A big-bang theory gets a big boost: Evidence that vast cosmos was created in split second
Options
Comments
-
Is laughter your coping mechanism for when you are faced with some sort of cognitive dissonance between the story book you've built your life around and the progress of human science?
BRB watching "abiogenesis" non-intelligently create the world wide web! No intelligence needed! Just the "mysteries of abiogenesis"! -
Your reductio ad absurdum falls flat as your alternative is more absurd than the argument you're criticizing.
-
Your reductio ad absurdum falls flat as your alternative is more absurd than the argument you're criticizin
-
Do, in all your examples there are no other means to create the objects you mention. 2 cars can not come together and produce a baby car, yet life can do just that. A couple cats can produce a litter without any intelligence between them.
-
While abiogenesis is currently it will probably be unraveled in this century. In fact I believe, given the state of current research, we will have scenarios to produce life from chemical action. By the end of the century we will be able to produce organism that functions to a need.
BRB watching "abiogenesis" create the research lab needed to do research! No intelligence required to create the facilities to do said research because "the mysteries of abiogenesis" is at work!
-
Do, in all your examples there are no other means to create the objects you mention. 2 cars can not come together and produce a baby car, yet life can do just that. A couple cats can produce a litter without any intelligence between them.
Oh but there are means for non-life to create life? So nothing can produce something? WHERE DEY DO DAT AT?
Hol up, BRB waiting for this piece of paper in my hand to spontaneously produce a rendering of the Mona Lisa!
"The mysteries of abiogenesis" can produce something out of nothing, after all!
-
Abiogenesis is the transition of chemistry into biology, life from non-life. The something from nothing implies cosmology and the big bang. These are separate concepts.
Ever component piece of life is a non-living molecule. The wall of cells, DNA, RNA, and the mitochondria are all considered non-living things. It is not until they are combined do we consider it life. Life is an emergent system from non-living structures. It is simple common sense to believe that non-life can lead to life. The issue is we do not know how that happened. An absence in our knowledge base that will closed in the next 30 to 40 years in all likelihood. -
In certain instances it can happen. Ribonucleotides can be created in certain instances and they are capable of replicating.
Your analogies are very bad. -
Abiogenesis is the transition of chemistry into biology, life from non-life. The something from nothing implies cosmology and the big bang. These are separate concepts.
Ever component piece of life is a non-living molecule. The wall of cells, DNA, RNA, and the mitochondria are all considered non-living things. It is not until they are combined do we consider it life. Life is an emergent system from non-living structures. It is simple common sense to believe that non-life can lead to life. The issue is we do not know how that happened. An absence in our knowledge base that will closed in the next 30 to 40 years in all likelihood.
Bruh? How does nothing become something if there was always nothing? Nothing remains nothing!
If I take a piece of paper, hold it in my hand, and sit with it until I die, the piece of paper will remain a piece of paper. Nothing will be produced on the piece of paper unless I intelligently act in order to produce something with it. This is common sense 101. Elementary logic.
It's like I really got to break these things down for y'all so that you can really grasp what your saying. You know you got to put the cookies on the bottom shelf so that the kiddies can reach them.
So again, how does non-life produce everything that we see? Oh that's right, "the mysteries of abiogenesis" are at work.
-
In certain instances it can happen. Ribonucleotides can be created in certain instances and they are capable of replicating.
Your analogies are very bad.
Bruh, do you know how long the list is for the requirements for a living-reproducing cell? Ribonucleotides prove nothing. Stop pulling stuff out your rear. Mkay? -
As I stated we have 2 subjects something from nothing and abiogenesis. These are separate issues but I will briefly address each.
The most common event in the universe is the creation of something from nothing. If we strip all matter from the universe and leave only empty space we would call that nothing. Yet if we look at the subatomic level we would see that emtpy space churning with matter. Particles would wink into existence only to be destroyed in less than a nanosecond by an anti-matter particle. This constant act of creation goes on all the time and is referred to as zero-point energy. Something from nothing makes no sense at the scale we humans live, however at the scale when the universe formed it would be trivially common.
As for abiogenesis the simple answer is we do not know. This lack of knowledge does not lead to ? as all that does is create the classic ? of Gaps. The basic flaw in your argument lie in the denial of the basic tenets of life. Life is typically define by respiration, metabolism, and reproduction with variation. It is this last piece that you seem to ignore. In your example of holding a piece of paper the paper is dead. For your example to have merit the paper would have to have images upon it. And it would have to produce new pages with new images. From there it is not a big leap to realize given time those images maybe form something recognizable. When are make these comparision to life you must remember what life is and how life effects its environment and the populations of organisms that make it up. -
According to Do, we don't have elements of the earth in our bodies and we have no need for consuming elements and mater to live. I suppose having electricity and water in our bodies is a lie also.
-
The origins of Ribonucleotides provide insight into how cells capable of reproduction developed.
-
As I stated we have 2 subjects something from nothing and abiogenesis. These are separate issues but I will briefly address each.
The most common event in the universe is the creation of something from nothing. If we strip all matter from the universe and leave only empty space we would call that nothing. Yet if we look at the subatomic level we would see that emtpy space churning with matter. Particles would wink into existence only to be destroyed in less than a nanosecond by an anti-matter particle. This constant act of creation goes on all the time and is referred to as zero-point energy. Something from nothing makes no sense at the scale we humans live, however at the scale when the universe formed it would be trivially common.
