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

[genkaus]

Perhaps you can tell us how the universe came to be, if not created by some event or force,

Study up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology

and how it has lasted over 14 billion years if it is not an ordered entity?

Given its chaotic nature, you can't exactly call it an ordered entity.

if the universe is fine tuned for something, what force fine tuned it?

Its not fine tuned. Its not even tuned.

If it is random, how can you know what will happen?

Its not random - that is how.

[Alex K]

You cannot understand why the presence of of intelligent design would be the answer to all these observations of natural phenomena? Well then, I guess that concludes our conversation.

Lol.

[Chas]

Perhaps you can tell us how the universe came to be, if not created by some event or force, and how it has lasted over 14 billion years if it is not an ordered entity? if the universe is fine tuned for something, what force fine tuned it? If it is random, how can you know what will happen?

First, you don't know that it was created.
Second, you have created a false dichotomy. There is no reason to believe it is either fine-tuned or random.

Hello! Let's for a moment forget that I don't buy your premise that there is a problem.
I completely fail to see how your intelligent designer hypothesis solves any of your alleged problems. It's way more complicated than a universe with just a handful of rules.

You don't understand that a very few simple rules can create order from chaos. You are making an argument from ignorance.

---

[quote='Restan' pid='768033' dateline='1412649617']
You cannot understand why the presence of of intelligent design would be the answer to all these observations of natural phenomena? Well then, I guess that concludes our conversation.

Wow, a dismissive argument from ignorance.

You cannot provide us one shred of evidence as to where this intelligence came from or resides.

[Alex K]

Wow, a dismissive argument from ignorance.

You cannot provide us one shred of evidence as to where this intelligence came from or resides.

Apparently, Restan thinks the argument is so inherently and obviously true that the only people even worth talking to are those who already agree. That's one amusing way to go about it, Restan, but you won't get far with it, and more importantly, how are you supposed to learn something new with that attitude?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Well, we did it. We got this horse shit of a thread to 200 pages.

Well done everyone. Well done.

[LastPoet]

Yeah, when atheism has nothing to say about origin, it's just the refusal of one that solely relies on a 'magic man' to fill in the ignorance, and it is vast.

Science is doing a better job than whatever religion ever did, but it's not required for me being an atheist. They still bank on the faith, believing without a reason to justify the way they act, more often than not, quite conveniently.

[pocaracas]

Then... you know... you have atheists who lived a long time ago...
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismhisto...ticism.htm

Aristophanes (c. 448-380 BCE)
[...]perhaps one of the earliest "burden of proof" arguments:

"Shrines! Shrines! Surely you don't believe in the gods. What's your argument? Where's your proof?"

You can hear atheists today, over two millennia later, asking the same questions and getting the same silence as an answer.

Aristotle is on this list, however, because he was also quite skeptical and critical of more traditional ideas of gods:

"Prayers and sacrifices to the gods are of no avail"

"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."

"Men create gods in their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life."

So while Aristotle was by no means an "atheist" in the strictest sense, he was not a "theist" in the traditional sense

Diogenes of Sinope (412?-323 BCE)
"When I look upon seamen, men of science, and philosophers, man is the wisest of all things. When I look upon priests, prophets, and interpreters of dreams, nothing is so contemptible as a man."

Epicurus (341-270 BCE)
"...Men, believing in myths, will always fear something terrible, everlasting punishment as certain or probable. ...Men base all these fears not on mature opinions, but on irrational fancies, so that they are more disturbed by fear of the unknown than by facing facts. Peace of mind lies in being delivered from all these fears."

"A man cannot dispel his fear about the most important matters if he does not know what is the nature of the universe but suspects the truth of some mythical story. So that without natural science it is not possible to attain our pleasures unalloyed."

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. ...If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. ...If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"

I underlined the most relevant to the discussion at hand...

It is nothing new...
And yet, the Earth keeps turning, generations come and go...

[little_monkey]

So far you have shown very little brain as you can't distinguish between ratio and rational, can't make the relation that spirals and circle are curves, and you are clueless as to the meaning of cherry-picking.

Hold up, stop the presses! from now on circles will be known as "curves"

Look Muppet #2 the proper description of a circle is "circle", not curve, so describing the fibonacci spiral as a "curve" and not a spiral is not correct.

all curves are not circles or spirals.

Your little brain missed the point. Yes, all curves are not circles or spiral, just like all animals are not cats, BUT a cat is an animal, and a circle or a spiral IS a curve.

Edit: A curve is any line that deviates from straightness.

[Esquilax]

Perhaps you can tell us how the universe came to be, if not created by some event or force, and how it has lasted over 14 billion years if it is not an ordered entity? if the universe is fine tuned for something, what force fine tuned it? If it is random, how can you know what will happen?

Why do you think that random things would collapse instantaneously rather than lasting 14 billion years? And why do you think random things can't work within a set of predictable parameters?

You're kinda working from a set of unjustified assumptions, there.

[Huggy Bear]

except we've determined that you can't display a decimal point in a fraction, true or false?

You're the one who introduced the notion that the ratio 34/23.7 had to be a common fraction. It doesn't. That was a red herring introduced by you to avoid having to address the main question. And since a ratio is a dimensionless number (no units involved), 34/23.7 can be expressed as a fraction, 340/237. Whether everybody here is using exactly proper terminology is irrelevant to the main question raised as to whether Phi is expressed as a naturally occurring ratio in DNA. Your arguing about this side matter rather than addressing the main point just makes you look like a weasel.

Not true, let me explain.

I think we can all agree that the number 34 was never in dispute, the issue was whether the width of DNA was 20, 21, or 22-27. Mine was 21, the problem was Sugenator came up with more than one measurement, so when he posted 34/23.7 I assumed he took the average of 20, 22, 27 which comes out to 23 no idea where he got the .7.

Up until now I'd been using the "/" to symbolize division not a fraction and since 34/23.7 had a decimal in it, I never saw it as a fraction, and as far as I know, you can either display a ratio as a decimal or fraction, not both. When I made the comment that it wasn't a ratio, you're the ones that derailed the thread.

The fact that it wasn't properly formatted as a ratio is all i was saying.