America's melting pot

[RussNM]

RussNM, does your god make allowances for them born with no ears, or them that are born
on some small island? you used the words reject him, does that imply before they can risk
"thrown into the lake of fire" they must have first received information on his existence ?

while I went to sunday school as a child, guess I missed some things.

Romans 1:20... nobody has any excuse. He says that even "nature" shows His handiwork. I dont know if youre looking for some loophole but God says no way José.

 

[TommySr]

I dont know if youre looking for some loophole

RussNM, it's more like a reason to believe in that vision. we all want/need something to believe in.
we are all looking for answers(my eagerness may have something to do with me having seen my demise first hand).

yet my current faith was developed while I still felt immortal

 

[RussNM]

Gosh I dont know what to tell you about that. If youre searching, keep searching. For me I believed way before I got to see true miracles happen before my eyes... and ears. But the Jews in charge of the time of Jesus wanted to see miracles before they believed. That didnt work out too well for them and even after they witnessed miracles just poo poo-ed it and plotted to kill Jesus. This is a personal thing.. as we say God doesnt have any grandchildren. So you might ask Him for help. Thats ok to do.

 

[D71]

Gosh I dont know what to tell you about that. If youre searching, keep searching. For me I believed way before I got to see true miracles happen before my eyes... and ears. But the Jews in charge of the time of Jesus wanted to see miracles before they believed. That didnt work out too well for them and even after they witnessed miracles just poo poo-ed it and plotted to kill Jesus. This is a personal thing.. as we say God doesnt have any grandchildren. So you might ask Him for help. Thats ok to do.

It wasn’t all jews. It was pharisees and such Merchants that were upset being kicked out of temples and whipped by Jesus was humiliating to them. Not all but…. SOME.

 

[D71]

If you consider the bible as 100% factual we are all children of Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve. When cain was kicked out with a mark who did he mate with? Who did the mark protect him from for being harmed? Are we descended from Cain which is son of the serpent? Aka Eve Tempted by Satan sex? Did the snake have legs that were removed so it could low crawl like in combat - basic training?

We are according to bible all children of Noah if the whole earth was destroyed. Bible states whole earth Covered and every land living creature not on the ark drown-destroyed. Weirdly every religion every culture if traced has a great flood mentioned -speak - reference in it. Weird.

Are we all survivors from the Ark or not?

 

[RussNM]

Are we all survivors from the Ark

Absolutely 100% all related to Noah.
That being said, how many races are there?

When cain was kicked out with a mark who did he mate with?

We dont really know how old Cain was when he murdered his brother. Before the flood they had completely different atmosphere. ... double the oxygen and pressure and lived 10x as long. I assume he had wives and lots of kids before he pulled that stunt.

 

[TommySr]

Some pretty awesome creatures down their.

 

[D71]

Absolutely 100% all related to Noah.
That being said, how many races are there?



We dont really know how old Cain was when he murdered his brother. Before the flood they had completely different atmosphere. ... double the oxygen and pressure and lived 10x as long. I assume he had wives and lots of kids before he pulled that stunt.

Ppl were reported to live for hundreds of years. Time lines are harder to realize for events.

Ham son of Noah was reported to been black by some.. Think Noah got drunk. Ham seen him naked ppl say Ham was cursed. Children Went to africa and china. Slaves. Why there are black jews. Chinese jews too. Hmmm…. The Bible has several parts giving specific orders for both slaves and slave masters.




The jewish king that tried to murder Jesus. They use to-say this is why they want abortion afraid of jesus returning . Some say abortion is worship to Molech.(spelling) changes.



ever wonder why Jesus did not write the Bible?

 

[Bongbong]

I purposely have avoided this exact thought process because it inevitably leads to religion being brought into the discussion, which inevitably leads to the discussion being trainwrecked by people who can't seem to grasp that science and "God" or intelligent design can indeed coexist.



Nice job quoting Wikipedia. Another example of people not being able to think for themselves.

The same is true of Darwinism, the "Big Bang", etc. regarding no testable or tenable hypotheses. And they are incorrect regarding "empirical support" - it's just not the folks they want to listen to. And that's OK. I don't listen to "Big Bangers" or evolutionists myself.

The problem with most people is they are unwilling to really research and learn, despite having more information at their fingertips than ever in the history of man. Most simply regurgitate what they were "taught" in school and now receive via social media and the "news". So called "scientists" or "experts" make ridiculous claims and stand unchallenged, empowering them to posit outright bullshit as "science".

Read how distances to other stars are "calculated" via parallax. Now take what you were taught in trigonometry and apply it to the method. Tell me how much accuracy there can really be when measuring vast distances from two points relatively close together in our solar system. After that exercise, take a look at the "redshift" measurement system. Note that one of the fundamental premises used is that all galaxies of the same type are the same physical size. Think about that for a moment. We can't accurately measure our own galaxy and now we are saying we can use an unproven data point as a foundation for all of the measurements made. Gee, that sounds scientific and provable, huh?

It's funny - when data proves that a long-held belief is wrong (called theories by people who don't know the true definition), they cling to it like ticks on a rat. Why? Egos? Afraid of losing funding for research that is 100% off-base? Afraid of seeing their life's work being dismissed as wrong?

Be careful listening to people who say things counter to what common sense tells you. For example - the polio vaccine. It is proven to prevent you from getting polio. Period. Because you don't have polio you can't spread polio. It doesn't allow you to get a less intense form of polio. In short - it fits the exact definition of a vaccine - if you happen to have an older dictionary that is.

Now apply that set of rules to the COVID-19 concoction that was injected into billions of people. Somehow, "scientists" called it a vaccine even though it didn't prevent people from contracting it, it didn't stop the spread, etc. It literally did not meet ANY part of the definition for a vaccine, yet it is still talked about and defended today as if it was some great miracle. It was so shitty that Merriam-Webster updated their definition of a vaccine to try and include it. Here's the definition of vaccine from the 2020 version of the dictionary:

"a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease."

Here's the definition from the 2024 version of the same dictionary:
"a preparation that is administered – as by injection – to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease."

Voltaire said "If I can make you believe an absurdity, I can make you commit an atrocity." They've done well to make most people believe absurdities. We can only hope the atrocities are not closely following.

'Voltaire said "If I can make you believe an absurdity, I can make you commit an atrocity." They've done well to make most people believe absurdities. We can only hope the atrocities are not closely following.'

That is a loose translation of a passage from Voltaire’s Questions sur les miracles’ (1765). Voltaire wrote "Certainement qui est en droit de vous rendre absurde, est en droit de vous rendre injuste" Although instead of atrocities, it would be batter to use the word injustices.

Since you seem to like Votaire, (as do I) here is a another (loosely translated) quote by Voltaire in relation to absurdities, injustices (or if you prefer, atrocities) and religion "Ours (i.e., the Christian religion) is assuredly the most ridiculous, the most absurd and the most bloody religion which has ever infected this world".

Here some examples of atrocities found in the Christian bible.

"And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction[a] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’" (1 Samuel 15)

"Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God they shall fall by the sword their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13)

If you choose to reject evolution but instead believe in intelligent design, you would also have to accept that your creator god created viruses like polio and covid 19. Biological warfare is an atrocity right? Providing you don't force the absurdities on others, or harm any one, please feel free to follow your religion, in the mean time keep your religious absurdities (intelligent design is an absurd hypothesis) out of science classes.

 

[Bongbong]

Bongbong, but what if Intelligent design was able to remove all the dogma associated with creationism, would
that not open up more avenues of discussions would that not allow for hypotheses to be up dated

as B-ManFX4 has pointed out.


B-ManFX4, I'll give you the "Big Bang" as not testable and using background echoes can have different interpretations
but Darwinism? there are natural processes for recording past life while temperamental and intermittent the information
can be documented tested and repeated, IMO textbook science theory , because as new information is added the time
line can be amended. (textbook science theory)

Bongbong, I would enjoy reading your hypotheses on how life gets started in the universe.

Ironically it was a Roman Catholic priest (Georges Lemaître) who suggested that the universe emerged from a "primeval atom".

While the big bang theory has some unresolved problems from the little I understand, it is the leading theory. Ont the other hand the immediate problem with the idea that something is designed, is the question of "who created the designer(s)". The unsupported claim that a prime creator always existed could equally be applied to an unsupported claim that the universe always existed. Or that the earth will be obliterated to make way for an intergalactic highway.

I have no hypothesis on how life on earth got started, it could have started multiple times for all I know. There is plenty of evidence that evolution has happened and is still happening, while that does not rule out the existence of gods, or Vogons for that matter, there is no testable evidence found for intelligent design, gods or Vogons.

 

[B-ManFX4]

Bongbong, but what if Intelligent design was able to remove all the dogma associated with creationism, would
that not open up more avenues of discussions would that not allow for hypotheses to be up dated

as B-ManFX4 has pointed out.


