Crystal, What theist nut-cases are you referring to? It is a factual observation. What kind are you talking about? What are you doing in a debate forum if you do not wish to converse with others?
Ok, but this does not contradict the theist view point that God created man out of inanimate matter. ] Also a dead cell has never been observed coming back to life despite having all the necessary ingredients.
Primarily via radiometrics: http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html Yes, the theory is called Abiogenesis and there is some evidence that suggests it is possible but nothing definitive yet: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/21438?fulltext=true The basic ingredients, hydrogen and a few others, were formed from the big bang. All subsequent elements were formed from hydrogen in the nuclear fusion of stars and supernova: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=345 The question you are leading up to, however, is what caused the 'Big Bang'. And, quite frankly, nobody knows. There are various hypothesis but no evidence as of yet. My suggestion is that you study both religion/philosophy and science. Religion and philosophy attempt to answer human questions while science answers question about how the world works. Neither is particularly good at explaining things in the realm of the other. I assure you that there are some theists here that could whoop your ass (intellectually of course). Give it a rest. Of course, if you had actually read the book rather than only watching the movie you would know that you got it backwards. The Morlocks were the 'intelligent' and the Eloi were the ignorant ones. It depends upon what you mean by dead. Non-functioning cells are brought back to 'life' quite often by geneticists with a tiny electric shock. ~Raithere
Okinrus, But it does render God unnecessary. And if we follow Occam’s razor, then we should discard the God hypothesis from any further serious consideration, since it requires the existence of an entirely separate supernatural realm which is an unnecessarily complex explanation. Sure we have. Arctic Wood Frogs are capable of being frozen solid during Winter, only to thaw come Spring - returning to life unharmed.
"I assure you that there are some theists here that could whoop your ass (intellectually of course). Give it a rest." Haha - sure yeah riiiight. What a joke - that's like a midget threatening a pro wrestler - the impossibility is waaaaaaaaay to obvious. Bring it.
God is the only reasonable explanation for the origen of the universe though. If the universe was created 15 or so billion years ago, then who created time? Otherwise we either have matter and energy that sprung into existance from complete emptyness or matter that has always existed. And if matter and energy has always existed an equilibrium state having no motion whatsoever would be reached?
Ok, let's see what your arguments have been thus far.... And, of course: So, suffice to say, based on the scientific method (Which you must follow, since you think all theists are stupid and/or nutcases) you don't have a leg to stand on against any of the theists in this forum. What you have shown thus far would lead anyone to that conclusion. And, of course, I would take you up on your "Bring it" offer, but I'm not a theist. Hmm...lucky you. JD
Haha.....man oh man mythopaths good for one thing - a laugh and boost of how superior I am... As for you atheist on my deal. Atheist or theist - Bring it. Any debate possible and I will bet my house car and savings you got nothing to show.
Geologic evidence suggests something struck earth. Comets contain ice. Our moon contains as much volume as one of our oceans. It is possible that something icy struck earth, chipped off a chunk that became our moon, then melted to form our oceans. If that happened before or after the dinosaurs, find bones on the moon which suggest the theory is true. GodLied.
It's long since been proven that the dinosaurs died as a result of a meteor impact. Let's move on - stop haulting on proven truths. The impact spot has been found - the dust layers have been found, the forensic prove it in correlation. And the timing is perfect as the interval of a major meteor hitting earth is completely identical for over a dozen generations and correlates perfectly with dinosaur extinction. The only thing worth talking about here is what is the solaric or galactic cause of the meteoric interval. There is some object or set of object that carries this interval or half interval of 24 million years. What is it?
As of yet? It was my understanding that it is pretty much impossible for physics to look back to moments earlier than very shortly after the big bang. This is mainly due to the singularity and the incapability of our mathematical system to understand or deal with a singularity and what it means in the real physical universe. Of course, I may be wrong. That happens far too often these days.
I would call this a little bit overboard. I have always read that it was the leading theory. It is the "standard model" if you will. However, as with any model there are still some respectable science that will disagree with the specifics of what is believed. As it turns out, often these dissenters are right, so I wouldn't say it is proven.
Occam's razor can be wrong. Sure it is fun to follow and talk about as if it is a natural law of the universe, but it isn't. It is simply a reasoning principle. The people who site it all the time generally saw it in a movie or heard it from a friend and took it completely to heart.
Sigh good friend with that argument you also in-the-process end theiest arguments. If something had to come along and create the sun than something must have come along and created god. Why can god exist without being created and the sun can't? [/B][/QUOTE] For something to create God that would make him not God, and that which created something must have been God, which then had to be created by something else, and so on and so forth. You see how that could never end? The point is, something had to exist--something above everything else--that could create the world. There had to be a God. I really can't comprehend this, but there are many things I can't comprehend. I simply take it on faith. That's very hard for some to do, but I do it anyway.
There really isn't anything wrong with the first-cause argument itself. The problem is that it cannot define anything beyond a first cause. The leap from there to god or especially a particular definition of god (say Yahweh, for instance) is simply a leap of faith. There must have been a first-cause, therefore Yahweh is the first-cause is not a viable argument. ~Raithere
Spoilsport, So read my post again and you’ll see I am applying Occam’s razor exactly as intended. You might have had a point if I had said ‘this proves’ that God is nonexistent. In view of the existence of a far more simpler explanation the more complex can be put to oneside, e.g. discarded from serious consideration.
Jcarl, Potentially many things. The God concept is but one of a potentially infinite number of fantasies. But a first cause issue is irrelevant if the universe is infinite. And something must be infinite otherwise nothing could ever have begun. Since God is no more than a fantasy and we know the universe exists then the simplest answer is that the universe is infinite which means a god would be unnecessary.
