It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How close are you in believing ?

page: 15
45
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
Mutations happen thousands of times per day.


But, according to the theory, mutations are only relevant if the mutations happen in the sperm/egg or zygote of the parents - otherwise the mutation would not get passed to the offspring.



And if you were right (which you are not), who exactly is manipulating genomes right now?


Mutations and epigenetics are known facts of the genome. Adaptation through allelic drift is also common - such as Japheth migrating north through the Caucus mountains, in which his lineage drifted towards a paler skin morphology due to less annual sunlight (and therefore less required melanin) and thus gave rise to the Caucasian race (Caucus - Caucasian): This sort of adaptation occurs all the time but it cannot account for the diversity of life because it is working with DNA code that already exists within the organism.



Here's a research article about a newly evolved species of Chlamydia - given your position on evolution and its complexity, I would assume that your ID being actually caused this evolutionary change


That is not what I believe, but regardless, my beliefs are erroneous to the logical impossibility of evolutionary theory. I was an atheist once too, I used to prescribe to this doctrine whole-heartedly, but the pursuit of knowledge and a further understanding of biological systems led me to realize the impossibility of generating these complex organisms through piecewise mutations over generations of time.


it's entirely too complex for it to occur naturally and spontaneously?


Adaptation mechanisms, epigenetics, and allelic drift all work off pre-existing code. It is an assumption that these mechanisms could have led to the diversity of life exhibited on our planet today - yet what most scientists don't question is how these mechanisms could have came to be in the first place!
edit on 27-8-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I'm afraid you missed something here - the genetic code also evolves. The basic organization remains the same, but the codons can be altered thus allowing for diversity and new species to arise.

The diversity COMES FROM the altered code. The mechanism has been elucidated and studied for a number of years now.
The PRE-EXISTING code that you refer to would be the original, unaltered code, unique to that organism. The concept of a "universal frozen code" which was proposed by Crick has been modified to include alterations in the codons. The new species retains most of the pre-existing code BUT NOW HAS BEEN ALTERED AND CHANGED which is distinct for that new species. This actually is the origin of the "common ancestor" theory.

This paper gives a brief description of genetic code evolution:

Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma
Eugene V. Koonin* and Artem S. Novozhilov

The code is evolvable

The code expansion theory proposed in Crick’s seminal paper posits that the actual allocation of amino acids to codons is mainly accidental and ‘yet related amino acids would be expected to have related codons’ (6). This concept is known as ‘frozen accident theory’ because Crick maintained, following the earlier argument of Hinegardner and Engelberg (2) that, after the primordial genetic code expanded to incorporate all 20 modern amino acids, any change in the code would result in multiple, simultaneous changes in protein sequences and, consequently, would be lethal, hence the universality of the code. Today, there is ample evidence that the standard code is not literally universal but is prone to significant modifications, albeit without change to its basic organization.

Since the discovery of codon reassignment in human mitochondrial genes (33), a variety of other deviations from the standard genetic code in bacteria, archaea, eukaryotic nuclear genomes and, especially, organellar genomes have been reported, with the latest census counting over 20 alternative codes (34–38). All alternative codes are believed to be derived from the standard code (35); together with the observation that many of the same codons are reassigned (compared to the standard code) in independent lineages (e.g., the most frequent change is the reassignment of the stop codon UGA to tryptophan), this conclusion implies that there should be predisposition towards certain changes; at least one of these changes was reported to confer selective advantage (39).

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
I don't know where you get that impression - but it's wrong. Structure/function - look it up - in a biology book or on Google Scholar.

You haven't stated why I'm wrong. My impression comes from logic, as well as a full understanding of the misrepresentation that happens when folks such as yourself attempt to elucidate the powers of evolution. Somehow over the course of time, evolution has been bestowed upon it the the power of creativity. No. Wrong. It does not create. Evolution does not explain development of novel structure and function. I've read the papers. It's the scientists much smarter than me who have said this and made the clarification. Now sure, you can go ahead and claim mutations are the cause, but that still falls short for reasons you are smart enough to understand.


originally posted by: Phantom423
Self assembly is a known phenomenon. I'm not going to post research articles and spend time explaining them because no one reads them. If you're interested in self assembly of molecular systems, then look it up.

I didn't ask you to, but heck, you were more than willing to post some abstract about chlamydia. If you didn't feel like answering due perhaps to not being able to, than you should just ignore it.

Self assembly - I am interested in it. This is a cause and effect universe, isn't it? Where does the stepwise order originate from? The body plans? It's one thing for a well defined and highly complex biological structure to come together completely on its own, but then add meaningful but specific functionality, adaptability to specific environments, error correction, amongst other things. Well, how does it happen? It's just chemistry, right?