B-ManFX4, I'll give you the "Big Bang" as not testable and using background echoes can have different interpretations
but Darwinism? there are natural processes for recording past life while temperamental and intermittent the information
can be documented tested and repeated, IMO textbook science theory , because as new information is added the time
line can be amended. (textbook science theory)

Bongbong, I would enjoy reading your hypotheses on how life gets started in the universe.

Tommy,

Darwin got one thing right - living things can adapt to their particular surroundings / environment. ADAPT - that is dogs living in the desert tend to have less undercoat than dogs that live in the Arctic. However - THEY ARE STILL DOGS. Their DNA is 100% dog. They do not "evolve" into a new species to better deal with the environment. If they cannot deal with it, they go extinct. We see this in the fossil record over and over again.

If you believe the fossil record then you are aware of the "Cambrian Explosion". Literally millions of new life forms spontaneously showed up - with ZERO proof of evolution from previous life forms. Testable and observable?

Scientists has been doing "evolution" experiments for over 100 years on fruit flies. They breed so quickly that they have literally watched the results of their work through more than 1,500 generations. Guess what - even with very knowledgeable scientists directly manipulating the genes, they have been unable to successfully demonstrate even a single "evolution" change. When they do get a physical change that "sticks" (flies without wings was one of their results) those examples are unable to survive and, more importantly, they cannot reproduce. It's as if their creator designed them to be sterile when their genetic code is faulty. Testable and observable?

Man cross-breeds horses and donkeys to get mules. Mules are unable to reproduce because donkeys and horses do not have the same # of chromosomes. The female horse has 64 and the male donkey has 62. Man has also cross-bred lions and tigers. Both are "cats" but alas, they have different chromosome counts so they cannot reproduce. If two animals are so similar that they can mate and deliver a new life form that has the traits from both and even they cannot reproduce, then how exactly does something "evolve" into an entirely new form? Darwidiots will say that you just need lots and lots of time - the magic ingredient that somehow allows everything and anything to happen. Testable and observable?

Mules, Ligers, Tigons, Zorses - the list is long of hybrid animals that cannot reproduce. Here we have life forms that are already fully functioning within their own species yet, when they cross-breed, they cannot reproduce. In other words - they cannot EVOLVE into the "next" thing. Testable and provable?

And therein lies my problem with modern scientists - the data and probabilities are laid bare for anyone with an objective mind to review and measure. Doing so can only lead you to the conclusion that evolution is horseshit. Life is a result of intelligent design. Even after assembling all of the physical parts that comprise a living being, there still has to be "something" put into it for it to be "alive". Genesis 2:7 describes this exact thing. That same thing leaves the body upon death. As was stated earlier - try to re-animate any living thing that has died. We can't - even though the entire organism is intact and was "living" even 1 second ago. Once it is dead, it is dead.

Try and explain that with "science".

 

[B-ManFX4]

'Voltaire said "If I can make you believe an absurdity, I can make you commit an atrocity." They've done well to make most people believe absurdities. We can only hope the atrocities are not closely following.'

That is a loose translation of a passage from Voltaire’s Questions sur les miracles’ (1765). Voltaire wrote "Certainement qui est en droit de vous rendre absurde, est en droit de vous rendre injuste" Although instead of atrocities, it would be batter to use the word injustices.

Since you seem to like Votaire, (as do I) here is a another (loosely translated) quote by Voltaire in relation to absurdities, injustices (or if you prefer, atrocities) and religion "Ours (i.e., the Christian religion) is assuredly the most ridiculous, the most absurd and the most bloody religion which has ever infected this world".

Here some examples of atrocities found in the Christian bible.

"And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction[a] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’" (1 Samuel 15)

"Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God they shall fall by the sword their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13)

If you choose to reject evolution but instead believe in intelligent design, you would also have to accept that your creator god created viruses like polio and covid 19. Biological warfare is an atrocity right? Providing you don't force the absurdities on others, or harm any one, please feel free to follow your religion, in the mean time keep your religious absurdities (intelligent design is an absurd hypothesis) out of science classes.

You are a master Wikipediot, I'll give you that. Pointing out what you define as an atrocity in the Bible has zero to do with whether we were created by intelligent design or EVERYTHING alive happened by accident, over and over and over and over again... (BTW, COVID-19 was not a natural occurrence)

You, like most others, are so sure about your "science" that you have lost your ability to reason and objectively analyze the data literally right in front of you.

