Appendicitis is brought on by poor hygienic practices
as a result of the appendix attempting to remove toxins from the body.
No. Appendicitis is brought on by obstruction, usually of feces. The appendix does not remove toxins. A bacterial infection causes appendicitis because the lymph nodes enlarge and obstruct the appendix, leading to inflammation. The digestive system has plenty of effective ways of removing toxins, and the appendix only gets in the way.
Quote:
It's also incredibly ignorant to say "outweighs any minor immune
benefits it gives" when we don't have a definitive understanding of what
it does.
That's just idle theorycrafting. We already know that removing it has pretty much no consequences. And if it's so important in fetal development, then an intelligent designer would have made it shrink/deform upon birth (like the falciform ligament) so that obstruction and inflammation would not be an issue.
The point is that 320,000 people are hospitalized each year. The only time people notice their appendix is when it gives them a problem. An intelligent designer would have put the immune processes of the appendix into another organ, and got rid of the appendix all-together.
For example, the appendix isn't as "useless" as we thought it was. Recent studies are suggesting it plays an important part in building immune systems for growing infants and preserving bacteria for immune systems in adults during times of illness. An example being that bacteria can "hideout" in the appendix prior to diarrhea purging the colon of harmful substances. The bacteria is then released and quickly repopulates the colon with beneficial bacteria. Additionally, the removal of the appendix during surgeries is no longer standard practice as it can be used to reconstruct a damaged bladder.
Not really, because it still shows a failure on the part of the designer. The risk of appendicitis (5-7%) far outweighs any minor immune benefits it gives. It can be fatal, and it definitely was in pre-modern times when appendix removal wasn't an option; and even now an appendectomy costs a median of 30000 dollars. Same thing with c-section. Countless women died in pre-historic times simply because the birth canal was not big enough to deliver the baby.
Assuming you believe in evolution, that's over 100000 years where dieing was the rule rather than the exception for humans, just to put things in perspective.
Not only is god responsible for miscarriages, but every single genetic defect that anyone has ever had.
We dont know why things like that happen. The reasons behind it etc. Somehow I dont think it has anything to do with God having random fun in an evil manner. Why would God do that?. No need to jump to big conclusions knowing your pint sized brain cant understand it.
Not jumping to conclusions. I just gave you a direct quote where God claims the credit. I'm saying the writers of the bible didn't think these things through, them being cavemen & all. Not to be pedantic, but we already know God enjoys having random fun in an evil manner, like when he ruined Job's life because of a bet he had with Satan. Or when he left his arch-enemy, the serpent, in the garden with Adam & Eve.
If I was religious, I would be pro-choice, because God aborts more children per year than we could ever hope to. Also, I'd say women shouldn't be allowed to menstruate because it's a waste of an unborn life.
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."
Psalm 139:13
Not only is god responsible for miscarriages, but every single genetic defect that anyone has ever had.
"For the bajillionth time, how do you know God wasn't created?"
Well, common sense (to some people) would say God can't be created because that wouldn't make sense. If God was created, He wouldn't really be a God. The Christian God wasn't created, because He always was, even before time. That's (most of us's) our explanation. It's kind of one of those things where you have to have faith. Still don't see why this is important, though. If there is a God, it's not for us to try to find out. If God doesn't exist, then it should be discussed. You can see why we won't come to an agreement on this anytime soon based on that.
The only reason God is the "uncaused cause" and breaks the link of infinite regress is because theists explicitly defined him that way, not because there is any evidence. I'm good with that so long as you guys recognize it too.
If there is a god I'd hope we try to detect his presence scientifically. I believe that humans, given enough knowledge, can understand everything about the universe. For example, none of us can visualize a tesseract, a 4-dimensional cube. You could say that it's beyond our ken, much like you could never teach a dog to read or write. And yet, we're perfectly capable of expressing a tesseract mathematically and exploring its properties. If there was a god and I was a scientist, I wouldn't just give up. I'd try to figure out how God works, what he is made of, etc.
When you read the Gospels, you really don't feel anything? Do you feel
like the words echo inside you, or do you feel nothing but just like
reading any other book?
Or do you feel some form of resistance in your perception or some kind
of blockage or difficulty?
Honestly please.
