Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 98
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there David,

    There is no mystery about the formation of atoms. We can do it in the lab. Just take a free electron and collide it with a free proton, and TADA! you will have a hydrogen atom. Then take a hydrogen atom and collide it with another hydrogen atom and TADA! you'll have H2. The collide the H2 with an oxygen atom and you will get H2O = water. All of these processes occur through known natural laws. There is no need for any divine action at any point in this sequence of chemical evolution. It can be tested in the lab.

    As for the other areas of science that are on the speculative cutting edge - what else would we expect? We've only been doing modern science like Quantum Mechanics for less than a hundred years now.

    Richard
    OK. Let's split atoms; it is better than splitting hairs.

    How was the electron formed or the proton or the neutron or the quarks etc. that make up those components?

    You have to make all the constituent parts of the hydrogen atom. I understand how atoms hydrogen atoms bond thereafter and what makes up the various atomic elements.

    While you are explaining this, can you explain where gravity comes from. It seems to be eluding the scientists and does not fit in with their accepted model of the atom.

    All the best,

    David

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    13,920
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    OK. Let's split atoms; it is better than splitting hairs.

    How was the electron formed or the proton or the neutron or the quarks etc. that make up those components?

    You have to make all the constituent parts of the hydrogen atom. I understand how atoms hydrogen atoms bond thereafter and what makes up the various atomic elements.

    While you are explaining this, can you explain where gravity comes from. It seems to be eluding the scientists and does not fit in with their accepted model of the atom.

    All the best,

    David
    OK - it sounds like you agree that the formation of atoms from subatomic particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons can be fully explained by natural law. That's all that's needed to move forward in this conversation. The question about the ultimate source of matter and energy would just lead us back to the Big Bang. There is only one "gap" in physics where the God hypothesis is still viable - what caused the Big Bang and established the laws of physics? But that's a purely metaphysical question in the most literal sense, since physics deals only with what can be objectively verified. Any events before the Big Bang, or even if they needed a "cause", are entirely speculative.

    So let's move this conversation forward rather than backwards. Here is my conception of what we know and where God could fit in the picture. I begin with Big Bang. I think it was probably energy in the form of pure radiation (or perhaps a soup of radiation and quarks) that then cooled to produce particles like electrons, protons and neutrons. It doesn't really matter for my conception of how things got here:

    BIG BANG - Maybe God did it, maybe natural law. <===================== A gap God might fill!
    Formation of atoms through natural law (physics)
    Formation of basic molecules like H2O through natural law (physics)
    Formation of more complex molecules through natural law (chemical evolution)
    Formation of self-replicating molecules (natural law? If not, then skip this step)
    Formation of the first cell (God or natural law?) <====================== A gap God might fill!
    Evolution of the first cell (mutation + natural selection)
    Evolution of species (mutation + natural selection)
    Evolution of humans (mutation + natural selection)

    Of course, the first "gap" is not really a gap at all, since nothing precedes it. The only real gap that I see is in the formation of the first cell.

    Everything that we can see and touch, including our own bodies, operate purely by natural law that we can measure, test, and verify. So it seems that the "God hypothesis" is entirely out of place in all this science and to insert him into the one gap that we can find seems rather desperate, arbitrary, and unjustified.

    Remember, the only reason you are pursing this line of reasoning is because you began with a religious belief that you are seeking to justify. So the real question is "Why should we begin with such a belief?" If we just began with science and what we can actually know, the God hypothesis would never be needed.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    So let's move this conversation forward rather than backwards. Here is my conception of what we know and where God could fit in the picture. I begin with Big Bang. I think it was probably energy in the form of pure radiation (or perhaps a soup of radiation and quarks) that then cooled to produce particles like electrons, protons and neutrons. It doesn't really matter for my conception of how things got here:

