Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know what it is, and there is no such thing if nothing existed. Do you not understand this?
Since no one as yet has been able to study "nothing," we cannot say that something cannot come from nothing, nor can we say that something can come from nothing. We don't know. Scientists are very good at saying, "We don't know." The religious are very poor at it and will tell you they know things that they do not know. I wish the religious would just simply say, "I have faith in what I believe. I require no evidence, so I will not try to prove it. It is simply faith." Instead, they try to employ logic, very poorly, and mix in pseudo-science along with gross misrepresentations of science ("Evolution is just a theory!!!")
I know what it is, and there is no such thing if nothing existed. Do you not understand this?
Which had nothing to do with evolution. Why do you keep bringing it up in the context of evolution? Hell, why do keep asking where DNA came from? That has nothing to do with evolution either.
But to your question, the way I think about it is that something did have to come from nothing. To me it makes a great deal of sense that prior to there being something - whether that first something was a God or a material Universe - there was nothing. I don't pretend that my understanding is the one-and-only true understanding. And I find it rather arrogant that you claim to know the truth about this and then lecture me about it. The actuality is no human being knows the answer.
Not true, some organisms use part of it and some do not use it at all....
life scientists have begun to piece together the origins of the cycle. A major feature of this work has been the examination of organisms that use fragments of the cycle, use it in reverse, or do not use it at all.
The citric acid cycle probably developed in primordial cells as two separate pathways: the reductive branch, which provided a means of reoxidizing NADH, and an oxidative branch, which produced the biosynthetic precursor molecules citrate and -ketoglutarate.
So, you attempt to sidestep the argument completely, by arguing irrelevancies.
It doesn't MATTER if some use X, some use Y, and some not. For those that use the cycle, there's no way to get from NOT, to using. There's no intermediate step. It is, in a word, sophisticated, and it is a model of interdependence that does NOT happen by accident.
It's like saying that cars evolved from stone wheels without anyone specifically inventing the engine.
But, the question was... And still remains... Can you tell me it was purely by accident? Of course not. There is no explanation on earth that can stand scrutiny which can describe the process of evolving from an Amoeba to a human. It is full of "uncrossable bridges". And they are uncrossable because of sexual reproduction. The idea that something may mutate... not even a theory. It's fact. The theory that two complex, opposite sex (insert what you wish to argue here) were in close proximity, had the same higher quality mutation (mutation is almost always negative, not positive), and then reproduced a whole new species...
Since no one as yet has been able to study "nothing," we cannot say that something cannot come from nothing, nor can we say that something can come from nothing. We don't know. Scientists are very good at saying, "We don't know." The religious are very poor at it and will tell you they know things that they do not know. I wish the religious would just simply say, "I have faith in what I believe. I require no evidence, so I will not try to prove it. It is simply faith." Instead, they try to employ logic, very poorly, and mix in pseudo-science along with gross misrepresentations of science ("Evolution is just a theory!!!")
“In modern physics, there is no such thing as nothing. Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy.” Richard Morris
No one has to insult you. Every word you type is an insult to human intellect.
No worries, I don't care because I know anger and insults are nothing but an attempt to conceal the weakness of your position. You are a perfect example, since you spend all your time trying to insult the person as opposed to discussing the topic.
So, you attempt to sidestep the argument completely, by arguing irrelevancies.
It doesn't MATTER if some use X, some use Y, and some not. For those that use the cycle, there's no way to get from NOT, to using. There's no intermediate step. It is, in a word, sophisticated, and it is a model of interdependence that does NOT happen by accident.
It's like saying that cars evolved from stone wheels without anyone specifically inventing the engine.
But, the question was... And still remains... Can you tell me it was purely by accident? Of course not. There is no explanation on earth that can stand scrutiny which can describe the process of evolving from an Amoeba to a human. It is full of "uncrossable bridges". And they are uncrossable because of sexual reproduction. The idea that something may mutate... not even a theory. It's fact. The theory that two complex, opposite sex (insert what you wish to argue here) were in close proximity, had the same higher quality mutation (mutation is almost always negative, not positive), and then reproduced a whole new species...
Yeah. You have to have FAITH in that.
Ok, then I see I'm wasting my time on you, as you prefer your ignorant myths to reality.
Which had nothing to do with evolution. Why do you keep bringing it up in the context of evolution? Hell, why do keep asking where DNA came from? That has nothing to do with evolution either.
I bring it up in the context of the discussion, not in an attempt to explain your view. My point reveals the weakness of your position.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
