Too funny You forgot the all important first step.
1) First assume a miracle then" fact based theory supporting a natural event of point of zero volume, with very high mass and infinite density "
Religion is a hypothesis.
- Thread starter walter4
- Start date
Too funny You forgot the all important first step.
1) First assume a miracle then" fact based theory supporting a natural event of point of zero volume, with very high mass and infinite density "
actually not interesting at all because it says nothing, completely devoid of content and substance. the rambling of an idiot
I just like making atheists foam at the mouth... it's not like they have anything better to do.
Besides it's amusing how condescending they get while making fools of themselves.
Besides it's amusing how condescending they get while making fools of themselves.
You're still making up (/copying) your suggestions about things that science doesn't say,Quote from CaptainObvious:
Lot's of "ifs" there. The chemical evolution theory is certainly interesting, but it's only a study of how life "could" have arisen from inanimate matter to quote from the first sentence of your wiki link. Could it have happened that way? Sure! Did it happen that way? Yet to be determined.
Chemical evolution requires as many assumptions of the unkowns as does the Big Bang itself. First someone needs to explain how some sort of spontaneous combustion occurs in a vaccum which has no matter in it to begin with. When you get that, then you can explain how the nothing matter vaccum explosion just happened to have the right chemical elements for life to develop. Then you can explain how those basic elements of life just happened to go through the perfect sequence of events for intelligent life to evolve. Then you can explain how that remotley intelligent life just happened to go through all the perfect sequence of events to become intelligent life which has self awareness. I know, you'll say you've already done that with the natural selection process that occurs during evolution. Nice and neat, yet you accuse the ID'ers of being too simplisitc.
I'm not saying any of your hypothesis is wrong, but you damn sure seem to being saying ID just can't be, yet you offer no proof that your theory is right. Proof would be the ability to recreate everything that's happened from the moment of the Big Bang. We're a long ways from that my friend.
Life is possible , not from big bang itself that produced only two elements, but because of coalescence, the production of heavier elements much later from the formation, and collapse and massive explosions of stars, hurling matter across the universe, to form planets , including earth.
Where do you get your ideas from? They are not science. It's the most ridiculous distortion of scientific information you could produce.
There is nothing to examine in ID. It starts out wrong and in fact ,it is not even as good as being wrong . It's worse than wrong. Why do you cling to ideas that can never even start to explain anything, including themselves because they are so fundamentally flawed?
How come you need an intelligent designer that bad you would jettison your own intelligence to hope for one?
Actually, its pretty stupid to think that there is not a Creator since the odds of Life, even the universe(s) forming on there own are so small as to render it implausible.
Problem is Atheists think the Creator is the God that people worship through Religion. The God people worship is but an attempt to put a human face on a Creator or the Creating force.
Atheists consider that the belief in a Creator entails moral judgements and they consider themselves above being judged. Its not the science vs religion, its the judgement aspects that they resent.
The Creating, Organizing force has no personality and makes no judgements but to say it doesn't exist is illogical.
John
And not a bit of it is sourced. How convenient.Quote from killthesunshine:
well well well you certainly know how to make a great cut'n'paste argument CO LOL
the problem is you don't OWN any of it! hahaha
BTW there is no such thing as a pure vacuum in nature. And a vacuum is not free of energy "by definition", it is free of matter by definition. The coldest temperature in nature is the 3 degrees above absolute zero CMB (Cosmic microwave background radiation) that is evidence of the Big Bang explosion. Absolute zero has to be manmade in laboratories because nothing gets that cold naturally.