Einstein could clearly see that the Universe was not expanding, and included this ignorance in the theory of relativity. So if Einstein could be wrong, can you?I can be wrong, and you can be wrong. This is all about whether you have a good argument or not. At the moment you haven't shown how you get from A) to B) so you don't have a good argument. And evolutionist have absolutely no explanation for the genesis of life, so you also have shown nothing. Meanwile, theists present a completely baseless explanation. Is that better than admitting there is no rational explanation? But billions of lines of computer like DNA code, could have written themselves in a pond, without any help from an intelligence, must be true if you say so, right? If there is a god and an evolutionay universe requires that "billions of lines of computer like DNA code" be written, are you proposing that that would be too complicated for an omnipotent and omniscient creator to do? You say you believe in god, but you put limits on him when his omnipotence might interfere with your preconceived notions. That is even more irrational than belief in a creator god in the first place. LL I have never said that I believe in God, I have implied that. The reason that I do not say that I believe in God is that I believe that God has empowered humanity with the tools to everything that he has done. You are using 50,000,000 lines of computer code to read this, so given another 100 to 1,000,000 years, humanity itself should have no problem writing billions of lines of DNA code. So yes, not only do I believe that DNA was written, I believe that it will be written again. And in fact it is being rewritten by gene splicing as we converse...... Do you believe that quantum teleportation will happen someday? Or that God will be needed to create this?
Can you prove, that the human race will not leave, the Earth as Europeans once left Europe for the new World of America, and colonize another planet. This colonization may well begin with the primitive life forms needed to begin an ecosystem, of which the organisms will evolve and adapt to their new environment. Can you disprove this? Is this logical, being that we know our planet is finite? If evolution is real, and those simple plants and animals evolved into an organism that is aware of the cosmos, would not humanity have acted as God for the organisms on this planet? Just think.It is illogical to attempt to prove or disprove a prediction for the future of humanity. The natural portions of your prediction are possible, but the supernatural claims are irrelevant. What part do you view as supernatural? Would not walking on the moon once have been considered supernatural? and are there not still living people who deny that this ever happened, thus they consider a moon walk to be supernatural? That is not what supernatural refers to. Supernatural designates things that are not evident in the natural world, like gods, ghosts, aliens from outer space, etc. It means things "outside" of nature. A tenuous inference or interpretation of events is not evidence, it is just an opinion. If the human race seeds a new World, they are the God of that World, so there goes that argument. You have a very atypical definition of what constitutes a god. It only has meaning to you unless you share your definition with us. "If" statements are not proof or evidence of anything. They are just guesses, wild ones in this case about something that has never occurred. I could easily counter your claim by saying that if a massive meteor strikes the earth and wipes out all life before humans can seed a new world, then the notion of a god for a new world is snuffed out.
Ghost, might just be something that is disguised in plain sight, a sort of camouflage that we do not understand.Something that is disguised as something else would not be evidence of something supernatural in the natural world. Mimicry does not equal supernatural.
And you clearly have never been to area 52.Having visited area 51 does not mean that there is evidence in the natural world that aliens from outer space have visited the earth. Where I have or have never been is irrelevant
I bet that you don't even believe that something like the transporter from Star Trek might be possible someday, would that be supernatural, when experiments in quantum teleportation are happening right now?Whether I do or do not believe in something is not applicable as to whether or not it is supernatural. The future possibility of teleportation is simply speculation about what may be part of our natural world in the future. Speculations are only speculations. They are not reality until they exist. That has nothing to do with natural vs supernatural.
Sheesh, this might mean travel from the Earth To Mars could be at the speed of light, or even less as the speed here seems to be instantaneous.More speculation.
Is this supernatural too?No, it hasn't happened so it is neither natural or supernatural, it is only speculative.
You are a negative thinker, the people at NASA do not have time for such negativity.So you think NASA put a man on the moon by thinking only positive thoughts? Interesting. Supernatural things are things that are claimed to "have happened" or to exist, but there is no evidence for them in the natural world. The unknown is not supernatural, it is the unknown.
