frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Evidence for Creation?

Debate Information

What evidence is there, other than religious texts, that creationism is correct? I am not looking for evidence that you believe contradicts evolution, because even if (and that's a really big if) evolution was disproven, that would not automatically mean creationism is correct. What experiments or tests could be performed to support your claim? Also, please define "kind."
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • OpenmindedOpenminded 193 Pts   -  
    @OakTownA
    I´m actually surprised there is no one debating this. but I´m new here and maybe it´s an old one.
    I believe in evolution. I believe it took billions of years to create earth - a process of living organisms developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth. For me creationism, supernatural acts, is just too simplistic and fantastical. And I´ll go a step further which will make be quite unpopular and say, I wonder if the belief in creationism, religion and the bible, have robbed the brains of extreme religious fanatics of their critical thinking skills.

    To me, evolution - being more complex - is by far the greatest show on earth.
    DreamerFactfinder
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    Oh i dont know; is there evidence that the universe was created by accident?  @Openminded
  • BarnardotBarnardot 521 Pts   -  
    @maxx @Openminded ;Oh i dont know; is there evidence that the universe was created by accident?  @Openminded

    Well if you don’t know and have to ask then you should take the que of Open minded and read The Greatest Show on Earth.

    I think it’s really creationists who came up with straw man saying about the universe was created by accident and if it was created by accident then in that case it was 1 mighty fu**ing humungos accident to put it mildly. So I reckon we don’t even need to look at such an unlikely option. 

    If you do read the book it makes it clear that the explanation of how the universe happened and how life came is not simple. In fact it’s horrible y complex. It’s just that people with spiritual minds get scarred of heaps of complex explanations and hate science so they don’t know and will never know because there minds are so simple and all they want is simple answers and will believe the first dum simple answer that comes along.

    Which is God of course. Nice and easy like jam on toast. And they accept that and all the prejudice homo hating crap fits in with there simple mind set any way. So read the book and you’ll find that it is complex but set out in layman language and the writer is an expert and no body but no body has ever contradictated his evidence. It is the best and most accurate and most accepted a count of life ever written. And it makes the Bible look what it is . Witch is a heap of crap.

    Dreamer
  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Just is

    Some would argue that the universe wasn't an accident or an intention carried out by some super being. Pointing to the laws of physics for support, then logically concluding everything in the universe, including us, was an inevitable out come. Logically sound because we (being comprised of space dust basically) are here as a point of fact. From there, both creationism and evolution are compelled to make leaps of logic. Creationist take evolutionary theory and say something like that "tree" of life demonstrates one god could've created life. Scientist however claim the evolutionary tree of life simply demonstrates all life is related to one origin and makes no claims any single, specific source of origin. to break the creation/evolution arguement down to it's simple form; creationist try to find evidence of god in existence. Science theoroises about existence and then tries to disclaim, or falsify their own theories before any facts are claimed. So my opinion as of now: it just is. That's the universe, it just is, till it isn't. Or we learn otherwise.  :)
    ZeusAres42
  • BoganBogan 422 Pts   -  
    "Matter can not be created or destroyed, it can only change from one form of matter or energy, into another."    First law of Physics.
    Factfinder
  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  
    Which makes me lean towards it just is. @Bogan
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 811 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Complexity

    Religious people say the Universe is so complex it must have been designed. 
  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  
    Have to agree @Openminded. To paraphrase the bible: faith is placed in the unseen simply because of what is seen. Earth exist? God did it! That's why it's called faith and it's tomfoolery to try to debate things of faith in scientific settings.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 521 Pts   -  
    @Factfinder
    ........and makes no claims any single, specific source of origin.

     ....to break the creation/evolution arguement down to it's simple form; creationist try to find evidence of god in existence. Science theoroises about existence and then tries to disclaim, or falsify their own theories before any facts are claimed. So my opinion as of now: it just is. That's the universe, it just is, till it isn't. Or we learn otherwise.  

    Hang on a bit there. If you do read the book you will find that not only has science made claims of any single specific source of origin  but it has actually proven it without making any false claims. So not only have we learned other wise as you put it but we know other wise.

    If you want to decide to stand there on the fense and say it just is then thats your business.

    But consider what creationists do also. We were made by God because God just is. And we dont have to look any further because God just is. 

    Also creationists have never looked for any scientific answers for there luny ideas because they come out with the dummest excuse ever. And that is God and spiritualness are beyond science. Amen and off the hook. 

    And I say like Hell because what gives then the right to make up some thing so illogical and 100% un proven and made up about being beyond science. What a load of crappola.

    So it comes back to being sentsible and reasonable. There is no such thing as any thing spiritual and we do know that all matter came from a single source of energy which we are under standing more about all the time. We will have that answer and it it a matter of when and not if. Which is very soon. 

    But still the creationists will deny the sky is not blue just because they want it to be red and nothing but a brain transplant will ever make them even consider other wis.

  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  
    Barnardot said:
    @Factfinder
    ........and makes no claims any single, specific source of origin.

     ....to break the creation/evolution arguement down to it's simple form; creationist try to find evidence of god in existence. Science theoroises about existence and then tries to disclaim, or falsify their own theories before any facts are claimed. So my opinion as of now: it just is. That's the universe, it just is, till it isn't. Or we learn otherwise.  

    Hang on a bit there. If you do read the book you will find that not only has science made claims of any single specific source of origin  but it has actually proven it without making any false claims. So not only have we learned other wise as you put it but we know other wise.

    If you want to decide to stand there on the fense and say it just is then thats your business.

    But consider what creationists do also. We were made by God because God just is. And we dont have to look any further because God just is. 

    Also creationists have never looked for any scientific answers for there luny ideas because they come out with the dummest excuse ever. And that is God and spiritualness are beyond science. Amen and off the hook. 

    And I say like Hell because what gives then the right to make up some thing so illogical and 100% un proven and made up about being beyond science. What a load of crappola.

    So it comes back to being sentsible and reasonable. There is no such thing as any thing spiritual and we do know that all matter came from a single source of energy which we are under standing more about all the time. We will have that answer and it it a matter of when and not if. Which is very soon. 

    But still the creationists will deny the sky is not blue just because they want it to be red and nothing but a brain transplant will ever make them even consider other wis.

     "If you do read the book you will find that not only has science made claims of any single specific source of origin  but it has actually proven it without making any false claims."

     What book are you referring to? I have never heard of any reputable scientific academic establishment or authority that asserts absolute knowledge of a proven single source for the universes existence or for our existence. Even the theory of evolution or abiogenesis claim to know the single source of all that is. That's not the way science works. It is quite the opposite. Science works to test it's knowledge. Claiming know for a fact the unverse came from one single source of energy is just simply inserting "energy" in the place of "god". Even in your own words above you say:

    "There is no such thing as any thing spiritual and we do know that all matter came from a single source of energy which we are under standing more about all the time. We will have that answer and it it a matter of when and not if."

    Admitting we do not know where or how the source of energy came to be. Just is.
  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: typo correction

     Even the theory of evolution or abiogenesis doesn't claim to know the single source of all that is.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 521 Pts   -  
    @Factfinder ;What book are you referring to?

    The Greatest Show on Earth.

    Sorry maybe I lead you to mis understand. I was talking about the single source of life which has been over whelmingly been proved. The big point about that is that accounts of creation have been 100% poo pooed by these facts. For example the age of the earth is nowhere near what the Bible says and nor were humans made before other animals. Even if you look at the universe there is not one peace of evidence or logic to show that it was some how created.

    No we have not yet determined fully how the energy source came to be but just like evolution I think its only a matter of time before we do have the answer.

  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot

    Thanks for clearing that up Barnardot. You may be right, we could discover it's source one day. I suspect it won't be in our life time though. :)
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Do you know who denied natural selection in favor of pseudo-science besides creationists? Stalin and according to Dr. Peter Hotez this caused between two and three million starvation deaths. Science denial AKA anti-science aggression is dangerous.

