The Evolution of the Universe: Life Inevitable.

The Evolution of the Universe: Life Inevitable.



In the beginning-

The Universe was unrecognizable. Not our Universe, really. More of a Precursor Universe. But at some point, in some manner, Protons and Electrons showed-up, and the background of gravity that permeates the Universe was established. It is at this point that understanding surpasses theory, and it is at this point that a scientific overview of extremely high probability can begin.



Stellar Evolution.



Because one has a positive charge and the other a negative, Protons and electrons joined together to form the most basic of elements, Hydrogen (H). Gravity gathered the H into large masses, and where massive enough Nuclear Fusion was ignited. (This is a highly understood process, as witness the hydrogen bomb). These masses became Stars, which, for historical reasons, have come to be designated Population II Stars.

Within the core of these stars, electrons were driven into protons, their charges cancelled one another, and neutrons were formed. Electrons, Protons, and Neutrons, in correct proportions, went on to form all the other elements- including Carbon (C), the basis for life as we know it. (Silicon is theoretically another basis for life, but none of the sort has ever been encountered).

For mundane reasons of Physics, these Pop II stars eventually either collapse within themselves (generally giving off a dust cloud), or explode violently, sending their contents, including all the elements of the Periodic Table of Chemicals, to scatter across space.

All this takes hundreds of millions to several billions of years.

And then starts over, but with a difference- the gathering masses are no longer nearly pure hydrogen, but instead contain the basic building blocks of life and a habitat for life,(although they are still at least 95% hydrogen).



When it happens that a large mass ignites into fusion (and becomes a Population I Star) near a smaller mass, and if the small mass is neither too close nor too far, then a planetoid, a gathering of heavier elements, is formed. If large enough, the planetoid becomes a full fledged planet, and, in some cases, possesses enough gravity to keep an Atmosphere of lighter elements clinging to it’s surface. Venus, Earth and Mars are examples of such planets.

----------------------------

The creationist argument up to this point is that the Biblical age of the Earth is only 7,000 years old, that the Universe was created in all it’s complexity at that time, and that includes all the evidence of Radioactive Decay, light from distant galaxies already in transit to earth, and the Fossil Record.

Come to think of it, that’s all they got.

----------------------------



So now life has a place to take hold, and something to be structured with. But why should it form? Creationist unknowable magic?

No. Life forms, because that’s what the Universe does; it manufactures life.





A Universe Geared Toward Life.



Abiotic Chemical Evolution.

The conditions that must have existed on primal earth bear little resemblance to the conditions here today. After WWII, Harold Urey, Phd., a Chemist of some note, suggested that life had begun under atmospheric conditions dictated by the various chemical combination available at the time the earth was formed- very similar to the atmosphere found today on Jupiter.

In 1952, one of Urey’s graduate students, Stanley Miller, duplicated the conditions that may have existed on primitive earth. He used a mixture of water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, and then added an electrical discharge as an energy source.

At the end of a week, 1/6 of the methane present had gone into abiotic formation, (formation without intervention of a biological agent). Glycine and alanine, the two simplist amino acids that form the basis of protein, among others, were formed..

For twenty years, variations on the experiment were repeated ad nauseum. Without fail, ALL produced abiotic formation of chemicals normally associated with living tissue.

This was in a week; what might be accomplished in a billion years?



A creationist may say, “Ah, but indeed there was a biological agent involved- the experimenter himself was the guiding intelligence”.

So let’s look for examples of abiotic chemical evolutionary processes elsewhere than in the lab.



Among the types of meteorites known, there exist a rare one (only a few dozen have been found) called Carbonaceous Chondrites, because they posses carbon containing compounds (other meteorites are stony or metal). One of these fell near Murray, Kansas, in 1950, and another one exploded over Murchinson, Australia, in 1969(over 80 kilos of the material was recovered).

NASA, using the Ames Research center in Iowa, separated and identified 18 amino acids, including 6 that were known to occur frequently in proteins on earth. Valine, alanine, glycine, praline, aspartic acid, and glutamic acid from these space delivered meteorites.

A clear example of Abiotic Chemical Evolution- the first steps toward life.



Even under conditions where life cannot possibly exist, the tendency toward life will not be denied.



Interstellar space contains stray matter in the form of individual atoms and various molecular groupings (Molecules). As the molecules rise in complexity, they move in the direction of life. Abiotic Chemical Evolution.



And so the oceans of the earth became filled with precursors of life, and inevitably, a few chemical compounds came together and formed a life-process, and a single cell organism resulted.

And thusly the Evolution of life begins on Earth, a small planet in an Evolving Universe that is geared toward life.



What more with a billion years?



All rights reserved by the author.
----------------------
And so brockton, I've given everyone enough info to verify for themselves that you are a liar and a fanatic. No such experiments indeed!

And so your ignorant and chaotic beliefs stand more than balanced by knowlede and an orderly reality. Truly an equiotic outcome!

 

Well said...

 

I cant help but point this out... you are stating your bias before producing evidence.

[This refers to your critisism of a certain Johns Hopkins Professor hehe]

Ok but seriously ...

Duly note - YOU are stating the Universe has a beginning.
'Our' Universe anyway.
In fairness.. you are in the belief that a 'Precursor' Universe existed before that (and maybe you think always existed?)

In anycase - remember this next time I quote your own belief system ok.

WHOOAAAAaaaaa!

Hang on there Dr. GlossOver!!

This is your fundamental theory on which all else is built upon? - "At Some Point.. in Some manner" !?!?

So your theory is - 'Somehow' Things just started doing stuff!

Im guessing you call this 'Science'?

[That would definately explain why you think my posts (or Johns Hopkins Professors) are 'Unscientific'.]

WHOAAAaa again!

Im sorry but - your 'Scientific Explanation' is based on the theory that they 'Show-up'??
(Presumably using the laws of 'Somehow'?)

STop!
Ok here we go again!?
This simple happened by the 'Cause' of what you describe as 'Somehow at Some Point'??

Wow.. so far your making a VERY good argument that:
'Stuff Appeared, Somehow and at 'Some Time'.

So far that IS what you have done - Simply announced Stuff appeared.

You have me convinced too!

Extremely High Probability.
OK.
Lets see why you made up this statement:

Since this is all highly theoretical there is no need to 'Agree or Disagree' with anything. I cant 'Disagree' with an Authors Imagination.
[other than your unfouded statement this is 'Understood'.,, it is not 'understood']

Its 100% Theory.

Why do I say its theory?

Because Stars are (and always have been) observed DECAYING and Destroying themselves.

Is it possibly that 'Somehow' at 'Some Point' Stars created themselves?
Maybe.
But that is simply a Theory based on your Imagination and not based on known facts or understanding of the world around us.
[In fact -it goes contrary to what we (so far) have observed.]

Interesting how you believe this must have happened.

Of course... all the previous theory is a 'retro-theory'
In other words, Since Carbon is just one of the elements making up the 'matter' of lifeforms on Earth - the theory is made to include Carbon.

Its not like Evolutionist theorise and say "Low and Behold.. and that produced Carbon.. we didnt expect that!"

The theories are made up to fit the reality.

Anyway... Carbon is an element yes.

Ok so now you are theorising that Chaos is going to make the astonishing combination of these elements
(which you state 'somehow' came into being at 'somepoint')
will now randomly explode across the Universe to create extremely complex combinations millions of times in a row.

WHOAAAAaaa.. Huh?!

Here again your theory just tells us that DESPITE Random chance and chaos dispersing all these things throughout the Universe (which by all laws of physics should be DEGENERATING, becoming colder and spreading out evenly - You just stated it was busy 'magically' creating what you call the 'building blocks' of life.

Oh. and also a 'Habitatat' for life somehow.

Based again on the 'Somehow' and 'Some Point' principle I suppose??

Ok great.. well lets just say that 'Somehow' by Chance all the dust clouds caked together into a planet and assembled themselves into Water, Iron, Oxygen etc etc etc.

(See previous)...

----------------------------

This is not necessarily True (re. Age).

Many Creationists do insist that Genesis describes the Creation of our Galaxy but does not necessarily speak to the Universe itself.

Others believe 7,000 (ish) years marks the beginning of the entire physical Universe as we know it.

Mind you, the age of the Universe or even the Planet has NOTHING to do with the likelyhood of Life Creating itself by random chance.