Can you prove, that the human race will not leave, the Earth as Europeans once left Europe for the new World of America, and colonize another planet. This colonization may well begin with the primitive life forms needed to begin an ecosystem, of which the organisms will evolve and adapt to their new environment. Can you disprove this? Is this logical, being that we know our planet is finite? If evolution is real, and those simple plants and animals evolved into an organism that is aware of the cosmos, would not humanity have acted as God for the organisms on this planet? Just think.It is illogical to attempt to prove or disprove a prediction for the future of humanity. The natural portions of your prediction are possible, but the supernatural claims are irrelevant. What part do you view as supernatural? Would not walking on the moon once have been considered supernatural? and are there not still living people who deny that this ever happened, thus they consider a moon walk to be supernatural? That is not what supernatural refers to. Supernatural designates things that are not evident in the natural world, like gods, ghosts, aliens from outer space, etc. It means things "outside" of nature. A tenuous inference or interpretation of events is not evidence, it is just an opinion. If the human race seeds a new World, they are the God of that World, so there goes that argument. You have a very atypical definition of what constitutes a god. It only has meaning to you unless you share your definition with us. "If" statements are not proof or evidence of anything. They are just guesses, wild ones in this case about something that has never occurred. I could easily counter your claim by saying that if a massive meteor strikes the earth and wipes out all life before humans can seed a new world, then the notion of a god for a new world is snuffed out.
Ghost, might just be something that is disguised in plain sight, a sort of camouflage that we do not understand.Something that is disguised as something else would not be evidence of something supernatural in the natural world. Mimicry does not equal supernatural.
And you clearly have never been to area 52.Having visited area 51 does not mean that there is evidence in the natural world that aliens from outer space have visited the earth. Where I have or have never been is irrelevant
I bet that you don't even believe that something like the transporter from Star Trek might be possible someday, would that be supernatural, when experiments in quantum teleportation are happening right now?Whether I do or do not believe in something is not applicable as to whether or not it is supernatural. The future possibility of teleportation is simply speculation about what may be part of our natural world in the future. Speculations are only speculations. They are not reality until they exist. That has nothing to do with natural vs supernatural.
Sheesh, this might mean travel from the Earth To Mars could be at the speed of light, or even less as the speed here seems to be instantaneous.More speculation.
Is this supernatural too?No, it hasn't happened so it is neither natural or supernatural, it is only speculative.
You are a negative thinker, the people at NASA do not have time for such negativity.So you think NASA put a man on the moon by thinking only positive thoughts? Interesting. Supernatural things are things that are claimed to "have happened" or to exist, but there is no evidence for them in the natural world. The unknown is not supernatural, it is the unknown. Area 51, is a high security military base, it is also by way of TV, movies and popular folklore, the most famous, and thus least secret military base in the USA, which makes it illogical to store any military secret there, as it will be the first place that the enemy would look, or destroy. The good stuff is at area 52, real location unknown......Just think logically. There is no definition of what God is, that is not written by humans who have never seen God, my definition just follows that if we are built in his image (DNA) then we are exactly like him... If ghost were found to be quantum entangled visitors from another place, as NASA is experimenting with now, with information, they would certainly not be supernatural. Ah you are wrong, information is being teleported by quantum means right now. Date Nov-21-2014------> http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4384 Edison speculated that he could get a filament of metal to glow, this is true, he also invented 2000 ways not to make a light bulb, before he tried Tungsten. Bill Gates speculated, that he could get 0 and 1 to do near anything, and at the moment of this speculation he dropped out of Harvard. Could a man have been put on the Moon, if thousands of people did not say, yes we are going to work to make that happen? By your definition of supernatural, and I quote "Supernatural things are things that are claimed to "have happened" or to exist, but there is no evidence for them in the natural world." So by your own definition, the supposition of life from lifelessness in a warm pond, is supernatural. Thanks for seeing it my way. CIAO
Can you prove, that the human race will not leave, the Earth as Europeans once left Europe for the new World of America, and colonize another planet. This colonization may well begin with the primitive life forms needed to begin an ecosystem, of which the organisms will evolve and adapt to their new environment. Can you disprove this? Is this logical, being that we know our planet is finite? If evolution is real, and those simple plants and animals evolved into an organism that is aware of the cosmos, would not humanity have acted as God for the organisms on this planet? Just think.It is illogical to attempt to prove or disprove a prediction for the future of humanity. The natural portions of your prediction are possible, but the supernatural claims are irrelevant. What part do you view as supernatural? Would not walking on the moon once have been considered supernatural? and are there not still living people who deny that this ever happened, thus they consider a moon walk to be supernatural? That is not what supernatural refers to. Supernatural designates things that are not evident in the natural world, like gods, ghosts, aliens from outer space, etc. It means things "outside" of nature. A tenuous inference or interpretation of events is not evidence, it is just an opinion. If the human race seeds a new World, they are the God of that World, so there goes that argument. You have a very atypical definition of what constitutes a god. It only has meaning to you unless you share your definition with us. "If" statements are not proof or evidence of anything. They are just guesses, wild ones in this case about something that has never occurred. I could easily counter your claim by saying that if a massive meteor strikes the earth and wipes out all life before humans can seed a new world, then the notion of a god for a new world is snuffed out.
