My "scientific" research proving God exists. - Page 2 - VGF

The Missing Link · 04-17-2005, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phil the Alchemist:

Though, when speaking about amino acids forming under the Earth's conditions, it is impossible for amino acids to form spontaneously with the presence of oxygen.

Let me pose a condundrum to ya. A riddle if ya will.

You make the assumption that, for all 4.5B years of Earth that we can know that oxygen was a key factor in our atmosphere. (I doubt this can be proven yet for all 4.5B years considering we're only just now able to dig into the mantle and I reckon that a good bit of time has worn off and liquified therein, but I'll at least assume for a long time then.) What if the composition of the atmospheric layers OR the ocean was not the way it is today? I'm not talking about the fusion of oxygen, although I can talk about the creation of oxygen from photosynthesis of plants. Provided such a thing occurred long enough ago to mask over the proof in the rock stratus, the oxygen could have theoretically been created by a world that was completely devoid of fauna but entirely inhabited by flora. Even if the atmosphere did have susceptible amounts of oxygen embedded therein to be a deterrent for life, the oceanic regions could easily have not had the oxygen content that they have no to support the fish.

Pretty much, your logic follows as this: (Lurch can tell me if I'm doing this correctly!)
P1: Amino acids cannot form spontaneously wherever the oxygen content is too high.
P2: Oxygen has been proven to be on Earth for a sufficiently long time.
C: Amino acids cannot form spontaneously on Earth.

The problem with the argument comes down to when oxygen formed in our atmosphere--after all, it is a minority gas, second to hydrogen--as well as where if the when was too early. If the events mentioned by P1 and P2 do not overlap in space-time, C cannot be firmly established.

Again, I'm shooting at straws here and pointing out possibility. I have not looked up what's proven out there, though I know a good portion out there of what is proven. I'm may pass as an astrophysicist, but definitely not a geophysicist.

"There are some who call me... Link?"

"Carpe Gaium Domesticum!" (Seize the Cucco!)
Zelda: The Grand Adventures | Triforce MUCK
ザ行方不明リンク
悪いユウモアの賢人

SuperLuigi64 · 04-17-2005, 09:16 AM

In the first place, according to the Bible itself, you are not supposed to try and prove God's existence, but have faith that he does exist. If you want to take the bible at face value, you have to take the ENTIRE thing at face value, which essentially for you means there will never be any proof that God exists, because He does not want to be proven.

In the second place: One scientist, I forget his name, recreated the time when life was allegedly created spontaneously--the primordial soup. I believe Lurch mentioned this, but he didn't follow through on it. The experiment worked. It only worked once, but that one time, life was generated. Which disproves your impossibility theory.

AJ Middleton · 04-17-2005, 09:31 AM

WHOA. He's like a ghost!

Hey folks. I didn't read the link, but I saw the line about about the Big Bang and whatnot:

The first thing wrong with this is in all the years of research, not once has an explosion caused by "chance" create anything. Everytime a star blows up it dies. Every sort of explosion, there is chaos. In fact, the big bang theory contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics called entropy.

Yeah, um, how 'bout no. First off, until this year, I had no idea about much evidence for a Big Bang that there was. In fact, my physics professor participates in this research. Particle physicists have been bashing particles together, causing them to heat up to ridiculous temperatures, and watching even smaller particles of matter come from those collisions. Basically, they're trying to recreate the Big Bang, and from what I've heard, they're getting pretty close.

For those of you who have read Angels and Demons, the scientific stuff is all true. Like I said, my physics professor does it.

The Big Bang does NOT violate entropy--please learn what these terms mean before you start throwing them around. A star dies because it has no more hydrogen to fuse together. But in that process, it makes tons of other elements that can later combine to make larger ones and so on. A star works until it becomes a giant chunk of lead, basically.

But why are we talking stars? The Big Bang sprang from a highly concentrated "orb" of condensed energy and matter that GOT COLDER and is still GETTING COLDER. That's right in line with the law of entropy.

But wait. Honestly now. The Law of Thermodynamics is a huge thing, and do you seriously think that the most intelligent and skilled scientists and researchers in the world decided to magically ignore it just to come up with the BB Theory? You've got to me kidding me. Your site, dear friend, is not "research," but rather blatant disregard for over a century of human progress.

Just my two cents.

EDIT: People miss the fact that the difference between rolling dice to get a certain combo and how life came about are totally different processes. With one, you have a specific goal, so odds go down. With another, whatever happens happens. What are the chances of something happening? Looks like 100% to me.

With amino acids coming to be, there was no blueprint for them to follow. It was the protein first, and THEN the rules for making them.

[ April 17, 2005, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Sir Bolt ]

Jonathan Resop · 04-17-2005, 10:38 AM

I thought you died?

