Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We know what ratio of elements we are.
Mix away and make yourself a new friend.
That's an interesting concept - science can break a blade of grass down to it's molecular level, put all the components together in a beaker, shake it well, yet cannot make it grow again.
God vs big bang - both are theories, both have devoted believers - none of us have scientific proof. I think bangers have even shakier ground to stand on - positing that life came from non life. Believers at least have empirical evidence...the incredible complexity, beauty and order of life. Explosions create chaos, not order.
Why does faith always have to be blind?
An excellent question to ask of yourself...believing in creation or explosion, both take 'faith' - but only one believer is too blind to see it.
The Big Bang theory explains why EVERYWHERE look we see the universe expanding. Why would God create an expanding universe?God vs big bang - both are theories, both have devoted believers - none of us have scientific proof.
Why would He not?
I would say the big bang theory does not explain why we are unique, thus far, in the universe...in fact, the opposite should be the case.
In reality we are all believers in an unproven theory of one kind or another - tho' only some of us can admit it.
I believe that I see the hand of a Creator in the wonderful complexity and diversity of life. The perfect placement of the earth, the composition of the atmosphere. The harmony in the cycle of life.
But that is my personal belief, without scientific proof, and hold no animosity toward those who believe it all an accident, without scientific proof.
"I would say the big bang theory does not explain why we are unique, thus far, in the universe...in fact, the opposite should be the case."The Big Bang theory explains why EVERYWHERE look we see the universe expanding. Why would God create an expanding universe?God vs big bang - both are theories, both have devoted believers - none of us have scientific proof.
Why would He not?
I would say the big bang theory does not explain why we are unique, thus far, in the universe...in fact, the opposite should be the case.
In reality we are all believers in an unproven theory of one kind or another - tho' only some of us can admit it.
I believe that I see the hand of a Creator in the wonderful complexity and diversity of life. The perfect placement of the earth, the composition of the atmosphere. The harmony in the cycle of life.
But that is my personal belief, without scientific proof, and hold no animosity toward those who believe it all an accident, without scientific proof.
Why does faith always have to be blind?
An excellent question to ask of yourself...believing in creation or explosion, both take 'faith' - but only one believer is too blind to see it.
Wrong. Science doesn't rely on faith. In fact it relies on skepticism.
Belief in a theory is not faith. You faithy types always have to retreat to this "Alamo". Being unable to elevate your own faith based nonsense in any way other than "because I say so", you are left with only one option: attempting to drag evidence-based knowledge and determinations down into the muck where faith resides. Only in this way could you ever possibly hope to fool yourself or anyone else that your faithy nonsense and scientific knowledge belong on the same shelf.Why does faith always have to be blind?
An excellent question to ask of yourself...believing in creation or explosion, both take 'faith' - but only one believer is too blind to see it.
Wrong. Science doesn't rely on faith. In fact it relies on skepticism.
A skeptic does not a scientist make. Nor theory a fact. We both have faith in a theory - at this point, nothing more - except some of are offended when our 'faith' is questioned - others of us are not. Who is who in this case, I wonder?
Being a skeptic doesn't automatically make you a scientist, but no credible scientist is not a skeptic. Waving a magic wand and postulating some all-powerful gaseous vertebrate with a penis as the answer to every question we can't answer yet is nothing short of absurd. Saying science doesn't have all the answers isn't an argument in favor of the existence of God.Why does faith always have to be blind?
An excellent question to ask of yourself...believing in creation or explosion, both take 'faith' - but only one believer is too blind to see it.
Wrong. Science doesn't rely on faith. In fact it relies on skepticism.
A skeptic does not a scientist make. Nor theory a fact. We both have faith in a theory - at this point, nothing more - except some of are offended when our 'faith' is questioned - others of us are not. Who is who in this case, I wonder?
Belief in a theory is not faith. You faithy types always have to retreat to this "Alamo". Being unable to elevate your own faith based nonsense in any way other than "because I say so", you are left with only one option: attempting to drag evidence-based knowledge and determinations down into the muck where faith resides. Only in this way could you ever possibly hope to fool yourself or anyone else that your faithy nonsense and scientific knowledge belong on the same shelf.Why does faith always have to be blind?
An excellent question to ask of yourself...believing in creation or explosion, both take 'faith' - but only one believer is too blind to see it.
Wrong. Science doesn't rely on faith. In fact it relies on skepticism.
A skeptic does not a scientist make. Nor theory a fact. We both have faith in a theory - at this point, nothing more - except some of are offended when our 'faith' is questioned - others of us are not. Who is who in this case, I wonder?
Correct. But it is still true that scientists will call some theories "facts", once they have been so well supported as to leave no doubt of their truth. For instance, evolution is considered fact.Belief in a theory is not faith. You faithy types always have to retreat to this "Alamo". Being unable to elevate your own faith based nonsense in any way other than "because I say so", you are left with only one option: attempting to drag evidence-based knowledge and determinations down into the muck where faith resides. Only in this way could you ever possibly hope to fool yourself or anyone else that your faithy nonsense and scientific knowledge belong on the same shelf.Why does faith always have to be blind?
An excellent question to ask of yourself...believing in creation or explosion, both take 'faith' - but only one believer is too blind to see it.
Wrong. Science doesn't rely on faith. In fact it relies on skepticism.
A skeptic does not a scientist make. Nor theory a fact. We both have faith in a theory - at this point, nothing more - except some of are offended when our 'faith' is questioned - others of us are not. Who is who in this case, I wonder?
Scientists don't "believe" in a theory the way the religious believe in God. Scientists accept the best theory available only until a better theory comes along.
Are you offended? Tough. The religious don't feel the slightest compunction about insulting atheists.
Get over yourself.
That's not completely accurate. For one, there is "scientific proof" (evidence, really) that life arose simply through deterministic physical processes. That proof is that it appears scientific determinism holds always, and there would be no reason to believe it would not hold for such a process. It is therefore reasonable to believe it almost certain that life arose through a deterministic physical process, and to expect to find knowledge of the process itself, using this assumption.Are you offended? Tough. The religious don't feel the slightest compunction about insulting atheists.
Get over yourself.
Why would I be offended because someone expresses a belief differing from mine? Have I subjected anyone to personal ridicule? That's the behavior of zealots, or those insecure in their theories...some of whom seem to be alive and well on this very thread.
What I pointed out, quite accurately, lacking scientific proof the belief in either the creation of life or the theory of spontaneous combustion of life rely on faith...at this time...which actually is the point of this thread.
No, they don't. However, one thing we know is that creationism has no factual or logical support. None. WE also know that at one point in time there was no life. At a later point in time there was life. The conclusion is therefore inescapable that life arose from inanimate matter. The only alternative theory is that magic made it happen, and rational adults don't accept the existence of magic.Are you offended? Tough. The religious don't feel the slightest compunction about insulting atheists.
Get over yourself.
Why would I be offended because someone expresses a belief differing from mine? Have I subjected anyone to personal ridicule? That's the behavior of zealots, or those insecure in their theories...some of whom seem to be alive and well on this very thread.
What I pointed out, quite accurately, lacking scientific proof the belief in either the creation of life or the theory of spontaneous combustion of life rely on faith...at this time...which actually is the point of this thread.
Nope. Have I no "faith" in any theory in the sense you use the term. I'll accept a convincing theory until a better one comes along, and not a second longer. I find the facts and logic supporting some theories to be fairly conclusive. Other theories, not so much. I am not the slightest bit offended when anyone questions a scientific theory. However, that doesn't mean I won't ridicule arguments that are patently absurd.Why does faith always have to be blind?
An excellent question to ask of yourself...believing in creation or explosion, both take 'faith' - but only one believer is too blind to see it.
Wrong. Science doesn't rely on faith. In fact it relies on skepticism.
A skeptic does not a scientist make. Nor theory a fact. We both have faith in a theory - at this point, nothing more - except some of are offended when our 'faith' is questioned - others of us are not. Who is who in this case, I wonder?
Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
View attachment 152348
Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them. Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
View attachment 152347
No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
View attachment 152349
Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way. Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB. Atoms just do not care.
How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
View attachment 152348
Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them. Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
View attachment 152347
No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
View attachment 152349
Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way. Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB. Atoms just do not care.
How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
View attachment 152348
Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them. Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
View attachment 152347
No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
View attachment 152349
Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way. Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB. Atoms just do not care.
How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
And who created the guy who created the creator? And who made the guys before him?
Exactly. If they can't logically explain who created the creator maybe then they realize there is no need for a creator. The cosmos are eternal. If not what did the creator live in before our universe started 13 billion years ago?Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
View attachment 152348
Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them. Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
View attachment 152347
No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
View attachment 152349
Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way. Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB. Atoms just do not care.
How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
And who created the guy who created the creator? And who made the guys before him?
That's because of cognitive dissonance.Who created the creator? What hard evidence ya got?This is who we are. Just a pile of elements from the Periodic Table.
View attachment 152348
Same elements you will find all around you. When you die, those elements will continue to exist with no effect upon them. Carbon atoms will still be carbon atoms after you die.
View attachment 152347
No matter how accurate you are in combing all of the ratios of atoms in a living being, it is not going to become animated.
View attachment 152349
Atoms are not going to write Beethoven, they does not want to listen to Beethoven, nor does the pile of atoms care if it a living being lives or dies, because the elements have nothing to gain or lose either way. Atoms have no interest in talking to each other, laughing at funny cat videos, or even reading and responding on USMB. Atoms just do not care.
How anyone can delude themselves to believe atoms do have sentient life is beyond me.
That's called the "first cause" argument. No believer has ever managed to refute it.
As far as science can tell a single cell evolved into all the complex life we see now on earth.That's not completely accurate. For one, there is "scientific proof" (evidence, really) that life arose simply through deterministic physical processes. That proof is that it appears scientific determinism holds always, and there would be no reason to believe it would not hold for such a process. It is therefore reasonable to believe it almost certain that life arose through a deterministic physical process, and to expect to find knowledge of the process itself, using this assumption.Are you offended? Tough. The religious don't feel the slightest compunction about insulting atheists.
Get over yourself.
Why would I be offended because someone expresses a belief differing from mine? Have I subjected anyone to personal ridicule? That's the behavior of zealots, or those insecure in their theories...some of whom seem to be alive and well on this very thread.
What I pointed out, quite accurately, lacking scientific proof the belief in either the creation of life or the theory of spontaneous combustion of life rely on faith...at this time...which actually is the point of this thread.
