Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

[leroy]

The universe can be eternal - our space-time continuum isn't.

Therefore, life is not eternal as it exists in our space-time continuum.

Kindest regards,

James

justify your assertion, how can that be even possible


how is it possible that the universe is past eternal, and our momentum be past finite?


if space time "bubbles" (what you call momentums) have been popping from eternity past then every single bubble would have popped in to existence an infinite amount of time ago. this would include our bubble, and everything in our bubble.

 

[Rumraket]

We all know of the failed science experiments to create life

For thousands of years humans failed experiments in flight. For the longest time the people trying to achieve flight had no idea how to do it. Then one day, it was solved.

Besides, so since intelligent designers have so far failed at intelligently designing and creating life, that must mean life was intelligently designed and created? How's that logic working out for you?

 

[Rumraket]

well Sparhafoc, given that you don't reject the idea that the universe is eternal, you are granting that there is a possibility that life might also be eternal.

No. Life cannot be eternal, because even if the universe has a past eternal history, we still know that the universe we see went through an extremely hot and dense period early in it's history, and during this period the temperature and pressure was so great that no atoms could exist.

So since life is made of cells, which are made of atoms, it is to the best of our current knowledge physically impossible for life to have an eternal history. Life MUST have arosen at some point after the formation of the last scattering surface, aka the cosmic microwave background radiation (this is when the first atoms would form in big bang chronology). That is what everything we know of from physics tells us.

When the universe expanded and cooled off, eventually it became cold enough that electrons could associate with protons so the universe became transparent to light. Life is dependent on the chemistry of outer shell valence electrons in atoms, so life could not possibly have existed any earlier than the point at which the universe became transparent to light, which is when the CMBR formed.

 

[Rumraket]

I have requested to the mods that this thread be split in two from this post on as I'd like to preserve the original discussion.

Another thread can be created with the argument we are having about creationism, big bang cosmology and abiogenesis.

 

[Rumraket]

Thank God I'm not a big banger

don't feel lonely

almost nobody form this forum grants the Big Bang,

I do. But I suspect you don't actually know what that term means, and you probably think it means the universe had a beginning, is that correct?

 

[Deleted member 619]

It's anything but absurd. At least flying is in the right category, namely a behaviour.

What you don't realise is that we have a fairly comprehensive mechanism driven by a single, simple principle that underpins every behaviour in the universe, flying, life, consciousness, the whole shebang.

You have assertions, and precisely fuck all else.

http://reciprocity-giving-something-back.blogspot.com/2017/05/behave.html
http://reciprocity-giving-something-back.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/evolution-and-entropy-revisited.html

 

[Rumraket]

Again comparing life to flying is absurd.

Not at all. They're both scientific problems and one of them took literally thousands of years to solve (flight). In comparison there has only been research in the origin of life for about 100 years.

P.s. Jesus flew into heaven.

Where is the gate then? No telescope or flying machine have so far found it.

So flight is possible.

We know. We also know the origin of life is possible, life exists now and cannot have always done so. So it must have originated at one point, hence it is possible.

 

[Rumraket]

Life is an atheist problem.... not a Christian one

No, the origin of life is a scientific problem.

Besides, all you did was make a claim. No evidence was given that christianity is the explanation for the origin of life.

 

[leroy]

[I do. But I suspect you don't actually know what that term means, and you probably think it means the universe had a beginning, is that correct?

what the BB theory states is that everything in the physical world (including space and time) cam in to being from a singularity.


most member form this don't grant it

 

[leroy]

[So since life is made of cells, which are made of atoms, it is to the best of our current knowledge physically impossible for life to have an eternal history. Life MUST have arosen at some point after the formation of the last scattering surface, aka the cosmic microwave background radiation (this is when the first atoms would form in big bang chronology). That is what everything we know of from physics tells us.

When the universe expanded and cooled off, eventually it became cold enough that electrons could associate with protons so the universe became transparent to light. Life is dependent on the chemistry of outer shell valence electrons in atoms, so life could not possibly have existed any earlier than the point at which the universe became transparent to light, which is when the CMBR formed.

if the universe has excised from infinite past, then all the events within the universe would have had to ocurre an infinite amount of time ago including the origin or life, the cooling of space and all that stuff that you mentioned.


if you start your time line form - Infinity (note the negative sign) then there will never be a point where you reached something like "a finite amount of time ago" all events would have to occur an infinite amount of time ago.

 

[MarsCydonia]

if the universe has excised from infinite past, then all the events within the universe would have had to ocurre an infinite amount of time ago including the origin or life, the cooling of space and all that stuff that you mentioned.

if you start your time line form - Infinity (note the negative sign) then there will never be a point where you reached something like "a finite amount of time ago" all events would have to occur an infinite amount of time ago.

Does anyone else finds it fascinating that this somehow makes sense in Leroy's mind?

Being completely wrong but being supremly confidant you are right.
Spouting nonsense while believing you're being sensical.
I truly wonder how that works.

 

[Rumraket]

[I do. But I suspect you don't actually know what that term means, and you probably think it means the universe had a beginning, is that correct?

what the BB theory states is that everything in the physical world (including space and time) cam in to being from a singularity.

That is technically not correct.

I'm not going to be hard on you for it, because it is a very common misconception and to make matters worse even some physicists and pop-scie books and articles incorrectly portray the big bang theory as saying that the universe:

1. Came into being from nothing.
2. Was infinitely small, hot, dense and that spacetime had infinite curvature (hence, a singularity).

But these two aspects were always just hypothetical extrapolations. The only aspects of big bang comsology that are required to explain the properties of the universe we see around us, is that the universe was once much smaller and much hottter and denser. These facts do NOT require that the universe had an ultimate beginning, or that it was infinitely dense, curved and hot.

 

[Rumraket]

Apparently a scientific problem for you.

Not for me. Sorry

No, it's a scientific problem for you too.

Creationists haven't demonstrated how life originated with any experiment or observation.

 

[Rumraket]

Not a problem .... life is eternal.. Therefore no origin.

If this method of just claiming something can work for you, then it can work for me:

Life isn't eternal, it originated by an undirected physical and chemical process without any kind of intelligent design or purpose. Therefore no problem.

See how easy that was? If you can make claims without evidence, then I can make claims without evidence. I has to be the same standard for the both of us, we wouldn't want to have double standards.

 

[leroy]

["Rumraket"


If life would have been designed, what would you expect to see?............


I´ll admit something, there is nothing in living things that indicates perfect infallible design any appeal to perfect design would have to be supported by other means, or simply granted by faith, but we do have evidence for design (at least for imperfect design)

 

[Rumraket]

If this method of just claiming something can work for you, then it can work for me:

Life isn't eternal, it originated by an undirected physical and chemical process without any kind of intelligent design or purpose. Therefore no problem.

See how easy that was? If you can make claims without evidence, then I can make claims without evidence. I has to be the same standard for the both of us, we wouldn't want to have double standards.

Uhm... no.

Yes, absolutely so.

The same rules have to apply to the both of us. If you can just say stuff, then I can just say stuff.

You just say life is eternal and came from God. I say it isn't eternal and came from physics and chemistry.

If you're not satisfied with people just saying stuff, then you're not satisfied with what you yourself is doing. If you want special rules that only apply to me but not yourself, then you are a hypocrite with a double standard. What does the bible say about double standards and hypocrisy?

Deuteronomy 25:13-15
“You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small. A full and fair weight you shall have, a full and fair measure you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

Proverbs 20:10
Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the Lord.

Since you claim life is not eternal.. it follows it must have origin... which you claim is a problem

Yes it is an unsolved scientific problem, the origin of life.

But if you're going to just cast science out of the window and merely declare that God created life, without any evidence, then I'm just going to do the same. The same rules have to apply to the both of us. If you want special rules for yourself, you've come to the wrong place.

Stop leeching off of Christians to solve problems

Stop making claims you can't scientifically support or I will do the same.

 

[Rumraket]

I do support...

Bible.

Then I do support also: Me.

The bible say things, I say things. If the bible counts as support, then my words count as support. Same rules for the both of us.

 

[Rumraket]

I know all you have is yourself... I have bible ☺

So you're okay with just making claims without evidence. I'm glad we got that cleared up.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The universe can be eternal - our space-time continuum isn't.

Therefore, life is not eternal as it exists in our space-time continuum.

Kindest regards,

James

justify your assertion, how can that be even possible

how is it possible that the universe is past eternal, and our momentum be past finite?

if space time "bubbles" (what you call momentums) have been popping from eternity past then every single bubble would have popped in to existence an infinite amount of time ago. this would include our bubble, and everything in our bubble.

Our continuum is only 13.8 billion years old - therefore, life cannot be eternal, since it only exists in our continuum since the conditions for life became possible.

Our time-frame - the only one of which we're aware - is finite.

Whatever exists outside our time-frame has no effect on our experience of time.

In other words, no matter how much "time" - or not - has passed until the BB, we're only aware of 13.8 billion years (or thereabouts).

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I know all you have is yourself... I have bible ☺

How do you know the bible is true?

Kindest regards,

James