CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I never said we didnt. I am saying we were created by extraterrestrials and they were created by the big bang or whatever astronomical event that occured.
The thing is that if this event occured then these different religions would make a tad bit more sense because of an alien race that is far more advanced than we are. Since this debate was in my opinion I simply gave mine.
It doesn't explain anything - because to say that God is an alien implies that he does not have Godly powers, and therefore you have proven absolutely nothing and are just makes the steps more complicated. Why don't you just say 'God created the world'?
Because if I say God is an alien and this alien knows more scientific things than we do then the creation of humans falls into place. Richard Dawkins even believes in intelligent design.
because to say that God is an alien implies that he does not have Godly powers, and therefore you have proven absolutely nothing and are just makes the steps more complicated.
Thats my point!!! He isnt a god he is an alien. I am saying that this advanced race made humans thats it. It simply replaces and makes the christian faith more believable and makes the stories in the bible possible by science. As of now I have no idea what you are talking about but multiple people believe that this may be the case. It is just a theory.
Yes because referring to aliens creating the world (no evidence) when there is a lot of evidence to suggest that we came to the Earth from other means is logical.
Then your "theory" as of now is currently non existant.
Her theory is a logical explanation of the present christian faith that can make the stories in the bible true. You however seem not understand what she is currently saying. It is her opinion and multiple astronomical physicists would agree with her.
"Then your "theory" as of now is currently non existant"
Do not be so arrogant to assume that if my theory is non-existent to your knowledge it is completely non-existent - that is not the case in the slightest.
"Her theory is logical"
So far we have deduced that her theory is about aliens creating us after first being created by another group of aliens. Before that they came from the Big Bang (her version of it, at least).
"Mulitiple astronomical physicists would agree with her"
"If I say God is an alien ... then the creation of humans falls into place"
Who is your dealer?
"That's my point! He isn't a god he is an alien"
Then you haven't come close to answering the question in any way, shape or form. The question is 'how did life begin', not 'how did human life begin' - and there is a big difference. You cannot just stream an infinite race of aliens back forever and ever because there is no way that such a bizarre theory proves anything.
"Multiple people believe this to be the case"
For some reason there are a lot of scientologists in the world but you referred to 'intelligent design', whilst at the same time talking about something completely different. Your beliefs do not make sense
The question is 'how did life begin', not 'how did human life begin' - and there is a big difference. You cannot just stream an infinite race of aliens back forever and ever because there is no way that such a bizarre theory proves anything
I never streamed an infinite lineage or aliens. I only mentioned humans. The start of time is impossible to determine so arguing it is futile and a waste of time. My theory only applies itself to the christian faith proving it possible for earth to be created by an intelligent designer such as an alien race.
Nobody can truly answer the question and if i may recall it cleary said "IN YOUR OPINION". This isnt about who is more correct its just opinion.
LizzieXLaura: Other aliens and then that one came from the universe itself
_____________________________
That sounds as though you just streamed an infinite lineage of aliens to me. Until, of course, you reach the logical explanation of how they came from the universe itself. Well isn't that just the Big Bang Theory with a load of random, inexplicable and meaningless variables added on?
"Nobody can truly answer the question"
That's why you are on a debating website and are debating this. If there was no answer, and you were not looking for a debate, then why would you bother to waste everyone's time?
LizzieXLaura: Other aliens and then that one came from the universe itself
Duh. The universe ITSELF. As in the initial start of the universe. Also like I said before it is in your opinion. And this debate has no official answer. Currently you are wasting time disputing a logical explanation for christianity. If you cant identify the way I used my syntax then you are lost. Because when I said THE UNIVERSE ITSELF that has no applicable meaning to an infinite line of aliens.
So you believe in an unnecessarily complicated and impossible-to-prove add-on to the Big Bang theory? Okay
Unecessary? No. Its is a theory of how life on earth was formed that cannot be disproven nor proven. My theory just goes big bang life formed some aliens became advanced came to earth and made humans. It is just like any other theory of how life started. I only studied it up to human life.
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, it just adds more steps into the problem without even coming close to solving it. Where did those extraterrestrial aliens come from?
Though I do not agree with Lizzie's opinion being completely logical, I do think it is more logical than Christianity, so if it is her opinion against yours in my personal opinion I think Lizzie has the upper-hand logically.
