The nature of evidence

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Hey! You are being unfair there! When I posted the links on the topic about "Heaven" a mod came to me and asked me I couldn't post any links until I don't know what, and now you are insulting me and calling me everything because I didn't!?
And not only that, you assume that "He just wants to graduate from college so he can start lying to his own little church and rape all of the altar boys.", what is the evidence for this claim? If you would knew what you are talking about you wouldn't have said it, first of all, the cases of paedophilia happened in the Catholic Church, not in the Orthodox Church, where we have no "altar boys" and priests get married before ordination, so before insulting me you can get documented. I am not going to insult back because it is not my style, I am educated and you are an atheist, how can I expect some education, after all? It is funny how all of you overuse the word evidence when you did not provide any evidence for your beliefs either, which are just that, beliefs.

Yes, the original article was posted by Clark Carlton, and, no matter what any moderator says, since now I will be posting every source even if they bann me for infringing the rules, alright?
Do any of you have anything to say about said article, which is why I posted it?

Plagiarism without citation is, as you can see, highly frowned upon, here. All you have to do is tell us when your words are not your own, and we'll deal with your references. Pretending you understand something when you're simply passing off the words of others as your own is extremely bad form.

From whence do you (or he) get the idea that order cannot come from disorder? There is nothing about cosmology or evolution that defies the laws of physics. Using rocks in an English letter formation does seem to defy the laws of physics, and thus gives indication of human interaction; none of that is true for the formation of stars by gravity, the ignition of fusion by same, and the production of the higher elements by fusion, thrown out into the cosmos when the star burns up most of its fuel and starts reacting higher elements (edit to add: before going nova, and thus flinging the materials outward). As Sagan once famously said, "We are star stuff."

If you're referring to the common claim among the Intelligent Design crowd that biomolecules cannot form without intervention, I'm curious to know why you would think that was a valid claim, given that 99.999% of the scientific world rejects that claim. Do you think almost literally every biologist (including the many biologists out there who are Christians, etc.) on the planet is delusional? Do you think they don't "really" know how biochemistry creates the order we see? Or is it more likely that people with a specific agenda to protect their pet religion might have a motive to mislead you (or even themselves) by talking about order and information in the way they do?

To put it another way, think of a molecule of water: two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, which can only form one way due to the way their electrons interact... it always forms a 104.5 degree angle because of the lone-pair electrons of the oxygen atom turning it into an effective tetrahedral shape. From this result, you have a "bent" molecule, instead of simply H-O-H in a straight line, and thus we get things like snowflakes because of the way those bent molecules interact when under certain freezing conditions. From mere atoms, floating about, into order (snowflakes), with no intervention. Biomolecules, though much more complex in shape and interactions, work by the same physical means. It's just Atomic Theory (physics) acting on chemical interactions.

It's certainly nothing to do with rocks on a beach, and it's hard to grasp why anyone would honestly think it was.