-jay

P.S. Chrono Cross still sucks. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

***CaptHayfever*** · 04-17-2005, 06:26 PM

Oh my goodness it is Bolt.

Just adding my tuppence: Even if a proof of God were possible (which it isn't), it couldn't be a scientific proof, which is defined by the experimentation process.
It would be either a mathematical proof (which someone tried a couple hundred years ago, and it would've been right, except that the series used was divergent, and thus his finite conclusion was invalid), or a statistical proof (they're actually "closing in" on this one now, but statistics is not an absolute measure, so at best it would only be a proof of the possibility of existence), or flat-out first-hand evidence (which skeptics refuse to believe, even when they see it themselves).

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

The Missing Link · 04-17-2005, 08:15 PM

^ Moreso not the possibility but the probability of existence.

"There are some who call me... Link?"

"Carpe Gaium Domesticum!" (Seize the Cucco!)
Zelda: The Grand Adventures | Triforce MUCK
ザ行方不明リンク
悪いユウモアの賢人

***CaptHayfever*** · 04-17-2005, 08:37 PM

^Right, I misspoke.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Nick · 04-17-2005, 09:11 PM

Quote:

EDIT: People miss the fact that the difference between rolling dice to get a certain combo and how life came about are totally different processes. With one, you have a specific goal, so odds go down. With another, whatever happens happens. What are the chances of something happening? Looks like 100% to me.

Thanks for translating.

Justin Minas · 04-18-2005, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SuperLuigi64:
In the first place, according to the Bible itself, you are not supposed to try and prove God's existence, but have faith that he does exist. If you want to take the bible at face value, you have to take the ENTIRE thing at face value, which essentially for you means there will never be any proof that God exists, because He does not want to be proven.

In the second place: One scientist, I forget his name, recreated the time when life was allegedly created spontaneously--the primordial soup. I believe Lurch mentioned this, but he didn't follow through on it. The experiment worked. It only worked once, but that one time, life was generated. Which disproves your impossibility theory.

You are reffering to the Stanley Miller experiment, right?

What happened was he took two gasses, Ammonia and Methane (Which, thus far, is a completely fictional atmospheric composition for there is NO conclusive evidence to support it) which resulted in the creation of amino acids. Now...

There were several problems with this. One, Ammonia couldn't be found in abundance because of the fact that Ultra violet rays would destroy ammonia and methane gas has not been found in abundance in rock samples thus far(though oxygen has, and he intentionally didn't use it because it would destroy the formation of amino acids completely). He used a spark to simulate lightning, though he knew that the same spark would destroy amino acids. As a result, he trapped and circulated the gasses in order to produce the amino acids, or in other words, cheated. What he produced was mostly tar, a nuisance in organic compounds. He did produce amino acids though, but they were both left handed and right handed amino acids. In a single strand of a protien, one right handed amino acid completely disrupts the formation of a protien. What he ended up producing was a poisonous brew.

I know, the title is contradictive of many things, but oh well. It's there there to haunt me of my ignorance.

AJ Middleton · 04-18-2005, 09:51 AM

http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm

Jonathan Resop · 04-18-2005, 01:30 PM

By the way, hey Bolt, how're those Yanks doing?

Haha.

Let's go O's! Spank the Yanks!

Hehe.-jay [img]tongue.gif[/img]

(P.S. I don't care that it's only April, and I don't care if you still take the division. And I definitely don't care about the number 26. I'm just having fun eating my cake right now. And I'm going to enjoy it, dammit. Hehe. Yankees Suck!)

(P.P.S. 200 Million Dollar payroll? Hahahaha.)

(P.P.P.S. SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!)

[ April 18, 2005, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Perrin Aybara ]

Nick · 04-18-2005, 06:35 PM

PWN'D by bolt. Again.

AJ Middleton · 04-19-2005, 12:11 PM

But guess what Jay? I DO care that it's only April, so nya [img]tongue.gif[/img] .

But back on topic: it really gets to me how high schoolers and below (and even many adults) somehow conclude that because they don't understand some biological/physical/chemical concept, that they can use their little knowledge on the subject to debunk it. Like I said before, you have no respect for the quest for human knowledge if you think that the Big Bang, which has been a leading theory for decades, violates the laws of thermodynamics and SOMEHOW all researchers in the subject have decided to just ignore it. These scientists LIVE in their topics. If theories have flaws, they aren't in things that one with a high school diploma will be able to discover.

Legion · 04-19-2005, 01:38 PM

Has anyone here read Bill Bryson's 'A Short History of Nearly Everyhting'? Because it neatly refutes most of Phil's arguments without even realising it.

