Replies

Amazing that you use "revisions" as evidence that scientists are idiots.

Such is your non-logic that you get it all backwards.

SEe, making mistakes and LEARNING from them is a sign of intelligence. Sticking to the same tired, old paradigm - in the face of overwhelming evidence - THAT is the realm of zealots and idiots. Kinda like the Muslims ACTUALLY THINK there will be 72 virgins waiting for them....well, that ain't happenin'. Nor will St. Peter meet you at the gates of "heaven". The Great Crow will not swoop down to gather your soul, and the Flying Spagetti Monster (B.H.N.A.) will not envelop your soul in Marinara sauce.

I'm amazed when zealots use "learning" as evidence that their "non-learning" is correct.

I'm amazed when zealots use "learning" as evidence that their "non-learning" is correct.

You, my friend, are an excellent example to use for the term "zealot".

I'll trust in God, thank you. Logic is good for games and speculation.

I guess the ability to disagree is not within the realm of science... /s

By the way, show me the remains of the "persons" who we replaced a few thousand years ago in the deserts of Africa... I'm sure there are lots of examples of the "morphed" beings, we "evolved" from. After all, "science doesn't make mistakes". They just can't seem to find the right answers.

The fact that man is able to calculate orbits, does not necessarily rule out the existence of God. It just reveals what a good job He did, when He spoke this universe into existence. It expanded really quick, didn't it?

Bang!

"If a tree falls in the forest..."

in the face of overwhelming evidence

You have overwhelming evidence of what? That the Universe created itself? Seriously, publish it if you've got it.

Some on this thread may not know about the Anthropic Principle - the idea that this Universe appears to have been designed to allow us to exist. Out of all the infinitely variable boundary conditions of the Universe: the Gravitational constant, the relative strength of the Strong and Weak forces, and many others the Universe just *happens* to have, or to embody, the exact set of parameters which make matter, space and life possible.

Change a constant by a few decimal places, and the Universe would consist only of hydrogen, or only of baryons - or it would have lasted only a few millenia before crunching back on itself. The odds of getting even carbon-synthesis to work are extraordinary small, and everything else has to be "just right" as well

The odds are literally infinitesimal that our Universe just happened to get it right. The religious theory that the Universe was designed - and designed for us - is strongly supported by the extraordinary unlikelihood of the Universe being able to support us.

The usual (atheistic) defence against the Anthropic Principle is to take refuge in the tired Star-Trek trope of there being quadrillions of parallel Universes, one of which is ours.

This is unscientific. Any "other" Universe would have to be completely orthogonal to this one, with no interaction of any kind. If a scientist could detect another Universe, he would have - by definition - simply have detected more of 'the' Universe.

Atheists (those who understand the Anthropic Principle anyway) must insist on there being unthinkable infinities of rigidly unknowable Universes in order for us to have become self-selected observers of this one Universe - the one that happens to have the right conditions for life. This "Million Spheres" approach to cosmogeny is literally unprovable, and therefore unscientific.