Disproving atheists in 82 seconds

speaking of gravity, I've been hearing that in spite of the trillions spent on "science" we don't really know how it works..

 

hee hee.. have you examined all the blind assumptions that are involved in determining what is old or new in that fossil record? The fossil record is calibrated by the Geologic Column and the Geologic Column is calibrated by the fossil record [except for when they disagree, which is much of the time].. what a laugh, that is circular reasoning and gets an "F" in Philosophy 101 but gets an "A" in evolution thinking circles.. do me a favor, shove it so far sideways that it makes your aching head swim.

Your faith is great! It takes more faith to believe in [macro] evolution than it does to believe in creation!

Your "science" is actually fantasy land. Once a person learns that, they are much better able to have a world view that actually works for them...

 

It bends space. Maybe.

 

That's your argument? Really? " shove it so far sideways that it makes your aching head swim."? Someone must feel threatened. You obviously know nothing about the fossil record or geology. The timeline of the geologic record is not determined by the fossils found within it, although certain fossils can confirm the dating of a particular strata. Determining the chronology of the geologic record is fairly straight-foward. The oldest are lowest down. This due to a complex thing called gravity. But trying to show you science would be like trying to teach a pig to dance. It wastes my time and annoys the pig.

 

I think we call this "alien" God.

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood.

One hypothesis is that the Universe may have been designed by extra-universal aliens. Some believe this would solve the problem of how a designer or design team capable of fine-tuning the Universe could come to exist. Cosmologist Alan Guth believes humans will in time be able to generate new universes. By implication previous intelligent entities may have generated our Universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

 

Parody?

 

Its you atheists who always bring God into the subject.
I am just pointing out you have no idea about the science.
And that science does not have any have even one complete pathway of how life evolved from not life...

And that nobel prize winners have suggested various mechanism from panspermia to directed evolution.

Why do they make those statements. Cause there was no way chance had enough time to evolve from goo to life in those first billion years before life appeared.

argue with the Nobel Prize winner in the field. Don' you get tired of being so full of shit.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/p...ak-and-09-10-05

Szostak: Absolutely! I mean what we're interested in is figuring out plausible pathways for the origin of life. It would be great to have even one complete plausible pathway, but what we find often is when we figure out how one little step might have worked, it gives us ideas, and then we end up with ultimately two or three or more different ways in which a particular step could have happened. So that makes us think the overall process might be more robust. So, you know, ultimately it would be nice, I think, if it turned out that there were multiple plausible pathways; then, of course, we might never know what really happened on the early Earth.

regarding chance...

 

you leftists must take classes in creating specious scientific arguments.

here is reality...

http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will take—although of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at all—but we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the “Almosta Miracle Camp” including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it going” (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a “happy
accident” (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, “a full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.” (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was “virtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo game” (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is “chance caught
on a wing” (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of life’s emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that life’s emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into life’s
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS ˆ
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
“Whatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?” (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the “ration of luck” that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

 

you leftists must take classes in creating specious scientific arguments.

here is reality...

http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

"We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to be plausible,"


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Right off the bat wrong. First sentence. No need to go further.


There were billions of years and millions of chemistry labs all around young earth. Yes the odds of life occurring in one spot or one year is improbable but there were millions/billions of chances within the myraid of environments of young earth over billions of years.

The vast majority of protobiologists would say the same thing.