Steven Hawking says it's possible for life to come from nothing
Options
Comments
-
evolutionists think life was an accident, if life existing is not all the proof you need then I don't know what to tell you.
also people who ask you to prove ? only prove that they don't understand the concept in the first place.
That's not evolution. That Abiogenesis. Break down the concept then. You're the ones juxtaposing human emotion and reason to your ? hypothesis. You wrote it down and posed the question and came to your own answer. If you can't prove or disprove and do not choose to attempt to validate your offerings scientifically before coming to conclusion, then you are making it up as you go along. -
Oya_Husband wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »
thousands of years before humans saw the earth as a globe from space, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah stated with remarkable simplicity: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22)dr funky resurrected wrote: »Watching "the unbelievers" right now. Our minds can't grasp that something can come from nothing. Yet, only a few minds in the world can.
Just like how minds couldn't grasp the world wasn't flat 1,000 years ago, people said it's impossible that the world is round. Then we were proved wrong.
These are facts.
The Bible writer Isaiah avoided the common myths about the earth. Instead, he penned a statement that was not threatened by the advances of scientific discovery.
There is no above and below in space. The earth is not a Circle. That is a flat 2d dimension. It is a sphere.
Job 26:7
" He stretches out the northern sky over empty space,
Suspending the earth upon nothing "
Evolution theory attempts to explain the origin of species. Living things are made up of efficient organs, such as the heart, lungs, and eyes. Also, at the microscopic level, we see marvelously designed ‘machines’ within cells. Where do the designs for those come from? Evolutionists claim that the best mechanisms are automatically selected because the living things that have them survive better. But that idea does not answer the question: Where do the mechanisms come from?
You're basically falling in the hole he basically called out. We can easily say it's ? a higher being or what not but what give the parameters for such ones existence. We don't know but the whole point is not create an entire culture on something we cannot prove and annihilate anyone who thinks different.
if humans can create an entire culture around music creating one around the idea that there is
one supreme ? is inescapable
the need to worship seems to be innate in human. so much so that we often don't even recognize the adoration we give to things of ideas. -
Oya_Husband wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »
thousands of years before humans saw the earth as a globe from space, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah stated with remarkable simplicity: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22)dr funky resurrected wrote: »Watching "the unbelievers" right now. Our minds can't grasp that something can come from nothing. Yet, only a few minds in the world can.
Just like how minds couldn't grasp the world wasn't flat 1,000 years ago, people said it's impossible that the world is round. Then we were proved wrong.
These are facts.
The Bible writer Isaiah avoided the common myths about the earth. Instead, he penned a statement that was not threatened by the advances of scientific discovery.
There is no above and below in space. The earth is not a Circle. That is a flat 2d dimension. It is a sphere.
Job 26:7
" He stretches out the northern sky over empty space,
Suspending the earth upon nothing "
Evolution theory attempts to explain the origin of species. Living things are made up of efficient organs, such as the heart, lungs, and eyes. Also, at the microscopic level, we see marvelously designed ‘machines’ within cells. Where do the designs for those come from? Evolutionists claim that the best mechanisms are automatically selected because the living things that have them survive better. But that idea does not answer the question: Where do the mechanisms come from?
You're basically falling in the hole he basically called out. We can easily say it's ? a higher being or what not but what give the parameters for such ones existence. We don't know but the whole point is not create an entire culture on something we cannot prove and annihilate anyone who thinks different.
if humans can create an entire culture around music creating one around the idea that there is
one supreme ? is inescapable
the need to worship seems to be innate in human. so much so that we often don't even recognize the adoration we give to things of ideas.
People have a need to satiate themselves and find common ground. Music at least has a purpose of overt satiation and communication without presenting itself as what it's not. Nobody is questioning the existence of Music. -
FuriousOne wrote: »evolutionists think life was an accident, if life existing is not all the proof you need then I don't know what to tell you.
also people who ask you to prove ? only prove that they don't understand the concept in the first place.
