Might Be Talking To The Wrong Guy

Question from Jesse:
Where did the gravity come from Mr Hawkins? I’m just curious.

Answer by SmartLX:
I’m going to assume this is a question to Stephen Hawking by proxy. It’s the right question as it turns out, as Hawking’s position in A Brief History of Time is that gravity essentially caused the universe. As for its own origin, notwithstanding the limitations of language when describing different workings of time, it was always there, just as you might assume God always was.

If you have a problem with this I suggest you read A Brief History of Time, check any articles which might indicate that Hawking has changed his position since 1988, and address any further correspondence to him.

30 thoughts on “Might Be Talking To The Wrong Guy”

  1. to SmartXL,
    as far as I know, Stephen Hawking said at an American University, to students, that now that there has been a planet found, that can sustain life, he does not think there is god.
    I am referring to this because you mentioned 1988 year as his latest opinion on the question.
    Unless, of course, you believe that his opinion was the same then as was at the time, quite recently, when he spoke at that University.
    I kinda read his book you mention and also the comments on the book made by people who not only know more than I do, but have much higher iqs, so they understood the book better than I did, so these comments on the book all say that Stephen did not unveil if he thinks there is god or not, at the time of writing the book in question.
    But he did so at his University speech that I am referring to.
    So, the latest I know from Stephen is that on that University he said there is no god. He repeated this quite recently.
    But, in the book, he refrained from doing so, pro or con. He even said at the ending of he book that “if ever…then we would be able to come into the mind of ‘god'”, my inverted speech punctuation signs, so, in my understanding he was hinting at the possibility of ‘god’s’ existence then and there.
    But not at the University speech, in front of a great bunch of students.
    He was definite then and there, for the first time, that there is no ‘god’.

    1. “All laws require mechanisms that allow for the fructification of the law. Yet, the mechanisms serving the purpose of the law, are not in them self THE LAW!
      Since gravity is a physical law, and all physical laws operate according to physical principles (mechanisms), than it’s clear that gravity cannot be responsible for the whole creation of the universe itself.
      It seems to me that Hawking has replaced GOD by gravity (gravity in this perspective can’t not longer be seen as a bold physical force, but get all the characteristics of being some kind of COSMIC MIND).
      To me it seems that hawking has used a simply trick to increase his selling’s”
      From Reuters website
      It appears that there are a few people who have thought along the same lines that I am.
      And it does appear once more that an Atheist has thrown out an speculation without cause or rhyme or reason. And it looks as if this statement was not thought all the way through just as the “life may have come from another place before it arrived here on earth” statement that Mr. Hawkins made a while back. Gravity appears to be part of each celestial body. It appears that as long as there are no bodies close to where you are in space you are not drawn in any direction. At least I don’t think so. But just now I’m recollecting that I have heard about celestial winds, which appear to be super heated particles released from the earths atmosphere into the surrounding space. So in deep space there shouldn’t be any except from planets like the earth. At least that is what I read. But when we get close to a body in space that is when gravity begins to pull. Now, maybe just maybe all the bodies in space are in one way or another, pushing and pulling in a network much like a large knitted sweater, where when you pull on one side all the other points react to that force. (just musing)smile.

  2. I’m remaining quiet for not to this, waiting on answers to the question that I have not seen posted as of yet from anyone else. I’m not sure why, but I think this question should be answered before speculating any further on this subject.
    My humble question, is, Is there any gravity present, if there are no heavenly bodies?

    1. That’s actually an interesting question, and it can’t even be called a simple one believe it or not.

      I am posting two links for you to look at. One is a discussion at a physics forum. The other is a brief answer to the question of what causes gravity.
      https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/can-gravity-exist-without-mass.228859/
      http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/gravity.html

      To answer your question as best I can, yes there is still gravity because energy also affects the fabric of spacetime and therefore gravity would still be present. If everything was gone though, would gravity be present? Technically yes, although you wouldn’t be able to tell because there would be nothing for gravity to interact with, if that makes sense. It takes mass and energy to affect the fabric of spacetime and to interact with gravity in order for gravity to be detected.

      It gets confusing quickly, but your humble question makes for a good brain stretch.

