Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

Yep! I know you have a caricature in your mind of God being a fragile old man with a white beard and maybe holding a staff or something like that. Not really someone you would be scared of if you met them in a dark alley, right? In fact if God was like that, you might start to try to bully him and demand answers to your questions, maybe even poke him in the chest saying "Why didnt you show yourself to us so we didnt all go around thinking we were a bunch of highly evolved monkeys?"

I will try to explain what would happen if you did see God, but my analogy wont do this example justice.

Imagine you are alone in a desert. Nothing around for 100 miles. You turn around and see a 30 foot tall tyranasaurus rex about 10 feet away from you. It looks at you and you look at it, and you feel terror because you do not know what it will do, and if it comes after you, there is NOTHING you can do. You cant run, you can't hide, you cant explain yourself to it, you cant even get 2 steps for fear you will be struck down. All you can do is stand and stare, completely powerless and accept your fate.

 

you are presented with quotes from top scientists and you call it old and lame.

I nominate you for troll of the decade.


you already know that hawking explained that some scientists have set up computer models which show that tweaking one variable even a tiny bit destroys the universe.

you already know nobel prize winner Stephen weinberg predicted the cosmological constant by extrapolating our earth was set up fro life to exist

you already know dozens of different top scientists have stated....
there is no way the universe would up this perfect by chance...

what background do you have to say they are wrong... why don't you show us your science indicating it did happen by chance?

are you that much of a bozo to think you know more than nobel prize winners...

are you so much of a clown you think those men, some atheist are going out and making those statements for no reason.


Finally what is not scientific about a nobel prize winner saying that there is not enough time for random chance to have created a living cell from non living material.

you are the one who does not understand science.

 

I have asked you a dozen times to use science to dispute this quote...

yet you fail to do so.

"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”

But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isn’t conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?

Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it “an abdication of human intelligence.” That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” But even if you don’t go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."

http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137

 

You STUpidly miss the point yet again. The original conversation was about Russell's teapot which, as he described, is falsifiable despite your claim to the contrary. Google SBSS System. Russell never envisioned SBSS and specifically wrote conditions for telescopes that he thought would make it unfalsifiable: "nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes." Which means, what seems unfalsifiable may or may not actually be. Obviously you have no concept of this and are now backtracking by trying to move the goal posts after the game.

You can't use this template with God because you'd first have to assume God is mythical which would be circular reasoning. Not to mention that all things that seem to be just as unfalsifiable are NOT necessarily equally plausible. That's STUpid childish "thinking."

You couldn't reason your way out of a paper bag.

 

This from the serial liar of ET atheists. You can't admit to the truth even when your face is rubbed in it.

 

So what's the exit strategy here? and how does this relate to your post that started this thread?

What if a really sexy tyrannosaurus rex bitch appeared out of nowhere? would this stop the torture? would this be a miracle?

 

Fairy tale. No more, no less.

 

How would you know?

 

You can quote mine all you want but that still won't take anything away from the fact that the appearance of "fine-tuning" is not evidence of fine-tuning. You still ignore what quantum mechanics and chaos theory have to say on the matter.

 

Basically, we should all convert to Christianity or else be sent to the eternal gulag. Sounds like North Korea to me where of course the Dear Leader loves his people. *wink wink*