Celtic Heroes

Amoebas were the first single celled organism, there is a world of difference between the first single celled organism and the first life. Life is believed to have come from some self replicating chemicals, that changed and evolved over time single celled organisms, which then evolved into various stuff, which evolved into more stuff, which evolved into MORE stuff, which evolved into us.

Also gandy your god has to threaten people into obedience, sounds like a dictatorship to me, god is kim jong un and you are the slaves working for nothing with false hope of your "Dear Leader".all you Christians want atheists out of america but if we were to leave america would be screwed. America would lose over 10% of its population, but under 0.25% of its criminals, along with many scientists and entrepreneurs. Average IQ would plummet, economy would all be taking hits because of this. Starvation will eventually set in, then famine, then cannibalism, this would take about 100 years to happen, max. Your welcome for saving your life and country.

So your third option of how the universe came into existance is already one of the two I stated...

no. Not at all. Here is what you posted:

Gandy wrote:
As for option #1, if the universe has always been around, then there would be no more stars as they would have burned up already. And since there are stars, I think we can count this one out.

For option #2.1, it is just not possible. Evolutionists say that there was a big bang. But, if there was nothing, then there cannot be something. Even today, there takes energy to make an explosion. You cannot make something out of nothing. In response to the need for energy, Evolutionists say that before the big bang all the energy in the universe was held in a single point. But they fail to realize that this energy had to come from somewhere. If the energy has just always been there, then that goes back to Option #1 which shows how energy cannot be infinitely in existance.

The universe could have been always around just not in the exact form we see within our observable universe. It is a well respected hypothesis that two portions of reality intersected which is what caused the big bang. No scientist believes our current observable universe is infinately old that is a stupid straw man argument.

For option 2 no scientist believes in "nothing". The very possibility of nothing is impossible - with nothng to confirm nothing is there nothng cannot really exist - nothng simply requires something to give it form. From physics we see that empty vaccuum of space is not nothng even if 100% empty. Quantum uncertainty means it is teaming with pairs of low energy particles that constantly cancel each other out or particles that decay instantly. No scientist believes "purely empty space" is even possible within our observable universe. It is a simple extension to believe this may exist outside the observable universe as well. The big bang likely came from a quantium fluctuation in this empty space that is teeming with countless quadrillions of particles per unimaginably small dot.

And um actually I do understand high school physics. A closed system is one that no outside forces act upon it. As far as I know there is no other force acting upon the universe, therefore the universe is a closed system. And since the universe is a closed system that means we can apply the 2nd Law.

The observable universe itself is not a closed system. Even ignoring the fact it has a receding edge that added thousands of cubic light years to its volume as I typed this gravity itself may bleed off to nearby dimensions and is the basis for many ongoing measurements to try and quantify. Your lack of understanding both physics and biology show that you either do not understand or are simply obtuse and trolling. Niether is an honorable option.

Ok so even if I do accept your claim about how life began, it still doesnt explain how the amino acids got their information. There has to be somewhere that it came from. If it has just always been there, then it points back to the point that the universe had to have a beginning because if it didnt, then there would be complete entropy.

Yet you fail at high school physics again. All molecules at all times contain a truly massive amount of information. Each atom has massive amounts of information as each particle within it has many variables defining it. Information itself has existed since at least the beginning of our universe and likely is eternal and not even bound by time for information as understood in physics cannot be created or destroyed only altered in form.

So your third option of how the universe came into existance is already one of the two I stated...

no. Not at all. Here is what you posted:

Gandy wrote:
As for option #1, if the universe has always been around, then there would be no more stars as they would have burned up already. And since there are stars, I think we can count this one out.

For option #2.1, it is just not possible. Evolutionists say that there was a big bang. But, if there was nothing, then there cannot be something. Even today, there takes energy to make an explosion. You cannot make something out of nothing. In response to the need for energy, Evolutionists say that before the big bang all the energy in the universe was held in a single point. But they fail to realize that this energy had to come from somewhere. If the energy has just always been there, then that goes back to Option #1 which shows how energy cannot be infinitely in existance.

The universe could have been always around just not in the exact form we see within our observable universe. It is a well respected hypothesis that two portions of reality intersected which is what caused the big bang. No scientist believes our current observable universe is infinately old that is a stupid straw man argument.

For option 2 no scientist believes in "nothing". The very possibility of nothing is impossible - with nothng to confirm nothing is there nothng cannot really exist - nothng simply requires something to give it form. From physics we see that empty vaccuum of space is not nothng even if 100% empty. Quantum uncertainty means it is teaming with pairs of low energy particles that constantly cancel each other out or particles that decay instantly. No scientist believes "purely empty space" is even possible within our observable universe. It is a simple extension to believe this may exist outside the observable universe as well. The big bang likely came from a quantium fluctuation in this empty space that is teeming with countless quadrillions of particles per unimaginably small dot.

And um actually I do understand high school physics. A closed system is one that no outside forces act upon it. As far as I know there is no other force acting upon the universe, therefore the universe is a closed system. And since the universe is a closed system that means we can apply the 2nd Law.

The observable universe itself is not a closed system. Even ignoring the fact it has a receding edge that added thousands of cubic light years to its volume as I typed this gravity itself may bleed off to nearby dimensions and is the basis for many ongoing measurements to try and quantify. Your lack of understanding both physics and biology show that you either do not understand or are simply obtuse and trolling. Niether is an honorable option.

Ok so even if I do accept your claim about how life began, it still doesnt explain how the amino acids got their information. There has to be somewhere that it came from. If it has just always been there, then it points back to the point that the universe had to have a beginning because if it didnt, then there would be complete entropy.

Yet you fail at high school physics again. All molecules at all times contain a truly massive amount of information. Each atom has massive amounts of information as each particle within it has many variables defining it. Information itself has existed since at least the beginning of our universe and likely is eternal and not even bound by time for information as understood in physics cannot be created or destroyed only altered in form.

Do you have proof that an alternate reality exists? I highly doubt it. You use this alternate reality to try to explain something that is unexplainable. You say that this doesnt fall into the first category but it does! The universe has always been around! it just changed form! this is what you are saying. In the same way, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to all energy regardless of form.

Just because the universe is expanding does not make it an open system. The universe is not gaining any new energy, just expanding the energy it already has.

You say that the same amount of information has been around forever, how does this explain how new species of animals came into be? If the first living thing had all the information to become every living thing we see today, why didnt it just reproduce into everything we see today?

Do you have proof that an alternate reality exists? I highly doubt it. You use this alternate reality to try to explain something that is unexplainable. You say that this doesnt fall into the first category but it does! The universe has always been around! it just changed form! this is what you are saying. In the same way, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to all energy regardless of form.

Just because the universe is expanding does not make it an open system. The universe is not gaining any new energy, just expanding the energy it already has.

The Big Bang theory states that there was a sudden burst of energy and matter that began expanding since the dawn of time and is still expanding at an unknown rate. Therefore, even as the entropy increases, the size of the universe also increases to accommodate this, and many other, changes.

Think of it like a party in one room of the house (a house that could expand indefinitely I suppose). More and more people come, rearrange themselves in the room, and it becomes more and more disordered. However, this house is constantly Getty new editions and as the party goes on, people move into other rooms of the house and diffuse. The amount of entropy (people) can stay the same or increase but there will always be enough room to accommodate them in a house that is constantly expanding.

Here is a better explanation from Mano Singham:
"In more technical terms, if we consider the universe to be a sphere of radius R that is increasing, the maximum allowable entropy increases as the square of R, while the actual entropy of the universe increases less rapidly, only linearly with R. Thus even if the initial universe was at maximum entropy for its size, as the universe expands its entropy can increase while still being easily able to accommodate the increasing order we see. In fact, calculations done assuming that there exist ten planets per star, 100 billion stars for every galaxy and 100 billion galaxies (which are our best current estimates) show that the ordering of the planets produces changes in entropy of only one part in 1011 of the total current entropy."

With that explanation, yes, we are heading towards an increasing disorder and randomness but the universe is continuously expanding as well. Therefore, we can see an increase in order and entropy within the universe that can go on indefinitely unless the universe can only expand to a certain amount, at which point, the best guess is that the universe would simply collapse into another super dense particle. We obviously have not reached that point though.

You say that the same amount of information has been around forever, how does this explain how new species of animals came into be? If the first living thing had all the information to become every living thing we see today, why didnt it just reproduce into everything we see today?

Actually gandy the universe isnt entirely a closed system, the visible universe is way smaller than the actual universe because the universes expansion rate is faster than the speed of light, and its thought that gravity might be leaking from other universes into ours. Which is one of many possibilities for the creation of the big bang

This discussion has come to the point where both sides will not change their view. Atheists will continue to misinterpret data and observations to fit into their wants and needs. Therefore, I will no longer continue show how atheism does not hold itself up. I have presented the evidence and you choose not to believe it or even consider it because someone who is "religious" believes it. As a matter of fact, you yourself are just as "religious" as I am. Your "religion" is atheism. You believe everything came from natural processes without divine intervention. Whether you except it or not it is the truth. Now I have seen multiple posts say "there is no evidence for God", and I would like you to give me an example in the Bible where there is no evidence. Not just a story that happened. An event that the Bible records as truth that you believe there is no evidence for. And after you do that, I will present evidence. You have the choice to believe the evidence or not, but it will be true.

This discussion has come to the point where both sides will not change their view. Atheists will continue to misinterpret data and observations to fit into their wants and needs. Therefore, I will no longer continue show how atheism does not hold itself up. I have presented the evidence and you choose not to believe it or even consider it because someone who is "religious" believes it. As a matter of fact, you yourself are just as "religious" as I am. Your "religion" is atheism. You believe everything came from natural processes without divine intervention. Whether you except it or not it is the truth. Now I have seen multiple posts say "there is no evidence for God", and I would like you to give me an example in the Bible where there is no evidence. Not just a story that happened. An event that the Bible records as truth that you believe there is no evidence for. And after you do that, I will present evidence. You have the choice to believe the evidence or not, but it will be true.