That's not evolution. That Abiogenesis. Break down the concept then. You're the ones juxtaposing human emotion and reason to your ? hypothesis. You wrote it down and posed the question and came to your own answer. If you can't prove or disprove and do not choose to attempt to validate your offerings scientifically before coming to conclusion, then you are making it up as you go along.
there is no evolution without abiogenesis. we don't believe that the word of ? was authored by human beings we don't come to an answer we accept the answer ? gave to us. we don't always understand the answer and that's why there is religion. -
you cannot prove ? only creation and even that we cannot prove well. but creation indicates creator. we can argue about evolution all day but ultimately it comes down to quantum physics which creates millions of problems for the antigod side.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »evolutionists think life was an accident, if life existing is not all the proof you need then I don't know what to tell you.
also people who ask you to prove ? only prove that they don't understand the concept in the first place.
That's not evolution. That Abiogenesis. Break down the concept then. You're the ones juxtaposing human emotion and reason to your ? hypothesis. You wrote it down and posed the question and came to your own answer. If you can't prove or disprove and do not choose to attempt to validate your offerings scientifically before coming to conclusion, then you are making it up as you go along.
there is no evolution without abiogenesis. we don't believe that the word of ? was authored by human beings we don't come to an answer we accept the answer ? gave to us. we don't always understand the answer and that's why there is religion.
Why are you so quick to believe what someone else received the word of ? ? I know many of you religious folks like to claim that you had similar experiences so the book must be correct. Seems like a self fulfilling prophecy. Evolution could also have started because your ? wanted it that way. Who are you to question? Do you have proof that i don't have to state that it happened differently? Regardless, you claimed Abiogenesis which is a theory to be evolution which is wrong. -
you cannot prove ? only creation and even that we cannot prove well. but creation indicates creator. we can argue about evolution all day but ultimately it comes down to quantum physics which creates millions of problems for the antigod side.
No one was there and no one has ultimate proof of an ultimate answer. There are residual affects that people are studying, but it would be foolish of them to make a religion out of it. Quantum Physics is unfortunately littered with sudo scientist that do just that. There are many competing theories that go way further then your Hypothesis which isn't a theory in the least bit. -
according to science evolution in a sense evolved from abiogenesis so they are part of the same system.
we believe the word of ? not because someone says to but because we can put it's words to the test. when the word says if you do this then that will happen and it does. the book has been proven true in your life. even if it's things you don't want to happen -
not being able to prove/disprove ? is not theory it's fact
-
not being able to prove/disprove ? is not theory it's fact
Wrong. You mention the word ? as if it is self defined. You a have giving ? definition and the definition can be attacked.
-
according to science evolution in a sense evolved from abiogenesis so they are part of the same system.
we believe the word of ? not because someone says to but because we can put it's words to the test. when the word says if you do this then that will happen and it does. the book has been proven true in your life. even if it's things you don't want to happen
Historical facts have been proven accurate, the prevailing claims of the books have not been proven. That just proves that people interpreted events in the most grandiose fashion. Which is the existence of your ? as your book defines it through its actions. Abiogonesis is a separate theory as to what sparked life which in turn led to evolution. You can come up with your own and even include ? as a starting mechanism of a independent growth mechanic in the theory if you can offer facts that there were specific external factors that haven't been observed. -
FuriousOne wrote: »
no the word of ? does not give ? a definition nor can I that is beyond calling ? creator. ? tells you what his personality and attributes are but he does not fully define himself beyond that. he calls himself a spirit that is beyond understanding so he cannot be defined. physically. you can define the word of ? meaning how ? operates but not ? .
Jesus is also called the word but that's another discussion. -
FuriousOne wrote: »
no the word of ? does not give ? a definition nor can I that is beyond calling ? creator. ? tells you what his personality and attributes are but he does not fully define himself beyond that. he calls himself a spirit that is beyond understanding so he cannot be defined. physically. you can define the word of ? meaning how ? operates but not ? .
Jesus is also called the word but that's another discussion.
Every time someone says ? told them to do something, or ? was responsible for an event, that Gives your ? definition. It defines its capabilities and its intent. You say you do not no the plan of ? but the bible seems to have many descriptors of what ? was planning such as creating man in its image. How ? operates is exactly the definition at question. So your are giving your ? definition through its purpose. It doesn't have to be visual. Actions have been fulfilled and its name used as an excuse. Where is the evidence that this is actual and where is the evidence that those worded in that book beyond historical place makers and metaphors are accurate? How can Quantum Physics is getting closer to the answer if there are no defining factors? Those operating factors are exactly what's at question. Can such a been operate in such a fashion within the parameters that were laid out in your holy book? -
FuriousOne wrote: »according to science evolution in a sense evolved from abiogenesis so they are part of the same system.
we believe the word of ? not because someone says to but because we can put it's words to the test. when the word says if you do this then that will happen and it does. the book has been proven true in your life. even if it's things you don't want to happen
Historical facts have been proven accurate, the prevailing claims of the books have not been proven. That just proves that people interpreted events in the most grandiose fashion. Which is the existence of your ? as your book defines it through its actions. Abiogonesis is a separate theory as to what sparked life which in turn led to evolution. You can come up with your own and even include ? as a starting mechanism of a independent growth mechanic in the theory if you can offer facts that there were specific external factors that haven't been observed.
you don't understand I said the book is proven true in your life. and has nothing to do with interpretation. abiogenesis is part of the same thing, you cannot split the two because evolution cannot stand alone -
FuriousOne wrote: »according to science evolution in a sense evolved from abiogenesis so they are part of the same system.
we believe the word of ? not because someone says to but because we can put it's words to the test. when the word says if you do this then that will happen and it does. the book has been proven true in your life. even if it's things you don't want to happen
Historical facts have been proven accurate, the prevailing claims of the books have not been proven. That just proves that people interpreted events in the most grandiose fashion. Which is the existence of your ? as your book defines it through its actions. Abiogonesis is a separate theory as to what sparked life which in turn led to evolution. You can come up with your own and even include ? as a starting mechanism of a independent growth mechanic in the theory if you can offer facts that there were specific external factors that haven't been observed.
you don't understand I said the book is proven true in your life. and has nothing to do with interpretation. abiogenesis is part of the same thing, you cannot split the two because evolution cannot stand alone
You need to speak in less code. The book exist so ? exist? what a reach. Abiognesis is a process that initiates another process. More evidence points to that, but doesn't have to be necessarily that. It's like choosing to take a car or a plane to your destination. You're going to get there, but there may have been other options unknown. It is not an ultimately settled question unlike the process of evolution. Maybe the more correct Vehicle was your ? with its magic wand. Once again. Not the same. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »
thousands of years before humans saw the earth as a globe from space, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah stated with remarkable simplicity: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22)dr funky resurrected wrote: »Watching "the unbelievers" right now. Our minds can't grasp that something can come from nothing. Yet, only a few minds in the world can.
Just like how minds couldn't grasp the world wasn't flat 1,000 years ago, people said it's impossible that the world is round. Then we were proved wrong.
These are facts.
The Bible writer Isaiah avoided the common myths about the earth. Instead, he penned a statement that was not threatened by the advances of scientific discovery.
There is no above and below in space. The earth is not a Circle. That is a flat 2d dimension. It is a sphere.
Job 26:7
" He stretches out the northern sky over empty space,
Suspending the earth upon nothing "
Evolution theory attempts to explain the origin of species. Living things are made up of efficient organs, such as the heart, lungs, and eyes. Also, at the microscopic level, we see marvelously designed ‘machines’ within cells. Where do the designs for those come from? Evolutionists claim that the best mechanisms are automatically selected because the living things that have them survive better. But that idea does not answer the question: Where do the mechanisms come from?
Some of our organs are not very efficient. Other animals do better then us in many areas of ? capabilities and durability without external aid. We have creatures living in depths and heights unassisted which would annihilate us naturally. They don't do anything special though but live. Evolution has answered the question of how those mechanisms developed. The underlining mechanisms of basic chemistry and energy is what the ultimate question. I don't think the question mans origins has been the issue, it's the question of mans intelligence (how ever defined) that developed from those origins. Evolution is a different science then the theory of everything which does not require mans input or existence to be.
Humans have qualities far beyond what is necessary for mere survival. In fact, we care for sick people and help those who are less fortunate. Why would we do that if evolution—with its ‘survival of the fittest’ motto—were true?
When you realize that it’s taken the most intelligent human minds hundreds of years to understand even the smallest fraction of the universe, then thinking that it took no intelligence to bring that universe into existence seems completely unreasonable! -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »
no the word of ? does not give ? a definition nor can I that is beyond calling ? creator. ? tells you what his personality and attributes are but he does not fully define himself beyond that. he calls himself a spirit that is beyond understanding so he cannot be defined. physically. you can define the word of ? meaning how ? operates but not ? .
Jesus is also called the word but that's another discussion.