I agree, though you may or may not disagree, possible does not equal probable, or actual in my opinion. If Christianity had anything to it, I'd be more willing to bet that it was aliens rather than the supernatural, as there is more reason to suspect aliens than there is to think supernatural entities exist, thus in my opinion aliens would be more likely to have something to do with Christianity than supernatural entities.
I agree. The main reason I like it is because it can validate most of the events in the bible. Like if an alien race attempted to maintain humans or something you know? I have a hard time applying it to actual stuff like the big bang and what not but I have no religion so I like to put my "hopes" into it being true but not my entire beliefs. Does this make sense?
Duuuuuudddddeeee you are awesome. My friend wants to be a theoretical physicist. I am in a program at two different colleges. I travel alot and so I get my education from two places. UCLA and University of Miami both handle my Astronomical Physicist work and they both help me with Computer Engineering. The program allows me to stay on each campus for at least 3 months and then trade off if I have to travel and the stay at the other college. But you sir are an awesome person. Do you teach or are you taking the class?
I used to be just fan of it, I've started "self studying" maths, physics and English as a hobby and after a while became some sort of obsession so I've moved to the UK and got a simple job and started part-time degree but that wasn't enough... so I'm running full time now :D. I'm still very far from Ph.D but it's pretty much the only thing I do. I was told that I should be more around people ...so I'm on CD :D
I think the idea that a meteor brought the first living cellular organisms to earth where they developed and evolved over time
( through planned evolution)
Beyond that, it is hard to say. I believe that God created all live, but given how he has gone about things on earth I assume he used a scientifically observable method to go about doing it. When I first heard that theory about that meteor carrying life to earth, I immediately asked my self, where did that meteor come from, and was there only one.
The conditions were just right, and after a whole lot of time of nothing happening, some very simple single-celled organisms happened to appear. This could very well have been on a different planet.
The big bang, and the evolution of the universe. Where did all that come from? I don't know, whatever explanation we find will require another explanation and so on. Only way to explain the existence of all things is with something that needs no cause. In cause and effect, everything is both a cause and an effect, this is in my opinion what makes the universe 100% comprehensible and incromprehensible at the same time, as it requires infinite explanation due to it being comprehensible. The incomprehensibility of the universe has given theists the upper-hand for centuries, however personally I do not feel that their efforts to explain the logical issue of the universe has at all been successful, in my personal opinion.
I largely agree but I think that it is the biological predisposition for religiosity that has given theists the upper hand for so long, not the incomprehensibility of the universe itself.
That is probably true, as that biological predisposition is the cause of all things used to argue for the belief in god, I was referring to the fact that theists think that theism is logical over atheism from the fact that a lot of them used the unknown to further that idea by saying their religion is the only thing that explains it.
I see no reason to believe that God exists let alone that God created all life, and especially that he has a good sense of humor. Sick and twisted would be more like it.
Tell me what is more reasonable: to doubt in something because we have not proven it even 1% or to believe in something because it has not been 100% disproved?
So was I. The fact is it makes less sense to believe in something with no proof than to not believe in something even on minor evidence. Truth be known, we actually do have reason enough to consider God to be a probabilistic falsehood. The total lack of evidence of the very creature/concept which supposed to have made our world (really, no traces left in the process?). The research indicating that religiosity is a genetic trait. The non-universality of theological belief and morality. Common sense. I could go on.
There are logical, a priori, proofs for God. Many metaphysical philosophers agree that there is a God; whether He is personal or impersonal is the question.
How can god bypass the law of the Law of Biogenesis to create a complex organism such ass a human when randomness can't to create a simple single cell organism?
I still don't see your argument. God made the laws of nature and created the universe. Therefore, it is not logically incoherent to say that God created Adam. He did not create Eve simply out of the rib of the man, but used His power to produce her. This is the same for Adam: He used His power to produce Him; for dust alone cannot form man, from dust to dust we go, though.
It's useless to argue with you isn't it? Even when I prove you wrong you will continue to deny it. your precious law states life cannot come from a non living material so god could not of made Adam out of dust which is a non living material.
You know what I find funny... I ignore your arguments for a day on another debate due to stated reasons now but unknown then and post in other debates due to reasons connected to my reasoning of not getting back to you... for a day... and you act like you have the right to tell me I am being dishonest by not being swayed by you in other arguments because you apparently won. Well time for a taste of your own medicine...
.
.
.
.