      1. Thank you for your attempt. And it is an interesting question. I have rolled it over and over again and the more I think about it, the more I feel like my head is going to explode. And the links you sent only (out side of showing me than I’m not that special because I’m not the first to entertain this question), but made me feel like I’m not quite the dunce that I could be because I’m not the only one that hasn’t figured it out yet. Yet. But take a look at this.
        (http://www.timesofisrael.com/with-new-big-bang-evidence-creation-is-a-fact/)
        (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPShDz6nEyI&t=2404s)
        (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er9D00DXQQs0)
        Please watch and lets talk.

        1. Sorry it took me a long time to reply, but youtube videos take chunks of time that I don’t always have.

          I read the article in the first link. I’m not sure what you wanted me to get out of it. Some Israeli professor thinks gravity waves proves that the Genesis story equates to the Big Bang? Sorry, but that is nonsense. The Bible specifically says there was nothing. The Big Bang says the universe came from the singularity. which contained everything currently in the universe. NOT the same thing. Makes me wonder how that guy has a job.

          The second link goes to an hour long video. There was nothing in there specifically that hasn’t already been covered at this website, or anything that hasn’t already been debunked. If there was something in particular that tickled your fancy, please let me know what it is and we can discuss.

          The last one covers three points that we have discussed multiple times already. I’m certainly willing to rehash any or all of it if you desire, just let me know what you want to tackle first…

      2. Tim, I have been rereading some or our posts and it seems to me that the theory of gravity being the reason that all is, is so not thought through. If there were nothing then there was not even gravity. According to the Atheists there were not as yet any planets. And if there were not any planets then gravity was not. And SmartLx, it seems to me so hypocritical, for the Atheists to believe in theories that do not look as if there can ever be any proof. (Does this sound familiar, God?). But these highly questionable other dimensions that are so believable by the Atheists, who can’t find in any one of the many supposedly multidimensional, the possibility of God being there. Doesn’t that not cancel out all the other possibilities, if you refuse to accept the possibility of one of them? Godly attributes are attributed to all these other unproven theories, like gravity making the universe, matter being what, eternal? It can’t be created nor destroyed. Yet, gravity created matter? Please stop the merry go round. I want to get off. God does make more sense. All you have to do, is look at the right dimension. The God one.

        1. Gerald writes: [Tim, I have been rereading some or our posts and it seems to me that the theory of gravity being the reason that all is, is so not thought through. If there were nothing then there was not even gravity.]

          Who said there was ever nothing? The Bible said it (in Genesis), science doesn’t. All the matter and the energy in the universe was present at the start of the Big Bang. We’ve covered this already Gerald, multiple times. How many times do you have to be corrected on these things before it sinks in?

          [According to the Atheists there were not as yet any planets. And if there were not any planets then gravity was not]

          Wrong, as usual. The matter was in the universe, it just wasn’t gathered together into planets. So there was always gravity in the universe because there was always matter in the universe.

          Furthermore, you can’t have the universe WITHOUT matter. Spacetime doesn’t exist without stuff in it. In order for there to be space and time you have to have matter and energy.

          [And SmartLx, it seems to me so hypocritical, for the Atheists to believe in theories that do not look as if there can ever be any proof.]

          There IS evidence , Gerald. It’s been listed for you multiple times by multiple people. The Big Bang and the theory of evolution are well supported. Something cannot be a scientific theory without a lot of facts and evidence to support it. You keep chirping “no evidence” all the time, while there are piles of evidence all over the place. You can chirp all you want, it isn’t going to make the evidence go away…

          [But these highly questionable other dimensions that are so believable by the Atheists, who can’t find in any one of the many supposedly multidimensional, the possibility of God being there.]

          Gods don’t fit into any of the models. They aren’t needed to explain anything. The only thing gods do is give people like you answers to things you don’t want to think about, like how you will cease to exist for all eternity when you die.

          [Godly attributes are attributed to all these other unproven theories, like gravity making the universe, matter being what, eternal? It can’t be created nor destroyed. Yet, gravity created matter?]

          It’s been explained to you many times previously that the entire universe adds up to nothing. All the positive energy (light, heat, mass, kinetic, etc) cancels out all the negative energy (gravity). If gravity exists then it’s opposite (matter) has to exist too. We’ve covered all this already, Gerald.

          [Please stop the merry go round. I want to get off. God does make more sense. All you have to do, is look at the right dimension. The God one.]