Basically, it's stupid for anyone on this board to attempt to refute universal scientific theory. Considering the opposition that Evolutionary and the Big Bang Theories endured at first, for them to become so widely accepted must mean that they do make sense. If there were flaws in the theories obvious enough for someone on this forum to spot, then they would never have become accepted.

***CaptHayfever*** · 04-19-2005, 03:18 PM

Ehh, I've spotted flaws in math books that the professors who wrote them missed.
But your point remains relevant.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Nick · 04-19-2005, 03:45 PM

Textbook flaws are often intentional so they can make a new edition, ensuring that freshman have to buy the 90 dollar college math book new instead of used.

SuperLuigi64 · 04-21-2005, 07:22 AM

You get math books for $90?!

Lucky SOB.... :/

ADVENTURE BUS · 04-21-2005, 03:58 PM

Just saw this. And I have two things to say, not joining in the arguement but just:

1. BOLT WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN?
-Andre

2. From my knowledge of the Bible (recently began reading again), the books are basically according to that author's viewpoint on what happened. Not all is gonna be perfect.

I'm not that credible when it comes to topics like this, but I just wanted to drop in.

04-17-2005, 09:16 AM	#22
SuperLuigi64 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Louisiana Gender: Posts: 7,695 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 3,641.90 Bank: 574.34 Total Points: 4,216.24 Donate	In the first place, according to the Bible itself, you are not supposed to try and prove God's existence, but have faith that he does exist. If you want to take the bible at face value, you have to take the ENTIRE thing at face value, which essentially for you means there will never be any proof that God exists, because He does not want to be proven. In the second place: One scientist, I forget his name, recreated the time when life was allegedly created spontaneously--the primordial soup. I believe Lurch mentioned this, but he didn't follow through on it. The experiment worked. It only worked once, but that one time, life was generated. Which disproves your impossibility theory.

04-17-2005, 09:31 AM	#23
AJ Middleton Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 2,146.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 2,646.00 Donate	WHOA. He's like a ghost! Hey folks. I didn't read the link, but I saw the line about about the Big Bang and whatnot: The first thing wrong with this is in all the years of research, not once has an explosion caused by "chance" create anything. Everytime a star blows up it dies. Every sort of explosion, there is chaos. In fact, the big bang theory contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics called entropy. Yeah, um, how 'bout no. First off, until this year, I had no idea about much evidence for a Big Bang that there was. In fact, my physics professor participates in this research. Particle physicists have been bashing particles together, causing them to heat up to ridiculous temperatures, and watching even smaller particles of matter come from those collisions. Basically, they're trying to recreate the Big Bang, and from what I've heard, they're getting pretty close. For those of you who have read Angels and Demons, the scientific stuff is all true. Like I said, my physics professor does it. The Big Bang does NOT violate entropy--please learn what these terms mean before you start throwing them around. A star dies because it has no more hydrogen to fuse together. But in that process, it makes tons of other elements that can later combine to make larger ones and so on. A star works until it becomes a giant chunk of lead, basically. But why are we talking stars? The Big Bang sprang from a highly concentrated "orb" of condensed energy and matter that GOT COLDER and is still GETTING COLDER. That's right in line with the law of entropy. But wait. Honestly now. The Law of Thermodynamics is a huge thing, and do you seriously think that the most intelligent and skilled scientists and researchers in the world decided to magically ignore it just to come up with the BB Theory? You've got to me kidding me. Your site, dear friend, is not "research," but rather blatant disregard for over a century of human progress. Just my two cents. EDIT: People miss the fact that the difference between rolling dice to get a certain combo and how life came about are totally different processes. With one, you have a specific goal, so odds go down. With another, whatever happens happens. What are the chances of something happening? Looks like 100% to me. With amino acids coming to be, there was no blueprint for them to follow. It was the protein first, and THEN the rules for making them. [ April 17, 2005, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Sir Bolt ]

04-17-2005, 10:38 AM	#24
Jonathan Resop Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 1 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 34,072.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 34,572.00 Donate	I thought you died? -jay P.S. Chrono Cross still sucks. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

04-17-2005, 06:26 PM	#25
*CaptHayfever* Smash Supermod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 19,283 Thanks: 161 Thanked 734 Times in 475 Posts Points: 105,569.96 Bank: 923.79 Total Points: 106,493.75 Donate	Oh my goodness it is Bolt. Just adding my tuppence: Even if a proof of God were possible (which it isn't), it couldn't be a scientific proof, which is defined by the experimentation process. It would be either a mathematical proof (which someone tried a couple hundred years ago, and it would've been right, except that the series used was divergent, and thus his finite conclusion was invalid), or a statistical proof (they're actually "closing in" on this one now, but statistics is not an absolute measure, so at best it would only be a proof of the possibility of existence), or flat-out first-hand evidence (which skeptics refuse to believe, even when they see it themselves). And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