    GiantMan
  • BarnardotBarnardot 521 Pts   -  
    @Factfinder ;I suspect it won't be in our life time though.

    Unless your 99 years old I reckon its pretty well on the cards.

    All ready science is on the cups of making life eternal and that will happen within the next 30 years according to the experts.

    Just like cloning and AI the only hold backs are the nits who are to scarred that progression is going to destroy the earth. But you cant un invent the A bomb and you cant stop technology which is continuing to accelerate at brake neck speed.

  • just_sayinjust_sayin 855 Pts   -  
    Bogan said:
    "Matter can not be created or destroyed, it can only change from one form of matter or energy, into another."    First law of Physics.
    Science suggests that the universe began to expand from zero space (at least less than a planck length).  So tell me, just for laughs and giggles - how much stuff can you fit into zero space?  
    GiantMan
  • RickeyHoltsclawRickeyHoltsclaw 142 Pts   -  
    @OakTownA ;   There exists no other logical, plausible, explanation for our supernatural creation other than what the Holy Spirit has provided us in the Canon of Scripture as the Holy Spirit thoroughly and articulately explains the who, what, where, when, why, how, concerning our Creation, our Creator, His eschatological plan for Time and Eternity. Those who deny the supernatural evidence in Nature proclaiming the reality of our Creator and our omnipotent Designer are "without excuse" when they stand in the Judgment of the Condemned.


  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -   edited February 16
    @maxx

    We just know the universe exist. NOTHING suggest intent or design. Every layer of mystery that gets peeled back always leads to more layers of mystery albeit all evidence has been in the natural so far. Not sure if a universe by natural cause would be considered accidental or not. Of course 'universe' encapsulating all that exists including ourselves.
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 855 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    We just know the universe exist. NOTHING suggest intent or design. Every layer of mystery that gets peeled back always leads to more layers of mystery albeit all evidence has been in the natural so far. Not sure if a universe by natural cause would be considered accidental or not. Of course 'universe' encapsulating all that exists including ourselves.
    I'm never amazed at how much you can ignore evidence.  Here are a few quotes from scientists about how the universe looks like it was intentionally made:

    • John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA) : "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
    • Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) : "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
    • Roger Penrose (mathematician, Nobel Prize winner, and author) : "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."
    • “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. This is an extraordinary figure…. But why was the big bang so precisely organised ….. ?”  - The Emperor’s New MindRoger Penrose was Professor of Mathematics at Oxford and worked with Stephen Hawking. His use of the word “Creator” was (I believe) metaphorical.
    • Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist) : "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
    • Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic) : "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
    • Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics) : "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."  Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of Christianity .
    • Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists) : "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
    • Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics) : "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."
    • Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist) : "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
    • George Ellis (British astrophysicist) : "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."
    • Paul Davies (British astrophysicist) : "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine- tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
    • Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy) : "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
    • George Greenstein (astronomer) : "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
    • Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist) : "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."
    • “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.”  ― Isaac Newton
    • “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont, to be called Lord God παντοκρατωρ or Universal Ruler.” ― Isaac Newton
    • “If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it …The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves.”  Cosmic Coincidences, Martin Rees and John Gribbin
    • “can science explain the extraordinary fact that the universe appears to be uncannily, nay, spectacularly well-designed for our own existence? ….. to make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is almost certainly no accident.”  - The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent DesignLeonard Susskind is Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford, and an expert on string theory. He too believes the multiverse is the best scientific explanation of fine-tuning.
    • “Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229.”  - Life of the CosmosLee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist.
    • “In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we’re now able to tell a coherent story [of how the universe began]…This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God.” Joel Primack, Fellow of the American Physical Society, Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Cruz. He studies dark matter, particle astrophysics, cosmology and quantum field theory.
    The fact that the universe appears to be finely tuned is incontrovertible and is agreed on by both religious and atheist scientists.  To suggest that there is no evidence is to ignore, what even atheist scientists freely admit.   
    GiantMan
  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    We just know the universe exist. NOTHING suggest intent or design. Every layer of mystery that gets peeled back always leads to more layers of mystery albeit all evidence has been in the natural so far. Not sure if a universe by natural cause would be considered accidental or not. Of course 'universe' encapsulating all that exists including ourselves.
    I'm never amazed at how much you can ignore evidence.  Here are a few quotes from scientists about how the universe looks like it was intentionally made:

    • John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA) : "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
    • Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) : "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
    • Roger Penrose (mathematician, Nobel Prize winner, and author) : "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."
    • “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. This is an extraordinary figure…. But why was the big bang so precisely organised ….. ?”  - The Emperor’s New MindRoger Penrose was Professor of Mathematics at Oxford and worked with Stephen Hawking. His use of the word “Creator” was (I believe) metaphorical.
    • Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist) : "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
    • Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic) : "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
    • Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics) : "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."  Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of Christianity .
    • Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists) : "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
    • Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics) : "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."
    • Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist) : "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
    • George Ellis (British astrophysicist) : "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."
    • Paul Davies (British astrophysicist) : "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine- tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
    • Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy) : "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
    • George Greenstein (astronomer) : "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
    • Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist) : "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."
    • “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.”  ― Isaac Newton
    • “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont, to be called Lord God παντοκρατωρ or Universal Ruler.” ― Isaac Newton
    • “If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it …The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves.”  Cosmic Coincidences, Martin Rees and John Gribbin
    • “can science explain the extraordinary fact that the universe appears to be uncannily, nay, spectacularly well-designed for our own existence? ….. to make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is almost certainly no accident.”  - The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent DesignLeonard Susskind is Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford, and an expert on string theory. He too believes the multiverse is the best scientific explanation of fine-tuning.
    • “Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229.”  - Life of the CosmosLee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist.
    • “In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we’re now able to tell a coherent story [of how the universe began]…This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God.” Joel Primack, Fellow of the American Physical Society, Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Cruz. He studies dark matter, particle astrophysics, cosmology and quantum field theory.
    The fact that the universe appears to be finely tuned is incontrovertible and is agreed on by both religious and atheist scientists.  To suggest that there is no evidence is to ignore, what even atheist scientists freely admit.   
    The fact that you'd blatantly lie about  Lee Smolin's statement that has nothing to do with god really should make you reevaluate your fairy god book and you're allegiance to it, if you were honest that is. An atheist who converts to theism are not atheists saying god did it, they are theists saying god did it. So what? None have said they've discovered supernatural evidence. Your faith and appeals to authority along with a bowl of beans gets you a meal, nothing else. God of the gaps isn't science. Try again.
    GiantMan
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 855 Pts   -  

    The fact that you'd blatantly lie about  Lee Smolin's statement that has nothing to do with god really should make you reevaluate your fairy god book and you're allegiance to it, if you were honest that is. An atheist who converts to theism are not atheists saying god did it, they are theists saying god did it. So what? None have said they've discovered supernatural evidence. Your faith and appeals to authority along with a bowl of beans gets you a meal, nothing else. God of the gaps isn't science. Try again.
    Smolin's statement:

    Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229.”  - Life of the Cosmos. Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist.

    Shows that the odds of a universe with stars forming is astronomical.  It does have implications.  Which is more probable with those kinds of odds - that the universe just accidently got it right, or that there is some intelligence?  Again, you have a real blind spot when your faith is challenged.  The quotes were from a mix of Christians and atheists.  I mentioned that in my post.  The point is that the universe does appear to be finely tuned for life where even small variations would have resulted in no universe at all.  
    GiantMan
  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  

    The fact that you'd blatantly lie about  Lee Smolin's statement that has nothing to do with god really should make you reevaluate your fairy god book and you're allegiance to it, if you were honest that is. An atheist who converts to theism are not atheists saying god did it, they are theists saying god did it. So what? None have said they've discovered supernatural evidence. Your faith and appeals to authority along with a bowl of beans gets you a meal, nothing else. God of the gaps isn't science. Try again.
    Smolin's statement:

    Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229.”  - Life of the Cosmos. Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist.