I invalidated every one of your reasons to believe in god so there :P
Maybe not intellectually dishonest, but telling me on another argument that I was wrong simply because you assumed that on another argument you won and gotten me to concede. At least that is the way I saw it.
Ironic that you are talking about dishonesty here. Ok fine, play dumb if you like, it does not bother me, I just wanted to give you a taste of your own medicine.
On the off-chance you really don't know what I am talking about, the argument you and me had over homosexuality being a sin where I argued that the existence of god being baseless and therefore homosexuality is a sin is baseless (or at least not morally proven objectively), where you then went to another debate about god being real or not, disputing me that because I haven't gotten back to you (which I stated why later) that my opinion on the matter was wrong. I am essentially doing the same thing, you have not gotten back to me in that debate and if from that debate my lack of argumentation means that my opinion on god's existence is forever wrong, or at least using that as an argument, I am essentially doing the same thing.
When I said that the debate was based in whether God was real or not and that you were being intellectually dishonest is the lost post that was needed. There was no point further than that.
Now you are being intellectually dishonest since there is a lost post needed... If you have a problem with me arguing that god is not worthy of belief, because of one argument I have not gotten back to you yet, isn't it hypocritical of you to be arguing that god is worthy of belief when that particular argument you have not gotten back to me on yet?
When I said that the debate was based in whether God was real or not
I just realied I read your argument wrong, as you seem to truly not understand what I am talking about, or you are genuinely that good at playing stupid. Ok, There are two debates, debate "X" about homosexuality being a sin, your stance was of course that homosexuality was a sin, in my position sin's existence is unproven since god's existence was unproven, you then argued that there is historical documents of people claiming to have seen Jesus showing signs of immortality and claiming to be the advocate of god. I had not responded for about a day, since the argument got so lengthy and I was on vacation, thus I used it in between activities, to do everything else I normally do on this site, posting on other debates. This brings us to debate "Y", this debate was about god being real or not, I made my argument that there was no reason to think god was real, you made an argument that you have given me plenty of reasons (obviously you were referring to debate "X") that god is worthy of belief and it was illogical to not believe in god since I had not gotten back to you. I have returned home, got on my laptop, responded to your argument, you have not responded back which in and of itself is not a problem, however I find it ironic that because of a lack of argumentation on that argument you felt inclined to try and tell me that you have proven me wrong? when people stop responding to me I don't assume that it was necessarily an admittance to defeat and go hounding them down to change their position, thus this was what I was doing to you, to make a point.
What proofs? You cannot just assert that they exist and expect someone to take you seriously on good faith. If you cannot be bothered to put the argument into your own words (I am noticing a trend) then at least make the effort to give names to go along with your appeal to authority.
That is still not a bloody fucking explanation. How about I just start telling you meaningless shit like "the science argument" or "the philosophical argument". Seriously.
That was a much broader critique actually, as I would like for you to actually start debating rather parroting catchphrases you pick from other people whom you assume to be correct.
is it possible that god doesn't exist? Can you imagine that he/she/it doesn't exist? From your posts recently it doesn't seem you can answer yes to either of those questions so if you are trying to say anyone is close-minded look at yourself, if not I apologize for that but don't see the relevance of these questions here.
As possible as any imaginary, mythological, etc concept can. It is possible but only because it is based on only what the imagination can restrict. Unicorns could exist considering we may not have discovered every species in the world, especially if it is invisible, intangible, odorless, immaterial, tasteless, etc; in that world of imagination anything can exist. So yes, as an agnostic atheist, god is possible though it seems blatantly obvious that god is an imaginary concept thus we invented god by our own imagination.
By definition of God being God, then He is a maximally great being. If it is possible that God exists, then He exists in some possible world. If He exists in some possible world, then He exists in every possible world because God is a maximally great being, which means He can't not be great, which is to say that He cannot be contingent upon the world. If He exists in every possible world, then He exists in the real world. If He exists in the real world, the He exists. Therefore, because God is either impossible or necessary, and you have said that He is possible, and therefore not logically incoherent, then He is necessary and thus exists.
By definition of God being God, then He is a maximally great being.
by imagination, there is no reason to think something is true because we can imagine it, nor gives us any reason to suspect it. I also will state runs into a lot of logically paradoxes. Can god create a rock to big to lift? Why can't the universe have the property of being able to have an end or a beginning because there is a part of our reality that doesn't follow all the rules of our reality. Or why can't the universe be apart of a system of unverse inside a "gigantic universe so to speak" with different rules that allow our universe to have a beginning and an end? you see when using only imagination, it becomes to easy to solve any dilemma.