At best I take Einstein's position:
The word 'god' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
- Albert Einstein
At worst I simply have nothing but contempt for a book which gives instructions on how to keep and beat slaves, was responsible for so many atrocities, and whose only purpose is to make us feel pathetic, small, hate our own bodies, and makes us feel like we need redemption and forgiveness for the mere act of existing, which none of us asked for by the way. And we're supposed to regard all this as some sort of "deep wisdom" instead of bronze-age scribblings on parchment.
I guess it depends what mood I'm in or what section I'm reading. :P
It does have good bits in it:
"Don't do what everyone else does, if what they do is wrong." (I find this one of particular relevance when it comes to religion)
"This is my commandment, That ye love one another."
"Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother: And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart."
However, the section where God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son particularly brings out the loathing. Right before he's about to do it, an angel pops out and says "PSYCH BRA! JUST TESTING YOUR FAITH DAWG, LOL".
How can you just not hate that crap? God reveals himself to be such a petty and wretched creature from that one story. Or the one where he ruins Job's life just because of a bet God had with Satan. Or the one where he wipes out all of humanity in a giant flood.
So what was the first era and how would that have happened?. Now you hate me for asking that:/
Go read the article & do more research instead of continuing to propagate ignorance. Your entire position depends on humans being ignorant so that you can fill the gap with your god.
The reason so many of you (like taintedwisp & soulcarver) hate science is because that leaves less things for your God to do. Over the ages, God has become more & more useless. Not to mention less powerful:
How so?. Science does not hurt creationists. Not at all. Science only proved to strengthen my faith.
Yes, yes, I know that all theists are obligated to say that. Science only "strengthens" your faith. That's why you've been arguing against evolution all thread long and why we've been using science to destroy your position. That's why you believe in virgin births, talking donkeys and why your holy book is replete with scientific inaccuracies. That's why none of you seem to have any clue that the big bang, evolution, and abiogenesis are all totally distinct and unconnected scientific theories, none of which are a requirement for atheism - aka the "dogmatic" and "religious" doctrine of not being convinced that an invisible man in the sky created everything.
I really wish theists would stop pretending that science strengthens their faith. It's an oxymoron and we all know you're lying to yourselves. If science strengthened your faith, then 93% of the national academy of sciences wouldn't be agnostic.
You know its funny, you cant see atoms, yet you believe in them... just
saying.
I never said we have to see something to believe it, just provide evidence/proof. But actually we can "see" atoms with a scanning electron microscope: http://science.howstuffworks.com/atom10.htm
You gave me two examples of causeless effects. One of which is directly
referred to as phenomena. Both of which are new arrivals in the
scientific world. Case closed on QM? You'd be as well-served closing the
case on gravity. No cause for gravity by reason of consensus!
Just because a theory is complete does not mean we've figured out everything about a certain topic. Newton's theory of gravitation was complete, and it still was even after Einstein discovered general relativity, which gives us better yet totally different equations for gravity. The uncertainty principle isn't just going to go away when we learn more.
Quote:
So you mean to say "no one did" isn't a straight answer.
The only intellectually honest answer is "I don't know". I really don't see why you guys have such a hard time living in observable reality that you feel the need to make up answers. All humans fear the unknown, but does living with uncertainty bother you that much?
Quote:
If whoever created us isn't God, they had to have been created.
For the bajillionth time, how do you know God wasn't created?
And who created the laws of nature again?. They created themselves you say?. Ah fascinating!, Shalt` we drink tea together and discuss your logic in detail sometime?.
And who created god again?. He created himself you say?. Ah fascinating!,
But seriously, prove that there was once nothing. You keep saying it over & over but always cower away from providing proof. I also love how that poster calls evolution "magic". It just goes to show that when you know absolutely nothing about a scientific theory it will look as magical to you as a Boeing airplane would look to a caveman. Watching creationists try to poke fun at science is like watching a bronze-leaguer try to give advice to a pro-gamer.
Physicists believe the entire Universe and therefore time itself[15][dubious –
discuss] began about 13.7 billion years ago in the big bang.
Do you know why wikipedia added the [dubious - discuss] tag there? Because you can't know what happened before the first 10^-43 seconds after the big bang as I have been trying to educate you about all thread long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/bb_history.html Quantum cosmology considers questions about the origin of the Universe itself. This endeavours to describe quantum processes at the earliest times that we can conceive of a classical space-time, that is, the Planck epoch at 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds. Given that we as yet do not have a fully self-consistent theory of quantum gravity, this area of cosmology is more speculative.
No time before the big bang. Otherwise it would have HAD to have been in a larger universe, and this cycle repeats to infinity. Which also destroys multiverse, so take your pick.
How does it destroy multiverse? Do you honestly expect anybody here to believe that you know anything about brane cosmology and take your word for it? I have no idea what nonsense you just rattled off, but as I said before, in the ekpyrotic universe, "the big bang is not the beginning of time; rather, it is a bridge to a pre-existing contracting era":
Without [the antithesis of original life, always], there has to be
original life, always.
What if the "original life" was a proto-cell? What if both abiogenesis and god exist? I still see no evidence for your claims or proof that there has to be "original life", whatever the heck that is.
I already explained it to you once and you ignored it. Quantum mechanics is a complete theory. It's not intuitive because we don't live on the quantum level, which only means that you're supposed to have some humility and recognize that your common sense view does not necessarily have to reflect reality. The universe can still work just fine with non-determinism. QM has proved that.
Without abiogenesis, there has to be original life, always.
Prove it. While you're at it, prove that God wasn't created. You're the one insisting everything needs to have a cause (even though we know that not all things do). So prove that God is exempt from this and give me a better reason than "because I said so" or "because we defined God that way".
...that God's existence requires the least amount of "baggage."
Sure, because it's a total cop-out and a non-answer. Of course giving up and saying "it was magic" is going to have alot less baggage than actually going out and working to find the right answer. Too bad that your "answer" has as much non-evidence for its validity as Zeus, Thor, and Santa Claus, which also don't require baggage. Therefore, God deserves to get shelved right next to all these fantastical things until we get proof that it shouldn't.
The problem with creationists is two-fold:
1) Assume that a god exists.
2) Assume that everything is proof of god.
Quote:
Nope, he can change it so that he could lift it again.
Which proves that God is not omnipotent, since he can't lift the rock in the first instance. Good job, you fail to give an adequate answer even when you resort to making up your own rules of logic.
Didn't think you guys would actually be gullible enough to tackle trick questions though. To save you further indignity I'll just link you to the "correct" answer: http://www.errantskeptics.org/Omnipotence.htm
Which still doesn't really help in the end because when you get to the core of it, theists are simply making stuff up and adjusting things in an attempt to conform their beliefs to logic & science. Again:
Science:
1) Observe evidence
2) Formulate hypothesis based on evidence
3) Validate or invalidate hypothesis through experimentation, drawing your conclusion.
Religion:
1) Start with the pre-conceived notion that God exists.
2) Go out and look for anything you can find or misrepresent as "evidence" to support this notion.
3) Declare that god exists regardless of what you find.
I will say again, The Bible is the word of God. Mankind has forgotten. Science proves the Bible. Every other religion is false and an invention of Satan. Satan blinds the world through ignorance and arrogance. We can run through all these aspects as Ive been doing. Not for my sake, but for your own sake. Consider your life and soul even, and the cost of arrogance/foolishness that brings to it?
I have to say I'm disappointed. After posting your original thesis it's extremely sad that you would regress to religious zealot blind-repetition mode.
M-theory is a mathematical framework that, while mathematically feasible, may or may not reflect actual reality. But human evolution has already . That's why evolution is in science textbooks, but m-theory is not.
You know you've got a problem when biology, paleontology, genetics, archaeology and the rest of modern science have failed to convince you of anything about human evolution, but parchments of ramblings of long-dead, scientifically-illiterate, bronze-age cavemen is all the "proof" you need for Christianity.
You don't have to take it seriously. That's why science textbooks don't talk about what happened before the big bang. When the next generation of gravity wave detectors come by we might have ways of eliminating these theories. Nonbelievers are fine with living with uncertainty. We don't have to have the answer right away.
The fact that we can't know what happened before the Planck time is like the first thing you learn in any basic intro to cosmology. You've repeatedly made the claim that the universe wasn't always there, and have been asked to prove it multiple times.
If "everything from nothing" is the absolute height of credulity, then "everything from god from nothing" is the absolute height of credulity x 9000. Are you guys starting to catch on to this absurdly simple concept?
Quote:
Sense does not come from nonsense!
The laws of chemistry and physics are not nonsense. You could calculate the odds of a snowflake forming, and this number would be higher than what you'd see in anti-evolution literature. There is no intelligence at work in the formation of a snowflake, just ordered, natural laws acting on water particles. Your being baffled at this process does not require that there must be an intelligence behind it.
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
-Douglas Adams
GNA - sorry man, but your explanation still doesn't make much sense to me. The way I see it, you're still inventing your own laws of logic. For example:
Quote:
By outside, I mean something like this: when we take out the very foundation of all that could possibly exist (by definition of what we know to be "existing") all that "IS" is God.
and just proclaim the universe "was always there"?
Because........*drum roll* it wasn`t. Who are you trying to fool here?,
Theists or yourselves?
Uhm, prove it? Or reply to my post. Again, you must have failed your physics class if you're going to keep insisting on this notion that we have proof the universe was created. We don't.
And if you say your not Religious your also a fucking idiot. A religion
is nothing but a set of beliefs. so therefore by definition you are a
religious man..
If atheism is a religion, then:
Off is a TV channel
Bald is a hair color
Abstinence is a sex position
Health is a disease
Not collecting stamps is a hobby
Get it yet?
Quote:
soo go suck one.
No that's your priest's job.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Custom Campaign Initiative
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No. Appendicitis is brought on by obstruction, usually of feces. The appendix does not remove toxins. A bacterial infection causes appendicitis because the lymph nodes enlarge and obstruct the appendix, leading to inflammation. The digestive system has plenty of effective ways of removing toxins, and the appendix only gets in the way.
That's just idle theorycrafting. We already know that removing it has pretty much no consequences. And if it's so important in fetal development, then an intelligent designer would have made it shrink/deform upon birth (like the falciform ligament) so that obstruction and inflammation would not be an issue.
Besides, there are also studies which show a higher incidence of disease in people with an in tact appendix.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279496/
The point is that 320,000 people are hospitalized each year. The only time people notice their appendix is when it gives them a problem. An intelligent designer would have put the immune processes of the appendix into another organ, and got rid of the appendix all-together.
Not really, because it still shows a failure on the part of the designer. The risk of appendicitis (5-7%) far outweighs any minor immune benefits it gives. It can be fatal, and it definitely was in pre-modern times when appendix removal wasn't an option; and even now an appendectomy costs a median of 30000 dollars. Same thing with c-section. Countless women died in pre-historic times simply because the birth canal was not big enough to deliver the baby.
Assuming you believe in evolution, that's over 100000 years where dieing was the rule rather than the exception for humans, just to put things in perspective.
Not jumping to conclusions. I just gave you a direct quote where God claims the credit. I'm saying the writers of the bible didn't think these things through, them being cavemen & all. Not to be pedantic, but we already know God enjoys having random fun in an evil manner, like when he ruined Job's life because of a bet he had with Satan. Or when he left his arch-enemy, the serpent, in the garden with Adam & Eve.
If I was religious, I would be pro-choice, because God aborts more children per year than we could ever hope to. Also, I'd say women shouldn't be allowed to menstruate because it's a waste of an unborn life.
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."
Psalm 139:13
Not only is god responsible for miscarriages, but every single genetic defect that anyone has ever had.
http://i.imgur.com/ZByXB.jpg
The only reason God is the "uncaused cause" and breaks the link of infinite regress is because theists explicitly defined him that way, not because there is any evidence. I'm good with that so long as you guys recognize it too.
If there is a god I'd hope we try to detect his presence scientifically. I believe that humans, given enough knowledge, can understand everything about the universe. For example, none of us can visualize a tesseract, a 4-dimensional cube. You could say that it's beyond our ken, much like you could never teach a dog to read or write. And yet, we're perfectly capable of expressing a tesseract mathematically and exploring its properties. If there was a god and I was a scientist, I wouldn't just give up. I'd try to figure out how God works, what he is made of, etc.
