Atheists want multiple universes and extra-terrestrial civilizations to exist because they think it will hurt Christianity

[james bond]

Wait, what? You linked to evilutionist, atheist scientists? How can that be when you consistently deride science that has moved beyond the 1850's?

Even after the 1850s, the majority of scientists believed in an eternal universe while the creation scientists could only argue an eternal God created the eternal universe. That all changed with the discovery of the CMB and the beginning of the universe. Thus, came the big bang and later the fine tuning facts were found by the atheist scientists. Not only do you have to explain fine tuning, you still have to explain what was there before the big bang and what did it expand into. OTOH, the creationists gratefully received the fine tuning facts and developed the Kalam's Cosmological Argument. We're still waiting for your science to explain.

 

[JoeB131]

Even after the 1850s, the majority of scientists believed in an eternal universe while the creation scientists could only argue an eternal God created the eternal universe. That all changed with the discovery of the CMB and the beginning of the universe. Thus, came the big bang and later the fine tuning facts were found by the atheist scientists. Not only do you have to explain fine tuning, you still have to explain what was there before the big bang and what did it expand into. OTOH, the creationists gratefully received the fine tuning facts and developed the Kalam's Cosmological Argument. We're still waiting for your science to explain.

Naw, guy, the problem here is that you are worshipping the "God of the Gaps" The more we can explain, the less and less we can attribute to "God".

 

[james bond]

There is no chemical reaction that can create life because proteins (building block of life) can only be produced by life. You saw that with the chicken coming before the egg using scientific methodology about ten years ago

The Miller-Urey experiment showed otherwise... but never mind.

It showed they were wrong about what gases were in the early universe. Also, amino acids aren't proteins and can't randomly form proteins due to chirality.

Naw, guy, the problem here is that you are worshipping the "God of the Gaps" The more we can explain, the less and less we can attribute to "God".

You didn't watch the fine tuning video. There aren't much gaps in the fine tuning parameters. We should thank God as he is the best explanation per Occam's Razor. Otherwise, you would've created DNA, RNA, and protein by now.

 

[JoeB131]

It showed they were wrong about what gases were in the early universe. Also, amino acids aren't proteins and can't randomly form proteins due to chirality.

Nobody said it was "random". What you leave out is the factor of TIME. given enough time, amino acids could combine to form proteins.

 

[Hollie]

Wait, what? You linked to evilutionist, atheist scientists? How can that be when you consistently deride science that has moved beyond the 1850's?

Even after the 1850s, the majority of scientists believed in an eternal universe while the creation scientists could only argue an eternal God created the eternal universe. That all changed with the discovery of the CMB and the beginning of the universe. Thus, came the big bang and later the fine tuning facts were found by the atheist scientists. Not only do you have to explain fine tuning, you still have to explain what was there before the big bang and what did it expand into. OTOH, the creationists gratefully received the fine tuning facts and developed the Kalam's Cosmological Argument. We're still waiting for your science to explain.

You're a bit confused about what you're writing. You are attributing the nonsensical ''fine tuning'' facts and there no such facts. You insist on making bellicose claims about what ''atheist scientists" believe yet you offer only silly YouTube videos.

Your ''fine tuning'' claims presume the existence of the Christian gods and you have offered nothing to support the existence of those gods. "Fine tuning'' of the universe is not acknowledged by the relevant science community as it applies to the actions of your particular gods. It‘s a rather desperate tactic to attempt to impose your religious beliefs on others. I should point out the absurdity in your “fine tuning” meme when you acknowledge collisions of galaxies. “Fine tuning” would not suggest collisions of galaxies or meteor / asteroid strikes of this planet.

 

[Hollie]

There is no chemical reaction that can create life because proteins (building block of life) can only be produced by life. You saw that with the chicken coming before the egg using scientific methodology about ten years ago

The Miller-Urey experiment showed otherwise... but never mind.

It showed they were wrong about what gases were in the early universe. Also, amino acids aren't proteins and can't randomly form proteins due to chirality.

Naw, guy, the problem here is that you are worshipping the "God of the Gaps" The more we can explain, the less and less we can attribute to "God".

