Abiogenesis is impossible

[snowtracks]

here's the deal: atheist have this site, one sub-menu of it is "christianity". supposedly, it's set-up for more purpose than for one atheist to tell another atheist how smart they are and how stupid christianity is. hardly ever do i get the scientific or philosophic reason for atheistic or naturalist reason in support topic under discussion. what is posted is ridicule, derision and juvy stumper style question like: how do you explain that my favorite teacher or dog got cancer? what about those 11'th century crusades? did you know that there is a book that says the wall of Jericho didn't fall down?). so, atheistic want brand themselves with "we are the intellectual ones". well to that - bring it on. but there's a problem, actually it a cop-out: "we don't have to since you haven't proved the existence of God. over last 5000 years, there has been let say 50,000 scientist, philosophers, writers, educators that written on the subject and i'm asked to prove God (just think wherever i would go, people saying "that's person proved God). posters however are about as good as the featured speakers at the atheist yearly world conventions. by the way that's coming up it April in Salt Lake city. tell them you want to speak about nothing, they will say "about nothing"? well if it's about 'nothing' you can but if you present any cogent argument 'forget it". it all comes down to comparing models: one says chance, another says purpose. on this board at least - purpose is winning.

---

with only a smidgen extra mass (less than 1%), the universe would have expanded so slowing that stars would have rapidly become black holes and neutron stars so this anthropic principle as it relates to gravitational force parameters would seem to connote intentionality.

"Things could have been different, therefore god."

So what? You're having to presuppose that god exists just to present this as a problem for atheists! Fuck!

hey shithead, we're not backing off because you learned a new 4 letter word.