Does God Exist?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nothing magical about my beliefs.

False. It is literally what distinguishes them from sane, rational beliefs.

 

[ding]

Nothing magical about my beliefs. You can't refute them so you lie instead. But I don't mind because it gives me an opportunity to plant more seeds. What you intend for evil, God is using for good.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

See? No magic, Where's the magic?

False. It is literally what distinguishes them from sane, rational beliefs.

Show me using my words which ones were magical thinking.
Show me which thoughts were irrational and explain it for me. Can you do that?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nothing magical about my beliefs. You can't refute them so you lie instead. But I don't mind because it gives me an opportunity to plant more seeds. What you intend for evil, God is using for good.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

See? No magic, Where's the magic?

False. It is literally what distinguishes them from sane, rational beliefs.

Show me using my words which ones were magical thinking.
Show me which thoughts were irrational and explain it for me. Can you do that?

Sorry, i am not your mommy. You can defer to any of the times i have pointed out your magical horseshit, or you can wait for me to do it again.

 

[ding]

Nothing magical about my beliefs. You can't refute them so you lie instead. But I don't mind because it gives me an opportunity to plant more seeds. What you intend for evil, God is using for good.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

See? No magic, Where's the magic?

False. It is literally what distinguishes them from sane, rational beliefs.

Show me using my words which ones were magical thinking.
Show me which thoughts were irrational and explain it for me. Can you do that?

Sorry, i am not your mommy. You can defer to any of the times i have pointed out your magical horseshit, or you can wait for me to do it again.

So you can't even back up your rhetoric?

 

[ding]

Nothing magical about my beliefs. You can't refute them so you lie instead. But I don't mind because it gives me an opportunity to plant more seeds. What you intend for evil, God is using for good.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

See? No magic, Where's the magic?

False. It is literally what distinguishes them from sane, rational beliefs.

Show me using my words which ones were magical thinking.
Show me which thoughts were irrational and explain it for me. Can you do that?

Sorry, i am not your mommy. You can defer to any of the times i have pointed out your magical horseshit, or you can wait for me to do it again.

FYI, you have never refuted this. Show me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nothing magical about my beliefs. You can't refute them so you lie instead. But I don't mind because it gives me an opportunity to plant more seeds. What you intend for evil, God is using for good.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

See? No magic, Where's the magic?

False. It is literally what distinguishes them from sane, rational beliefs.

Show me using my words which ones were magical thinking.
Show me which thoughts were irrational and explain it for me. Can you do that?

Sorry, i am not your mommy. You can defer to any of the times i have pointed out your magical horseshit, or you can wait for me to do it again.

FYI, you have never refuted this. Show me.

No, sorry. Cry all night. You are going to tell yourself anything you want and believe it anyway. That's what you religious nutballs are best at.

 

[ding]

Nothing magical about my beliefs. You can't refute them so you lie instead. But I don't mind because it gives me an opportunity to plant more seeds. What you intend for evil, God is using for good.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

See? No magic, Where's the magic?

False. It is literally what distinguishes them from sane, rational beliefs.

Show me using my words which ones were magical thinking.
Show me which thoughts were irrational and explain it for me. Can you do that?

Sorry, i am not your mommy. You can defer to any of the times i have pointed out your magical horseshit, or you can wait for me to do it again.

FYI, you have never refuted this. Show me.

No, sorry. Cry all night. You are going to tell yourself anything you want and believe it anyway. That's what you religious nutballs are best at.

I didn't think you could because you never have before. You can't show a post that doesn't exist.

Would you like it if religious people kept their beliefs to themselves?

That's exactly what Stalin and Lenin believed.

 

[ding]

Nothing magical about my beliefs. You can't refute them so you lie instead. But I don't mind because it gives me an opportunity to plant more seeds. What you intend for evil, God is using for good.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

See? No magic, Where's the magic?

False. It is literally what distinguishes them from sane, rational beliefs.

Show me using my words which ones were magical thinking.
Show me which thoughts were irrational and explain it for me. Can you do that?

Sorry, i am not your mommy. You can defer to any of the times i have pointed out your magical horseshit, or you can wait for me to do it again.

FYI, you have never refuted this. Show me.

No, sorry. Cry all night. You are going to tell yourself anything you want and believe it anyway. That's what you religious nutballs are best at.

I believe that...
At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Do you have any basis for your beliefs?

 

[luchitociencia]

Your link is on themodynamics, not chemistry. I was not posting on the section on thermodynamics. Have you found any errors Thaxton et al made on chemistry?

Much better. I've found a fundamental logic error.

He shows that a 1952 experiment wasn't good enough, and thus declares evolution must be impossible without divine guidance. The problem there is incorrectoy assuming that the Mille experiment was the final word on the matter. It wasn't. The Miller experiment is obsolete. It didn't even use the right atmospheric as a starting point. Thus, Thaxton's supposed debunking is obsolete.

Can you explain why most peer reviewed scientific journals do not give the actual chemical reaction product proportions in MIller's famous experiment?

You tell us. Don't ask me to explain your theories.

I suggest you look at more modern prebiotic chemistry theories. For example, we now know primitive earth contained iron and carbonites that would have neutralized acids, so a formic acid buildup wouldn't have been an issue.

Inaccurate post - try reading my posts more carefully. So, can you link to your theory about carbonites? Did you mean carbonates which were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle?

Definitions of Carbonites here:

Definition of CARBONITE

a blasting explosive varying greatly in formula but containing among its ingredients a carbonaceous substance (as oak bark), a nitrate, and now usually nitroglycerin; a natural coke usually resulting from contact of coal deposits with igneous rock intrusions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Or did you mean this definition:

What is Carbonite? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Carbonite provides cloud backup services to consumers and small to medium-sized businesses. Files can be accessed through a computer or mobile device.

searchdatabackup.techtarget.com

Excerpt:

"Carbonite Inc. is an online backup company in Boston. Founded in 2005, Carbonite sells cloud backup to consumers"

Ah yes, life on earth was created after the clouds went back up - See Genesis chapter 1.

OK, I learned a new one! Cloud back up!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

those waters ...

....

a question earlier in response to your reply the water was from Earth ... the above implying the universe was an ocean and our planet was placed inside a bubble the boundaries being heaven, not much different than the tortoise "shell". seems they thought the blue sky was water.

your disinformation does prove, humor is in the eye of the beholder.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

But it is interesting that chemical evolutionists often refer to how large our universe is and that therefore the unlikely chain of chemical reactions required for protein synthesis becomes likely somewhere at sometime.

The problem is that while our universe has been calculated to have a mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) - this is NOT all a primordial soup favorable for amino acid synthesis. In fact, there isn't even any geological evidence such as 'soup' ever existed on earth!

Most of the universe is made up of stars - clearly no amino acid synthesis can occur within stars.

Oh, and water is actually an enemy of amino acid synthesis from a soup containing HCN as a starter molecule for chemical reaction pathways to amino acids. One of many reactions:

HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH or CH2O2).

Btw - you quote a Bible translation that I do not prefer - not sure whose post you are quoting from.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

.
a response to your lack of one -

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

again, those waters ... its your belief not mine.

View attachment 336152

primordial Earth.

Venus is a new planet. Keep watching it for generations, it will become similar to earth.

Care to elaborate?

How do you propose the CO2 greenhouse atmosphere be returned to carbonates in the crust of Venus? There can be no geologic carbon cycle without oceans of liquid water - how do you get oceans of liquid water on Venus given the heat on the surface of the planet?

You think the sun will cool and solar radiation will cool and that Venus would therefore cool? I doubt you will find any scientist who considers that possible/tenable - most actually think Venus will be swallowed up by our sun during its postulated entry into red giant phase.

Those are good questions.

