Posted this on Facebook with the text "
I do find it ironic that the very short article even said that this is how life originated in our own system as well and yet she says that it couldn't happen without God. Anyone who believes the Bible cannot possibly "appreciate science." Argh.
I'm not sure how to reply to all of this but I grasp your concept and even if for nothing else it might get people to shut up for a little while while they try to figure it out. lol Thank you, guys! I appreciate it.
As it is, the universe is open and flat.
A video with Lawrence Krauss on how the Big Bang could have happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7ImvlS8PLIo
It's an hour long, and if I could remember where in here he says how we know that the universe is flat, then I would totally give you the time stamp for it. Fortunately, the video is worth watching if you have the time.
Ah, interesting. I don't have an hour to kill, unfortunately, but some quick Google searches found something called the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe I think I have a new summer project -- to get caught up on my physics! :) Thanks for posting this. :)
Edit: I'm going to be very upset if I don't get to use words like "beforeafter" anymore.
My advice Kyle, would be to start it, and do other things while you listen to it. That way, you're not "killing" an hour.]
Saggy - yes, I've watched that video, and I think that in the past, I actually posted a link to it. It's well worth watching, even if it is a bit long, and I don't recall the time stamp either, but let's put it out there for others to choose to watch or not:
Haha, I did. In between apologies because apparently she realized she had begun to offend me with her behavior in general she threw in the "you're wrong" statement in a "sorry sandwich." She said, "The universe has been proven to be younger than they say." I asked her if she had evidence she could provide that didn't reference the Bible as it wasn't scientific evidence and she never responded to that question.
Every religion that believes that their version of god or a group of gods created the universe also argues that the wonders of nature is evidence of this. The evidence is identical; but each religious group interprets it according to their own familiar world view. There is no rational way to choose between them.
There are over 48,000 religions and sects of religions in the world today. None of them provides any evidence of the existence of their version of the divine that is in any way different from or superior to the evidence provided by the other contenders. That gives their world views an equal chance of being right. In other words, you have no more than a one in 48.000 chance of being a conforming follower of the only one of this bunch that is right. Conversely, you have a 47,999 to 1 chance of being wrong. In any case, without incontrovertible evidence of the existence of gods outside the human mind, in spite of thousands of years of apologetic activity, there is an almost overwhelming probability that all these versions of reality are dead wrong.
Duckie, I'm sure you'd like a brief, encapsulated response you could take back to Facebook, but instead of giving you a fish, I'll help teach you how to fish. This is an interesting 2-page article on the existence of god, covering several possible theist contentions (you might consider subscribing to the newsletter, as well):
Thank you! I'll definitely get right into reading this. :D
Volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, tsunamis, disease, etc. - and the biggie, death - all of these things of such “complexity” are “friggin’ awesome” and “thoroughly amazing.” These “very interesting and beautiful” things couldn’t have just happened, as natural occurrences, could they? Of course not. It must have been God who did it. I figure I “can thank only one person...God! It all points to Him!” I do kind of wonder WHY He does these things, though.
Exactly. Can't nitpick; all or nothing. Although I wonder if she'd just say "Satan does that part" or it's "just a part of life," which obviously contradicts herself.
you should ask her "what exactly in science points to a creator?" I mean there is no scientific evidence that there was a creator.