is this you jem? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMozvXss1Gs&feature=g-all-u&context=G22e85e4FAAAAAAAAVAA
Grow up you infantile poser. You're the one who claimed that "there is no other logical explanation" for life on earth other than "simple terrestrial processes." http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3467379#post3467379 It totally escaped your rabidly atheist pea brain that earth could have been seeded, intentionally or not. Even Dawkins has admitted this. So on top of being a biased ignoranus, you can't admit when you're wrong. In other words, you're a typical liberal
I see you've been getting your science from the Science Channel. Too bad you don't have the education to understand what you watched because you've totally discombobulated it, as would a child Hawking claimed precisely that which was the reason for the edge of the globe analogy you ignorantly parroted.
IMO the first video does nothing to bolster your argument. In the second video he equates the condensation of matter into one point at the start of the big bang with the probability of all the molecules in a box going to one tiny place within that box. Then he says that this has to be fine tuning that caused this initial condition of the big bang..........and then the video ends. We have no idea what he says after this. As we know, selective editing can suggest anything. He may, for example, say after this: that yes, the big bang required some cosmic adjustment or "fine tuning" for this to happen. However this fine tuning is merely a natural process much like evolution has fine tuned species to fit a specific niche within an ecosystem. Any other mutation would not survive. The sudden truncation of the video makes it all but worthless for the intent of your argument.
Maybe you missed it, but I did say in another post that although unlikely, the possibility of trans/panspermia is possible. What I don't give creedence to is the idea that God did it. However, if it makes you happy, that quote taken in isolation is wrong. I jumped on that one in my eagerness to dispute the idea that God is needed. It was a somewhat careless statement.
Please. You admitted it only after I rubbed your nose in your BS. As for not giving "creedence " [sic] to the idea that God did it, do you also "think" we're the most advanced life form in the universe and there's no chance that any such entity had anything to do it?
Personal Near Death Experience is probably the only thing that could really change the mind of a hardcore atheist in to believing the intangible. You say "lack of oxygen to brain" ... I say, You'll find out soon enough.
If you think that is out of context... then you should become educated on the subject. Many of the top physicists and cosmologists are atheists... they admit the fine tunings but make conjectures to explain it away. (note...even the scientists who are believers understand that are not doing science if they approach the subject with the answer being God did it. They still must ask how did it happen.) Dawkins spoke of Martin Rees book ... I have referenced it before here on et. Dawkins has had to confront the issue of the fine tunings in public before and this relatively recent video is where the science is. Tunings or explain the tunings with a Multiverse. --- "Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire? Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why." http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
So what exactly is your problem here? You have closed membranes of amphiphilic compounds without proteins, within which proteins can form from inorganic 'non-life' material and replicate. Amphiphiles then evolve and benefit from proteins. Generally speaking, it does sound as if you consider it preponderate overall to have gaps, tenuous or not, to squeeze a God in. Yet gaps in scientific knowledge only ever show research is needed to fill them, not a God.