Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (23 Viewers)

[Trequartista]

Actually, it's just a theory

"When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.
Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) [8] in that predictions made by the theory have consistently been supported by empirical observations.[9] This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with all living organisms."

From wikipedia

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Linebreak]

Please.

Why do we have a tailbone(coccyx), the appendix(remnants of our herbivore past) and one passway to both breathe and ingest, for us to choke?

That's quite some design, isn't it?

Evolution is a fact, people trying to disprove it are just wasting their time.

Who said I'm trying to disprove evolution? I am talking about the world as a whole here. Atheism rearing its ugly head again. It should be a synonym for cynicism.

Our eyes are nothing without light, like the suns light

Our respiratory system is nothing without oxygen.

The earth cannot be fractionally closer or further from the sun or it will not sustain life.

The big bang could not have been fractionally quicker or slower or life would have never been created.

The whole system works together beautifully. Who cares if our physical bodies were evolved from goats, rats, monkeys or potatoes. In the end they "evolved" into the most conscious and intelligent life known to our world. What's the big deal? Intelligent evolution?

Some will deny the possibility of a supernatural intelligent being at all costs simply due to their cynicism, stubbornness and ego.

 

[IliveForJuve]

"When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.
Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) [8] in that predictions made by the theory have consistently been supported by empirical observations.[9] This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with all living organisms."

From wikipedia

Ok, ok. It's not proven. That also means that the creationist theory is a fact, no?

 

[Trequartista]

Some will deny the possibility of a supernatural intelligent being at all costs simply due to their cynicism, stubbornness and ego.

No, because it makes no sense whatsoever.

Ok, ok. It's not proven. That also means that the creationist theory is a fact, no?

The scientific community regards now evolution as a fact as the amount of evidence is astonishing and it all makes perfect sense.

Creationism doesn't even pass as a theory as there is absolutely zero evidence supporting it.

 

[Linebreak]

"When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.
Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) [8] in that predictions made by the theory have consistently been supported by empirical observations.[9] This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with all living organisms."

From wikipedia

More evidence of a single intelligent creator.

You, it's simply a question of perspective.

Science and religion are not competing as many atheists believe, they simply compliment one another and provide benefit to different aspects of ones life.

 

[IliveForJuve]

No, because it makes no sense whatsoever.



The scientific community regards now evolution as a fact as the amount of evidence is astonishing and it all makes perfect sense.

Creationism doesn't even pass as a theory as there is absolutely zero evidence supporting it.

That just makes me think that the scientific community wants to call evolution a fact just because there is some evidence, nothing concrete, of course. Anyways! This arguement is pointless!

Cheers! Atheist and Christian brothers!

 

[Linebreak]

No, because it makes no sense whatsoever.



The scientific community regards now evolution as a fact as the amount of evidence is astonishing and it all makes perfect sense.

Creationism doesn't even pass as a theory as there is absolutely zero evidence supporting it.

So you think the existence of God has 0% possibility?

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

So you think the existence of God has 0% possibility?

I don't think it does.

 

[Trequartista]

So you think the existence of God has 0% possibility?

Of the Christian God? 0.01% as his characteristics are incompatible in the first place (omnipotence, omniscience, the problem of evil, etc.).

As for the other gods, not much more.

 

[Linebreak]

I don't think it does.

It's not 0%?

 

[Linebreak]

Of the Christian God? 0.01% as his characteristics are incompatible in the first place (omnipotence, omniscience, the problem of evil, etc.).

As for the other gods, not much more.

Thinking it's that low of a percentage means you're happy to believe, back to my original analogy, that:

- a Tornado, ripping through a wrecking yard, can produce a brand spanking new Ferrari.

You believe the scenario above is more likely than someone actually manufacturing a Ferrari.

 

[IliveForJuve]

There is something evolution hasn't explained. The human eye.

 

[Trequartista]

Not at all.

The argument from design is refuted easily by the Boeing 747 gambit anyways.

There is something evolution hasn't explained. The human eye.

Care to elaborate?

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

It's not 0%?

Correct, it's less than 0%.

Thinking it's that low of a percentage means you're happy to believe, back to my original analogy, that:

- a Tornado, ripping through a wrecking yard, can produce a brand spanking new Ferrari.

You believe the scenario above is more likely than someone actually manufacturing a Ferrari.

Million Monkey Theory

 

[Trequartista]

Million Monkey Theory

Good one

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Thinking it's that low of a percentage means you're happy to believe, back to my original analogy, that:

- a Tornado, ripping through a wrecking yard, can produce a brand spanking new Ferrari.

You believe the scenario above is more likely than someone actually manufacturing a Ferrari.

This is 0% true because all stitching in Ferraris are made by hand, so only if that tornado had a bunch of seamstresses in it.

 

[IliveForJuve]

Care to elaborate?

The eye is a really complicated organ, we can see over 10 million different colors, it can handle 1.5 million messages simultaneously and there are other characteristics that make our eyes unique.

I don't know much about the subject (I only did a little research tonigt). I was talking with my biology teacher today and she told me that evolution couldn't explain the eye yet, as it is impossible that such an amazing complexity could've developed through a naturalistic process of evolution.

 

[Linebreak]

Correct, it's less than 0%.


Million Monkey Theory

lol - excuses excuses - the million monkey theory has been proven wrong long ago and regardless, the world that we live in is an infinite times more complicated than Shakespeare and a Ferrari.

So no one would even concede that it's plausible that a super natural being created the universe?

 

[Trequartista]

The eye is a really complicated organ, we can see over 10 million different colors, it can handle 1.5 million messages simultaneously and there are other characteristics that make our eyes unique.

I don't know much about the subject (I only did a little research tonigt). I was talking with my biology teacher today and she told me that evolution couldn't explain the eye yet, as it is impossible that such an amazing complexity could've developed through a naturalistic process of evolution.

Untrue.

You should start with wikipedia. I know there's a lot of bullshit over there but their scientific articles are usually reliable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

 

[X Æ A-12]

lol - excuses excuses - the million monkey theory has been proven wrong long ago and regardless, the world that we live in is an infinite times more complicated than Shakespeare and a Ferrari.

So no one would even concede that it's plausible that a super natural being created the universe?

I wouldn't either.