If He exists in some possible world, then He exists in every possible world because God is a maximally great being, which means He can't not be great, which is to say that He cannot be contingent upon the world.
The world you define god to be in is only possible because you imagined it being separate of our universe, however possible does not equal probable or actual.
If He exists in every possible world, then He exists in the real world.
Then god is detectable... Why haven't we detected god?
Therefore, because God is either impossible or necessary, and you have said that He is possible, and therefore not logically incoherent, then He is necessary and thus exists.
God is not necessary just because god is possible. This is essentially a "god in the gaps" argument, if you don't understand it, then just go with any possible concept you can imagine, this does not follow.
I would also argue that anything that is actual, in the fact that it is actual automatically makes it necessary of a cause, otherwise it is nothingness, for another universe to be actual it needs a cause, just like our universe. If you do not accept this with the counter argument that because the actuality of the other universe doesn't require a cause because it follows different logic, being another universe, why does our universe require cause? it does not exist with in itself, because outside our universe if there is such a thing, doesn't follow our univere's logic, thus our universe follows it's logic, and then everything inside it, follows a specific logic dictated by that universe, ergo if there is anything external from our universe then our universe doesn't require a cause, of if it does, than so does every other universe.
I understood your argument perfectly well, you are using the fact that the universe is incomprehensible due to cause and effect, by claiming there to be another universe and saying a conscious creator of our universe is inside the alternative universe, which that universe and the god inside that universe requires no explanation because it is another universe that follows different logic... Do you not see how absurd that is? That is saying that we should believe in any possibility we can think of in order to explain away the unknown. Why does god have to be apart of that equation at all? Why can't the alternative universe in and of itself created our universe? any logical argument against that does not apply because the alternative universe doesn't follow any logic we know... see how ridiculous that gets? Even if we accepted your "logic" that an alternative universe is required to explain the existence of our universe, since our universe needs infinite explanation and an alternative universe doesn't have to follow any known logic being an alternative universe, the logic defying alternative universe doesn't require god making god again superfluous.
Point out how I "stawmanned" you, I genuinely do want to understand your argument, I will be willing to try and figure out what you are saying, so tell me what I got wrong about your argument. What did I misunderstand?
Modal logic is based in the concept of possibility and necessity. When referring to worlds, philosophers are referring to the possible worlds that could exist, such as a world that has a woman for America's president. God must either be impossible, contingent, or necessary. If God, who is by definition a maximally great being, is possible to exist, then He exists in some possible world. If He exists in some possible, then He exists in every possible world. This is so because for God, by definition, to be a maximally great being, then He cannot be contingent upon reality, and must, therefore, either be impossible or necessary. Therefore, if He is possible, then it logically follows that He exists in every possible world. If He exists in every possible world, then He exists in the real world. Therefore, if one can imagine God, then He exists. The only thing that philosophers disagree about is the first premise, that God is possible. The only way to counter it is to say that God is impossible, or logically incoherent, such as having a married bachelor.
Modal logic is based in the concept of possibility and necessity. When referring to worlds, philosophers are referring to the possible worlds that could exist, such as a world that has a woman for America's president. God must either be impossible, contingent, or necessary. If God, who is by definition a maximally great being, is possible to exist, then He exists in some possible world. If He exists in some possible, then He exists in every possible world.
1.) God is only possible by chance (contingent), and even at that god's possibility of existence is as probable of that of unicorns, or anything else imaginary, since we have no reason to suspect god does exist, and no an unanswered question that an imaginary thing or scenario could answer doesn't count. Also the other thing you have to account for is god may or may not be physically impossible, we haven't proven god is physically impossible in the same way we haven't proven invisible, intangible, odorless, tasteless, immaterial unicorn is physically impossible. The issue here is the possibility of god being possible. This is where it gets tricky.
If He exists in some possible, then He exists in every possible world. If He exists in every possible world, then He exists in the real world. Therefore, if one can imagine God, then He exists. The only thing that philosophers disagree about is the first premise, that God is possible. The only way to counter it is to say that God is impossible, or logically incoherent, such as having a married bachelor.
