They will? Even if they do, that life still has to have a creator to get it all started. There is no evidence that non-life molecules or atoms can begin life on their own. I thought you atheist-scientists were all about empirical evidence? Guess not so you should allow believers to believe without slamming us for the belief in something not seen.In the 2030s when mankind finally lands on Mars they will discover remnants of primitive life that existed before Mars lost its atmosphere.
Creative force or energy will have no relation to Earth's tribal religious gods.They will? Even if they do, that life still has to have a creator to get it all started. There is no evidence that non-life molecules or atoms can begin life on their own. I thought you atheist-scientists were all about empirical evidence? Guess not so you should allow believers to believe without slamming us for the belief in something not seen.
They will? Even if they do, that life still has to have a creator to get it all started. There is no evidence that non-life molecules or atoms can begin life on their own. I thought you atheist-scientists were all about empirical evidence? Guess not so you should allow believers to believe without slamming us for the belief in something not seen.
Creative force? LOL!!! Life begets life. No other way...Creative force or energy will have no relation to Earth's tribal religious gods.
Well, stop eating dirt cause it's alive!!! No, this shows atheists are believers in their own creators but deny the true God of the Universe who has shown himself to mankind over the millenniums. Really sad.the elements of the periodic table -
View attachment 677455
are life forms - everything in the universe is alive - everything except the deniers, desert religions and their offshoots ... cougarbear
All matter can become energy, all energy can become matter; life is the result of one and one becoming much more than just two.Creative force? LOL!!! Life begets life. No other way...
From someone who has never taken a science course. Your answer is like liberals trying to define what a woman is. Non-science answers. None of what you have said is scientific. It’s more like hoping for things unseen. Religious faith of atheism.All matter can become energy, all energy can become matter; life is the result of one and one becoming much more than just two.
Science does a good job of explaining what is, what does exist. It tells us nothing of why everything exists. Experience has helped me to fill in the blanks that connect everything. Can you say akasha field.From someone who has never taken a science course. Your answer is like liberals trying to define what a woman is. Non-science answers. None of what you have said is scientific. It’s more like hoping for things unseen. Religious faith of atheism.
everything in the universe is alive - everything except the deniers ...
Well, stop eating dirt cause it's alive!!! No, this shows atheists are believers in their own creators but deny the true God of the Universe who has shown himself to mankind over the millenniums. Really sad.
I've answered the Akasha field in which Science has nothing to say about it, what it is or where it came from. They have a lot of guesses and theories but haven't proven a thing. So, go ahead and give me your non-science backed belief on what it is?Science does a good job of explaining what is, what does exist. It tells us nothing of why everything exists. Experience has helped me to fill in the blanks that connect everything. Can you say akasha field.
Well, all those natural metaphysical forces that have destroyed civilizations and killed millions of people over the millions of years you think people have existed is really vial and terrible.the heavenly metaphysical forces are proven by their physical representations, the universe - and have absolutely nothing to do with the vial and desolate desert religions used by those congregations to persecute and victimize the innocent. religions of servitude.
The akasha field is definitely not scientific fact ; until we have a great quantum leap in our intelligence and knowledge can't simply isn't possible yet. It's scientific theory for now.I've answered the Akasha field in which Science has nothing to say about it, what it is or where it came from. They have a lot of guesses and theories but haven't proven a thing. So, go ahead and give me your non-science backed belief on what it is?
Right. But, you believe it's the answer to how the Universe began. That is faith in something not seen nor understood if it even exists. Or, is it something else like the physical evidence of God.The akasha field is definitely not scientific fact ; until we have a great quantum leap in our intelligence and knowledge can't simply isn't possible yet. It's scientific theory for now.
They will? Even if they do, that life still has to have a creator to get it all started. There is no evidence that non-life molecules or atoms can begin life on their own. I thought you atheist-scientists were all about empirical evidence? Guess not so you should allow believers to believe without slamming us for the belief in something not seen.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
"Further, during the emergence of the protein–RNA world,5, 6 a molecular process must have existed that linked specific RNA sequences to specific peptide sequences so that one could encode the other and the latter could support the former through catalysis.7 This process may have led to the genetic code.8 But, to the best of our knowledge, no experimental conditions have been described that induce the simultaneous formation of the key molecules of genetics, metabolism, and protein synthesis."Spontaneous Formation of RNA Strands, Peptidyl RNA, and Cofactors
How the biochemical machinery evolved from simple precursors is an open question. Here we show that ribonucleotides and amino acids condense to peptidyl RNAs in the absence of enzymes under conditions established for genetic copying. Untemplated formation ...
RNA spontaneously forms on clay AND forms long chains that can create complex 3 dimensional shapes AND it reproduces AND it encodes information to be passed onto those reproductions.
This is ALL that is needed for the formation of life. Complex chemicals reproducing themselves, creating long chemical chains and doing so in a manner that selective processes apply to.
Yes, we do not have 100 percent of every step."Further, during the emergence of the protein–RNA world,5, 6 a molecular process must have existed that linked specific RNA sequences to specific peptide sequences so that one could encode the other and the latter could support the former through catalysis.7 This process may have led to the genetic code.8 But, to the best of our knowledge, no experimental conditions have been described that induce the simultaneous formation of the key molecules of genetics, metabolism, and protein synthesis."
Note that it says a molecular process MUST have existed that linked specific RNA. But, that is just a guess. And, what is that process? I dunno...You dunno... This is just more fuzzy words of wishful thinkers. Maybe it was God who stirred the process! Yep!!! Even more so, where did the elements come from to form molecules to get to this point? God is good and great!!!
According to this article, we don't have 1%. Yes, it is God who organized the universe and our earth to have life on it. How that took place, don't know. Did God plant seeds from other worlds that have life on them? Probably. Or, did he simply have the catalyst you are looking for? Mankind will never find it.Yes, we do not have 100 percent of every step.
Is that what you were expecting? Are you truly comfortable with a god of the gaps? What they established through a prediction and summarily successful experiment is that what is needed for life to begin from inanimate non-reproducing matter into reproducing life that is subject to selective processes happens naturally and spontaneously.
According to the article we have a shit ton of those steps.According to this article, we don't have 1%. Yes, it is God who organized the universe and our earth to have life on it. How that took place, don't know. Did God plant seeds from other worlds that have life on them? Probably. Or, did he simply have the catalyst you are looking for? Mankind will never find it.
Actually, it says we don't. It's all guess work so far. But, why should I expect from atheist liberals to care about language. To you guys a man can get pregnant.According to the article we have a shit ton of those steps.
That you want to ignore that is irrelevant nor does it address that it established with verified, repeatable and predicted experimentation the very basis required for matter that is not considered life to reproduce, form long chains that can create complex 3 dimensional shapes and encode information to be passed onto those reproductions which is all that is needed for life to develop.
What you have is zero predictions, zero observations and zero experiments that back your assertions that it was god. You do have a LOT of failed predictions, every single 'impossible' step you cling to ends up being quite possible and observed.
I repeat, your last statement is nothing but an appeal to God of the gaps. That you seem to be okay with such a position is simply devoid of logic.
