The Big Bang is generally accepted. Was that random chance? Seeing as there are certain unbreakable rules of physics the universe isn't really random at all. Take gravity. Matter attracts other matter and eventually forms stars and planets. This pattern can be seen in the night sky. It is random to a degree, but not really random. There is a certain degree of order due to the fact that there are certain unbreakable laws of physics that govern the universe.
It's amazing. You dissemble to such a degree, you've talked youself into believing I "claimed proof of abiogenesis". You don't understand a thing about this. I've said a dozen times or more that the essential chemical elements of life - the building blocks which all life requires, can/do develop from inorganic matter. The exact details of how that can happen and in what order is the scientific study called abiogenesis. That is not a statement that abiogenesis is proven no matter how much you want to convince yourself by wilfully misunderstandig what's been said.. What is proven is the essential chemical components for life do come into existence from inorganic material. What is the matter with you? Is it all you want to do, to not understand anything that you think might threaten your God. So you alter distort and misrepresent to try and support that absurd notion. It only makes you look pathetic.
Foe some reason I think much the same of some of your "arguments" as well. The something from nothing THEORY for example.
...But evolution (3) runs into serious problems on the macroevolutionary level. Attempts to simulate the Darwinian mechanism by computer have not produced the desired result of generating new organizational structures. Instead random changes in the computer model simulating the DNA sequence have produced degradation rather than increasing order. In addition, since transitional forms are systematically lacking in the fossil record, attempts have been made to reconstruct the pathways by which various plants and animals may have been derived from ancestors. In cases where a transition across a major subdivision of the biological classification scheme is involved, enormous problems have been encountered which raise the question whether such transitions could have occurred at all without a large number of coordinated mutations in a single generation... So is the above statement just an outright lie? (For anyone knowledgeable on the subject EXCEPT stuPID or Gabby)
So is the above statement just an outright lie? No, just based on 40+year old info. Creationists hang a lot on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics and claim it states (incorrectly) that systems move from order to disorder. I believe your post is based on a 1970 study by Wilder-Smith, A. E., 1970. The Creation of Life: a cybernetic approach to evolution. Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers, More recent computer simulations show that order does arise form disorder: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030508075843.htm Another example is complex hurricanes arise from simple disturbances in the atmosphere. Seneca
this is all part of your troll. you make b.s. statements on other threads... like "you have proof life came from non life". you use that b..s statement to support your lies, as you misrepresent the work of a noble prize winner. Dr. De Duve. You were stating that in context... De Duve was saying life came about from random chance. Then when I spend the time to educate you on the fact there is no proof that life evolved from non life ... yet alone by chance... you start in with your b.s. parsing of your original statement. I am sure in a few weeks you will spread your atheist disinformation and pretend this thread never happened. good trolling to you.
if you were to read the paper from MIT, I linked to earlier in this thread... you will see that the scientific community is almost unanimous in saying that as of now, there is no way non life had enough time to turn into life on this earth. now some say, yet it obviously happened. some say they are still working on it... and few say something else may have happened. but, the author notes... it is a given in the field you can not suggest a rational agent caused it - as your conclusion. so you see professors starting off their speeches with... unless you are a creationist..... and some make a joke saying... and we know we can't be that. Then they go on to present their discussion. I saw Dr. De Duve give a speech at UCSD on t.v. He did that then explained he figures pan spermia must be the cause.... he said which is good since his speech was being sponsored by NASA.
Actually I'm an in the middle "undecided" so to speak. You know, someone willing to listen to both/all sides with an open mind, someone who doesn't care what the answer/truth turns out to be, someone with no personal agenda, someone who doesn't feel the overwhelming need to convince everyone else that my belief in this area also has to be their belief. Oh...have I told you today to go fuck yourself?
THANK YOU. IF you don't mind me asking is this in or near an area of expertise for you or is it just an "interest" so to speak?