[Re: RadioActive Decay. Probably best left to another thread although your are almost 'accidently' correct on that point.]

[Re: Starlight. Genesis describes the light being created from the stars. The understanding is that the stars AND their light FOR Earth were created at the same time.
(Wow. your actualy right on that one!)]

Theres more - but I agree you cant think of it.

Even if that were all they got - it still provides a better explanation to the existance of the Universe than your theory, which, so far, just 'suggests' that 'somehow' things appeared at 'Some Point'.

----------------------------

WOW!

So the idea that a Intelligent Designer manufacturing life is dismissed.. lol... yet...

Your Explanation is:

LOL.. (wait for this..)

'BECAUSE Thats what 'The Universe' "DOES"
it 'MANUFACTURES LIFE!"

This is your theory!?!?

The Universe simply 'Does' because that is what it 'DOES'????.

GREAT SCIENTIFIC METHOD!??

Errr... I have no idea what this observation is supposed to 'Do'?

So let me get this straight... Someone basically supposes that lifeforms need certain conditions..
So he boldly states that - IF life was millions of years old... 'therefore' .. these conditions must have existed then too.

OK great. I theorise they must have needed 'Food' too. Super!
Thank you Harold Urey!

Sorry, No.
He did not.
Not according to Evolutionists.

Millers Experiment is long since discredited.
[No, I do not believe it was a 'Hoax' like some say].

Geckopelli, your refering to a Scientific Experiment which has LONG since been discredited BY EVOLUTIONISTS.


Miller's experiment sought to prove that amino acids could form on their own in primordial earth-like conditions, but it contains inconsistencies in a number of areas:

1- By using a mechanism called a "cold trap," Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. Had he not done so, the conditions in the environment in which the amino acids were formed would immediately have destroyed these molecules.

Doubtless, this kind of conscious isolation mechanism did not exist on the primordial earth. Without such a mechanism, even if one amino acid were obtained, it would immediately have been destroyed. The chemist Richard Bliss expresses this contradiction by observing that "Actually, without this trap, the chemical products, would have been destroyed by the energy source."254 And, sure enough, in his previous experiments, Miller had been unable to make even one single amino acid using the same materials without the cold trap mechanism.

 

2- The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia.

So why did Miller insist on these gases? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it was impossible to synthesize any amino acid. Kevin Mc Kean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine:

Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere on the Earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia. ...However in the latest studies, it has been understood that the Earth was very hot at those times, and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules.255



​

The artificial atmosphere created by Miller in his experiment actually bore not the slightest resemblance to the primitive atmosphere on earth.
​

The American scientists J. P. Ferris and C. T. Chen repeated Miller's experiment with an atmospheric environment that contained carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, and water vapor, and were unable to obtain even a single amino acid molecule.256

3- Another important point that invalidates Miller's experiment is that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when they were thought to have been formed. This fact, overlooked by Miller, is revealed by the traces of oxidized iron found in rocks that are estimated to be 3.5 billion years old.257

There are other findings showing that the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere at that time was much higher than originally claimed by evolutionists. Studies also show that the amount of ultraviolet radiation to which the earth was then exposed was 10,000 times more than evolutionists' estimates. This intense radiation would unavoidably have freed oxygen by decomposing the water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This situation completely negates Miller's experiment, in which oxygen was completely neglected. If oxygen had been used in the experiment, methane would have decomposed into carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia into nitrogen and water. On the other hand, in an environment where there was no oxygen, there would be no ozone layer either; therefore, the amino acids would have immediately been destroyed, since they would have been exposed to the most intense ultraviolet rays without the protection of the ozone layer. In other words, with or without oxygen in the primordial world, the result would have been a deadly environment for the amino acids.

4- At the end of Miller's experiment, many organic acids had also been formed with characteristics detrimental to the structure and function of living things. If the amino acids had not been isolated, and had been left in the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable.

Moreover, Miller's experiment also produced right-handed amino acids.258 The existence of these amino acids refuted the theory even within its own terms, because right-handed amino acids cannot function in the composition of living organisms. To conclude, the circumstances in which amino acids were formed in Miller's experiment were not suitable for life. In truth, this medium took the form of an acidic mixture destroying and oxidizing the useful molecules obtained.

