Debate God

M-Theory.

What does it matter? Just because we don't know something doesn't mean god did it. It just means we're not as smart as we think we are and it means we don't claim to know everything.

 

You speaking of an infinite causal regression which could only happen in our universe if, and only if, it were eternal. However, it is not. Timelessness exists outside of our universe and indeed our universe has already began and ended. Time is an illusion.

 

I can not stress this enough. Time IS an illusion.

I can not stress this enough, the big bang is the deepest into our origins we have tested. M-theory has not been tested, the LHC is on its way so everything I am going to say past this point has no validity beyond mathematics.

The multiverse is timeless. There you go. That's it!

God = not limited by time.
Multiverse = not limited by time.
God = Transcends infinity.
Multiverse = Transcends infinity.

You did ask how the multiverse came into existence to which I would reply "how did god come into existence?" Of course god doesn't need a beginning, though I'm not sure why the multiverse would need one either.

My knowledge on this subject is reaching it's limit, but from what I can gather a broken symmetry order created the universe and we are slowing returning to high entropy and heading towards becoming a grouping order. The multiverse was created by a broken symmetry order (from what I can gather).

 

I was fairly convinced while reading this you didn't write it yourself, and this hunch came full circle when you admitted it towards the end. I don't expect a response from you so don't feel obligated to give one, unless you have a genuine arguement to confront me with.

To all who are about to read, you may not see the whole thing as this will take me a while to compile information and respond to accordingly. Please be patient there is quite a bit of material that needs to be covered and I want to be sure all my info is saved at select intervals.

Let us begin.

Quoted only to show I am examining the entire arguement.

Quoted only to show I am examining the entire arguement.

A common misconception amongst, not only creationists, but the general public, as well, is that the 2nd law demands the universe be running out of energy. That is simply a false statement. The 2nd law actually states, "The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value." Entropy is not a measure of disorder, it is a measure of the homogenization of the total energy in a given system.

Your second claim that the universe can not be eternal is a factual one. Scientists theorize that the big bang marked the beginning of our universe. The true origins of the big bang remain a mystery as, so far, it has only been explained through mathematics and has not been empirically tested in a lab.

Your final claim is that because it is a law it hold some sort of power. Theories retain more powers than laws. Furthermore, laws only apply to our universe.

For all practical purposes your right but your terms could have been used a little better. No since arguing semantics, though.

Correct.

Where are you going with this?

I wish I could claim Einstein as an atheist; I'm fairly certain he was agnostic. If you could be more specific as to tell me what he divided by zero I could be of more assistance. It sounds to me you are using Einstein and his theory as an absolute. Einstein has been proven wrong many times, whether or whether not he was "agitated" is irrelevant; evidence and mathematics are stronger than personal conviction and common sense.

The evidence that we have does not point to there being nothing, nor does it point to there being something before the big bang. All theories that consider themselves precursors to the big bang remain untested and await the LHC.

Stanley Miller performed a test that created complex organic compounds in under 3 days. He concluded that it was possible the earth could have done the same. However, it was discovered that he had used an unproportionate amount of gasses in his atmosphere that gave the erroneous results. Nevertheless, this only further proved it was possible that organic compounds could form, period. Even if atmospheric conditions on earth could not sustain life, complex organic compounds freely form in space and could have been seeded onto the earth by comets.

We have a major problem then. How did DNA form. The first step would be to break down the components of DNA and find how they are formed. In 1961, a researcher left hydrogen cyanide and ammonia to stew in an aquous solution in his labrotory under similar conditions to those that prevailed on the primordial earth. Left alone the solution formed adenine, one of the bases of DNA. To make a complete nucleotide these bases need a sugar called ribose and a phosphate group. Biochemists beleive they know how the phosphate group formed they are now trying to determine how the ribose is attached.

Once nucleotides formed the next step was to form polynucleotides. In the 1980's researches found that a clay, montmorrilonite, which was abundant on the sea floor and in hot pools of water on land, was the perfect catalyst for this process.

For the rest of the information of this segment I will quote my blog, it may contain redundancies to what was said above but gives a greater insight to how abiogeneisis works.

A protein that just formed in its current state, I suspect, would have a much lower probability of forming. However, a protein forming from simpler precursors increases the probability of proteins forming dramatically.

Abiogeneisis is only a hypothesis, it still needs a lot of research and work done to it. However, we are getting close to understanding the formation of proteins.

"Peptide synthesis from amino acids has been shown to occur in aqueous solutions at high concentrations of sodium chloride and in the presence of Cu(II) after several days at 85°C, under nitrogen or air as well. Di- and tripeptides could be obtained in a series of experiments which have yet to be optimized. However, these experiments have proved the principle applicability of a model which is based on the structural features of concentrated aqueous NaCl solutions and evidence of catalytic effects in peptide condensation reactions exerted by di- and trivalent metal ions. Among the ions of Mg, Ca, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Fe, Cu, Zn and Cd, only copper was found to be active under these conditions. This leads to new aspects for possible prebiotic peptide syntheses based on a very simple system of only water, amino acids and mineral salts.[1]"

The article shows that peptides (the smaller components of proteins) can be formed under the right conditions.

Evolution can and DOES account for all life forms on this planet by way of a nested hierarchy. If you can violate the nested hierarchy by finding an animal with a cell wall then you will have successfully disproved evolution.

First of all dogs will ALWAYS produce dogs. If dogs produced cats it would violate the nested hierarchy. If conditions in the environment suddenly change and it would be best for dogs to adapt to an aquatic life style, dogs would still produce dogs. However, over time their feet may become webbed, they may lose their ears, and they may develop fins over traditional paws. I can not stress enough, though, that on human time scales we will see dogs producing dogs and it would be so gradual that we would have to look back 10,000 years to see how dogs were to fully comprehend how much dogs had changed. They would then be reclassified as a new species. Now if we lost track of all the dogs for 1,000 years it would be so obvious they had changed, but since we were subjected to the sight and presence of dogs for 10,000 years it was harder to notice, even though they changed more, different generations would have different views of how a dog should look. It's hard to look at evolution when we have close contact with that species. It is much to discern change with a species contact with.

How do you feel so qualified to critique evolution when you don't even understand it. Seriously, a lizard tail on a finch? Did Jesus have a magic wand that he carried around in his ass that would damn anyone and everyone to hell? It is a complete mischaracterization of evolution.

A ring species is species that is divided on two sides by some impassable barrier, such as mountains. When they meet up on the other side they no longer have the genetic ability to mate. They all originate from a common ancestor. If we have a lizard population on the southern most tip of the Rockies that begins trek north, the species would be divided. On one side one species would adapt to a maritime climate, while the other to a desert climate. When the populations meet 2,000 miles north, they have different body structures, organ adaptations, skin colors, behavioral characteristics, and genetics so that they can no longer breed. They have diverged, they contain tons of unique character combinations that link them together but they may contain 5 or 6 or 20 combinations that are only seen in one or the other. This makes them a seperate species, they are still a lizard or a bird or a mammal, but they contain enough genetic differences that they may be considered a seperate species (similar to dire wolves and timber wolves being wolves but still a different species).

Sound impossible, I present to you exihibit A; Ensatina salamanders[2].

No, you could never do that. If I took the lungs away from a human he would die. If I took the lungs away from a lung fish, he would still have gills and be able to survive, though he would lose the ability to use that function. The same is true at the cellular level. Remove the Golgi apparatus and the cell dies. However, before that Golgi apparatus existed there was a precursor structure and before that purely mechanical processes would handle the future Golgi apparatus's work.

What are the odds that a child with legos can throw them in the air and when they land they form a 3d pyramid? Now, what are the odds that a child could build a pyramid lego by lego? Your basically saying, "evolution can't throw pieces in the air so it sucks" when really it never makes that prediction. It is simply a mischaracterization of the arguement. Every structure of the cell (including the bacterial flagellum) have been shown theoretically to function from precursor structures and mechanical processes.

Since I brought it up, what good are bacterial flagellum for if they don't propel? Those 50 proteins couldn't have just formed, they all needed a function. And, in fact, they did. The so called "icon" of intelligent design, the bacterial flagellum, has 26 proteins that allegedly make it irreducibly complex. The basic gist is if you have a complex biochemical function it can't be produced by a blind force because the individual components would have no function thus proving that evolution is incorrect. If these individual parts have no function then evolution is wrong, if they do evolution is dead on target. If we start with the bacterial flagellum and remove 40 parts out of 50, according to Irreducible complexity it should no longer funtion. However, the remaining ten not only have a function but an incredibly positive function. What is left over is the Type III Secretory System (or the launching pad of the flagellum). The T3SS is like a molecular syringe in which some of the nastiest bacteria produce toxic proteins, grab on to another cell, and inject those proteins into our cells. The bacterium that causes bubonic plague uses this system. The 10 proteins that make up the Type III Secretory System are DIRECTLY homologous to the bacterial flagellum's base. They aren't a flagellum, they don't produce movement, but are they functional? yes.

What this means, and there is no other word for it, is that that statement is wrong. It is not an incidental statement it is the heart and sole of the ID arguement and in this case it turns out to be wrong. Not only is it wrong it is even "wronger" because every protein in the bacterial flagellum is strongly homolgous to other proteins that have functions in the cells. This icon of intellgent design under close scrutiny turns out to be powerful evidence for evolution.

There is a path connecting all the species[3]. We have already done it. Not the best example but it is very noob friendly.

Liar! Archeopteryx was a dinosaur with feathers. Not a lizard, a reptile. Either learn your genuses or stop talking about them. Birds share more unique character combinations with reptiles than they do with mammals. The same is true vica versa; mammals have more unique character combinations with reptiles than they do birds. This is a clear divergence.

You said there are no transitional forms, I would disagree. 5 basic invertabates to fish transtional forms are: Pikaia to Conodont, Conodont to Haikouichthys, Haikouichthys to Arandaspis, Arandaspis to Birkenia[4]. That is a very, very brief list. Talk Origins is down at the moment so I don't have a larger list at the moment but those are transitional forms. We have a massive amount of transitional fossils, the so called "missing link."

The cambrian explosion happened over the course of roughly 20 million years, which is hardly "just suddenly appeared." This burst of life was likely due to a high oxygen content and the evolution of the eye which set off an evolutionary arms race of survival. Now you said species appear suddenly and dissappear[sic] which I can agree with. Puntuated Equilibrium is a part of evolution that holds that most transitional forms wouldn't show up in the fossil record because when changes due occur they happen so quickly that it is unlikely any members of the population would be fossilized. Though, it certainly doesn't undermine evolution.

Perhaps your straw man of evolution is a religion. Reality is painted a much different color. Quit being foolish and read a book every now and again.

Bullshit. Substantiate your claims. Morallity is relative. In the Middle-East if you rape a woman it is the woman's fault and the man likely feels no guilt. The opposite is true here. You also see moral relativism in the relation between war and murder. Which is more acceptable, killing one or killing 1,000 to sound of trumpets? In the bible, genocide is commited by the Israelites after god tells them too. How relative is god? Look at mass murderers, I would be willing to bet that some of those people did not contain this moral compass, which would be impossible if a god gave it to all but very possible if evolution gave to us genetically.

The reason we have a moral compass for certain acts such as murder, war, and theft is because those who had a innate ability to understand these wrongs and not commit them had a better chance of survival. Evolution provides, not god, and certainly not Christianity.

This was such a drag, you have no idea. In closing, personal convictions do not equal reality.

Sources:
1. Analytical Sciences. The Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry. December 20, 2008. <http://www.journalarchive.jst.go.jp/english/jnlabstract_en.php?cdjournal=analsci1985&cdvol=5&noissue=4&startpage=411>.

2. Irwin, Darren E. Ring Species: Unusal demonstrations of speciation. Actionbioscience. December 20, 2008. <http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html>

3. Tree of Life: Genetic Connections. Tree of Life Web Project. December 20, 2008. <http://tolweb.org/tree/learn/concepts/geneticconnections.html>.

4. List of transitional fossils. Wikimedia. December 20, 2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils>.

 

Phew, finished. That was just awful. Not a single good arguement in that whole thing. Not much of an exercise.