Every time someone says ? told them to do something, or ? was responsible for an event, that Gives your ? definition. It defines its capabilities and its intent. You say you do not no the plan of ? but the bible seems to have many descriptors of what ? was planning such as creating man in its image. How ? operates is exactly the definition at question. So your are giving your ? definition through its purpose. It doesn't have to be visual. Actions have been fulfilled and its name used as an excuse. Where is the evidence that this is actual and where is the evidence that those worded in that book beyond historical place makers and metaphors are accurate? How can Quantum Physics is getting closer to the answer if there are no defining factors? Those operating factors are exactly what's at question. Can such a been operate in such a fashion within the parameters that were laid out in your holy book?
people can say what they want. and often blame ? for things he did not do. ? calls himself a spirit man was madein the image of a spirit, who man is and what we really are is not our bodies. ? has said he cannot be defined. we look at his reactions to us but judging those actions provide no definition.
are you asking me if ? operates by quantum physics -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »
thousands of years before humans saw the earth as a globe from space, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah stated with remarkable simplicity: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22)dr funky resurrected wrote: »Watching "the unbelievers" right now. Our minds can't grasp that something can come from nothing. Yet, only a few minds in the world can.
Just like how minds couldn't grasp the world wasn't flat 1,000 years ago, people said it's impossible that the world is round. Then we were proved wrong.
These are facts.
The Bible writer Isaiah avoided the common myths about the earth. Instead, he penned a statement that was not threatened by the advances of scientific discovery.
There is no above and below in space. The earth is not a Circle. That is a flat 2d dimension. It is a sphere.
Job 26:7
" He stretches out the northern sky over empty space,
Suspending the earth upon nothing "
Evolution theory attempts to explain the origin of species. Living things are made up of efficient organs, such as the heart, lungs, and eyes. Also, at the microscopic level, we see marvelously designed ‘machines’ within cells. Where do the designs for those come from? Evolutionists claim that the best mechanisms are automatically selected because the living things that have them survive better. But that idea does not answer the question: Where do the mechanisms come from?
Some of our organs are not very efficient. Other animals do better then us in many areas of ? capabilities and durability without external aid. We have creatures living in depths and heights unassisted which would annihilate us naturally. They don't do anything special though but live. Evolution has answered the question of how those mechanisms developed. The underlining mechanisms of basic chemistry and energy is what the ultimate question. I don't think the question mans origins has been the issue, it's the question of mans intelligence (how ever defined) that developed from those origins. Evolution is a different science then the theory of everything which does not require mans input or existence to be.
Humans have qualities far beyond what is necessary for mere survival. In fact, we care for sick people and help those who are less fortunate. Why would we do that if evolution—with its ‘survival of the fittest’ motto—were true?
When you realize that it’s taken the most intelligent human minds hundreds of years to understand even the smallest fraction of the universe, then thinking that it took no intelligence to bring that universe into existence seems completely unreasonable!
Animals also care for the sick and not all humans have those same attributes. Regardless, you are the one that bought up organs. Survival of fittest means that you are fit enough to care for your clan and they survive over those who weren't capable no matter their efforts because other factors prevented such preservation procedures. It may not have taken intelligence, but it did take time. Insane is believing that the universe is so dependent on your definitions even after you say it took so long to understand everything. You assume that you through your book have the understanding. Humans have progressed quite rapidly since they decided to investigate origins without the hindrance of people burning them at the stake or killing them for being infidels. You seem to think that others have it figured out and they don't. If you wish to postulate that an intelligence created everything, go for it. Just present evidence before you decide to know what this intelligence wants and what this intelligence has communicated other then the human imagination. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »
thousands of years before humans saw the earth as a globe from space, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah stated with remarkable simplicity: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22)dr funky resurrected wrote: »Watching "the unbelievers" right now. Our minds can't grasp that something can come from nothing. Yet, only a few minds in the world can.
Just like how minds couldn't grasp the world wasn't flat 1,000 years ago, people said it's impossible that the world is round. Then we were proved wrong.
These are facts.
The Bible writer Isaiah avoided the common myths about the earth. Instead, he penned a statement that was not threatened by the advances of scientific discovery.
There is no above and below in space. The earth is not a Circle. That is a flat 2d dimension. It is a sphere.
Job 26:7
" He stretches out the northern sky over empty space,
Suspending the earth upon nothing "
Evolution theory attempts to explain the origin of species. Living things are made up of efficient organs, such as the heart, lungs, and eyes. Also, at the microscopic level, we see marvelously designed ‘machines’ within cells. Where do the designs for those come from? Evolutionists claim that the best mechanisms are automatically selected because the living things that have them survive better. But that idea does not answer the question: Where do the mechanisms come from?
Some of our organs are not very efficient. Other animals do better then us in many areas of ? capabilities and durability without external aid. We have creatures living in depths and heights unassisted which would annihilate us naturally. They don't do anything special though but live. Evolution has answered the question of how those mechanisms developed. The underlining mechanisms of basic chemistry and energy is what the ultimate question. I don't think the question mans origins has been the issue, it's the question of mans intelligence (how ever defined) that developed from those origins. Evolution is a different science then the theory of everything which does not require mans input or existence to be.
Humans have qualities far beyond what is necessary for mere survival. In fact, we care for sick people and help those who are less fortunate. Why would we do that if evolution—with its ‘survival of the fittest’ motto—were true?
When you realize that it’s taken the most intelligent human minds hundreds of years to understand even the smallest fraction of the universe, then thinking that it took no intelligence to bring that universe into existence seems completely unreasonable!
Animals also care for the sick and not all humans have those same attributes. Regardless, you are the one that bought up organs. Survival of fittest means that you are fit enough to care for your clan and they survive over those who weren't capable no matter their efforts because other factors prevented such preservation procedures. It may not have taken intelligence, but it did take time. Insane is believing that the universe is so dependent on your definitions even after you say it took so long to understand everything. You assume that you through your book have the understanding. Humans have progressed quite rapidly since they decided to investigate origins without the hindrance of people burning them at the stake or killing them for being infidels. You seem to think that others have it figured out and they don't. If you wish to postulate that an intelligence created everything, go for it. Just present evidence before you decide to know what this intelligence wants and what this intelligence has communicated other then the human imagination.
Scientists don’t agree on evolution. Despite decades of research, scientists have yet to come up with an explanation for evolution that they all can agree on.
To think about: If scientists can’t agree on evolution—and they’re supposed to be the experts—are you wrong to question the theory?
If you were walking through the forest and discovered a beautiful log cabin, would you think: ‘How fascinating! The trees must have fallen in just the right way to make this house.’ Of course not! It’s just not reasonable. So why should we believe that everything in the universe just happened to come about?
-
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »
no the word of ? does not give ? a definition nor can I that is beyond calling ? creator. ? tells you what his personality and attributes are but he does not fully define himself beyond that. he calls himself a spirit that is beyond understanding so he cannot be defined. physically. you can define the word of ? meaning how ? operates but not ? .
Jesus is also called the word but that's another discussion.
Every time someone says ? told them to do something, or ? was responsible for an event, that Gives your ? definition. It defines its capabilities and its intent. You say you do not no the plan of ? but the bible seems to have many descriptors of what ? was planning such as creating man in its image. How ? operates is exactly the definition at question. So your are giving your ? definition through its purpose. It doesn't have to be visual. Actions have been fulfilled and its name used as an excuse. Where is the evidence that this is actual and where is the evidence that those worded in that book beyond historical place makers and metaphors are accurate? How can Quantum Physics is getting closer to the answer if there are no defining factors? Those operating factors are exactly what's at question. Can such a been operate in such a fashion within the parameters that were laid out in your holy book?
people can say what they want. and often blame ? for things he did not do. ? calls himself a spirit man was madein the image of a spirit, who man is and what we really are is not our bodies. ? has said he cannot be defined. we look at his reactions to us but judging those actions provide no definition.
are you asking me if ? operates by quantum physics
Your religious text is making claims that you follow. Are you saying that those are false claims and misplaced attribution? I'm asking if Quantum Physics can prove something that you claim does not choose to be defined since you said that it was getting closer? You would also have to prove that we have a spirit. It seems our brain is doing all the work for or thought process and through evidence of brain damage and those being born without a functional brain yet only maintaining life through machine support. We can live without other organs including the heart (it must be replaced or supplemented by other mechanisms), but we can not live or be without a brain. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »
thousands of years before humans saw the earth as a globe from space, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah stated with remarkable simplicity: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22)dr funky resurrected wrote: »Watching "the unbelievers" right now. Our minds can't grasp that something can come from nothing. Yet, only a few minds in the world can.
Just like how minds couldn't grasp the world wasn't flat 1,000 years ago, people said it's impossible that the world is round. Then we were proved wrong.
These are facts.
The Bible writer Isaiah avoided the common myths about the earth. Instead, he penned a statement that was not threatened by the advances of scientific discovery.
There is no above and below in space. The earth is not a Circle. That is a flat 2d dimension. It is a sphere.
Job 26:7
" He stretches out the northern sky over empty space,
Suspending the earth upon nothing "
Evolution theory attempts to explain the origin of species. Living things are made up of efficient organs, such as the heart, lungs, and eyes. Also, at the microscopic level, we see marvelously designed ‘machines’ within cells. Where do the designs for those come from? Evolutionists claim that the best mechanisms are automatically selected because the living things that have them survive better. But that idea does not answer the question: Where do the mechanisms come from?
Some of our organs are not very efficient. Other animals do better then us in many areas of ? capabilities and durability without external aid. We have creatures living in depths and heights unassisted which would annihilate us naturally. They don't do anything special though but live. Evolution has answered the question of how those mechanisms developed. The underlining mechanisms of basic chemistry and energy is what the ultimate question. I don't think the question mans origins has been the issue, it's the question of mans intelligence (how ever defined) that developed from those origins. Evolution is a different science then the theory of everything which does not require mans input or existence to be.
Humans have qualities far beyond what is necessary for mere survival. In fact, we care for sick people and help those who are less fortunate. Why would we do that if evolution—with its ‘survival of the fittest’ motto—were true?
When you realize that it’s taken the most intelligent human minds hundreds of years to understand even the smallest fraction of the universe, then thinking that it took no intelligence to bring that universe into existence seems completely unreasonable!
Animals also care for the sick and not all humans have those same attributes. Regardless, you are the one that bought up organs. Survival of fittest means that you are fit enough to care for your clan and they survive over those who weren't capable no matter their efforts because other factors prevented such preservation procedures. It may not have taken intelligence, but it did take time. Insane is believing that the universe is so dependent on your definitions even after you say it took so long to understand everything. You assume that you through your book have the understanding. Humans have progressed quite rapidly since they decided to investigate origins without the hindrance of people burning them at the stake or killing them for being infidels. You seem to think that others have it figured out and they don't. If you wish to postulate that an intelligence created everything, go for it. Just present evidence before you decide to know what this intelligence wants and what this intelligence has communicated other then the human imagination.
Scientists don’t agree on evolution. Despite decades of research, scientists have yet to come up with an explanation for evolution that they all can agree on.
To think about: If scientists can’t agree on evolution—and they’re supposed to be the experts—are you wrong to question the theory?
If you were walking through the forest and discovered a beautiful log cabin, would you think: ‘How fascinating! The trees must have fallen in just the right way to make this house.’ Of course not! It’s just not reasonable. So why should we believe that everything in the universe just happened to come about?
If i see a log cabin, i would assume that I've seen one before before i call it a log cabin. Scientist don't agree of certain principles of how evolution works, but they don't question its existence. that's just the thing, scientist don't settle on their laurels and accept things as facts even when everyone says it is. It's way we have discoveries by one lone scientist that bucked the trend. That scientist still has to prove their efforts to be factual. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »
no the word of ? does not give ? a definition nor can I that is beyond calling ? creator. ? tells you what his personality and attributes are but he does not fully define himself beyond that. he calls himself a spirit that is beyond understanding so he cannot be defined. physically. you can define the word of ? meaning how ? operates but not ? .
Jesus is also called the word but that's another discussion.
Every time someone says ? told them to do something, or ? was responsible for an event, that Gives your ? definition. It defines its capabilities and its intent. You say you do not no the plan of ? but the bible seems to have many descriptors of what ? was planning such as creating man in its image. How ? operates is exactly the definition at question. So your are giving your ? definition through its purpose. It doesn't have to be visual. Actions have been fulfilled and its name used as an excuse. Where is the evidence that this is actual and where is the evidence that those worded in that book beyond historical place makers and metaphors are accurate? How can Quantum Physics is getting closer to the answer if there are no defining factors? Those operating factors are exactly what's at question. Can such a been operate in such a fashion within the parameters that were laid out in your holy book?
