• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Athiest's are wrong, God Exists, Science proves it

Elf Grinder 3000

Banned
Elf Grinder 3000
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
1,608
Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself. <snip>
Click to expand...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568


Edited by loss leader: 
Edited in compliance with Rule 4
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's behind a firewall and I can't read it.

Oh dear, what a pity, never mind.
 
Athiest's are wrong, God Exists, Science proves it
Click to expand...

The athiest's what are wrong?

Whatever they are, if they're the athi-est, of course they are! Most people are only a little bit athi, but some are athi-er.
 
Carl Sagan estimates the number of planets supporting life in the universe

...astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.
Click to expand...

No one found any planets with the ability to support life...

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”
Click to expand...

The actual parameters for a life supporting planet are much larger...

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Click to expand...

The probability that the universe formed is low as well...

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.
Click to expand...

Quotes from 2 scientists summarize the point...

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Click to expand...

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”
Click to expand...

This proves simply that it is highly unlikely that life evolved randomly

This is supported by the science and the probabilities derived from science

1. #planets supporting life and

2. probability that the universe was able to form using our understanding of the forces that govern its existence.

3. there is no direct scientific evidence of the mechanism by which evolution has taken place (which is happening non randomly). The only evidence of evolution is that life has appeared where it once did not appear - a tautology not evidence of any mechanism by which it appears. Again you can't say it happened randomly because the evidence is that evolution is not random it is "punctuated".

I can hear atheists silently weeping
 
Last edited:
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Carl Sagan estimates the number of planets supporting life in the universe



No one found any planets with the ability to support life...



The actual parameters for a life supporting planet are much larger...



The probability that the universe formed is low as well...



Quotes from 2 scientists summarize the point...





This proves simply that it is highly unlikely that life evolved randomly

This is supported by the science and the probabilities derived from science

1. #planets supporting life and

2. probability that the universe was able to form using our understanding of the forces that govern its existence.

3. there is no direct scientific evidence of the mechanism by which evolution has taken place (which is happening non randomly). The only evidence of evolution is that life has appeared where it once did not appear - a tautology not evidence of any mechanism by which it appears. Again you can't say it happened randomly because the evidence is that evolution is not random it is "punctuated".

I can hear atheists silently weeping
Click to expand...

No. That's laughing hilariously.

:dl:
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
No one found any planets with the ability to support life...
Click to expand...

... because planets are very far away and hard to find, and therefore the vast majority of extrasolar planets that we've been able to find are very large planets which are easier to spot but, for that exact same reason are unable to support life.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
The actual parameters for a life supporting planet are much larger...
Click to expand...

... which is obvious when you realise that moving Jupiter or Mercury to earth-orbit wouldn't make them hospitable to life.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
The probability that the universe formed is low as well...
Click to expand...

The probability that the universe formed is 1, because we know it happened.

But the probability of the formation of a universe equivalent to the universe we're living in now is unknowable. Anyone claiming to have any idea what the odds were are talking out of their butt.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
This proves simply that it is highly unlikely that life evolved randomly
Click to expand...

Nobody's claiming that life evolved randomly. Life evolves through a process of natural selection, which is not a random process.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
3. there is no direct scientific evidence of the mechanism by which evolution has taken place (which is happening non randomly).
Click to expand...

We have vast mountains of evidence of natural selection and variations in the gene pool.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
The only evidence of evolution is that life has appeared where it once did not appear
Click to expand...

What does this life appearing where once it did not appear have to do with evolution. :confused:

That's abiogenesis, not evolution.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
- a tautology not evidence of any mechanism by which it appears.
Click to expand...

Nobody's claiming to know the exact mechanism by which life appeared, and there are many competing hypothesis. The most popular scenario is "RNA world", but research into this subject continues.

What we do know is that complex organic molecules can and do form in the absence of life, and to the best of our knowledge spontaneous abiogenesis is physically possible, which makes it a far more reasonable scenario than claiming that a supernatural entity did it, we have no knowledge of supernatural entities existing, and have no reason to believe that supernaturally created life is physically possible.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Again you can't say it happened randomly because the evidence is that evolution is not random it is "punctuated".
Click to expand...

Once again, the formation of life from non-life is not evolution, so the question of whether or not evolution is random is irrelevant.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
I can hear atheists silently weeping
Click to expand...

Weeping at the stupidity of the arguments they have to respond to.
 
Last edited:
There's been a lot of "therefore God.." threads on this forum, but this is the silliest.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
No one found any planets with the ability to support life...
Click to expand...


Non sequitur: No one has yet even found a way to detect life on exoplanets .
You comment is stupid: Its rather like making fun of the little boy you are playing "hide & seek" with because he hasn't found you yet, when in fact, he's still facing the corner of the room with his hands over his eyes.
 
lionking said:
There's been a lot of "therefore God.." threads on this forum, but this is the silliest.
Click to expand...


100%.

I think Elf Grinder 3000's thinking is based on three district premises...

Premise 1

Giorgio-God1.png


Premise 2

Giorgio-God2.png


Premise 3

Giorgio-God3.png
 
smartcooky said:
100%.

I think Elf Grinder 3000's thinking is based on three district premises...

Premise 1

[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/Giorgio-God1.png[/qimg]


Premise 2

[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/Giorgio-God2.png[/qimg]


Premise 3

[qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/Giorgio-God3.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Pretty much it - all tied in a package of used toilet tissue and a knot of make it all up and call it dog!!!
 
Brian-M said:
... because planets are very far away and hard to find, and therefore the vast majority of extrasolar planets that we've been able to find are very large planets which are easier to spot but, for that exact same reason are unable to support life.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they've started finding smaller bodies that could theoretically be capable of supporting life (as we know it).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom