When did you accept God in your life, or realize you did not believe in him?

perhaps, but it's pretty universally accepted as being a theory -- and there are plenty of others. probably every couple of years somebody comes up with another theory that fits certain aspects of the universe that others might not.

pre-cosmos is going to alway be theoretical and i think scientists don't pretend it isn't. folded dimensions and string theory? that's like trying to describe a color to a blind person. they might get the idea, but they'll never comprehend what it's all about.

i just don't think our brains were "designed" (using the term loosely) to grasp deails such as that. our environment is pretty finite so the tools we've developed are suited to that environment. our abilty to comprehend is far from perfect.

and i can live with that.

 

The Miller experiment wasn't exactly debunked. In 1957 Miller tested a theory that was proposed in the 1920's by Oparin and Haldane. We know today that the atmospheric composition they used was incorrect. New experiments since the Miller ones have achieved similar results using various corrected atmospheric compositions.

No one uses the Ernst Haeckel theory or his drawings anymore because they were faked. Of course, this was in 1874. Things progress. Do a search and you will find that embryos do look similar.

Everthing I have read gives the percentage as about 98.5.

Yes we do share similarities with a lot of living things. But that makes me think that every living thing came from common ancestors. Yea, know, like in evolution.

 

Similar results? Those experiments produced cyanide.

An egg and a smooth rock can bear a resemblance. The reality is embryos aren't nearly as similar as textbooks would have us believe which is a crying shame. I remember seeing Haeckels drawings in my biology textbooks in the late 1980's. THEY WERE DEBUNKED IN THE 1800's!

Read more. I've seen 98.5 but I've also seen 90. Of course the term "similar" is hotly debated by even secular scientists as it relates to this.

Which is as big a leap as religion IMO.

 

Some amino acids use cyanide as a necessary building block. The experiment still produced amino acids.


"""Laboratory syntheses of amino acids are usually related to syntheses of amines and/or carboxylic acids. We'll take a look at one such synthesis, the Strecker synthesis. We won't look at it's mechanism in detail, but we will look for similarities with reactions we've seen before.

The reaction begins with imine formation from an aldehyde and ammonia. The acid catalysis required for this comes from ammonium chloride, a weak acid. An addition of hydrogen cyanide to the imine follows. This is analogous to the additions of nucleophiles to an aldehyde or ketone which we studied earlier. In this instance, the cyanide ion serves as the nucleophile. """"

Maybe not nearly as similar, but similar nonetheless. I do know it is hard to tell the difference between a pig fetus and a human fetus at 8 weeks.

 

Here is the problem I have with that premise:

How complex was that "tightly compacted mass"? Even at the atomic level, the theory of irreducible complexity comes into play.

Inert substances (such as would compromise the bulk of a 'universal mass') need outside catalysts to transform and/or combine to form other substances -- especially more complex substances. Macroevolution does not allow for such catalysts. It relies fully on chaos theory (as I understand it), which precipitate stretches of 'faith' which are truly absurd (i.e. the 747 appearing in an airplane junkyard because the right parts accidentally bumped together).

 

Actually no, not really. The 'eternal being' assertation can get a little circular, so set that aside for a moment. Would age or time really have any effect on anything ethereal (non-material)? No, probably not. So without a physiological link, there's no evidence that says God (or any other spiritual entity) had to have a beginning in order to exist.

Actually, there is more and better evidence to support the theory of intelligent design and far fewer flaws in its logic than that of macroevolution.

 

I think the mass was energy. And it stayed that way for 300,000 years until it cooled enough for hydrogen and helium to form. I think the other elements formed within stars.

The 747 really is a bad analogy. Most things in nature do "fit" together by themselves, such as crystals. Don't forget these. http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photos/photos.htm

 

ok, ok, I'm sorry, you're saying God is not a material being. Yes that's something I do, somewhat, believe in. I do not believe in the big bang theory, which is why I'm not as up to date on it as Sly is. I do think there is a strong possibility that the universe was set in motion by some supernatural force or what have you, that is not fathomable in the physical world. I do not, however, believe that this force is "God" as referred to as the bible, or Allah, or Buddha or any other higher power. I think it is as simple as something, that we will never know or be able to understand, sparked the universal powder keg so to speak.

 

Again, why did it go from a supposed stable state to suddenly cooling? What was the source of that catalyst?

Snow crystals? That's an example of a pure substance changing its state from vapor or liquid to solid form because of another outside catalyst, in this case a drop in temperature, occurred. We're talking about entirely new complex substances that came into existence all on their own.

 

Okay, but take it a step further. If you get into things like cell structure, especially at the most basic levels, you see complex design. Purpose, not random chaos. Now take that scientific premise, and expand it to the big picture -- not just on earth, but throughout the universe.