    Shows that the odds of a universe with stars forming is astronomical.  It does have implications.  Which is more probable with those kinds of odds - that the universe just accidently got it right, or that there is some intelligence?  Again, you have a real blind spot when your faith is challenged.  The quotes were from a mix of Christians and atheists.  I mentioned that in my post.  The point is that the universe does appear to be finely tuned for life where even small variations would have resulted in no universe at all.  
    It says nothing of a god. The reason why there are no reputable odds on the existence of god posited is because there is NO EVIDENCE to base such odds on. Plus, not all scientists (in fact most do not) automatically assume an Abrahamic god when they contemplate a 'god' like creative force. You know that yet you deliberately misrepresent them, why? 
    GiantMan
  • RickeyHoltsclawRickeyHoltsclaw 142 Pts   -  
    @OakTownA @Factfinder ;  Darwinism-Evolution has zero evidence for its validity. The Holy Spirit is the only One who has explained the who, what, where, when, why, how, concerning our creation and eschatology relevant to where our temporary Earth and Heaven are headed. You're free to believe what the Holy Spirit has said and your free to believe what men have been unable to explain...I choose the Holy Spirit.


  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  
    @OakTownA @Factfinder ;  Darwinism-Evolution has zero evidence for its validity. The Holy Spirit is the only One who has explained the who, what, where, when, why, how, concerning our creation and eschatology relevant to where our temporary Earth and Heaven are headed. You're free to believe what the Holy Spirit has said and your free to believe what men have been unable to explain...I choose the Holy Spirit.


    Well your first sentence is absolutely false. The fact we must recalibrate the flu shot every year proves that erroneous claim wrong. Remember what your master told you?...

     Proverbs 17:28 
     Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
  • RickeyHoltsclawRickeyHoltsclaw 142 Pts   -  
    @OakTownA @Factfinder ;  Darwinism-Evolution has zero evidence for its validity. The Holy Spirit is the only One who has explained the who, what, where, when, why, how, concerning our creation and eschatology relevant to where our temporary Earth and Heaven are headed. You're free to believe what the Holy Spirit has said and your free to believe what men have been unable to explain...I choose the Holy Spirit.


    Well your first sentence is absolutely false. The fact we must recalibrate the flu shot every year proves that erroneous claim wrong. Remember what your master told you?...

     Proverbs 17:28 
     Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

    The variance and adaptability among viruses is NOT evidence for macro evolutionary theory. Speciation within a KIND is NOT evidence of evolution. Evolution...suggestive of molecules to man linear progression is bunk...never happened. Evolution is obfuscation for the demonic atheist...the sexual pervert...the abortionist...Progressive Marxist.

    Please, if you're responding to me...please add @rickeyholtsclaw so I receive your rebuttal?


    GiantMan
  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  
    @OakTownA @Factfinder ;  Darwinism-Evolution has zero evidence for its validity. The Holy Spirit is the only One who has explained the who, what, where, when, why, how, concerning our creation and eschatology relevant to where our temporary Earth and Heaven are headed. You're free to believe what the Holy Spirit has said and your free to believe what men have been unable to explain...I choose the Holy Spirit.


    Well your first sentence is absolutely false. The fact we must recalibrate the flu shot every year proves that erroneous claim wrong. Remember what your master told you?...

     Proverbs 17:28 
     Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

    The variance and adaptability among viruses is NOT evidence for macro evolutionary theory. Speciation within a KIND is NOT evidence of evolution. Evolution...suggestive of molecules to man linear progression is bunk...never happened. Evolution is obfuscation for the demonic atheist...the sexual pervert...the abortionist...Progressive Marxist.

    Please, if you're responding to me...please add @rickeyholtsclaw so I receive your rebuttal?


    You know less about science than you do your own fairy god elf book. 'Adaptation' is part of the evolutionary processes and is direct evidence supporting evolutionary theory. The theory itself explains diversity through decent. Adapting repeatedly over long periods of time leads to a species unrecognizable from when the adaption process initiated. Of course this is a very simplistic explanation of one aspect of the theory of evolution. No doubt it's still over your head as you think in terms of 'kinds' which comes out of your myth book. This is science we're talking about, not your imposter god.
  • RickeyHoltsclawRickeyHoltsclaw 142 Pts   -  
    @OakTownA @Factfinder ;  Darwinism-Evolution has zero evidence for its validity. The Holy Spirit is the only One who has explained the who, what, where, when, why, how, concerning our creation and eschatology relevant to where our temporary Earth and Heaven are headed. You're free to believe what the Holy Spirit has said and your free to believe what men have been unable to explain...I choose the Holy Spirit.


    Well your first sentence is absolutely false. The fact we must recalibrate the flu shot every year proves that erroneous claim wrong. Remember what your master told you?...

     Proverbs 17:28 
     Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

    The variance and adaptability among viruses is NOT evidence for macro evolutionary theory. Speciation within a KIND is NOT evidence of evolution. Evolution...suggestive of molecules to man linear progression is bunk...never happened. Evolution is obfuscation for the demonic atheist...the sexual pervert...the abortionist...Progressive Marxist.

    Please, if you're responding to me...please add @rickeyholtsclaw so I receive your rebuttal?


    You know less about science than you do your own fairy god elf book. 'Adaptation' is part of the evolutionary processes and is direct evidence supporting evolutionary theory. The theory itself explains diversity through decent. Adapting repeatedly over long periods of time leads to a species unrecognizable from when the adaption process initiated. Of course this is a very simplistic explanation of one aspect of the theory of evolution. No doubt it's still over your head as you think in terms of 'kinds' which comes out of your myth book. This is science we're talking about, not your imposter god.

    @Factfinder ;  Adaptation is not evolution...these markers were foreordained in the genome and they simply manifest by necessity due environmental pressures...they marker or behavior or survival tactic has, from the creation narrative forward, been written into the genome...it simply becomes activated by necessity for survival or interbreeding within a specif species having been isolated for one reason or another. 

    Where Darwin fooled you...is subtly changing and interchanging the use of "species" with "Biblical Kind." 

    KINDS is how Creator categorized His creation...Evolutionists reject this because it violates their false narrative...they can't fund the lies if KIND is reality.

     
  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  
    @OakTownA @Factfinder ;  Darwinism-Evolution has zero evidence for its validity. The Holy Spirit is the only One who has explained the who, what, where, when, why, how, concerning our creation and eschatology relevant to where our temporary Earth and Heaven are headed. You're free to believe what the Holy Spirit has said and your free to believe what men have been unable to explain...I choose the Holy Spirit.


    Well your first sentence is absolutely false. The fact we must recalibrate the flu shot every year proves that erroneous claim wrong. Remember what your master told you?...

     Proverbs 17:28 
     Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

    The variance and adaptability among viruses is NOT evidence for macro evolutionary theory. Speciation within a KIND is NOT evidence of evolution. Evolution...suggestive of molecules to man linear progression is bunk...never happened. Evolution is obfuscation for the demonic atheist...the sexual pervert...the abortionist...Progressive Marxist.

    Please, if you're responding to me...please add @rickeyholtsclaw so I receive your rebuttal?


    You know less about science than you do your own fairy god elf book. 'Adaptation' is part of the evolutionary processes and is direct evidence supporting evolutionary theory. The theory itself explains diversity through decent. Adapting repeatedly over long periods of time leads to a species unrecognizable from when the adaption process initiated. Of course this is a very simplistic explanation of one aspect of the theory of evolution. No doubt it's still over your head as you think in terms of 'kinds' which comes out of your myth book. This is science we're talking about, not your imposter god.

    @Factfinder ;  Adaptation is not evolution...these markers were foreordained in the genome and they simply manifest by necessity due environmental pressures...they marker or behavior or survival tactic has, from the creation narrative forward, been written into the genome...it simply becomes activated by necessity for survival or interbreeding within a specif species having been isolated for one reason or another. 

    Where Darwin fooled you...is subtly changing and interchanging the use of "species" with "Biblical Kind." 

    KINDS is how Creator categorized His creation...Evolutionists reject this because it violates their false narrative...they can't fund the lies if KIND is reality.

     
    "Evolutionists" Are you somehow referring evolutionary biologists? Science doesn't use terms like "foreordained' in explaining the facts behind scientific theory. Fairy god myth books and the gullible use that word when the authors or person doesn't understand what they're talking about. We are in a science thread so you quoting an elf god book doesn't support you fallacies. Adaptation is very much a part of evolutionary fact.
  • RickeyHoltsclawRickeyHoltsclaw 142 Pts   -  
    @OakTownA @Factfinder ;  Darwinism-Evolution has zero evidence for its validity. The Holy Spirit is the only One who has explained the who, what, where, when, why, how, concerning our creation and eschatology relevant to where our temporary Earth and Heaven are headed. You're free to believe what the Holy Spirit has said and your free to believe what men have been unable to explain...I choose the Holy Spirit.


    Well your first sentence is absolutely false. The fact we must recalibrate the flu shot every year proves that erroneous claim wrong. Remember what your master told you?...

     Proverbs 17:28 
     Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

    The variance and adaptability among viruses is NOT evidence for macro evolutionary theory. Speciation within a KIND is NOT evidence of evolution. Evolution...suggestive of molecules to man linear progression is bunk...never happened. Evolution is obfuscation for the demonic atheist...the sexual pervert...the abortionist...Progressive Marxist.

    Please, if you're responding to me...please add @rickeyholtsclaw so I receive your rebuttal?


    You know less about science than you do your own fairy god elf book. 'Adaptation' is part of the evolutionary processes and is direct evidence supporting evolutionary theory. The theory itself explains diversity through decent. Adapting repeatedly over long periods of time leads to a species unrecognizable from when the adaption process initiated. Of course this is a very simplistic explanation of one aspect of the theory of evolution. No doubt it's still over your head as you think in terms of 'kinds' which comes out of your myth book. This is science we're talking about, not your imposter god.

    @Factfinder ;  Adaptation is not evolution...these markers were foreordained in the genome and they simply manifest by necessity due environmental pressures...they marker or behavior or survival tactic has, from the creation narrative forward, been written into the genome...it simply becomes activated by necessity for survival or interbreeding within a specif species having been isolated for one reason or another. 

    Where Darwin fooled you...is subtly changing and interchanging the use of "species" with "Biblical Kind." 

    KINDS is how Creator categorized His creation...Evolutionists reject this because it violates their false narrative...they can't fund the lies if KIND is reality.

     
    "Evolutionists" Are you somehow referring evolutionary biologists? Science doesn't use terms like "foreordained' in explaining the facts behind scientific theory. Fairy god myth books and the gullible use that word when the authors or person doesn't understand what they're talking about. We are in a science thread so you quoting an elf god book doesn't support you fallacies. Adaptation is very much a part of evolutionary fact.

    @Factfinder ;  Evolution is not science or biology...it's a religion for fools seeking to justify their path to Hell in unbelief. Adaptation has nothing to do with the religion of evilution. Evilution is not subject to the scientific method nor can it...it's assumptions based upon assumptions.



  • just_sayinjust_sayin 855 Pts   -  

    The fact that you'd blatantly lie about  Lee Smolin's statement that has nothing to do with god really should make you reevaluate your fairy god book and you're allegiance to it, if you were honest that is. An atheist who converts to theism are not atheists saying god did it, they are theists saying god did it. So what? None have said they've discovered supernatural evidence. Your faith and appeals to authority along with a bowl of beans gets you a meal, nothing else. God of the gaps isn't science. Try again.
    Smolin's statement:

    Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229.”  - Life of the Cosmos. Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist.

    Shows that the odds of a universe with stars forming is astronomical.  It does have implications.  Which is more probable with those kinds of odds - that the universe just accidently got it right, or that there is some intelligence?  Again, you have a real blind spot when your faith is challenged.  The quotes were from a mix of Christians and atheists.  I mentioned that in my post.  The point is that the universe does appear to be finely tuned for life where even small variations would have resulted in no universe at all.  
    It says nothing of a god. The reason why there are no reputable odds on the existence of god posited is because there is NO EVIDENCE to base such odds on. Plus, not all scientists (in fact most do not) automatically assume an Abrahamic god when they contemplate a 'god' like creative force. You know that yet you deliberately misrepresent them, why? 
    The odds actually been calculated by atheists such as Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, and even Lee Simolin.  They all freely admit that the universe does appear to be incredibly finely turned and that there are no reasons that the fundamental forces have to have the values that they do if the universe was created by random chance.  Probabilities are used in science and in court rooms every day.  At a trial someone may point out the odds of someone having that same DNA signature or the odds of someone else having the same vehicle and partial license plate.  I suspect that you deny, what even atheist scientists readily admit to, because your atheistic faith will not allow you to be open to it.  

    The universe had a beginning, the best science we have says so.  Again, I ask the question, since the universe began to exist, and you can't have space, time, or matter, without a universe - how did it begin?  Just how much matter can you fit in zero space?  Your faith is worse than magic.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat.  Even though it is statistically much more likely that an intelligent force created the universe, you believe it came from nothing.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  I'm just not as good at playing pretend as you.
    GiantMan
  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -   edited February 19

    The fact that you'd blatantly lie about  Lee Smolin's statement that has nothing to do with god really should make you reevaluate your fairy god book and you're allegiance to it, if you were honest that is. An atheist who converts to theism are not atheists saying god did it, they are theists saying god did it. So what? None have said they've discovered supernatural evidence. Your faith and appeals to authority along with a bowl of beans gets you a meal, nothing else. God of the gaps isn't science. Try again.
    Smolin's statement:

    Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229.”  - Life of the Cosmos. Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist.

    Shows that the odds of a universe with stars forming is astronomical.  It does have implications.  Which is more probable with those kinds of odds - that the universe just accidently got it right, or that there is some intelligence?  Again, you have a real blind spot when your faith is challenged.  The quotes were from a mix of Christians and atheists.  I mentioned that in my post.  The point is that the universe does appear to be finely tuned for life where even small variations would have resulted in no universe at all.  
    It says nothing of a god. The reason why there are no reputable odds on the existence of god posited is because there is NO EVIDENCE to base such odds on. Plus, not all scientists (in fact most do not) automatically assume an Abrahamic god when they contemplate a 'god' like creative force. You know that yet you deliberately misrepresent them, why? 
    The odds actually been calculated by atheists such as Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, and even Lee Simolin.  They all freely admit that the universe does appear to be incredibly finely turned and that there are no reasons that the fundamental forces have to have the values that they do if the universe was created by random chance.  Probabilities are used in science and in court rooms every day.  At a trial someone may point out the odds of someone having that same DNA signature or the odds of someone else having the same vehicle and partial license plate.  I suspect that you deny, what even atheist scientists readily admit to, because your atheistic faith will not allow you to be open to it.  

    The universe had a beginning, the best science we have says so.  Again, I ask the question, since the universe began to exist, and you can't have space, time, or matter, without a universe - how did it begin?  Just how much matter can you fit in zero space?  Your faith is worse than magic.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat.  Even though it is statistically much more likely that an intelligent force created the universe, you believe it came from nothing.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  I'm just not as good at playing pretend as you.
    When was matter and energy created? Let me guess, god did it? How scientific. (sarcasm) Your fairy book tells you in proverbs how much it hates deception. You really should stop misrepresenting people on purpose. It's un christ like you know. So where is the reputable scholarly atheistic peer reviewed study where the empirical evidence pointed to your specific abrahamic god? Or are you just quoting out of context, misrepresenting what people say off the cuff in non scientific settings again? Calculating the presence of any god would be strictly a mathematical exercise that has nothing you do with your faith. I've said I can't say for sure no god exists, does that reinforce your faith too?  It takes critical thinking to be atheist, not faith.
  • RickeyHoltsclawRickeyHoltsclaw 142 Pts   -  

    The fact that you'd blatantly lie about  Lee Smolin's statement that has nothing to do with god really should make you reevaluate your fairy god book and you're allegiance to it, if you were honest that is. An atheist who converts to theism are not atheists saying god did it, they are theists saying god did it. So what? None have said they've discovered supernatural evidence. Your faith and appeals to authority along with a bowl of beans gets you a meal, nothing else. God of the gaps isn't science. Try again.
    Smolin's statement:

    Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229.”  - Life of the Cosmos. Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist.

    Shows that the odds of a universe with stars forming is astronomical.  It does have implications.  Which is more probable with those kinds of odds - that the universe just accidently got it right, or that there is some intelligence?  Again, you have a real blind spot when your faith is challenged.  The quotes were from a mix of Christians and atheists.  I mentioned that in my post.  The point is that the universe does appear to be finely tuned for life where even small variations would have resulted in no universe at all.  
    It says nothing of a god. The reason why there are no reputable odds on the existence of god posited is because there is NO EVIDENCE to base such odds on. Plus, not all scientists (in fact most do not) automatically assume an Abrahamic god when they contemplate a 'god' like creative force. You know that yet you deliberately misrepresent them, why? 
    The odds actually been calculated by atheists such as Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, and even Lee Simolin.  They all freely admit that the universe does appear to be incredibly finely turned and that there are no reasons that the fundamental forces have to have the values that they do if the universe was created by random chance.  Probabilities are used in science and in court rooms every day.  At a trial someone may point out the odds of someone having that same DNA signature or the odds of someone else having the same vehicle and partial license plate.  I suspect that you deny, what even atheist scientists readily admit to, because your atheistic faith will not allow you to be open to it.  

    The universe had a beginning, the best science we have says so.  Again, I ask the question, since the universe began to exist, and you can't have space, time, or matter, without a universe - how did it begin?  Just how much matter can you fit in zero space?  Your faith is worse than magic.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat.  Even though it is statistically much more likely that an intelligent force created the universe, you believe it came from nothing.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  I'm just not as good at playing pretend as you.
    When was matter and energy created? Let me guess, god did it? How scientific. (sarcasm) You fairy book tells you in proverbs how much it hates deception. You really should stop misrepresenting people on purpose. It's un christ like you know. So where is the reputable scholarly atheistic peer reviewed study where the empirical evidence pointed to your specific abrahamic god? Or are you just quoting out of context, misrepresenting what people say off the cuff in non scientific settings again? Calculating the presence of any god would be strictly a mathematical exercise that has nothing you do with your faith. I've said I can't say for sure no god exists, does that reinforce your faith too?  It takes critical thinking to be atheist, not faith.
    @Factfinder ; Our Creator IS "energy"...He is the origin of the "energy" we perceive via our senses as He is omnipotent...what does your eviloution say about energy, its genesis? "critical thinking" and atheism are not compatible nor are they logical.






  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  

    The fact that you'd blatantly lie about  Lee Smolin's statement that has nothing to do with god really should make you reevaluate your fairy god book and you're allegiance to it, if you were honest that is. An atheist who converts to theism are not atheists saying god did it, they are theists saying god did it. So what? None have said they've discovered supernatural evidence. Your faith and appeals to authority along with a bowl of beans gets you a meal, nothing else. God of the gaps isn't science. Try again.
    Smolin's statement:

    Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229.”  - Life of the Cosmos. Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist.

    Shows that the odds of a universe with stars forming is astronomical.  It does have implications.  Which is more probable with those kinds of odds - that the universe just accidently got it right, or that there is some intelligence?  Again, you have a real blind spot when your faith is challenged.  The quotes were from a mix of Christians and atheists.  I mentioned that in my post.  The point is that the universe does appear to be finely tuned for life where even small variations would have resulted in no universe at all.  
    It says nothing of a god. The reason why there are no reputable odds on the existence of god posited is because there is NO EVIDENCE to base such odds on. Plus, not all scientists (in fact most do not) automatically assume an Abrahamic god when they contemplate a 'god' like creative force. You know that yet you deliberately misrepresent them, why? 
    The odds actually been calculated by atheists such as Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, and even Lee Simolin.  They all freely admit that the universe does appear to be incredibly finely turned and that there are no reasons that the fundamental forces have to have the values that they do if the universe was created by random chance.  Probabilities are used in science and in court rooms every day.  At a trial someone may point out the odds of someone having that same DNA signature or the odds of someone else having the same vehicle and partial license plate.  I suspect that you deny, what even atheist scientists readily admit to, because your atheistic faith will not allow you to be open to it.  

    The universe had a beginning, the best science we have says so.  Again, I ask the question, since the universe began to exist, and you can't have space, time, or matter, without a universe - how did it begin?  Just how much matter can you fit in zero space?  Your faith is worse than magic.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat.  Even though it is statistically much more likely that an intelligent force created the universe, you believe it came from nothing.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  I'm just not as good at playing pretend as you.
    When was matter and energy created? Let me guess, god did it? How scientific. (sarcasm) You fairy book tells you in proverbs how much it hates deception. You really should stop misrepresenting people on purpose. It's un christ like you know. So where is the reputable scholarly atheistic peer reviewed study where the empirical evidence pointed to your specific abrahamic god? Or are you just quoting out of context, misrepresenting what people say off the cuff in non scientific settings again? Calculating the presence of any god would be strictly a mathematical exercise that has nothing you do with your faith. I've said I can't say for sure no god exists, does that reinforce your faith too?  It takes critical thinking to be atheist, not faith.
    @Factfinder ; Our Creator IS "energy"...He is the origin of the "energy" we perceive via our senses as He is omnipotent...what does your eviloution say about energy, its genesis? "critical thinking" and atheism are not compatible nor are they logical.






    Yawn, again, this is a science thread. Fairytale books are just as full of it here as in reality. 
  • RickeyHoltsclawRickeyHoltsclaw 142 Pts   -  
    @Factfinder ; OK Science Guy...use your "science" and explain the origin of energy.
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 855 Pts   -  

    The fact that you'd blatantly lie about  Lee Smolin's statement that has nothing to do with god really should make you reevaluate your fairy god book and you're allegiance to it, if you were honest that is. An atheist who converts to theism are not atheists saying god did it, they are theists saying god did it. So what? None have said they've discovered supernatural evidence. Your faith and appeals to authority along with a bowl of beans gets you a meal, nothing else. God of the gaps isn't science. Try again.
    Smolin's statement:

    Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229.”  - Life of the Cosmos. Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist.

    Shows that the odds of a universe with stars forming is astronomical.  It does have implications.  Which is more probable with those kinds of odds - that the universe just accidently got it right, or that there is some intelligence?  Again, you have a real blind spot when your faith is challenged.  The quotes were from a mix of Christians and atheists.  I mentioned that in my post.  The point is that the universe does appear to be finely tuned for life where even small variations would have resulted in no universe at all.  
    It says nothing of a god. The reason why there are no reputable odds on the existence of god posited is because there is NO EVIDENCE to base such odds on. Plus, not all scientists (in fact most do not) automatically assume an Abrahamic god when they contemplate a 'god' like creative force. You know that yet you deliberately misrepresent them, why? 
    The odds actually been calculated by atheists such as Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, and even Lee Simolin.  They all freely admit that the universe does appear to be incredibly finely turned and that there are no reasons that the fundamental forces have to have the values that they do if the universe was created by random chance.  Probabilities are used in science and in court rooms every day.  At a trial someone may point out the odds of someone having that same DNA signature or the odds of someone else having the same vehicle and partial license plate.  I suspect that you deny, what even atheist scientists readily admit to, because your atheistic faith will not allow you to be open to it.  

