Michael A Terrell <mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut> wrote in
news:pM4HN.167482$JLvf.50567@fx44.iad:

> On 3/9/2024 1:11 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>
>> In article <XK3HN.59087$zF_1.34615@fx18.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> By Mark Johnson
>>> March 9, 2024 at 8:00 a.m. EST
>>>
>>> A much-debated theory holds that 4 billion years ago, give or take,
>>> long before the appearance of dinosaurs or even bacteria, the
>>> primordial soup contained only the possibility of life. Then a
>>> molecule called RNA took a dramatic step into the future: It made a
>>> copy of itself.
>>>
>>> Then the copy made a copy, and over the course of many millions of
>>> years, RNA begot DNA and proteins, all of which came together to
>>> form a cell, the smallest unit of life able to survive on its own.
>>>
>>> Now, in an important advance supporting this RNA World theory,
>>> scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla,
>>> Calif., have carried out a small but essential part of the story. In
>>> test tubes, they developed an RNA molecule that was able to make
>>> accurate copies of a different type of RNA.
>>>
>>> The work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National
>>> Academy of Sciences, gets them closer to the grand goal of growing
>>> an RNA molecule that makes accurate copies of itself.
>>>
>>> ?Then it would be alive,? said Gerald Joyce, president of Salk and
>>> one of the authors of the new paper. ?So, this is the road to how
>>> life can arise in a laboratory or, in principle, anywhere in the
>>> universe.?
>>>
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/03/09/origin-of-life-rna-
>>> world/
>>>
>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
>>
>> Where did the RNA come from?
>
> Random mixing of molecules.

Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?

Jon Brady wrote:
>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>> Random mixing of molecules.
> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?

Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be
synthesised into complex molecules, some significant to
terrestrial life, with modest input energy like ultraviolet light
or electric discharges.

Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic
creation and longetivity.

We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about,
an example of replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.

We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to
most of the molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on
chance and organic chemistry without needing a god. It's rational
for a person to conclude we will be able to explain everything
without a god.

There's no evidence a god was not involved. It remains that it is
as rational to believe in a creator god as to disbelieve.

It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or disbelieve.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On 3/10/2024 1:19 PM, Jon Brady wrote:
> Michael A Terrell <mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut> wrote in
> news:pM4HN.167482$JLvf.50567@fx44.iad:
>
>> On 3/9/2024 1:11 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
>> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>
>>> In article <XK3HN.59087$zF_1.34615@fx18.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> By Mark Johnson
>>>> March 9, 2024 at 8:00 a.m. EST
>>>>
>>>> A much-debated theory holds that 4 billion years ago, give or take,
>>>> long before the appearance of dinosaurs or even bacteria, the
>>>> primordial soup contained only the possibility of life. Then a
>>>> molecule called RNA took a dramatic step into the future: It made a
>>>> copy of itself.
>>>>
>>>> Then the copy made a copy, and over the course of many millions of
>>>> years, RNA begot DNA and proteins, all of which came together to
>>>> form a cell, the smallest unit of life able to survive on its own.
>>>>
>>>> Now, in an important advance supporting this RNA World theory,
>>>> scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla,
>>>> Calif., have carried out a small but essential part of the story. In
>>>> test tubes, they developed an RNA molecule that was able to make
>>>> accurate copies of a different type of RNA.
>>>>
>>>> The work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National
>>>> Academy of Sciences, gets them closer to the grand goal of growing
>>>> an RNA molecule that makes accurate copies of itself.
>>>>
>>>> ?Then it would be alive,? said Gerald Joyce, president of Salk and
>>>> one of the authors of the new paper. ?So, this is the road to how
>>>> life can arise in a laboratory or, in principle, anywhere in the
>>>> universe.?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/03/09/origin-of-life-rna-
>>>> world/
>>>>
>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
>>>
>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>
>> Random mixing of molecules.
>
> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?

Asked and answered, "Nomen" (or is it "no man"?)

On 3/10/2024 6:37 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>
> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be synthesised into
> complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial life, with modest input
> energy like ultraviolet light or electric discharges.
>
> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic creation and
> longetivity.
>
> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an example of
> replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
>
> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to most of the
> molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on chance and organic chemistry
> without needing a god. It's rational for a person to conclude we will be able to
> explain everything without a god.
>
> There's no evidence a god was not involved.

That's fucking stupid. We *never* talk about "evidence" to support a negative;
there's no such thing. We talk about evidence to support a positive, or *lack*
of evidence to support a positive. This is nonsense: "there is no evidence to
support a belief that 'god' didn't create the universe." It's not just nonsense,
it's bullshit.

Siri Cruise wrote on 11/3/24 12:37 pm:
> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>
> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be
> synthesised into complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial
> life, with modest input energy like ultraviolet light or electric
> discharges.
>
> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic
> creation and longetivity.
>
> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an
> example of replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
>
> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to most of
> the molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on chance and
> organic chemistry without needing a god. It's rational for a person to
> conclude we will be able to explain everything without a god.
>
> There's no evidence a god was not involved. It remains that it is as
> rational to believe in a creator god as to disbelieve.
>
> It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or disbelieve.
>
In 2007, Prof Brian Cox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_%28physicist%29 was in Australia
for the Total Solar Eclipse and, whilst he was here, he did a Lecture Tour.

