I'll explain it more simply - enjoy your second red square of many you offensively stupid child born of the love between a brother and sister.
I think I hit a nerve. Actually, nothing I have posted has anything to do with creationism sorry. So try again Captain Assmaster.It seems when you are incapable of replying with an intelligent argument, it's better to resort to overreacting, namecalling and giving neg rep. It's hilarious how seriously you people take your little squares.You remind me of this:http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/1997/amazingretardedathiestzw3.jpg
Oh fuck, now I'm hungry.
.
Psyche, you really funny. know why?You ridicule Richard Dawkins, for his stupid 'aliens may possibly have made it all' statement. when thats the exact thing you're proposing. that something intelligent and not human created everything, and finely tuned it.
And turkish: it isn't 'widely-accepted' in the scientific community. It is accepted by a few (numerically speaking) who are on the fringes.
If it was widely accepted, there would be peer-reviewed articles about it in scientific journals, rather than op-ed shadowmonsters in cranky websites/journals...think about it...no, really think about it...do some proper research about it and then get back to us....
by the way, thanks for posting your sources (at least some of them)...it's a start...though those sources are not much use for scientific enquiry...a theologian was one author
It is widely accepted in the greater scientific community. It's the whole reason the Anthropic Principle was stated in the first place.
No, what's really retarded, is an evolutionary biologist trying to explain how a complex mechanical structure like a jumbo jet could be explained by the process of biological evolution :chuckle:
You seem to be very sure that EVERYTHING can be explained by completely naturalistic terms. What makes you so sure, and how did you come to this conclusion? How do you personally think everything can be explained naturalistically? 'We don't know yet' is fine, but if you had to make an educated guess, what would it be? I would love to hear it.
It is reconised that there are many constants in the universe, that if they were slightly different, the universe wouldn't be here - the trouble is the step you take saying therefore god
his book explains why the analogy is wrong - read and understand it, might help with the problem you have - you know, every one thinking you're a moron
everything i have encountered so far in life can be explained in naturalist terms - that includes years of scientific study and in depth discussions with people who have studied different disciplines of science - no need for the super natural
Of course everything in the universe can be described in naturalistic terms, but what about explaining why nature works so efficiently, the logical structure of nature and so forth? What explanation do you have for that?
You honestly believe intelligence, information, complex lifeforms, precise physical laws ect. can be derived from nothing but randomness and a series of coincidental chance happenings?
Why does there have to be one?
Why not?
Where did I say that? I have said no such thing. What I have done is quoted many scientists who support the fact that it implies the possibility. Indeed the evidence has been strong enough to change their minds from atheism, and some of them even taking the leap of faith from science to religion. My point was, if the evidence is so convincing to them it makes the atheists constant claims that people who believe are irrational a whole lot less credible.
b) I don't read books by Richard Dawkins. His books are tailored specifically for atheists, I'm not an atheist.
the evidence is not convincing, many scientists is an exaggeration, because most scientist dont support ID
I feel im talking to a wall, and a stupid wall at that, NO i dont think life can be derived from randomness - the processes are not random - can you please go back to school, read book on the subject and come back when you can understand the basics
So you attribute everything in existence to the process of evolution?
Because it just plain doesn't make sense, that's why not. It's the most irrational belief of all if you really think about it and the majority of scientists I have been quoting in the last page or two, would most likely agree with me.
the key is to use your reading - i used "life" so only talking about life here
Yeah, but what if the initial spiritual encounter was always with the same 'being' or 'entity', but the people having the encounters attributed different qualities, traits, etc, to this being? So that in some cultures he's God, in others he's Buddha, in others he's a cat, etc etc?I'm vague and I know it; I just find the idea intriguing is all.
I kind of see what you mean, lets drop it for now since the current topic is psyche and we'll get back to it since I'm curious to hear more.
New footage of Psyche's (aka Turkish) beliefs being taken seriously on a European talk show.
Laughter is contagious...that was so funny!Why can't it all be a product of evolution. That is the most parsimonious answer.ooops, in my opinion, that is.
