Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

I was asking how does the first unicellular living organism arose ... out of the inorganic matter how did it guess (no matter whether with or without the help of the big bang) to make a mechanism of self-replication, to develop the complex apparatus to synthesize the components needed for its metabolism to function properly. How does that happen ... and what is the probability for this to happen by chance & without an intelligent pre-design?

Set, I maybe without a net, but you don't even have the dark optics installed. If the CO2 is continuously increased as a concentration into the air, & in the soil ... and acidifies continuously the ocean, the photosynthesis is not enough to process the stuff that we emit from our activities. The key word here is 'not enough'.
BTW the speed of reverse processing of CO2 for the period we are talking about is 0.00003 ppm/year and just for comparison, we are increasing the CO2 at present at a speed of 2.4 ppm per year.

I would guess the probability of this happening are about the same as the probability of an "intelligence to make it happen" happening by chance.

I can never understand why anyone would suggest that this universe and existence of ours is too complicated to just happen...and then posit something even more complicated to have just happened.

Can you explain to me why YOU do that?

You need to introduce some organization into your thought. You were making wild claims about CO2 levels in the atmosphere before humanity existed. Now you're babbling about the CO2 that humans produce. You're all over the road here. In the period, beginning just over 500 million years ago, in which CO2 levels (as well as the levels of several atmospheric components) began to vary widely, there were no humans, there was no anthropogenic CO2 production. CO2 levels dropped dramatically over the period from about 500 mybp to about 250 mybp because photosynthesizing organisms were spreading across the seas and colonizing the land--and that was just one, although likely the major factor.

Now you want to indulge your climate change hysteria. Your thinking really lacks organization and focus.

In order to have it the way that your "Intelligent designer" could fix the problem, wed have to get into a time machine and head back to the base of the Cambrian and start stomping out all the newly evolved animals that utilize CO2 to form shells of CaCO3.
Whether the post Cambrian declines were related to continental drift forming shallow ocean basins and vast colonies of "CaCO3 life forms" We have hit upon several times in earths history where CO2 almost was gone due to Ice sheets absorbing and holding CO2 in "Ice sinks". During the Triassic continental glaciation, the angiosperms plants arose (especially the grasses)

Also, during the Pleistocene the decline of CO2 wiped out much of the broadleaf forests and grasslands took over.

You should look up the difference between C3 and C4 plants and how each utilizes the Calvin -Benson cycle in their photosynthesis.
We can see fossils of grasslands that correspond nicely to glacial epochs.


IS it that you are worried that broadleaf plants will disappear from the earth as the CO2 level disappears?
Ive alwys been a skeptic on anthropogenic global warming based upon this very point.But I don't see any evidence of an INTELLIGENCE, quite the contrary, I see compelling examples of how life colonizes niches based upon "Their comfort zone"
When CO2 saturation was achieved as 10% of the atmospheric gas, CO2 was available for colonization by all sorts of animals with shells (Ca Tests) , when it decreases to where it is today <.5% the seas begin to extract back the CO2 from the very animals it helped evolve. SO the large shallow coral beds (See Great Barrier Reef) are actually dissolving due to CO2 getting close to the 1% limit.

lo, the rise of C4 plants so nicely corresponds to glacial advances where forests of broadleafed plants die off.
Evidence abounds showing us that such a series of earth cycles have been in play over the ages

First I admit that we don't really know about the appearance of first life. BUT, having aid that, science is quite close to have created an artificial cell from a chemical "soup" in n environment of combined platy minerals in a sterile methanogenic liquid media.

Science operates under an assumption of "naturalism" because whats the use of smugly announcing that God (insert intelligence) "caused a miracle to occur in this step" and then just saying"**** it and walk away"
Science needs stuff to do, we operate in ignorance every day. That's why its so neat to pursue as a life's work.
You notice that the Evangelical colleges like Bob Jones or Bob's year Uncle, DO NOT HAVE ANY ACCREDITED GEOLOGY OR BIOLOGY DEPARTMENTS. They may say they have and even present the info in their catalogs but youll see that these "courses" are all unaccredited.(And I might add, thir all full of god centered Intelligence driven bullshit that is just NOT TRUE_) I mean, who the hell teaches about a WORLDWIDE FLOOD in geology?

How can you pursue deeper undertndings of how nature works by posing an answer first and then conveniently failing to test it?
That's the problem Ive always had with Evangelicals and IDers. they merely state their case and then back off and merely try to criticize naturalistic based science .

Its difficult to argue with the likes of you because of that but, I like to argue the point because as a past teacher in college geology, I have had my share of kids whove come in from a Creationist family background and then had a crisis in conscience mid first semester .

As Ive always said herein, "If you have plans to use the theories, facts and findings of these courses, you will find that they actually WORK. WHereas there are NO facts or findings of a similar nature rom either Creationists or IDers"

Science is the opiate of the uncertain. It is other things of course but I can tell which is which. Putting people on Ignore and relying on assertions about trolls is a sure sign of the opiate being in operation and only softball pitches being acceptable. A dread of failure being the driver.

Science to such folk is like the cracks in a cliff in which fingerholds prevent the slide into nihilism.

Truth has no evolutionary advantage over error or falsehood.

Your general claim that Christianity is false is belied by the obvious fact that it is triumphant. So far at least.

You do not address the real arguments and use scientific data, which you take as read, to pretend that you do.

Ill let others dissect that one spendi. You seem all bound up this morning. How bout a physic?

There you go. A load of wishful thinking. We will never know how life started.

That's why you have all this free time to go drinking yer suddzies.

Since when has it been a teacher's role to create a crisis of conscience in their students?

Notice how you put all your faith in accreditation. That's a priesthood.

As Beth once said--what do you call a doctor who was bottom of his class in medical school? The answer being "doctor".

I actually help em out
1either they have to realize tht science wont "send you to hell" if you don't believe literally in the family techings or

2maybe you should take up liberal arts



Next time you get some surgery, ask for a witch doctor nstead. Its where youre position leads you.



But the school was accredited to NOT teach santaria medicine. ANYWAY, schools can only assure MINIMUM competence.

Not at all. I accept accreditation but not absolutely. It was your absolutism I questioned.

I am a witch doctor. I have doctored a fair number of witches in my time.

Surgeons are mechanics anyway.

In what way is a Christian incapable of being a geologist? Geology looks to me the very simplest of sciences but I fully understand its use of uncommon words to express the "will" of geologists. It has its shamans.

I posted this in another thread somewhere but it's worth a re-run here because the mindblowing mathematical complexities of DNA are making some scientists stop and think-

Jesus said- "And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered" Matt 10:30

You shouldn't have bothered. It is nonsense.

The retina is lined with light-sensitive rods and cones-




Here's a typical rod, note the light-sensitive cells stacked up inside it..



..like a tube of Pringles..



There are 120 million tubes of Pringles in the human eye (and another 7 million cones), and scientists can't even begin to fathom how they "evolved", let alone explain how they "wired themselves up" like a printed circuit board and then connected themselves up to the brain..

Expect this clown to continue to spam this thread with the bullshit from creationist web sites. This joker has zero sense of proportion and is profoundly ignorant.

How many dice rolls would it take before the very first empty Pringle tube appeared out of nowhere?
And how many more rolls before the very first single pringle appeared in the tube?
Multiply that by 120 million and multiply it again for every individual pringle, and the chances of it all happening by blind chance goes off the scale!

That sort of shite is an insult to A2K. Anybody wants a definition of trolling it is encapsulated in that silliness. It is words for words' sake.

In halobacteria the ability to detect and respond to light is by virtue of a chemical called rhodopsin which is present in the pigment of human eyes.