At the end of the Melbourne lecture there was a 'Q and A' session and
one of the Questions was along the lines of 'What was there BEFORE The
Big Bang?' and his reply was along the lines of one of the, then,
current Theories was that there had previously existed Universes in
other Dimensions and two if Those 'Other' Dimensions Universes had
bumped into each other (i.e, The Big Bang) and some of the Matter from
those two Dimensions had leaked through into what became OUR Dimension
to form OUR Universe.

Logically, if you take that theorm back two, three, fifty, whatever,
iterations, you MUST get to the point where some Creator made the first
iteration of whatever there was!!
--
Daniel

On 11/03/2024 7:27 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Siri Cruise wrote on 11/3/24 12:37 pm:
>>
>> It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or disbelieve.
>>
> In 2007, Prof Brian Cox
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_%28physicist%29 was in Australia
> for the Total Solar Eclipse and, whilst he was here, he did a Lecture Tour.
>
> At the end of the Melbourne lecture there was a 'Q and A' session and
> one of the Questions was along the lines of 'What was there BEFORE The
> Big Bang?' and his reply was along the lines of one of the, then,
> current Theories was that there had previously existed Universes in
> other Dimensions and two if Those 'Other' Dimensions Universes had
> bumped into each other (i.e, The Big Bang) and some of the Matter from
> those two Dimensions had leaked through into what became OUR Dimension
> to form OUR Universe.
>
> Logically, if you take that theorm back two, three, fifty, whatever,
> iterations, you MUST get to the point where some Creator made the first
> iteration of whatever there was!!

But then someone would have had to make the creator right?

If you're going to say something along the lines 'god created himself'
or 'was always there' then it's you essentially you saying 'I give up
lol' : )

My personal view is if there is a god remotely resembling what our
religions teach us then there would be no need for galaxies etc. He
would just create a flat earth and put people on it to judge/test their
morals etc. I also believe the answers to these questions are beyond
human comprehension so we shouldn't beat our selves up over it. It
would be like expecting an ant to comprehend sql.

Ubiquitous wrote:
> We *never* talk about "evidence" to support a negative

Another wannabe who never heard of DeMorgan.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

Le 2024-03-10 à 16:19, Jon Brady a écrit :
> Michael A Terrell <mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut> wrote in
> news:pM4HN.167482$JLvf.50567@fx44.iad:
>

>> Random mixing of molecules.
>
> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?

That thing called natural process.

Le 2024-03-10 à 21:37, Siri Cruise a écrit :
> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>
> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be
> synthesised into complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial
> life, with modest input energy like ultraviolet light or electric
> discharges.
>
> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic
> creation and longetivity.
>
> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an
> example of replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
>
> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to most of
> the molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on chance and
> organic chemistry without needing a god. It's rational for a person to
> conclude we will be able to explain everything without a god.
>
> There's no evidence a god was not involved. It remains that it is as
> rational to believe in a creator god as to disbelieve.
>
> It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or disbelieve.
>
Adding a god does nothing but add complexity to the problem and don't
solve anything.

Le 2024-03-11 à 04:27, Daniel65 a écrit :
> Siri Cruise wrote on 11/3/24 12:37 pm:
>> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>
>> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be
>> synthesised into complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial
>> life, with modest input energy like ultraviolet light or electric
>> discharges.
>>
>> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic
>> creation and longetivity.
>>
>> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
>> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an
>> example of replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
>>
>> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to most
>> of the molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on chance and
>> organic chemistry without needing a god. It's rational for a person to
>> conclude we will be able to explain everything without a god.
>>
>> There's no evidence a god was not involved. It remains that it is as
>> rational to believe in a creator god as to disbelieve.
>>
>> It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or disbelieve.
>>
> In 2007, Prof Brian Cox
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_%28physicist%29 was in Australia
> for the Total Solar Eclipse and, whilst he was here, he did a Lecture Tour.
>
> At the end of the Melbourne lecture there was a 'Q and A' session and
> one of the Questions was along the lines of 'What was there BEFORE The
> Big Bang?' and his reply was along the lines of one of the, then,
> current Theories was that there had previously existed Universes in
> other Dimensions and two if Those 'Other' Dimensions Universes had
> bumped into each other (i.e, The Big Bang) and some of the Matter from
> those two Dimensions had leaked through into what became OUR Dimension
> to form OUR Universe.
>
> Logically, if you take that theorm back two, three, fifty, whatever,
> iterations, you MUST get to the point where some Creator made the first
> iteration of whatever there was!!