people can say what they want. and often blame ? for things he did not do. ? calls himself a spirit man was madein the image of a spirit, who man is and what we really are is not our bodies. ? has said he cannot be defined. we look at his reactions to us but judging those actions provide no definition.
are you asking me if ? operates by quantum physics
Your religious text is making claims that you follow. Are you saying that those are false claims and misplaced attribution? I'm asking if Quantum Physics can prove something that you claim does not choose to be defined since you said that it was getting closer? You would also have to prove that we have a spirit. It seems our brain is doing all the work for or thought process and through evidence of brain damage and those being born without a functional brain yet only maintaining life through machine support. We can live without other organs including the heart (it must be replaced or supplemented by other mechanisms), but we can not live or be without a brain.
the claims are true but not everything man attributes to ? is his work. quantum physics cannot prove ? or the spirit to begin with which quantum theory?? the only thing that we can really prove its that we think we exist. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »
no the word of ? does not give ? a definition nor can I that is beyond calling ? creator. ? tells you what his personality and attributes are but he does not fully define himself beyond that. he calls himself a spirit that is beyond understanding so he cannot be defined. physically. you can define the word of ? meaning how ? operates but not ? .
Jesus is also called the word but that's another discussion.
Every time someone says ? told them to do something, or ? was responsible for an event, that Gives your ? definition. It defines its capabilities and its intent. You say you do not no the plan of ? but the bible seems to have many descriptors of what ? was planning such as creating man in its image. How ? operates is exactly the definition at question. So your are giving your ? definition through its purpose. It doesn't have to be visual. Actions have been fulfilled and its name used as an excuse. Where is the evidence that this is actual and where is the evidence that those worded in that book beyond historical place makers and metaphors are accurate? How can Quantum Physics is getting closer to the answer if there are no defining factors? Those operating factors are exactly what's at question. Can such a been operate in such a fashion within the parameters that were laid out in your holy book?
people can say what they want. and often blame ? for things he did not do. ? calls himself a spirit man was madein the image of a spirit, who man is and what we really are is not our bodies. ? has said he cannot be defined. we look at his reactions to us but judging those actions provide no definition.
are you asking me if ? operates by quantum physics
Your religious text is making claims that you follow. Are you saying that those are false claims and misplaced attribution? I'm asking if Quantum Physics can prove something that you claim does not choose to be defined since you said that it was getting closer? You would also have to prove that we have a spirit. It seems our brain is doing all the work for or thought process and through evidence of brain damage and those being born without a functional brain yet only maintaining life through machine support. We can live without other organs including the heart (it must be replaced or supplemented by other mechanisms), but we can not live or be without a brain.
the claims are true but not everything man attributes to ? is his work. quantum physics cannot prove ? or the spirit to begin with which quantum theory?? the only thing that we can really prove its that we think we exist.ultimately it comes down to quantum physics which creates millions of problems for the antigod side.
Is this statement indicating that Quantum physics has shown that it can prove there is a ? ? -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »according to science evolution in a sense evolved from abiogenesis so they are part of the same system.
we believe the word of ? not because someone says to but because we can put it's words to the test. when the word says if you do this then that will happen and it does. the book has been proven true in your life. even if it's things you don't want to happen
Historical facts have been proven accurate, the prevailing claims of the books have not been proven. That just proves that people interpreted events in the most grandiose fashion. Which is the existence of your ? as your book defines it through its actions. Abiogonesis is a separate theory as to what sparked life which in turn led to evolution. You can come up with your own and even include ? as a starting mechanism of a independent growth mechanic in the theory if you can offer facts that there were specific external factors that haven't been observed.
you don't understand I said the book is proven true in your life. and has nothing to do with interpretation. abiogenesis is part of the same thing, you cannot split the two because evolution cannot stand alone
You need to speak in less code. The book exist so ? exist? what a reach. Abiognesis is a process that initiates another process. More evidence points to that, but doesn't have to be necessarily that. It's like choosing to take a car or a plane to your destination. You're going to get there, but there may have been other options unknown. It is not an ultimately settled question unlike the process of evolution. Maybe the more correct Vehicle was your ? with its magic wand. Once again. Not the same.
I said the word of ? is true because what it says will happen will happen in your life.
science has come up with nothing better than abiogenesis to explain how evolution was sparked. therefore they are dependent on each other. -
evolution is dependent on abiogenesis