Today, Miller too accepts that his 1953 experiment was very far from explaining the origin of life.

All these facts point to one firm truth: Miller's experiment cannot claim to have proved that living things formed by chance under primordial earth-like conditions. The whole experiment is nothing more than a deliberate and controlled laboratory experiment to synthesize amino acids. The amount and types of the gases used in the experiment were ideally determined to allow amino acids to originate. The amount of energy supplied to the system was neither too much nor too little, but arranged precisely to enable the necessary reactions to occur. The experimental apparatus was isolated, so that it would not allow the leaking of any harmful, destructive, or any other kind of elements to hinder the formation of amino acids. No elements, minerals or compounds that were likely to have been present on the primordial earth, but which would have changed the course of the reactions, were included in the experiment. Oxygen, which would have prevented the formation of amino acids because of oxidation, is only one of these destructive elements. Even under such ideal laboratory conditions, it was impossible for the amino acids produced to survive and avoid destruction without the "cold trap" mechanism.

In fact, by his experiment, Miller destroyed evolution's claim that "life emerged as the result of unconscious coincidences." That is because, if the experiment proves anything, it is that amino acids can only be produced in a controlled laboratory environment where all the conditions are specifically designed by conscious intervention.

Today, Miller's experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled "Life's Crucible":

Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller's atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. "It's a problem," he sighs with exasperation. "How do you make polymers? That's not so easy."259



​

As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled "The Emergence of Life on Earth," the following comments appear:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.


That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules - the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.260


​

In brief, neither Miller's experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:







This was in a week; what might be accomplished in a billion years?



A creationist may say, “Ah, but indeed there was a biological agent involved- the experimenter himself was the guiding intelligence”.

So let’s look for examples of abiotic chemical evolutionary processes elsewhere than in the lab.



Among the types of meteorites known, there exist a rare one (only a few dozen have been found) called Carbonaceous Chondrites, because they posses carbon containing compounds (other meteorites are stony or metal). One of these fell near Murray, Kansas, in 1950, and another one exploded over Murchinson, Australia, in 1969(over 80 kilos of the material was recovered).

NASA, using the Ames Research center in Iowa, separated and identified 18 amino acids, including 6 that were known to occur frequently in proteins on earth. Valine, alanine, glycine, praline, aspartic acid, and glutamic acid from these space delivered meteorites.

A clear example of Abiotic Chemical Evolution- the first steps toward life.



Even under conditions where life cannot possibly exist, the tendency toward life will not be denied.



Interstellar space contains stray matter in the form of individual atoms and various molecular groupings (Molecules). As the molecules rise in complexity, they move in the direction of life. Abiotic Chemical Evolution.



And so the oceans of the earth became filled with precursors of life, and inevitably, a few chemical compounds came together and formed a life-process, and a single cell organism resulted.

And thusly the Evolution of life begins on Earth, a small planet in an Evolving Universe that is geared toward life.

What a great question!
Im delighted to answer it BASED ON The Miller Experiment.
Ready?

NO LIFE.

Why? - because Millers Experiment (even IF we take it accept it) does NOT EVEN COME CLOSE to producing life.

Actually.. it goes a long way in explaining why life could NOT appear out of the clear blue Sea:


to explain the second stage of the origin of life, evolutionists faced an even greater problem than that of the formation of amino acids-namely, the origin of proteins, the building blocks of life, which are composed of hundreds of different amino acids bonding with each other in a particular order.

Claiming that proteins were formed by chance under natural conditions is even more unrealistic and unreasonable than claiming that amino acids were formed by chance. In the preceding pages we have seen the mathematical impossibility of the haphazard uniting of amino acids in proper sequences to form proteins with probability calculations. Now, we will examine the impossibility of proteins being produced chemically under primordial earth conditions.


As we saw before, when combining to form proteins, amino acids form a special bond with one another called the peptide bond. A water molecule is released during the formation of this peptide bond.

This fact definitely refutes the evolutionist explanation that primordial life originated in water, because, according to the "Le Châtelier principle" in chemistry, it is not possible for a reaction that releases water (a condensation reaction) to take place in a hydrous environment. The chances of this kind of a reaction happening in a hydrate environment is said to "have the least probability of occurring" of all chemical reactions.

Hence the ocean, which is claimed to be where life began and amino acids originated, is definitely not an appropriate setting for amino acids to form proteins.262 On the other hand, it would be irrational for evolutionists to change their minds and claim that life originated on land, because the only environment where amino acids could have been protected from ultraviolet radiation is in the oceans and seas. On land, they would be destroyed by ultraviolet rays. The Le Châtelier principle, on the other hand, disproves the claim of the formation of life in the sea. This is another dilemma confronting evolution.



Now here is where things have changed a lot since 55 years ago. Its almost 'forgivable' for Evolutionists to have thought life was only as AMAZINGLY complex as Miller-Urey did.
But since then the complexity has been discovered to be FAR MORE complex.
[Think TRILLIONS of times more complex heh]


Yet the problems are not even limited just to amino acids and proteins: These are only the beginning. Beyond them, the extremely complex structure of the cell leads evolutionists to yet another impasse. The reason for this is that the cell is not just a heap of amino-acid-structured proteins, but rather the most complex system man has ever encountered.

While the theory of evolution was having such trouble providing a coherent explanation for the existence of the molecules that are the basis of the cell structure, developments in the science of genetics and the discovery of nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) produced brand-new problems for the theory. In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick launched a new age in biology with their work on the structure of DNA.

​

When Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, they revealed that life was much more complicated than had previously been thought.

The molecule known as DNA, which is found in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillion cells in our bodies, contains the complete blueprint for the construction of the human body. The information regarding all the characteristics of a person, from physical appearance to the structure of the inner organs, is recorded in DNA within the sequence of four special bases that make up the giant molecule. These bases are known as A, T, G, and C, according to the initial letters of their names. All the structural differences among people depend on variations in the sequences of these letters. In addition to features such as height, and eye, hair and skin colors, the DNA in a single cell also contains the design of the 206 bones, the 600 muscles, the 100 billion nerve cells (neurons), 1.000 trillion connections between the neurons of the brain, 97,000 kilometers of veins, and the 100 trillion cells of the human body. If we were to write down the information coded in DNA, then we would have to compile a giant library consisting of 900 volumes of 500 pages each. But the information this enormous library would hold is encoded inside the DNA molecules in the cell nucleus, which is far smaller than the 1/100th-of-a-millimeter-long cell itself.




There's even more, but for now that should explain why EVEN IF we accept Geckopellis Theory that 'Somehow and at Some Point' everything created itself and then assembled itself into an orderly fashion.

You can even pretend that Millers Experiment is still considered legitimate and take that to its most outrageous conclusions.. and you STILL havent even come close to explaining how life 'COULD' come into existance and WHY it would just do that 'By Chance'.

Errr.. no not really.

----------------------

Yes.. your astonishing theory about 'Somehow' stuff just happened and then your references to a half-baked experiment long since discredited really 'Showed Me'!

 

Thank you, Geckopelli

 

Sorry but can you tell me why you are thanking Geckopelli?

 

I hope everyone realizes by now that I can go back and demolish every point brockton thinks he made. But i have no emotional need to do so, and brockton is a dead end as far as educating him goes.
But if anyone else needs clarification on anything, ANYTHING, pertaining to these matters, I will elucidate freely.

As for everything before the development of electrons and protons, I can go back and elucidate extensively (as i have done before on these pages), you can bet your ass!
Of course, that's Quantum Physics and is theoretical in the extreme-well beyond the stagnant mind of poor brockton.

 

You know, I must say- making a fool of brockton is a simple matter, but the point here is to show that all of Science is a piece. No theory is dependent on a single, unknown fact. It is simply not nesacary to understand every single intimate detail to formulate reasonably correct theory.

We still fight over the details of exactly what gravity is and how it works; but none of this ignorance stops us from plotting a course that sends a ballistic rocket to the moon.

The cause of depression is only vaugely believed to be understood, yet we design drugs that succesfully treat it.

The point is that perfect knowledge is not required for scientific progress. But SOME knowledge is surely required- unless you're a creationist, in which case a "theory" with nethier explanation or evidence is acceptable.

 

Please feel free.
I dont see how?
Go right ahead though.

Dont worry about 'emotions' - we are not interested in emotions here.

Oh Good. I have a few questions I would like some 'Elucidation' on:

In your thoery, you mentioned that Protons and Electrons 'Showed Up'.

Since this is the fundamental basis which the rest of your hypothesis is built on - could you please give me a more detailed explanation of:

Showed Up?

Dont be afraid to speak in scientific jargon.. I will try and keep up.

Also.. could you please explain the part where Gravity 'Shows Up'?
What was your scientific reasonings behind that again?

Please do.
Im not sure if I can 'bet my ass' these just appeared spontaneously.
Please Elucidate more,
Thanks.

Oh.. I see, its highly and extremely theoretical quantum physics

Well feel free to 'explain' these anyway.

 

Not until you admit that the overwhelming tide of evidence that Biologicals Evolve in response to enviromental stimuli buries the unsubstantiated myth of creationism.
Then I will gladly answer any question you have, as best as I can.

A teacher must know a student has learned before moving on to more difficult matters!

 

Hi again.

Can you please define what 'Biologicals Evolve' means?

Specifically, what are 'Biologicals'?
and
By 'Evolve' do you mean 'To increasing complexity' or 'Degrading'?

Also, by 'Enironmental Stimuli' do you mean an outside impetus can 'cause' new information to self-create in response?

Also.. could you please clarify where this 'OverWhelming tide of Evidence' is and when did you post it?

Mainly - Im going to need to know what 'Biologicals' are and what you specifically mean by Evolve?

[Example - My Fingernail was chipped today... The fingernail is a 'Biological' (?) and the chip changed its texture and shape, hence 'Evolving'.
This was due to 'Environmental Stimuli'.]

So I most certainly will admit that outside forces can make 'biologicals' 'evolve' TO LESS COMPLEXITY OR AT BEST THE SAME COMPLEXITY IN DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS.

[However I think YOU mean increasing information?]

 

It's not going to work.
All those things have been amply demonstrated- and not by me alone.
Review all the threads in which you attemptted to pass off your propaganda.

If youthen remain as ignorant as you started, the fault lies within you.
It appears that you may have lost the capacity to learn.

Good luck with that already-knowing-everthing-knowable thing.

 

You demonstrated that New Genes are generated by Environmental Stimuli!?

Where?

When?

Sorry I think I missed that post.

Please post a link to your demontration.
Thanks.

 

Ditto my last post.

Time to move on.

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50789

 

Brocktoon, I ask that you explain to me the Creationist 'theory'.

Please explain thoroghly your reasoning behind your belief; if such a belief requires faith, explain the reasoning behind assuming this faith; cite scientific evidence; give epistemological reasoning; define variable terminology ['faith' specifically].

Realize you're audience will be largely athiest; verily, God will be mentioned, explain then epistemological reasoning for the belief in God.

Cite accurate information.

 

It's been tried.

You'll get no response.

"it's in the bible" is all they got.

 

without getting too involved,

i just would like to say that if there is a creator, i imagine that the processes he used in creation would then become NATURAL to that creation. so maybe the big bang was "let there be light", and maybe, since the creator is supposed to exist outside of time, it took billions of years to form us.

see i dont understand why anybody would create anything, and then refuse to use additions, amendments, evolution, physics, chemistry, whatever, to create the end result, its PART of matter and its properties, and if he made matter, hes going to utilize its properties...

 

You are, more-or-less, on the same track as me.

 

If that was true .. be afraid unconcerned.. be very afraid

Thumbotico:

You can feel free to present YOUR belief system to me.

State YOUR explanation for the existence of the Universe, why - and then explain those reasons to me.

In case your keeping count.. \
I have written FAR MORE of my reasons and positions on this topic THAN YOU have THUMBOTICO including some 'Why's and 'How's or my belief system.

[Did you really think you could just 'make me' be 'answer to you' just because you 'challenged me' to do so... or because Geckopelli taunts me into deliberately 'answering to you'?]

This reminds me - WTF have you posted on this topic anyway Thumbonica?
Werent you the one who dropped in to repeatedly remind us you 'Didnt like' the topic anymore?

 

So.. You cannot?