At best I take Einstein's position:
The word 'god' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
- Albert Einstein
At worst I simply have nothing but contempt for a book which gives instructions on how to keep and beat slaves, was responsible for so many atrocities, and whose only purpose is to make us feel pathetic, small, hate our own bodies, and makes us feel like we need redemption and forgiveness for the mere act of existing, which none of us asked for by the way. And we're supposed to regard all this as some sort of "deep wisdom" instead of bronze-age scribblings on parchment.
I guess it depends what mood I'm in or what section I'm reading. :P
It does have good bits in it:
"Don't do what everyone else does, if what they do is wrong." (I find this one of particular relevance when it comes to religion)
"This is my commandment, That ye love one another."
"Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother: And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart."
However, the section where God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son particularly brings out the loathing. Right before he's about to do it, an angel pops out and says "PSYCH BRA! JUST TESTING YOUR FAITH DAWG, LOL".
How can you just not hate that crap? God reveals himself to be such a petty and wretched creature from that one story. Or the one where he ruins Job's life just because of a bet God had with Satan. Or the one where he wipes out all of humanity in a giant flood.
Oh wow, now you're telling ME what I believe so that you can keep up your strawman attacks. Beautiful.
Then you guys are polytheists. And yet, you look down on other polytheistic religions like that of the ancient greeks/romans. Hypocrisy.
Go read the article & do more research instead of continuing to propagate ignorance. Your entire position depends on humans being ignorant so that you can fill the gap with your god.
The reason so many of you (like taintedwisp & soulcarver) hate science is because that leaves less things for your God to do. Over the ages, God has become more & more useless. Not to mention less powerful:
Yes, yes, I know that all theists are obligated to say that. Science only "strengthens" your faith. That's why you've been arguing against evolution all thread long and why we've been using science to destroy your position. That's why you believe in virgin births, talking donkeys and why your holy book is replete with scientific inaccuracies. That's why none of you seem to have any clue that the big bang, evolution, and abiogenesis are all totally distinct and unconnected scientific theories, none of which are a requirement for atheism - aka the "dogmatic" and "religious" doctrine of not being convinced that an invisible man in the sky created everything.
I really wish theists would stop pretending that science strengthens their faith. It's an oxymoron and we all know you're lying to yourselves. If science strengthened your faith, then 93% of the national academy of sciences wouldn't be agnostic.
I never said we have to see something to believe it, just provide evidence/proof. But actually we can "see" atoms with a scanning electron microscope: http://science.howstuffworks.com/atom10.htm
Just because a theory is complete does not mean we've figured out everything about a certain topic. Newton's theory of gravitation was complete, and it still was even after Einstein discovered general relativity, which gives us better yet totally different equations for gravity. The uncertainty principle isn't just going to go away when we learn more.
The only intellectually honest answer is "I don't know". I really don't see why you guys have such a hard time living in observable reality that you feel the need to make up answers. All humans fear the unknown, but does living with uncertainty bother you that much?
For the bajillionth time, how do you know God wasn't created?
And who created god again?. He created himself you say?. Ah fascinating!,
Still more logical than this:
But seriously, prove that there was once nothing. You keep saying it over & over but always cower away from providing proof. I also love how that poster calls evolution "magic". It just goes to show that when you know absolutely nothing about a scientific theory it will look as magical to you as a Boeing airplane would look to a caveman. Watching creationists try to poke fun at science is like watching a bronze-leaguer try to give advice to a pro-gamer.
Do you know why wikipedia added the [dubious - discuss] tag there? Because you can't know what happened before the first 10^-43 seconds after the big bang as I have been trying to educate you about all thread long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/bb_history.html
Quantum cosmology considers questions about the origin of the Universe itself. This endeavours to describe quantum processes at the earliest times that we can conceive of a classical space-time, that is, the Planck epoch at 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds. Given that we as yet do not have a fully self-consistent theory of quantum gravity, this area of cosmology is more speculative.
How does it destroy multiverse? Do you honestly expect anybody here to believe that you know anything about brane cosmology and take your word for it? I have no idea what nonsense you just rattled off, but as I said before, in the ekpyrotic universe, "the big bang is not the beginning of time; rather, it is a bridge to a pre-existing contracting era":
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/steinhardt.html
Neither you or me are physicists. Try to accept this fact.
What if the "original life" was a proto-cell? What if both abiogenesis and god exist? I still see no evidence for your claims or proof that there has to be "original life", whatever the heck that is.
Because it's a proven law of nature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
I already explained it to you once and you ignored it. Quantum mechanics is a complete theory. It's not intuitive because we don't live on the quantum level, which only means that you're supposed to have some humility and recognize that your common sense view does not necessarily have to reflect reality. The universe can still work just fine with non-determinism. QM has proved that.
Alright, going by your logic, all the life that we've seen had its own progenitor. So who created god?
A simple question that we've been asking for pages but nobody can give a straight answer for.
Prove it. While you're at it, prove that God wasn't created. You're the one insisting everything needs to have a cause (even though we know that not all things do). So prove that God is exempt from this and give me a better reason than "because I said so" or "because we defined God that way".
Sure, because it's a total cop-out and a non-answer. Of course giving up and saying "it was magic" is going to have alot less baggage than actually going out and working to find the right answer. Too bad that your "answer" has as much non-evidence for its validity as Zeus, Thor, and Santa Claus, which also don't require baggage. Therefore, God deserves to get shelved right next to all these fantastical things until we get proof that it shouldn't.
The problem with creationists is two-fold:
1) Assume that a god exists.
2) Assume that everything is proof of god.
Which proves that God is not omnipotent, since he can't lift the rock in the first instance. Good job, you fail to give an adequate answer even when you resort to making up your own rules of logic.
Didn't think you guys would actually be gullible enough to tackle trick questions though. To save you further indignity I'll just link you to the "correct" answer: http://www.errantskeptics.org/Omnipotence.htm
Which still doesn't really help in the end because when you get to the core of it, theists are simply making stuff up and adjusting things in an attempt to conform their beliefs to logic & science. Again:
Science:
1) Observe evidence
2) Formulate hypothesis based on evidence
3) Validate or invalidate hypothesis through experimentation, drawing your conclusion.
Religion:
1) Start with the pre-conceived notion that God exists.
2) Go out and look for anything you can find or misrepresent as "evidence" to support this notion.
3) Declare that god exists regardless of what you find.
I have to say I'm disappointed. After posting your original thesis it's extremely sad that you would regress to religious zealot blind-repetition mode.
Sigh. :(
M-theory is a mathematical framework that, while mathematically feasible, may or may not reflect actual reality. But human evolution has already . That's why evolution is in science textbooks, but m-theory is not.
You know you've got a problem when biology, paleontology, genetics, archaeology and the rest of modern science have failed to convince you of anything about human evolution, but parchments of ramblings of long-dead, scientifically-illiterate, bronze-age cavemen is all the "proof" you need for Christianity.
You don't have to take it seriously. That's why science textbooks don't talk about what happened before the big bang. When the next generation of gravity wave detectors come by we might have ways of eliminating these theories. Nonbelievers are fine with living with uncertainty. We don't have to have the answer right away.
The fact that we can't know what happened before the Planck time is like the first thing you learn in any basic intro to cosmology. You've repeatedly made the claim that the universe wasn't always there, and have been asked to prove it multiple times.
If "everything from nothing" is the absolute height of credulity, then "everything from god from nothing" is the absolute height of credulity x 9000. Are you guys starting to catch on to this absurdly simple concept?
The laws of chemistry and physics are not nonsense. You could calculate the odds of a snowflake forming, and this number would be higher than what you'd see in anti-evolution literature. There is no intelligence at work in the formation of a snowflake, just ordered, natural laws acting on water particles. Your being baffled at this process does not require that there must be an intelligence behind it.
http://www.dhbailey.com/papers/dhb-probability.pdf
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
-Douglas Adams
GNA - sorry man, but your explanation still doesn't make much sense to me. The way I see it, you're still inventing your own laws of logic. For example:
Doesn't this just say that God doesn't exist?
Uhm, prove it? Or reply to my post. Again, you must have failed your physics class if you're going to keep insisting on this notion that we have proof the universe was created. We don't.
Tell the talking donkeys, bushes, snakes & trees that I said hi when mommy tucks you in for bed at night.
If atheism is a religion, then:
Off is a TV channel
Bald is a hair color
Abstinence is a sex position
Health is a disease
Not collecting stamps is a hobby
Get it yet?
No that's your priest's job.