Tell me something: Why is it that the gap between humans and the next "smartest" organism on this planet is so vast it is obviously not possible that we evolved from anything? Tell me where all of our evolutionary ancestors are? We appear in the fossil record quite suddenly - EXACTLY AS WE ARE TODAY. You can talk about all of the previous ape-like creatures that we have found skeletons of but none of them are a "bridge" between humans today and bipeds of the past. Every one of them lived for some period of time and then went extinct. I'll try to explain it in a more direct, simple manner - two bipeds without the ability to reason did not mate and happen to birth a human being. PERIOD. The least intelligent human on this Earth has brain power that dwarfs the next closest intelligent animal. There is simply NOTHING between us and the rest of the animals. We stand alone - and that disproves evolution so eloquently it is absurd that people put any stock in the stupid idea in today's world.

I can observe that we are uniquely made. I can observe that we did NOT evolve from some primordial life form over billions of years. I can prove that our DNA is unique in the world. The fact that we are communicating via electronics over potentially vast distances is yet another example of the intelligence gap between humans and anything else on the planet.

But cling to your "science" and ignore the data and truth that is staring you in the face. Do us all a favor - keep your "science" out of real life classes where people analyze the data in front of them and then arrive at a conclusion that does not require you to ignore everything you are observing.

 

[Bongbong]

You are a master Wikipediot, I'll give you that. Pointing out what you define as an atrocity in the Bible has zero to do with whether we were created by intelligent design or EVERYTHING alive happened by accident, over and over and over and over again... (BTW, COVID-19 was not a natural occurrence)

You, like most others, are so sure about your "science" that you have lost your ability to reason and objectively analyze the data literally right in front of you.

Tell me something: Why is it that the gap between humans and the next "smartest" organism on this planet is so vast it is obviously not possible that we evolved from anything? Tell me where all of our evolutionary ancestors are? We appear in the fossil record quite suddenly - EXACTLY AS WE ARE TODAY. You can talk about all of the previous ape-like creatures that we have found skeletons of but none of them are a "bridge" between humans today and bipeds of the past. Every one of them lived for some period of time and then went extinct. I'll try to explain it in a more direct, simple manner - two bipeds without the ability to reason did not mate and happen to birth a human being. PERIOD. The least intelligent human on this Earth has brain power that dwarfs the next closest intelligent animal. There is simply NOTHING between us and the rest of the animals. We stand alone - and that disproves evolution so eloquently it is absurd that people put any stock in the stupid idea in today's world.

I can observe that we are uniquely made. I can observe that we did NOT evolve from some primordial life form over billions of years. I can prove that our DNA is unique in the world. The fact that we are communicating via electronics over potentially vast distances is yet another example of the intelligence gap between humans and anything else on the planet.

But cling to your "science" and ignore the data and truth that is staring you in the face. Do us all a favor - keep your "science" out of real life classes where people analyze the data in front of them and then arrive at a conclusion that does not require you to ignore everything you are observing.

Referencing an encyclopedia is not something bad in my view, I am quite disturbed that you see that differently. Not knowing how or why the universe came into existence is fine, inventing stories about creator gods is a leap of faith I am not willing to make. As for the atrocities in the bible, you are the one who brought up the Voltaire quote, I showed you some of the atrocities committed by believers of absurdities, using the bible as a reference book. I did not try to disprove intelligent design, I don't have to disprove intelligent design, it is up to the proponents of inteligent design to prove it. As Christopher Hitchens so eloquently said "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence")

As far as I know, science is not sure about anything, it is a method of discovering how the natural world works, looking for best explanations supported by testable theories. If your hypothesis of a creator god is not testable, it is put in the "Nice story bro" bin, where it belongs.

Granted, people using the scientific method for answers don't always get things right, but overall the scientific method is good enough for you to be able to spout your absurdities here. Lets hope that you are not like so many other religious idiots and can restrain yourself from committing injustices.

If religious people could be peaceful and didn't try to force their superstitions onto others at gunpoint, the world would be a nicer place.

 

[TommySr]

I'll try to explain it in a more direct, simple manner - two bipeds without the ability to reason did not mate and happen to birth a human being. PERIOD. The least intelligent human on this Earth has brain power that dwarfs the next closest intelligent animal. There is simply NOTHING between us and the rest of the animals. We stand alone - and that disproves evolution so eloquently it is absurd that people put any stock in the stupid idea in today's world.

B-ManFx4, when I look around I see a number of reasoning examples in the natural world, birds using sticks to
reach it's food source to ants forming living chains to navigate their environment, what sets modern man apart
form all other life forms on this ball in the vacuum space(earth) is our ability to see patterns, IMO when you live
on an isolated ball in space, sanity is living within your environment which is what all other life forms we have here
do, but not modern man and his insanity of seeing patterns that don't exist in the natural world, changing his environment
to match the pictures in his insane head, while I question weather this insanity is a natural progress of evolution,
endowed by some god, or my design by some designer to move life to other balls in the vacuum space(other planets)
I don't know, but I question, I'm looking, I'm searching.

example of insanity: dumping 9 billion tons of pollutants into the only air/water every life form on the planet needs to live.
and to do it yearly

example of insanity: look at the universe that surrounds us, yet devise a god or designer in our image

 

[RussNM]

You, like most others, are so sure about your "science" that you have lost your ability to reason and objectively analyze the data literally right in front of you.

THIS!.... The bible says they "sear their conscience ". Once that is done its irreversible. Toast.

 

[RussNM]

If religious people could be peaceful and didn't try to force their superstitions onto others at gunpoint, the world would be a nicer place.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror. nobody is forcing anything. were telling you truth and youre telling your opinion.

 

[B-ManFX4]

Referencing an encyclopedia is not something bad in my view, I am quite disturbed that you see that differently. Not knowing how or why the universe came into existence is fine, inventing stories about creator gods is a leap of faith I am not willing to make. As for the atrocities in the bible, you are the one who brought up the Voltaire quote, I showed you some of the atrocities committed by believers of absurdities, using the bible as a reference book. I did not try to disprove intelligent design, I don't have to disprove intelligent design, it is up to the proponents of inteligent design to prove it. As Christopher Hitchens so eloquently said "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence")

As far as I know, science is not sure about anything, it is a method of discovering how the natural world works, looking for best explanations supported by testable theories. If your hypothesis of a creator god is not testable, it is put in the "Nice story bro" bin, where it belongs.

Granted, people using the scientific method for answers don't always get things right, but overall the scientific method is good enough for you to be able to spout your absurdities here. Lets hope that you are not like so many other religious idiots and can restrain yourself from committing injustices.

If religious people could be peaceful and didn't try to force their superstitions onto others at gunpoint, the world would be a nicer place.

I have zero problem with someone referencing information sources. We'd be foolish to not do so. However, it would carry a lot more weight if you actually responded with your own observations, thoughts, research, etc. and quote your sources when appropriate. Quoting a source as unreliable as Wikipedia can be, with a single sentence and not adding your own dialog, is lazy and adds nothing to the conversation being had.

When your "science" is challenged you immediately draw links to things you believe disprove God or whomever and fail to address the points I made. Read back through this thread - I purposely avoided bringing God or religion into the conversation - because people like you can't seem to focus on the data and discuss it. Instead, since you can't form and express your own opinions, you quote things you feel bolster your position and then belittle people who believe differently. I have news for you - religion is a man invention. It has ZERO to do with God. So when you and others quote atrocities carried out in the name of religion, or your own grievances with religion, you are just affirming that people suck - on all levels.

By definition - Charles Manson was not a Christian. By definition - people who murder (for any reason) are not Christians. Saying you are a Christian, and then living in a manner that is counter to the true definition, means you are not a Christian. It's obviously hard for people today to comprehend that simple premise, especially since so many think they can "identify" as something other than their birth gender. The crazy thing is even science is now giving that stupidity a voice.

Inserted below is a brief explanation of DNA. Notice that one of the primary ingredients is SUGAR. I wonder how much sugar is floating out in space, just waiting to hitch a ride on an asteroid or comet to come populate the Earth?

The following is from Genome.gov. I bold/underlined some of the data points that I feel make the idea of "spontaneous generation" ridiculous.

BEGIN QUOTE

What is DNA made of?

DNA is made of chemical building blocks called nucleotides. These building blocks are made of three parts: a phosphate group, a sugar group and one of four types of nitrogen bases. To form a strand of DNA, nucleotides are linked into chains, with the phosphate and sugar groups alternating.

The four types of nitrogen bases found in nucleotides are: adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C). The order, or sequence, of these bases determines what biological instructions are contained in a strand of DNA. For example, the sequence ATCGTT might instruct for blue eyes, while ATCGCT might instruct for brown.

The complete DNA instruction book, or genome, for a human contains about 3 billion bases and about 20,000 genes on 23 pairs of chromosomes.

What does DNA do?

DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce. To carry out these functions, DNA sequences must be converted into messages that can be used to produce proteins, which are the complex molecules that do most of the work in our bodies.

Each DNA sequence that contains instructions to make a protein is known as a gene. The size of a gene may vary greatly, ranging from about 1,000 bases to 1 million bases in humans. Genes only make up about 1 percent of the DNA sequence. DNA sequences outside this 1 percent are involved in regulating when, how and how much of a protein is made.

How are DNA sequences used to make proteins?

DNA's instructions are used to make proteins in a two-step process. First, enzymes read the information in a DNA molecule and transcribe it into an intermediary molecule called messenger ribonucleic acid, or mRNA.

Next, the information contained in the mRNA molecule is translated into the "language" of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. This language tells the cell's protein-making machinery the precise order in which to link the amino acids to produce a specific protein. This is a major task because there are 20 types of amino acids, which can be placed in many different orders to form a wide variety of proteins.

END OF QUOTE

Now you have to also have enzymes spontaneously appear to help your spontaneously generated DNA create your spontaneously generated proteins. Then the spontaneously created mRNA molecule is used to create amino acids. QUOTE FROM ABOVE: "This language tells the cell's protein-making machinery the precise order in which to link the amino acids to produce a specific protein. This is a major task because there are 20 types of amino acids, which can be placed in many different orders to form a wide variety of proteins."

So, all the while you poo-poo people who believe that all of these incredibly complex things could not possibly happen by accident, you can offer exactly what to counter my belief that we are intelligently designed? Is this not a fair question?

Drop God and religion from the conversation and respond to even one of the data points I have presented. I am always ready and eager to learn. Address something as simple as how the molecule of a single DNA string got created and arranged in a very specific manner, over and over again - all by accident. Address the mathematical probabilities of even one of the arrangements happening by chance. (Keeping in mind we can't do it, with the knowledge of all the ingredients, within a laboratory.)

 

[TommySr]

I wonder how much sugar is floating out in space, just waiting to hitch a ride on an asteroid or comet to come populate the Earth?

B-ManFX4, your not the only one that wonders.

while I get at first glance it may seem lame/lazy to just post links to support a concept, but while you may have the skills
and knowledge to express your views with text in a cogent manner, but some of us not so much.
if I can't carry my tools needed to do my job, I'd get a dolly(or use links if wordsmithing is behind me)

Extraterrestrial ribose and other sugars in primitive meteorites

Your RNA May Have Come from Space, Meteor Study Suggests

The discovery of ribose sugar in ancient meteorites just made space rocks a little sweeter.

www.livescience.com

Sugar Found In Space: A Sign of Life?

Simple sugar molecules floating around a star some 400 light-years away suggest the possibility of life on other planets, astronomers say.

www.nationalgeographic.com

B-ManFX4 posted: If you believe the fossil record then you are aware of the "Cambrian Explosion". Literally millions of new life forms spontaneously showed up

B-ManFX4, could the Cambrian Explosion coincide with a asteroid or comet impact delivering the ingredients needed
or one big enough(enough energy, big blender/tornado ) to reconfigure ingredients already here

something to keep in mind, the moon seen when english astronomer thomas harriot fist draw pictures
of it in 1600's looks the same as it does now, same impacts visible which seems to imply that the number
of large asteroid or comet is not a constant, different 4 billion years ago or even 2 million years ago.

a large number of people think an asteroid impact was the main culprit for the demise of the dinosaurs
if true it would seem to imply asteroid impacts produce life on earth changing tornados.

while none of this eliminants a designer, it does open the door for a natural/random process which at some
point can be documented and understood.

I have the feeling that a designer/designer's designer is beyond paper and pens, which makes this a sweet topic for me personally THANKS!.
I can't be proved wrong for once in my life

 

[TommySr]

it's my thinking that all the impacts visible on the moon also delivered ingredients here(ejected into space then hit us)
will at least some of them

 

[B-ManFX4]

B-ManFX4, your not the only one that wonders.

while I get at first glance it may seem lame/lazy to just post links to support a concept, but while you may have the skills
and knowledge to express your views with text in a cogent manner, but some of us not so much.
if I can't carry my tools needed to do my job, I'd get a dolly(or use links if wordsmithing is behind me)

Tommy,

The comment about quoting and lazy was not directed to you. BongBong chose to engage the conversation with a single Wiki quote and provided no further commentary. He then returned and decided the best way to engage me was to call me stupid for believing in intelligent design, because well, you know, it is so much more far-fetched than believing DNA happens by accident all the time...

You, on the other hand, readily engage and explain your ideas and thoughts. Even if I don't agree with some of them it is still good for me to read and try to understand them, especially in the context of your explanation. That is what a conversation / debate is supposed to be about - the quest for knowledge and explanations.

Remember the old Star Trek episode (Devil In The Dark, S1- E25) where the rock boring and eating creatures were silicon based? That is a very real possibility. I don't believe the universe was created so vast and we are the only living things in it. That seems crazy but what do I know? I'm just a dumb carbon-based life form.

B-ManFX4, could the Cambrian Explosion coincide with a asteroid or comet impact delivering the ingredients needed or one big enough(enough energy, big blender/tornado ) to reconfigure ingredients already here

You left out one thing in that idea - HOW do all of those life forms suddenly appear from a single impact / event? It's almost impossible for even ONE amoeba to have been formed in that manner - now you are talking about millions of very complicated life forms happening all at once. I can't wrap my brain around that - you'll have to give me an assist.

 

[TommySr]

HOW do all of those life forms suddenly appear from a single impact / event?

B-ManFX4, "suddenly appear" has a different meaning when reading text(fossils) from billions
of years ago much less millions which is convoluted because of our plate tectonic and the rare/random
events needed for a record to be made(fossils) if live would have started on the moon records should
be easier to translate because of no plate tectonic, that also can be seen in low impact sights here on earth.

you'll have to give me an assist.

I first seen the energy afoot in the universe in print form back in middle school, in video form it was on national TV cosmos
while I can't rap my head around that much energy it did plant an image in my head. and I found it life creating/changing.

 

[TommySr]

starting in the 1950's people started thinking about multiple universes and how that
may be the cause of gravity's limited impact compared to the other forces acting in
the universe, it may be generated/shared by other universes, it's possible your designer
is not visible here for the same reason

 

[Bongbong]

I have zero problem with someone referencing information sources. We'd be foolish to not do so. However, it would carry a lot more weight if you actually responded with your own observations, thoughts, research, etc. and quote your sources when appropriate. Quoting a source as unreliable as Wikipedia can be, with a single sentence and not adding your own dialog, is lazy and adds nothing to the conversation being had.

When your "science" is challenged you immediately draw links to things you believe disprove God or whomever and fail to address the points I made. Read back through this thread - I purposely avoided bringing God or religion into the conversation - because people like you can't seem to focus on the data and discuss it. Instead, since you can't form and express your own opinions, you quote things you feel bolster your position and then belittle people who believe differently. I have news for you - religion is a man invention. It has ZERO to do with God. So when you and others quote atrocities carried out in the name of religion, or your own grievances with religion, you are just affirming that people suck - on all levels.

By definition - Charles Manson was not a Christian. By definition - people who murder (for any reason) are not Christians. Saying you are a Christian, and then living in a manner that is counter to the true definition, means you are not a Christian. It's obviously hard for people today to comprehend that simple premise, especially since so many think they can "identify" as something other than their birth gender. The crazy thing is even science is now giving that stupidity a voice.

Inserted below is a brief explanation of DNA. Notice that one of the primary ingredients is SUGAR. I wonder how much sugar is floating out in space, just waiting to hitch a ride on an asteroid or comet to come populate the Earth?

The following is from Genome.gov. I bold/underlined some of the data points that I feel make the idea of "spontaneous generation" ridiculous.

BEGIN QUOTE

What is DNA made of?

DNA is made of chemical building blocks called nucleotides. These building blocks are made of three parts: a phosphate group, a sugar group and one of four types of nitrogen bases. To form a strand of DNA, nucleotides are linked into chains, with the phosphate and sugar groups alternating.

The four types of nitrogen bases found in nucleotides are: adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C). The order, or sequence, of these bases determines what biological instructions are contained in a strand of DNA. For example, the sequence ATCGTT might instruct for blue eyes, while ATCGCT might instruct for brown.

The complete DNA instruction book, or genome, for a human contains about 3 billion bases and about 20,000 genes on 23 pairs of chromosomes.

What does DNA do?

DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce. To carry out these functions, DNA sequences must be converted into messages that can be used to produce proteins, which are the complex molecules that do most of the work in our bodies.

Each DNA sequence that contains instructions to make a protein is known as a gene. The size of a gene may vary greatly, ranging from about 1,000 bases to 1 million bases in humans. Genes only make up about 1 percent of the DNA sequence. DNA sequences outside this 1 percent are involved in regulating when, how and how much of a protein is made.

How are DNA sequences used to make proteins?

DNA's instructions are used to make proteins in a two-step process. First, enzymes read the information in a DNA molecule and transcribe it into an intermediary molecule called messenger ribonucleic acid, or mRNA.

Next, the information contained in the mRNA molecule is translated into the "language" of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. This language tells the cell's protein-making machinery the precise order in which to link the amino acids to produce a specific protein. This is a major task because there are 20 types of amino acids, which can be placed in many different orders to form a wide variety of proteins.

END OF QUOTE

Now you have to also have enzymes spontaneously appear to help your spontaneously generated DNA create your spontaneously generated proteins. Then the spontaneously created mRNA molecule is used to create amino acids. QUOTE FROM ABOVE: "This language tells the cell's protein-making machinery the precise order in which to link the amino acids to produce a specific protein. This is a major task because there are 20 types of amino acids, which can be placed in many different orders to form a wide variety of proteins."

So, all the while you poo-poo people who believe that all of these incredibly complex things could not possibly happen by accident, you can offer exactly what to counter my belief that we are intelligently designed? Is this not a fair question?

Drop God and religion from the conversation and respond to even one of the data points I have presented. I am always ready and eager to learn. Address something as simple as how the molecule of a single DNA string got created and arranged in a very specific manner, over and over again - all by accident. Address the mathematical probabilities of even one of the arrangements happening by chance. (Keeping in mind we can't do it, with the knowledge of all the ingredients, within a laboratory.)

You claim that Wikipedia is unreliable doesn't address the fact that "Intelligent design is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science". There is simply no better way to formulate the concept and I have no problem using the exact same terms, even copy pasting it. I am not going to debate if Wikipedia is reliable or not, there are inaccuracies found in all encyclopedia's, including Wikipedia. A single fact wrong would be sufficient evidence to support the claim that Wikipedia is inaccurate. That claim of being inaccurate can be pointed at you as well, as you got the translation of the Voltaire quote wrong. Or your assertion that it is 'your "science"', it's isn't my science or any one's science, science is a method, or as Wikipedia puts it "Science is a strict systematic discipline that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the world." It is just one of the many feeble attempts to avoid the conversation that we should be having about the fact that there is simply no testable evidence for your claim that everything? is created.

I have no problem with your personal belief that everything is created, I have a problem with introducing your belief into science classes and since it is your personal belief, I don't think it is suitable for comparative religion classes either. It's just a "nice story bro".

 

[Bongbong]

Tommy,

The comment about quoting and lazy was not directed to you. BongBong chose to engage the conversation with a single Wiki quote and provided no further commentary. He then returned and decided the best way to engage me was to call me stupid for believing in intelligent design, because well, you know, it is so much more far-fetched than believing DNA happens by accident all the time...

You, on the other hand, readily engage and explain your ideas and thoughts. Even if I don't agree with some of them it is still good for me to read and try to understand them, especially in the context of your explanation. That is what a conversation / debate is supposed to be about - the quest for knowledge and explanations.

Remember the old Star Trek episode (Devil In The Dark, S1- E25) where the rock boring and eating creatures were silicon based? That is a very real possibility. I don't believe the universe was created so vast and we are the only living things in it. That seems crazy but what do I know? I'm just a dumb carbon-based life form.



You left out one thing in that idea - HOW do all of those life forms suddenly appear from a single impact / event? It's almost impossible for even ONE amoeba to have been formed in that manner - now you are talking about millions of very complicated life forms happening all at once. I can't wrap my brain around that - you'll have to give me an assist.

"He then returned and decided the best way to engage me was to call me stupid for believing in intelligent design"

Citation please.

 

[TommySr]

you'll have to give me an assist

B-ManFX4, that may be a dick thing to do on my part.

the first time I had a personal glimpse of the forces afoot was in 1974 while sitting on the hood
of a 1962 buick le sabre one night outside provo utah just gazing at the night sky, but what I felt
was more a panic attach then edifying/spiritual or even the wonder I felt in middle school in any way.

RussNM posted: Ha! The chance of this happening is 10 to the 26th power to 1. Also known as "impossible" in laymans terms.

while only 2 a dimensional view the video below points to RussNM's number as being within the realm of possibilities
in our vast universe, we have proof of it happening at least once .

wow