          Your preaching is boring, did you know that?

  3. First let’s do some Bible studying together and then let’s talk about what ever misconceptions of contradictions you feel there are in the Bible.

    1. If you are going to pursue this particular discussion, perhaps I can help frame it to save you both some time. Every contradiction in the Bible has a rationalisation stating why it is not a contradiction; many have made sure of that. The Skeptics’ Annotated Bible links to these rationalisations below the contradictions themselves. The issue with most of the rationalisations is that each uses a particular interpretation of the text, without justifying why it is the correct interpretation – except by presuming the one which resolves the contradiction must be the intended one. So assume, Tim, that any contradiction you bring up will have 1-3 ready-made responses, and ask instead why they should be accepted. Gerald, answering that will be your task rather than rattling off the canned responses. That’s how to advance in this area.

  4. SmartLx, please give a biblical example of how an Atheist might respond with an incongruity, and how you feel a Christian might respond to it. Just to be on the safe side.

    1. Okay, here’s how it would go in principle, using a random example (which I doubt is a very good one). The atheist points out two apparently contradictory answers in scripture to the question, “May a woman speak in church?” The Christian uses a response similar to that provided by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The atheist checks whether this response relies on a subjective interpretation of scripture or it’s fairly clear-cut, and if there is some ambiguity the Christian makes a case for the validity of the reconciliatory interpretation above any others which render the Bible essentially wrong somewhere – without starting from the premise that the Bible must be correct everywhere.

  5. “Sorry, but that is nonsense. The Bible specifically says there was nothing. The Big Bang says the universe came from the singularity.” Now prove that there is such a thing as a singularity. And then that it is from what we say it is from. All of what they say about singularities are all still supposition. No one has ever produced a singularity. They only have mathematical equations that suggest them. And if no one has anything more than a mathematical equation of a singularity than how can you even post that you believe that one made everything. That is nonsense. It has less proof than God did it. At least the God theory, answers the question as to why everything looks as if it was planned. Accidents don’t plan. They blow up. They destroy. As of yet, the Atheists have never proven or show that a big bang did anything. It is an as of yet unproven supposition. They as usual make claims but are short on giving how and demonstrating it so. So let me ask you. Which is some thing else left unproven by the Atheists. You all say that there was nothing. Nothing was the natural of the day. And that nothing has been since forever. Everything that has ever been has been since forever. There can not be anything new because if there were than nothing would never have been. So what caused the nothing to become something. Which if that “what” had been there all along than nothing would not have been. So if all the nothing had been around for ever, what was the catalyst that changed that nothing to become something. And if that nothing had been there all along, why did it take so long for nothing to become something. You and all the other atheists are willing to ignore the pattern that you imply always was. That nothing was natural. So when has the natural ever been changed? Only when an Intelligence acted upon it. Go ahead check it out. When ever something natural has ever been changed, for good or better, that changed has been due to something or someone with some form of an intelligence. Go ahead run the scenarios through your mind. What is at rest always stays at rest unless an intelligence changes the equation. So yes there was a big bang. But not caused by a yet unproven, so therefore not there singularity, but by the God Designer with intelligence.

    1. [Now prove that there is such a thing as a singularity. And then that it is from what we say it is from. All of what they say about singularities are all still supposition. No one has ever produced a singularity.]

      Kind of hard to produce something that contains all the energy and matter in a universe. Or do not understand what a singularity is? That’s the problem, you are using words that you don’t comprehend.

      The Big Bang theory explains the fact that the universe is expanding, it explains the facts behind the cosmic background radiation, it explains the facts that everything in the universe cancels out. It predicted gravity waves, which were discovered not too long ago (you even posted a link to article that admits as much). There is plenty of evidence supporting the theory that the universe started out hot and dense and expanded quickly. It is a fact that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, so the singularity had to exist in order for the universe to come from that.

      Think about this stuff a little, and you won’t need to have people explain it to you so many times.

      [It has less proof than God did it.]

      That’s impossible, since there is no proof of gods. Perhaps you will finally present some empirical evidence of your god for us, Gerald? I look forward to you not answering that question one more time…

      [At least the God theory, answers the question as to why everything looks as if it was planned.]

      Right. My sanitation line sharing the same tube that I use to procreate with looks planned. Please stop making claims you cannot support.

      [Accidents don’t plan. They blow up. They destroy. As of yet, the Atheists have never proven or show that a big bang did anything.]

      It took me a minute to figure out what in the hell you were trying to get at here. I finally figured it out. You think that the Earth can’t exist because the Big Bang can’t “plan”. I forgot, you are a cultist, and think that everything has to have a specific reason for existing. You think everything happens because some sky daddy willed it so.

      I agree that the Big Bang cannot and did not “plan”. The Big Bang was just an incredibly quick expansion of spacetime that allowed all the mass and energy in the singularity to spread out so that the laws of the universe could do their thing, like chemistry and physics. Life didn’t have to happen. It wasn’t guaranteed, or “planned”. But it did. People that need to think there is a reason for everything, like yourself, can’t wrap your head around that…

      [You all say that there was nothing.]

      No, we don’t. Get it through that senile old preacher head of yours. We’ve covered this many times Gerald…

      [So what caused the nothing to become something.]

      The universe is STILL nothing, Gerald. Everything in it cancels out. It’s just nothing broken up into a lot of little pieces that, when added up together, equals zero. We’ve covered this already Gerald…

      [So when has the natural ever been changed? Only when an Intelligence acted upon it.]

      You spend several sentences before the ones I quote above babbling about nothing and anything and something and where and how and when did it change, and then you turn around with your belief system and wave your magic wand and use “intelligence” as the source for everything, even though there is no answer from you about where and when and how this intelligence went from nothing or anything to something and everything. So you want all the answers on where things come from, but offer no answers for where gods come from. Delicious double standard, Gerald.

      The problem is, your god creature ruins the balance of the universe. Right now the universe adds up to nothing. Add a god being in there, and now it is an unbalanced equation. Your god screws up the math, Gerald. Right now the universe is the only thing we still need to answer things on. Add gods into the mix and now we have TWO things we still need answers on, and unlike the universe (which we know exits) we can’t even prove gods are real things.

      And you think it makes MORE sense that something can exist for infinity and create a universe, even though an infinite existence means it can never reach the point in it’s existence when it can create the universe. Horrible logic there, preacher Gerald. Really really horrible…

  6. And Tim, no one has as of yet entertained my arguments to contest areas of the validity of the theory of Evolution. Why is that?

    1. Gerald, you might want to seek out a neurologist, because it is becoming apparent that you are having some sort of memory issue. You and I have discussed evolution for over a year now. Your “arguments” against evolution aren’t even scientifically accurate. You haven’t presented anything new in nearly as long.

      If you want to rehash anything in particular (which is all we do anymore anyway) then list one or two “arguments” in your next reply to me and I will take the time once again to explain to you where you are wrong.

      1. “Wrong, as usual. The matter was in the universe, it just wasn’t gathered together into planets. So there was always gravity in the universe because there was always matter in the universe”. Tim, I’m sorry, but I’m picking this apart as I go along. But did you say that I was wrong? That all the matter was here. Just not gathered into planets? So there was always gravity. Now I will accept that if there was matter, there would also have been gravity, all though how this works will probably take some time to explain. ( it probably has something to do with the positive and negative charges, or something or other). But once again. Where is the proof that this matter did exist. And that it was like the planets? Where is the proof that this matter some how melted and later reformed into planets. Are you not assuming all of this right now? And if so, how can you make a statement with the assertion that I am wrong? You all can’t even agree upon whether or not there was a big bang, let alone how the bang came to be. There is no scientific law that aids you in your assumption that the big bang occurred. At least not your big bang. (Ha). But, how does that law go? What is at rest, tends to remain at rest. So you have to admit that if there was anything there any kind of matter, that it was always there. At rest, right? Ok, then what pray tell would have disturbed that rest. What was suddenly interjected that upset that balance of status quo? There could not have been anything that had been there already, or else that balance would never have been achieved. So something new had to have come into play. And when ever something new happens, it has always been done so by some form of intelligence. Small or Great, An intelligence is what changes the factors. Oh yes, it was God.

        1. Gerald writes: [But once again. Where is the proof that this matter did exist.]

          Because matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, Gerald. Try keeping up, eh? If matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then when the Big Bang happened all the matter and energy had to be there. Savvy?

          [There is no scientific law that aids you in your assumption that the big bang occurred.]

          It’s not an assumption, preacher. There are facts. I’ve told them to you, remember? Expansion, gravity waves, zero-sum universe, conservation laws, cosmic background radiation, etc? Try to keep up…

          [ What is at rest, tends to remain at rest. So you have to admit that if there was anything there any kind of matter, that it was always there. At rest, right? Ok, then what pray tell would have disturbed that rest.]

          In the Singularity, those rules didn’t exist. Read more here:
          https://www.space.com/31192-what-triggered-the-big-bang.html

          We don’t know for sure what went on before the Big Bang, Gerald. I’ve told you that already. There are still answers we do not have about the start of the universe, and what was before the universe. Science does NOT make a specific claim, but you sure the hell do. You claim “intelligence” caused the Big Bang. It is now up to you to prove it. Prove that “intelligence” caused the Big Bang, and let me remind you that statements like “it’s the only thing that makes sense” is NOT proof, but speculation and opinion. I want your data and experieental results, savvy?

      2. Tim, you are right we have been discussing. And you continue to tell me or act as if my arguments are of no value. But you all have failed as of yet to explain to me why they have not value. I have had others who I have presented my argument to and they seem to have had that “Aha”, moment.
        So why is it that you don’t feel as if I have any valid points. I have after all presented my skepticism, with a why and wherefore. I have pointed out the gaps in the assumptions of what the evolutionists are saying is a sound incontrovertible theory. So please right not give an answer as to why you feel that they ain’t so.

        1. I asked you earlier today to list your specific “arguments” when replying. Is it really so hard for you to do that? I know you aren’t a very polished writer and you ramble all over the place, and I do my best to figure out what you are referring to when you reply in the wrong place, but we’ve been at this for over a year and you haven’t gotten any better.

          I specifically answered your ignorant statements about matter above. I explained once again the conservation of energy and mass and why that means everything was present at the Big Bang for example.

          So when you once again write [I have pointed out the gaps in the assumptions of what the evolutionists are saying is a sound incontrovertible theory. So please right not give an answer as to why you feel that they ain’t so], you will have to forgive my frustration with you for once again posting an incoherent, useless post. WHAT gaps, Gerald? This thread is ample proof that I try to systematically and thoroughly address your so called “arguments”, even though it’s all been given to you in previous months and years. I have every confidence that I’ve already answered your pseudo science crap from your creationist websites about evolution, because I always answer your pseudo science crap from your creationist websites about evolution.

          Once again, for the love of Pete, if you have a particular “argument” that you want addressed, list it in your next post UNDERNEATH this one and be specific and detailed about what you want to discuss…

  7. Who said “All the matter and the energy in the universe was present at the start of the Big Bang.”, that this is even a fact? Who was around. Where is the proof to this statement though up but now supported with physical proof. You look at what is and guess as to how. And want it to be accepted as fact. And this is your science? Incredible. And still you don’t learn. If all the matter and energy was present, then why the “big bang”? Don’t tell me it was to evolve that matter and energy into what was needed next to spur on some unknown, accidental, random process? You see, you are not thinking this through. But I’m not being fair. You do have a rebuttal. Right?

    1. Oh, I have a rebuttal:

      I covered it elsewhere, preacher. Conservation laws. Conservation laws are facts, no one can find any exception to them. So the matter and energy have always been there, preacher.

      I’ve thought this through. Science has thought this through. The only one that is not thinking is you, because you keep trying to have conversations about crap you know nothing about…

  8. Life from non life or from nothing. Where is the proof that contradicts the scientific community when it solidly stated that it is not possible. Where is the observances that allows the Evolutionists to ignore the fact that all life has only come from life, which has been observed for over the last 7000 years. This is my first but, and should have been their first but to be answered before they went to the second but. The second but is, Where is the proof that one organism could have survived over millions of years until it was ready to morph into other organisms? How could that new life that never had been, and so never had had a previous ancestor, receive all necessary programming, much less DNA to write that programming, when it, or one like it had never been present before. Please show me the research showing that it is possible for a brand new life form to have come into being and not need any kind of DNA, to receive, any kind of programming and yet be directed to perform tasks that all other simple cells are able to perform only because of their programming. I won’t burden with with more. And there are more gaps that have yet to be filled with some kind of explanation as to why the evolutionists are comfortable to ignore these stumbling blocks in their theory.

