haha A flood killed the dinasours?

[Kassz007]

Quote from jem:

I see atheists getting emotional trying to defend their belief system, but I see no science backed by scientists.

Now you are just embarrassing yourself. You quoted one scientist that claims the universe APPEARS finely tuned, and now you are asking for quotes from scientists who believe the opposite? Get a grip.

By the way, it's not my belief system, it's the conclusion I've arrived at after looking at the facts. Not something you're familiary with, I'm sure.

 

[jem]

Quote from Kassz007:

Your ignorance is astounding. I have read The God Delusion, and understand it quite well.

The difference between the way my brain works (scientific) and the way your brain works (creationist) is that I am always searching for new evidence, whereas your theory is definite and complete. I understand and fully accept that the multiverse theory may or may not be correct. I understand and fully accept that as we continue to learn more about the universe and how it works, more truths will be revealed. I am not under the DELUSION that the scientific explanation for the workings of the universe is finite and complete, whereas you are under the DELUSION that the universe was definitely created.

The evidence for the universe NOT being created is the millions of scientific experiments performed throughout history in understanding how the universe works.

The evidence for the universe being created are a bunch of outrageous stories that have been passed on throughout history.

Your brain is not logical. I have not said appearance of design equals design.

I quote science and scientists like Bernard Carr and you get all emotional.

Some top scientists state the our universe looks designed. Dawkins even says it...
One has said that if there is no multiverse than our universe looks spectacualry designed.

Thats what you are arguing against.

if you wish to say you have hope that physics will explain that appearance in the future. I say fine, it just may.

I love science and it does not interfere with my faith, in fact I embrace science. My worldview would only be shaken in the event science proves there is no Creator.

As of now... I think that one is not in jeopardy in my lifetime. So bring on the discoveries. Finally let me note that if you do a quick check on the internet surveys find that about 33 to 40% of scientists believe in God - according to recent studies.

So being an atheist does not make you more "scientific".

If fact I would bet that within the non believers category... most intelligent people would be agnostic.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from stu:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u-tC9MU852k&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u-tC9MU852k&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>




Some straightforward basic Puddle Thinking explains quite well how fitting an environment is no reason for a puddle or hole to think either has to be intelligently designed.

Clearly puddles do not need an intelligent design engineer to fit the surfaces of a hole so well. Nether does a hole need to get some intelligent design before it can fit the shape of a puddle to itself.

The same applies to the universe. Life too.
Puddle rules apply on the grandest scales.

Arguing for intelligent designers where non are needed, is like arguing every puddle and every hole needs fine tuning for each to accommodate the other.

To what lengths will the atheist go trying to convince people that there is no God? Puddle logic? And yet you'll laugh at the true believer with their image of Jesus on a piece of toast. What tragic irony. You deserve each other.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

To what lengths will the atheist go trying to convince people that there is no God? Puddle logic? And yet you'll laugh at the true believer with their image of Jesus on a piece of toast. What tragic irony. You deserve each other.

why is your god so mean? seriously, why you follow a mean god

 

[Kassz007]

Quote from jem:



As of now... I think that one is not in jeopardy in my lifetime. So bring on the discoveries. Finally let me note that if you do a quick check on the internet surveys find that about 33 to 40% of scientists believe in God - according to recent studies.

So being an atheist does not make you more "scientific".

If fact I would bet that within the non believers category... most intelligent people would be agnostic.

A quick thought about your "internet surveys (very reliable, I'm sure) - 60% to 77% then do not believe in god. Last I checked 60% to 77% is a larger number than 33% to 40%. I wonder why most scientists do not believe?

 

[Kassz007]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

To what lengths will the atheist go trying to convince people that there is no God? Puddle logic? And yet you'll laugh at the true believer with their image of Jesus on a piece of toast. What tragic irony. You deserve each other.

A talking puddle would fit in perfectly with the other stories told in that fairy tale you call a bible.

A talking snake, however, now THAT is something I can believe in!

 

[jem]

Quote from Kassz007:

A quick thought about your "internet surveys (very reliable, I'm sure) - 60% to 77% then do not believe in god. Last I checked 60% to 77% is a larger number than 33% to 40%. I wonder why most scientists do not believe?

It looks like you claimed to be a scientist... do you really have a degree in a hard science? Its odd because you seem to be so emotionally invested in this subject that you are now pointing out that 60 is larger than 40.

 

[Kassz007]

Quote from jem:

It looks like you claimed to be a scientist... do you really have a degree in a hard science? Its odd because you seem to be so emotionally invested in this subject that you are now pointing out that 60 is larger than 40.

I am not a scientist, nor have I ever claimed to be. I'm also not emotional - emotions are for women. Please don't assume things about me. I simply enjoy a heated debate sometimes.

Judging from your previous post, where you attempted to argue that since 33% of scientists (judging by the highly credible "internet surveys") believe in god, clearly you needed to be informed that 60 is larger than 40.

 

[Index piker]

Quote from Kassz007:



By the way, it's not my belief system, it's the conclusion I've arrived at after looking at the facts.

Bullshit, you made a conclusion first and accept the facts that support it.

 

[jem]

Quote from Kassz007:

I am not a scientist, nor have I ever claimed to be. I'm also not emotional - emotions are for women. Please don't assume things about me. I simply enjoy a heated debate sometimes.

Judging from your previous post, where you attempted to argue that since 33% of scientists (judging by the highly credible "internet surveys") believe in god, clearly you needed to be informed that 60 is larger than 40.

I pointed out that being an atheist does not make you more "scientific".

But I am not sure what you are saying..

Just to understand how your "scientific" (those are your words) brain works. Are you representing that because more scientists are non believers that makes you more scientific?

Note -- I am not sure if you ever competed at anything meaningful, but when you do you are likely to experience emotions. The key to performing well in those situations is not to act like you are some sort of zen master with zero emotions.

The key is to accept the fact you have emotions and still be able to execute your routines which allow you to make your shot or execute your trade.

emotions are not just for women we all have them we just have to be able to think and execute through them.