As for abiogenesis the simple answer is we do not know. This lack of knowledge does not lead to ? as all that does is create the classic ? of Gaps. The basic flaw in your argument lie in the denial of the basic tenets of life. Life is typically define by respiration, metabolism, and reproduction with variation. It is this last piece that you seem to ignore. In your example of holding a piece of paper the paper is dead. For your example to have merit the paper would have to have images upon it. And it would have to produce new pages with new images. From there it is not a big leap to realize given time those images maybe form something recognizable. When are make these comparision to life you must remember what life is and how life effects its environment and the populations of organisms that make it up.
1. Where did space come from? Still no answer for your explanation.
2. If you don't know, why do you come up with all this jargon acting like you do know? "Mysteries of abiogenesis"? Like for real?
3. Analogy is valid because it highlights the absurdity of the theory that your trying to explain, which you just said you don't know anything about. Talk about an oxymoron.
4. Non-life can not produce life, just like a dictionary can not magically create itself with ink and a printing press. Intelligence is always in back of the creation. Common sense my friend, why is that so hard for you to grasp? -
FuriousOne wrote: »According to Do, we don't have elements of the earth in our bodies and we have no need for consuming elements and mater to live. I suppose having electricity and water in our bodies is a lie also.
"for dust you are and to dust you will return." Genesis 3:19
Stop trying to make things more complicated than they are. Amen.
-
The origins of Ribonucleotides provide insight into how cells capable of reproduction developed.
It explains nothing. How does non-life produce life my friend. Where did the first ribonucleotides come from? -
The absurdity of creationists is staggering.
? made you from soil right? How does the aforementioned allegory conflict with the theory of evolution or abiogenesis? You prefer to personify an energy that is an abstraction and refuse science out of ignorance. This type of arrogance denotes a lack of love and respect for all living things, you should consider it a gift to share a familial bond with the Sun, moon and earth. You're inability to distinguish the figurative from the literal is troubling to say the least.
-
The absurdity of creationists is staggering.
? made you from soil right? How does the aforementioned allegory conflict with the theory of evolution or abiogenesis? You prefer to personify an energy that is an abstraction and refuse science out of ignorance. This type of arrogance denotes a lack of love and respect for all living things, you should consider it a gift to share a familial bond with the Sun, moon and earth. You're inability to distinguish the figurative from the literal is troubling to say the least.
The bible says ? formed man and gave man life when he breathed life into him creationist don't propose that life can spring from rocks/soil by itself.
abiogenesis basically states that life can from a rocks by itself, love for the creations of ? is important but all things in creation are exactly that and should not be elevated above ? .
-
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »According to Do, we don't have elements of the earth in our bodies and we have no need for consuming elements and mater to live. I suppose having electricity and water in our bodies is a lie also.
"for dust you are and to dust you will return." Genesis 3:19
Stop trying to make things more complicated than they are. Amen.
So you admit that we are made from star dust? You're coming to our side brah.. -
FuriousOne wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »According to Do, we don't have elements of the earth in our bodies and we have no need for consuming elements and mater to live. I suppose having electricity and water in our bodies is a lie also.
"for dust you are and to dust you will return." Genesis 3:19
Stop trying to make things more complicated than they are. Amen.
So you admit that we are made from star dust? You're coming to our side brah..
No. please read the post above yours. Amen. -
The absurdity of creationists is staggering.
? made you from soil right? How does the aforementioned allegory conflict with the theory of evolution or abiogenesis? You prefer to personify an energy that is an abstraction and refuse science out of ignorance. This type of arrogance denotes a lack of love and respect for all living things, you should consider it a gift to share a familial bond with the Sun, moon and earth. You're inability to distinguish the figurative from the literal is troubling to say the least.
The bible says ? formed man and gave man life when he breathed life into him creationist don't propose that life can spring from rocks/soil by itself.
abiogenesis basically states that life can from a rocks by itself, love for the creations of ? is important but all things in creation are exactly that and should not be elevated above ? .
No it does not and you know that. It posits that life can start from nonliving substances under the right circumstances to create organisms, but none of the dominant theories say rocks. -
The absurdity of creationists is staggering.
? made you from soil right? How does the aforementioned allegory conflict with the theory of evolution or abiogenesis? You prefer to personify an energy that is an abstraction and refuse science out of ignorance. This type of arrogance denotes a lack of love and respect for all living things, you should consider it a gift to share a familial bond with the Sun, moon and earth. You're inability to distinguish the figurative from the literal is troubling to say the least.
The bible says ? formed man and gave man life when he breathed life into him creationist don't propose that life can spring from rocks/soil by itself.
abiogenesis basically states that life can from a rocks by itself, love for the creations of ? is important but all things in creation are exactly that and should not be elevated above ? .
No it does not and you know that. It posits that life can start from nonliving substances under the right circumstances to create organisms, but none of the dominant theories say rocks.
Rocks/minerals are nonliving substances so still abiogenesis still boils down to claiming that life came from rocks and minerals reacting to each other -
You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »You guys are discounting what rocks are actually made of. If rocks (or minerals) weren't important, then wouldn't consume Iron, silver, sulfar, phosphorus, magnesium etc as a part of our natural diet.
No one is disputing their importance, i am discounting the claim that life originated from the process called abiogenesis. -
Isn't the story that ? created the universe from nothing? Yet you want to argue that the universe cannot come about by natural causes?