    The universe had a beginning, the best science we have says so.  Again, I ask the question, since the universe began to exist, and you can't have space, time, or matter, without a universe - how did it begin?  Just how much matter can you fit in zero space?  Your faith is worse than magic.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat.  Even though it is statistically much more likely that an intelligent force created the universe, you believe it came from nothing.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  I'm just not as good at playing pretend as you.
    When was matter and energy created? Let me guess, god did it? How scientific. (sarcasm) You fairy book tells you in proverbs how much it hates deception. You really should stop misrepresenting people on purpose. It's un christ like you know. So where is the reputable scholarly atheistic peer reviewed study where the empirical evidence pointed to your specific abrahamic god? Or are you just quoting out of context, misrepresenting what people say off the cuff in non scientific settings again? Calculating the presence of any god would be strictly a mathematical exercise that has nothing you do with your faith. I've said I can't say for sure no god exists, does that reinforce your faith too?  It takes critical thinking to be atheist, not faith.
    @Factfinder ; Our Creator IS "energy"...He is the origin of the "energy" we perceive via our senses as He is omnipotent...what does your eviloution say about energy, its genesis? "critical thinking" and atheism are not compatible nor are they logical.






    Yawn, again, this is a science thread. Fairytale books are just as full of it here as in reality. 
    The evidence of the red shift suggests that our universe had a beginning and is expanding.  The evidence when taken to its logical conclusion suggests that the universe was at one time no larger than planck size (or nothing at all).  Again, I ask the scientific question - how much matter can you fit in 0 space?  You can't have matter, time, or space without a universe.  In fact, scientific theory says space time and matter are all dependent upon one another and the universe is often referred to as spacetime.  There are serious scientific issues with any theory that posits that energy 'beyond' spacetime created the universe.  Considering the evidence of how finely tuned the universe is, it is most likely that the universe is the creation of a intelligent being.
    GiantMan
  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  

    The fact that you'd blatantly lie about  Lee Smolin's statement that has nothing to do with god really should make you reevaluate your fairy god book and you're allegiance to it, if you were honest that is. An atheist who converts to theism are not atheists saying god did it, they are theists saying god did it. So what? None have said they've discovered supernatural evidence. Your faith and appeals to authority along with a bowl of beans gets you a meal, nothing else. God of the gaps isn't science. Try again.
    Smolin's statement:

    Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229.”  - Life of the Cosmos. Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist.

    Shows that the odds of a universe with stars forming is astronomical.  It does have implications.  Which is more probable with those kinds of odds - that the universe just accidently got it right, or that there is some intelligence?  Again, you have a real blind spot when your faith is challenged.  The quotes were from a mix of Christians and atheists.  I mentioned that in my post.  The point is that the universe does appear to be finely tuned for life where even small variations would have resulted in no universe at all.  
    It says nothing of a god. The reason why there are no reputable odds on the existence of god posited is because there is NO EVIDENCE to base such odds on. Plus, not all scientists (in fact most do not) automatically assume an Abrahamic god when they contemplate a 'god' like creative force. You know that yet you deliberately misrepresent them, why? 
    The odds actually been calculated by atheists such as Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, and even Lee Simolin.  They all freely admit that the universe does appear to be incredibly finely turned and that there are no reasons that the fundamental forces have to have the values that they do if the universe was created by random chance.  Probabilities are used in science and in court rooms every day.  At a trial someone may point out the odds of someone having that same DNA signature or the odds of someone else having the same vehicle and partial license plate.  I suspect that you deny, what even atheist scientists readily admit to, because your atheistic faith will not allow you to be open to it.  

    The universe had a beginning, the best science we have says so.  Again, I ask the question, since the universe began to exist, and you can't have space, time, or matter, without a universe - how did it begin?  Just how much matter can you fit in zero space?  Your faith is worse than magic.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat.  Even though it is statistically much more likely that an intelligent force created the universe, you believe it came from nothing.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  I'm just not as good at playing pretend as you.
    When was matter and energy created? Let me guess, god did it? How scientific. (sarcasm) You fairy book tells you in proverbs how much it hates deception. You really should stop misrepresenting people on purpose. It's un christ like you know. So where is the reputable scholarly atheistic peer reviewed study where the empirical evidence pointed to your specific abrahamic god? Or are you just quoting out of context, misrepresenting what people say off the cuff in non scientific settings again? Calculating the presence of any god would be strictly a mathematical exercise that has nothing you do with your faith. I've said I can't say for sure no god exists, does that reinforce your faith too?  It takes critical thinking to be atheist, not faith.
    @Factfinder ; Our Creator IS "energy"...He is the origin of the "energy" we perceive via our senses as He is omnipotent...what does your eviloution say about energy, its genesis? "critical thinking" and atheism are not compatible nor are they logical.






    Yawn, again, this is a science thread. Fairytale books are just as full of it here as in reality. 
    The evidence of the red shift suggests that our universe had a beginning and is expanding.  The evidence when taken to its logical conclusion suggests that the universe was at one time no larger than planck size (or nothing at all).  Again, I ask the scientific question - how much matter can you fit in 0 space?  You can't have matter, time, or space without a universe.  In fact, scientific theory says space time and matter are all dependent upon one another and the universe is often referred to as spacetime.  There are serious scientific issues with any theory that posits that energy 'beyond' spacetime created the universe.  Considering the evidence of how finely tuned the universe is, it is most likely that the universe is the creation of a intelligent being.
    There is no evidence that the universe is fine tuned. You are misunderstanding science. https://www.technologyreview.com/2011/01/18/260556/evidence-emerges-that-laws-of-physics-are-not-fine-tuned-for-life/

    "An analogy here might be apt. Suppose that you’re captured by an alien race whose intentions are unclear, and they make you play Russian roulette. Then suppose that you win, and survive the game. If you are convinced by the fine-tuning argument, then you might be tempted to conclude that your captors wanted you to live.

    But imagine that you discover the revolver had five of six chambers loaded, and you just happened to pull the trigger on the one empty chamber. The discovery of this second fact doesn’t confirm the benevolence of your captors. It disconfirms it. The most rational conclusion is that your captors were hostile, but you got lucky.

    Similarly, the fine-tuning argument rests on an interesting discovery of physical cosmology that the odds were strongly stacked against life. But if God exists, then the odds didn’t have to be stacked this way. These bad odds could themselves be taken as evidence against the existence of God." 

    https://nautil.us/fine-tuning-does-not-imply-a-fine-tuner-236373/

    GiantMan
  • RickeyHoltsclawRickeyHoltsclaw 142 Pts   -  
    @Factfinder ;  How foolish is the atheist who denies the design before them mandating an omnipotent Designer?


    GiantMan
  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  
    @Factfinder ;  How foolish is the atheist who denies the design before them mandating an omnipotent Designer?


    Not quite as foolish as the theist mandating an imaginatory  jewish zombie do their thinking for them. 
    GiantMan
  • RickeyHoltsclawRickeyHoltsclaw 142 Pts   -   edited February 19
    @Factfinder ;  How foolish is the atheist who denies the design before them mandating an omnipotent Designer?


    Not quite as foolish as the theist mandating an imaginatory  jewish zombie do their thinking for them. 