I don't propose anything, but I expect Venus eventually will cool off. The slowing process of cooling is -between other factors- caused by the slow rotation in that planet. (I have mentioned before the "lemonade stirring" as a method for other phenomena to be accomplished as well)

The first spacecrafts sent to Venus decades ago detected "snow" in its upper atmosphere. Even the ancient people said that Venus was a planet with " a tail". Probably gases or dust/particles coming out from that planet somehow. The trapped high temperature in Venus inside a cold upper atmosphere is like hot coffee inside a thermos mug, eventually the heat will be overcome and the coffee will cool off.

Point is, that the current status of Venus today is very similar to the visioned status of earth as it was in its past, because whatever the formation theory you might apply for the formation of our planet, earth was hot inside and outside (surface) at its very beginning.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

And, by the way, if the Sun reaches a red giant phase, then the Sun will respect no one and even Jupiter might be swallowed. But, of course, pulling or repelling of the planets by a red giant sun won't be just because an increased size. We don't really know how such scenario will become to be. We can speculate a lot, but can't predict anything.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

.
having evolved on planet Earth would give no reason to believe the same occurrence will not happen under the same conditions anywhere in the universe.

not sure the dna is such a question as why what evolved on Earth relies on an outside source similar to itself for nutrients to survive - seems the spiritual component might be more alien than the physiology. a physiology sustainable by absorption of the elements. not eating a cow.

Life didn't evolved on earth.

Evolution is not the process.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

However, the "spiritual component" expression is a very well made description. I like it.

 

[BreezeWood]

Your link is on themodynamics, not chemistry. I was not posting on the section on thermodynamics. Have you found any errors Thaxton et al made on chemistry?

Much better. I've found a fundamental logic error.

He shows that a 1952 experiment wasn't good enough, and thus declares evolution must be impossible without divine guidance. The problem there is incorrectoy assuming that the Mille experiment was the final word on the matter. It wasn't. The Miller experiment is obsolete. It didn't even use the right atmospheric as a starting point. Thus, Thaxton's supposed debunking is obsolete.

Can you explain why most peer reviewed scientific journals do not give the actual chemical reaction product proportions in MIller's famous experiment?

You tell us. Don't ask me to explain your theories.

I suggest you look at more modern prebiotic chemistry theories. For example, we now know primitive earth contained iron and carbonites that would have neutralized acids, so a formic acid buildup wouldn't have been an issue.

Inaccurate post - try reading my posts more carefully. So, can you link to your theory about carbonites? Did you mean carbonates which were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle?

Definitions of Carbonites here:

Definition of CARBONITE

a blasting explosive varying greatly in formula but containing among its ingredients a carbonaceous substance (as oak bark), a nitrate, and now usually nitroglycerin; a natural coke usually resulting from contact of coal deposits with igneous rock intrusions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Or did you mean this definition:

What is Carbonite? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Carbonite provides cloud backup services to consumers and small to medium-sized businesses. Files can be accessed through a computer or mobile device.

searchdatabackup.techtarget.com

Excerpt:

"Carbonite Inc. is an online backup company in Boston. Founded in 2005, Carbonite sells cloud backup to consumers"

Ah yes, life on earth was created after the clouds went back up - See Genesis chapter 1.

OK, I learned a new one! Cloud back up!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

those waters ...

....

a question earlier in response to your reply the water was from Earth ... the above implying the universe was an ocean and our planet was placed inside a bubble the boundaries being heaven, not much different than the tortoise "shell". seems they thought the blue sky was water.

your disinformation does prove, humor is in the eye of the beholder.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

But it is interesting that chemical evolutionists often refer to how large our universe is and that therefore the unlikely chain of chemical reactions required for protein synthesis becomes likely somewhere at sometime.

The problem is that while our universe has been calculated to have a mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) - this is NOT all a primordial soup favorable for amino acid synthesis. In fact, there isn't even any geological evidence such as 'soup' ever existed on earth!

Most of the universe is made up of stars - clearly no amino acid synthesis can occur within stars.

Oh, and water is actually an enemy of amino acid synthesis from a soup containing HCN as a starter molecule for chemical reaction pathways to amino acids. One of many reactions:

HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH or CH2O2).

Btw - you quote a Bible translation that I do not prefer - not sure whose post you are quoting from.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

.
a response to your lack of one -

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

again, those waters ... its your belief not mine.

View attachment 336152

primordial Earth.

Venus is a new planet. Keep watching it for generations, it will become similar to earth.

Care to elaborate?

How do you propose the CO2 greenhouse atmosphere be returned to carbonates in the crust of Venus? There can be no geologic carbon cycle without oceans of liquid water - how do you get oceans of liquid water on Venus given the heat on the surface of the planet?

You think the sun will cool and solar radiation will cool and that Venus would therefore cool? I doubt you will find any scientist who considers that possible/tenable - most actually think Venus will be swallowed up by our sun during its postulated entry into red giant phase.

Those are good questions.

I don't propose anything, but I expect Venus eventually will cool off. The slowing process of cooling is -between other factors- caused by the slow rotation in that planet. (I have mentioned before the "lemonade stirring" as a method for other phenomena to be accomplished as well)

The first spacecrafts sent to Venus decades ago detected "snow" in its upper atmosphere. Even the ancient people said that Venus was a planet with " a tail". Probably gases or dust/particles coming out from that planet somehow. The trapped high temperature in Venus inside a cold upper atmosphere is like hot coffee inside a thermos mug, eventually the heat will be overcome and the coffee will cool off.

Point is, that the current status of Venus today is very similar to the visioned status of earth as it was in its past, because whatever the formation theory you might apply for the formation of our planet, earth was hot inside and outside (surface) at its very beginning.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

And, by the way, if the Sun reaches a red giant phase, then the Sun will respect no one and even Jupiter might be swallowed. But, of course, pulling or repelling of the planets by a red giant sun won't be just because an increased size. We don't really know how such scenario will become to be. We can speculate a lot, but can't predict anything.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

.
having evolved on planet Earth would give no reason to believe the same occurrence will not happen under the same conditions anywhere in the universe.

not sure the dna is such a question as why what evolved on Earth relies on an outside source similar to itself for nutrients to survive - seems the spiritual component might be more alien than the physiology. a physiology sustainable by absorption of the elements. not eating a cow.

Life didn't evolved on earth.

Evolution is not the process.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

However, the "spiritual component" expression is a very well made description. I like it.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

.
physiology is not so hard to comprehend -

the first life were the elements -

they combined to form molecules -

molecules formed compounds - inorganic ... organic

the organic compounds create physiology - single cell being

somewhere perhaps at the very beginning w/ the elements a spiritual content (metaphysical) became involved and guided the process and made the decisions that eventually evolved into the physiology associated with living beings.

yes there is evolution - everything evolves not everything has a guidance, the guidance must be incorporated in any experiment meant to create an initial life form - the spiritual content is what kept the host together to progress through the building process.

* did the miller experiment "fix" conditions to make them work - that is how they will succeed - mimicking the initial process.

 

[ding]

Your link is on themodynamics, not chemistry. I was not posting on the section on thermodynamics. Have you found any errors Thaxton et al made on chemistry?

Much better. I've found a fundamental logic error.

He shows that a 1952 experiment wasn't good enough, and thus declares evolution must be impossible without divine guidance. The problem there is incorrectoy assuming that the Mille experiment was the final word on the matter. It wasn't. The Miller experiment is obsolete. It didn't even use the right atmospheric as a starting point. Thus, Thaxton's supposed debunking is obsolete.

Can you explain why most peer reviewed scientific journals do not give the actual chemical reaction product proportions in MIller's famous experiment?

You tell us. Don't ask me to explain your theories.

I suggest you look at more modern prebiotic chemistry theories. For example, we now know primitive earth contained iron and carbonites that would have neutralized acids, so a formic acid buildup wouldn't have been an issue.

Inaccurate post - try reading my posts more carefully. So, can you link to your theory about carbonites? Did you mean carbonates which were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle?

