Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

I am not sure if you are trolling or you just don't understand what I've said. Either way, I guess we are done here.

 

LiveUninhibited:

You are giving me the same stale arguments that two other atheists already used in this thread. Your argument (bolded in light blue) was previously raised by Cosmo at Post 244.

POST 244: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=245941&page=25&p=1066380614#post1066380614

Click this link for my reply to Cosmo, which is at Post 249. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=245941&page=25&p=1066381081#post1066381081



Likewise, your above comment (bolded in red) was raised by atheiststories at Post 235.

POST 235: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=245941&page=24&p=1066375182#post1066375182

Below is the weblink that will take you directly to what I told atheiststories in response, at Post 243.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=245941&page=25&p=1066380539#post1066380539


Perhaps you can help the two of them out by providing the information I asked them for, in my responses to each of them.


Alter2Ego

 

"Run, Forest! Run!"

(Quoted from the film "Forest Gump")


Need I say more?


Alter2Ego

 

Well, since you have no intention of addressing my arguments, no, you needn't say more.

 

Scientists are beginning to discover how this happened.

"Chemists claim to have solved riddle of how life began on Earth"
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth.html

http://scitechdaily.com/new-evidence-on-the-origins-of-life-on-earth/

 

This is a good one. RNA was shown to form under early earth conditions.

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Self Replicating Molecules are the first step towards "life". In fact, getting this far could almost be called life.

The next step was the formation of membranes which formed primitive cell walls. It has also been shown how these formed and functioned.

Combine the two and life is not far off.

 

Alter2Ego

The ideas put forward by creationists and believers in intelligent design are based totally on theological principals.
There is no science behind it, and the pseudo-science used to support their ideas is essentially hocus-pocus.

Cosmo

 

I read the link and all they've discovered is a new theory. Actually they just combined 3 existing theories.
I wouldn't call that a discovery.

 

Deemed credible by whom? How about my eyewitness accounts? The Bible was written by men. The afterlife isn't dependent on religious belief or belief in a deity. I need not confirm or deny anything written in the Bible nor can anything written in it be used as rebuttal.

 

We both know that even if every word of your post is true, it's still not proof, it's an argument. Circumstantial evidence at best.

 

They have shown in a lab that RNA forms under conditions present in the early earth. http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

This is groundbreaking. This is one of the major missing links. Creation of organic molecules that have self replication ability is critical. Everything living has the capacity for self replication. It is through this replication that evolution takes place via mistakes or changes that happen from time to time during the self replication process.

As these molecules change, some will change in ways that give these molecules more protection from the external environment. These molecules will have a greater tendency to survive.

This "protection" comes in the form of membranes that have the ability to filter out undesirable molecules while letting desirable molecules in.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-art...life-emerged-from-cell-membrane-bioenergetics

This guy does a good job of summarizing some of the various ideas.

http://sbpoley.home.xs4all.nl/abiog/abiogen.htm

The bottom line is that while we do not know exactly how things happened .. we have most, if not all , of the pieces of the puzzle. We just need to learn how they fit together.

 

I do know how the sun, moon, and the stars came into existence... also the sun is a star. The rest of your post was just an ad hominem attack. So go (*)(*)(*)(*) yourself.

 

It doesn't require faith... because I can postulate without solid belief. I'm content with the idea that I don't necessarily know how the entire universe was created because that's how science works. I don't blindly believe in anything, and I can change my mind in any moment. However, I can tell you that god in the bible is a bunch of bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

you'd build a universe no one could live in.

Arguments are one thing, reality is another.

Yes. You're welcome.

 

So can believers - it's called faith. .
faith - strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
pos·tu·late - suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
What's it to you what other people believe?

 

First you claim I have faith. Then you list both definitions of the words that we're talking about. Then you demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of the words you wrote. Finally, you asked "What's it to you what other people believe?"

You're funny.

I'll tell you what. Let us postulate putting "In Satan we trust" on the US dollar.

- - - Updated - - -

Water is wet.

 

I said faith - you said postulate - they pretty much mean the same thing. if you're not interested in talking about this subject, why are you here?

 

I was interesting in talking about the topic. You are more interested in semantics, which is a subject that you are bad at. The two words do not mean the same thing, and even if they did, you should have looked past the semantics to the real issue. Clearly you understand that I believe the words are different. Next time look past the semantics.

So, if you are interested in replying to my statement again, go ahead.

 

I gave you the definitions of both words and you can't see how similar they are. Your belief as to creation requires as much faith as any theist belief.

 

I never said I don't believe there may be forces at work outside the visible, just there is not enough sound evidence to make a case to challenge say the Theory of Evolution and the current Big Bang Cosmology as in to challenge reason and science as the tools of our civilizations advancement and that there is no clear evidence for one divine being. So its not worth considering as far as its being considered by people. Could there be deities ,perhaps, but again maybe there isn't and ghosts have a perfectly rational scientific explanation. But the argument is perfection of nature is key to proving a god did it and I could easily say no we are seeing symmetry where it was not intentional but accidental it would depend if multiverse theory is true or not. If true then you toss enough crap on a wall some will stick and if not then the odds of us being here by chance drops a lot.

We can't prove either option as of yet.

 

Nope. You're wrong. You know how I know? You're not me.

 

This argument is like....

"The planets in our solar system are nearly perfect spheres.....the fact they are spherical proves that God created gravity that pulled formative matter into spheres billions of years ago."

 

I have one question for the supernatural God supporters.

If God exists, where does he exist?

If God exists, he has to exist somewhere in some medium, he has to be tangible, physical, made of something. God cannot be made of nothing. What substance makes up God? If God is made of nothing, how can God exist? How did God exist before matter, time and energy were created by this same God? The answer has to be one of two options. Either God exists outside of all natural phenomena or he exists within all known phenomena. The first option demands a supernatural explanation that defies all knowledge of reality. The second demands a location where he exists.

 

Except for planet Earth, which is obviously flat.

 

This is a lot like the question "where did God come from?" I don't know the answer, but if I were a theist I'd rebut by asking and possibly getting you to admit that the universe is infinite. It's difficult for humans to grasp infinity since for us everything has a beginning and an end. How far does the universe go and what's at the outer edges? A wall? A fence? What's beyond the universe? Limitless nothing? I think most people would say that the universe, the space that holds galaxies and all matter, is limitless and without end. The only thing measurable is the observable universe. If we can believe something is limitless and without end, why not a being that's limitless and without a beginning? I think most scientists can agree on the first part and reluctantly opine on the second part.
P.S.
The observable universe is still expanding so whatever you may read as to it's size is wrong.