See the problem here is "possible", the fact that this is a possible world does not make it an actual world. You are basically using the logic that because something can exist and the fact that it is omnipotent, means that this being uses it's omnipotence to go from being imaginary to real... imaginary omnipotence is still imaginary...
Here is some food for though, if god can be possible and all his traits are possible, that me being omnipotent is possible, thus since in a possible world I am omnipotent, I exist in all worlds (otherwise I am not omnipotent).
Or here is another flawed conclusion that we come to from your logic, every possible god that could ever be imagined that is omnipotent is possible, ergo they all exist, they all have equal power, meaning they lack power that power being power over each other, making them not omnipotent because they lack a potency, ergo infinite omnipotent gods exist invalidating their omnipotence, making them not omnipotent..
This reasoning is flawed. you are basically arguing that an omnipotent being if imaginary, because of their omnipotence allows them to use their omnipotence power to go from imaginary to real...
It appears as if you don't understand the argument. Professional philosophers alike agree with the logic; the only problem that arises is whether or not a maximally great being is possible. I'm sorry, but I can't continue to debate with you.
It appears as if you don't understand the argument.
When somebody misunderstands me, I try to help them understand...
Professional philosophers alike agree with the logic
Professional doesn't necessarily make one right... That is an argument of appeal to authority. The truth is, if you can't refute me, or argue my points that is your problem not mine. Can you argue for yourself? Truly... the fact that you think that professionals agreeing with you is an argument of me misunderstanding your argument implies that you can't
the only problem that arises is whether or not a maximally great being is possible.
I've already explain what is wrong with that logic.
I'm sorry, but I can't continue to debate with you.
Fine, but I don't suspect that it is because I don't understand your argument. Especially since our past experience seems to imply that none of your argumentation on here was truly an opinion you came to on your own at all or were even your own arguments, and our past experience implies that you are not the most honest of all debaters.
The funny thing is that if I had debated this it would have gone largely the same way. Well debated though and sorry for the disappointing (though not altogether unpredictable) pseudo-conclusion.
Right? And no worries. Interrupt away. I do quite often. Maybe that is impolite etiquette but I figure either debater can just tell me to bugger off or if they want a one on one they can make a challenge debate, no?
Very true, I never thought it was at all a big deal. They do have the challenge debates after all and this site allows people to post freely all to each other as many can join in, which is what makes this site more appealing than debate.org.
By definition of Unicorns being Unicorns, then they are maximally great beings. If it is possible that Unicorns exist, then Unicorns exist in some possible world. If Unicorns exist in some possible world, then Unicorns exist in every possible world because Unicorns are maximally great beings, which means Unicorns can't not be great, which is to say that Unicorns cannot be contingent upon the world. If Unicorns exist in every possible world, then Unicorns exist in the real world. If Unicorns exist in the real world, the Unicorns exist. Therefore, because Unicorns are either impossible or necessary, and you have said that Unicorns are possible, and therefore not logically incoherent, then Unicorns are necessary and thus exist.
The problem with this logic is the initial premise being based upon imagination and not reality. You can imagine something to be maximally great and then the rest arguably follows, however the possibility of something to exist does not make that possibility an objectively true basis. A hypothetical possibility leads to a hypothetical conclusion.
Actually, your logic is just substituting the word "God" for "unicorn." If you want to call God that, then that is fine. However, the logic remains the same: that a maximally great being exists, whether it be a unicorn or not, if it is not logically incoherent.
This is an a priori proof of God. Moreover, unicorns in the classic sense are not maximally great beings, which means that they are contingent, not necessary variables in modal logic. However, regardless of how you put it, if the being is maximally great, then it is either impossible or necessary. And there can only be one maximally great entity, for if there was another maximally great entity, then it would be a contradiction. Therefore, whatever you substitute for God, is actually God.
Furthermore, philosophers alike agree with the last premises. The only thing they disagree on is the first one: whether God is possible or not, meaning whether He is logically coherent or not. People who rebuttal this, like those on the atheist experience, do not understand the argument. On that point, neither does Richard Dawkins, nor most new atheists, and actually reinforce the idea of the argument.
Therefore, you have presented no real rebuttal to the argument, and have actually reinforced it.
I believe that unicorns are maximally great. It is possible to imagine them as such. So the rest follows. They are real. If there can only been one maximally great being then I maintain that it is my unicorn. I don't know what your god bologna is about.
Stop throwing meaningless Latin phrases into your arguments - it does not make you more intelligent.
The problem with this logic is the initial premise being based upon imagination and not reality. You can imagine something to be maximally great and then the rest arguably follows, however the possibility of something to exist does not make that possibility an objectively true basis. A hypothetical possibility leads to a hypothetical conclusion. -- This does not support the argument you are parroting. Not at all. You are still building from a hypothetical not a proven reality.
I believe that unicorns are maximally great. It is possible to imagine them as such. So the rest follows. They are real. If there can only been one maximally great being then I maintain that it is my unicorn. I don't know what your god bologna is about.
You are logically incoherent to believe that multiple unicorns can be maximally great. You cannot imagine them, for it is like imagining a married bachelor. However, a God, that is maximally great, is logically coherent, and thus necessarily exists.
Stop throwing meaningless Latin phrases into your arguments - it does not make you more intelligent.
This is an ad hominem. I'm not trying to seem more intelligent. This is a term used in philosophy. Its taught in intro classes... which tells me that I'm not going to be able to have a philosophical argument with you.
The problem with this logic is the initial premise being based upon imagination and not reality. You can imagine something to be maximally great and then the rest arguably follows, however the possibility of something to exist does not make that possibility an objectively true basis. A hypothetical possibility leads to a hypothetical conclusion. -- This does not support the argument you are parroting. Not at all. You are still building from a hypothetical not a proven reality.
The first part is hypothetical, yes. However, because God is a necessary variable, then He is required to be in this world. It is either this, or He is impossible to exist, as philosophers state, for being logical impossible.
Please take a philosophy class. It will help you understand the argument.
You are logically incoherent to believe that multiple unicorns can be maximally great. You cannot imagine them, for it is like imagining a married bachelor. However, a God, that is maximally great, is logically coherent, and thus necessarily exists.
Clearly you think pantheons are not legitimate. Whatever, it was a typo. I just believe one unicorn, The Unicorn, is maximally great. And still, forget this weird god stuff.
This is an ad hominem. I'm not trying to seem more intelligent. This is a term used in philosophy. Its taught in intro classes... which tells me that I'm not going to be able to have a philosophical argument with you.
Yes, you are. Because you are not using them in any meaningful, philosophical way at all. I've called you out on using them like this before and you never elaborate or show that they advanced any meaningful/philosophical argument.
The first part is hypothetical, yes. However, because God is a necessary variable, then He is required to be in this world. It is either this, or He is impossible to exist, as philosophers state, for being logical impossible.
God is only a necessary variable for the philosophical proof to be correct. There is no reason external to the proof which makes God such a necessity. It is an internally consistent proof, but fallible for that reason.
Please take a philosophy class. It will help you understand the argument.
I have taken multiple philosophy classes and read philosophy in my leisure. I get the argument.
You are actually simply substituting God for this one maximally great unicorn. This unicorn is actually God. Therefore, the argument remains the same and God is real, or whatever you consider God as, which could I fact be a unicorn.
The correct spelling is The Unicorn, not this unicorn. It's really offensive for you to not capitalize The Unicorn. The Unicorn is not at all like God, except that it is actually the one maximally great thing. I have no proof of this or even that it is possible for there to be a maximal being like The Unicorn but it must be true.
I did. There is not evidence for life beginning from non-life. They may be referring to the Miller-Urey experiment; however, that has been proven unsubstantial.
They exclude oxygen from the mixture because anything that would form would oxidize. Oxygen is what makes up the Ozone. The Ozone blocks UV light. UV light destroys ammonia. Ammonia is one of the main components in the mixture. Therefore, with oxygen or without oxygen there is no life.
Moreover, what the produced was 2 amino acids, which is minimal to the amount needed to make up a protein and even smaller of an amount needed to make up DNA. These amino acids, should the correct amount needed for the creation of DNA had been formed, would have had to have been formed in the correct pattern under no guidance to form sustainable life.
Furthermore, the mixture also produced poisons that were hazardous to life.
Therefore, the Miller-Urey experiment is no evidence for life coming from non-life. Thus, the Law of Biogenesis holds firm.
Oxygen did not exist in the early atmosphere. Life began 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago. Free oxygen did not exist in the atmosphere until about 1.8 billion years ago during the Great Oxygenation Event and its appearance is indicated by the end of the banded iron formations (Wikipedia). So, there were a couple billion years without oxygen for life to develop.
The Miller-Urey experiment was to demonstrate abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the idea that non complex life can form from non life. The Law of Biogenesis says that complex life can't form from non life. So, the Law of Biogenesis is not violated.
I didn't say early universe, I said atmosphere. Earth did not have oxygen in the atmosphere. The Miller Urey experiment showed that life could begin without oxygen. You even agree with this, you only challenged the lack of oxygen.
You have missed the point. If there was no oxygen in the atmosphere--even though it has been shown that there was oxygen around at that time--then there was no possible way it could form because UV light destroys ammonia, which was an element in the mixture. Oxygen makes up the Ozone, which blokes UV light. Therefore, with oxygen the mixture doesn't work because it would oxidize, and without it it would be lacking in ammonia from it being destroyed by UV light.
I believe you are mistaken about the oxygen being present. Your other points are valid. So, we have a problem that the presence of either oxygen gas (O2 or O3) or UV light will cause problems. What makes you so sure that ozone is the only thing that can block UV light from getting to the surface? If we had an atmosphere similar to Venus would UV light still make it to the surface? So, does an atmosphere absolutely have to have oxygen in it to prevent UV light?
And even if the mixture worked, it created a poison that would kill life. It also produced no where near what was needed to make a protein, nor DNA, nor life.
I don't think any of those statements are true. We have organisms today that can survive some pretty crazy conditions, so I don't know how much the solution would be guaranteed to poison life. The last part is just your opinion. Imagine that the stuff in the experiment was the only thing happening on the planet. I think it wouldn't take too long for something to come together.
I don't even know why I'm arguing.... modern secular scholars agree that the Miller-Urey experiment is not sufficient evidence for life coming from non-life.
That's because modern scholars are not allowed to accept crazy stuff on faith. Just because the experiment is not enough to prove what happened doesn't mean it is wrong. It only means they can't be conclusive because they actually rely on facts.
They exclude oxygen from the mixture because anything that would form would oxidize. Oxygen is what makes up the Ozone. The Ozone blocks UV light. UV light destroys ammonia. Ammonia is one of the main components in the mixture. Therefore, with oxygen or without oxygen there is no life.
Moreover, what the produced was 2 amino acids, which is minimal to the amount needed to make up a protein and even smaller of an amount needed to make up DNA. These amino acids, should the correct amount needed for the creation of DNA had been formed, would have had to have been formed in the correct pattern under no guidance to form sustainable life.
Furthermore, the mixture also produced poisons that were hazardous to life.
Therefore, the Miller-Urey experiment is no evidence for life coming from non-life. Thus, the Law of Biogenesis holds firm.
I assume that blob you've replied is a copy paste from some Creatards fanpage ...simply of the cycling argument based on fake premises. I would advice you to read some textbooks on biochemistry so you could laugh with me at it.
What, and there is evidence for some God coming out of nothing? Right, that makes a lot more sense then a scientific theory that at least actually has a modicum of evidence to support it.
Translation: Atheist logic must follow certain rules but theist belief is exempt because you assert that God has particular qualities. What utter bullocks.
That extraterrestrials came to interbred with the less evolved humans. It was sort of an experiment to see if we could find ourselves on our own again without relying on outside forces to carry us all the way. That's why most of our human DNA code is unknown, but we call it "junk DNA"
How is our DNA unknown? And actually the technically term for "Junk DNA" Is "Noncoding DNA", it's pretty much code that doesn't 'encode' protein, and most speices on this planet has a high % of noncoding DNA. Human are about 98% Noncoding DNA. And you know, our DNA isn't that different from any other speices out there. Out DNA isn't even that different than a turtles. xD One bit here, another bit there, and poof, completely different speices.
I meant that when asking "how", (in this particular case), the "why" must be asked with the same question, because the "why" is very important to the "how".
It came out odd and when I was typing it, it looked odd to me as well.
Prokaryotes emerged from the primordial soup some billions of years ago and here we are. The primordial soup I'm talking about it actually just a chemical reactions of the molecular building blocks of life like ameno acids and proteins and what not. We can actually replicate this reaction through a process called biogenesis.
Nature has had 15 billion years of so in a universe that constantly changes and new things always happen. Somewhere along that 15 billion year line we found out life was indeed possible. Though it raises the questions of wheather or not Atoms have some sort of intelligence.
