Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[Betapeg]

Quote from jem:

I have made the same argument...

God did not need to be created because there is no cause and effect when you are outside time.

You all really do not understand the science.

I use the word seem because the scientists do.

If they were to say our universe is designed they would be admitting a designer.

They say appears designed and then explain they since they speculate there are almost infinite universe you can rebut the presumption one would make if there were only one universe.

so there appears to be a choice...

you can see our universe appears designed or you can believe in a multiverse...

either way you have faith.

The fact of the matter is, a designer, god, allah, whatever, explains absolutely nothing. While these scientific theories which we are talking about here, have their basis in mathematics and physics, and explain a multitude more about nature than the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. ever have or ever will.

There certainly is a choice. One explanation apparently explains everything and yet explains nothing (How did this entity create everything?). The other explanation tries to use natural laws to explain something we do not yet understand. Are we to really believe "God" breathed and said a few words and bam, the universe is here? That is a fairy tale, a myth created to explain things which ancient peoples did not understand. The Standard Cosmological Model is far more of a beautiful, rational explanation of how our universe came to be.

Why anyone gives a shred of credibility to creation myths invented by ignorant ancient peoples is beyond me.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

which just goes to show how unreliable feelings can really be.

"Reliable". Now you're arguing from utility, which is exactly where I want you.

; )

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Free Thinker:

i am arguing that feelings are not useful as scientific evidence.

Not even allowed as scientific evidence. But one feeling is allowed, more at the meta- level, the feeling that the conclusion logically follows from the evidence.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Betapeg:

Why would this designer create a human spine that is not designed for upright sitting, walking, and running? Did he want a multitude of people to suffer from back pain? Or is it a relic of our ancestry who walked on all fours? No it couldn't be that! It's too rational of an answer.

Precisely:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3223641&highlight=lower#post3223641

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

ricther its not a feeling...

its the fact that scientists know from multiple disciplines...

there was not enough time for life to evolve from non life here on earth... and that our universe is far too tuned for random chance to have created the universe if there is only one universe.


The atheists do not accept the science.

here is a starter

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/FineTuning.aspx

I disagree, but as you might recall I think the weak (or is it strong?) anthropic principle makes the most sense. There was not enough time for life to have emerged on Earth considered in isolation, but there was enough time for life to have emerged somewhere. By chance, it was here (if not elsewhere, too).

 

[jem]

Quote from Betapeg:

The fact of the matter is, a designer, god, allah, whatever, explains absolutely nothing. While these scientific theories which we are talking about here, have their basis in mathematics and physics, and explain a multitude more about nature than the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. ever have or ever will.

There certainly is a choice. One explanation apparently explains everything and yet explains nothing (How did this entity create everything?). The other explanation tries to use natural laws to explain something we do not yet understand. Are we to really believe "God" breathed and said a few words and bam, the universe is here? That is a fairy tale, a myth created to explain things which ancient peoples did not understand. The Standard Cosmological Model is far more of a beautiful, rational explanation of how our universe came to be.

Why anyone gives a shred of credibility to creation myths invented by ignorant ancient peoples is beyond me.

what are you talking about... you have it all backwards...

as of now there is no evidence of random chance...

and there is evidence of design... using math and science.



you have the science backwards...

seriously think about your argument...

1.. what is your proof that random chance caused the initial universe...

vs

2. what is the proof that our universe appears designed....

please read the links I provided... they lay out the science based argument that there is evidence of design based on the fine tunings in the universe.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

Not even allowed as scientific evidence. But one feeling is allowed, more at the meta- level, the feeling that the conclusion logically follows from the evidence.

"meta level". Now you're arguing from wishful thinking.

 

[jem]

Quote from Ricter:

I disagree, but as you might recall I think the weak (or is it strong?) anthropic principle makes the most sense. There was not enough time for life to have emerged on Earth considered in isolation, but there was enough time for life to have emerged somewhere. By chance, it was here (if not elsewhere, too).

ok so now we have life on other planets... was it random or was it designed?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

"meta level". Now you're arguing from wishful thinking.

May be, but so are you. There is no objective compulsion to choose the scientific worldview over others. Thus, we must rely on our own feelings about which is better.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Ricter:

May be, but so are you. There is no objective compulsion to choose the scientific worldview over others. Thus, we must rely on our own feelings about which is better.

*Sigh*