Ghost, might just be something that is disguised in plain sight, a sort of camouflage that we do not understand.Something that is disguised as something else would not be evidence of something supernatural in the natural world. Mimicry does not equal supernatural.
And you clearly have never been to area 52.Having visited area 51 does not mean that there is evidence in the natural world that aliens from outer space have visited the earth. Where I have or have never been is irrelevant
I bet that you don't even believe that something like the transporter from Star Trek might be possible someday, would that be supernatural, when experiments in quantum teleportation are happening right now?Whether I do or do not believe in something is not applicable as to whether or not it is supernatural. The future possibility of teleportation is simply speculation about what may be part of our natural world in the future. Speculations are only speculations. They are not reality until they exist. That has nothing to do with natural vs supernatural.
Sheesh, this might mean travel from the Earth To Mars could be at the speed of light, or even less as the speed here seems to be instantaneous.More speculation.
Is this supernatural too?No, it hasn't happened so it is neither natural or supernatural, it is only speculative.
You are a negative thinker, the people at NASA do not have time for such negativity.So you think NASA put a man on the moon by thinking only positive thoughts? Interesting. Supernatural things are things that are claimed to "have happened" or to exist, but there is no evidence for them in the natural world. The unknown is not supernatural, it is the unknown. Area 51, is a high security military base, it is also by way of TV, movies and popular folklore, the most famous, and thus least secret military base in the USA, which makes it illogical to store any military secret there, as it will be the first place that the enemy would look, or destroy. The good stuff is at area 52, real location unknown......Just think logically. There is no definition of what God is, that is not written by humans who have never seen God, my definition just follows that if we are built in his image (DNA) then we are exactly like him... If ghost were found to be quantum entangled visitors from another place, as NASA is experimenting with now, with information, they would certainly not be supernatural. Ah you are wrong, information is being teleported by quantum means right now. Date Nov-21-2014------> http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4384 Edison speculated that he could get a filament of metal to glow, this is true, he also invented 2000 ways not to make a light bulb, before he tried Tungsten. Bill Gates speculated, that he could get 0 and 1 to do near anything, and at the moment of this speculation he dropped out of Harvard. Could a man have been put on the Moon, if thousands of people did not say, yes we are going to work to make that happen? By your definition of supernatural, and I quote "Supernatural things are things that are claimed to "have happened" or to exist, but there is no evidence for them in the natural world." So by your own definition, the supposition of life from lifelessness in a warm pond, is supernatural. Thanks for seeing it my way. CIAO Silly boy.
Can you prove, that the human race will not leave, the Earth as Europeans once left Europe for the new World of America, and colonize another planet. This colonization may well begin with the primitive life forms needed to begin an ecosystem, of which the organisms will evolve and adapt to their new environment. Can you disprove this? Is this logical, being that we know our planet is finite? If evolution is real, and those simple plants and animals evolved into an organism that is aware of the cosmos, would not humanity have acted as God for the organisms on this planet? Just think.It is illogical to attempt to prove or disprove a prediction for the future of humanity. The natural portions of your prediction are possible, but the supernatural claims are irrelevant. What part do you view as supernatural? Would not walking on the moon once have been considered supernatural? and are there not still living people who deny that this ever happened, thus they consider a moon walk to be supernatural? That is not what supernatural refers to. Supernatural designates things that are not evident in the natural world, like gods, ghosts, aliens from outer space, etc. It means things "outside" of nature. A tenuous inference or interpretation of events is not evidence, it is just an opinion. If the human race seeds a new World, they are the God of that World, so there goes that argument. You have a very atypical definition of what constitutes a god. It only has meaning to you unless you share your definition with us. "If" statements are not proof or evidence of anything. They are just guesses, wild ones in this case about something that has never occurred. I could easily counter your claim by saying that if a massive meteor strikes the earth and wipes out all life before humans can seed a new world, then the notion of a god for a new world is snuffed out.