    1. Gerald writes: [Life from non life or from nothing. Where is the proof that contradicts the scientific community when it solidly stated that it is not possible.]

      What a stunner. You bring something up that has already been covered in other threads. We’ve covered this already, Gerald. Please get to that neurologist ASAP.

      First, science does not state that “it is not possible”. I don’t care what your creationist masters write at AIG, science does not say such a thing.

      As I’ve told you before, all living things are, at this very moment, entirely made up of NON LIVING STUFF! You, Gerald the preacher, are made up 100% out of non-living components. Every single atom in your body is NOT alive. Can you possibly comprehend that this time around? Life from non-life is an observable, obvious fact, because all living things are made out of non-life stuff. This is so stupidly easy that I cannot figure out why it hasn’t sunk in with you.

      Life is just a property of groups of molecules. We are self replicating machines, no different than the 32 amino acid long polymerase in yeast that can make copies of itself in a glass of water…

      [Where is the proof that one organism could have survived over millions of years until it was ready to morph into other organisms?]

      It didn’t. It made copies of itself, and eventually died. Those copies made more copies. It’s how life continues to this day, Gerald. It’s called generations, and there have been a lot of them. Please tell me you didn’t really think one single organism lived for millions of years until it became a giraffe or something…

      [How could that new life that never had been, and so never had had a previous ancestor, receive all necessary programming, much less DNA to write that programming, when it, or one like it had never been present before.]

      Christ, how many more times are you going to ask the same question. We’ve covered this before, Gerald. DNA is not a program. DNA is a molecule that acts as a template for making other molecules. That’s all it is. The first life forms probably didn’t have DNA. It was an RNA world first. Some RNA molecules are self-replicators, and those self-replicating molecules encased in simple lipid membranes were the first simple life forms. The transition from simple RNA forms to organisms that found it advantageous to have amino-acid chains (proteins) included in their membranes happened latter.

      [I won’t burden with with more]

      Please do burden me more. These two are already covered. Actually these two have been covered for months now, but your memory and information retainage issues don’t allow you to realize that.

      Let’s try something new for once, eh? What else can you “burden” me with?

  9. And I’m not saying that it is wrong. I am saying that where is the proof. As far as we know it matter can not be created or destroyed. But who is to say that that matter did not start our in its basic form. Atoms and the like. And then shaped into what is now. Even though right now it is a matter of semantics. Because the electrons and neutrons could actually be considered planets on a real small scale. But that is another thought to entertain. You are assuming that it all happened one way but there is nothing to show that it did. You weren’t there and no one else was, Well except for God. who made the atom and such. But what you and the others are suggesting, is simply that suggestions. Not facts. And please stop trying to tell your self that I know nothing. I know I have presented you with questions that are making you nervous. Questions that you have to push from your mind. Questions that if you took the time to try to answer, you would have to admit that I have a point. But you won’t, only because of what? You’re too proud? Too much against the God possibility? Man you didn’t even admit that my point about with all the other dimensions that science is suggesting to be out,there that God could be in one of them. What are you afraid of. You have particles that pass through you and you don’t give them a second thought. You can’t see them. A few of them can’t even be shown to actually be. They are suspected to be. Yet, when it comes to God, even though many an atheist has repeatedly stated that there is way too much design involved, to have happened by chance, you want to completely refuse to accept that God is a possibility. What’s up with that Tim? But you have my arguments. Let me see how you will contest them.

  10. No you aren’t you list what is believed by others without providing any kind of demonstrable proof. Matter not being able to be destroyed, is one thing. But not being able to be created is something completely different. Another law states that nothing has always been around. Everything had a beginning. You are now wanting to toss this out to keep from having to deal with the question on how it appeared. And when you do you(the atheists) want to once again theorize and not substantialize, that theory with proof. You want to do end around other laws that would keep a theory honest, like saying that that law doesn’t apply in some circumstances, like in a closed in environment. But even that is an unsubstantiated assumption.
    Now you have to forgive me, because I’m having to copy and paste my posts over and over again because for some reason they are not passing through the first and second and some times more time when I’m trying to post comment.
    But here is one, of my arguments. First life come with not programming. They had nothing around to make it and give it programming. So how could it be and then become all else? Not only that, it appeared as non descript form of life. It didn’t have any kind of systems to perform necessary functions. It would have had to develop all of this all the while it was learning to ascertain data and then how to decipher that data, and then learn how to put that data to use, and then how to morph into what ever that data was showing needed to happen for survival. Poppy cock. Impossible. Read it as I just put it and you can’t help but ask yourself, how can I believe what I believe.