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Structure, function and evolution - this is a dynamic process. The structure can support a single function or multiple functions. The structure can change and evolve to suit a new requirement of the organism. This is not a static event. It is dynamic i.e. ongoing. It is part of the evolutionary process. Here's a paper which discusses the relationships of structure, function and evolution.

Structure, function and evolution of the XPD
family of iron–sulfur-containing 5
→3 DNA
helicases

Malcolm F. White1
Centre for Biomolecular Sciences, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9ST, U.K.



(From the paper)...........
Evolution of the XPD family
The ubiquitous nature of the XPD family across all three
domains of life suggests that the ancestral helicase including
the iron–sulfur-binding domain is an ancient protein that was
present in the last common ancestor. The closer similarity
of eukaryotic and archaeal XPD compared with the much
more distant bacterial DinG protein mirrors the situation for many proteins that are involved in information processing.
In particular, proteins involved in DNA replication and
recombination, transcription and translation are all more
highly similar in eukaryotes/archaea and more divergent
or even unrelated in bacteria [29,30]. The observation that
archaeal XPD is most similar to the eukaryotic XPD (rather
than any of the paralogues) and the ubiquitous nature of
XPD across all of the eukaryotic phyla suggest that XPD
is the founding member of the family. The same argument
suggests that archaeal XPD may have a role to play in
an archaeal NER-like pathway, though this remains to be
proved.

www.biochemsoctrans.org...

____________________________________________

What this paper demonstrates is that the STRUCTURE of the XPD Helicase (a helicase is an enzyme ("..ase") that binds to nucleic acids) is modified across several species and its FUNCTION can also be modified to accommodate the individual species. The STRUCTURE never existed unilaterally without its FUNCTION. Structure/function is one system. The PROCESS is EVOLUTIONARY because the system can change over time to accommodate different organisms.




Evolution does not explain development of novel structure and function


The research paper above and my explanation should be sufficient to explain how structure/function/evolution is a dynamic system.



edit on 27-8-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I think science and God are merging.

When I see pictures like the one In the OP I imagine the universe is Gods brains and humans are something like quantum particles or maybe just Gods thoughts.


edit on 27-8-2016 by GoShredAK because: (no reason given)


ETA: Now I wonder if maybe our brains are universes and our thoughts are little people.
edit on 27-8-2016 by GoShredAK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect

About self assembly - three papers which describe macromolecular self assembly and its implications for evolution.
I don't know where you're getting your information on "evolutionary theory" so I can't comment on that.

Self-Assembly and Evolution of Homomeric Protein Complexes

Gabriel Villar, Alex W. Wilber, Alex J. Williamson, Parvinder Thiara, Jonathan P. K. Doye, Ard A. Louis, Mara N. Jochum, Anna C. F. Lewis, and Emmanuel D. Levy
Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 118106 – Published 18 March 2009

ABSTRACT
We introduce a simple “patchy particle” model to study the thermodynamics and dynamics of self-assembly of homomeric protein complexes. Our calculations allow us to rationalize recent results for dihedral complexes.Namely, why evolution of such complexes naturally takes the system into a region of interaction space where (i) the evolutionarily newer interactions are weaker, (ii) subcomplexes involving the stronger interactions are observed to be thermodynamically stable on destabilization of the protein-protein interactions, and (iii) the self-assembly dynamics are hierarchical with these same subcomplexes acting as kinetic intermediates.

journals.aps.org...







Design and self-assembly of two-dimensional DNA crystals

Erik Winfree1, Furong Liu2, Lisa A. Wenzler2 & Nadrian C. Seeman2

Computation and Neural Systems, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
Department of Chemistry, New York University, New York, New York 10003, USA
Molecular self-assembly presents a 'bottom-up' approach to the fabrication of objects specified with nanometre precision. DNA molecular structures and intermolecular interactions are particularly amenable to the design and synthesis of complex molecular objects. We report the design and observation of two-dimensional crystalline forms of DNA that self-assemble from synthetic DNA double-crossover molecules. Intermolecular interactions between the structural units are programmed by the design of 'sticky ends' that associate according to Watson–Crick complementarity, enabling us to create specific periodic patterns on the nanometre scale. The patterned crystals have been visualized by atomic force microscopy.

www.nature.com...


Self-Assembly of Biological Macromolecules

R. N. Perham
Published 6 November 1975.DOI: 10.1098/rstb.1975.0075
Abstract

The genetic apparatus of the cell is responsible for the accurate biosynthesis of the primary structure of macromolecules which then spontaneously fold up and, in certain circumstances, aggregate to yield the complex tertiary and quaternary structures of the biologically active molecules. Structures capable of self-assembly in this way range from simple monomers through oligomers to complex multimeric structures that may contain more than one type of polypeptide chain and components other than protein. It is becoming clear that even with the simpler monomeric enzymes there is a kinetically determined pathway for the folding process and that a folded protein must now be regarded as the minimum free energy form of the kinetically accessible conformations. It is argued that the denatured subunits of oligomeric enzymes are likely to fold to something like their final structure before aggregating to give the native quaternary structure and the available evidence would suggest that this is so. The importance of nucleation events and stable intermediates in the self-assembly of more complex structures is clear. Many self-assembling structures contain only identical subunits and symmetry arguments are very successful in accounting for the structures formed. Because proteins are themselves complex molecules and not inelastic geometric objects, the rules of strict symmetry can be bent and quasi-equivalent bonding between subunits permitted. This possibility is frequently employed in biological structures. Conversely, symmetry arguments can offer a reliable means of choosing between alternative models for a given structure. It can be seen that proteins gain stability by growing larger and it is argued in evolutionary terms that aggregation of subunits is the preferred way to increase the size of proteins. The possession of quaternary structure by enzymes allows conferral of other biologically important properties, such as cooperativity between active sites, changes of specificity, substrate channelling and sequential reactions within a multienzyme complex. Comparison is made of the invariant subunit compositions of the simpler oligomeric enzymes with the variation evidently open to, say, the 2-oxoacid dehydrogenase complexes of E. coli. With viruses, on the other hand, the function of the quaternary structure is to package nucleic acid and, as an example, the assembly and breakdown of tobacco mosaic virus is discussed. Attention is drawn to the possible ways in which the principles of self-assembly can be extended to make structures more complicated than those that can be formed by simple aggregation of the component parts.

rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org...



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

That's all good and interesting about DNA and evolution, but where doe's scientific research prove the universe doesn't have a creator? Could not the singularity theory be considered a creationist theory also? where in the laws of physics do we get something from nothing in the first place?
If the known universe had it's beginnings in the "big bang" we must assume that big bang was caused by something, and therefore created by something. Surely? Either that or it just popped out of nothing, I prefer the former.



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Phantom423

That's all good and interesting about DNA and evolution, but where doe's scientific research prove the universe doesn't have a creator? Could not the singularity theory be considered a creationist theory also? where in the laws of physics do we get something from nothing in the first place?
If the known universe had it's beginnings in the "big bang" we must assume that big bang was caused by something, and therefore created by something. Surely? Either that or it just popped out of nothing, I prefer the former.



Why are you assuming that science even looks for a creator? Science has never said or even speculated whether there is a creator or not. It's an unknown. There are no research projects to my knowledge that specifically investigate the existence of a god or gods.

As far as the Big Bang is concerned, you would have to get deeper into physics to discuss this subject. It's not as simple as "something from nothing" or "someone did it". There are threads over on the Science and Technology board which deal with the physics of the Big Bang (if there even was one - we don't know that).



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I wasn't assuming science looks for a creator, I was saying that science hasn't disproved it as far as I'm aware.

With regards to the big bang it would upset a lot of academics if it's disproved, but hey, it's happened before.
Having read The brief history of everything, it's surprising how dogmatic academics can get.

P.s I think it is as simple as "something from nothing" either that or it's always been there potentially at least.
Logic dictates we don't get something from nothing so the latter seems likely to me, what other options are there?


edit on 27-8-2016 by surfer_soul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Phantom423

I wasn't assuming science looks for a creator, I was saying that science hasn't disproved it as far as I'm aware.

With regards to the big bang it would upset a lot of academics if it's disproved, but hey, it's happened before.
Having read The brief history of everything, it's surprising how dogmatic academics can get.




Science never attempted to disprove it. It's not a subject that lends itself to hard evidence! That said, there's no evidence for or against a creator - it's simply an unknown. All the speculation and "logical conclusions" for or against a creator do not add up hard evidence.

The "Big Bang" only addresses this universe - not others that may exist. Theoretical physicists ultimately rely on instrumentation like the LHC to prove their theories. And the answers only bring up more questions. Most scientists understand that our current models of this universe may well change drastically in the future as new theories and technologies come online. That's the fun and fascination of the physical sciences - it's always changing.
edit on 27-8-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Phantom423

I wasn't assuming science looks for a creator, I was saying that science hasn't disproved it as far as I'm aware.


You can't prove a negative. You can't prove unicorns don't exist, for example.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

There is much evidence for unicorns taking down power websites written in hipster code.




posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
With regards to the big bang it would upset a lot of academics if it's disproved, but hey, it's happened before.
Having read The brief history of everything, it's surprising how dogmatic academics can get.


Why would scientists and academics be upset? Science isn't based on emotion, it's based on experiments and facts. If new facts are discovered one day that change / expand our understanding of the singularity or big bang mechanics, then it ultimately improves our overall understanding and scientists will be doing their job. The word "dogma" doesn't apply to science.. Science changes with new facts, religion is what uses absolutist dogma based on nothing objective.


I think it is as simple as "something from nothing" either that or it's always been there potentially at least.
Logic dictates we don't get something from nothing so the latter seems likely to me, what other options are there?


It's difficult to think outside the box but there are numerous possibilities of how the singularity emerged and science isn't advanced enough to test most of them. Not knowing the answer, is simply not knowing the answer. Filling the unknown with god causes just as many problems and questions as any other explanation. There could be billions of universes, alternate dimensions of existence, membrane theory collision, other quantum effects, etc. To assume it either appeared out of nothing or was created intelligently is a false dichotomy.

If you want to speak logic, nonexistence is the logical default for anything that has no objective evidence. Sure, you can't prove anything absolutely doesn't exist in the universe, but that doesn't add credibility to the idea that it could.

edit on 8 28 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
For all we know, we could actually have been an ancient race or something along the lines, that forsake the hardships of reality an the fragile limits of a body to become virtual for a much smoother existence, but taking shortcuts can come back to haunt.

And if their were aliens or something else involved in our origins, maybe they made us to retrace such footsteps the way nature intended, although the idea of an advanced race being around for a couple of millions year is insanely asinine.

Maybe there some truth to the Hindu/ or Buddhist mythologies of reincarnation, where the Devas( Other then full fledged Buddha, or Yogi Black belt) are said to be the highest attainment of existence, and have it easy in the Heavens. Maybe the Devas are game/soul developers just keeping things within limits and are trying avoid server crashes?

Then you got Asuras, beings who are consumed by their passion or baser instincts where they could be described as being war or love machines of feats that would dwarf the limits of mortality. But yet, Devas or Gods can become Asuras...It almost like Jesus could initiate a "Battle Mode", no different then the Calm Shiva becomes the raging, bitch Kali love to be called who want to be smacked around, but says Shiva hits like a grandma, while he trying to flee for his because he not a love machine.

Just my musical two cents.
edit on 28-8-2016 by Specimen because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2016 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Thank you for the paper, I will read through this and come back to you. But first....


originally posted by: Phantom423
The structure can change and evolve to suit a new requirement of the organism.

You may not have intended this statement to be teleological, but it is. Now the question I have is – does a new structure develop before or after a survival need? Or does the survival need result from the new form? How about the specific behavior that is required to utilize the novel form/function (e.g echolocation or magnetoreception)? Initially, is it a learned behavior that somehow becomes innate? Think about the number of genes involved. Evolutionary theory doesn't quote address these matters, other than to say it's all thanks to natural selection. Well that certainly explains it...



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect




The structure can change and evolve to suit a new requirement of the organism.

You may not have intended this statement to be teleological, but it is.


I don't agree. Evolution has no goal - it merely favors the better molecule to do the job. Let's say you have two isomers of the same molecule - cis and trans isomers - if the cis isomer performs a certain function better than the trans isomer, the cis isomer will be selected to reproduce and survive. The word "teleological" is deceptive and really implies that there is some human philosophical input to evolution. There isn't. It's simply the best fit for the job at hand. Function and purpose are two different things - a function has no goal - it's merely the output of a process. Purpose means there's some inherent goal OUTSIDE the actual system.




Now the question I have is – does a new structure develop before or after a survival need? Or does the survival need result from the new form? How about the specific behavior that is required to utilize the novel form/function (e.g echolocation or magnetoreception)? Initially, is it a learned behavior that somehow becomes innate? Think about the number of genes involved. Evolutionary theory doesn't quote address these matters, other than to say it's all thanks to natural selection. Well that certainly explains it..


That's more of a chicken-egg question. The answer is probably that it could be both. Flightless birds like some ancient dinosaurs had feathers but didn't fly. So why did the dinosaur have feathers? Who knows? But are feathers functional NOW for birds? Yes. So here you have a case where structure does not relate to the current function that we recognize - in this case feathers and flying. The complete answer can only be found in the fossil record. That record is not complete by any stretch so perhaps your question cannot be answered definitively -- right now anyway.

Unique characteristics of some organisms like magnetic perception in some birds are really no different than eyes and ears except that it requires an atom of magnetite. Why and how it got there is anyone's guess - the mineral could have been chelated into brain tissue of a bird eons ago. It's not really a question I can answer without doing a lot of research into the literature.




edit on 28-8-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd




You can't prove a negative. You can't prove unicorns don't exist, for example.


What do you mean you can't prove a negative? Who said anything about unicorns?



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Unfortunately I don't have a subscription to access the articles.

Aside from the words 'evolution' and 'evolutionary' in that first abstract, I'm unable to glean if molecular self-assembly is accounted for in evolutionary theory.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

a reply to: Phantom423


originally posted by: Phantom423
The structure can change and evolve to suit a new requirement of the organism.

originally posted by: Phantom423
The word "teleological" is deceptive and really implies that there is some human philosophical input to evolution. There isn't. It's simply the best fit for the job at hand. Function and purpose are two different things - a function has no goal - it's merely the output of a process. Purpose means there's some inherent goal OUTSIDE the actual system.

Not from a natural teleological standpoint. The function is the purpose. In fact function by definition implies purpose. There can't be an inherent goal from the outside, that's a contradiction of terms. Nevertheless the ultimate most objective purpose of all life is to metabolize, survive and reproduce. Organisms are designed to do all of these in a myriad of forms and in a myriad of ways. Evolution is driven by and depends on organism interactions between each other, and their environments. It is behavior (intelligence) that underlies all of it. I've made this point before


a reply to: Phantom423
That's more of a chicken-egg question. The answer is probably that it could be both.


I asked because you made the statement about biological structures evolving to suit the needs of an organism (see above). IOW, this implies the need precedes the evolution of the structure/function to suit that specific need. Think Darwin's finches, or lactase persistence



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp



Francis Crick isn't just "some smart guy", I thought I made it clear that he was the discoverer of DNA. That sort of association with a scientific development tends to lend particular credibility to a comment.


Except Crick did NOT think that DNA could not evolve, and did NOT believe that life on Earth was due to Panspermia. He SPECULATED that perhaps abiogenesis was rare in the universe, but that once it had occurred anywhere, it could perhaps be spread via panspermia. As he came to understand the DNA process better, he realized that abiogenesis wasn't likely to be so unusual after all. A quick review of Crick's Wikipedia biography would have told you that:


During the 1960s, Crick became concerned with the origins of the genetic code. In 1966, Crick took the place of Leslie Orgel at a meeting where Orgel was to talk about the origin of life. Crick speculated about possible stages by which an initially simple code with a few amino acid types might have evolved into the more complex code used by existing organisms.[91] At that time, everyone thought of proteins as the only kind of enzymes and ribozymes had not yet been found. Many molecular biologists were puzzled by the problem of the origin of a protein replicating system that is as complex as that which exists in organisms currently inhabiting Earth. In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called "directed panspermia".[92] In a retrospective article,[93] Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the molecular origin of life.

In 1976 Crick addressed the origin of protein synthesis in a paper with Sydney Brenner, Aaron Klug, and George Pieczenik.[94] In this paper, they speculate that code constraints on nucleotide sequences allow protein synthesis without the need for a ribosome. It, however, requires a five base binding between the mRNA and tRNA with a flip of the anti-codon creating a triplet coding, even though it is a five-base physical interaction. Thomas H. Jukes pointed out that the code constraints on the mRNA sequence required for this translation mechanism is still preserved.[95


Speculations made early and without complete knowledge, especially one's that were later recanted, are not a good choice with which to form the basis of an argument.

The prerequisite for a panspermia process is an initial abiogenesis event somewhere and evolution to a space faring race. For that to occur and for that race to then reach Earth and seed 'life' on Earth and that life to then evolve to life as we know it now requires a time frame approaching that of the age of the Universe.

The panspermia idea does not remove the requirement for abiogenesis event - it just moves it off planet and further away in time. Occam's Razor requires us to look for the simpler answer and an earthly abiogenesis is much simpler than an off planet one.
edit on 29/8/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP




That thought experiment of infinites leads to what atheists do not like.

If there are infinite numbers of universes covering all infinite possible universes, one of those possible universes has to have an almighty creator because it is one possibility, therefore an almighty creator is an absolute known certainty, and being almighty controls all universes.


Nope, just the opposite.

The "absolute known certainty" which the 'existence' of an 'almighty creator' implies would be a violation of the Quantum Uncertainty Principle.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join