    BIG BANG - Maybe God did it, maybe natural law. <===================== A gap God might fill!
    Formation of atoms through natural law (physics)
    Formation of basic molecules like H2O through natural law (physics)
    Formation of more complex molecules through natural law (chemical evolution)
    Formation of self-replicating molecules (natural law? If not, then skip this step)
    Formation of the first cell (God or natural law?) <====================== A gap God might fill!
    Evolution of the first cell (mutation + natural selection)
    Evolution of species (mutation + natural selection)
    Evolution of humans (mutation + natural selection)
    Of course, the first "gap" is not really a gap at all, since nothing precedes it. The only real gap that I see is in the formation of the first cell.
    Instead of a Gap at the Big Bang, it is an explanation that is needed. If Evolution cannot explain how the universe came into existence, then "God" can be the answer. "God" might be the answer to any question/gap that Evolution cannot give the answer to or provide the necessary proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Everything that we can see and touch, including our own bodies, operate purely by natural law that we can measure, test, and verify. So it seems that the "God hypothesis" is entirely out of place in all this science and to insert him into the one gap that we can find seems rather desperate, arbitrary, and unjustified.
    It is not desperation on my part, but I sense a desperation on your part to eliminate God altogether.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Remember, the only reason you are pursing this line of reasoning is because you began with a religious belief that you are seeking to justify. So the real question is "Why should we begin with such a belief?" If we just began with science and what we can actually know, the God hypothesis would never be needed.
    The only reason I am pursuing this is to find a balance between Evolution and Creation to explain the formation of plants and animals over a long period of time and to overcome the obstacles caused by gaps or lack of proof on the side of science.
    Science does not know everything and that is why if we start as you suggest and begin with the science we know, there will come a point where science does not know the answer, and that is when we can insert God into the timeline.

    If you want to start of at the beginning of say the first cell and progress from there along scientific grounds, let's see how far we get.

    All the best,

    David

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    13,920
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    OK - it sounds like you agree that the formation of atoms from subatomic particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons can be fully explained by natural law. That's all that's needed to move forward in this conversation. The question about the ultimate source of matter and energy would just lead us back to the Big Bang. There is only one "gap" in physics where the God hypothesis is still viable - what caused the Big Bang and established the laws of physics? But that's a purely metaphysical question in the most literal sense, since physics deals only with what can be objectively verified. Any events before the Big Bang, or even if they needed a "cause", are entirely speculative.

    So let's move this conversation forward rather than backwards. Here is my conception of what we know and where God could fit in the picture. I begin with Big Bang. I think it was probably energy in the form of pure radiation (or perhaps a soup of radiation and quarks) that then cooled to produce particles like electrons, protons and neutrons. It doesn't really matter for my conception of how things got here:

    BIG BANG - Maybe God did it, maybe natural law. <===================== A gap God might fill!
    Formation of atoms through natural law (physics)
    Formation of basic molecules like H2O through natural law (physics)
    Formation of more complex molecules through natural law (chemical evolution)
    Formation of self-replicating molecules (natural law? If not, then skip this step)
    Formation of the first cell (God or natural law?) <====================== A gap God might fill!
    Evolution of the first cell (mutation + natural selection)
    Evolution of species (mutation + natural selection)
    Evolution of humans (mutation + natural selection)
    Of course, the first "gap" is not really a gap at all, since nothing precedes it. The only real gap that I see is in the formation of the first cell.
    Instead of a Gap at the Big Bang, it is an explanation that is needed. If Evolution cannot explain how the universe came into existence, then "God" can be the answer. "God" might be the answer to any question/gap that Evolution cannot give the answer to or provide the necessary proof.
    Good morning David,

    By "gap" I meant "gap in our knowledge." We do not have scientific knowledge about what caused the Big Bang. An explanation would fill that "gap."

    And as I said, "There is only one 'gap' in physics where the God hypothesis is still viable." The fact that creationists must focus on that one gap shows how weak their argument really is. There is nothing about the way that the universe actually functions that needs God as an answer. The God concept is viable only in areas that are currently beyond our scientific knowledge. That is the classic "God of the Gaps" argument. Here is a brief explanation of this error:
    "God of the gaps" is used to describe the tendency of believers to appeal to God as the cause for phenomena which human knowledge has not yet explained. When these gaps are filled, the believer just jumps to the next gap and the game can continue ad nauseam until human knowledge is able to explain everything. The argument is an instance of the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. Nor is it a very theologically sound argument, as it has the effect of reducing and diminishing one's god over time.
    One of the more prominent examples of current "God of the Gaps" thinking is the Intelligent Design movement, which claims that some aspects of how life formed are impossible to explain not only with today's scientific knowledge, but ever.

    The God of the Gaps argument finds what is perhaps its most popular manifestation in ideas about first cause. The argument essentially suggests that, as there is no commonly accepted theory to completely explain the original origin of the universe, then God (or Gods) must exist.
    This is one of the oldest, and most obviously fallacious, tricks in the creationist toolkit.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    Everything that we can see and touch, including our own bodies, operate purely by natural law that we can measure, test, and verify. So it seems that the "God hypothesis" is entirely out of place in all this science and to insert him into the one gap that we can find seems rather desperate, arbitrary, and unjustified.
    It is not desperation on my part, but I sense a desperation on your part to eliminate God altogether.
    Your senses are misleading you. I have absolutely no need to "eliminate" God in any way at all. Zero. Nada. Zilch. I would have no problem at all if some kind of God were necessary to explain the origin of the universe or the origin of the first cell. It would not give one ounce of support to your claims about the God of the Bible. Your entire line of argument is meaningless because it is absolutely impossible for you to prove that any God is necessary because you have no way to know if there might be a scientific explanation. And even if you could prove some sort of God was necessary, it would be irrelevant to our conversation because that God would have nothing to do with your claims concerning the God of the Bible who we know is not the true God for many reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    Remember, the only reason you are pursing this line of reasoning is because you began with a religious belief that you are seeking to justify. So the real question is "Why should we begin with such a belief?" If we just began with science and what we can actually know, the God hypothesis would never be needed.
    The only reason I am pursuing this is to find a balance between Evolution and Creation to explain the formation of plants and animals over a long period of time and to overcome the obstacles caused by gaps or lack of proof on the side of science.
    Science does not know everything and that is why if we start as you suggest and begin with the science we know, there will come a point where science does not know the answer, and that is when we can insert God into the timeline.
    I see nothing that indicates you "want to overcome the obstacles caused by gaps." On the contrary, I see you looking for gaps so you can find a place where you can insert your preconceived God concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    If you want to start of at the beginning of say the first cell and progress from there along scientific grounds, let's see how far we get.
    OK - sounds good. The first cell was busy replicating. The process involved mutation, gene drift, inheritance, and natural selection. As time progressed, more and more diverse and complex organisms evolved. I'll let you choose which part(s) of this process you would like to explore and/or challenge.

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,371

    Where should one begin?

    Here is a link to a webpage showing us this simplest living cell and the basic information.

    http://www.dstoner.net/Math_Science/cell1.html

    Would anyone like to make a list of the all the parts and the various molecules that are required to make one part?
    The separate parts should listed in ascending order of complexity.

    Once we have the simplest part, can the molecules be brought together in the laboratory to make that part? Once the easiest part has been accomplished, the second simplest part can be tackled. Bringing the parts together in an order that can be maintained while other parts have still to be made is the next challenge.

    The questions about constructing a living cell are brought up at the end of the article.

    Evolution and the non-existence of God has to be proven by being able to piece together a provable way in which the first simple cell came about. Maybe someone has a link to a site showing a simulation of how everything came together.

    A list should be able to be put together starting with the simplest part and ending with the most complex part. We can begin with the simplest part then have to show how it is possible for the different molecules to come together and hold together while the other parts are still being formed. Once all the separate small parts are shown as possible to make, then in what order do the separate parts have to come together?

    My experience of machines is that they tend to fall apart. Nuts and bolts come loose, screws drop out and the machine parts separate and the machine stops working.

    Getting the parts of the simple cell to come together and work has to be done in a way that it works to produce a living cell. Expecting the parts to randomly come together would be on a par with putting the components of a simple machine in a box and shaking (vibrating) it and for the parts to randomly fly back and forth inside the box crashing into each other and somehow self assemble. It sounds impossible; so it is likely to be impossible. Getting one nut to self align to a screw thread and have the right torque applied to get the nut to turn along the thread, is as far as I know, impossible. For a nut and bolt to come together and tighten requires controlled forces. Some intelligent controller must be controlling those forces. Without the controlled force, I shall say it is impossible for an nut and bolt to come together randomly and self-tighten. I do not mind being proven wrong on that, but that is only one of many other difficult tasks required in the self-assembly of a machine. We are looking at the same thing expecting molecules to self assemble.

    Chemicals, and organic molecules are different to a set of machine parts. Chemicals and molecules can combine unlike a nut and bolt coming together and self tightening. Getting the molecules to come together in the right way so they hold together and grow and become more complex is the challenge to prove possible.


    In the video, 'The Statistical Impossibility of Evolution' the probability for Evolution is calculated to be of the order; 10112,827. To get this into perspective, let's look at some large numbers.

    A Googol is 1 followed by 100 zeros (1,000,000,000,.....,000) One hundred can be written 102 (to keep the number short). A Googol is 10100 or 10102
    A Googolplex is the largest number given a name. It is 10googol and it is a number that is larger than the number of all the atoms in the whole universe.
    A Googolplex can be written as 10Googol or 1010100 or 1010102

    The probability of 10100,000 is much greater than a Googol, but far less than a Googolplex. Given that one million is 106, a billion is 109 and one thousand billion would be 1012 you can see that 10100,000 is an enormously large number and when you think that winning the lottery is of the order of 17 million to one, the odds of Evolution are miniscule. That is why it is considered to be an impossibility by statistics.

    David
    Last edited by David M; 07-28-2014 at 06:21 PM.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Here is a link to a webpage showing us this simplest living cell and the basic information.

    http://www.dstoner.net/Math_Science/cell1.html

    Would anyone like to make a list of the all the parts and the various molecules that are required to make one part?
    The separate parts should listed in ascending order of complexity.

    Once we have the simplest part, can the molecules be brought together in the laboratory to make that part? Once the easiest part has been accomplished, the second simplest part can be tackled. Bringing the parts together in an order that can be maintained while other parts have still to be made is the next challenge.

    The questions about constructing a living cell are brought up at the end of the article.

    Evolution and the non-existence of God has to be proven by being able to piece together a provable way in which the first simple cell came about. Maybe someone has a link to a site showing a simulation of how everything came together.

    A list should be able to be put together starting with the simplest part and ending with the most complex part. We can begin with the simplest part then have to show how it is possible for the different molecules to come together and hold together while the other parts are still being formed. Once all the separate small parts are shown as possible to make, then in what order do the separate parts have to come together?

    My experience of machines is that they tend to fall apart. Nuts and bolts come loose, screws drop out and the machine parts separate and the machine stops working.

    Getting the parts of the simple cell to come together and work has to be done in a way that it works to produce a living cell. Expecting the parts to randomly come together would be on a par with putting the components of a simple machine in a box and shaking (vibrating) it and for the parts to randomly fly back and forth inside the box crashing into each other and somehow self assemble. It sounds impossible; so it is likely to be impossible. Getting one nut to self align to a screw thread and have the right torque applied to get the nut to turn along the thread, is as far as I know, impossible. For a nut and bolt to come together and tighten requires controlled forces. Some intelligent controller must be controlling those forces. Without the controlled force, I shall say it is impossible for an nut and bolt to come together randomly and self-tighten. I do not mind being proven wrong on that, but that is only one of many other difficult tasks required in the self-assembly of a machine. We are looking at the same thing expecting molecules to self assemble.

    Chemicals, and organic molecules are different to a set of machine parts. Chemicals and molecules can combine unlike a nut and bolt coming together and self tightening. Getting the molecules to come together in the right way so they hold together and grow and become more complex is the challenge to prove possible.


    In the video, 'The Statistical Impossibility of Evolution' the probability for Evolution is calculated to be of the order; 10112,827. To get this into perspective, let's look at some large numbers.

    A Googol is 1 followed by 100 zeros (1,000,000,000,.....,000) One hundred can be written 102 (to keep the number short). A Googol is 10100 or 10102
    A Googolplex is the largest number given a name. It is 10googol and it is a number that is larger than the number of all the atoms in the whole universe.
    A Googolplex can be written as 10Googol or 1010100 or 1010102

    The probability of 10100,000 is much greater than a Googol, but far less than a Googolplex. Given that one million is 106, a billion is 109 and one thousand billion would be 1012 you can see that 10100,000 is an enormously large number and when you think that winning the lottery is of the order of 17 million to one, the odds of Evolution are miniscule. That is why it is considered to be an impossibility by statistics.

    David

    Hello again David

    The mathematical probabilities for chance construction of a cell reminds me of Richard's exquisite presentation that concludes Chapter 3 of the Bible Wheel Book. Here are Richard's own words...

    "Never in the history of the world has anyone beheld such a profoundly compact and reiterative compound symbol in the structure of any book, let alone a book that proclaims itself Divine, that defines and exemplifies the symbols in its own text, that was composed in three languages over a period of fifteen hundred years by multiple individuals from all walks of life, that transformed the world with its message, and that kept its secret hidden for centuries after its completion only to be revealed when it was simply "rolled up like a scroll" on the alphabetic pattern established within its own pages! Obviously, we are beholding a blazing immutable miracle straight from the Mind of Almighty God".

    I think Richard could repeat that last bold phrase in appreciation of the living cell!