Definitions of Carbonites here:

Definition of CARBONITE

a blasting explosive varying greatly in formula but containing among its ingredients a carbonaceous substance (as oak bark), a nitrate, and now usually nitroglycerin; a natural coke usually resulting from contact of coal deposits with igneous rock intrusions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Or did you mean this definition:

What is Carbonite? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Carbonite provides cloud backup services to consumers and small to medium-sized businesses. Files can be accessed through a computer or mobile device.

searchdatabackup.techtarget.com

Excerpt:

"Carbonite Inc. is an online backup company in Boston. Founded in 2005, Carbonite sells cloud backup to consumers"

Ah yes, life on earth was created after the clouds went back up - See Genesis chapter 1.

OK, I learned a new one! Cloud back up!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

those waters ...

....

a question earlier in response to your reply the water was from Earth ... the above implying the universe was an ocean and our planet was placed inside a bubble the boundaries being heaven, not much different than the tortoise "shell". seems they thought the blue sky was water.

your disinformation does prove, humor is in the eye of the beholder.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

But it is interesting that chemical evolutionists often refer to how large our universe is and that therefore the unlikely chain of chemical reactions required for protein synthesis becomes likely somewhere at sometime.

The problem is that while our universe has been calculated to have a mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) - this is NOT all a primordial soup favorable for amino acid synthesis. In fact, there isn't even any geological evidence such as 'soup' ever existed on earth!

Most of the universe is made up of stars - clearly no amino acid synthesis can occur within stars.

Oh, and water is actually an enemy of amino acid synthesis from a soup containing HCN as a starter molecule for chemical reaction pathways to amino acids. One of many reactions:

HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH or CH2O2).

Btw - you quote a Bible translation that I do not prefer - not sure whose post you are quoting from.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

.
a response to your lack of one -

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

again, those waters ... its your belief not mine.

View attachment 336152

primordial Earth.

Venus is a new planet. Keep watching it for generations, it will become similar to earth.

Care to elaborate?

How do you propose the CO2 greenhouse atmosphere be returned to carbonates in the crust of Venus? There can be no geologic carbon cycle without oceans of liquid water - how do you get oceans of liquid water on Venus given the heat on the surface of the planet?

You think the sun will cool and solar radiation will cool and that Venus would therefore cool? I doubt you will find any scientist who considers that possible/tenable - most actually think Venus will be swallowed up by our sun during its postulated entry into red giant phase.

Those are good questions.

I don't propose anything, but I expect Venus eventually will cool off. The slowing process of cooling is -between other factors- caused by the slow rotation in that planet. (I have mentioned before the "lemonade stirring" as a method for other phenomena to be accomplished as well)

The first spacecrafts sent to Venus decades ago detected "snow" in its upper atmosphere. Even the ancient people said that Venus was a planet with " a tail". Probably gases or dust/particles coming out from that planet somehow. The trapped high temperature in Venus inside a cold upper atmosphere is like hot coffee inside a thermos mug, eventually the heat will be overcome and the coffee will cool off.

Point is, that the current status of Venus today is very similar to the visioned status of earth as it was in its past, because whatever the formation theory you might apply for the formation of our planet, earth was hot inside and outside (surface) at its very beginning.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

And, by the way, if the Sun reaches a red giant phase, then the Sun will respect no one and even Jupiter might be swallowed. But, of course, pulling or repelling of the planets by a red giant sun won't be just because an increased size. We don't really know how such scenario will become to be. We can speculate a lot, but can't predict anything.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

.
having evolved on planet Earth would give no reason to believe the same occurrence will not happen under the same conditions anywhere in the universe.

not sure the dna is such a question as why what evolved on Earth relies on an outside source similar to itself for nutrients to survive - seems the spiritual component might be more alien than the physiology. a physiology sustainable by absorption of the elements. not eating a cow.

Life didn't evolved on earth.

Evolution is not the process.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

However, the "spiritual component" expression is a very well made description. I like it.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

.
physiology is not so hard to comprehend -

the first life were the elements -

View attachment 340758

they combined to form molecules -

View attachment 340763

molecules formed compounds - inorganic ... organic

View attachment 340765

the organic compounds create physiology - single cell being

View attachment 340766

somewhere perhaps at the very beginning w/ the elements a spiritual content (metaphysical) became involved and guided the process and made the decisions that eventually evolved into the physiology associated with living beings.

yes there is evolution - everything evolves not everything has a guidance, the guidance must be incorporated in any experiment meant to create an initial life form - the spiritual content is what kept the host together to progress through the building process.

* did the miller experiment "fix" conditions to make them work - that is how they will succeed - mimicking the initial process.

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit.

No.

Debate over.

No way to tell who is right. Debate over.

 

[BreezeWood]

Your link is on themodynamics, not chemistry. I was not posting on the section on thermodynamics. Have you found any errors Thaxton et al made on chemistry?

Much better. I've found a fundamental logic error.

He shows that a 1952 experiment wasn't good enough, and thus declares evolution must be impossible without divine guidance. The problem there is incorrectoy assuming that the Mille experiment was the final word on the matter. It wasn't. The Miller experiment is obsolete. It didn't even use the right atmospheric as a starting point. Thus, Thaxton's supposed debunking is obsolete.

Can you explain why most peer reviewed scientific journals do not give the actual chemical reaction product proportions in MIller's famous experiment?

You tell us. Don't ask me to explain your theories.

I suggest you look at more modern prebiotic chemistry theories. For example, we now know primitive earth contained iron and carbonites that would have neutralized acids, so a formic acid buildup wouldn't have been an issue.

Inaccurate post - try reading my posts more carefully. So, can you link to your theory about carbonites? Did you mean carbonates which were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle?

Definitions of Carbonites here:

Definition of CARBONITE

a blasting explosive varying greatly in formula but containing among its ingredients a carbonaceous substance (as oak bark), a nitrate, and now usually nitroglycerin; a natural coke usually resulting from contact of coal deposits with igneous rock intrusions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Or did you mean this definition:

What is Carbonite? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Carbonite provides cloud backup services to consumers and small to medium-sized businesses. Files can be accessed through a computer or mobile device.

searchdatabackup.techtarget.com

Excerpt:

"Carbonite Inc. is an online backup company in Boston. Founded in 2005, Carbonite sells cloud backup to consumers"

Ah yes, life on earth was created after the clouds went back up - See Genesis chapter 1.

OK, I learned a new one! Cloud back up!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

those waters ...

....

a question earlier in response to your reply the water was from Earth ... the above implying the universe was an ocean and our planet was placed inside a bubble the boundaries being heaven, not much different than the tortoise "shell". seems they thought the blue sky was water.

your disinformation does prove, humor is in the eye of the beholder.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

But it is interesting that chemical evolutionists often refer to how large our universe is and that therefore the unlikely chain of chemical reactions required for protein synthesis becomes likely somewhere at sometime.

The problem is that while our universe has been calculated to have a mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) - this is NOT all a primordial soup favorable for amino acid synthesis. In fact, there isn't even any geological evidence such as 'soup' ever existed on earth!

Most of the universe is made up of stars - clearly no amino acid synthesis can occur within stars.

Oh, and water is actually an enemy of amino acid synthesis from a soup containing HCN as a starter molecule for chemical reaction pathways to amino acids. One of many reactions:

HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH or CH2O2).

Btw - you quote a Bible translation that I do not prefer - not sure whose post you are quoting from.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

.
a response to your lack of one -

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

again, those waters ... its your belief not mine.

View attachment 336152

primordial Earth.

Venus is a new planet. Keep watching it for generations, it will become similar to earth.

Care to elaborate?

How do you propose the CO2 greenhouse atmosphere be returned to carbonates in the crust of Venus? There can be no geologic carbon cycle without oceans of liquid water - how do you get oceans of liquid water on Venus given the heat on the surface of the planet?

You think the sun will cool and solar radiation will cool and that Venus would therefore cool? I doubt you will find any scientist who considers that possible/tenable - most actually think Venus will be swallowed up by our sun during its postulated entry into red giant phase.

Those are good questions.

I don't propose anything, but I expect Venus eventually will cool off. The slowing process of cooling is -between other factors- caused by the slow rotation in that planet. (I have mentioned before the "lemonade stirring" as a method for other phenomena to be accomplished as well)

The first spacecrafts sent to Venus decades ago detected "snow" in its upper atmosphere. Even the ancient people said that Venus was a planet with " a tail". Probably gases or dust/particles coming out from that planet somehow. The trapped high temperature in Venus inside a cold upper atmosphere is like hot coffee inside a thermos mug, eventually the heat will be overcome and the coffee will cool off.

Point is, that the current status of Venus today is very similar to the visioned status of earth as it was in its past, because whatever the formation theory you might apply for the formation of our planet, earth was hot inside and outside (surface) at its very beginning.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

And, by the way, if the Sun reaches a red giant phase, then the Sun will respect no one and even Jupiter might be swallowed. But, of course, pulling or repelling of the planets by a red giant sun won't be just because an increased size. We don't really know how such scenario will become to be. We can speculate a lot, but can't predict anything.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

.
having evolved on planet Earth would give no reason to believe the same occurrence will not happen under the same conditions anywhere in the universe.

not sure the dna is such a question as why what evolved on Earth relies on an outside source similar to itself for nutrients to survive - seems the spiritual component might be more alien than the physiology. a physiology sustainable by absorption of the elements. not eating a cow.

Life didn't evolved on earth.

Evolution is not the process.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

However, the "spiritual component" expression is a very well made description. I like it.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

.
physiology is not so hard to comprehend -

the first life were the elements -

View attachment 340758

they combined to form molecules -

View attachment 340763

molecules formed compounds - inorganic ... organic

View attachment 340765

the organic compounds create physiology - single cell being

View attachment 340766

somewhere perhaps at the very beginning w/ the elements a spiritual content (metaphysical) became involved and guided the process and made the decisions that eventually evolved into the physiology associated with living beings.

yes there is evolution - everything evolves not everything has a guidance, the guidance must be incorporated in any experiment meant to create an initial life form - the spiritual content is what kept the host together to progress through the building process.

* did the miller experiment "fix" conditions to make them work - that is how they will succeed - mimicking the initial process.

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

.
you really have a reading comprehension - problem ...

throughout the development of physiology from the beginning there became an inseparable spiritual content that guided the host's evolutionary progression.

 

[ding]

the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit.

No.

Debate over.

No way to tell who is right. Debate over.

How would you know? You've never done the evaluation.

 

[ding]

Your link is on themodynamics, not chemistry. I was not posting on the section on thermodynamics. Have you found any errors Thaxton et al made on chemistry?

Much better. I've found a fundamental logic error.

He shows that a 1952 experiment wasn't good enough, and thus declares evolution must be impossible without divine guidance. The problem there is incorrectoy assuming that the Mille experiment was the final word on the matter. It wasn't. The Miller experiment is obsolete. It didn't even use the right atmospheric as a starting point. Thus, Thaxton's supposed debunking is obsolete.

Can you explain why most peer reviewed scientific journals do not give the actual chemical reaction product proportions in MIller's famous experiment?

You tell us. Don't ask me to explain your theories.

I suggest you look at more modern prebiotic chemistry theories. For example, we now know primitive earth contained iron and carbonites that would have neutralized acids, so a formic acid buildup wouldn't have been an issue.

Inaccurate post - try reading my posts more carefully. So, can you link to your theory about carbonites? Did you mean carbonates which were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle?

Definitions of Carbonites here:

Definition of CARBONITE

a blasting explosive varying greatly in formula but containing among its ingredients a carbonaceous substance (as oak bark), a nitrate, and now usually nitroglycerin; a natural coke usually resulting from contact of coal deposits with igneous rock intrusions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Or did you mean this definition:

What is Carbonite? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Carbonite provides cloud backup services to consumers and small to medium-sized businesses. Files can be accessed through a computer or mobile device.

searchdatabackup.techtarget.com

Excerpt:

"Carbonite Inc. is an online backup company in Boston. Founded in 2005, Carbonite sells cloud backup to consumers"

Ah yes, life on earth was created after the clouds went back up - See Genesis chapter 1.

OK, I learned a new one! Cloud back up!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

those waters ...

....

a question earlier in response to your reply the water was from Earth ... the above implying the universe was an ocean and our planet was placed inside a bubble the boundaries being heaven, not much different than the tortoise "shell". seems they thought the blue sky was water.

your disinformation does prove, humor is in the eye of the beholder.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

But it is interesting that chemical evolutionists often refer to how large our universe is and that therefore the unlikely chain of chemical reactions required for protein synthesis becomes likely somewhere at sometime.

The problem is that while our universe has been calculated to have a mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) - this is NOT all a primordial soup favorable for amino acid synthesis. In fact, there isn't even any geological evidence such as 'soup' ever existed on earth!

Most of the universe is made up of stars - clearly no amino acid synthesis can occur within stars.

Oh, and water is actually an enemy of amino acid synthesis from a soup containing HCN as a starter molecule for chemical reaction pathways to amino acids. One of many reactions:

HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH or CH2O2).

Btw - you quote a Bible translation that I do not prefer - not sure whose post you are quoting from.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

.
a response to your lack of one -

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

again, those waters ... its your belief not mine.

View attachment 336152

primordial Earth.

Venus is a new planet. Keep watching it for generations, it will become similar to earth.

Care to elaborate?

How do you propose the CO2 greenhouse atmosphere be returned to carbonates in the crust of Venus? There can be no geologic carbon cycle without oceans of liquid water - how do you get oceans of liquid water on Venus given the heat on the surface of the planet?

You think the sun will cool and solar radiation will cool and that Venus would therefore cool? I doubt you will find any scientist who considers that possible/tenable - most actually think Venus will be swallowed up by our sun during its postulated entry into red giant phase.

Those are good questions.

I don't propose anything, but I expect Venus eventually will cool off. The slowing process of cooling is -between other factors- caused by the slow rotation in that planet. (I have mentioned before the "lemonade stirring" as a method for other phenomena to be accomplished as well)

The first spacecrafts sent to Venus decades ago detected "snow" in its upper atmosphere. Even the ancient people said that Venus was a planet with " a tail". Probably gases or dust/particles coming out from that planet somehow. The trapped high temperature in Venus inside a cold upper atmosphere is like hot coffee inside a thermos mug, eventually the heat will be overcome and the coffee will cool off.

Point is, that the current status of Venus today is very similar to the visioned status of earth as it was in its past, because whatever the formation theory you might apply for the formation of our planet, earth was hot inside and outside (surface) at its very beginning.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

And, by the way, if the Sun reaches a red giant phase, then the Sun will respect no one and even Jupiter might be swallowed. But, of course, pulling or repelling of the planets by a red giant sun won't be just because an increased size. We don't really know how such scenario will become to be. We can speculate a lot, but can't predict anything.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

.
having evolved on planet Earth would give no reason to believe the same occurrence will not happen under the same conditions anywhere in the universe.

not sure the dna is such a question as why what evolved on Earth relies on an outside source similar to itself for nutrients to survive - seems the spiritual component might be more alien than the physiology. a physiology sustainable by absorption of the elements. not eating a cow.

Life didn't evolved on earth.

Evolution is not the process.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

However, the "spiritual component" expression is a very well made description. I like it.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

.
physiology is not so hard to comprehend -

the first life were the elements -

View attachment 340758

they combined to form molecules -

View attachment 340763

molecules formed compounds - inorganic ... organic

View attachment 340765

the organic compounds create physiology - single cell being

View attachment 340766

somewhere perhaps at the very beginning w/ the elements a spiritual content (metaphysical) became involved and guided the process and made the decisions that eventually evolved into the physiology associated with living beings.

yes there is evolution - everything evolves not everything has a guidance, the guidance must be incorporated in any experiment meant to create an initial life form - the spiritual content is what kept the host together to progress through the building process.

* did the miller experiment "fix" conditions to make them work - that is how they will succeed - mimicking the initial process.

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

.
you really have a reading comprehension - problem ...

throughout the development of physiology from the beginning there became an inseparable spiritual content that guided the host's evolutionary progression.

So rocks are spiritual beings?

I think you have been reading too much Tom Robbins.

 

[BreezeWood]

Your link is on themodynamics, not chemistry. I was not posting on the section on thermodynamics. Have you found any errors Thaxton et al made on chemistry?

Much better. I've found a fundamental logic error.

He shows that a 1952 experiment wasn't good enough, and thus declares evolution must be impossible without divine guidance. The problem there is incorrectoy assuming that the Mille experiment was the final word on the matter. It wasn't. The Miller experiment is obsolete. It didn't even use the right atmospheric as a starting point. Thus, Thaxton's supposed debunking is obsolete.

Can you explain why most peer reviewed scientific journals do not give the actual chemical reaction product proportions in MIller's famous experiment?

You tell us. Don't ask me to explain your theories.

I suggest you look at more modern prebiotic chemistry theories. For example, we now know primitive earth contained iron and carbonites that would have neutralized acids, so a formic acid buildup wouldn't have been an issue.

Inaccurate post - try reading my posts more carefully. So, can you link to your theory about carbonites? Did you mean carbonates which were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle?

Definitions of Carbonites here:

Definition of CARBONITE

a blasting explosive varying greatly in formula but containing among its ingredients a carbonaceous substance (as oak bark), a nitrate, and now usually nitroglycerin; a natural coke usually resulting from contact of coal deposits with igneous rock intrusions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Or did you mean this definition:

What is Carbonite? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Carbonite provides cloud backup services to consumers and small to medium-sized businesses. Files can be accessed through a computer or mobile device.

searchdatabackup.techtarget.com

Excerpt:

"Carbonite Inc. is an online backup company in Boston. Founded in 2005, Carbonite sells cloud backup to consumers"

Ah yes, life on earth was created after the clouds went back up - See Genesis chapter 1.

OK, I learned a new one! Cloud back up!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

those waters ...

....

a question earlier in response to your reply the water was from Earth ... the above implying the universe was an ocean and our planet was placed inside a bubble the boundaries being heaven, not much different than the tortoise "shell". seems they thought the blue sky was water.

your disinformation does prove, humor is in the eye of the beholder.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

But it is interesting that chemical evolutionists often refer to how large our universe is and that therefore the unlikely chain of chemical reactions required for protein synthesis becomes likely somewhere at sometime.

The problem is that while our universe has been calculated to have a mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) - this is NOT all a primordial soup favorable for amino acid synthesis. In fact, there isn't even any geological evidence such as 'soup' ever existed on earth!

Most of the universe is made up of stars - clearly no amino acid synthesis can occur within stars.

Oh, and water is actually an enemy of amino acid synthesis from a soup containing HCN as a starter molecule for chemical reaction pathways to amino acids. One of many reactions:

HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH or CH2O2).

Btw - you quote a Bible translation that I do not prefer - not sure whose post you are quoting from.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

.
a response to your lack of one -

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

again, those waters ... its your belief not mine.

View attachment 336152

primordial Earth.

Venus is a new planet. Keep watching it for generations, it will become similar to earth.

Care to elaborate?

How do you propose the CO2 greenhouse atmosphere be returned to carbonates in the crust of Venus? There can be no geologic carbon cycle without oceans of liquid water - how do you get oceans of liquid water on Venus given the heat on the surface of the planet?

You think the sun will cool and solar radiation will cool and that Venus would therefore cool? I doubt you will find any scientist who considers that possible/tenable - most actually think Venus will be swallowed up by our sun during its postulated entry into red giant phase.

Those are good questions.

I don't propose anything, but I expect Venus eventually will cool off. The slowing process of cooling is -between other factors- caused by the slow rotation in that planet. (I have mentioned before the "lemonade stirring" as a method for other phenomena to be accomplished as well)

The first spacecrafts sent to Venus decades ago detected "snow" in its upper atmosphere. Even the ancient people said that Venus was a planet with " a tail". Probably gases or dust/particles coming out from that planet somehow. The trapped high temperature in Venus inside a cold upper atmosphere is like hot coffee inside a thermos mug, eventually the heat will be overcome and the coffee will cool off.

Point is, that the current status of Venus today is very similar to the visioned status of earth as it was in its past, because whatever the formation theory you might apply for the formation of our planet, earth was hot inside and outside (surface) at its very beginning.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

And, by the way, if the Sun reaches a red giant phase, then the Sun will respect no one and even Jupiter might be swallowed. But, of course, pulling or repelling of the planets by a red giant sun won't be just because an increased size. We don't really know how such scenario will become to be. We can speculate a lot, but can't predict anything.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

.
having evolved on planet Earth would give no reason to believe the same occurrence will not happen under the same conditions anywhere in the universe.

not sure the dna is such a question as why what evolved on Earth relies on an outside source similar to itself for nutrients to survive - seems the spiritual component might be more alien than the physiology. a physiology sustainable by absorption of the elements. not eating a cow.

Life didn't evolved on earth.

Evolution is not the process.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

However, the "spiritual component" expression is a very well made description. I like it.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

.
physiology is not so hard to comprehend -

the first life were the elements -

View attachment 340758

they combined to form molecules -

View attachment 340763

molecules formed compounds - inorganic ... organic

View attachment 340765

the organic compounds create physiology - single cell being

View attachment 340766

somewhere perhaps at the very beginning w/ the elements a spiritual content (metaphysical) became involved and guided the process and made the decisions that eventually evolved into the physiology associated with living beings.

yes there is evolution - everything evolves not everything has a guidance, the guidance must be incorporated in any experiment meant to create an initial life form - the spiritual content is what kept the host together to progress through the building process.

* did the miller experiment "fix" conditions to make them work - that is how they will succeed - mimicking the initial process.

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

.
you really have a reading comprehension - problem ...

throughout the development of physiology from the beginning there became an inseparable spiritual content that guided the host's evolutionary progression.

So rocks are spiritual beings?

I think you have been reading too much Tom Robbins.

So rocks are spiritual beings?

.
in suspension that is neither here nor there, their evolution is not apparent.

metaphysical physiology disappears when its spiritual content is removed - is the proof of their origin and presently their inseparability.

 

[ding]

Your link is on themodynamics, not chemistry. I was not posting on the section on thermodynamics. Have you found any errors Thaxton et al made on chemistry?

Much better. I've found a fundamental logic error.

He shows that a 1952 experiment wasn't good enough, and thus declares evolution must be impossible without divine guidance. The problem there is incorrectoy assuming that the Mille experiment was the final word on the matter. It wasn't. The Miller experiment is obsolete. It didn't even use the right atmospheric as a starting point. Thus, Thaxton's supposed debunking is obsolete.

Can you explain why most peer reviewed scientific journals do not give the actual chemical reaction product proportions in MIller's famous experiment?

You tell us. Don't ask me to explain your theories.

I suggest you look at more modern prebiotic chemistry theories. For example, we now know primitive earth contained iron and carbonites that would have neutralized acids, so a formic acid buildup wouldn't have been an issue.

Inaccurate post - try reading my posts more carefully. So, can you link to your theory about carbonites? Did you mean carbonates which were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle?

Definitions of Carbonites here:

Definition of CARBONITE

a blasting explosive varying greatly in formula but containing among its ingredients a carbonaceous substance (as oak bark), a nitrate, and now usually nitroglycerin; a natural coke usually resulting from contact of coal deposits with igneous rock intrusions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Or did you mean this definition:

What is Carbonite? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Carbonite provides cloud backup services to consumers and small to medium-sized businesses. Files can be accessed through a computer or mobile device.

searchdatabackup.techtarget.com

Excerpt:

"Carbonite Inc. is an online backup company in Boston. Founded in 2005, Carbonite sells cloud backup to consumers"

Ah yes, life on earth was created after the clouds went back up - See Genesis chapter 1.

OK, I learned a new one! Cloud back up!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

those waters ...

