How did the Universe get here?

[Youwerecreated]

So now you are conceding that you are the result of an accumulation of chemicals?

Yes or no?

No

In which case you have just conceded that there was no ID!

Do you always speak for others and are you always this ignorant of what is actually said.

 

[Boss]

Space still exists at t=0

You have NOT proven this.

You keep saying it, but if it's true, let's see the evidence?

BTW, when an honest person cuts off a statement in mid sentence like you just did, they indicate it with an ellipsis (...).

The full sentence you dishonestly edited:
"Space still exists at t=0, but there is no relative movement."

Does't matter if an ellipsis is used. What precedes the comma is a statement presented as fact which has yet to be established. What follows that unproven statement is irrelevant. As a matter of fact, in this case, what follows the comma is redundant. If there is no time, there is no relative movement. What you need to do is prove space can exist at t=nil.

 

[Boss]

Space without time is still space, Euclidian space.

Jeeeshhh... You're all over the board with this stuff! Euclidian space is basically a mathematics or geometry concept of space without the component of time. It's used to calculate and measure things in three dimensions, where time isn't a factor. It has little to do with the universe or cosmology. When we're discussing the physics of the universe, we're dealing with Minkowski space.

And time is only a factor when two observers are moving at two different speeds. If two observers are moving at the same speed, and thus time is not a factor, space still exists!!!!!

Nope. Time is RELATIVE when two observers are moving at different speeds. Time is always a factor, it comes with the territory of being a dimension of space.

Space still exists at t=0

You have NOT proven this.

You keep saying it, but if it's true, let's see the evidence?

You were given the evidence over and over again, you choose to play dumb. Remember the car sitting in the garage, it still exists before it starts moving!!!!!! It still exists before time becomes a factor!!!!!!

If what your dumb ass is saying were true, my clock would not move until I moved. The car can't sit in the garage without space and time. The car occupies space. The car had to be built and driven to the garage in time. So time and space already exist and have already been a factor. The car can sit there in the garage for years and never move, the tires dry rot, the fuel turns to jelly, the parts corrode and rust... all because TIME is passing. Time is still relevant whether the car moves or not.

You are attempting to confine time to movement and movement alone, and that is not proven. In fact, if that were the case, atoms most certainly couldn't exist before time because electrons orbit the nucleus and orbiting takes time. So there can be no such thing as mass until you have space AND time.

 

[edthecynic]

Jeeeshhh... You're all over the board with this stuff! Euclidian space is basically a mathematics or geometry concept of space without the component of time. It's used to calculate and measure things in three dimensions, where time isn't a factor. It has little to do with the universe or cosmology. When we're discussing the physics of the universe, we're dealing with Minkowski space.

And time is only a factor when two observers are moving at two different speeds. If two observers are moving at the same speed, and thus time is not a factor, space still exists!!!!!

Nope. Time is RELATIVE when two observers are moving at different speeds. Time is always a factor, it comes with the territory of being a dimension of space.

You have NOT proven this.

You keep saying it, but if it's true, let's see the evidence?

You were given the evidence over and over again, you choose to play dumb. Remember the car sitting in the garage, it still exists before it starts moving!!!!!! It still exists before time becomes a factor!!!!!!

If what your dumb ass is saying were true, my clock would not move until I moved. The car can't sit in the garage without space and time. The car occupies space. The car had to be built and driven to the garage in time. So time and space already exist and have already been a factor. The car can sit there in the garage for years and never move, the tires dry rot, the fuel turns to jelly, the parts corrode and rust... all because TIME is passing. Time is still relevant whether the car moves or not.

You are attempting to confine time to movement and movement alone, and that is not proven. In fact, if that were the case, atoms most certainly couldn't exist before time because electrons orbit the nucleus and orbiting takes time. So there can be no such thing as mass until you have space AND time.

I don't have any more time for your stupidity, therefore by your moronic "logic" you don't exist!

 

[Derideo_Te]

If that is not enough the environment would have destroyed the cell before it could have formed.

The current environment is not the environment from when life first originated on this planet. Life formed in the oceans where it was protected from sunlight and what little oxygen was around at the time.

I am willing to bet that you are unaware that the current oxygen content of the atmosphere is actually as a result of the waste product of one of the earliest life forms on the planet.

That is only based in opinion not scientific fact,try again.

Your ignorance does not negate the existence of stromatolites as both fossils and as a currently living life form. That you claim to have scientific knowledge of cells but are totally ignorant of the impact that stromatolites had upon the planet, the oceans and the atmosphere.

Stromatolite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, and thanks for destroying your own credibility in the process!

 

[Derideo_Te]

No

In which case you have just conceded that there was no ID!

Do you always speak for others and are you always this ignorant of what is actually said.

I didn't expect you to be able to stay up with the rest of the class!

 

[Youwerecreated]

The current environment is not the environment from when life first originated on this planet. Life formed in the oceans where it was protected from sunlight and what little oxygen was around at the time.

I am willing to bet that you are unaware that the current oxygen content of the atmosphere is actually as a result of the waste product of one of the earliest life forms on the planet.

That is only based in opinion not scientific fact,try again.

Your ignorance does not negate the existence of stromatolites as both fossils and as a currently living life form. That you claim to have scientific knowledge of cells but are totally ignorant of the impact that stromatolites had upon the planet, the oceans and the atmosphere.

Stromatolite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, and thanks for destroying your own credibility in the process!

Mr. wiki you believe everything you read on the internet oxygen was found locked up in rocks dated before life began uh oh.

So much for your fairytale.

 

[Youwerecreated]

In which case you have just conceded that there was no ID!

Do you always speak for others and are you always this ignorant of what is actually said.

I didn't expect you to be able to stay up with the rest of the class!

I am sorry you do not possess the background to understand what was said.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I do not have time to further educate you Derideo_Te

 

[BillyP]

The universe was born in the womb of its mother universe. Now you know.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I do not have time to further educate you Derideo_Te

Oh the irony!

Being 'edyewmakayted' by someone who worships an imaginary "intelligent designer"!

 

[itfitzme]

I do not have time to further educate you Derideo_Te

You've alreary been examined and found delusional. But if you just keep saying it, you will keep believing it. Try the mirror, it'd at least be more honest. "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darn it, god loves me..."

 

[PostmodernProph]

You asked for an example of that process resulting in 'life' and we know of only one: Earth

the point is, we do NOT "know" that the earth is an example.....so yes, it was just a flip off response.....and I pointed at it and called it what it was......if that makes you upset?.......shove it.....

Besides... I know that Chemistry, Time and Evolution are the source of life just as much as you know that you have a friend in Jesus, and the God of Abraham, as described in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran, spoke life in to existence.

Opinions. Opinions. Opinions.

Apparently, we both know what we know, in spite of our disagreements. Since the subject is currently unprovable, our choices now are to go all Sunni -vs- Shiite on each other, OR to agree to disagree and have a beer.

I vote for the beer. I much prefer beer to blood.

dude....whatever science determines, it won't be that evolution is the source of life.....evolution requires life as a starting point......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Absolutely! Are you denying that DNA is a string of chemicals?

lol, yes....DNA is far more than just a string of chemicals.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

So now you are conceding that you are the result of an accumulation of chemicals?

Yes or no?

No

In which case you have just conceded that there was no ID!

that makes no sense whatsoever.....you can pour together accumulations of chemicals all day long and you will never come up with life as a result......

 

[Boss]

...you can pour together accumulations of chemicals all day long and you will never come up with life as a result.

itfitzme's theory is, if science can't prove it, then it proves the opposite is true. Since science has never been able to create life with chemicals, the opposite must be true!

itfitzme theory proves God! Oh my!

 

[emilynghiem]

You have not been able to establish a single fact....

And neither have YOU, assmunch!

Where the hell do you get the idea that we can "establish fact" when it comes to THIS question?
Did you get dropped on your head when you were a baby or something?

Your only argument is we can't 100% prove god doesn't exist. But we're getting closer. And what we do see is there is no good evidence there is a god. The religions are lying, you're guessing/hoping. We understand. Can't teach an old dog new tricks and some people are too far gone to turn it around. But people are evolving and that goes for their brains. Oh yea, I thought of you when I saw the preview for that woman who taps into 60% of her brain and she can control people and kill you with just a look. Morgan Freeman says "he's not sure the world is ready for that." We are still a pretty primitive species and I believe religion is proof of that. That and war, greed, evil, not caring about your kids.

Oh hey, that reminds me. So if god is that spiritual thing you feel, what is it when you feel rage, jealousy, lust, sad, confused, lost, like committing suicide? What are those "feelings"? Are they SATAN? Come on boss, wake the **** up. Between this and your politics I'm beginning to think you are a major douce.

