Originally posted by Wild Shadow
because it expanse from the initial explosion and then contracts back into itself and guess what happens afterwards.it an over simplification but the point is there
So what caused the initial explosion and where did the matter that was dispersed come from. More importantly, what caused something that is expanding to suddenly contract? There must be some energy source responsible for the contraction and expansion.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Not to Jesus...
If the theory of evolution is viable how come no life has been created in a laboratory?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/
How could life come into existence (as complicated as a cell is) by chance, randomly, without intelligence, without a controlled environment, and with all the right conditions that scientists today are not able to re-create? We have chemicals, many intelligent/educated minds, controlled laboratory environments, technology (the first cell didn't have technology or many intelligent/educated minds to aide it's development), and other resources and it will take them another ten years to create life? I don't believe that they will do it but that is irrelevant. If the first cell did not need all of that to form itself then why does it take all of that now (presupposing that scientists are able to do it)?
Besides, it shouldn't take millions of years with many intelligent/educated minds vigorously converged on doing something that could earn them a Nobel Prize, advanced technology, controlled laboratories, abundant resources, you name it. They have no reason not to be able to do something that was purportedly done undirected, unplanned, unaided, unsupervised, unprotected, without technology, without education, without test tubes, petri dishes, microscopes, sterile resources, tools, lab technicians, harnessed electrical power, light, and other forms of energy to be used on demand, Cryopreservation technology, hypodermic needles, etc.
Heck, if the first cell didn't need all of that why do the brightest minds need it? (Things that make you go hmm.)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080124175924.htm
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveWith that logic we would have never invented the car, computer, airplane ....
If the theory of evolution is viable how come no life has been created in a laboratory?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/
How could life come into existence (as complicated as a cell is) by chance, randomly, without intelligence, without a controlled environment, and with all the right conditions that scientists today are not able to re-create? We have chemicals, many intelligent/educated minds, controlled laboratory environments, technology (the first cell didn't have technology or many intelligent/educated minds to aide it's development), and other resources and it will take them another ten years to create life? I don't believe that they will do it but that is irrelevant. If the first cell did not need all of that to form itself then why does it take all of that now (presupposing that scientists are able to do it)?
Besides, it shouldn't take millions of years with many intelligent/educated minds vigorously converged on doing something that could earn them a Nobel Prize, advanced technology, controlled laboratories, abundant resources, you name it. They have no reason not to be able to do something that was purportedly done undirected, unplanned, unaided, unsupervised, unprotected, without technology, without education, without test tubes, petri dishes, microscopes, sterile resources, tools, lab technicians, harnessed electrical power, light, and other forms of energy to be used on demand, Cryopreservation technology, hypodermic needles, etc.
Heck, if the first cell didn't need all of that why do the brightest minds need it? (Things that make you go hmm.)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080124175924.htm
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Wonderful, but I still think Jesus has more important concerns
“…if the first cell didn't need all of that why do the brightest minds need it?”
(extracted from Can you handle the Truth?, Started by: JesusIsAlive, page 314, http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=448058&from=thread&pagenumber=314#post11479778)
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
“…if the first cell didn't need all of that why do the brightest minds need it?”(extracted from [b]Can you handle the Truth?, Started by: JesusIsAlive, page 314,
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=448058&from=thread&pagenumber=314#post11479778) [/B]
I see that the brightest minds are things you do not understand. 😂
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
“…if the first cell didn't need all of that why do the brightest minds need it?”(extracted from [b]Can you handle the Truth?, Started by: JesusIsAlive, page 314,
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=448058&from=thread&pagenumber=314#post11479778) [/B]
Wonderful, I still think the dying in Africa are higher on Jesus' "What JIA should be doing in the world" list.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
A plant by any other name remains confined within the plant kind. In other words, a plant can never become a giraffe, and a Bear can never become an orange seed. So everything produces according to its kind. Plants produce other plants, animals produce other animals, humans produce other humans, insects produce other insects--all according to their kind just like the Bible reveals.