    @Factfinder ; oh wise and prudent atheist...please confound us with your knowledge concerning the genesis of energy and matter? Please enlighten us and provide not only causation but purpose and reasoning...we humble ourselves before your mighty wisdom and knowledge oh omnipotent denier of reality.


  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  
    @Factfinder ;  How foolish is the atheist who denies the design before them mandating an omnipotent Designer?


    Not quite as foolish as the theist mandating an imaginatory  jewish zombie do their thinking for them. 

    @Factfinder ; oh wise and prudent atheist...please confound us with your knowledge concerning the genesis of energy and matter? Please enlighten us and provide not only causation but purpose and reasoning...we humble ourselves before your mighty wisdom and knowledge oh omnipotent denier of reality.


    Easy, god didn't do it.
  • RickeyHoltsclawRickeyHoltsclaw 142 Pts   -  
    @Factfinder ;  How foolish is the atheist who denies the design before them mandating an omnipotent Designer?


    Not quite as foolish as the theist mandating an imaginatory  jewish zombie do their thinking for them. 

    @Factfinder ; oh wise and prudent atheist...please confound us with your knowledge concerning the genesis of energy and matter? Please enlighten us and provide not only causation but purpose and reasoning...we humble ourselves before your mighty wisdom and knowledge oh omnipotent denier of reality.


    Easy, god didn't do it.

    @Factfinder ;  Prove Elohim did not create the Heavens and the Earth and your genome by providing a viable, logical, alternative explanation for the existence of matter, Time, your complex genome...please provide a logical explanation of how and why these things exist, apparently by unfathomable design? Please enlighten us via your "science" and intellect?


    GiantMan
  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  
    @Factfinder ;  How foolish is the atheist who denies the design before them mandating an omnipotent Designer?


    Not quite as foolish as the theist mandating an imaginatory  jewish zombie do their thinking for them. 

    @Factfinder ; oh wise and prudent atheist...please confound us with your knowledge concerning the genesis of energy and matter? Please enlighten us and provide not only causation but purpose and reasoning...we humble ourselves before your mighty wisdom and knowledge oh omnipotent denier of reality.


    Easy, god didn't do it.

    @Factfinder ;  Prove Elohim did not create the Heavens and the Earth and your genome by providing a viable, logical, alternative explanation for the existence of matter, Time, your complex genome...please provide a logical explanation of how and why these things exist, apparently by unfathomable design? Please enlighten us via your "science" and intellect?


    Prove it did. It's your assertion your perverted unholy genocidal god elf created everything in days. Prove the wench really did it. Scientifically, your myth book is for gullible children, not real men or anything to do with reality. 
  • RickeyHoltsclawRickeyHoltsclaw 142 Pts   -  
    @Factfinder ;  How foolish is the atheist who denies the design before them mandating an omnipotent Designer?


    Not quite as foolish as the theist mandating an imaginatory  jewish zombie do their thinking for them. 

    @Factfinder ; oh wise and prudent atheist...please confound us with your knowledge concerning the genesis of energy and matter? Please enlighten us and provide not only causation but purpose and reasoning...we humble ourselves before your mighty wisdom and knowledge oh omnipotent denier of reality.


    Easy, god didn't do it.

    @Factfinder ;  Prove Elohim did not create the Heavens and the Earth and your genome by providing a viable, logical, alternative explanation for the existence of matter, Time, your complex genome...please provide a logical explanation of how and why these things exist, apparently by unfathomable design? Please enlighten us via your "science" and intellect?


    Prove it did. It's your assertion your perverted unholy genocidal god elf created everything in days. Prove the wench really did it. Scientifically, your myth book is for gullible children, not real men or anything to do with reality. 

    @Factfinder ;  This I know...Supernatural Nature is before me...no one but the Scriptures and Jesus have explained it. The Scriptures clearly, articulately, explain the who, what, where, when, why, how, concerning Time, the Universe, this Earth, my genome, my destiny, my purpose, and these are under girded by 100% accurate eschatology that is simply beyond human comprehension. 

    I believed what I read and my life was changed, forever...  I found nothing in the study of genetics, biology, that suggested mankind has any human explanation for anything related to the origin of matter, Time, logic, reason, our genome, our purpose....no religions on the Earth explain these things...but a Book that is thousands of years old and has been maintained, preserved, through the most horrific onslaught of evil yet it survives and there are extant copies and manuscripts, recent discoveries, that prove its accuracy, its validity, its historicity.

    I trust Jesus, I trust the Holy Spirit, I trust the Father and what they have said.


  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  
    @RickeyHoltsclaw

    That's fine for you. However it doesn't make me evil because I don't share your faith. 
  • RickeyHoltsclawRickeyHoltsclaw 142 Pts   -  
    @RickeyHoltsclaw

    That's fine for you. However it doesn't make me evil because I don't share your faith. 

    @Factfinder ;  If you deny Jesus, you serve the devil by default...that makes you evil...you might disagree...you might be angry...you might hate me for telling you the Truth...but when you stand in the Judgment, on that Day....you can't say I did not tell you or that you never heard at any time that Jesus was the ONLY WAY to the Father...because I've told you, I've warned you...but you would NOT LISTEN! Jesus clearly warned....


  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  
    @RickeyHoltsclaw

    That's fine for you. However it doesn't make me evil because I don't share your faith. 

    @Factfinder ;  If you deny Jesus, you serve the devil by default...that makes you evil...you might disagree...you might be angry...you might hate me for telling you the Truth...but when you stand in the Judgment, on that Day....you can't say I did not tell you or that you never heard at any time that Jesus was the ONLY WAY to the Father...because I've told you, I've warned you...but you would NOT LISTEN! Jesus clearly warned....


    I'm not angry nor do I hate you. You just lack the logic to see things clearly. If god created everything, then he had to create disbelief. How reasonable is it to punish that what you created?
  • RickeyHoltsclawRickeyHoltsclaw 142 Pts   -   edited February 19
    @RickeyHoltsclaw

    That's fine for you. However it doesn't make me evil because I don't share your faith. 

    @Factfinder ;  If you deny Jesus, you serve the devil by default...that makes you evil...you might disagree...you might be angry...you might hate me for telling you the Truth...but when you stand in the Judgment, on that Day....you can't say I did not tell you or that you never heard at any time that Jesus was the ONLY WAY to the Father...because I've told you, I've warned you...but you would NOT LISTEN! Jesus clearly warned....


    I'm not angry nor do I hate you. You just lack the logic to see things clearly. If god created everything, then he had to create disbelief. How reasonable is it to punish that what you created?

    @Factfinder ;  Some things exist as a result of others not necessarily requiring creative intent but they exist by default. In order for love and intimacy with our Creator to exist with authenticity and reciprocal pleasure and shared intimacy, both our Creator and the created must the possess the volition, free will, to choose that relationship or reject it. 

    True love cannot be coerced, manipulated, forced, but it must flow freely from the heart; for this reality to manifest there must be the possibility of unbelief-rejection-denial; otherwise, belief-trust-faith can never be considered legitimate or authentic because the opposites would not be possible or were not a choice. Righteousness could never be realized as true righteousness and praised lest the one expressing righteousness possessed the volition to choose evil.

    Unbelief and Evil are defaults...like a hole is the absence of dirt...the hole exists but did not have to be created it exists due the absence of dirt. Hate exists as the absence of Love. Sin exists as the absence of Obedience. 

     
  • FactfinderFactfinder 616 Pts   -  
    @RickeyHoltsclaw

    Sorry but you fail again. If evil is the default position of resisting the notion god exist, then god willingly created evil, as its word says.  
  • RickeyHoltsclawRickeyHoltsclaw 142 Pts   -  
    @RickeyHoltsclaw

    Sorry but you fail again. If evil is the default position of resisting the notion god exist, then god willingly created evil, as its word says.  