1. [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION] where people like [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] cannot understand
how can people be so "ardently opposed to something they claim they don't believe in"
this also spreads the perception of atheists as being negative instead of just being nontheist and trying to defend against unfair judgment by theists pushing their belief systems.

people on BOTH sides think the other sides are being jerks and pushy with their judgments

Neither can I dictate what process either should take to stop this judgment back and forth.
All I know is
a. people think differently, and cannot always change their perceptions to fit someone else's way. sometimes they can, but this is not something to judge each other for
b. people on BOTH sides have been insulted and injured by others, and may hold on to judgment and project on each other because of PAST bad experiences where they blame the other person for imposing judgment unfairly. this is just human, but it hurts the relationship and the other person to blame for past problems that are on both sides.

I can try to help both of you NOT feel judged so you don't project such judgment and blame the other person, who has just as much bad experience being blamed for the problem.

I can offer my support and sympathy as someone who has been blamed for BOTH, both fundamental theists "jump on me" for being too open and inclusive with "universal salvation" to include nontheists, so they accuse me of misleading and deceiving people and diluting the message to "be popular or for convenience"; and the anti-theists anti-religion folks jump on me for what they think is "endorsing or enabling religious abuse and abusers" when actually I am trying to fix the problems with how religions are mistaught to be exclusive of secular nontheists.

so I am used to getting it from all sides, and trying NOT to blame people for not understanding me or each other when judgment gets projected like this. I can try to help you NOT blame people and try to address the actual issues and how to handle these differences; but I DO NOT agree with blaming people for their views they can't help. Blame does not help solve the problems.

I totally believe reconciliation means preserving and respecting our existing views, accepting the fact that theists see the world with a personified God and that nontheists see the world and laws as impersonal and NOT personified. After accepting that, it is natural to be able to work together, just like men and women who think and process differently find ways to work together in harmony. And people who are artists and people who are scientists have separate depts in the same school and work together as a community.
We cannot change which people think like artists and which like scientists, and try to judge or force people to conform; we can accept and embrace our differnt ways and find out how to make the most of what we can contribute from our different angles on the world.

Not judge, blame or project problems on one person we think represents what is wrong with entire groups. We can just work one on one and solve individual conflicts with each other, not try to take on all the messes and hold each other responsible for all that at once.

2. as for proving/disproving God
No it is already established God can neither be proven or disproven because man is finite and God represents something infinite
the most we can do is prove when we agree or disagree, prove when we can reconcile and when we cannot; and I believe we can prove there are patterns and process to reconciliation

there are more people learning how to resolve conflicts by respecting differences and including that diversity in decision making

more programs in conflict resolution and restorative justice are out there, based on managing diversity and working with conflicting views. it's just a matter of time before more people catch on and learn how to deal with these conflicts. it's not about changing or forcing people, but learning that isn't necessary to get what we want; we can succeed better by working with each other, including our differences, not against each other.

so this process will prove itself in the end.
the individual views of "God Jesus this religion or that one" will not necessarily change
people will remain in their affiliations that are natural to them
what will change is our perception of ability to work together despite these differences
instead of trying to change each other's views, it is more about changing how we
deal with those differences and find ways to work together that don't depend on changing other people or their views

 

[AVG-JOE]

Absolutely! Are you denying that DNA is a string of chemicals?

lol, yes....DNA is far more than just a string of chemicals.....

EVERYTHING is just a string of chemicals, including the water-sack with a Monkeys attitude typing this post, and the glass you're staring at it through.

Everything.​

 

[Boss]

EVERYTHING is just a string of chemicals, including the water-sack with a Monkeys attitude typing this post, and the glass you're staring at it through.
Everything.

No, not EVERYTHING is a chemical. Is LIGHT a chemical?

And the argument isn't about whether chemicals exist or what is/isn't chemical. It's about your assertion that life was ever created by chemical interaction. This contradicts Biogenesis and has NEVER been demonstrated. You can certainly BELIEVE some chemical reaction happened to cause life, that is called "having faith" and there isn't anything wrong with that. Let's just be honest about it.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Absolutely! Are you denying that DNA is a string of chemicals?

lol, yes....DNA is far more than just a string of chemicals.....

EVERYTHING is just a string of chemicals, including the water-sack with a Monkeys attitude typing this post, and the glass you're staring at it through.

Everything.​

if true, why doesn't the glass I'm staring through reproduce itself.....