....

a question earlier in response to your reply the water was from Earth ... the above implying the universe was an ocean and our planet was placed inside a bubble the boundaries being heaven, not much different than the tortoise "shell". seems they thought the blue sky was water.

your disinformation does prove, humor is in the eye of the beholder.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

But it is interesting that chemical evolutionists often refer to how large our universe is and that therefore the unlikely chain of chemical reactions required for protein synthesis becomes likely somewhere at sometime.

The problem is that while our universe has been calculated to have a mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) - this is NOT all a primordial soup favorable for amino acid synthesis. In fact, there isn't even any geological evidence such as 'soup' ever existed on earth!

Most of the universe is made up of stars - clearly no amino acid synthesis can occur within stars.

Oh, and water is actually an enemy of amino acid synthesis from a soup containing HCN as a starter molecule for chemical reaction pathways to amino acids. One of many reactions:

HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH or CH2O2).

Btw - you quote a Bible translation that I do not prefer - not sure whose post you are quoting from.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

.
a response to your lack of one -

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

again, those waters ... its your belief not mine.

View attachment 336152

primordial Earth.

Venus is a new planet. Keep watching it for generations, it will become similar to earth.

Care to elaborate?

How do you propose the CO2 greenhouse atmosphere be returned to carbonates in the crust of Venus? There can be no geologic carbon cycle without oceans of liquid water - how do you get oceans of liquid water on Venus given the heat on the surface of the planet?

You think the sun will cool and solar radiation will cool and that Venus would therefore cool? I doubt you will find any scientist who considers that possible/tenable - most actually think Venus will be swallowed up by our sun during its postulated entry into red giant phase.

Those are good questions.

I don't propose anything, but I expect Venus eventually will cool off. The slowing process of cooling is -between other factors- caused by the slow rotation in that planet. (I have mentioned before the "lemonade stirring" as a method for other phenomena to be accomplished as well)

The first spacecrafts sent to Venus decades ago detected "snow" in its upper atmosphere. Even the ancient people said that Venus was a planet with " a tail". Probably gases or dust/particles coming out from that planet somehow. The trapped high temperature in Venus inside a cold upper atmosphere is like hot coffee inside a thermos mug, eventually the heat will be overcome and the coffee will cool off.

Point is, that the current status of Venus today is very similar to the visioned status of earth as it was in its past, because whatever the formation theory you might apply for the formation of our planet, earth was hot inside and outside (surface) at its very beginning.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

And, by the way, if the Sun reaches a red giant phase, then the Sun will respect no one and even Jupiter might be swallowed. But, of course, pulling or repelling of the planets by a red giant sun won't be just because an increased size. We don't really know how such scenario will become to be. We can speculate a lot, but can't predict anything.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

.
having evolved on planet Earth would give no reason to believe the same occurrence will not happen under the same conditions anywhere in the universe.

not sure the dna is such a question as why what evolved on Earth relies on an outside source similar to itself for nutrients to survive - seems the spiritual component might be more alien than the physiology. a physiology sustainable by absorption of the elements. not eating a cow.

Life didn't evolved on earth.

Evolution is not the process.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

However, the "spiritual component" expression is a very well made description. I like it.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

.
physiology is not so hard to comprehend -

the first life were the elements -

View attachment 340758

they combined to form molecules -

View attachment 340763

molecules formed compounds - inorganic ... organic

View attachment 340765

the organic compounds create physiology - single cell being

View attachment 340766

somewhere perhaps at the very beginning w/ the elements a spiritual content (metaphysical) became involved and guided the process and made the decisions that eventually evolved into the physiology associated with living beings.

yes there is evolution - everything evolves not everything has a guidance, the guidance must be incorporated in any experiment meant to create an initial life form - the spiritual content is what kept the host together to progress through the building process.

* did the miller experiment "fix" conditions to make them work - that is how they will succeed - mimicking the initial process.

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

.
you really have a reading comprehension - problem ...

throughout the development of physiology from the beginning there became an inseparable spiritual content that guided the host's evolutionary progression.

So rocks are spiritual beings?

I think you have been reading too much Tom Robbins.

So rocks are spiritual beings?

.
in suspension that is neither here nor there, their evolution is not apparent.

metaphysical physiology disappears when its spiritual content is removed - is the proof of their origin and presently their inseparability.

Well if subatomic particles have spiritual content so would rocks.

 

[luchitociencia]

Your link is on themodynamics, not chemistry. I was not posting on the section on thermodynamics. Have you found any errors Thaxton et al made on chemistry?

Much better. I've found a fundamental logic error.

He shows that a 1952 experiment wasn't good enough, and thus declares evolution must be impossible without divine guidance. The problem there is incorrectoy assuming that the Mille experiment was the final word on the matter. It wasn't. The Miller experiment is obsolete. It didn't even use the right atmospheric as a starting point. Thus, Thaxton's supposed debunking is obsolete.

Can you explain why most peer reviewed scientific journals do not give the actual chemical reaction product proportions in MIller's famous experiment?

You tell us. Don't ask me to explain your theories.

I suggest you look at more modern prebiotic chemistry theories. For example, we now know primitive earth contained iron and carbonites that would have neutralized acids, so a formic acid buildup wouldn't have been an issue.

Inaccurate post - try reading my posts more carefully. So, can you link to your theory about carbonites? Did you mean carbonates which were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle?

Definitions of Carbonites here:

Definition of CARBONITE

a blasting explosive varying greatly in formula but containing among its ingredients a carbonaceous substance (as oak bark), a nitrate, and now usually nitroglycerin; a natural coke usually resulting from contact of coal deposits with igneous rock intrusions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Or did you mean this definition:

What is Carbonite? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Carbonite provides cloud backup services to consumers and small to medium-sized businesses. Files can be accessed through a computer or mobile device.

searchdatabackup.techtarget.com

Excerpt:

"Carbonite Inc. is an online backup company in Boston. Founded in 2005, Carbonite sells cloud backup to consumers"

Ah yes, life on earth was created after the clouds went back up - See Genesis chapter 1.

OK, I learned a new one! Cloud back up!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

those waters ...

....

a question earlier in response to your reply the water was from Earth ... the above implying the universe was an ocean and our planet was placed inside a bubble the boundaries being heaven, not much different than the tortoise "shell". seems they thought the blue sky was water.

your disinformation does prove, humor is in the eye of the beholder.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

But it is interesting that chemical evolutionists often refer to how large our universe is and that therefore the unlikely chain of chemical reactions required for protein synthesis becomes likely somewhere at sometime.

The problem is that while our universe has been calculated to have a mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) - this is NOT all a primordial soup favorable for amino acid synthesis. In fact, there isn't even any geological evidence such as 'soup' ever existed on earth!

Most of the universe is made up of stars - clearly no amino acid synthesis can occur within stars.

Oh, and water is actually an enemy of amino acid synthesis from a soup containing HCN as a starter molecule for chemical reaction pathways to amino acids. One of many reactions:

HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH or CH2O2).

Btw - you quote a Bible translation that I do not prefer - not sure whose post you are quoting from.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

.
a response to your lack of one -

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

again, those waters ... its your belief not mine.

View attachment 336152

primordial Earth.

Venus is a new planet. Keep watching it for generations, it will become similar to earth.

Care to elaborate?

How do you propose the CO2 greenhouse atmosphere be returned to carbonates in the crust of Venus? There can be no geologic carbon cycle without oceans of liquid water - how do you get oceans of liquid water on Venus given the heat on the surface of the planet?

You think the sun will cool and solar radiation will cool and that Venus would therefore cool? I doubt you will find any scientist who considers that possible/tenable - most actually think Venus will be swallowed up by our sun during its postulated entry into red giant phase.

Those are good questions.

I don't propose anything, but I expect Venus eventually will cool off. The slowing process of cooling is -between other factors- caused by the slow rotation in that planet. (I have mentioned before the "lemonade stirring" as a method for other phenomena to be accomplished as well)

The first spacecrafts sent to Venus decades ago detected "snow" in its upper atmosphere. Even the ancient people said that Venus was a planet with " a tail". Probably gases or dust/particles coming out from that planet somehow. The trapped high temperature in Venus inside a cold upper atmosphere is like hot coffee inside a thermos mug, eventually the heat will be overcome and the coffee will cool off.

Point is, that the current status of Venus today is very similar to the visioned status of earth as it was in its past, because whatever the formation theory you might apply for the formation of our planet, earth was hot inside and outside (surface) at its very beginning.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

And, by the way, if the Sun reaches a red giant phase, then the Sun will respect no one and even Jupiter might be swallowed. But, of course, pulling or repelling of the planets by a red giant sun won't be just because an increased size. We don't really know how such scenario will become to be. We can speculate a lot, but can't predict anything.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

.
having evolved on planet Earth would give no reason to believe the same occurrence will not happen under the same conditions anywhere in the universe.

not sure the dna is such a question as why what evolved on Earth relies on an outside source similar to itself for nutrients to survive - seems the spiritual component might be more alien than the physiology. a physiology sustainable by absorption of the elements. not eating a cow.

Life didn't evolved on earth.

Evolution is not the process.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

However, the "spiritual component" expression is a very well made description. I like it.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

.
physiology is not so hard to comprehend -

the first life were the elements -

View attachment 340758

they combined to form molecules -

View attachment 340763

molecules formed compounds - inorganic ... organic

View attachment 340765

the organic compounds create physiology - single cell being

View attachment 340766

somewhere perhaps at the very beginning w/ the elements a spiritual content (metaphysical) became involved and guided the process and made the decisions that eventually evolved into the physiology associated with living beings.

yes there is evolution - everything evolves not everything has a guidance, the guidance must be incorporated in any experiment meant to create an initial life form - the spiritual content is what kept the host together to progress through the building process.

* did the miller experiment "fix" conditions to make them work - that is how they will succeed - mimicking the initial process.

Sure, right,

I said

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed...

And you responded

physiology is not so hard to comprehend -

the first life were the elements... they combined to form molecules... molecules formed compounds - inorganic ... organic... the organic compounds create physiology - single cell being...

Sure, sure... but how?

Like saying, water becomes vapor, or water becomes ice... but how?

What you have wrote is common sense, but unfortunately common sense doesn't qualify as valid when you apply the scientific method.

And finally you destroy yourself your first words with a complete series of imaginary events

physiology is not so hard to comprehend...

...somewhere perhaps at the very beginning w/ the elements a spiritual content (metaphysical) became involved and guided the process and made the decisions...

"Somewhere... perhaps" are the key words which discard the former ones saying that your physiology is "not hard to comprehend".

 

[BreezeWood]

Your link is on themodynamics, not chemistry. I was not posting on the section on thermodynamics. Have you found any errors Thaxton et al made on chemistry?

Much better. I've found a fundamental logic error.

He shows that a 1952 experiment wasn't good enough, and thus declares evolution must be impossible without divine guidance. The problem there is incorrectoy assuming that the Mille experiment was the final word on the matter. It wasn't. The Miller experiment is obsolete. It didn't even use the right atmospheric as a starting point. Thus, Thaxton's supposed debunking is obsolete.

Can you explain why most peer reviewed scientific journals do not give the actual chemical reaction product proportions in MIller's famous experiment?

You tell us. Don't ask me to explain your theories.

I suggest you look at more modern prebiotic chemistry theories. For example, we now know primitive earth contained iron and carbonites that would have neutralized acids, so a formic acid buildup wouldn't have been an issue.

Inaccurate post - try reading my posts more carefully. So, can you link to your theory about carbonites? Did you mean carbonates which were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle?

Definitions of Carbonites here:

Definition of CARBONITE

a blasting explosive varying greatly in formula but containing among its ingredients a carbonaceous substance (as oak bark), a nitrate, and now usually nitroglycerin; a natural coke usually resulting from contact of coal deposits with igneous rock intrusions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Or did you mean this definition:

What is Carbonite? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Carbonite provides cloud backup services to consumers and small to medium-sized businesses. Files can be accessed through a computer or mobile device.

searchdatabackup.techtarget.com

Excerpt:

"Carbonite Inc. is an online backup company in Boston. Founded in 2005, Carbonite sells cloud backup to consumers"

Ah yes, life on earth was created after the clouds went back up - See Genesis chapter 1.

OK, I learned a new one! Cloud back up!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

those waters ...

....

a question earlier in response to your reply the water was from Earth ... the above implying the universe was an ocean and our planet was placed inside a bubble the boundaries being heaven, not much different than the tortoise "shell". seems they thought the blue sky was water.

your disinformation does prove, humor is in the eye of the beholder.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

But it is interesting that chemical evolutionists often refer to how large our universe is and that therefore the unlikely chain of chemical reactions required for protein synthesis becomes likely somewhere at sometime.

The problem is that while our universe has been calculated to have a mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) - this is NOT all a primordial soup favorable for amino acid synthesis. In fact, there isn't even any geological evidence such as 'soup' ever existed on earth!

Most of the universe is made up of stars - clearly no amino acid synthesis can occur within stars.

Oh, and water is actually an enemy of amino acid synthesis from a soup containing HCN as a starter molecule for chemical reaction pathways to amino acids. One of many reactions:

HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH or CH2O2).

Btw - you quote a Bible translation that I do not prefer - not sure whose post you are quoting from.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

.
a response to your lack of one -

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

again, those waters ... its your belief not mine.

View attachment 336152

primordial Earth.

Venus is a new planet. Keep watching it for generations, it will become similar to earth.

Care to elaborate?

How do you propose the CO2 greenhouse atmosphere be returned to carbonates in the crust of Venus? There can be no geologic carbon cycle without oceans of liquid water - how do you get oceans of liquid water on Venus given the heat on the surface of the planet?

You think the sun will cool and solar radiation will cool and that Venus would therefore cool? I doubt you will find any scientist who considers that possible/tenable - most actually think Venus will be swallowed up by our sun during its postulated entry into red giant phase.

Those are good questions.

I don't propose anything, but I expect Venus eventually will cool off. The slowing process of cooling is -between other factors- caused by the slow rotation in that planet. (I have mentioned before the "lemonade stirring" as a method for other phenomena to be accomplished as well)

The first spacecrafts sent to Venus decades ago detected "snow" in its upper atmosphere. Even the ancient people said that Venus was a planet with " a tail". Probably gases or dust/particles coming out from that planet somehow. The trapped high temperature in Venus inside a cold upper atmosphere is like hot coffee inside a thermos mug, eventually the heat will be overcome and the coffee will cool off.

Point is, that the current status of Venus today is very similar to the visioned status of earth as it was in its past, because whatever the formation theory you might apply for the formation of our planet, earth was hot inside and outside (surface) at its very beginning.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

And, by the way, if the Sun reaches a red giant phase, then the Sun will respect no one and even Jupiter might be swallowed. But, of course, pulling or repelling of the planets by a red giant sun won't be just because an increased size. We don't really know how such scenario will become to be. We can speculate a lot, but can't predict anything.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

.
having evolved on planet Earth would give no reason to believe the same occurrence will not happen under the same conditions anywhere in the universe.

not sure the dna is such a question as why what evolved on Earth relies on an outside source similar to itself for nutrients to survive - seems the spiritual component might be more alien than the physiology. a physiology sustainable by absorption of the elements. not eating a cow.

Life didn't evolved on earth.

Evolution is not the process.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

However, the "spiritual component" expression is a very well made description. I like it.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

.
physiology is not so hard to comprehend -

the first life were the elements -

View attachment 340758

they combined to form molecules -

View attachment 340763

molecules formed compounds - inorganic ... organic

View attachment 340765

the organic compounds create physiology - single cell being

View attachment 340766

somewhere perhaps at the very beginning w/ the elements a spiritual content (metaphysical) became involved and guided the process and made the decisions that eventually evolved into the physiology associated with living beings.

yes there is evolution - everything evolves not everything has a guidance, the guidance must be incorporated in any experiment meant to create an initial life form - the spiritual content is what kept the host together to progress through the building process.

* did the miller experiment "fix" conditions to make them work - that is how they will succeed - mimicking the initial process.

Sure, right,

I said

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed...

And you responded

physiology is not so hard to comprehend -

the first life were the elements... they combined to form molecules... molecules formed compounds - inorganic ... organic... the organic compounds create physiology - single cell being...

Sure, sure... but how?

Like saying, water becomes vapor, or water becomes ice... but how?

What you have wrote is common sense, but unfortunately common sense doesn't qualify as valid when you apply the scientific method.

And finally you destroy yourself your first words with a complete series of imaginary events

physiology is not so hard to comprehend...

...somewhere perhaps at the very beginning w/ the elements a spiritual content (metaphysical) became involved and guided the process and made the decisions...

"Somewhere... perhaps" are the key words which discard the former ones saying that your physiology is "not hard to comprehend".

metaphysical physiology disappears when its spiritual content is removed - is the proof of their origin and presently their inseparability.

"Somewhere... perhaps" are the key words which discard the former ones saying that your physiology is "not hard to comprehend".

.
the physical properties of physiology are not incomprehensible -

however physiology is a metaphysical substance that is not native to planet earth that is endemic of the universe no different than the formation of planets and having a particular quality of a spiritual content required for its development that when removed causes the substance to dissipate from existence - proof of the metaphysical origin for both.

in response to the miller experiment that is doomed to failure without the inclusion of a guidance mechanism instilled in the host that will progressively make the decisions necessary for the eventual creation of living tissue.

 

[BreezeWood]

Your link is on themodynamics, not chemistry. I was not posting on the section on thermodynamics. Have you found any errors Thaxton et al made on chemistry?

Much better. I've found a fundamental logic error.

He shows that a 1952 experiment wasn't good enough, and thus declares evolution must be impossible without divine guidance. The problem there is incorrectoy assuming that the Mille experiment was the final word on the matter. It wasn't. The Miller experiment is obsolete. It didn't even use the right atmospheric as a starting point. Thus, Thaxton's supposed debunking is obsolete.

Can you explain why most peer reviewed scientific journals do not give the actual chemical reaction product proportions in MIller's famous experiment?

You tell us. Don't ask me to explain your theories.

I suggest you look at more modern prebiotic chemistry theories. For example, we now know primitive earth contained iron and carbonites that would have neutralized acids, so a formic acid buildup wouldn't have been an issue.

Inaccurate post - try reading my posts more carefully. So, can you link to your theory about carbonites? Did you mean carbonates which were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle?

Definitions of Carbonites here:

Definition of CARBONITE

a blasting explosive varying greatly in formula but containing among its ingredients a carbonaceous substance (as oak bark), a nitrate, and now usually nitroglycerin; a natural coke usually resulting from contact of coal deposits with igneous rock intrusions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Or did you mean this definition:

What is Carbonite? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Carbonite provides cloud backup services to consumers and small to medium-sized businesses. Files can be accessed through a computer or mobile device.

searchdatabackup.techtarget.com

Excerpt:

"Carbonite Inc. is an online backup company in Boston. Founded in 2005, Carbonite sells cloud backup to consumers"

Ah yes, life on earth was created after the clouds went back up - See Genesis chapter 1.

OK, I learned a new one! Cloud back up!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

those waters ...

....

a question earlier in response to your reply the water was from Earth ... the above implying the universe was an ocean and our planet was placed inside a bubble the boundaries being heaven, not much different than the tortoise "shell". seems they thought the blue sky was water.

your disinformation does prove, humor is in the eye of the beholder.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

But it is interesting that chemical evolutionists often refer to how large our universe is and that therefore the unlikely chain of chemical reactions required for protein synthesis becomes likely somewhere at sometime.

The problem is that while our universe has been calculated to have a mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) - this is NOT all a primordial soup favorable for amino acid synthesis. In fact, there isn't even any geological evidence such as 'soup' ever existed on earth!

Most of the universe is made up of stars - clearly no amino acid synthesis can occur within stars.

Oh, and water is actually an enemy of amino acid synthesis from a soup containing HCN as a starter molecule for chemical reaction pathways to amino acids. One of many reactions:

HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH or CH2O2).

Btw - you quote a Bible translation that I do not prefer - not sure whose post you are quoting from.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

.
a response to your lack of one -

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

again, those waters ... its your belief not mine.

View attachment 336152

primordial Earth.

Venus is a new planet. Keep watching it for generations, it will become similar to earth.

Care to elaborate?

How do you propose the CO2 greenhouse atmosphere be returned to carbonates in the crust of Venus? There can be no geologic carbon cycle without oceans of liquid water - how do you get oceans of liquid water on Venus given the heat on the surface of the planet?

You think the sun will cool and solar radiation will cool and that Venus would therefore cool? I doubt you will find any scientist who considers that possible/tenable - most actually think Venus will be swallowed up by our sun during its postulated entry into red giant phase.

Those are good questions.

I don't propose anything, but I expect Venus eventually will cool off. The slowing process of cooling is -between other factors- caused by the slow rotation in that planet. (I have mentioned before the "lemonade stirring" as a method for other phenomena to be accomplished as well)

The first spacecrafts sent to Venus decades ago detected "snow" in its upper atmosphere. Even the ancient people said that Venus was a planet with " a tail". Probably gases or dust/particles coming out from that planet somehow. The trapped high temperature in Venus inside a cold upper atmosphere is like hot coffee inside a thermos mug, eventually the heat will be overcome and the coffee will cool off.

Point is, that the current status of Venus today is very similar to the visioned status of earth as it was in its past, because whatever the formation theory you might apply for the formation of our planet, earth was hot inside and outside (surface) at its very beginning.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

And, by the way, if the Sun reaches a red giant phase, then the Sun will respect no one and even Jupiter might be swallowed. But, of course, pulling or repelling of the planets by a red giant sun won't be just because an increased size. We don't really know how such scenario will become to be. We can speculate a lot, but can't predict anything.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

.
having evolved on planet Earth would give no reason to believe the same occurrence will not happen under the same conditions anywhere in the universe.

not sure the dna is such a question as why what evolved on Earth relies on an outside source similar to itself for nutrients to survive - seems the spiritual component might be more alien than the physiology. a physiology sustainable by absorption of the elements. not eating a cow.

Life didn't evolved on earth.

Evolution is not the process.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

However, the "spiritual component" expression is a very well made description. I like it.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

.
physiology is not so hard to comprehend -

the first life were the elements -

View attachment 340758

they combined to form molecules -

View attachment 340763

molecules formed compounds - inorganic ... organic

View attachment 340765

the organic compounds create physiology - single cell being

View attachment 340766

somewhere perhaps at the very beginning w/ the elements a spiritual content (metaphysical) became involved and guided the process and made the decisions that eventually evolved into the physiology associated with living beings.

yes there is evolution - everything evolves not everything has a guidance, the guidance must be incorporated in any experiment meant to create an initial life form - the spiritual content is what kept the host together to progress through the building process.

* did the miller experiment "fix" conditions to make them work - that is how they will succeed - mimicking the initial process.

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

.
you really have a reading comprehension - problem ...

throughout the development of physiology from the beginning there became an inseparable spiritual content that guided the host's evolutionary progression.

So rocks are spiritual beings?

I think you have been reading too much Tom Robbins.

So rocks are spiritual beings?

.
in suspension that is neither here nor there, their evolution is not apparent.

metaphysical physiology disappears when its spiritual content is removed - is the proof of their origin and presently their inseparability.

Well if subatomic particles have spiritual content so would rocks.

Well if subatomic particles have spiritual content so would rocks.

.
that's why the elements were considered the first forms of life evolving from subatomic particles - the living universe - everything in the universe is alive in some form or another.