bible:On the first day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the second day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the third day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the fourth day…
Being unable to change is a very severe restriction. The God of the Bible does not suffer from that restriction.MOSES: Lord! Part the sea so that your people may cross.
THE LORD: I cannot do that Moses, for I did not part the sea yesterday and being changeless I cannot do today what I did not do yesterday.
R
rossum
Guest
You have no evidence. Colour me unsurprised.That would be a new thread. Start one as it seems you are quite fixated by the question.
F
Freddy
Guest
A cyclical universe doesn’t involve an infinite regress.Philosophical proof is found in the impossibility of an infinite regress. Scientific proof is found in the Bord-Guth-Vilenkin Theory.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
I have taken a few key words from your quote.From abiogenesis we have blind primitive cells. Then single cells with a light sensitive organelle. That carried over into metazoa, so we have light sensitivity in plants, though no brain and no nervous system. Jellyfish have light sensitivity and a nervous system but no brain. Amphioxus has a brain (just about) nerves and a few light sensitive cells on its surface. Add curvature on the surface – a cup eye – to allow detection of the direction light is coming from. Mostly close the cup and fill it with transparent gunk to protect the light sensitive cells. Harden the gunk nearest the outside to start making a lens. Add muscles to shrink or expand the opening as needed.
single cells with a light sensitive organelle.
brain
nervous system
Add curvature on the surface
Mostly close the cup and fill it with transparent gunk
harden the gunk
Add muscles to shrink or expand as needed.
Now we just need to know how blind mutation produced these things without guidance. And like your recipe says, add muscles as needed. Random mutation and natural selection don’t have needs.
If God was in charge, then I see no problem. If there is no god please explain how all these separate details happened?
You have mentioned radiation and then there are chemicals swirling around in the oceans. But these seem very crude tools to influence eye geometry.
O
o_mlly
Guest
? As I do not claim science has a valid hypothesis for either the beginning of the universe or life, I do not need evidence. The important point, after 750+ posts, is neither do you.You have no evidence.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Blind mutation alone did not produce those things. The “guidance” you are looking for came from natural selection.Now we just need to know how blind mutation produced these things without guidance.
Natural selection “guides” the population towards more copies of beneficial genes. It “guides” the population towards fewer copies of deleterious genes.
Your grandchildren have copies of your genes. The more grandchildren you have the more copies of your genes. The fewer grandchildren you have the fewer copies of your genes. Beneficial mutations result in more copies of the affected genes. Deleterious mutations result in fewer copies of the affected genes.
It does not need a deity to drive the process.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Currently science has a number of potentially valid hypotheses for the origin of life. All of those hypotheses have some supporting evidence.As I do not claim science has a valid hypothesis for either the beginning of the universe or life, I do not need evidence. The important point, after 750+ posts, is neither do you.
Theology has no supporting evidence at all. In science the evidence wins.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Potentially, science could explain all material things. However, in the matter of first things, science has not yet done so. Observations that demonstrate only the possibility are not evidence of the reality.Currently science has a number of potentially valid hypotheses for the origin of life. All of those hypotheses have some supporting evidence.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.