Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well, all living things have DNA, right? Without DNA, they cannot develop, right? So, for the sake of this discussion, let's say that non-organic material somehow morphed into a life form via a "primordial soup". How would that life form develop without the prerequisite DNA that is needed to develop?The best theory is the primordial soup, lightning and other factors were the origins of the first cellular organisms.
Except poppy that this post is not about Darwin it is about atheist and nothing created nothing is exactly what atheist say. Now stick to the topic and stop trying to derail the thread. Do try to behave like the mod that you claim that you areI thought that nothing creating everything was considered science?You really need to move your proselytizing to the religion forum.
LOL you are a clueless buffoon who does not even know what you believe yourself
"Nothing creating everything is certainly not science. And is not what Darwin said at all.
Darwin never addressed the origins of the Universe. He addressed the biodiversity we see in the world. He addressed the changes, via mutation, change and outside forces.
Biologists believe that all cells came from preexisting cells. As for where the original cells came from, that is more difficult because of the length of time since it happened. The best theory is the primordial soup, lightning and other factors were the origins of the first cellular organisms.
LOL then they can also tell me that 85 percent of the universe is missing and or that the universe is not real but actually a computer simulation.I offer you the advice to talk to a physicist and they can explain to you about virtual particles.I offer you the advice to be seen by a shrink and that you can explain your virtual particles to themWhat do you have to offer?What meds do you takeActually no one believes in nothing. For theists there was always God. For atheists there was something became something else (our universe).
Nothing Created Everything
Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...www.goodreads.com
It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code
Except poppy that this post is not about Darwin it is about atheist and nothing created nothing is exactly what atheist say. Now stick to the topic and stop trying to derail the thread. Do try to behave like the mod that you claim that you areI thought that nothing creating everything was considered science?You really need to move your proselytizing to the religion forum.
LOL you are a clueless buffoon who does not even know what you believe yourself
"Nothing creating everything is certainly not science. And is not what Darwin said at all.
Darwin never addressed the origins of the Universe. He addressed the biodiversity we see in the world. He addressed the changes, via mutation, change and outside forces.
Biologists believe that all cells came from preexisting cells. As for where the original cells came from, that is more difficult because of the length of time since it happened. The best theory is the primordial soup, lightning and other factors were the origins of the first cellular organisms.
Considering rules permeate the universe intelligent design is not out of the question. In my opinion intelligent design is slightly more likely than just happenstance. It is a mind boggling question. If there is a God then what created God then what created that on down to infinity. Considering how complex this is I think it best to pick your own set of beliefs continue to test these beliefs but hold them. Others should have respect for your choice as you should have respect for their choice. I am not going to waist my time trying to change any ones mind on the subject and appreciate it if they do not try to change mine.You are unwilling to acknowledge the overwhelming likelihood that a higher being created this universe and everything within it.I believe that we are yet to learn how it all got started.
I offer you the advice to talk to a physicist and they can explain to you about virtual particles.
The market will never explain why galaxies are joined gravitationally but there is not enough visible matter to explain it.LOL then they can also tell me that 85 percent of the universe is missing and or that the universe is not real but actually a computer simulation.I offer you the advice to talk to a physicist and they can explain to you about virtual particles.I offer you the advice to be seen by a shrink and that you can explain your virtual particles to themWhat do you have to offer?What meds do you takeActually no one believes in nothing. For theists there was always God. For atheists there was something became something else (our universe).Nothing Created Everything
Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...www.goodreads.com
It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code
Virtual particles are merely the way that quantum physicist explain their observations that they can not actually explain. As such they invent imaginary stuff like virtual particles and dark matter. You pay attention pop, I will be watching the market
Physicists postulated virtual particles to explain very real phenomena. How do you know they are wrong and what is your counter theory?I offer you the advice to talk to a physicist and they can explain to you about virtual particles.Virtual particle - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It ain't the rocket science that insufferably obnoxious a-hole (Feynman) wanted all to believe. They made a stab at it. They stabbed wrong. Everyone swooned and bought it anyway.
I didn't link to any cartoonsWow, I never said to splice a human and computer together, merely to use the computers power to design the splices. Again these things are beginning to happen now. One day vaccines might be designed by computers that run billions of virtual experiments in a single second, enabling all sorts of new science.Super computers do not make intuitive leaps.The human brain may not have any limit to the information that it can process as there are many ways to do this. For instance can a trillion trillion operations per second supercomputer direct human gene splicing to increase intelligence, or even design a new creature completely? These things are beginning to happen now however even the supercomputer is dependent on the creator for it's existence so in that vein humans are still more powerful than what they create because the creations are 100 percent dependent on the creationsNot knowing how something came to be does not mean that a god did it.Atheists can't explain where the Universe came from
And they don't want anyone else to either
Did you ever consider that we may not be able to ever understand the processes of the inception at the universe because our brains are simply incapable of the task?
My dog will never understand the concept of prime numbers because her brain is incapable of the thought processes necessary.
Knowing that a dog's, or a chimpanzee's brain are made from the same stuff as a human brain isn't it reasonable to think that even the human brain has a limit as to what types of information is can process?
And gene splicing a human to a super computer results in something that is no longer a human brain.
| EarthSky
earthsky.org
Human intelligence: have we reached the limit of knowledge?
Despite huge advances in science over the past century, our understanding of nature is still far from complete. Not only have scientists failed to find the Holy Grail of physics—unifying the very large (general relativity) with the very small (quantum mechanics) – they still don't know what the...phys.org
PS. If you have links to the future please do not post them because they are cartoons
PSS Computers will make intuitive steps once they become aware
Nothing created everything is exactly what atheist and Darwinist believe. I will not however argue that this is uneducated because it is. So thanks for agreeingExcept poppy that this post is not about Darwin it is about atheist and nothing created nothing is exactly what atheist say. Now stick to the topic and stop trying to derail the thread. Do try to behave like the mod that you claim that you areI thought that nothing creating everything was considered science?You really need to move your proselytizing to the religion forum.
LOL you are a clueless buffoon who does not even know what you believe yourself
"Nothing creating everything is certainly not science. And is not what Darwin said at all.
Darwin never addressed the origins of the Universe. He addressed the biodiversity we see in the world. He addressed the changes, via mutation, change and outside forces.
Biologists believe that all cells came from preexisting cells. As for where the original cells came from, that is more difficult because of the length of time since it happened. The best theory is the primordial soup, lightning and other factors were the origins of the first cellular organisms.
Anyone who believes that nothing created something is simply uneducated. I am sticking with the topic, junior.
What scientific theory claims nothing created something?
Postulated is not real, so you are correctPhysicists postulated virtual particles to explain very real phenomena. How do you know they are wrong and what is your counter theory?I offer you the advice to talk to a physicist and they can explain to you about virtual particles.Virtual particle - Wikipedia
It ain't the rocket science that insufferably obnoxious a-hole (Feynman) wanted all to believe. They made a stab at it. They stabbed wrong. Everyone swooned and bought it anyway.
Sure it canThe market will never explain why galaxies are joined gravitationally but there is not enough visible matter to explain it.LOL then they can also tell me that 85 percent of the universe is missing and or that the universe is not real but actually a computer simulation.I offer you the advice to talk to a physicist and they can explain to you about virtual particles.I offer you the advice to be seen by a shrink and that you can explain your virtual particles to themWhat do you have to offer?What meds do you takeActually no one believes in nothing. For theists there was always God. For atheists there was something became something else (our universe).Nothing Created Everything
Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...www.goodreads.com
It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code
Virtual particles are merely the way that quantum physicist explain their observations that they can not actually explain. As such they invent imaginary stuff like virtual particles and dark matter. You pay attention pop, I will be watching the market
Railing against the infidel and getting into a lather about matters you don’t understand, using your superstitious religious belief like a bloody truncheon is not a good look.Nothing created everything is exactly what atheist and Darwinist believe. I will not however argue that this is uneducated because it is. So thanks for agreeingExcept poppy that this post is not about Darwin it is about atheist and nothing created nothing is exactly what atheist say. Now stick to the topic and stop trying to derail the thread. Do try to behave like the mod that you claim that you areI thought that nothing creating everything was considered science?You really need to move your proselytizing to the religion forum.
LOL you are a clueless buffoon who does not even know what you believe yourself
"Nothing creating everything is certainly not science. And is not what Darwin said at all.
Darwin never addressed the origins of the Universe. He addressed the biodiversity we see in the world. He addressed the changes, via mutation, change and outside forces.
Biologists believe that all cells came from preexisting cells. As for where the original cells came from, that is more difficult because of the length of time since it happened. The best theory is the primordial soup, lightning and other factors were the origins of the first cellular organisms.
Anyone who believes that nothing created something is simply uneducated. I am sticking with the topic, junior.
What scientific theory claims nothing created something?
ExactlyKnowing that a dog's, or a chimpanzee's brain are made from the same stuff as a human brain isn't it reasonable to think that even the human brain has a limit as to what types of information is can process?
“Postulated”, (by humans BTW), defines the invention of all the gods created by humans. Your three gods are simply the distillation of the various Greek gods into a more manageable three.Postulated is not real, so you are correctPhysicists postulated virtual particles to explain very real phenomena. How do you know they are wrong and what is your counter theory?I offer you the advice to talk to a physicist and they can explain to you about virtual particles.Virtual particle - Wikipedia
It ain't the rocket science that insufferably obnoxious a-hole (Feynman) wanted all to believe. They made a stab at it. They stabbed wrong. Everyone swooned and bought it anyway.
Lol, random chance isn't "nothing".Nothing Created Everything
Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...www.goodreads.com
It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code
I see no reason why creation, meaning the beginning of the universe, is something humanity can never understand.ExactlyKnowing that a dog's, or a chimpanzee's brain are made from the same stuff as a human brain isn't it reasonable to think that even the human brain has a limit as to what types of information is can process?
We cannot understand Creation and yet it happened
Looking at nature its obvious to me that there must be a Creator
We could not have come to exist though dumb luck as Darwin claims
Some higher intelligence must be responsible
ExactlyKnowing that a dog's, or a chimpanzee's brain are made from the same stuff as a human brain isn't it reasonable to think that even the human brain has a limit as to what types of information is can process?
We cannot understand Creation and yet it happened
Looking at nature its obvious to me that there must be a Creator
We could not have come to exist though dumb luck as Darwin claims
Some higher intelligence must be responsible
Nothing created everything is exactly what atheist and Darwinist believe. I will not however argue that this is uneducated because it is. So thanks for agreeingExcept poppy that this post is not about Darwin it is about atheist and nothing created nothing is exactly what atheist say. Now stick to the topic and stop trying to derail the thread. Do try to behave like the mod that you claim that you areI thought that nothing creating everything was considered science?You really need to move your proselytizing to the religion forum.
LOL you are a clueless buffoon who does not even know what you believe yourself
"Nothing creating everything is certainly not science. And is not what Darwin said at all.
Darwin never addressed the origins of the Universe. He addressed the biodiversity we see in the world. He addressed the changes, via mutation, change and outside forces.
Biologists believe that all cells came from preexisting cells. As for where the original cells came from, that is more difficult because of the length of time since it happened. The best theory is the primordial soup, lightning and other factors were the origins of the first cellular organisms.
Anyone who believes that nothing created something is simply uneducated. I am sticking with the topic, junior.
What scientific theory claims nothing created something?