You didn't watch the fine tuning video. There aren't much gaps in the fine tuning parameters. We should thank God as he is the best explanation per Occam's Razor. Otherwise, you would've created DNA, RNA, and protein by now.

Your silly ''fine tuning'' video is produced by a creation ministry.

Fine Tuning | Reasonable Faith

www.reasonablefaith.org

The bias and false claims are to be expected from a religious cult.

 

[GLASNOST]

Naw, guy, the problem here is that you are worshipping the "God of the Gaps" ....

Or the "World According to Garp".

 

[Grumblenuts]

We should thank God as he is the best explanation per Occam's Razor.

The most magical, convenient, lower brain satisfying, cheap explanation simply must be the right one. Goddidit! Thank's Occam's Razor

“Most people jump to conclusions, but more delusion-prone individuals ‘jump further,’” wrote the authors in their conclusion.

Delusions (that are not due to a medical condition or substance abuse) may seem believable at face value, and delusional people may appear normal as long as you don’t touch upon their delusional themes, Psychology Today states. According to the DSM–IV–TR, "delusional conviction occurs on a continuum and can sometimes be inferred from an individual’s behavior." These are contemporary perspectives, but they are rooted in the work of Karl Jaspers, a German psychiatrist and philosopher, who believed delusions to be distinct from normal beliefs. Delusions are “impervious to counterargument,” he argued, because such a change in “belief fixation” amounted to “an alteration of the personality.” His criteria for true delusion were:

• certainty (held with absolute conviction)
• incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
• impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue).

 

[GLASNOST]

The true explanation of life is found in the Holy Bible, the “fine tuning” of which is found here …..

 

[Thunderbird]

Why are people so stupid? Atheism has nothing to do with science. Read my lips .... Science does not disprove the existence of God but Science most definitely DISPROVES THE BIBLE & the KORAN. Is that really so difficult to understand?

Science does not disprove the Bible.

How was the Genesis Account of Creation Interpreted Before Darwin? - BioLogos

Many assume Darwin’s theory shook the foundations of Christianity, but the 6-day interpretation of Genesis was not the only view held by Christians prior to modern science.

biologos.org

So you believe that Maria was a virgin who never had sex with her husband and got pregnant by a ghost, the product of which died but came back to life and that some guy built a boat so large that it housed each and every animal on earth (no matter its origin) and that natural selection is a hoax and that you can wave a staff in front of your chest and cause the sea to part in the middle and then walk through it .... dry as a dino-bone. I could give you a hundred examples but I know very well that you are not listening and I've already wasted enough of my time.

Why don’t you read the article I linked to and stop talking nonsense.

 

[james bond]

It showed they were wrong about what gases were in the early universe. Also, amino acids aren't proteins and can't randomly form proteins due to chirality.

Nobody said it was "random". What you leave out is the factor of TIME. given enough time, amino acids could combine to form proteins.

Your science is outdated and can't distinguish between amino acids and proteins. Miller-Urey was wrong about the primal gases in the universe. If they were right about the gases, then the amino acids would not have formed. The experiment produced amino acids, but even with billions of years Miller-Urey's experiment nor any experiment would be able to form these amino acids into proteins due to chirality. There are plenty of amino acids floating in space, but they cannot form proteins outside the cell. That's why only life can create other life. Otherwise, the swan neck flask experiment would have created bacteria just from the broth mix. That went over your head, too, as the already living bacteria in the air was trapped by the swan neck.

 

[ReinyDays]

Unable to learn ... I hope the schools pick this up and get him the extra services he needs ...

Chirality has nothing to do with the poly-peptide bond ...

 

[GLASNOST]

Why are people so stupid? Atheism has nothing to do with science. Read my lips .... Science does not disprove the existence of God but Science most definitely DISPROVES THE BIBLE & the KORAN. Is that really so difficult to understand?

Science does not disprove the Bible.

How was the Genesis Account of Creation Interpreted Before Darwin? - BioLogos

Many assume Darwin’s theory shook the foundations of Christianity, but the 6-day interpretation of Genesis was not the only view held by Christians prior to modern science.

biologos.org

So you believe that Maria was a virgin who never had sex with her husband and got pregnant by a ghost, the product of which died but came back to life and that some guy built a boat so large that it housed each and every animal on earth (no matter its origin) and that natural selection is a hoax and that you can wave a staff in front of your chest and cause the sea to part in the middle and then walk through it .... dry as a dino-bone. I could give you a hundred examples but I know very well that you are not listening and I've already wasted enough of my time.

Why don’t you read the article I linked to and stop talking nonsense.

There's no point in it. I said that science has disproved the Bible. You say no. I have given you a shortlist of biblical nonsense that science has disproved. Is there any reason for me to read about what science might not have disproved? If you think Christianity allows you to "pick & chose" then you'd be very wrong. You're one of those "yeah, but" sort of persons. It is impossible for a woman to get pregnant without sperm. But I suppose you'll reply with something ridiculous like, "Yeah, but science has not disproved the historical fact that Jesus did exist" as if that gives any credence to Maria getting pregnant by Force Majeure.

 

[james bond]

The most magical, convenient, lower brain satisfying, cheap explanation simply must be the right one. Goddidit! Thank's Occam's Razor

God doesn't take billions of years which no scientific method can verify. Instead, science verifies creationism such as the chicken before the egg and fine tuning facts. Moreover, nobody can answer my question about what was there before the big bang and what did it expand into? The creationists also provided the KCA while atheists have nothing. From Genesis, we know God created space, energy (light), heavens, and Earth first and the set time off later.

Thus, it's the atheist and their scientists who depend on quantum particles (which require space) or some magic that violates the laws of physics such as cosmic inflation.

 

[ReinyDays]

From Genesis, we know God created space, energy (light), heavens, and Earth first and the set time off later.

No ... that's not what the Bible says ... "In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth" ... nothing about space, temperature, infinitives, atoms, force, chirality ... you assume much of God's plan for us ... the highly soul is blind to the truth ...

 

[james bond]

Here's another question. What can we visibly see of quantum mechanics, Darwinism, and ToE? I think we understand the light is a wave and even a light particle acts as a wave until it is observed. But where did the light (energy) come from?

 

[ReinyDays]

Here's another question. What can we visibly see of quantum mechanics, Darwinism, and ToE? I think we understand the light is a wave and even a light particle acts as a wave until it is observed. But where did the light (energy) come from?

Why are you ignoring the people willing to answer these questions? ... ha ha ... do you want the answers or not? ...

Someone quote me so he has to see this ... what a maroon ...

 

[james bond]

From Genesis, we know God created space, energy (light), heavens, and Earth first and the set time off later.

No ... that's not what the Bible says ... "In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth" ... nothing about space, temperature, infinitives, atoms, force, chirality ... you assume much of God's plan for us ... the highly soul is blind to the truth ...

You are so wrong. Let's review.

"The Creation of the World

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."

For the dark sky and Earth, one needs to have space. He created the EMS (energy) for the universe. This implies he created atoms. I didn't even mention temperature and the rest, but we have to look at the rest to see what was created the first day. People generally do not know about atoms, force, chirality, etc., so we have to figure out what else was created for the first day. He used visible light to separate the day part and dark part as night. I don't think he started time until he created the day and night and then we have the first day (if you interpret the day as 24-hours).

 

[james bond]

Here's another question. What can we visibly see of quantum mechanics, Darwinism, and ToE? I think we understand the light is a wave and even a light particle acts as a wave until it is observed. But where did the light (energy) come from?

Why are you ignoring the people willing to answer these questions? ... ha ha ... do you want the answers or not? ...

Someone quote me so he has to see this ... what a maroon ...

You had your chances already, but nothing. And why do you direct it to me? Why not someone else?

 

[danielpalos]

Here's another question. What can we visibly see of quantum mechanics, Darwinism, and ToE? I think we understand the light is a wave and even a light particle acts as a wave until it is observed. But where did the light (energy) come from?

Any given, light emitting body such as stars?