Atheism

[jem]

Such is the advice from Bernard Carr in grappling with the fascinating discovery that the physics of the universe had to be fine-tuned if it were to support life. Carr views the only viable options as being either God or a multiverse (the theory that there are a vast number of other universes). Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind also calls our attention to these relatively recent discoveries: “Science may be undergoing a huge course correction, a paradigm shift. A titanic controversy has erupted over the strange anthropic pattern that nature seems to exhibit – the pattern of extraordinary unexplained coincidences that are necessary for our own existence.[1]”


http://crossexamined.org/god-or-multiverse/

 

[OddTrader]

Evolution?

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index.php?threads/amazing-nature.300250/

 

[jem]

I think there is evidence of evolution once life formed.

Evolution?

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index.php?threads/amazing-nature.300250/

 

[stu]

and there is evidence of chemical evolution before life formed.

 

[jem]

which is part of the hypothesis of how non life evolved into life. So far science does not have a plausible complete pathway of how non life may have evolved into life.

and there is evidence of chemical evolution before life formed.

 

[CaptainObvious]

and there is evidence of chemical evolution before life formed.

Abiogenesis is not evidence, it's a theory. A theory which they cannot replicate and they're trying, but not succeeding.

 

[stu]

If abiogenesis is a theory as you say, then it is in any case supported by scientific evidence and as such....is evidence.

Apparently the obvious choices for origin of life is chemical reaction, of which the whole universe permeates, or an unexplained and unexplainable magic trick by an imaginary sky wizard.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Abiogenesis is not evidence, it's a theory. A theory which they cannot replicate and they're trying, but not succeeding.

That settles it. The balance of probability favors a sky daddy and his winged angels.

 

[stu]

jink

 

[CaptainObvious]

If abiogenesis is a theory as you say, then it is in any case supported by scientific evidence and as such....is evidence.

Apparently the obvious choices for origin of life is chemical reaction, of which the whole universe permeates, or an unexplained and unexplainable magic trick by an imaginary sky wizard.

I don't say it's a theory. It is a theory.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/chemical-cr.htm
And it's a theory with lots of holes in it. Doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing, but we're a long, long ways from factual evidence. However, one could take it on faith alone.