Stephen Hawking Says the Universe Was Not Created by God

^^^
What else did you expect the evolutionists to say. They made good points in that video, and are also PhD scientists, biologist, physicists, and alike.
 


zdmyn said:
This was his best guess with regards to abiogenesis, which if you don't know, was not his area of expertise and he didn't pretend that it was. You should be embarrassed to turn this into an argument of character, which is something we usually expect from women.
Click to expand...

His best guess did turn out to be accurate. What he describes was later mimicked in the Miller-Urey experiment. Add a spark to a simulation of the Earth's early atmosphere and boom, organic compounds including the building blocks of proteins and nucleotides form. Either way you slice it, Darwin was brilliant.
 
Rusky said:
^^^
What else did you expect the evolutionists to say. They made good points in that video, and are also PhD scientists, biologist, physicists, and alike.
Click to expand...

Again. The experts in that video who were not taken out of context are members of the Discovery Institute which seeks to dispel evolution and promote Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design's main argument against evolution is the unscientific reasoning of irreducible complexity.

If this video is your argument and your main defense against your lack of understanding of everything else that you refused to address, then I have nothing else to say.
 
keeper33 said:
His best guess did turn out to be accurate. What he describes was later mimicked in the Miller-Urey experiment. Add a spark to a simulation of the Earth's early atmosphere and boom, organic compounds including the building blocks of proteins and nucleotides form. Either way you slice it, Darwin was brilliant.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Good point.
 
So all of you are jumping on the Miller Urey Experiment bandwagon.
His experiment proved how impossible life from non life really is.

He didnt create life. His test produced simple amino acids. (Brick to Building the House)

-First of all this experiment was designed, assuming that was the environment on earth.
-No oxygen was used in the experiment - oxygen actually destroyed the experiment. Oxygen the essential ingredient for life as we know it, was kryptonite in the experiment.
-He assumes the condition on the planet were the same as his controlled experiment. There is not evidence of that, the evidence is actually to the contrary CO2 and N2 was it not methane or ammonia (geochemical evidence). I mean talk about climate change. Now the same scientists ignore their own evidence just to make a point.
-The experiment only produced right handed amino acids (life actually requires left handed amino acids)
-To this day we haven't created living matter from non living matter even in a laboratory.

All he proved was it truly requires a controlled and purposely manipulated environment and ingredients, to produce even a simple amino acid.
 
Rusky said:
Next time post an argument. Dont be a fuck face like most atheists who blatantly believe everything in school books.

You atheists think your so smart.
Even the Doctors are retards I suppose in your big brain.
Survey: Most doctors believe in God, afterlife - Health - Health care - msnbc.com
Click to expand...

Welcome to 2005.

Things have changed since then, here's an article from 2010.
Liberals and atheists smarter? Intelligent people have values novel in human evolutionary history, study finds

Also, most people believe in a god, i.e: "a creator" because of it's therapeutic effect. It's cheaper than to go to a shrink every now and then. :p

I honestly think people that take God seriously should be mocked and ignored in society.

Now,

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51Fn2r-8hHI"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
 
^^^
I'm sure Doctors haven't changed that much since 2005 come on.

The title of that article suggests Liberal Smart and Conservative Dumb? I'm pretty sure the peer reviews of that article was done by all atheist and liberal professors, 99.9% sure.
 
Rusky said:
-First of all this experiment was designed, assuming that was the environment on earth.
-No oxygen was used in the experiment - oxygen actually destroyed the experiment. Oxygen the essential ingredient for life as we know it, was kryptonite in the experiment.
-He assumes the condition on the planet were the same as his controlled experiment. There is not evidence of that, the evidence is actually to the contrary CO2 and N2 was it not methane or ammonia (geochemical evidence). I mean talk about climate change. Now the same scientists ignore their own evidence just to make a point.
-The experiment only produced right handed amino acids (life actually requires left handed amino acids)
-To this day we haven't created living matter from non living matter even in a laboratory.
Click to expand...

1.) Yes, it can be reasonably determined that the environment demonstrated in Miller-Urey was exceedingly close to that of the early earth. We know from rigorous evidence that volcanic activity produced the earth's early atmosphere. It doesn't take a genius to therefore analyze samples of modern day volcanic output and discover it's largely CH4, NH3, H2O, H2, and quite a lot of CO2.

2.) No oxygen was used because it was virtually absent in the earth's early atmosphere. Of course oxygen would have destroyed the environment, it's a very powerful oxidizer, whereas the early earth's atmosphere was reducing.

Oxygen is the essential ingredient for eukaryotic life. Early life on earth was prokaryotic (bacteria, archaea) and can thrive on anaerobic respiration (No O2 required).

3.) Whatever geochemical evidence you quote is consistent with an early earth's atmosphere being produced by volcanic outgassing. This same volcanic output produced the gases found in the experiment.

4.) The experiment produced a mixture of both types of amino acids, it was racemic.

5.) "We haven't created living matter from non living matter even in a laboratory"

P has never been proven therefore P is/(must be) false

^^^ This is called the argument from ignorance. It's a logical fallacy.

Sources:

Prokaryote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anaerobic respiration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html
Astrobiology: Presentations and Science Nuggets

If you're going to continue making weak attempts to distort decades of research and peer review, at least cite your arguments. Please.
 
Rusky said:
Oxygen the essential ingredient for life as we know it, was kryptonite in the experiment.
Click to expand...

lol Kryptonite? Was this hand-delivered to Miller and Urey from Superman's Kryptonian ancestors?

The element you're probably talking about is Krypton. But Krypton was not used in this experiment. The reason Oxygen wasn't used in the experiment is because they hypothesized that Oxygen was scarce or non-existent in Earth's early atmosphere and thus during the beginning of life. Does their experiment or their assumptions of Earth's early atmospheric conditions hold any water? Who knows. It's interesting, but certainly not conclusive. But that most certainly doesn't make me want to buy into Intelligent Design. We've yet to reach the tip of the iceberg in terms of scientific discoveries. I don't imagine its time yet to throw our arms up in the air and succumb to the notion of irreducible complexity. I will never concede to magic.
 
keeper33 said:
P has never been proven therefore P is/(must be) false

^^^ This is called the argument from ignorance. It's a logical fallacy.

If you're going to continue making weak attempts to distort decades of research and peer review, at least cite your arguments. Please.
Click to expand...

You're comparing a brick (amino acid - non life) to a house (a protein - life)
Seriously that doesn't bother you, or did they just skip over this in your text book. Argument was non life to life remember. I don't need a source to figure the difference between protein and amino acids.
 
Rusky said:
You're comparing a brick (amino acid - non life) to a house (a protein - life)
Seriously that doesn't bother you, or did they just skip over this in your text book. Argument was non life to life remember. I don't need a source to figure the difference between protein and amino acids.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I mean really? First you completely miss the point of that statement and then you claim proteins are alive? Really? Next you're going to say that peptides = life.

FYI, proteins are nothing but polymers. Amino acids formed during the early stages of earth most likely (99%) contained hydroxyl groups, making them highly reactive and easy to bond into long chains...aka proteins.
 
Rusky said:
-No oxygen was used in the experiment - oxygen actually destroyed the experiment. Oxygen the essential ingredient for life as we know it, was kryptonite in the experiment.
Click to expand...

You do realize that oxygen wasn't really in our atmosphere until plants starting turning carbon dioxide into oxygen?


Rusky said:
Evolution pulls non life to live out of their ass also. Dont think its perfect (not even close).
If you walk trough a desert and see a pyramid. Do you assume its made by wind and sand over billions of years, or do you assume a designer was involved. This same principle is applicable when looking at DNA, and at very complicated systems in our bodies.
As uncomplicated as the code to make this website is compared to DNA. Do you assume random numbers and letters were thrown on a page and bam an interactive forum is born. Its more logical to believe a desinger was involved, then to assume after billions and billions of years this forum made itself. As uncomplicated as it is, compared to DNA.
Click to expand...
If you throw random numbers and letters on a page for billions of years you will eventually come up with something substantial. I don't think you're comprehending exactly how long a couple billion years is.
 
Rusky said:
You're still the minority fuck head. For being the superior intelligent human you think you are, you dont choose your words wisely.
Click to expand...

Then let God smites me. I dare him!

Pussy!

Believing in a belief that puts disbelievers in hell is beyond me.

If this holds true, majority of the people I know are damned. Logical arguments aside, I find this nothing but offensive and is reason enough for me to mock religious zealots and their mythical ideologies.

Believe in a creator?
No problem.

Believing in Christianity, Judaism, Islam,?
Big problem.
 
keeper33 said:
Honestly, I mean really? First you completely miss the point of that statement and then you claim proteins are alive? Really? Next you're going to say that peptides = life.

FYI, proteins are nothing but polymers. Amino acids formed during the early stages of earth most likely (99%) contained hydroxyl groups, making them highly reactive and easy to bond into long chains...aka proteins.
Click to expand...

I called protein life because they provide the structure for life, its on another level far from amino acids. But now you also need DNA to give protein information to create life. So it gets even more complicated for the soup theory. I'm sure DNA was also created as lightning struck the soup. Its hard to imagine floating amino acids somehow formed into proteins that then miraculously bonded with DNA. Sounds like a miracle. Come on, most evolusionist dont even use the miller urey experiment as a decent argument anymore. Seems like they separate abiogenesis and evolution altogether. Probably for a reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom