Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

[Skeeter]

I couldn't ever muster the faith that it would require to be an atheist.

That would be clever if it hadn't been said a thousand times before. I have no faith in my particular theory. I was asked to be more specific about how life could have emerged without supernatural forces. If new evidence emerged that would support something completely different, I would follow where the evidence lead. Would you?

 

[Right Divider]

That would be clever if it hadn't been said a thousand times before. I have no faith in my particular theory. I was asked to be more specific about how life could have emerged without supernatural forces. If new evidence emerged that would support something completely different, I would follow where the evidence lead. Would you?

The evidence points to a Creator and not to "random chance". It always has and I don't see that changing any time soon.

 

[Skeeter]

The evidence points to a Creator and not to "random chance". It always has and I don't see that changing any time soon.

The very initial genesis of life involved a confluence of rare events, but natural selection moving forward is a very systematic process that can be impacted by chance events but more heavily respondent to clear environmental characteristics.

 

[Skeeter]

If you spoke to a lottery winner and asked how she won. She might say because she was blessed by God. But, really the only reason she won is she bought a ticket. But, so many people did just that and lost! you might point out. Coincidental factors loom large. The same is true with life on earth, out of millions and millions of planets the conditions were right here in the right sequence. The more people buying tickets, the more likely someone will win. We won on earth.

If God created life why do all those other lifeless planets exist? Why not just create one? The cosmology we see is conducive to a chance related event rather than an intentional one.

 

[Right Divider]

The very initial genesis of life involved a confluence of rare events

Sheer speculation with no scientific support whatsoever.
The famous atheist "just so" story.

, but natural selection moving forward is a very systematic process that can be impacted by chance events but more heavily respondent to clear environmental characteristics.

Natural selection only SELECTS what ALREADY exists.

By the end of day six, all of the created KINDS were ready for natural selection.

 

[Right Divider]

If you spoke to a lottery winner and asked how she won. She might say because she was blessed by God. But, really the only reason she won is she bought a ticket. But, so many people did just that and lost! you might point out. Coincidental factors loom large. The same is true with life on earth, out of millions and millions of planets the conditions were right here in the right sequence. The more people buying tickets, the more likely someone will win. We won on earth.

More fairy tales and "just so" stories that have NO basis in science.

If God created life why do all those other lifeless planets exist?

Is that a problem?

Why not just create one?

Boy... you sure "got God" with that one.

The cosmology we see is conducive to a chance related event rather than an intentional one.

It's also conducive to wild-eyed story telling.

 

[marke]

That would be clever if it hadn't been said a thousand times before. I have no faith in my particular theory. I was asked to be more specific about how life could have emerged without supernatural forces. If new evidence emerged that would support something completely different, I would follow where the evidence lead. Would you?

What kind of evidence do you think can be uncovered showing how God or some unknown brainless non-entity created the universe?

 

[marke]

The very initial genesis of life involved a confluence of rare events, but natural selection moving forward is a very systematic process that can be impacted by chance events but more heavily respondent to clear environmental characteristics.

Do you not understand the contradiction in claims that some unknown, unmeasurable, and unprovable force of some sort effected evolutionary changes in biology after biology somehow miraculously invented itself from nothing using nothing and without a catalyst?

 

[ok doser]

The very initial genesis of life involved a confluence of rare events

Which can't be replicated in the lab, and thus do not qualify as "scientific"

natural selection moving forward is a very systematic process that can be impacted by chance events ...

"chance events" that violate the laws of thermodynamics

 

[marke]

If you spoke to a lottery winner and asked how she won. She might say because she was blessed by God. But, really the only reason she won is she bought a ticket. But, so many people did just that and lost! you might point out. Coincidental factors loom large. The same is true with life on earth, out of millions and millions of planets the conditions were right here in the right sequence. The more people buying tickets, the more likely someone will win. We won on earth.

If God created life why do all those other lifeless planets exist? Why not just create one? The cosmology we see is conducive to a chance related event rather than an intentional one.

If God did not create life on earth then why has life not invented itself on other planets like atheists want to think life invented itself on earth?

Francis Crick > Quotes > Quotable Quote​

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”​

― Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature

 

[Skeeter]

Do you not understand the contradiction in claims that some unknown, unmeasurable, and unprovable force of some sort effected evolutionary changes in biology after biology somehow miraculously invented itself from nothing using nothing and without a catalyst?

Of course that's not an accurate description because you cannot characterize natural selection that way. The origin of life maybe, but even my explanation of that is more plausible than the idea that a completely sentient force that existed always did it. Just because it makes sense to you does not mean there is any evidence of such a force either.

 

[Skeeter]

Which can't be replicated in the lab, and thus do not qualify as "scientific"

"chance events" that violate the laws of thermodynamics

Cells are anti-entropy devices.

 

[ok doser]

Cells are anti-entropy devices.

Just So

 

[marke]

If God did not create life on earth then why has life not invented itself on other planets like atheists want to think life invented itself on earth?

Of course that's not an accurate description because you cannot characterize natural selection that way. The origin of life maybe, but even my explanation of that is more plausible than the idea that a completely sentient force that existed always did it. Just because it makes sense to you does not mean there is any evidence of such a force either.

Just because you think your dumb theory is the best one available does not mean you are right.

 

[marke]

Cells are anti-entropy devices.

If entropy was the state of existence of the space now occupied by the universe then what kind of force created the universe out of entropy?

 

[Right Divider]

Cells are anti-entropy devices.

Yes, created by God and not by "random chance".

 

[Derf]

Cells are anti-entropy devices.

Kind of like a machine, eh?

 

[Stripe]

I think that there were particular primordial conditions on earth, this is something different than the Goldie Locks condition's to support life. These conditions are no longer in effect at least in part. There were temperate nutrient zones with electric storms. Within the ocean chemical reactions and physical properties of the environment created spheroid chambers like bubbles with a lipid bilayer. Sometimes amino acids were trapped in the bubble. Over a million years some bubbles split in two when the amino acids orientation was disengaged by a random protein present in enough quantity. This resulted in two bubbles with mirror amino acid combinations in them.

Someday in an accelerated fashion we will be able to simulate these primordial conditions enough to be more secure in our understanding of how this happened.

Well, the links you copied from have a good imagination, but you again expose your ignorance.

This is abiogenesis. Darwinists are forever wailing that this has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Skeeter]

Well, the links you copied from have a good imagination, but you again expose your ignorance.

I thought you could tell that is my original rendition --based on memory of what I read decades ago.

This is abiogenesis. Darwinists are forever wailing that this has nothing to do with evolution.

They shouldn't have to wail. They are simply two separate concepts. What I was attempting to describe was the origin of genetics. I already described evolution and entropy. Most species go extinct. They return to dust. So, there is a net decrease in complexity. However, a subset of genes succeed in transmission and adaptive improvement. Get with the program.

 

[Skeeter]

The sun comes into play in evolution with the development of cells able to achieve photosynthesis and the later eco system of plant eaters and then carnivores.