04-17-2005, 08:15 PM	#26
The Missing Link Professional Lurker Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: New Hyrule, Washington, US Gender: Posts: 15,575 Thanks: 80 Thanked 183 Times in 110 Posts Points: 6,785.45 Bank: 55,328.64 Total Points: 62,114.09 Donate	^ Moreso not the possibility but the probability of existence. "There are some who call me... Link?" "Carpe Gaium Domesticum!" (Seize the Cucco!) Zelda: The Grand Adventures \| Triforce MUCK ザ行方不明リンク悪いユウモアの賢人

04-17-2005, 08:37 PM	#27
*CaptHayfever* Smash Supermod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 19,283 Thanks: 161 Thanked 734 Times in 475 Posts Points: 105,569.96 Bank: 923.79 Total Points: 106,493.75 Donate	^Right, I misspoke. And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

04-18-2005, 09:51 AM	#30
AJ Middleton Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 2,146.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 2,646.00 Donate	http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm

04-18-2005, 01:30 PM	#31
Jonathan Resop Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 1 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 34,072.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 34,572.00 Donate	By the way, hey Bolt, how're those Yanks doing? Haha. Let's go O's! Spank the Yanks! Hehe.-jay [img]tongue.gif[/img] (P.S. I don't care that it's only April, and I don't care if you still take the division. And I definitely don't care about the number 26. I'm just having fun eating my cake right now. And I'm going to enjoy it, dammit. Hehe. Yankees Suck!) (P.P.S. 200 Million Dollar payroll? Hahahaha.) (P.P.P.S. SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!) [ April 18, 2005, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Perrin Aybara ]

04-18-2005, 06:35 PM	#32
Nick Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 10,318.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 10,818.00 Donate	PWN'D by bolt. Again.

04-19-2005, 12:11 PM	#33
AJ Middleton Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 2,146.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 2,646.00 Donate	But guess what Jay? I DO care that it's only April, so nya [img]tongue.gif[/img] . But back on topic: it really gets to me how high schoolers and below (and even many adults) somehow conclude that because they don't understand some biological/physical/chemical concept, that they can use their little knowledge on the subject to debunk it. Like I said before, you have no respect for the quest for human knowledge if you think that the Big Bang, which has been a leading theory for decades, violates the laws of thermodynamics and SOMEHOW all researchers in the subject have decided to just ignore it. These scientists LIVE in their topics. If theories have flaws, they aren't in things that one with a high school diploma will be able to discover.

04-19-2005, 01:38 PM	#34
Legion Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Greater Mancester, UK Gender: Posts: 1,860 Thanks: 10 Thanked 16 Times in 11 Posts Points: 7,803.29 Bank: 6,647.77 Total Points: 14,451.06 Donate	Has anyone here read Bill Bryson's 'A Short History of Nearly Everyhting'? Because it neatly refutes most of Phil's arguments without even realising it. Basically, it's stupid for anyone on this board to attempt to refute universal scientific theory. Considering the opposition that Evolutionary and the Big Bang Theories endured at first, for them to become so widely accepted must mean that they do make sense. If there were flaws in the theories obvious enough for someone on this forum to spot, then they would never have become accepted.

04-19-2005, 03:18 PM	#35
*CaptHayfever* Smash Supermod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 19,283 Thanks: 161 Thanked 734 Times in 475 Posts Points: 105,569.96 Bank: 923.79 Total Points: 106,493.75 Donate	Ehh, I've spotted flaws in math books that the professors who wrote them missed. But your point remains relevant. And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

04-19-2005, 03:45 PM	#36
Nick Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 10,318.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 10,818.00 Donate	Textbook flaws are often intentional so they can make a new edition, ensuring that freshman have to buy the 90 dollar college math book new instead of used.

04-21-2005, 07:22 AM	#37
SuperLuigi64 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Louisiana Gender: Posts: 7,695 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 3,641.90 Bank: 574.34 Total Points: 4,216.24 Donate	You get math books for $90?! Lucky SOB.... :/

04-21-2005, 03:58 PM	#38
ADVENTURE BUS I'MA FIRIN MAH ADVENTURE BUS! Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Birmingham, AL Gender: Posts: 13,126 Thanks: 938 Thanked 660 Times in 385 Posts Points: 50,850.14 Bank: 500,939.68 Total Points: 551,789.82 Donate	Just saw this. And I have two things to say, not joining in the arguement but just: 1. BOLT WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN? -Andre 2. From my knowledge of the Bible (recently began reading again), the books are basically according to that author's viewpoint on what happened. Not all is gonna be perfect. I'm not that credible when it comes to topics like this, but I just wanted to drop in.