Disproving atheists in 82 seconds
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
Quote from pspr:
6, there is no point in arguing with futurecurrents. He is a broken record and purveyor of nonsensical logic. He is incapable of thinking for himself and learning anything. You might as well just give up and put him on ignore since we can't reach out and slap him silly.
and yet everything I said is true and the accepted science.
terrestial processes occur on earth whether the ingredients come from space or not. By processes I mean the assembling of these building blocks into life....on earth, you know, a terrestrial process.
but apparently you like playing these little gotcha games because the essence of you arguments have no merit. I've seen you do this with others also. You presume to know what others are thinking which must be tough because you can't even comprehend what they are saying.
Wait...there is not one single shred of evidence to support the theory of multiverses and isnt your whole case against God that there is no evidence to support him?
If you have no reason to believe in God because of the lack of "evidence" Then logically you have no reason to believe in multiverses....right?
So there is only 2 reasons for your beliefs....
1. You are not logical.
or
2. You do not want to believe in God because that means you would have to follow his rules.
So which is it?
? Oh yeah, God made bacteria, put them on comets and hurled them onto earth, that seems plausible....... not.
And if one person on this whole board could be called infantile it would be you, evidenced by your incessant name calling, due your getting mad because you realize you're mistaken and clueless.
Come back when you have some real science to refute what I have said, not what you think I said.
The multiverse thing is a red herring. The main point is that no-one knows what came before the big-bang and no respected scientist says there was nothing before it. The whole question is meaningless, like asking where the edge of a globe is.
Stu, show me the laboratory experiment that creates proteins (not just the simplest amino acids) in an way that plausibly simulates the conditions on an early earth. It is quite right to criticize a theory by pointing to the places where it effectively requires a miracle. That's exactly what you do when you criticize the "God did it" theory of the origins of life.
1. It is a view, but there is zero evidence of a multiverse and in all likelyhood it is conjecture and to believe in the multiverse takes faith.
2. If you read hawkings paper which I posted on other threads.
you would see he says you have a choice... fine tunings or multiverse.
In hawkings view the multiverse - coupled with a top down view of cosmology would allow the universe to (sort of) create itself the way it is. With the top down view you are starting at the end point and sort of self selecting the universe in your past history tree which allow your universe to work.
Its very speculative.
Rew, why are you asking me to show you a laboratory experiment that would implausibly create proteins, which would not simulate the conditions on an early earth? There were no proteins on early earth. They formed later and the process is well understood. Modern cells evolved complex chemical protein controls.
First chemical proto cells would be in the form of membranes without proteins and with no protein manufacturing cellular components.
So a place where the building blocks of life, which do form from inorganic 'non-life' material, could enter and replicate once inside. Basic fatty acid membranes allow for that, and the rest â facilitation of simple nucleotide self replicating strands of RNA and DNA in that situation âthanks only to scientific knowledge, is known to be feasible.
It's in no way valid criticism of science to insert the need for a miracle when there's no need.
Surely that's what "God did it" is supposed to be all about isn't it? Miracles. They go where one doesn't want to understand or discover what's really going on.