Why does science always upstage God?

[The Grand Nudger]

Still at it, still not convincing. The spectacle of online evangelism.

[Angrboda]

Still at it, still not convincing. The spectacle of online evangelism.

Maslow's mattock.

[Angrboda]

I don't know if the universe was fine-tuned for life, but atheist forums are fine-tuned for theist trolls.

"I don't know if the universe was fine-tuned for life"

I've shown you clearly don't know a LOT of things except for lying. THAT you know well. You must be proud.

"but atheist forums are fine-tuned for theist trolls."

You could have made it a private party but since others are invited and I'm sticking to the topic, go cry and lie to someone else.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You don’t understand the science or what it implies. This is at the heart of your sad, pathetic confusion. 

Boru

"You don’t understand the science or what it implies. This is at the heart of your sad, pathetic confusion."

Well, since I wrote it in my FIRST comment and have mentioned it many times, you can just keep on lying since it's all you people can do. You sure don't have any science so lying and science fiction are your only resources.

Here's my first comment again, you liar....

Evidence points to nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. It must be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This (the 1LT and 2LT) all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We know these laws and have NO doubts about them.

You poor little brain liar, you hate it when I showed often what science is...Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. It must be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable.

Last chance to moderate your tone.

Prime Directive: The purpose of these forums is first and foremost to allow members to discuss various topics with people who may disagree. The staff believe that the best discussions are those that stay polite and friendly. Therefore, the staff reserves the right to act against disruptive behaviors whenever necessary, as defined by staff and at its sole discretion.

Boru

[Fake Messiah]

presented that biology disproved Adam and Eve. When I asked how biology even explained how life came,......silence.

Yeah, why should you get close to a biology textbook -- let me guess, your pastors tell you it is satanism and you will lose your Christianity.

Nevertheless here are a few examples:

From the composition of just two human genomes, geneticists have computed the size of the human population 1.2 million years ago from which everyone in the world is descended.

They put the number at 18,500 people, but this refers only to breeding individuals, the “effective” population. The actual population would have been about three times as large, or 55,500.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/science/19human.html



theologians pretend that the scientific results, which show that humans didn’t evolve from a single pair of ancestors, simply mean that we must reinterpret the Genesis story of Adam and Eve. But, as usual, theology cannot solve this problem, though Haarsma pretends that diligent theological study and proper interpretation of Scripture will yield an answer. It’s a prime example of how religious tenets are not only disproven by science, but, more important, how religion, unlike science, is powerless to find truth.

The facts first. Sheehan et al., building on earlier work by Li and Durbin (references in margin), calculated that the minimum population size associated with the worldwide expansion of humans out of Africa roughly 100,000 years ago was 2,250 individuals, while the population that remained in Africa was no smaller than about 10,000 individuals. For population geneticists, this is the “effective population size,” invariably smaller than the census size, so these are minimum estimates, and ones derived from conservative assumptions. The population sizes are estimated by back-calculating (based on reasonable estimates of mutation rates and other genetic parameters) how small an ancestral population could be and still give rise to the observed level and structure of genetic variation in our species.

This means, of course, that Adam and Eve couldn’t have been the literal ancestors of all humanity.

https://newrepublic.com/article/115759/a...e-and-fail


But there is more than just biology that disproves Adam and Eve. There is also archeology that didn't find the Garden of Eden (or any other event described in the Bible); Astrophysics that shows how the universe was not created in six days; geology that shows how the deluge never happened, etc.

Then when I threw in how we even got human sexual reproduction,.....silence.

Again, if you bothered to read a book on evolution you would learn that humans got sexual reproduction like they got other things like eyes, walking, and running - from their animal ancestors. Apes were already having sex, and since we are apes - there is no big mystery.

NONE of you have science to even support how we got the universe naturally?

Let's see, what here is not supported by science?

"I don't know if the universe was fine-tuned for life"

I've shown you clearly don't know a LOT of things except for lying. THAT you know well. You must be proud.

Actually, you are the one who is silent. When I told you that the universe is mostly dead matter and that the only life in the universe is on one planet out of trillions of billions of planets that came about only after billions of years of universe existance, life looks more like life is a fluke, rather than the whole universe being devoted and fine tuned for life. I told you that even the Earth is not fine tuned for life where sun gives you cancer and other deadly stuff -- and you remain silent.

We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max.

Lol! What a word salad. "1LT creation, 2LT creation, you stupid!" Seriously, what are you trying to say here? I have to play a guessing game. Are you trying to say that the order can not arise from disorder because of 2nd law of thermodynamics? Because if you are, then you are wrong because order comes from disorder every day.

[The Valkyrie]

Because science exists.

[Nay_Sayer]

Law of Laws; 'When a Christian Creationist uses the term second law of thermodynamics there is a 100% chance they do not understand it"

[HappySkeptic]

Law of Laws; 'When a Christian Creationist uses the term second law of thermodynamics there is a 100% chance they do not understand it"

In physics class, my teacher summarized the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics (with relation to usable energy that is not lost to the environment) this way:

1. You can't win, you can only break even.
   
2. You can only break even at absolute zero.
   
3. You can never get to absolute zero.
   

Therefore you can't win or break even.

[Nay_Sayer]

Law of Laws; 'When a Christian Creationist uses the term second law of thermodynamics there is a 100% chance they do not understand it"

In physics class, my teacher summarized the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics (with relation to usable energy that is not lost to the environment) this way:

1. You can't win, you can only break even.
   
2. You can only break even at absolute zero.
   
3. You can never get to absolute zero.
   

Therefore you can't win or break even.

I disagree with 3 and provide the contents of my wallet as proof.  T_T

[Fake Messiah]

Talking about the laws of thermodynamics, the second one says that entropy increases, but the reason why it doesn't happen on Earth is that the sun is pumping energy to Earth.

But what about the whole universe as a whole? Why is it still creating order? Should it not be falling into disorder? Well, that is a bit of a mystery. But that doesn't negate that the inflation (big bang) happened because there are other indications it happened.

And also, when it comes to "nothingness" before the big bang, you know, what we hear theists say is "atheists believe that nothing exploded". First of all, it's what astrophysicists say and not atheism, second is that the "nothingness" in question is not "nothing", but that nothing is known as what happened before the big bang. The known natural forces and laws were not at work BUT rather some other laws and forces that were also natural just different than those of what is acting now. For example, completely different laws and forces are acting inside the black holes and we do not have any idea what they are, but to say that they are not natural but supernatural is just a game of semantics.