  11. You are clearly avoiding the subject. Putting your spin on something that other evolutionists run and hide from. Which is why the micro evolution came into play. Ha. It was before and is now not what we are talking about. And even using what you are using to evade the subject, gives a greater argument for God then not. Just how is it that some of the electrons and neutrons and atoms have the life force and others do not? Since all of these atoms were around from the beginning, what would have happened to one would have happened to the other. What caused that only some of the ones have life. You aren’t thinking ahead. Or else you would not have mentioned this.
    My how you love to make statements that do not have any evidence. “The first life forms probably didn’t have DNA. It was an RNA world first. Some RNA ” This is not answering my arguments. It is providing useless hear say just as the evolutionists have done from day one. All you have are maybe’s and we believe, but you don’t have any proof. You say the the Creationists don’t have proof. You have less. Because we have what we have observed in patterns of what has happened before. And we have this going on for more than 7000 years. How are you going to make a statement that “RNA was around first.” You do not know this. No one was around but God. So what you state is also hear say. No proof. And how is there to be any transition taking place if there is not DNA to tell it to do so. You are not thinking clearly. And once again, if you say that it was possible for it to happen without the DNA, then you go against what we have observed scientifically. Nothing takes place without programming. Why even the RNA self replication is due to a programming. How could it have programmed itself. This is from Wikipedia. “The RNA world is a hypothetical phase of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, in which self-replicating RNA molecules proliferated before the evolution of DNA and proteins.” It is all hypothetical. It has no proof. You really need to understand that if it doesn’t come with proof, then it is not, I repeat, not true.
    1. The absence of the required atmosphere.

    Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth’s early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.
    2. All forms of raw energy are destructive.
    http://www.icr.org/article/few-reasons-evolutionary-origin-life-impossible/

    The energy available on a hypothetical primitive Earth would consist primarily of radiation from the sun, with some energy from electrical discharges (lightning), and minor sources of energy from radioactive decay and heat. The problem for evolution is that the rates of destruction of biological molecules by all sources of raw energy vastly exceed their rates of formation by such energy. The only reason Stanley Miller succeeded in obtaining a small amount of products in his experiment was the fact that he employed a trap to isolate his products from the energy source.4 Here evolutionists face two problems. First, there could be no trap available on a primitive Earth. Second, a trap by itself would be fatal to any evolutionary scenario, for once the products are isolated in the trap, no further evolutionary progress is possible, because no energy is available. In his comments on Miller’s experiment, D. E. Hull stated that “These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time. . . . The physical chemist guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates.”5”

    3. An evolutionary scenario for the origin of life would result in an incredible clutter.

    Let us suppose that, as evolutionists suggest, there actually was some way for organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form. This fact alone destroys evolution. Evolutionists have been wrestling with this dilemma since it was first recognized, and there is no solution in sight. All these many varieties would compete with one another, and a great variety of other organic molecules, including aldehydes, ketones, acids, amines, lipids, carbohydrates, etc. would exist. If evolutionists really claim to simulate plausible primitive Earth conditions, why don’t they place their reactants in a big mess like this and irradiate it with ultraviolet light, shock it with electric discharges, or heat it, and see what results? They don’t do that because they know there wouldn’t be the remotest possibility that anything useful for their evolutionary scenario would result. Rather, they carefully select just the starting materials they want to produce amino acids or sugars or purines or whatever, and, furthermore, they employ implausible experimental conditions that would not exist on a primitive Earth. They then claim in textbooks and journal articles that such and such biological molecules would have been produced in abundant quantities on the early earth.