Why add a creator when some natural process fit the bill ?
At T0 of the Big Bang, there was just a massive amount of energy in an
extremely dense state. That energy density was to high for any mater to
exist.
Then, something as simple as a random quantum fluctuation could have
been all what was needed to initiate the whole process.
Remember that the Big Bang is an ongoing process. It is still happening
right now.
The «current theory» that you mention is actually just ONE OF the
several current hypothesis about what existed, if anything, before the
moment T0 of the Big Bang.

Whisper wrote on 11/3/24 8:02 pm:
> On 11/03/2024 7:27 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Siri Cruise wrote on 11/3/24 12:37 pm:
>>>
>>> It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or
>>> disbelieve.
>>>
>> In 2007, Prof Brian Cox
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_%28physicist%29 was in
>> Australia for the Total Solar Eclipse and, whilst he was here, he
>> did a Lecture Tour.
>>
>> At the end of the Melbourne lecture there was a 'Q and A' session
>> and one of the Questions was along the lines of 'What was there
>> BEFORE The Big Bang?' and his reply was along the lines of one of
>> the, then, current Theories was that there had previously existed
>> Universes in other Dimensions and two if Those 'Other' Dimensions
>> Universes had bumped into each other (i.e, The Big Bang) and some
>> of the Matter from those two Dimensions had leaked through into
>> what became OUR Dimension to form OUR Universe.
>>
>> Logically, if you take that theorm back two, three, fifty,
>> whatever, iterations, you MUST get to the point where some Creator
>> made the first iteration of whatever there was!!
>
> But then someone would have had to make the creator right?

Owwww! I'll have to think about that for a while. ;-P

> If you're going to say something along the lines 'god created
> himself' or 'was always there' then it's you essentially you saying
> 'I give up lol' : )

I'll accept that.

> My personal view is if there is a god remotely resembling what our
> religions teach us then there would be no need for galaxies etc. He
> would just create a flat earth and put people on it to judge/test
> their morals etc.

Ah!! But would there be an Elephant in each cornet, holding it up??

> I also believe the answers to these questions are beyond human
> comprehension so we shouldn't beat our selves up over it.

Yeap .... but, if you've got nothing better to do ..........!

> It would be like expecting an ant to comprehend sql.

A Very Smart Ant, maybe .... like Antman! ;-P
--
Daniel

In article <fywHN.113448$GX69.5073@fx46.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 3/10/2024 1:19 PM, Jon Brady wrote:
> > Michael A Terrell <mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut> wrote in
> > news:pM4HN.167482$JLvf.50567@fx44.iad:
> >
> >> On 3/9/2024 1:11 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
> >> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
> >>
> >>> In article <XK3HN.59087$zF_1.34615@fx18.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
> >>> says...
> >>>>
> >>>> By Mark Johnson
> >>>> March 9, 2024 at 8:00 a.m. EST
> >>>>
> >>>> A much-debated theory holds that 4 billion years ago, give or take,
> >>>> long before the appearance of dinosaurs or even bacteria, the
> >>>> primordial soup contained only the possibility of life. Then a
> >>>> molecule called RNA took a dramatic step into the future: It made a
> >>>> copy of itself.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then the copy made a copy, and over the course of many millions of
> >>>> years, RNA begot DNA and proteins, all of which came together to
> >>>> form a cell, the smallest unit of life able to survive on its own.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, in an important advance supporting this RNA World theory,
> >>>> scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla,
> >>>> Calif., have carried out a small but essential part of the story. In
> >>>> test tubes, they developed an RNA molecule that was able to make
> >>>> accurate copies of a different type of RNA.
> >>>>
> >>>> The work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National
> >>>> Academy of Sciences, gets them closer to the grand goal of growing
> >>>> an RNA molecule that makes accurate copies of itself.
> >>>>
> >>>> ?Then it would be alive,? said Gerald Joyce, president of Salk and
> >>>> one of the authors of the new paper. ?So, this is the road to how
> >>>> life can arise in a laboratory or, in principle, anywhere in the
> >>>> universe.?
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/03/09/origin-of-life-rna-
> >>>> world/
> >>>>
> >>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
> >>>
> >>> Where did the RNA come from?
> >>
> >> Random mixing of molecules.
> >
> > Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>
> Asked and answered, "Nomen" (or is it "no man"?)

Never answered. This is how Rudy runs from proving anything.

In article <oywHN.113452$GX69.29299@fx46.iad>, webspermeater@polaris.net
says...
>
> On 3/10/2024 6:37 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> > Jon Brady wrote:
> >>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
> >>>> Where did the RNA come from?
> >>> Random mixing of molecules.
> >> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
> >
> > Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be synthesised into
> > complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial life, with modest input
> > energy like ultraviolet light or electric discharges.
> >
> > Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic creation and
> > longetivity.
> >
> > We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
> > RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an example of
> > replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
> >
> > We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to most of the
> > molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on chance and organic chemistry
> > without needing a god. It's rational for a person to conclude we will be able to
> > explain everything without a god.
> >
> > There's no evidence a god was not involved.
>
> That's fucking stupid. We *never* talk about "evidence" to support a negative;
> there's no such thing. We talk about evidence to support a positive, or *lack*
> of evidence to support a positive. This is nonsense: "there is no evidence to
> support a belief that 'god' didn't create the universe." It's not just nonsense,
> it's bullshit.

But you can't prove anything else. So where did it all come from?

On 3/11/2024 8:07 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <fywHN.113448$GX69.5073@fx46.iad>,
> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>
>> On 3/10/2024 1:19 PM, Jon Brady wrote:
>>> Michael A Terrell <mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut> wrote in
>>> news:pM4HN.167482$JLvf.50567@fx44.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 3/9/2024 1:11 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
>>>> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <XK3HN.59087$zF_1.34615@fx18.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Mark Johnson
>>>>>> March 9, 2024 at 8:00 a.m. EST
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A much-debated theory holds that 4 billion years ago, give or take,
>>>>>> long before the appearance of dinosaurs or even bacteria, the
>>>>>> primordial soup contained only the possibility of life. Then a
>>>>>> molecule called RNA took a dramatic step into the future: It made a
>>>>>> copy of itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then the copy made a copy, and over the course of many millions of
>>>>>> years, RNA begot DNA and proteins, all of which came together to
>>>>>> form a cell, the smallest unit of life able to survive on its own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, in an important advance supporting this RNA World theory,
>>>>>> scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla,
>>>>>> Calif., have carried out a small but essential part of the story. In
>>>>>> test tubes, they developed an RNA molecule that was able to make
>>>>>> accurate copies of a different type of RNA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National
>>>>>> Academy of Sciences, gets them closer to the grand goal of growing
>>>>>> an RNA molecule that makes accurate copies of itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?Then it would be alive,? said Gerald Joyce, president of Salk and
>>>>>> one of the authors of the new paper. ?So, this is the road to how
>>>>>> life can arise in a laboratory or, in principle, anywhere in the
>>>>>> universe.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/03/09/origin-of-life-rna-
>>>>>> world/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>>
>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>>
>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>
>> Asked and answered, "Nomen" (or is it "no man"?)
>
> Never answered.

Yes, I answered. Someone posed the same question to me before "No Man" did, and
I answered it.

On 3/11/2024 8:08 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <oywHN.113452$GX69.29299@fx46.iad>, webspermeater@polaris.net
> says...
>>
>> On 3/10/2024 6:37 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
>>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>>
>>> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be synthesised into
>>> complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial life, with modest input
>>> energy like ultraviolet light or electric discharges.
>>>
>>> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic creation and
>>> longetivity.
>>>
>>> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
>>> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an example of
>>> replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
>>>
>>> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to most of the
>>> molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on chance and organic chemistry
>>> without needing a god. It's rational for a person to conclude we will be able to
>>> explain everything without a god.
>>>
>>> There's no evidence a god was not involved.
>>
>> That's fucking stupid. We *never* talk about "evidence" to support a negative;
>> there's no such thing. We talk about evidence to support a positive, or *lack*
>> of evidence to support a positive. This is nonsense: "there is no evidence to
>> support a belief that 'god' didn't create the universe." It's not just nonsense,
>> it's bullshit.
>
> But you can't prove anything else. So where did it all come from?

It didn't "come from" any place. It was always there.

On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:19:56 -0000 (UTC), Jon Brady <jbrady@amazon.com> wrote:

>Michael A Terrell <mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut> wrote in
>news:pM4HN.167482$JLvf.50567@fx44.iad:
>
>> On 3/9/2024 1:11 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
>> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>
>>> In article <XK3HN.59087$zF_1.34615@fx18.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> By Mark Johnson
>>>> March 9, 2024 at 8:00 a.m. EST
>>>>
>>>> A much-debated theory holds that 4 billion years ago, give or take,
>>>> long before the appearance of dinosaurs or even bacteria, the
>>>> primordial soup contained only the possibility of life. Then a
>>>> molecule called RNA took a dramatic step into the future: It made a
>>>> copy of itself.
>>>>
>>>> Then the copy made a copy, and over the course of many millions of
>>>> years, RNA begot DNA and proteins, all of which came together to
>>>> form a cell, the smallest unit of life able to survive on its own.
>>>>
>>>> Now, in an important advance supporting this RNA World theory,
>>>> scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla,
>>>> Calif., have carried out a small but essential part of the story. In
>>>> test tubes, they developed an RNA molecule that was able to make
>>>> accurate copies of a different type of RNA.
>>>>
>>>> The work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National
>>>> Academy of Sciences, gets them closer to the grand goal of growing
>>>> an RNA molecule that makes accurate copies of itself.
>>>>
>>>> ?Then it would be alive,? said Gerald Joyce, president of Salk and
>>>> one of the authors of the new paper. ?So, this is the road to how
>>>> life can arise in a laboratory or, in principle, anywhere in the
>>>> universe.?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/03/09/origin-of-life-rna-
>>>> world/
>>>>
>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
>>>
>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>
>> Random mixing of molecules.
>
>Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?

Nobody. Do you not understand the definition of the word "random"?

Swill
--
"There are no wrong books. What's wrong is the fear of them."

When Donald Trump was in third grade . . .
https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1987/07/10

Not left, not right, https://www.forwardparty.com/

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

Kualinar wrote:
> Le 2024-03-10 à 21:37, Siri Cruise a écrit :
>> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair
>>>>>> tale.
>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>
>> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be
>> synthesised into complex molecules, some significant to
>> terrestrial life, with modest input energy like ultraviolet
>> light or electric discharges.
>>
>> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic
>> creation and longetivity.
>>
>> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
>> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about,
>> an example of replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
>>
>> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to
>> most of the molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on
>> chance and organic chemistry without needing a god. It's
>> rational for a person to conclude we will be able to explain
>> everything without a god.
>>
>> There's no evidence a god was not involved. It remains that it
>> is as rational to believe in a creator god as to disbelieve.
>>
>> It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or
>> disbelieve.
>>
> Adding a god does nothing but add complexity to the problem and
> don't solve anything.

Either a god added itself or no god. Your aesthetics are
irrelevant. Reality is what reality is, and we're whistling past
the graveyard with all our theories and philosophies. Belief and
disbelief are equally rational.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

In article <cauuuit0l4odb2eobnse9mj2snusbsbpc8@4ax.com>,
governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:19:56 -0000 (UTC), Jon Brady <jbrady@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> >Michael A Terrell <mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut> wrote in
> >news:pM4HN.167482$JLvf.50567@fx44.iad:
> >
> >> On 3/9/2024 1:11 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
> >> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
> >>
> >>> In article <XK3HN.59087$zF_1.34615@fx18.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
> >>> says...
> >>>>
> >>>> By Mark Johnson
> >>>> March 9, 2024 at 8:00 a.m. EST
> >>>>
> >>>> A much-debated theory holds that 4 billion years ago, give or take,
> >>>> long before the appearance of dinosaurs or even bacteria, the
> >>>> primordial soup contained only the possibility of life. Then a
> >>>> molecule called RNA took a dramatic step into the future: It made a
> >>>> copy of itself.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then the copy made a copy, and over the course of many millions of
> >>>> years, RNA begot DNA and proteins, all of which came together to
> >>>> form a cell, the smallest unit of life able to survive on its own.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, in an important advance supporting this RNA World theory,
> >>>> scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla,
> >>>> Calif., have carried out a small but essential part of the story. In
> >>>> test tubes, they developed an RNA molecule that was able to make
> >>>> accurate copies of a different type of RNA.
> >>>>
> >>>> The work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National
> >>>> Academy of Sciences, gets them closer to the grand goal of growing
> >>>> an RNA molecule that makes accurate copies of itself.
> >>>>
> >>>> ?Then it would be alive,? said Gerald Joyce, president of Salk and
> >>>> one of the authors of the new paper. ?So, this is the road to how
> >>>> life can arise in a laboratory or, in principle, anywhere in the
> >>>> universe.?
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/03/09/origin-of-life-rna-
> >>>> world/
> >>>>
> >>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
> >>>
> >>> Where did the RNA come from?
> >>
> >> Random mixing of molecules.
> >
> >Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>
> Nobody. Do you not understand the definition of the word "random"?
>
They had to come from somewhere.

On 3/11/2024 3:08 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <cauuuit0l4odb2eobnse9mj2snusbsbpc8@4ax.com>,
> governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:19:56 -0000 (UTC), Jon Brady <jbrady@amazon.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael A Terrell <mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut> wrote in
>>> news:pM4HN.167482$JLvf.50567@fx44.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 3/9/2024 1:11 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
>>>> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <XK3HN.59087$zF_1.34615@fx18.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Mark Johnson
>>>>>> March 9, 2024 at 8:00 a.m. EST
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A much-debated theory holds that 4 billion years ago, give or take,
>>>>>> long before the appearance of dinosaurs or even bacteria, the
>>>>>> primordial soup contained only the possibility of life. Then a
>>>>>> molecule called RNA took a dramatic step into the future: It made a
>>>>>> copy of itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then the copy made a copy, and over the course of many millions of
>>>>>> years, RNA begot DNA and proteins, all of which came together to
>>>>>> form a cell, the smallest unit of life able to survive on its own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, in an important advance supporting this RNA World theory,
>>>>>> scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla,
>>>>>> Calif., have carried out a small but essential part of the story. In
>>>>>> test tubes, they developed an RNA molecule that was able to make
>>>>>> accurate copies of a different type of RNA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National
>>>>>> Academy of Sciences, gets them closer to the grand goal of growing
>>>>>> an RNA molecule that makes accurate copies of itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?Then it would be alive,? said Gerald Joyce, president of Salk and
>>>>>> one of the authors of the new paper. ?So, this is the road to how
>>>>>> life can arise in a laboratory or, in principle, anywhere in the
>>>>>> universe.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/03/09/origin-of-life-rna-
>>>>>> world/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>>
>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>>
>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>
>> Nobody. Do you not understand the definition of the word "random"?
>>
> They had to come from somewhere.

No, fuckwit, they didn't. They didn't "come from" anywhere. They just were, and are.

On 3/11/2024 8:10 AM, Daniel65 wrote:
> Whisper wrote on 11/3/24 8:02 pm:
>> On 11/03/2024 7:27 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> Siri Cruise wrote on 11/3/24 12:37 pm:
>>>>
>>>> It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or
>>>> disbelieve.
>>>>
>>> In 2007, Prof Brian Cox
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_%28physicist%29 was in
>>> Australia for the Total Solar Eclipse and, whilst he was here, he
>>> did a Lecture Tour.
>>>
>>> At the end of the Melbourne lecture there was a 'Q and A' session
>>> and one of the Questions was along the lines of 'What was there
>>> BEFORE The Big Bang?' and his reply was along the lines of one of
>>> the, then, current Theories was that there had previously existed
>>> Universes in other Dimensions and two if Those 'Other' Dimensions
>>> Universes had bumped into each other (i.e, The Big Bang) and some
>>> of the Matter from those two Dimensions had leaked through into
>>> what became OUR Dimension to form OUR Universe.
>>>
>>> Logically, if you take that theorm back two, three, fifty,
>>> whatever, iterations, you MUST get to the point where some Creator
>>> made the first iteration of whatever there was!!
>>
>> But then someone would have had to make the creator right?
>
> Owwww! I'll have to think about that for a while. ;-P
>
>> If you're going to say something along the lines 'god created
>> himself' or 'was always there' then it's you essentially you saying
>> 'I give up lol' : )
>
> I'll accept that.
>
>> My personal view is if there is a god remotely resembling what our
>> religions teach us then there would be no need for galaxies etc.  He
>>  would just create a flat earth and put people on it to judge/test
>> their morals etc.
>
> Ah!! But would there be an Elephant in each cornet, holding it up??
>
>> I also believe the answers to these questions are beyond human
>> comprehension so we shouldn't beat our selves up over it.
>
> Yeap .... but, if you've got nothing better to do ..........!
>
>> It would be like expecting an ant to comprehend sql.
>
> A Very Smart Ant, maybe .... like Antman! ;-P

Read Professor Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"; if God exists, then
God must be complex, certainly, more complex than any Big Bang
singularity. Do "something from nothing" models exist for our Universe?
Yes, they do, right here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tryon

Here's his paper (behind a pay wall):

https://www.nature.com/articles/246396a0

Or, you can sign-up & then cancel here, or, just watch an ad:

https://www.scribd.com/document/529131369/Edward-Tryon-P-is-the-Universe-a-Vacuum-Fluctuation

Do planets move because there are angelic beings pushing them? Well,
maybe, but by the Law of Parsimony, it is not necessary to believe in
such entities, of which there are an infinite number.

Ditto for God.

Dawn

On 3/11/2024 4:58 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> Kualinar wrote:
>> Le 2024-03-10 à 21:37, Siri Cruise a écrit :
>>> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
>>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>>
>>> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be
>>> synthesised into complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial
>>> life, with modest input energy like ultraviolet light or electric
>>> discharges.
>>>
>>> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic
>>> creation and longetivity.
>>>
>>> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
>>> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an
>>> example of replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
>>>
>>> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to most
>>> of the molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on chance and
>>> organic chemistry without needing a god. It's rational for a person
>>> to conclude we will be able to explain everything without a god.
>>>
>>> There's no evidence a god was not involved. It remains that it is as
>>> rational to believe in a creator god as to disbelieve.
>>>
>>> It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or disbelieve.
>>>
>> Adding a god does nothing but add complexity to the problem and don't
>> solve anything.
>
> Either a god added itself or no god. Your aesthetics are irrelevant.
> Reality is what reality is, and we're whistling past the graveyard with
> all our theories and philosophies. Belief and disbelief are equally
> rational.
>

Problem is that there are an infinite number of "beliefs" but really
only one "disbelief". As the "beliefs" contradict each other, at least
in some respects, they cannot all be true; how to choose? On the other
hand, "disbelief" is at least falsifiable, which makes it more rational
than all the others, because "disbelief" opens itself up to being proved
wrong.

Dawn

In <usokiq$3g7l$2@dont-email.me> Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On 3/11/2024 4:58 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> Kualinar wrote:
>>> Le 2024-03-10 à 21:37, Siri Cruise a écrit :
>>>> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair
tale.
>>>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>>>
>>>> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be
>>>> synthesised into complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial
>>>> life, with modest input energy like ultraviolet light or electric
>>>> discharges.
>>>>
>>>> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic
>>>> creation and longetivity.
>>>>
>>>> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
>>>> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an
>>>> example of replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
>>>>
>>>> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to
most
>>>> of the molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on chance
and
>>>> organic chemistry without needing a god. It's rational for a person
>>>> to conclude we will be able to explain everything without a god.
>>>>
>>>> There's no evidence a god was not involved. It remains that it is
as
>>>> rational to believe in a creator god as to disbelieve.
>>>>
>>>> It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or
disbelieve.
>>>>
>>> Adding a god does nothing but add complexity to the problem and
don't
>>> solve anything.
>>
>> Either a god added itself or no god. Your aesthetics are irrelevant.
>> Reality is what reality is, and we're whistling past the graveyard
with
>> all our theories and philosophies. Belief and disbelief are equally
>> rational.
>>
>
> Problem is that there are an infinite number of "beliefs" but really
> only one "disbelief". As the "beliefs" contradict each other, at
least
> in some respects, they cannot all be true; how to choose? On the
other
> hand, "disbelief" is at least falsifiable, which makes it more
rational
> than all the others, because "disbelief" opens itself up to being
proved
> wrong.

or right as facts present themselves.

Dawn Flood wrote:
>>
>> Either a god added itself or no god. Your aesthetics are
>> irrelevant. Reality is what reality is, and we're whistling past
>> the graveyard with all our theories and philosophies. Belief and
>> disbelief are equally rational.
>>
>
> Problem is that there are an infinite number of "beliefs" but
> really only one "disbelief".  As the "beliefs" contradict each

Oh. twaddle. You're doing that tired old bit demanding all
religion be the same. You're imposing your aesthetics and hidden
assumptions on reality.

> other, at least in some respects, they cannot all be true; how to

I admire constructive math. That has a more nuanced view of 'true'
then you're capable of understanding. Or just indexing
nondenumerable vector spaces.

> choose?  On the other hand, "disbelief" is at least falsifiable,

Read Curry's textbook on logic, and you'll realise how
controversial the 'Exclude Middle' is.

> which makes it more rational than all the others, because
> "disbelief" opens itself up to being proved wrong.

You got the axioms of your system of 'rational disbelief'?

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On 12/03/2024 5:51 pm, Siri Cruise wrote:
> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>
>>> Either a god added itself or no god. Your aesthetics are irrelevant.
>>> Reality is what reality is, and we're whistling past the graveyard
>>> with all our theories and philosophies. Belief and disbelief are
>>> equally rational.
>>>
>>
>> Problem is that there are an infinite number of "beliefs" but really
>> only one "disbelief".  As the "beliefs" contradict each

Siri wrote:
> Oh. twaddle. You're doing that tired old bit demanding all religion be
> the same.

> You're imposing your aesthetics and hidden assumptions on
> reality.

Dang! I wish I had said that!

Michael Christ

>
>> other, at least in some respects, they cannot all be true; how to
>
> I admire constructive math. That has a more nuanced view of 'true' then
> you're capable of understanding. Or just indexing nondenumerable vector
> spaces.
>
>> choose?  On the other hand, "disbelief" is at least falsifiable,
>
> Read Curry's textbook on logic, and you'll realise how controversial the
> 'Exclude Middle' is.
>
>> which makes it more rational than all the others, because "disbelief"
>> opens itself up to being proved wrong.
>
> You got the axioms of your system of 'rational disbelief'?
>

--
God is God

Jesus is the everlasting Father, Jesus is God, Jesus is the Lord. John
10:30  I and Father are one. If you can't see that the Lord Jesus is the
everlasting Father you are not born again and can't see the Kingdom of God.

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it
is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

Psalms 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt
are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that
hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory."

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."

"What makes the bible the truth? The resonance (voice, the Person) of
God. When you find Him you have found the author."

"All men were born sinners. Why? Because all men were born not loving
God with all their heart, soul, and mind. An abomination. Therefore,
sin is not what you do; it is what you are."

"Compromise will condemn you."

"There are no sinners in Christ Jesus."

"My sons are born of Me. In them is no darkness at all."

"You can't learn righteousness. Haven't you had enough time already to
know that?"

"The way of truth is the testimony of life."

"I merely speak the truth, what is revealed to me, and the cards fall
where God intends."

"Nothing that is produced is produced without first being faith."

"You can only find proof of God through faith because that is how we all
live, by faith."

"It is not what you do that matters, it is how you treat Me."

"Keep going forward. Forget about the past. Lift up your head, look
ahead."

"You cannot be free and free indeed with guilt in your heart."

"Priority is everything."

"The truth doesn't need evidence, it is evidence."

"There is no greater possession a man has than his own will, to squander
it or to place it where it truly belongs."

"An atheist is a fool who thinks truth is found in living a lie."

"Saying "prove it" [as a foundation] is merely an ignorant straw man, to
an ignorant straw man."

"Wait, rest, be still, and know."

"No man can wash his own hands!!!"

"I find this in the Christianity religions: 'Nobody's perfect' they say,
and they use that as an excuse not to do what is perfect."

The Atheist: "They don't believe and put their faith in a Creator (the
obvious). So no evidence and proof is to be found!!"

"The world is the way it is because God can't compromise who He is."

"Man is not the centre of being."

"Man is incompatible with the natural world because of his sinful nature."

"And then the Lord said, "I see everything."

"Man has no greater idol than his own will."

"Where is God hiding? He isn't."

"If you don't keep all the scriptures, you can't keep any of them."

"You can't prove anything because everything depends on a person's
willingness to believe."

"Atheists are ultimately trying to be pointlessness, meaninglessness,
and purposelessness in their point, meaning, and purpose."

"The last day of creation will be the last day of time. God is always
full of hope."

"The veil of the temple was rent in twain, not to have a book pass
through it so that a sinner could play God."

"A phylactery does not a heart for God make. Not back then, and not today."

"No one in heaven is better (or higher) than what makes it heaven. Such
is the love of God."

"The definition of an atheist: A man full of bluster and bullshit
pretending he is the meaning of life."

"Free will is not power; it is the choice that I allow; that choice is
still according to my power," says the Lord.

What does a fool do? A fool looks for a "nothing" in a "something" in
order to explain the existence of existence.

"Unless you do all because He is who He is, all your religion is in vain."

"Every man is subject to God; He judges every man, and He is reality.
 What a gift in a fallen world!"

"Love MUST be a choice or it is nothing but a law!"

"Why were all men born sinners? So that God could reveal Himself, so
that we would behold the glory of God, and that we should bring forth
the glory of God"

"God does not and will not arbitrate for any man to love Him! If God
isn't everything to you, He is nothing to you where the rubber meets the
road."

"It is the unforgivable sin not to love God with all your heart, soul,
and mind. What do you have that is lasting? It is not so much being
punished; it is what you are left with."

"Love isn't worth anything without first a free will choice for God to
birth it in a man."

"The point of salvation: desperation. Anything less than that is
self-righteousness."

"A sinner is not a believer in God; a sinner is a believer in sin."

"A piece of dirt is not the promised land; that is only a reflection.
The promised land is knowing Me, says the Lord."

"It is all about God or it is all about idolatry."

"The Lord Jesus is coming soon. He has always come soon."

"There is no revolving door of self-worship in a son of God's life!"

"There is no such thing as random!"

"You can't truly love without it being with all your heart."

"No one can see God without their whole heart. Unless you can see God,
you know nothing."

"You can't learn God, God has to reveal Himself to you."

"No sinner is sinless in any way."

"Only God is life; only the Kingdom of God of His "Nature" is life."

"What you believe is just a leaning on your own understanding; faith is
a leaning on the one you have chosen to trust."

Kualinar wrote on 12/3/24 12:06 am:
> Le 2024-03-11 à 04:27, Daniel65 a écrit :
>> Siri Cruise wrote on 11/3/24 12:37 pm:
>>> Jon Brady wrote:
>>>>>>> Life was not created by "god." That's only a childish fair tale.
>>>>>> Where did the RNA come from?
>>>>> Random mixing of molecules.
>>>> Who created the molecules so they could do that, Rudy?
>>>
>>> Experiments like Miller-Urey show that simple molecules can be
>>> synthesised into complex molecules, some significant to terrestrial
>>> life, with modest input energy like ultraviolet light or electric
>>> discharges.
>>>
>>> Additional experiments show some molecules have limitted abiotic
>>> creation and longetivity.
>>>
>>> We mostly know how DNA is replicated using proteins.
>>> RNA replication without proteins? That's what the news is about, an
>>> example of replicating RNA without bootstrapping proteins.
>>>
>>> We got theories to take us from models of early earth almost to most
>>> of the molecules of inefficient but possible life. Best on chance and
>>> organic chemistry without needing a god. It's rational for a person
>>> to conclude we will be able to explain everything without a god.
>>>
>>> There's no evidence a god was not involved. It remains that it is as
>>> rational to believe in a creator god as to disbelieve.
>>>
>>> It comes done to choice, an unforced choice, to believe or disbelieve.
>>>
>> In 2007, Prof Brian Cox
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_%28physicist%29 was in
>> Australia for the Total Solar Eclipse and, whilst he was here, he did
>> a Lecture Tour.
>>
>> At the end of the Melbourne lecture there was a 'Q and A' session and
>> one of the Questions was along the lines of 'What was there BEFORE The
>> Big Bang?' and his reply was along the lines of one of the, then,
>> current Theories was that there had previously existed Universes in
>> other Dimensions and two if Those 'Other' Dimensions Universes had
>> bumped into each other (i.e, The Big Bang) and some of the Matter from
>> those two Dimensions had leaked through into what became OUR Dimension
>> to form OUR Universe.
>>
>> Logically, if you take that theorm back two, three, fifty, whatever,
>> iterations, you MUST get to the point where some Creator made the
>> first iteration of whatever there was!!
>
> Why add a creator when some natural process fit the bill ?
> At T0 of the Big Bang, there was just a massive amount of energy in an
> extremely dense state. That energy density was to high for any mater to
> exist.
> Then, something as simple as a random quantum fluctuation could have
> been all what was needed to initiate the whole process.
> Remember that the Big Bang is an ongoing process. It is still happening
> right now.
> The «current theory» that you mention is actually just ONE OF the
> several current hypothesis about what existed, if anything, before the
> moment T0 of the Big Bang.

Yes, well, I did type that Brian Cox said "... was along the lines of
*one* of the, then, current Theories was that...." Not that " *The only*
theory was ....".
--
Daniel