Ghost, might just be something that is disguised in plain sight, a sort of camouflage that we do not understand.Something that is disguised as something else would not be evidence of something supernatural in the natural world. Mimicry does not equal supernatural.
And you clearly have never been to area 52.Having visited area 51 does not mean that there is evidence in the natural world that aliens from outer space have visited the earth. Where I have or have never been is irrelevant
I bet that you don't even believe that something like the transporter from Star Trek might be possible someday, would that be supernatural, when experiments in quantum teleportation are happening right now?Whether I do or do not believe in something is not applicable as to whether or not it is supernatural. The future possibility of teleportation is simply speculation about what may be part of our natural world in the future. Speculations are only speculations. They are not reality until they exist. That has nothing to do with natural vs supernatural.
Sheesh, this might mean travel from the Earth To Mars could be at the speed of light, or even less as the speed here seems to be instantaneous.More speculation.
Is this supernatural too?No, it hasn't happened so it is neither natural or supernatural, it is only speculative.
You are a negative thinker, the people at NASA do not have time for such negativity.So you think NASA put a man on the moon by thinking only positive thoughts? Interesting. Supernatural things are things that are claimed to "have happened" or to exist, but there is no evidence for them in the natural world. The unknown is not supernatural, it is the unknown. Area 51, is a high security military base, it is also by way of TV, movies and popular folklore, the most famous, and thus least secret military base in the USA, which makes it illogical to store any military secret there, as it will be the first place that the enemy would look, or destroy. The good stuff is at area 52, real location unknown......Just think logically. There is no definition of what God is, that is not written by humans who have never seen God, my definition just follows that if we are built in his image (DNA) then we are exactly like him... If ghost were found to be quantum entangled visitors from another place, as NASA is experimenting with now, with information, they would certainly not be supernatural. Ah you are wrong, information is being teleported by quantum means right now. Date Nov-21-2014------> http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4384 Edison speculated that he could get a filament of metal to glow, this is true, he also invented 2000 ways not to make a light bulb, before he tried Tungsten. Bill Gates speculated, that he could get 0 and 1 to do near anything, and at the moment of this speculation he dropped out of Harvard. Could a man have been put on the Moon, if thousands of people did not say, yes we are going to work to make that happen? By your definition of supernatural, and I quote "Supernatural things are things that are claimed to "have happened" or to exist, but there is no evidence for them in the natural world." So by your own definition, the supposition of life from lifelessness in a warm pond, is supernatural. Thanks for seeing it my way. CIAO Silly boy. A highly intellectual comeback indeed. I had hoped for more.
Can you prove, that the human race will not leave, the Earth as Europeans once left Europe for the new World of America, and colonize another planet. This colonization may well begin with the primitive life forms needed to begin an ecosystem, of which the organisms will evolve and adapt to their new environment. Can you disprove this? Is this logical, being that we know our planet is finite? If evolution is real, and those simple plants and animals evolved into an organism that is aware of the cosmos, would not humanity have acted as God for the organisms on this planet? Just think.No idea what that is supposed to mean. How does evolution make organisms "aware of the cosmos"? If there is a god and humans move to and survive on other planets the same god would have to have been involved and their survival would most likely be similar to the same evolutionary principles that are present on earth. Actually that would be the case whether there is a god or not. But I doubt that an omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe, if there is one, would be surprised or disturbed at how it all unfolds. LL Sheesh, I am only quoting evolutionist. The theory of evolution says that a single celled organism evolved into all organisms, including human beings that are aware of the cosmos at this point, what part of this eludes you? The "awareness" part. Do organisms need to be "aware" of the cosmos to evolve? If they are unaware of it would they not evolve? Also, which "evolutionists" are you quoting? You can't just say you are "quoting evolutionists" without identifying them--at least not if you want to be seen as a rational person. If humans move even plankton to another planet, and the theory of evolution is valid, then those plankton could evolve into humans or some other self aware of the cosmos life form someday, this is what your goofy theory predicts, this would also make the human race the God of that planet's life forms, what part of this eludes you? Everything. You are limiting your god again. Couldn't he create plankton on another planet, or would he be incapable of that? It's your goofy theory that posits an omniscient, omnipotent god, then puts limits on him. So if your god creates life that evolves into humans on another planet, he is suddenly out of the picture and the human race becomes the god of that planet's life forms? Are you claiming that if evolution is true human beings are gods of the earth's life forms? If there is a goofy theory that's a prime example of ultimate goofiness. In addition, I still don't get the self-aware part. Are single celled organisms self aware? What I have done is moved this argument out of the dead past, and brought it into the present and future, where anything can happen. No, what you have done is move the argument out of the realm of rationality. You contradict yourself--and your claim of a god--at every turn, and bring in a new unsupported claim every time you post. Presenting new unsupported claims does not wipe out your previous unsupported claims. LL
