This did not come about by chance...

Now you are just being contentious! The very link and pull quote I posted answers your question. This dumb act is wearing quite thin!

 

I do not believe it is an act.

 

Space is a property of matter.
It always is required when matter appears, because matter attracts other matter and takes up space to contain it.

 

Hahaaaa,...
Pretty good try.
Not bad.

But the trinity is Matter, Space/time, and Energy, (which comes in seven different forms and can be "on,"... kinetic,... or "off,"... potential.

 

What, the dumb act of trying to get you to add some scientific evidence to support your religious beliefs? Rather than whining about your lack of evidence, admit you have been brain-washed and now will look at ALL scientific evidence and think for yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

Based on what? Space had to exist before the matter was added to it.

 

No, your dumb act of asking a question that was answered in the very post you quoted and replied to with your question..
That dumb act.

 

Yes, but the Trinity is Truth, which is the image of Reality.
Reality gives birth to Truth as it unfolds.
The spirit of Truth is available to us and is our savior.

 

The answer was dumber than you assume the question was. Deflecting the issue is all you have remaining.

 

If that was so, you would have pointed out the flaw in the example cited by the link and the pull quote rather than ask for an example after an example was already given in the link and pull quote.

 

Okay you have succeeded in thoroughly confusing the issue (and me).

The OP is, explain how the organelles and the information they need to function could have happened by random, chance mutations from a mud puddle. Let us start at the beginning and you can explain.

 

If there was an origin point of the CMB, it would completely invalidate the big bang theory. I suggest you learn the difference between expansion and explosion.

 

All the sci-fi stories and graphics claim "a point no larger the the dot at the end of this sentence, exploded".

 

The dumb act won't work with me, I won't let you dodge entropy.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=388703&page=19&p=1064596664#post1064596664

 

We agree the 2LoT states entropy increases. My point is, if we agree entropy increases then we must also agree that life from a mud puddle would be a decrease in entropy as would any kind of animal increasing in complexity to become another kind of animal.

There are so many claims by evolutionists that are contrary to the 2LoT and 1LoT, I find it hard to understand how they can justify their beliefs which is why it is a sort of blind-faith.

 

Dark matter? You mean that invisible stuff physicists had to create to keep their existing equations from crumbling?

How exactly is the idea of dark matter different from a theist imposing god into the picture, which also cannot be seen, but who's presence can be conjectured?

Dark matter is there by inference, or am I off base here? That is, the very existence of galaxies, infers that it has to be there? Otherwise there isn't enough gravitational force to create their patterns? To hold them them together. And of course gravity goes with mass, matter. One doesn't exist without the other.

Yet it is invisible matter. How can that be? How can matter, which is basically more space than atoms, also have invisible atoms? So, since we cannot hold dark matter in our hand, nor can we observe it directly, the theist would simply say that since it is exerting a force, like gravity, that this force is proof of an invisible old man sitting on his throne, playing with the visible universe. Not that I think that, but just saying.

This deal with dark matter, much like what we know that goes on at the quantum level looks much like magic. And magic belongs in the realm of gods sitting on thrones. The supernatural. I think I read once that around 80 percent of this universe is invisible, and obviously the idea of a god is also invisible. How do you discern what that invisible is?

 

From the measurements of its effect on the visible, the same way we knew there were planets we couldn't yet see with our instruments but we knew they were there because of how they affected the orbits of the planets we could see.

 

I see nothing on that page claiming that the CMB is too uniform or otherwise problematic to explain. Quite the opposite, it says there is agreement with the theory.

 

So is it true that free oxygen can only be created by photosynthesis?

 

A mode that is not consistently changed?

In what year would you have preferred that we stop science?

 

I think the question is closer to asking what other process could have come into existence and changed earth's atmosphere dramatically about 2 billion years ago..

When bacteria learned how to do photosynthesis about 2 billion years ago earth's atmosphere changed dramatically.

If you find such a process, you could become a famous name in science!

 

Look for yourself, the heat pattern is equal across the far edges of the universe.

 

1. Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.

 

Which has nothing to do with imaginary dark matter.

This is the problem with evolutionists they predict something or claim a fact, then when confronted with scientific evidence contrary to their assumptions, they make up crap as they go.

Comets come from some imaginary Oort Cloud, Dark Matter, and multiple universes, and Mork from Ork seeding the Earth. Scheesch!

 

In what year will evolutionists begin using science and admit their religious dogma is false.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Your ideas on this are contrary to physics and have been debunked in the past - on this and other threads as well as in other literature as can be found by simple searches.

Why do you keep bringing up this failed direction?

At least cite something where the argument you are struggling to make is being made by someone with greater understanding of physics.