What the hell does that cite have to do with the conversation?
I didn’t choose proteins because a biologist can do it more justice than I can. But that article is full of crap. First, no body claims that life forms just floating in the ocean any more. They kind of admit that, but don’t mention what current theories say. They propose certain sites with enough energy and propinquity for proteins to form.
Second, almost all of their examples are of highly evolved structures. They have no bearing on the origins of life.
Third, computer modeling of folding is pointless. For a better example, to figure out how fast a ball dropped from 10,000 feet is moving at 5,000 feet you’d have to solve some fairly simple equations and some fairly complex ones to take air resistance and wind vectors into account. Yet the ball knows how fast it is moving without any of these. Amazing!
Uhmm, there’s a difference between cite and site.
A site is a web-site, a cite is usually a quote that has some explanatory value or gives evidence concerning your opinion/argument. You cite a source.
A cite can be on a site, only rarely is the site so small or so comprehensive that the whole site can be a cite.
i’ve lost sight!
[quote=“Voyager, post:959, topic:669528”]
I very much doubt anyone would object to two or three items in depth. However, I’m happy to oblige. Here are three
Kalam Cosomological argument
I like the Kalam argument because it suggest that the Universe has a beginning in time, which I agree with. It is a first cause argument, what we call " Prime Mover", or motion is caused by motion and everything that exist has a cause for its existence, and we see the first cause as God. God created the first motion , the first matter put in motion, and the first energy to move that matter. We do not believe these created themselves and we " Argue " for that; Which is part of what Kalam means; knowledge through debate and argument. Words, discourse and discussion.
Its a science site.
And for what claim of yours are you using it? I don’t recall “tree huggers” being brought up in this thread before.
[quote=“Mickiel, post:965, topic:669528”]
(bolding mine)No, we don’t, because you have yet to show that step in your reasoning yet-you just leap to that conclusion every time. Fill in that step between “it happened” and “God did it”.
That is one problem with this argument.
The other is that, if you insist that everything must have a cause, then what caused God?
[quote=“Czarcasm, post:968, topic:669528”]
Gladly; Genesis 1:1 " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This was the creation of our universe and beyond.
God caused God.
[quote=“Mickiel, post:970, topic:669528”]
Do you understand the concept of “circular reasoning”? You cannot use the Bible to prove itself.
The universe caused the universe.
The fossil record;
Right off the bat, they screw it up.
I don’t agree with all their views, but I agree about the fossil record; I believe in evolution, I just believe God created it, it did not create itself; these websites are all I have to offer besides my views;
An interesting interview with a professor;
http://christianevidence.org/blog/entry/for_the_fossil_record
And once again, you fail to actually back up your claim with evidence. Why do you believe that? What evidence is there to link evolution to your god?
What part of that link provides evidence that God is responsible for evolution?
You are the evidence; who put a cap on your evolution? Why did the human body stop evolving? Why is just our consciousness evolving? The abrupt cesation of our physical evolution is evidence of a creator stopping it, because evolution does not have an independant consciousness to slow or stop itself.