Can you prove, that the human race will not leave, the Earth as Europeans once left Europe for the new World of America, and colonize another planet. This colonization may well begin with the primitive life forms needed to begin an ecosystem, of which the organisms will evolve and adapt to their new environment. Can you disprove this? Is this logical, being that we know our planet is finite? If evolution is real, and those simple plants and animals evolved into an organism that is aware of the cosmos, would not humanity have acted as God for the organisms on this planet? Just think.No idea what that is supposed to mean. How does evolution make organisms "aware of the cosmos"? If there is a god and humans move to and survive on other planets the same god would have to have been involved and their survival would most likely be similar to the same evolutionary principles that are present on earth. Actually that would be the case whether there is a god or not. But I doubt that an omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe, if there is one, would be surprised or disturbed at how it all unfolds. LL Sheesh, I am only quoting evolutionist. The theory of evolution says that a single celled organism evolved into all organisms, including human beings that are aware of the cosmos at this point, what part of this eludes you? The "awareness" part. Do organisms need to be "aware" of the cosmos to evolve? If they are unaware of it would they not evolve? Also, which "evolutionists" are you quoting? You can't just say you are "quoting evolutionists" without identifying them--at least not if you want to be seen as a rational person. If humans move even plankton to another planet, and the theory of evolution is valid, then those plankton could evolve into humans or some other self aware of the cosmos life form someday, this is what your goofy theory predicts, this would also make the human race the God of that planet's life forms, what part of this eludes you? Everything. You are limiting your god again. Couldn't he create plankton on another planet, or would he be incapable of that? It's your goofy theory that posits an omniscient, omnipotent god, then puts limits on him. So if your god creates life that evolves into humans on another planet, he is suddenly out of the picture and the human race becomes the god of that planet's life forms? Are you claiming that if evolution is true human beings are gods of the earth's life forms? If there is a goofy theory that's a prime example of ultimate goofiness. In addition, I still don't get the self-aware part. Are single celled organisms self aware? What I have done is moved this argument out of the dead past, and brought it into the present and future, where anything can happen. No, what you have done is move the argument out of the realm of rationality. You contradict yourself--and your claim of a god--at every turn, and bring in a new unsupported claim every time you post. Presenting new unsupported claims does not wipe out your previous unsupported claims. LL Quote, "No, what you have done is move the argument out of the realm of rationality. You contradict yourself--and your claim of a god--at every turn, and bring in a new unsupported claim every time you post. Presenting new unsupported claims does not wipe out your previous unsupported claims." please elaborate, as you have just posted empty ideas, that I can not respond to. I enjoyed proving that the previous poster believes that Darwin's theory is supernatural. If you provide as much detail as he, then I can respond properly.
From your signature:
When the Earth was first formed some 4.5 billion years ago, the Universe was already at least 8 billion years old, thus we are very young indeed.Obviously.
Since DNA is now being used for binary code storage, does this mean that Windows 9 could be downloaded to your thumbs drive? ThinkIs DNA synonymous to Windows? From the wiki on Denis Noble] Principles of Systems Biology
1. Biological functionality is multi-level 2. Transmission of information is not one way 3. DNA is not the sole transmitter of inheritance 4. The theory of biological relativity: there is no privileged level of causality 5. Gene ontology will fail without higher-level insight 6. There is no genetic program 7. There are no programs at any other level 8. There are no programs in the brain 9. The self is not an object 10. There are many more to be discovered; a genuine ‘theory of biology’ does not yet existBTW, there is only Windows 10, which can be downloaded into your thumb drive. DNA is not an operating system. Windows is. False analogy. Q.E.D.? :lol:
1. Biological functionality is multi-level 2. Transmission of information is not one way 3. DNA is not the sole transmitter of inheritance 4. The theory of biological relativity: there is no privileged level of causality 5. Gene ontology will fail without higher-level insight 6. There is no genetic program 7. There are no programs at any other level 8. There are no programs in the brain 9. The self is not an object 10. There are many more to be discovered; a genuine ‘theory of biology’ does not yet existBTW, there is only Windows 10, which can be downloaded into your thumb drive. DNA is not an operating system. Windows is. False analogy. Q.E.D.? :lol: Well let me educate you then, my sig does not say thumb drive, it says thumbs drive (real thumb you have two), you may not be aware that Harvard scientist have created a way to store binary computer data by using DNA. It's state of the art, you might try a Google search. I never said DNA was an operating system, I said that DNA could be used to store an operating system, just as easily as one could now be stored on a DVD. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram Thus I am correct. Live and learn......
