How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The chicken came before the egg

100% incorrect. Eggs, then dinosaurs, then birds all evolved and existed long before the first chicken. Dude, seriously...how are you not embarrassed of yourself? You obviously know less than nothing about this topic.

How does a parallel universe even work?

Wait, you mean you javent tried to look it up yourself? Of course you haven't, because you are a dishonest little charlatan who is not actually seeking any knowledge. You think your religion gives you all the answers, when it gives you not only NO actual knowledge, but actually gives you wrong answers. You're a dime a dozen, dude.

 

[james bond]

The chicken came before the egg

100% incorrect. Eggs, then dinosaurs, then birds all evolved and existed long before the first chicken. Dude, seriously...how are you not embarrassed of yourself? You obviously know less than nothing about this topic.

How does a parallel universe even work?

Wait, you mean you javent tried to look it up yourself? Of course you haven't, because you are a dishonest little charlatan who is not actually seeking any knowledge. You think your religion gives you all the answers, when it gives you not only NO actual knowledge, but actually gives you wrong answers. You're a dime a dozen, dude.

Stop lying. I'm not dishonest, but am providing the facts.

The evidence is in and it is a FACT now that chicken came before the egg (due to coating on egg that can only be produced by hen ovaries). Weirdos like Degrasse Tyson and Nilly Bye think there was a proto chicken. Evos like to make up anything to get over.

The parallel universe doesn't work. Let's say I decide to drive to San Francisco and you decide to drive to New York for vacation. That's in our universe. How does someone that is us living in another universe know what we decided? What caused this parallel universe? We know there aren't clones of us in this universe. Even if there were, how would they know what we decided? Then we have a case where these evolutionary thinking scientists state an infinite number of universes can exist. It is impossible to have an infinite number of universes.

Moreover, these scientists are making up the multiverses because they discovered that fine tuning parameters, i.e. fine tuning FACTS, show that earth is the only planet fine tuned for life. If they can show multiverses exist, then they can say that fine tuning parameters are not that special. The multiverse theories takes science into the metaphysical just as quantum mechanics explanations of the BBT takes science into the metaphysical. Isn't that where God resides -- the metaphysical?

This video explains it very well:

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The evidence is in and it is a FACT now that chicken came before the egg (due to coating on egg that can only be produced by hen ovaries).

Sorry buddy...you get an "F". Clearly the egg appeared on this ppanet long before the chicken, with the first birds coming even later. Your little fact is only evidence that only chickens can produce chicken eggs. Hah, what a stupid post.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How does someone that is us living in another universe know what we decided? What caused this parallel universe?

Bevause the universes split at every instant. Man, for someone who has strong opinions on the all worlds view, you certainly seem to know less than nothing about it! I suggest you not talk about it again, until you have made an honest effort to find answers to your questions.

 

[james bond]

How does someone that is us living in another universe know what we decided? What caused this parallel universe?

Bevause the universes split at every instant. Man, for someone who has strong opinions on the all worlds view, you certainly seem to know less than nothing about it! I suggest you not talk about it again, until you have made an honest effort to find answers to your questions.

First, there is no evidence of another universe. And how does something know when to split our universe? Is that the universe splitter CREATOR? Or is the universe splitter DESIGNED with some intelligence behind it? Obviously, it has to know when and how to split. What about all the other decisions made daily? Your answer sounds really DUMB. Can you explain in detail without making sh*t up?

 

[james bond]

The evidence is in and it is a FACT now that chicken came before the egg (due to coating on egg that can only be produced by hen ovaries).

Sorry buddy...you get an "F". Clearly the egg appeared on this ppanet long before the chicken, with the first birds coming even later. Your little fact is only evidence that only chickens can produce chicken eggs. Hah, what a stupid post.

The egg had to have a hen and a rooster or else it does not become fertilized. An egg would just sit there until it was eaten or rotted. You haven't even thought this through so I know you're being dishonest.

 

[Likkmee]

I don't understand how a person can claim to "know", one way or the other.

There can be no 100%. No God believer will be truthful if they say they never have questioned. But many athiests will tell they know they are 100% certain.

I used to, often. Now I have zero doubt. Nary an oz.....

 

[BreezeWood]

Moreover, these scientists are making up the multiverses because they discovered that fine tuning parameters, i.e. fine tuning FACTS, show that earth is the only planet fine tuned for life.

... show that earth is the only planet fine tuned for life.

that is your bias bond, show us the link otherwise where any legitimate scientist claims Earth alone in all the universe is the only repository capable of sustaining life.

physiology is a metaphysical substance that can appear anywhere in the universe and is not native to planet Earth that is proof of its existence elsewhere.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First, there is no evidence of another universe.

Agreed... i never claimed it was true, much less did I claim it was true with 100% certainty. Declarations of faith without evidence are for religious nutballs like you, not for evidence-based thinkers like me.

I was just explaining how the idea works. Which you would already know, if you would stop being so goddamned happily ignorant and lazy and look something up for yourself once in a while.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The egg had to have a hen and a rooster or else it does not become fertilized.

yeah... so?

Look, before you answer, i want you to think about something:

These are questions a teahcer might expect a child to ask. Yes, anyone who knows ANYTHING about this topic can answer these questions. Has it ONCE occurred to you that -- oh just maybe -- you are embarrassing yourself, and the reason everyone understands this and you don't is that you are either too stupid to understand it, or too ignorant to understand it?

i mean it ... seriously... I want you to think about this.

 

[james bond]

Moreover, these scientists are making up the multiverses because they discovered that fine tuning parameters, i.e. fine tuning FACTS, show that earth is the only planet fine tuned for life.

... show that earth is the only planet fine tuned for life.

that is your bias bond, show us the link otherwise where any legitimate scientist claims Earth alone in all the universe is the only repository capable of sustaining life.

physiology is a metaphysical substance that can appear anywhere in the universe and is not native to planet Earth that is proof of its existence elsewhere.

You missed it with your evo eyes. I provided the evidence that there is no other planet in our solar system that is habitable and has life. I know this because of probes. Would you like to see the list?

>>BW: physiology is a metaphysical substance that can appear anywhere in the universe and is not native to planet Earth that is proof of its existence elsewhere.<<

WRONG. Physiology is part of biology and has nothing to with the metaphysical. Speaking of which, fine tuning is found is biology, too. The last part shows that Multiverses were made up to explain the fine tuning facts.

".. modern biology regards it as the product of Darwinian evolution, notably as driven by natural and sexual selection. Relatively recently, some researchers have claimed that some specific “fine-tuned” features of organisms cannot possibly be the outcomes of Darwinian evolutionary development alone and that interventions by some designer must be invoked to account for them. For example, Michael Behe (1996) claims that the so-called flagellum, a bacterial organ that enables motion, is irreducibly complex in the sense that it cannot be the outcome of consecutive small-scale individual evolutionary steps, as they are allowed by standard, Darwinian, evolutionary theory. In a similar vein, William Dembski (1998) argues that some evolutionary steps hypothesized by Darwinian are so improbable that one what would not rationally expect them to occur even once in a volume the size of the visible universe. Behe and Dembski conclude that an intelligent designer likely intervened in the evolutionary course of events.

The overwhelming consensus in modern biology is that the challenges to Darwinian evolutionary theory brought forward by Behe, Dembski and others can be met. According to Kenneth Miller (1999), Behe’s arguments fail to establish that there are no plausible small-step evolutionary paths which have Behe’s allegedly “irreducibly complex” features as outcomes. For example, as Miller argues, there is in fact strong evidence for a Darwinian evolutionary history of the flagellum and its constituents (Miller 1999: 147–148).

2. Does Fine-Tuning for Life Require a Response?
Many researchers believe that the fine-tuning of the universe’s laws, constants, and boundary conditions for life calls for inferring the existence of a divine designer (see Section 3) or a multiverse—a vast collection of universes with differing laws, constants, and boundary conditions (see Section 4). The inference to a divine designer or a multiverse typically rests on the idea that, in view of the required fine-tuning, life-friendly conditions are in some sense highly improbable if there is only one, un-designed, universe. It is controversial, however, whether this idea can coherently be fleshed out in terms of any philosophical account of probability."

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I provided the evidence that there is no other planet in our solar system that is habitable and has life.

No you didn't, goofball. When such a tiny percentage of the evidence has been gathered, no rational person would think that absence of evidence is then evidence of absence. You are making a very childish mistake.

 

[james bond]

The egg had to have a hen and a rooster or else it does not become fertilized.

yeah... so?

Look, before you answer, i want you to think about something:

These are questions a teahcer might expect a child to ask. Yes, anyone who knows ANYTHING about this topic can answer these questions. Has it ONCE occurred to you that -- oh just maybe -- you are embarrassing yourself, and the reason everyone understands this and you don't is that you are either too stupid to understand it, or too ignorant to understand it?

i mean it ... seriously... I want you to think about this.

"Yeah, so?" is an admission that you didn't think it through and were dishonest.

Thus, you need to hold up this sign to your forehead and take a selfie.

After you have done so, then paste the selfie next to this

and post

in order to share and knock some sense into you .

 

[james bond]

I provided the evidence that there is no other planet in our solar system that is habitable and has life.

No you didn't, goofball. When such a tiny percentage of the evidence has been gathered, no rational person would think that absence of evidence is then evidence of absence. You are making a very childish mistake.

Well, what planets are habitable in our solar system besides earth? I can think of three and they're all questionable. My evo website understands this and says that life is rare.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Yeah, so?" is an admission that you didn't think it through and were dishonest.

No, it literally means, "yeah ... so?", because your statement was just tossed out there and not used as a premise to form an argument.

Let's try again:

You said: "The egg had to have a hen and a rooster or else it does not become fertilized."

So again: "yeah... so?" Your point? Again... you might want to consider the idea that, oh just maybe, scientists thought of this and have answers to your questions. Again, you are asking very childish questions and saying things that one would expect from someone who knows jack shit about wevolution. You are a grown man, there is no excuse for your embarrassing ignorance.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, what planets are habitable in our solar system besides earth?

Possibly, all of them. We don't have much hope for "life as we know it" on most of them and their moons, but we aren't silly enough to believe that "life as we know it" is the only possible life.

 

[james bond]

"Yeah, so?" is an admission that you didn't think it through and were dishonest.

No, it literally means, "yeah ... so?", because your statement was just tossed out there and not used as a premise to form an argument.

So again: "yeah... so?"

"Yeah, so?" a second time means that you're too stupid to live according to Jerry Coyne, atheist biologist. He has said that he's in favor of infanticide and euthanasia for the disabled.

Jerry Coyne, Infanticide, and the Evolution of Morality | Evolution News

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Yeah, so?" is an admission that you didn't think it through and were dishonest.

No, it literally means, "yeah ... so?", because your statement was just tossed out there and not used as a premise to form an argument.

So again: "yeah... so?"

"Yeah, so?" a second time means that you're too stupid to live according to Jerry Coyne, atheist biologist. He has said that he's in favor of infanticide and euthanasia for the disabled.

Jerry Coyne, Infanticide, and the Evolution of Morality | Evolution News

Yes, good, get it all out of your system, professor.

Now, let's try again:

You said: "The egg had to have a hen and a rooster or else it does not become fertilized."

...and? Why are you pointing out this fact?

 

[james bond]

Well, what planets are habitable in our solar system besides earth?

Possibly, all of them. We don't have much hope for "life as we know it" on most of them and their moons, but we aren't silly enough to believe that "life as we know it" is the only possible life.

Yes, it probably is all of them. The exoplanets are too far away. They don't have enough water nor oxygen. I'd want to see if there is some kind of microbe or living organism there first. Carbon based life forms can't exist because there isn't enough carbon and we have no evidence of other types of life forms. Fine tuning prevents carbon from forming.

 

[james bond]

"Yeah, so?" is an admission that you didn't think it through and were dishonest.

No, it literally means, "yeah ... so?", because your statement was just tossed out there and not used as a premise to form an argument.

So again: "yeah... so?"

"Yeah, so?" a second time means that you're too stupid to live according to Jerry Coyne, atheist biologist. He has said that he's in favor of infanticide and euthanasia for the disabled.

Jerry Coyne, Infanticide, and the Evolution of Morality | Evolution News

Yes, good, get it all out of your system, professor.

Now, let's try again:

You said: "The egg had to have a hen and a rooster or else it does not become fertilized."

...and? Why are you pointing out this fact?

To show you are one of Jerry's kids. C'mon, a hen can lay an egg, but that would be all she could do until she died and now you have no more eggs.