LMAO
A plant makes a plant and a fungus a fungus...brilliant. NEvermind that plat A and plant B combine to make entirely different plant C.
Once again, you're arguments are so vapid you have to change definitions to try and win.
btw...insects are animals, and if there are subcategories, that means I have demonstrated that one subcategory can become another.
That means I have won.
*bows*
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You are evading the question and changing the subject because it underscores my point that life could not have arisen naturally.
Sorry, the little guy at his lab bench is not as powerful as THE UNIVERSE.
Early Calculations
Given the data available in 1979, Roger Penrose (a world-class mathematician) calculated the odds of our observed universe occurring by accident to be less than one in 10^(10^30). The calculation was based on thermodynamics and entropy considerations. Since 1979, additional Anthropic coincidences have been discovered, making random occurrence even more unlikely.
As you may know, in mathematics, probabilities of less than one part in 10^30 to 10^50 are typically written off as being zero. And 10^30 is 100000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000, i.e., 1 followed by 30 zeros; 10^50 is 1 followed by 50 zeros.
Penrose's calculated probability was one part in 10^(10^30), which is 1 followed by 10^30 zeros. And 10^30 is itself 1 followed by 30 zeros. So, the probability works out to be one part in 10^(100000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000), i.e., 10 raised to the power of 100000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000, or 1 followed by a thousand billion billion billion zeros (i.e., 1 followed by a nonillion zeros).
Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 … … … … … 00001
If I were to write this number out, as 0.0000 0000 …, with all of its zeros, we would need a computer hard-drive much larger than the size of our entire universe, just to hold all of the zeros that I would have to write out.
So, what does all this mean? It means that it is reasonable to conclude that our universe did not get here by accident. The epistemic-probability is far too low for the universe to have arisen by random chance. The evidence (observation of extremely-low epistemic-probability) points to an Intelligent Designer (God) having designed, created and fine-tuned the universe.
We will continue to see this theme, of extreme low-probabilities (epistemic-probabilities), as we look at some of the Anthropic Coincidences below.
http://www.godsci.com/gs/new/finetuning.html
In other words, those odds are impossible.
Originally posted by Ordo
LMAOA plant makes a plant and a fungus a fungus...brilliant. NEvermind that plat A and plant B combine to make entirely different plant C.
Once again, you're arguments are so vapid you have to change definitions to try and win.
btw...insects are animals, and if there are subcategories, that means I have demonstrated that one subcategory can become another.
That means I have won.
*bows*
Sorry, the little guy at his lab bench is not as powerful as THE UNIVERSE.
“…if the first cell didn't need all of that why do the brightest minds need it?”
(extracted from Can you handle the Truth?, Started by: JesusIsAlive, page 314, http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=448058&from=thread&pagenumber=314#post11479778)
Maybe you, Ordo, won't retreat from the facts by changing the subject.
Maybe you are the chosen one, the Neo, of this forum.
What say you?
here i hope it explains your questions of evolution vs creationism..
its only 6 min. long pretty simplified for the masses also realates to some ppl's mentality
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
here i hope it explains your questions of evolution vs creationism..its only 6 min. long pretty simplified for the masses also realates to some ppl's mentality
Who is smarter a living cell or you?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
In other words, those odds are impossible.
Like your God?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
“…if the first cell didn't need all of that why do the brightest minds need it?”The first life might not have even ben cellular.
That aside, we dont know what the first life was, or what it needed. If I show you a 5 course meal, then task you to make it, say you're jsut an average cook and you can't do it. Can I then claim that such a meal cannot be made? (Despite the fact it is sitting infront of me and you have failed to duplicate it)
This is the type of bull you are pushing.
[QUOTE=11480041]Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[B][COLOR=darkblue]Maybe you, Ordo, won't retreat from the facts by changing the subject.Maybe you are the chosen one, the Neo, of this forum.
What say you?
I'm no Neo, I'm just an Ordo. You change subjects at least once a page. And being the chosen one of an internet forum is not a life goal of mine.
So what are you saying?