    @Factfinder ;  I disagree....Our Creator has given His all for you that you choose to trust Him by faith...It is our Creator who gives faith, not evil or unbelief...these things exist as a default of faith and trust and belief; otherwise, you could never truly believe with authenticity, or trust or possess faith, you would be robotic. 

    Unbelief does not have to be created but exists by necessity due free will as the default to Belief-Faith; otherwise, Belief-Faith could not exist or possess value as there was no alternative...robotism negates authenticity and reciprocal relevance. Our Creator is perfect Righteousness...if evil was not the default of Righteousness, true Righteousness could never exist as nothing negating it was a free will choice.  Evil exists as a necessary default of Righteousness. Why is one considered righteous? Due to their free will decision to reject evil.
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 855 Pts   -   edited February 19

    The fact that you'd blatantly lie about  Lee Smolin's statement that has nothing to do with god really should make you reevaluate your fairy god book and you're allegiance to it, if you were honest that is. An atheist who converts to theism are not atheists saying god did it, they are theists saying god did it. So what? None have said they've discovered supernatural evidence. Your faith and appeals to authority along with a bowl of beans gets you a meal, nothing else. God of the gaps isn't science. Try again.
    Smolin's statement:

    Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229.”  - Life of the Cosmos. Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist.

    Shows that the odds of a universe with stars forming is astronomical.  It does have implications.  Which is more probable with those kinds of odds - that the universe just accidently got it right, or that there is some intelligence?  Again, you have a real blind spot when your faith is challenged.  The quotes were from a mix of Christians and atheists.  I mentioned that in my post.  The point is that the universe does appear to be finely tuned for life where even small variations would have resulted in no universe at all.  
    It says nothing of a god. The reason why there are no reputable odds on the existence of god posited is because there is NO EVIDENCE to base such odds on. Plus, not all scientists (in fact most do not) automatically assume an Abrahamic god when they contemplate a 'god' like creative force. You know that yet you deliberately misrepresent them, why? 
    The odds actually been calculated by atheists such as Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, and even Lee Simolin.  They all freely admit that the universe does appear to be incredibly finely turned and that there are no reasons that the fundamental forces have to have the values that they do if the universe was created by random chance.  Probabilities are used in science and in court rooms every day.  At a trial someone may point out the odds of someone having that same DNA signature or the odds of someone else having the same vehicle and partial license plate.  I suspect that you deny, what even atheist scientists readily admit to, because your atheistic faith will not allow you to be open to it.  

    The universe had a beginning, the best science we have says so.  Again, I ask the question, since the universe began to exist, and you can't have space, time, or matter, without a universe - how did it begin?  Just how much matter can you fit in zero space?  Your faith is worse than magic.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat.  Even though it is statistically much more likely that an intelligent force created the universe, you believe it came from nothing.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  I'm just not as good at playing pretend as you.
    When was matter and energy created? Let me guess, god did it? How scientific. (sarcasm) You fairy book tells you in proverbs how much it hates deception. You really should stop misrepresenting people on purpose. It's un christ like you know. So where is the reputable scholarly atheistic peer reviewed study where the empirical evidence pointed to your specific abrahamic god? Or are you just quoting out of context, misrepresenting what people say off the cuff in non scientific settings again? Calculating the presence of any god would be strictly a mathematical exercise that has nothing you do with your faith. I've said I can't say for sure no god exists, does that reinforce your faith too?  It takes critical thinking to be atheist, not faith.
    @Factfinder ; Our Creator IS "energy"...He is the origin of the "energy" we perceive via our senses as He is omnipotent...what does your eviloution say about energy, its genesis? "critical thinking" and atheism are not compatible nor are they logical.






    Yawn, again, this is a science thread. Fairytale books are just as full of it here as in reality. 
    The evidence of the red shift suggests that our universe had a beginning and is expanding.  The evidence when taken to its logical conclusion suggests that the universe was at one time no larger than planck size (or nothing at all).  Again, I ask the scientific question - how much matter can you fit in 0 space?  You can't have matter, time, or space without a universe.  In fact, scientific theory says space time and matter are all dependent upon one another and the universe is often referred to as spacetime.  There are serious scientific issues with any theory that posits that energy 'beyond' spacetime created the universe.  Considering the evidence of how finely tuned the universe is, it is most likely that the universe is the creation of a intelligent being.
    There is no evidence that the universe is fine tuned. You are misunderstanding science. https://www.technologyreview.com/2011/01/18/260556/evidence-emerges-that-laws-of-physics-are-not-fine-tuned-for-life/

    "An analogy here might be apt. Suppose that you’re captured by an alien race whose intentions are unclear, and they make you play Russian roulette. Then suppose that you win, and survive the game. If you are convinced by the fine-tuning argument, then you might be tempted to conclude that your captors wanted you to live.

    But imagine that you discover the revolver had five of six chambers loaded, and you just happened to pull the trigger on the one empty chamber. The discovery of this second fact doesn’t confirm the benevolence of your captors. It disconfirms it. The most rational conclusion is that your captors were hostile, but you got lucky.

    Similarly, the fine-tuning argument rests on an interesting discovery of physical cosmology that the odds were strongly stacked against life. But if God exists, then the odds didn’t have to be stacked this way. These bad odds could themselves be taken as evidence against the existence of God." 

    https://nautil.us/fine-tuning-does-not-imply-a-fine-tuner-236373/

    I laughed hysterically at your MIT article.  Forgive me, if I get too technical or in the weeds for you.

    The guy's premise is this:

    Therefore the measured value of the cosmological constant, which is positive, is evidence against the idea that the constants have been fine-tuned for life.
    Roger Penrose is no doubt shaking his head in disbelief.  The ratio for the amount of variance that is permissible in the low entropy of the universe that would allow for an expanding universe with matter that didn't immediately collapse in upon itself is 1 part in 10 to 123rd power.  To put this into perspective for you, there are approximately 1 in 10 to the 60th power number of particles in the universe (not atoms, but the stuff that makes up atoms).  That means that if you were off by one electron in 1 part in 10 to the 60th that it wouldn't work for for that number, but 10^123rd is a much more massive number, meaning that the amount of variance permissible is much much less than 1 electron + or - in the universe.  

    There are lots of scientific implications to this statement (all of which devastate theories about energy fluctuations, universes created by inflationary theories, and expanding/contracting models).  

    Until recently, cosmologists had assumed that the constant was zero, a neat solution. But the recent evidence that the universe is not just expanding but accelerating away from us, suggests that the constant is positive. 

    If true, this is far more devastating for numerous scientific theories, but not a universe created by a God.  For example, Lawrence Krauss' universe from nothing is immediately eliminated.  He believes that a quantum fluctuation created the universe and his theory is dependent on the constant being  zero to work, even in theory.  The theory fails anyway on easily calculated time frames of how long a quantum fluctuation with enough energy/mass to create a universe can last  and the time needed to create the fundamental forces which would permit/trigger inflation.  The math says the fluctuation would always last for too short of a time to form the fundamental forces needed for inflation.

    It seems the guy is arguing that if God had created the world he would have been even more precise than he was.  This is an incredibly weak argument.  it is the equivalent of saying that the Mona Lisa is not a masterpiece because you believe it could have been painted even more perfectly.  Please tell me you weren't fooled by this argument.  You are better than this.  It assumes to know the mind of God and falsely assumes that God has limited resources to work with and can't spare anything in his creative work.  

    Considering the staggering odds, a much better gun analogy would be if you were in front of a firing squad with 10^123 number of guns pointed out you and they all fired and missed.  You could reason that you were still alive, so they all had to have missed, but it would not explain to you how so many bullets missed you.  Keep trying.  I think it may be helpful to you work your way through a lot of these theories, it will help you to realize how the evidence does suggest that there is an intelligence at work in the design of the universe.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch