Guest shiloh357 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Furthermore, life cannot come from nonliving things. Science has proven that. Totally not true. I would like to see this 'proof' of yours. It was proven by Louie Pasteur. It was believed in his day that flies and maggots formed out of rotting, lifeless meat. He proved that theory false. Life has never been observed springing from lifeless matter. And a single piece of DNA is NOT more complex than our fastest computers. By far not. If some supercomputers can simulate other universes, i think we can deal with some DNA. http://www.space.com/13151-universe-evolution-nasa-supercomputer-simulation.html Bill Gates would disagree with you. “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” ― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/336336-dna-is-like-a-computer-program-but-far-far-more The decaying of an radioactive atom happens by pure chance. No force or nature can let it decay more quickly. You have a very wrong idea of what "chance" means. When we say something happened by chance, it means that it is a fluke, usually something that was against the odds of happening and for which the odds are would not happen again. We live in a ordered unvierse. There is a uniform order and structure that defies the notion of chance as an explanation of its complexity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schouwenaars Posted June 16, 2014 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 153 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 44 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/04/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/05/1997 Share Posted June 16, 2014 You have a very wrong idea of what "chance" means. Chance has many connotations. Bill Gates Well, if you believe what he says: "I agree with people like Richard Dawkins that mankind felt the need for creation myths. Before we really began to understand disease and the weather and things like that, we sought false explanations for them. Now science has filled in some of the realm - not all - that religion used to fill." ~Bill Gates Bill Gates isn't always right. i'm sure you will agree. It was proven by Louie Pasteur. Nothing has been scientificly proven by him. By the way he lived more than 140 years ago. Then most people still believed stars were just little dots in the sky. Unless it's math, most proven things from 100 years ago don't really count anymore and have been disproven or heavy criticised. And because there might not be proof yet for creation of life without god, doesn't mean it cannot be or cannot be proven in the future. And life has been made already in a lab: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745868/Scientist-Craig-Venter-creates-life-for-first-time-in-laboratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html Besides, life on earth might seem organised, but look at the inside of a star or a quasar. Then it isn't so 'organised' any more. It's a total mess. And even if you might think that is 'organised', then look at the quantum world. Everything there has to do with possibilitys and chances. There are no certaintys. And if there are no certaintys, how can there be order and structure? Like the existence of 2 different states of something at the same time: http://www3.amherst.edu/~jrfriedman/NYTimes/071100sci-quantum-mechanics.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Chance has many connotations. Perhaps you need to learn the difference between connotations and meaning. Well, if you believe what he says: "I agree with people like Richard Dawkins that mankind felt the need for creation myths. Before we really began to understand disease and the weather and things like that, we sought false explanations for them. Now science has filled in some of the realm - not all - that religion used to fill." ~Bill Gates Bill Gates isn't always right. i'm sure you will agree. No, he isn't always right but he is just one of many people who recognize the immense complexity of DNA and why its complexity makes the notion that something so complex simply defies having come about by accident or "chance." Ordered complexity is simply too great for the chance argument to work. Nothing has been scientificly proven by him. Actually he performed an experiment that proved an experiment that proved that living organism don't spring from dead matter. That he lived 140 years ago is irrelevant, viole. Besides, life on earth might seem organised, but look at the inside of a star or a quasar. Then it isn't so 'organised' any more. It's a total mess. there is an overall structure and order to the universe and even in the unorganized appearance of the quasar you mentioned. The universe overall is very predictable and the predictability is needed for anyone to be able to do science. If H20 stops being water, we are all in trouble. We need the universe to be ordered and structured for our very survival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schouwenaars Posted June 17, 2014 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 153 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 44 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/04/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/05/1997 Share Posted June 17, 2014 If H20 stops being water, we are all in trouble. How is it even possible that H2O stops being water? whenever H2O will go out its licuide state, temperature on earth has to be very high or very low. In both circumstance, we'll be death before the H2O has even transformated a little bit. The universe overall is very predictable Only on a large scale, as i mentioned before. I already said we cannot predict with certainty both the momentum AND place of a particle. We only have probabilities for that. And this microscopic scale is the basic for everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts