Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[snowtracks]

the moon is a necessity for advanced life on earth, yes necessity. when evidence of creation is confronted, this is one way to handle it. "Current theories on the formation of the Moon owe too much to cosmic coincidences, says Robin Canup. " http://www.nature.com/news/planetary-sci...es-1.14270

---

That's fairly hypocritical of you to say. This is not evidence of creation. It is evidence that science progresses because it is willing to challenge existing knowledge and understanding in light of new discoveries or even just in light of a new approach to a problem. If scientists had been unwilling to challenge the work of other scientists in this manner, they'd be practicing religion, not science.

---

Articles like the one you link are written because scientists learn enough to change or overthrow a theory, or because a scientist decides to challenge conventional thinking or theories. In the realm of science, that gets you published in a peer-reviewed journal and your work comes under scrutiny. In the realm of religion, that gets you killed and your work gets destroyed.

the point for the link is dr. canup 'cosmic coincidences' infers design, so there must be another explanation. that's how it handled.

[Rampant.A.I.]

---

That's fairly hypocritical of you to say. This is not evidence of creation. It is evidence that science progresses because it is willing to challenge existing knowledge and understanding in light of new discoveries or even just in light of a new approach to a problem. If scientists had been unwilling to challenge the work of other scientists in this manner, they'd be practicing religion, not science.

---

Articles like the one you link are written because scientists learn enough to change or overthrow a theory, or because a scientist decides to challenge conventional thinking or theories. In the realm of science, that gets you published in a peer-reviewed journal and your work comes under scrutiny. In the realm of religion, that gets you killed and your work gets destroyed.

the point for the link is dr. canup 'cosmic coincidences' infers design, so there must be another explanation. that's how it handled.

It infers coincidence. You infer design.

[Tonus]

the point for the link is dr. canup 'cosmic coincidences' infers design, so there must be another explanation. that's how it handled.

The point is that regardless of what it "infers," scientists will continue to learn more and research more until they can answer questions with more than "we don't know yet, so we'll assume it was god." That is where learning stops. That is where progress stops. There's a reason you're hung up on beliefs that are thousands of years old even as you enjoy the fruits of modern scientific progress that wouldn't be possible if everyone behaved like you.

[Chas]

---

That's fairly hypocritical of you to say. This is not evidence of creation. It is evidence that science progresses because it is willing to challenge existing knowledge and understanding in light of new discoveries or even just in light of a new approach to a problem. If scientists had been unwilling to challenge the work of other scientists in this manner, they'd be practicing religion, not science.

---

Articles like the one you link are written because scientists learn enough to change or overthrow a theory, or because a scientist decides to challenge conventional thinking or theories. In the realm of science, that gets you published in a peer-reviewed journal and your work comes under scrutiny. In the realm of religion, that gets you killed and your work gets destroyed.

the point for the link is dr. canup 'cosmic coincidences' infers design, so there must be another explanation. that's how it handled.

'implies' - not 'infers'

[snowtracks]

so this moon-forming collision of two sized planet bodies, provided earth with much of it's magnetic field, an atmosphere conducive for life, and much of the energy required to form land above the waters which eventually became continents.
"In the case of Earth, these big bodies were the size of Mars and larger. Their impact not only ejected material into space to form the Moon but also injected considerable amounts of heat into Earth’s mantle. This heat input and great violence led to the forging of Earth’s core during the accretion phase, before the planet was fully formed. This is in contrast with a planet that formed cold, by slow accretion of small bodies. Core formation requires high internal temperatures so that blobs of molten iron descend through the mantle to reach the core. Such a planet could form a core only after long term buildup of radioactive heat from the decay of uranium, potassium, and thorium. In Earth’s case, the early heat from accretion of large bodies led to core formation as accretion occurred."
http://www.think-downloads.com/download/...iverse.pdf pg232

[Cyberman]

What the hell do you think you're proving with this stuff? Because it's not what you think it is, I'll tell you that for nothing.

[Rampant.A.I.]

so this moon-forming collision of two sized planet bodies, provided earth with much of it's magnetic field, an atmosphere conducive for life, and much of the energy required to form land above the waters which eventually became continents.
"In the case of Earth, these big bodies were the size of Mars and larger. Their impact not only ejected material into space to form the Moon but also injected considerable amounts of heat into Earth’s mantle. This heat input and great violence led to the forging of Earth’s core during the accretion phase, before the planet was fully formed. This is in contrast with a planet that formed cold, by slow accretion of small bodies. Core formation requires high internal temperatures so that blobs of molten iron descend through the mantle to reach the core. Such a planet could form a core only after long term buildup of radioactive heat from the decay of uranium, potassium, and thorium. In Earth’s case, the early heat from accretion of large bodies led to core formation as accretion occurred."
http://www.think-downloads.com/download/...iverse.pdf pg232

What is the demonstrable difference between a stastically improbable being existing, and said being's epistemic justification for existence?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

the moon is a necessity for advanced life on earth, yes necessity. when evidence of creation is confronted, this is one way to handle it. "Current theories on the formation of the Moon owe too much to cosmic coincidences, says Robin Canup. " http://www.nature.com/news/planetary-sci...es-1.14270

If that's the case then man can never live on the moon or on Mars. So we might as well give up on the idea of trying to go there before we waste more money.

[Tonus]

I am amused at the idea that god didn't form the Earth or moon; he slammed an object into the Earth to help it form into a habitable planet while at the same time providing a serviceable satellite to manage the tides. He must have spent centuries calculating exactly how large the missile had to be, and what angle to strike the Earth at, and how fast to make it move... everything needed to guarantee that he'd get precisely the Earth we got.

I wonder how many "almost" Earths there are in the universe, as god kept trying to figure out how to do that and failing over and over because dammit, the angle was off by this much!

[Wyrd of Gawd]

While it's highly likely that at this very second life exists on billions of planets all of then will be different because of atmospheres and gravity.