And evolutionist have absolutely no explanation for the genesis of life, so you also have shown nothing.What I've shown is your argument is a bad one since you have no logical step from A) We are intelligent designers to B) "Evolution was designed in the first place". That was all I intended to show and is the point of the thread, to look at your argument and see if it's a good one or not. So since the argument is clearly fallacious and you seem to have agreed with your "also" It will be interesting to see if you drop this argument, or carry on regardless.
And evolutionist have absolutely no explanation for the genesis of life, so you also have shown nothing.What I've shown is your argument is a bad one since you have no logical step from A) We are intelligent designers to B) "Evolution was designed in the first place". That was all I intended to show and is the point of the thread, to look at your argument and see if it's a good one or not. So since the argument is clearly fallacious and you seem to have agreed with your "also" It will be interesting to see if you drop this argument, or carry on regardless. Ah, by your own logic, and using your own A/B argument, can you please explain how B, which is evolution happens, without A life, having been shown to exist in the first place? What I have demonstrated, is that intelligent engineers from Harvard have proved that DNA is capable of functioning as a hard drive for binary computer information, which in turn demonstrates that DNA is a chemical hard drive. It may be other things as well, but since hard drives do not create themselves, DNA could not have formed in a warm pond, and thus it was engineered.
Well let me educate you then, my sig does not say thumb drive, it says thumbs drive (real thumb you have two), you may not be aware that Harvard scientist have created a way to store binary computer data by using DNA. It's state of the art, you might try a Google search.What is your thumbs drive? :cheese: Storing binary data by using DNA might be "state of the art", but from the wiki on DNA digital data storage]
It is, however, a slow process, as the DNA needs to be sequenced in order to retrieve the data, and so the method is intended for uses with a low access rate such as long-term archival of large amounts of scientific data.History:
The idea and the general considerations about the possibility of recording, storage and retrieval of information on DNA molecules were originally made by Mikhail Neiman and published in 1964–65 in the Radiotekhnika journal, USSR.And wrt costs and cost-effectiveness:
The per-megabyte costs were estimated at $12,400 to encode data and $220 for retrieval. However, it was noted that the exponential decrease in DNA synthesis and sequencing costs, if it continues into the future, should make the technology cost-effective for long-term data storage within about ten years.That is a very big IF. At the present, it is faster and much cheaper to use thumb drives, optical or hard drives.
Einstein could clearly see that the Universe was not expanding, and included this ignorance in the theory of relativity. So if Einstein could be wrong, can you?I can be wrong, and you can be wrong. This is all about whether you have a good argument or not. At the moment you haven't shown how you get from A) to B) so you don't have a good argument. And evolutionist have absolutely no explanation for the genesis of life, so you also have shown nothing. You don't either, so you, too, have shown nothing. But billions of lines of computer like DNA code, could have written themselves in a pond, without any help from an intelligence, must be true if you say so, right? It could have been helped by an "intelligence'," but there is no evidence of such an entity. That's the problem with your premise.
Einstein could clearly see that the Universe was not expanding, and included this ignorance in the theory of relativity. So if Einstein could be wrong, can you?I can be wrong, and you can be wrong. This is all about whether you have a good argument or not. At the moment you haven't shown how you get from A) to B) so you don't have a good argument. Nor have you. You have shown nothing. All you have done is make baseless claims. And evolutionist have absolutely no explanation for the genesis of life, so you also have shown nothing. Meanwile, theists present a completely baseless explanation. Is that better than admitting there is no rational explanation? But billions of lines of computer like DNA code, could have written themselves in a pond, without any help from an intelligence, must be true if you say so, right? If there is a god and an evolutionary universe requires that "billions of lines of computer like DNA code" be written, are you proposing that that would be too complicated for an omnipotent and omniscient creator to do? You say you believe in god, but you put limits on him when his omnipotence might interfere with your preconceived notions. That is even more irrational than belief in a creator god in the first place. . I have never said that I believe in God, I have implied that. The reason that I do not say that I believe in God is that I believe that God has empowered humanity with the tools to everything that he has done. You completely contradict yourself--a bad habit of theists. First you say you have never said you believe in god and then you say you "believe God has empowered humanity with the tools to everything that he has done." What god is that? The one you have never said you believe in? You are using 50,000,000 lines of computer code to read this, so given another 100 to 1,000,000 years, humanity itself should have no problem writing billions of lines of DNA code. So yes, not only do I believe that DNA was written, I believe that it will be written again. And in fact it is being rewritten by gene splicing as we converse...... Do you believe that quantum teleportation will happen someday? Or that God will be needed to create this? I have never seen any evidence that a god exists or is necessary for anything. Neither you nor anyone else has presented a scrap pf objective evidence to support any god or the necessity of one. I have no idea if quantum teleportation will occur some day. I have nothing to base such an opinion on--and neither do you, but that doesn't stop you from making baseless claims. Lois
Can you prove, that the human race will not leave, the Earth as Europeans once left Europe for the new World of America, and colonize another planet. This colonization may well begin with the primitive life forms needed to begin an ecosystem, of which the organisms will evolve and adapt to their new environment. Can you disprove this? Is this logical, being that we know our planet is finite? If evolution is real, and those simple plants and animals evolved into an organism that is aware of the cosmos, would not humanity have acted as God for the organisms on this planet? Just think.No idea what that is supposed to mean. How does evolution make organisms "aware of the cosmos"? If there is a god and humans move to and survive on other planets the same god would have to have been involved and their survival would most likely be similar to the same evolutionary principles that are present on earth. Actually that would be the case whether there is a god or not. But I doubt that an omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe, if there is one, would be surprised or disturbed at how it all unfolds. LL Sheesh, I am only quoting evolutionist. The theory of evolution says that a single celled organism evolved into all organisms, including human beings that are aware of the cosmos at this point, what part of this eludes you? The "awareness" part. Do organisms need to be "aware" of the cosmos to evolve? If they are unaware of it would they not evolve? Also, which "evolutionists" are you quoting? You can't just say you are "quoting evolutionists" without identifying them--at least not if you want to be seen as a rational person. If humans move even plankton to another planet, and the theory of evolution is valid, then those plankton could evolve into humans or some other self aware of the cosmos life form someday, this is what your goofy theory predicts, this would also make the human race the God of that planet's life forms, what part of this eludes you? Everything. You are limiting your god again. Couldn't he create plankton on another planet, or would he be incapable of that? It's your goofy theory that posits an omniscient, omnipotent god, then puts limits on him. So if your god creates life that evolves into humans on another planet, he is suddenly out of the picture and the human race becomes the god of that planet's life forms? Are you claiming that if evolution is true human beings are gods of the earth's life forms? If there is a goofy theory that's a prime example of ultimate goofiness. In addition, I still don't get the self-aware part. Are single celled organisms self aware? What I have done is moved this argument out of the dead past, and brought it into the present and future, where anything can happen. No, what you have done is move the argument out of the realm of rationality. You contradict yourself--and your claim of a god--at every turn, and bring in a new unsupported claim every time you post. Presenting new unsupported claims does not wipe out your previous unsupported claims. LL Quote, "No, what you have done is move the argument out of the realm of rationality. You contradict yourself--and your claim of a god--at every turn, and bring in a new unsupported claim every time you post. Presenting new unsupported claims does not wipe out your previous unsupported claims." please elaborate, as you have just posted empty ideas, that I can not respond to. I enjoyed proving that the previous poster believes that Darwin's theory is supernatural. If you provide as much detail as he, then I can respond properly. You have yet to "respond properly" to anyone on this forum. All you have done is make baseless claims and then try to twist responses to support your claims. Do you really think that the rational people on this forum (or anywhere) don't see through that? You apparently know just enough science jargon to make a complete fool of yourself and nothing more. Lois
Can you prove, that the human race will not leave, the Earth as Europeans once left Europe for the new World of America, and colonize another planet. This colonization may well begin with the primitive life forms needed to begin an ecosystem, of which the organisms will evolve and adapt to their new environment. Can you disprove this? Is this logical, being that we know our planet is finite? If evolution is real, and those simple plants and animals evolved into an organism that is aware of the cosmos, would not humanity have acted as God for the organisms on this planet? Just think.No idea what that is supposed to mean. How does evolution make organisms "aware of the cosmos"? If there is a god and humans move to and survive on other planets the same god would have to have been involved and their survival would most likely be similar to the same evolutionary principles that are present on earth. Actually that would be the case whether there is a god or not. But I doubt that an omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe, if there is one, would be surprised or disturbed at how it all unfolds. LL Sheesh, I am only quoting evolutionist. The theory of evolution says that a single celled organism evolved into all organisms, including human beings that are aware of the cosmos at this point, what part of this eludes you? The "awareness" part. Do organisms need to be "aware" of the cosmos to evolve? If they are unaware of it would they not evolve? Also, which "evolutionists" are you quoting? You can't just say you are "quoting evolutionists" without identifying them--at least not if you want to be seen as a rational person. If humans move even plankton to another planet, and the theory of evolution is valid, then those plankton could evolve into humans or some other self aware of the cosmos life form someday, this is what your goofy theory predicts, this would also make the human race the God of that planet's life forms, what part of this eludes you? Everything. You are limiting your god again. Couldn't he create plankton on another planet, or would he be incapable of that? It's your goofy theory that posits an omniscient, omnipotent god, then puts limits on him. So if your god creates life that evolves into humans on another planet, he is suddenly out of the picture and the human race becomes the god of that planet's life forms? Are you claiming that if evolution is true human beings are gods of the earth's life forms? If there is a goofy theory that's a prime example of ultimate goofiness. In addition, I still don't get the self-aware part. Are single celled organisms self aware? What I have done is moved this argument out of the dead past, and brought it into the present and future, where anything can happen. No, what you have done is move the argument out of the realm of rationality. You contradict yourself--and your claim of a god--at every turn, and bring in a new unsupported claim every time you post. Presenting new unsupported claims does not wipe out your previous unsupported claims. LL Quote, "No, what you have done is move the argument out of the realm of rationality. You contradict yourself--and your claim of a god--at every turn, and bring in a new unsupported claim every time you post. Presenting new unsupported claims does not wipe out your previous unsupported claims." please elaborate, as you have just posted empty ideas, that I can not respond to. I enjoyed proving that the previous poster believes that Darwin's theory is supernatural. If you provide as much detail as he, then I can respond properly. You have yet to "respond properly" to anyone on this forum. All you have done is make baseless claims and then try to twist responses to support your claims. Do you really think that the rational people on this forum (or anywhere) don't see through that? You apparently know just enough science jargon to make a complete fool of yourself and nothing more. Lois There is no evidence that DNA grew out of a warm pond, it you can produce anything "proper" to dispute this, feel free to present your dispute properly. If you have proper evidence that evolution and life can exist without a DNA core, please present your information now. Life without DNA, is like music without sound.
DNA could not have formed in a warm pond, and thus it was engineered.Your argument on this thread was:
Wrong, the theory of evolution dictates, that if humanity deposited a group of living organisms on another planet, that would have been genetically engineered for that planets conditions, and that these organisms thrived, and someday evolved into self aware intelligent creatures that could ask the same questions that we are asking now, that humanity would have both fulfilled the current image of what God did and is, and that evolution is real.So the above is your A) part of the argument
.... but evolution was designed in the first place,And this is your B) part, I've just left in the relevant bit. Now we can clearly see that B) in no way follows from A) So that is a bad argument. Now you've brought up another argument which is: A) DNA could not have formed in a warm pond B) Therefore it was engineered. This argument is similarly bad because again your B) doesn't follow from your A)
DNA could not have formed in a warm pond, and thus it was engineered.Your argument on this thread was:
Wrong, the theory of evolution dictates, that if humanity deposited a group of living organisms on another planet, that would have been genetically engineered for that planets conditions, and that these organisms thrived, and someday evolved into self aware intelligent creatures that could ask the same questions that we are asking now, that humanity would have both fulfilled the current image of what God did and is, and that evolution is real.So the above is your A) part of the argument
.... but evolution was designed in the first place,And this is your B) part, I've just left in the relevant bit. Now we can clearly see that B) in no way follows from A) So that is a bad argument. Now you've brought up another argument which is: A) DNA could not have formed in a warm pond B) Therefore it was engineered. This argument is similarly bad because again your B) doesn't follow from your A) This looks like a circular logic argument from the how to annoy a creationist page, and has nothing to do with science. PS. Do you believe in prebiotic molecules? and if so can you name some? The following could all be true, but does not prove your silly pond scum theory, it only distracts away from it. http://blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/break-the-cycle4.jpg