    Even though Richard still sells the book, he has generously shared this divine revelation from God on the web, free of charge I think. You can find here http://www.biblewheel.com/Book/Chapters/Chapt01.php.


    John

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    H

    Evolution and the non-existence of God has to be proven by being able to piece together a provable way in which the first simple cell came about. Maybe someone has a link to a site showing a simulation of how everything came together.
    Why do you come up with such silly crap? We don't need to know how the first simple cell came about to prove evolution. Evolution does NOT explain how life came to be. It is the process AFTER life has begun. Good grief.



    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    In the video, 'The Statistical Impossibility of Evolution' the probability for Evolution is calculated to be of the order; 10112,827. To get this into perspective, let's look at some large numbers.
    That video is for boneheads who know NOTHING about evolution. That speaker tries to come up with the statistical probability of evolution and he can't even represent what evolution is. Starting at 3:10 into the video the speaker says you have to have faith to believe evolution. Evolution is nothing like creation. It has been proven 10,000 times over, we have evidence for it. And the ignorant speaker (like you David) lumps how life came to be with evolution. It doesn't get any dumber than that.


    How can you prove the statistical improbability of evolution, when you don't even know what the theory of evolution is?

    It's no wonder your mind is polluted with garbage. You actually believe these guys.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  8. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Hello again David

    The mathematical probabilities for chance construction of a cell reminds me of Richard's exquisite presentation that concludes Chapter 3 of the Bible Wheel Book. Here are Richard's own words...

    "Never in the history of the world has anyone beheld such a profoundly compact and reiterative compound symbol in the structure of any book, let alone a book that proclaims itself Divine, that defines and exemplifies the symbols in its own text, that was composed in three languages over a period of fifteen hundred years by multiple individuals from all walks of life, that transformed the world with its message, and that kept its secret hidden for centuries after its completion only to be revealed when it was simply "rolled up like a scroll" on the alphabetic pattern established within its own pages! Obviously, we are beholding a blazing immutable miracle straight from the Mind of Almighty God".

    I think Richard could repeat that last bold phrase in appreciation of the living cell!


    Even though Richard still sells the book, he has generously shared this divine revelation from God on the web, free of charge I think. You can find here http://www.biblewheel.com/Book/Chapters/Chapt01.php.


    John
    Hello John

    I know Richard thinks the possibility of God so small as to be non-existent. It is not appreciated that we are entitled to consider the possibility of Evolution so small as to be non-existent.

    The moment God is acknowledged in the smallest of ways, it opens up a discussion of what God can do. Richard used the excuse that it would be a waste of time to go down that road. Therefore, to Richard and L67, God does not exist.

    Evolution is not compatible with the Bible. If God made the first living cell and then left it at that, then we would have no Bible; no revealed word from God. The Bible tells us of God's purpose with this earth and Evolution does not fit in with that. How does the Son of God come from Evolution?

    L67 wants us to believe Evolution starts from the first living cell. If there is no God who created the Universe and created the earth with the conditions for the first living cell to kick-start Evolution, then without God, an explanation has to be given starting from atoms. That is leaving out the explanation of how atoms came about.

    Evolutionists have to explain Evolution from the Big Bang, because there is no alternative. The only alternative is God and to concede that means you have to accept Creation. There is no in-between.

    All the best
    David

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    13,920
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Chemicals, and organic molecules are different to a set of machine parts. Chemicals and molecules can combine unlike a nut and bolt coming together and self tightening. Getting the molecules to come together in the right way so they hold together and grow and become more complex is the challenge to prove possible.
    Hey there David,

    Your comment seems to indicate that you have never heard of the SCIENCE called CHEMISTRY. Here is the definition from the wiki:

    Chemistry, a branch of physical science, is the study of the composition, structure, properties and change of matter.[1][2] Chemistry is chiefly concerned with atoms and molecules and their interactions and transformations, for example, the properties of the chemical bonds formed between atoms to create chemical compounds. As such, chemistry studies the involvement ofelectrons and various forms of energy in photochemical reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, changes in phases of matter, and separation of mixtures. Preparation and properties of complex substances, such as alloys, polymers, biological molecules, andpharmaceutical agents are considered in specialized fields of chemistry.

