tas8831
Well-Known Member
And I'm betting most of them are Trump fans (or the equivalent in other countries).And then they have the nerve to go into other threads and lecture people about morality.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And I'm betting most of them are Trump fans (or the equivalent in other countries).And then they have the nerve to go into other threads and lecture people about morality.
Okay, so when I speak of "evolution" I'm referring to the most common connotation, i.e., biological evolution. I hope that's clear.Of course they can have multiple meanings, which is my entire point !
This is getting bizarre. You keep saying I refuse to answer your questions and every time I respond by saying I don't know what questions you're talking about, but if you ask them again I'll do my best to answer them.You forget, I don´t answer your questions anymore, since you refused to answer mine.
Maybe he asked you to help him find the "recent interview" with long-dead Stanley Miller - the one he referenced several times yet supplied no means of corroborating it.So let me be perfectly clear here......I have no idea what questions you're referring to, but if you'll ask them again I'll do my best to answer.
Okay?
Or we can look at the basis science actually uses in models of the past, and have you try to support the beliefs.I don't have a religion. However, if I need any more reason to take science over religion, I can just review all the silly things religious people like you believe in.
? Still avoiding science and it's beliefs by desperately spamming about other beliefs?Nonsense. You can't answer simple, basic questions about your religion. The only way you can defend it by throwing pebbles at the opposition, science.
I didn't ask you to "question trusted eyewitnesses of historical realities". I asked you to explain why you consider people eyewitnesses when they weren't there. I asked who wrote that God gave Moses tablets, you had no answer. I asked who recorded the events in the Garden of Eden, you had no answers.
You just blindly accept the writings of ignorant people from 4000 years ago.
Do you realize that if Marcion had prevailed, you wouldn't be trying to defend Eden, Tree, Moses, Flood? You'd be laughing at those who did.
Exactly..just like your gross darkness fables are not my bible.Sure I deny that that is my bible.
Bi·ble
/ˈbībəl/
Learn to pronounce
noun
I am neither a Christian nor a Jew. So I can't have a bible. That should be clear to a fourth-grader.
- the Christian scriptures, consisting of the Old and New Testaments.
"verses from the Bible"
Gideon Bible
- the Jewish scriptures, consisting of the Torah or Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa or Writings.
- a copy of the Christian or Jewish scriptures.
noun: bible; plural noun: bibles
Old Wives Tales may be fun to read, but not as funny as someone arguing against:
Clearly whoever wrote about the conversations between God and Moses was not Moses.
Not as funny as reading someone duck and dodge when asked who recorded Adam eating the Fruit or knowing how and why Cain killed Abel.
Not as funny as someone trying to convince others that whoever wrote about those events was an eyewitness.
That stuff is priceless.
And I'm betting most of them are Trump fans (or the equivalent in other countries).
Well, you are wrong. We do NOT use the Earth itself as the reference frame. We use the comoving frame that is now the Earth.
And that is incorrect. Once again, the singularity is NOT a thing. And, you compound that error in thinking it gives a reference frame. If you had actually studied general relativity, you would know that it doesn't/ In fact, *all* coming observers have that same singularity as their past: that is part of the problem leading to the singularity: that it has to match ALL of the frames afterwards.
Answer: it is irrelevant. And if you understood the concept of a comoving observer you would realize.
Not sure why that is relevant, but OK.
And that is precisely what general relativity deals with.
Nope, your analogy fails miserably.
Nope. First of all, you seem to think that motion is absolute. It isn't. Second, in the context of cosmology, each position *does* have a preferred reference frame: that where the expansion appears to be uniformly outward for them. Third, black holes don't work like that and they are NOT the same type of singularity as at the BB.
What does it even mean to have 'parallel time scales'?
Anyway, your understanding of what scientists do is clearly faulty. Your understanding of both special and general relativity are faulty. And your desperation to keep science and your beliefs consistent is evident.
The problem is that they are NOT consistent with each other.
Nice try, in two, maybe three posts I asked you specific questions. You ignored all of them.Okay, so when I speak of "evolution" I'm referring to the most common connotation, i.e., biological evolution. I hope that's clear.
This is getting bizarre. You keep saying I refuse to answer your questions and every time I respond by saying I don't know what questions you're talking about, but if you ask them again I'll do my best to answer them.
And every time you ignore that only to restate your allegation.
So let me be perfectly clear here......I have no idea what questions you're referring to, but if you'll ask them again I'll do my best to answer.
Okay?
What did he submit ? I assume the remark was about the evolution of life.Well, I started a thread on this a while ago, but I'l repeat anyways.....it is somewhat satisfying to see how creationists have largely retreated to focusing mostly on the origin of life and the universe. I see that as progress.
Since you think you have discovered something of import, I was quoting a friend of Millers, who wrote the article I did not add the quotation marks. I will give you a reference so you can read it yourself as an addendum to this post.Maybe he asked you to help him find the "recent interview" with long-dead Stanley Miller - the one he referenced several times yet supplied no means of corroborating it.
Here is the mistake you (physics) are making. Relative reference applies to the light/energy signals, coming from the universe to a particular reference location. Relative reference does apply to the principle called Conservation of Energy. This principle implies an absolute amount of matter and energy. Conservation of energy for the universe requires an absolute reference since it cannot be different in each reference.
Relative reference ends up with more that one possible energy balance making energy conservation impossible. Einstein was correct in that he determined that we cannot determine the universal energy balance based on only visual energy type signals, since energy signals that we observe can red and blue shift, thereby giving a different energy summation, for each relative references.
As a classic example, we have a man on a bench at the train station and another man on a moving train. They have a relative velocity V. Based on only visual evidence; energy signals, either can appear to move or either can appear to be stationary. It is all relative.
If each man uses their relative assumption, from their visual evidence, and then does an energy balance, since it takes more energy to move man plus train than man plus bench, both reference will see different energy balances. Relative only applies to the visual illusion created to the visual/energy signals. Our energy receiving instruments do not receive matter data from distant quasars and galaxies, which would needed to do an energy balance.
Since this observational method of cosmology and astral physics has a limitation, as described by Einstein, I decided to move forward and use energy conservation instead. This is a much higher gold standard and assumes starting with a fixed amount of energy regardless of what you think you see.
If we start with a singularity, we can do a theoretical energy balance. This is all the energy the universe has and will ever have. There should be a reference within the universe; theoretically, that allows us to do a proper energy balance and get this exact same amount. This will not work with all relative references, since energy signals alone can fool the eyes and brain. This is why we now need dark energy and matter to close the energy balance from our relative reference even of we cannot not see it in the lab.
Don't get me wrong, we do not have the technology to do this right. We are stuck with energy signals; one sensory system verification. Theoretically, there is a sweet reference where the universe energy balance is maintained throughout cosmology; God Reference. This reference, theoretically, would be the only way to control all of creation, without creating illusions, due to relative references and misjudged energy balances.
Sometimes I get too far ahead, and forget not everyone has realized the limitations of energy signals. To many, Relativity was turned into a religion, instead of practical limitation council by a wise man.
It established that any experiment can be performed, regardless of the conclusion derived from the test results.The hypothesis is falsifiable, so what ? You seem to think that this somehow establishes abiogenesis in some fashion.
It is a matter of contexts.Of course they can have multiple meanings, which is my entire point !
To an extent.Evidence accumulates till it points to a reasonable and accurate conclusion.
Evidence of what is the question.
Evidence cannot be just evidence of being evidence.
Your posted research, is research for sure. Does it shed any light on abiogenesis, no.
All that has been produced stands alone. There is NO pathway to life identified. Can you not grasp that ?
A few of the required ingredients for life, are just that, nothing more.
Abiogenesis isn´t what may have been produced naturally, it is a PROCESS that creates life.
You could cite a natural process that creates lungs, or livers, or brains, yet if you cannot identify the process that makes them into a living animal, you have nothing.
All of the bio chemical research has the same problem, no linkage with a process that creates life.
The net variety of what is alleged to have been produced in a possible process on the primordial earth is hopelessly short of what a living organism requires.
Again you bring up religion, why ? I haven´t.
Why do you feel religion is part of a discussion of abiogenesis ?
You believe in abiogenesis, yet for all your thrashing about, huffing and puffing, you know the bottom line is that no one knows how it could occur.
If, in your knowledge of the research, an actual pathway to life had been discovered, observed, and replicated, produce it and prove me wrong.
Otherwise, abiogenesis remains something accepted by faith. Something totally unproven. something you believe to have happened, without evidence that it did.
The stinging will go away, consider it part of a lesson you learned.
Keep the faith.
Again
So...................................?Two questions and one statement of opinion.
Do you accept that when the Earth was formed it was lifeless and that therefore the first life on Earth originated after the Earth was formed?
Do you accept that present living things are very different from the first terrestrial life-forms?
In my opinion, if it were proved that life cannot have originated by a natural process, that would not prove either that Christianity is true or that the first chapters of Genesis are historically reliable. (In fact, I do not think that any of the book of Genesis is historically reliable, but that is a different subject.) The origin of life, the truth of Christianity, and the historical accuracy of the Bible are completely different subjects.
You don't really have to. You just admitted to being a creationist. At least you show some shame in that irrational belief.So...................................?
Yep, the earth was formed before life.
Present living things are very different from the first terrestrial life forms, no, I don´t accept that.
I made no effort to prove anything, I didn´t mention Christianity or the book of Genesis.
However, there is no testable, measurable, or observable evidence of abiogenesis...........................To an extent.
The conclusion reached depends on if the accumulated evidence support the hypothesis or don’t support the hypothesis.
It can go either way.
Let’s say evidence back up and support the explanations and predictions made within the hypothesis. So it would be reasonable to conclude that this hypothesis IS PROBABLE.
But let’s say accumulated evidence don’t support the hypothesis, then you can reasonably conclude that the hypothesis ISN’T PROBABLE or IMPROBABLE.
Science required evidence to be observable, measurable and testable.
If you cannot “measure” or “test” what you are “observing”, then it isn’t evidence.
You cannot observe, measure or test the following: deity/god, angel, demon, jinn, spirit/soul, ghoul, goblin, fairy, giant, gorgon, dragon, phoenix, etc. Hence, there no evidence for any of these.
People may choose to believe in these imaginary entities or beings, but that’s faith, not evidence.
Yep, the earth was formed before life.
Present living things are very different from the first terrestrial life forms, no, I don´t accept that.
I made no effort to prove anything, I didn´t mention Christianity or the book of Genesis.