I found a partial explaination:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge

I don't understand what this means.

It means that every living being has a single common ancestor. Lets call that common ancestor the adam being. Why did nature only produce one adam being on this planet?

because it's extremely unlikely for all the events that are required to take place for life to actually take place. since it's sooo darn unlikely (no idea what that number is thought) i'd be more likely to believe in a higher power if there were multiple "adam"s.

In the 4.5 billion years earth has been around nature has had plenty of bites at the apple yet only got it right once? Thats pretty hard to believe. Its not like the laws of chemistry changed during that time.

I liked it.....thanks! I don't think knowledge/technology have to necessarily follow an S curve though. I don't see why they can't just keep going up.

I don't know the answer to this. Maybe it didn't.

laws of chemistry didn't change but the environment did.. who knows, maybe the required environment for producing life in natural way is the circumstances that our planet had 4 billion years ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
it's only a hypothesis but there is a lot of interesting information in there..

Ahh...The ways of nature are sometime mysterious and hidden from us....so lets just make something up that is consistent with our world veiw. Who knows...maybe God planted those dinosaur fossils to test our faith....right?

You may be right but without any argument/evidence to support your claim....its in the category of handwavy.

Panspermia on the otherhand has supporting evidence. Its been shown that planet exchange material with each other, and its also been shown that microbes can survive trips in space.

I did not claim that what ever I proposed is true. What I have stated is that since we don't know much about abiogenesis who knows what is required for the life to start , apparently it did 4 billion years ago, so the conditions must have been right. Are you going to claim that we don't have enough evidence to conclude that the environment on planet earth was different 4 billion years ago than today?

Assuming its possible for a non-RNA/DNA form of life to exist, whichever one appears first will very rapidly fill all the environmental niches and block the other. And we don't actually know that only one form of life arose, maybe RNA/DNA wiped out some others.

If DNA has a chemical advantage over another form of life in creating diversity, it will quickly triumph.

I don't think this is plausible. There isn't exactly a scarcity of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen, sulphur and phosphorus. In fact there is probably more material readily available now for the creation of self replicating molecules then there was 4.5 billion years ago.

Still waiting.

I don't take an issue with this conclusion. However I do think it is possible that people could find valid reasons to reject it which would not apply to my conclusion.

If all X_i where exactly the same my argument wouldn't be inductive but rather deductive. If all evolutionary systems are exactly the same then the argument might go like this.

All true evolutionary systems are the product of intellect.
The evolutionary system identified by Darwin is a true evolutionary system.
Therefore the evolutionary system identified by Darwin is the product of intellect.

The fact that my argument is inductive necessitates that all swans are not identical....or rather...since I acknowledge that all swans are not exactly identical my argument can only be inductive.

It seems to me that your criticism of my argument is that it is inductive and not deductive. It is true that deductive arguments are much stronger than inductive ones. However indutive arguments are still considered valid by most rational people.

You haven't invalidated my argument...all you have done is shown that it is not as strong as a deductive argument and I readily admit that.

If you want to believe teapots are evidence of Marduk....more power to you.

I have no interest in refuting this particular belief of yours.

I'll give you a hint: If you can't offer a reliable method of falsification nothing you say can (nor should) be taken seriously. It's just empty quasi-science.

My case was just as strong as yours. It presented just as much evidence, it was just as reasonably laid out. Yet all you can do is joke and insult it away. Because you find it absurd.

I would tell you to consider the ramifications of that, but I doubt you will - so I won't.

I'll just say... if you want to believe "precision" (whatever that is) is proof of "godly influence" (whatever that is), more power to you. I have no interest in refuting this particular belief of yours. More to the point... there is nothing to refute, and you will take all the necessary steps to ensure there never will be.

116. Rd8#

No subsequent to you asking about teapots and Marduk I laid out my case....which is indeed falsifiable. You can falsify my claim the following ways:

1. Observing the inception of evolutionary systems and finding them not to be the product of intellects.
2. Show the conclusion is logically impossible(just as I did when Deorum argued the evolutionary system identified by Darwin was the product of human intellect).
3. Show the probability theory my argument depends is flawed(you can show Jason1990's proof was wrong).

Please don't claim your argument is just as strong as mine....they are not even in the same league. The truth is you haven't made an argument but rather you just issued a conclusion statement without any underlying framework to back it up. Now you are attempting to obsfuscate by claiming my argument isn't falsifiable when in principle it clearly is. The fact that you personally can't falsify it should indicate to you my argument is valid and robust.

Its time to unbury you head from the sand....observations about the real world indicate there is an intellect behind it.

Stu i already talked this in the other thread in a post you never responded to.

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Logic based upon the dismissal of evidence is flawed logic--which is what people bring to the table when they ignore the precision in the Periodic Table of the Elements. For instance, the first 60 elements found within the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth are so interrelated and precise that scientists refer to it as Periodic LAW. The existence of Laws aka precision indicates an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER directed the outcome.

Evidence of God's existence is dismissed every single time one ignores the complexity of the natural world. Flawed logic also results from ignorance or lack of knowledge of certain scientific facts. To avoid the trap of stubbornness, one must allow logic and evidence to interact.

The Big Bang Theory is just that--a theory, and one that will never be proven as it amounts to nothing more than speculation aka personal opinions. Nobody can explain how this theory of expanding space is an explanation for the appearance of planets with their individual gravitational fields that prevents them from crashing into each other, and the fact that certain planets work to the advantage of earth.


Without intelligent direction, things would result by chance occurrences known as accidents. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as a "nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results." As previously stated, the precision (which leaves no room for accidents) found in the world around us cries out to the existence of an intelligent, supernatural Designer or God. Things happening at random aka by accident cannot result in precision. Take, for example, the following.

Consider the earth's measurements and its location in our solar system. Earth is just the right size for our existence. If earth were slightly larger, its gravity would be stronger, with the result that hydrogen--a light gas--would not be able to escape the gravity of a bigger earth. The result? Earth's atmosphere would kill us because of the accumulation of hydrogen. On the other hand, if earth were slightly smaller, life-sustaining oxygen would escape and surface water would evaporate. In this case, we would also die.

Furthermore, the earth is at an ideal distance from the sun. Both astronomer John Barrow and mathematician Frank Tipler studied "the ratio of the Earth's radius and distance from the Sun" and concluded that human life would not exist "were this ratio slightly different from what it is observed to be." (Source: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, copyright 1986, Oxford University Press)

In his book, Professor David L. Block wrote: "Calculations show that had the earth been situated only 5 percent closer to the sun, a runaway greenhouse effect [overheating of the earth] would have occurred about 4000 million years ago. If, on the other hand, the earth were placed only 1 percent further from the sun, runaway glaciation [huge sheets of ice covering much of the globe] would have occurred some 2000 million years ago." (Source: Our Universe: Accident Or Design? by David L. Block (1992)

Another troll who is coming here to just post quotes and go on declaring victory. Dude it looks like you are new to this discussion, the arguments you are proposing have been addressed countless times in articles, books, youtube videos, and including this forum.

By posting something like this :

"The Big Bang Theory is just that--a theory, and one that will never be proven as it amounts to nothing more than speculation aka personal opinions. Nobody can explain how this theory of expanding space is an explanation for the appearance of planets with their individual gravitational fields that prevents them from crashing into each other, and the fact that certain planets work to the advantage of earth. "

You just show how ignorant you are on the topic....

Serious question, is this a gimmick account by one of the forum regs?

Dont know, but my mobile app has a black background so the blue text doesn't really show up; which which which I'm guessing is a good thing.

If stars and the universe aren't an evolutionary process and one of the results of them are life which is an evolutionary process. Then wouldn't that be an example of a non intelligence non evolutionary process creating an evolutionary process?

I don't know what you are talking about.

Maybe you can address it again or at least provide a link, post #, or something.