    Chemistry is sometimes called the central science because it bridges other natural sciences like physics, geology and biology.[3][4] Chemistry is a branch of physical science but distinct from physics.[5]

    Chemistry is the study of how basic elements react with each other and combine to form new chemical compounds and complex molecules. It is a primary example of how matter EVOLVES through NATURAL LAW by interacting with other matter. Chemical evolution is OBSERVED IN THE LABORATORY every day. Chemistry works without any hint of a supernatural agent having to "put the pieces together." There is no OBSERVABLE FACT about any biological organism that cannot be explained by natural law. The only question concerns the origin of the first cell, which cannot be directly observed and so remains a matter of speculation. And as such, that question cannot provide any evidence for God. It is simply an unknown at this time. But note: given the fact that religion has never advanced science one iota, there is no reason to think the situation would be any different in this case.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    In the video, 'The Statistical Impossibility of Evolution' the probability for Evolution is calculated to be of the order; 10112,827. To get this into perspective, let's look at some large numbers.
    I watched that video. That number is total bullshit and the people who fooled you are nothing but corrupt creationist LIARS.

    Their "calculations" totally ignored CHEMISTRY- the science that "bridges" physics and biology!!! They talked about the chemicals being "put together" in "random order" as if there were no NATURAL LAWS OF CHEMISTRY affecting how they combined. The same calculations would imply that God himself must design each every snowflake because the probability that they would form a perfect hexagon would astronomically small by "random chance." This is how they deceived you. They knew they were lying because they have a science background, and so KNOW that chemicals combine in accordance with NATURAL LAW. We observe chemicals interacting and forming new chemicals every day. It is fully established HARD SCIENCE. Those people are corrupt to the core. Wicked servants of darkness deceiving simple-minded ignorant and gullible believers. It is pathetic beyond words. That one video was filled with deliberate deception from beginning to end.

    If you want to support your religious beliefs, you are going to have to find some real science to back it up.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    13,920
    Given that David just posted a video with an extremely DECEPTIVE claim that totally ignored the solid fact of CHEMICAL EVOLUTION through NATURAL LAW, I felt it would be a good idea to repeat this post from 7/18/2012 (just a few posts earlier in this thread, we've had a long break) where he appeared to acknowledged the FACT of chemical evolution:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    OK. Let's split atoms; it is better than splitting hairs.

    How was the electron formed or the proton or the neutron or the quarks etc. that make up those components?

    You have to make all the constituent parts of the hydrogen atom. I understand how atoms hydrogen atoms bond thereafter and what makes up the various atomic elements.

    While you are explaining this, can you explain where gravity comes from. It seems to be eluding the scientists and does not fit in with their accepted model of the atom.

    All the best,

    David
    OK - it sounds like you agree that the formation of atoms from subatomic particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons can be fully explained by natural law. That's all that's needed to move forward in this conversation. The question about the ultimate source of matter and energy would just lead us back to the Big Bang. There is only one "gap" in physics where the God hypothesis is still viable - what caused the Big Bang and established the laws of physics? But that's a purely metaphysical question in the most literal sense, since physics deals only with what can be objectively verified. Any events before the Big Bang, or even if they needed a "cause", are entirely speculative.

    So let's move this conversation forward rather than backwards. Here is my conception of what we know and where God could fit in the picture. I begin with Big Bang. I think it was probably energy in the form of pure radiation (or perhaps a soup of radiation and quarks) that then cooled to produce particles like electrons, protons and neutrons. It doesn't really matter for my conception of how things got here:

    BIG BANG - Maybe God did it, maybe natural law. <===================== A gap God might fill!
    Formation of atoms through natural law (physics)
    Formation of basic molecules like H2O through natural law (physics)
    Formation of more complex molecules through natural law (chemical evolution)
    Formation of self-replicating molecules (natural law? If not, then skip this step)
    Formation of the first cell (God or natural law?) <====================== A gap God might fill!
    Evolution of the first cell (mutation + natural selection)
    Evolution of species (mutation + natural selection)
    Evolution of humans (mutation + natural selection)

    Of course, the first "gap" is not really a gap at all, since nothing precedes it. The only real gap that I see is in the formation of the first cell.

    Everything that we can see and touch, including our own bodies, operate purely by natural law that we can measure, test, and verify. So it seems that the "God hypothesis" is entirely out of place in all this science and to insert him into the one gap that we can find seems rather desperate, arbitrary, and unjustified.

    Remember, the only reason you are pursing this line of reasoning is because you began with a religious belief that you are seeking to justify. So the real question is "Why should we begin with such a belief?" If we just began with science and what we can actually know, the God hypothesis would never be needed.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •