• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

No, I don't believe we just "evolved" from slime.

That's because we didn't. If there are other things you are confused about, we may be able to help.
Or from a rock. Whichever way you want to describe it. Either way, works for me, as you're talking about the impossibility of life emerging from non-life. I say "slime" because it's a nice way to describe evolution to call it "slime plus time." Or "goo to you by way of the zoo."

Here's a number to chew on. 10^79,000,000,000 = the number of protein combinations in a single yeast cell. https://inference-review.com/article/time-out

Compare to 10^80 = number of atoms in the universe

Of course, molecules don't know where they're going. They have no propensity to favor developing into living system verses non-living system.
 
Aesthete said:
Or from a rock. Whichever way you want to describe it.

I'm new. You appear to be new.

So I don't know you well enough to know if you're just being deliberately obtuse, or actually somehow have allowed yourself to believe that any Evolutionist anywhere, thinks that life evoved from rocks. No one thinks that, and I rather suspect you know that, which makes me wonder why you typed that.

Aesthete said:
Either way, works for me, as you're talking about the impossibility of life emerging from non-life. I say "slime" because it's a nice way to describe evolution to call it "slime plus time." Or "goo to you by way of the zoo."

There's a really, really good reason why it "works for you" to summarize my position as positing that we emerged from non-life. That's because it's a false, ridiculous strawman argument, quite easily batted down, whereas the real mechanisms and processes of descent with modification are not. You are also conflating evolution with abiogenesis. (I imagine you are "against" both, while understanding neither, but that's just an informed guess, from years of experience.)

Aesthete said:
Here's a number to chew on. 10^79,000,000,000 = the number of protein combinations in a single yeast cell. https://inference-review.com/article/time-out

Compare to 10^80 = number of atoms in the universe

Of course, molecules don't know where they're going. They have no propensity to favor developing into living system verses non-living system.

Here's a conundrum for you to chew on. All those protein combinations in a single yeast cell. By any chance, are those yeast cells...
in the universe?
 
So I don't know you well enough to know if you're just being deliberately obtuse, or actually somehow have allowed yourself to believe that any Evolutionist anywhere, thinks that life evoved from rocks. No one thinks that,
Hovind used that phrase when he helped Chick update his Big Daddy track against evolution. Even for a guy who thinks homeschooling his kid makes him an experienced 'science teacher,' that's some serious hogwash.
 
I'm new. You appear to be new.

Not quite. I joined in June 2005 at the age of 15. I had become an atheist at 14. Now, I'm 30. I was half my current age when I joined! I became a Christian in January 2019, and that because God loved me and saved me!

So I don't know you well enough to know if you're just being deliberately obtuse, or actually somehow have allowed yourself to believe that any Evolutionist anywhere, thinks that life evoved from rocks. No one thinks that, and I rather suspect you know that, which makes me wonder why you typed that.

Whatever you want to call it, it's molecules-to-man.

There's a really, really good reason why it "works for you" to summarize my position as positing that we emerged from non-life.

Well, that's precisely what evolution posits - life from non-life.

That's because it's a false, ridiculous strawman argument, quite easily batted down, whereas the real mechanisms and processes of descent with modification are not. You are also conflating evolution with abiogenesis. (I imagine you are "against" both, while understanding neither, but that's just an informed guess, from years of experience.)
It is impossible for non-life to turn to life and for that to change into people. I don't care how many billions of years you want to imagine the world has been here. But you don't even have billions of years to work with. The solar system cannot be old, and the solar nebula model has more holes than Swiss cheese - like the sun having >99% of the mass of the solar system and yet having only 2% of its angular momentum, thus violating the law of conservation of angular momentum. Neither could you have comets, which dissipate too quickly for the solar system to be old. And the earth's magnetic field is decaying too rapidly to be old (notwithstanding an ad hoc dynamo theory, which if invoked for the earth cannot explain Mercury's magnetic field). Here's a really nice video that explains how most everywhere we look in the solar system, we see evidence that it's young. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzyQbOQ0dv0

And dinosaurs? They're called dragons, as various cultures attest to them. Moreover, they've found T-Rex collagen and red blood cells, which cannot be 65 million years old.

Aesthete said:
Here's a number to chew on. 10^79,000,000,000 = the number of protein combinations in a single yeast cell. https://inference-review.com/article/time-out

Compare to 10^80 = number of atoms in the universe

Of course, molecules don't know where they're going. They have no propensity to favor developing into living system verses non-living system.

Here's a conundrum for you to chew on. All those protein combinations in a single yeast cell. By any chance, are those yeast cells...
in the universe?

Yes, yet the chances of the cell having arranged itself are far less than of randomly choosing a particular atom from among the 10^80 atoms in the universe.
 
Here's a number to chew on. 10^79,000,000,000 = the number of protein combinations in a single yeast cell. ...
Compare to 10^80 = number of atoms in the universe.
And again with the complexity argument.

So, could you please point out what part of the theory of evolution says these protein combinations HAD to develop sequentially? Any reason we CANNOT think that maybe four different strains of proto-yeast each developed a quarter of the ten jintillion proteins that ended up in the strain we call 'yeast?' Or maybe -8- strains divided it up.? Sixteen? Ooooooh, maybe a thousand?

How many yeast can you put in a tablespoon of your slime, anyway?
 
Which is the more fantastic; the existence of Supernatural Being who creates the universe out of nothing (magic), or evolution within a natural energetic system that allows complex chemical interactions....interactions, chemistry, that we are able observe, measure, modify, experiment, etc?
 
Come on DBT, universe "out of nothing" (without a creator) is Lawrence Kraus's magic idea. But then you could wonder (as you're starting from there) "what was before evolution and the natural energetic system ?"
 
But then you could wonder (as you're starting from there) "what was before evolution and the natural energetic system ?"
Yes, you could. But the existence of cosmology doesn't pose a problem for evolution, now, does it? Or geology. Or abiogenesis. Celestial mechanics. All discrete areas of study for the universe around us, interconnected but not conflicting.

Unlike an absolute claim that complexity demands a designer, which instantly runs into the complication of a complespx designer....
 
I think he believes in abracadabra.

Yeah, that's what he meant to say, but if you're going to throw out absolutes like a damned Sith, you might come to regret it.

I wonder where he draws the line between what he calls "life" and what he calls "non-life." Is the CO2 I exhale alive when it's in me but not alive once it reenters the atmosphere? Does it become "alive" again when an oak tree takes it up? And what about an electron? Is it alive when it's part of my makeup but not alive when it's running along a power line in front of my house? What changes?

That's why I use the word abracadabra. Much easier to wave the magic wand and believe in spooky magic than to actually think about questions like this.
 
Not quite. I joined in June 2005 at the age of 15. I had become an atheist at 14. Now, I'm 30. I was half my current age when I joined! I became a Christian in January 2019, and that because God loved me and saved me!

Well that certainly sounds very special. Congrats.


Whatever you want to call it, it's molecules-to-man.

Well, I mean...you're kinda glossing over a WHOLE LOT of intermediate steps, but...bingo. Molecules to man sounds fantastic, but...it happened, and we know it did. Same as molecules to octopus, molecules to Snow Leopard, and molecules to flamingo. It's like saying, "whatever you want to call it, it's bread-to-toast" and acting like it's some far-fetched crazy premise...and it's not. Put bread through a hot toaster for enough minutes, and guess what? You get toast. Put simple organic materials through 4.5 billion years of slow descent with modification, and you get a zebra. You can't just simply wave away all the intermediate steps between molecules and man and then ridicule that premise, huffing and puffing that a ball of sludge can't suddenly turn into your Aunt Tillie. Well, no shit, everybody knows that.



Well, that's precisely what evolution posits - life from non-life.