    4. Micromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules.

    It is said that DNA is the secret of life. DNA is not the secret of life. Life is the secret of DNA. Evolutionists persistently claim that the initial stage in the origin of life was the origin of a self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. There is no such thing as a self-replicating molecule, and no such molecule could ever exist.The formation of a molecule requires the input of a highly selected type of energy and the steady input of the building blocks required to form it. To produce a protein, the building blocks are amino acids. For DNA and RNA these building blocks are nucleotides, which are composed of purines, pyrimidines, sugars, and phosphoric acid. If amino acids are dissolved in water they do not spontaneously join together to make a protein. That would require an input of energy. If proteins are dissolved in water the chemical bonds between the amino acids slowly break apart, releasing energy (the protein is said to hydrolyze). The same is true of DNA and RNA. To form a protein in a laboratory the chemist, after dissolving the required amino acids in a solvent, adds a chemical that contains high energy bonds (referred to as a peptide reagent). The energy from this chemical is transferred to the amino acids. This provides the necessary energy to form the chemical bonds between the amino acids and releases H and OH to form H2O (water). This only happens in a chemistry laboratory or in the cells of living organisms. It could never have taken place in a primitive ocean or anywhere on a primitive Earth. Who or what would be there to provide a steady input of the appropriate energy? Destructive raw energy would not work. Who or what would be there to provide a steady supply of the appropriate building blocks rather than just junk? In speaking of a self-replicating DNA molecule, evolutionists are reaching for a pie in the sky.

    5. DNA could not survive without repair mechanisms.

    DNA, as is true of messenger-RNA, transfer-RNA, and ribosomal-RNA, is destroyed by a variety of agents, including ultraviolet light, reactive oxygen species, alkylting agents, and water. A recent article reported that there are 130 known human DNA repair genes and that more will be found. The authors stated that “Genome |DNA| instability caused by the great variety of DNA-damaging agents would be an overwhelming problem for cells and organisms if it were not for DNA repair emphasis mine).”6 Note that even water is one of the agents that damages DNA! If DNA somehow evolved on the earth it would be dissolved in water. Thus water and many chemical agents dissolved in it, along with ultraviolet light would destroy DNA much faster than it could be produced by the wildest imaginary process. If it were not for DNA repair genes, the article effectively states, DNA could not survive even in the protective environment of a cell! How then could DNA survive when subjected to brutal attack by all the chemical and other DNA-damaging agents that would exist on the hypothetical primitive Earth of the evolutionists?

    What are the cellular agents that are necessary for DNA repair and survival? DNA genes! Thus, DNA is necessary for the survival of DNA! But it would have been impossible for DNA repair genes to evolve before ordinary DNA evolved and it would have been impossible for ordinary DNA to evolve before DNA repair genes had evolved. Here we see another impossible barrier for evolution. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to imagine that DNA repair genes could have evolved even if a cell existed. DNA genes encode the sequences of the hundreds of amino acids that constitute the proteins that are the actual agents that are involved in DNA repair. The code in the DNA is translated into a messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA must then move to and be incorporated into a ribosome (which is made up of three different ribosomal RNAs and 55 different protein molecules). Each amino acid must be coupled to a transfer RNA specific for that amino acid, and the coupling requires a protein enzyme specific for that amino acid and transfer-RNA. Responding to the code on the messenger RNA and utilizing the codes on transfer RNA’s, the appropriate amino acids, attached to the transfer RNAs, are attached to the growing protein chain in the order prescribed by the code of the messenger RNA. Many enzymes are required along with appropriate energy. This is only a brief introduction to the incredible complexity of life that is found even in a bacterium.

    “Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?” (Job 12:9).

    Endnotes

    Pross, Addy. 2004. Causation and the origin of life. Metabolism or replication first? Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biospheres 34:308.
    Ibid., 316.
    Davidson, C. F. 1965. Geochemical aspects of atomospheric evolution. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 53:1194; Brinkman, R. T., 1969. Dissociation of water vapor and evolution of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res., 74:5355; Clemmey, H., and N. Badham. 1982. Oxygen in the Precambrian atmosphere; an evaluation of the geological evidence. Geology 10:141; Dimroth, E., and M. M. Kimberley. 1976. Precambrian atmospheric oxygen: evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, and iron. Can. J. Earth Sci., 13:1161.
    Miller, Stanley. 1953. A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions. Science 117:528.
    Hull, D. E. 1960. Thermodynamics and kinetics of spontaneous generation. Nature 186:693.
    Wood, R. D., et al. 2001. Human DNA repair genes. Science 291:1284.
    Now would you care to tell me why all this is not so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *