Eight Foot Manchild
His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
- Sep 9, 2010
- 2,389
- 1,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Explain the difference other than your magical belief in time.
One question: How long do you think it took? I am sure you have used your Ph.D in many scientific disciplines, to study both sides of the genetic mutation information. So now, with your vast knowledge of how this works, how long did it take for the thousands of animals in the Cambrian explosion (actually a scientific term) to go from a simple worm to extremely complex bony things etc.?So you don't know how long it is.
This is like debating with a child.
Good day (again).
You don't think scientists fudge their results sometimes so they can keep their donors happy and contributing to their careers?What a creative story.
I think I'm done here.
Good day.
Look at post #147You link only asserts that the values are fine tuned.
It does not supply supporting evidence.
It's possible I've missed it. Could you (in your own words) briefly summarise the evidence that has convinced you?
The links you provide are not supporting your assertion.
All the best.
Oh, that's right! I'm only an atheist because I like to sin, yep. /sYes I can.
But now you have brought up the multiuniverse argument against a Superior Being that specially designed this universe.
Stephen Hawking is the big atheist advocate for this theory. He has said that this universe is so special and so precision that it looks like there should be some kind of a Superior Designer, so his thoughtful argument to that ghastly concept centers around his multiuniverse theory.
He says that because there are countless universes, it only makes sense that 1 of them would have the special qualities that this universe has.
Therefore, he is able to keep 'the chance happening' scenerio alive, and knock God out of the equation with one single theory. How convenient. Now I can keep sinning and carrying on in any manner that I wish, because there is no God to worry about, you know consequences for my actions, and all that stuff.
Oh bloody hell, this will never die. Just a theory, yep. Just like how an Olympic gold-medalist is "just an athlete."The only problem is that there is not one shred of evidence that has been brought forth to confirm a 2nd universe, let alone countless universes. Remember it is just a theory, it is not reality, yet.
Religion doesn't horrify me. The horrific wars and massacres that it's sparked do, though.I say yet, because we may very well find a 2nd universe, some time in our future. But I will suggest, to the horror of people like Stephen Hawking, that the 2nd universe will be as special a universe as the one we live in and that a Superior Being designed it too. Wow, what a scientific mind blower.
...my analogy specifically stated that there was only one pond that could sustain consciousness. If all universes can sustain consciousness - well, then, your argument is moot! (It's still moot regardless, though, because of the anthropic principle.)As for the pondfish, he was right. It was incredibly improbable that he was placed in that pond. But he was wrong about the pond 1 meter to the south. It too had fish that could think and were aware of themselves, just like him. It is because that pond was designed by the same Superior Being that designed his pond, and his form, and his existence.
Funny - when I have defeated you on the field of science and logic, you retreat to religion. Escape hatches are not fun.So when we think of multiuniverses, it does not eliminate God, it expands His presence. He is all in all.
It is a beautiful study, how God uses nature to accomplish His purposes. Change your paradigm just a little to include a Superior Being in your theories, and see how answers to questions just start popping out in regular cadence. Your life will be different.
That is what science is confirming now and for many years, that even a simple living cell is not simple, it is very complex. Which helps me decide that a complex cell has a zero chance of making itself up, and being able to replicate itself, therefore there needed to be more that a 'chance happening' process going on here. There needed to be a Superior Intelligence that was making it happen.There has been no scientific experiment or scientific observation that has confirmed the ability for random, unintelligent, non-living chemicals to swirl around in a soup-like solution and eventually produce 1 simple living cell with the capability to reproduce itself.
But then a single cell is hardly simple.
...which is why we don't say that complex cells simply "made themselves." Try sciencing correctly, it's rather fun.That is what science is confirming now and for many years, that even a simple living cell is not simple, it is very complex. Which helps me decide that a complex cell has a zero chance of making itself up, and being able to replicate itself, therefore there needed to be more that a 'chance happening' process going on here. There needed to be a Superior Intelligence that was making it happen.
Thanks for the discussion.
Explain the difference other than your magical belief in time.
You don't think scientists fudge their results sometimes so they can keep their donors happy and contributing to their careers?
The global warming scientists showed us how stupid they think we are, and how important it was to come up with good global warming data for their donors, as they plugged in falsified numbers to show us that there is indeed global warming.
Science today is a big-buck business, and science today is more and more a godless business. So whatever we have to do to keep our grant going, we do it, and whatever we can do to put some doubt in the God-fearing, we will do it, no matter if it is the truth or not.
That is what science is confirming now and for many years, that even a simple living cell is not simple, it is very complex. Which helps me decide that a complex cell has a zero chance of making itself up, and being able to replicate itself, therefore there needed to be more that a 'chance happening' process going on here. There needed to be a Superior Intelligence that was making it happen.
Thanks for the discussion.
Let me once again demonstrate what I mean by fine-tuning:
The mass of the proton divided by the mass of the electron is 1836.15267245.
This important scientific ratio has its own symbol (u) and is considered a miraculous constant because it has held to be true since the beginning of time and in all quadrants of the universe.
Science cannot explain how this ratio came into existence
and they cannot explain how all protons and electrons ever existing can maintain this constant ratio.
Science does know this: this ratio is so miraculous that if it were larger or smaller by 1 in 10^37 THERE WOULD BE NO LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE.
Here is one more:
The neutron (n) weighs 1.00137841870 times greater than a proton (p).
This exact weight difference, allows the neutron to decay readily into protons, electrons, and neutrinos, a process that assures the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium and gave us a universe that is dominated by hydrogen.
If this weight ratio between neutron and proton were just slightly larger, we would be living in a universe with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to come forth.
If this weight ratio was just slightly smaller, protons would decay into neutrons, leaving the universe without atoms.
The result of a smaller or larger ratio would mean NO LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE.
Now that I, the simpleton have demonstrated
2 of hundreds of universal constants, I ask you, who must have a phD in Quantum theory to explain:
1) how these constants came into existence?
2) how they have maintained themselves over billions of years?
In your answer you cannot use the concept of a 'random chance happening', because there is a zero possiblility that a random, unintelligent force has performed such a precise creation, and has maintained this precise condition for billions of years.
Remember: random, unintelligent nature has a tendency to decay, rot, go out of sync, etc.
First, I notice you did not explain the difference, so I will take that as an unable to. Second, evolutionists DO believe that time is magical, with enough of it Anything can happen, even an amoeba can become a human. If that is not magic I don't what is.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Explain the difference other than your magical belief in time.
efm: You're confused. Magic is what you believe in..
First, I notice you did not explain the difference, so I will take that as an unable to.
Second, evolutionists DO believe that time is magical, with enough of it Anything can happen, even an amoeba can become a human. If that is not magic I don't what is.
I believe there is climate change. If you have read any history about climate change, you know that it does change.I have no doubt that some will.
They are humans, after all.
Yea... it's a world wide satanic conspiracy.
Meanwhile, polar ice is at an all time low, eco systems are being turned upside down, entire species of crucial insects are slowely going extinct, tornado's are showing up in Italy and temperature records are broken every other day.
ps: how do you breath, with your head locked so deep in the sand?
OK, if the first simple cell did not make itself, then who or what did?...which is why we don't say that complex cells simply "made themselves." Try sciencing correctly, it's rather fun.
Read my posts #140, and #147.Ok.
Wouldn't it be strange if it were not true? Why would you expect the properties of electrons or protons to evolve?
Therefore God...?
If two protons were of different masses, would they both be protons?
Science knows this? Where is your source?
Again you provide no source.
Protons would decay into neutrons? In what finely tuned universe does that make sense? A proton decays into a proton-electron bundle?
Source...?
Actually you have demonstrated nothing until you provide your sources.
I don't think I need to answer any of that because you have demonstrated nothing whatsoever.
Loaded question.Read my posts #140, and #147.
1) Besides 'random chance happenings' what caused the hundreds of precision constants to come together in this universe?
Not even wrong. By definition constants are constant.2) how have these constants maintained themselves over billions of years?
OK, if the first simple cell did not make itself, then who or what did?
Give me your scientific answer in a couple of paragraphs. Remember, I know almost nothing, so you can dumb it down for me. Give it a try.
Read my posts #140,
and #147.
This is your ready made response. I see you use this response to other forum contributors.
You give zero demonstrations for your position, but you demand a thorough demonstration of my position.
It's like your position is so solid and factual, and it is my position that is not. So you don't have to back up your position, but I have to back up mine.
So again, here is the questions I ask you to demonstrate from the scientific postition.
1) Besides 'random chance happenings' what caused the hundreds of precision constants to come together in this universe?
2) how have these constants maintained themselves over billions of years?
Thanks in advance for answering these 2 questions.
Oh, that's right! I'm only an atheist because I like to sin, yep. /s
Oh bloody hell, this will never die. Just a theory, yep. Just like how an Olympic gold-medalist is "just an athlete."
There's no evidence for your God, either, but you infer that he exists from this supposed "fine-tuning" that you observe. Double standards are not fun.
Funny - when I have defeated you on the field of science and logic, you retreat to religion. Escape hatches are not fun.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?