And, it looks like I guessed correctly. You don't understand the first thing about evolution--and until you do, you should probably refrain from stating "precisely what it posits", because, frankly, that just sounds dumb. Evolution does not posit life from non-life. It just doesn't. I know you think it does, but you're wrong about that.


It is impossible for non-life to turn to life and for that to change into people. I don't care how many billions of years you want to imagine the world has been here. But you don't even have billions of years to work with. The solar system cannot be old, and the solar nebula model has more holes than Swiss cheese - like the sun having >99% of the mass of the solar system and yet having only 2% of its angular momentum, thus violating the law of conservation of angular momentum. Neither could you have comets, which dissipate too quickly for the solar system to be old. And the earth's magnetic field is decaying too rapidly to be old (notwithstanding an ad hoc dynamo theory, which if invoked for the earth cannot explain Mercury's magnetic field). Here's a really nice video that explains how most everywhere we look in the solar system, we see evidence that it's young. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzyQbOQ0dv0

And dinosaurs? They're called dragons, as various cultures attest to them. Moreover, they've found T-Rex collagen and red blood cells, which cannot be 65 million years old.

And, yikes. There it is. The warning sign, the red flag that says, "leave this one alone." You can't be helped. I'm just going to count myself lucky there wasn't a Shroud of Turin in that gigantic bowl of dumb.

(by the way, I don't think you grasped the significance of my asking if the molecules in yeast cells happen to be in the universe.)

At any rate, I think I've seen what I need to see here. Have fun!
 
Incidentally, I would love to go to a Christian site and announce, "It's absurd that Christianity posits that saying the name Jesus three times at midnight gives you eternal life, because that's exactly what it posits--saying the name Jesus three times at midnight gives you eternal life."
And just steadfastly stick to that, no matter how many people tried to say, "uhh, bro, Christianity doesn't say that," and post a wall of gibberish in response.

I think we sometimes forget just how freaking liberated the religious are by not having to live in the real world.
 
Well, I mean...you're kinda glossing over a WHOLE LOT of intermediate steps, but...bingo. Molecules to man sounds fantastic, but...it happened, and we know it did.
No, you don't know that it did; it's a preposterous idea invented to hide from God.


Same as molecules to octopus, molecules to Snow Leopard, and molecules to flamingo. It's like saying, "whatever you want to call it, it's bread-to-toast" and acting like it's some far-fetched crazy premise...and it's not. Put bread through a hot toaster for enough minutes, and guess what? You get toast. Put simple organic materials through 4.5 billion years of slow descent with modification, and you get a zebra. You can't just simply wave away all the intermediate steps between molecules and man and then ridicule that premise, huffing and puffing that a ball of sludge can't suddenly turn into your Aunt Tillie. Well, no shit, everybody knows that.
You don't have billions of years to work with. But even if you did, molecules won't change into man, plants, bacteria, animals over time.



Well, that's precisely what evolution posits - life from non-life.

And, it looks like I guessed correctly. You don't understand the first thing about evolution--and until you do, you should probably refrain from stating "precisely what it posits", because, frankly, that just sounds dumb. Evolution does not posit life from non-life. It just doesn't. I know you think it does, but you're wrong about that.

You're just playing word games, seeking to exclude abiogenesis from the theory of evolution. Not a great way to defend your worldview, on words of vanity.

It is impossible for non-life to turn to life and for that to change into people. I don't care how many billions of years you want to imagine the world has been here. But you don't even have billions of years to work with. The solar system cannot be old, and the solar nebula model has more holes than Swiss cheese - like the sun having >99% of the mass of the solar system and yet having only 2% of its angular momentum, thus violating the law of conservation of angular momentum. Neither could you have comets, which dissipate too quickly for the solar system to be old. And the earth's magnetic field is decaying too rapidly to be old (notwithstanding an ad hoc dynamo theory, which if invoked for the earth cannot explain Mercury's magnetic field). Here's a really nice video that explains how most everywhere we look in the solar system, we see evidence that it's young. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzyQbOQ0dv0

And dinosaurs? They're called dragons, as various cultures attest to them. Moreover, they've found T-Rex collagen and red blood cells, which cannot be 65 million years old.

And, yikes. There it is. The warning sign, the red flag that says, "leave this one alone." You can't be helped. I'm just going to count myself lucky there wasn't a Shroud of Turin in that gigantic bowl of dumb.

(by the way, I don't think you grasped the significance of my asking if the molecules in yeast cells happen to be in the universe.)

At any rate, I think I've seen what I need to see here. Have fun!

Okay, have it your way. Will you not look at the evidence because you don't want it to be true? When I was an atheist, I didn't want God to exist either, because then that meant that I am accountable to Him. But I'm dead to the law by the body of Christ, so there's nothing stopping me from approaching God or delighting in Him, not being condemned by my sins. No longer like our first parents, running from God to hide their nakedness--and trying fig leaves, too--I'm clothed in the righteousness of Christ. But molecules-to-man (aka, slime plus time) is even worse to hide behind than fig leaves.

hyzer said:
Yeah, I really want to know the answer to this one. Genesis says that once there was no life on the earth, then there was. Sounds like non-life to life to me.

Oh, come on! You don't need me to explain the difference between God forming man from the ground and the ground transforming into man all on its own.
 
This was in another thread, but applies here, nicely:

Show. The. Evidence. Show. The. Evidence.Show. The. Evidence. Show. The. Evidence.Show. The. Evidence. Show. The. Evidence.Show. The. Evidence. Show. The. Evidence.Show. The. Evidence. Show. The. Evidence.Show. The. Evidence. Show. The. Evidence.Show. The. Evidence. Show. The. Evidence.Show. The. Evidence. Show. The. Evidence.Show. The. Evidence. Show. The. Evidence.Show. The. Evidence. Show. The. Evidence.Show. The. Evidence. Show. The. Evidence.Show. The. Evidence. Show. The. Evidence.Show. The. Evidence. Show. The. Evidence.Show. The. Evidence. Show. The. Evidence.

No, you don't know that it did; it's a preposterous idea invented to hide from God.
nothing in the theory of evolution mentions gods. What is your evidence this is the theory's purpose?
You don't have billions of years to work with.
Sure looks like we do. What's your evidence that geology is that wrong?
But even if you did, molecules won't change into man, plants, bacteria, animals over time.
what prevents this and how do you know? (Evidence?)
what evolution posits - life from non-life.
where is this posited? What textbook says evolution does this?
You're just playing word games, seeking to exclude abiogenesis from the theory of evolution.
then you can show a textbook defining evolution to include 'life from non-life?'
Not a great way to defend your worldview, on words of vanity.
look who's talking!

ut you don't even have billions of years to work with. The solar system cannot be old, and the solar nebula model has more holes than Swiss cheese - like the sun having >99% of the mass of the solar system and yet having only 2% of its angular momentum, thus violating the law of conservation of angular momentum.
are you claiming the sun is part of the theory of evolution? I really need to see that textbook.
Neither could you have comets, which dissipate too quickly for the solar system to be old.
evidence for this claim?
And the earth's magnetic field is decaying too rapidly to be old
so, ToE includes comets and magnetic fields? Weird...
And dinosaurs? They're called dragons, as various cultures attest to them. Moreover, they've found T-Rex collagen and red blood cells, which cannot be 65 million years old.
Um, no. That's bullshit. That claim was horribly mishandled by creationists. The scientist who made the discovery was very disappointed by the reaction in some circles. If this is the "evidence," you should retire from yhe field.
 
The word 'God,' like a Rorschach Blot, can represent whatever the believer imagines or perceives it to be. God as a construct of the human mind can take any imaginable form.
 
I still am curious about how the Genesis magic works when it comes to making life. Aesthete, would you like to enlighten us?
 
According to the report, the dust of the earth was brought to life through the power of the word of God. Sounds like magic to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom