Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?

[Hollie]

You seem to be fact challenged.

Stephen Hawking did not discover any fine-tuning facts. Your claim he did is false, misleading and a misrepresentation of fact. Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts.

Yes, Hawking admitted it in 2010 (read The Grand Design), but then babbled on about multiverse. What a maroon. Anyway, he is another atheist scientist who died without any aliens or abiogenesis just like Carl Sagan. All of us here will die before aliens or abiogenesis because science shows that it does not happen. It means there are no aliens and abiogenesis.

As for the rest, it's you getting all emo about this. Poor baby.

Nonsense. Your claim regarding "fine tuning" specifically stated it was "discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang admit to the fine tuning facts "

That simply is false and a fraud.


In his book A Brief History of Time (1996 edition) Hawking quite clearly does not propose any "fine tuning". (p. 133):

"Moreover, the rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen."

Once again. it falls to you to support your claim. Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts. Let's have you provide the Exact Citation wherein "fine tuning facts (discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang)"



Coincidently, page 133 of The Grand Design has this statement:

But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.

Did you actually read The Grand Design? Or did you do a cut and paste job?

What about p. 155, p. 159, p. 161, and p. 162?

p. 155
"The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints not just on our environment but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life but also the characteristics of our entire universe, and that is much more difficult to explain."

p. 159
"Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4 percent in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it."

p. 161
"The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system hat is extremely fine-tuned, and very litle in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being."

p. 162
"Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way."

It goes to show you that Hawking admitted to fine tuning and a STRONG Anthropic Principle. He still wouldn't admit that it's just Earth and no other life besides humans.

However, the articles from around the same time discussing fine tuning have been deleted.

Here's an article and atheist opinion piece from 2018:

Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God?
"Scientists have discovered a surprising fact about our universe in the past 40 years: against incredible odds, the numbers in basic physics are exactly as they need to be to accommodate the possibility of life. If gravity had been slightly weaker, stars would not have exploded into supernovae, a crucial source of many of the heavier elements involved in life. Conversely, if gravity had been slightly stronger, stars would have lived for thousands rather than billions of years, not leaving enough time for biological evolution to take place. This is just one example – there are many others – of the “fine-tuning” of the laws of physics for life."

The rest is just atheist blabber and opinion.

Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff

In his final paper on the multiverse hypothesis, the world’s best-known atheist made a supernatural creator more plausible, says academic and author Philip Goff

www.theguardian.com

So can you admit that there are no aliens and no abiogenesis now? That creation scientists, Dr. William Lane Craig, and I were right and you were wrong after your disbeliefs for so long?

You apparently did read the quotations you posted. No mention of “fine tuning” by your gods. That seems odd because your claim regarding “fine tuning” was: "discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang admit to the fine tuning facts". If Hawking discovered that your gods “fine tuned” the universe, why do you think ha never made that statement?

Why is “fine tuning” by your gods not identified in the quotes you posted when you insist such a discovery was made by Hawking? Did Hawking forget to announce his discovery?

 

[james bond]

I don't need to use my own words I used yours.

This goes to show I understand and can explain myself with certainty while you are ignorant.

you have been saying there is no intelligent life in the universe but us then you changed that to there is no life in our solar system.

Again, that's not what I said, but what your stupid, foolish mind thinks he heard.

and if you can't understand that it can take tens of thousands of years or longer for light from a star in our own galaxy to reach us here on earth then you fail to have the most rudimentary grasp of physics.

This is what I want you to explain how it works, but you don't understand it enough to explain because of your stupidity.

Even the moron Biden is

at you.

We are done.

it's exactly what you said.

Your whole argument is that if there was intelligent life in the universe that they would have been found by now becuase you obviously don't understand the distances involved within our own galaxy never mind the entire universe and you don't grasp the limits of light speed communication over such vast distances

View attachment 437681 Dumbass.

when you can't argue post a stupid picture

I actually lol when u post. It perfectly describes stupid, stupid, stupid you (who can't explain himself, but just repeat). You make me laugh like...

 

[james bond]

You seem to be fact challenged.

Stephen Hawking did not discover any fine-tuning facts. Your claim he did is false, misleading and a misrepresentation of fact. Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts.

Yes, Hawking admitted it in 2010 (read The Grand Design), but then babbled on about multiverse. What a maroon. Anyway, he is another atheist scientist who died without any aliens or abiogenesis just like Carl Sagan. All of us here will die before aliens or abiogenesis because science shows that it does not happen. It means there are no aliens and abiogenesis.

As for the rest, it's you getting all emo about this. Poor baby.

Nonsense. Your claim regarding "fine tuning" specifically stated it was "discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang admit to the fine tuning facts "

That simply is false and a fraud.


In his book A Brief History of Time (1996 edition) Hawking quite clearly does not propose any "fine tuning". (p. 133):

"Moreover, the rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen."

Once again. it falls to you to support your claim. Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts. Let's have you provide the Exact Citation wherein "fine tuning facts (discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang)"



Coincidently, page 133 of The Grand Design has this statement:

But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.

Did you actually read The Grand Design? Or did you do a cut and paste job?

What about p. 155, p. 159, p. 161, and p. 162?

p. 155
"The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints not just on our environment but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life but also the characteristics of our entire universe, and that is much more difficult to explain."

p. 159
"Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4 percent in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it."

p. 161
"The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system hat is extremely fine-tuned, and very litle in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being."

p. 162
"Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way."

It goes to show you that Hawking admitted to fine tuning and a STRONG Anthropic Principle. He still wouldn't admit that it's just Earth and no other life besides humans.

However, the articles from around the same time discussing fine tuning have been deleted.

Here's an article and atheist opinion piece from 2018:

Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God?
"Scientists have discovered a surprising fact about our universe in the past 40 years: against incredible odds, the numbers in basic physics are exactly as they need to be to accommodate the possibility of life. If gravity had been slightly weaker, stars would not have exploded into supernovae, a crucial source of many of the heavier elements involved in life. Conversely, if gravity had been slightly stronger, stars would have lived for thousands rather than billions of years, not leaving enough time for biological evolution to take place. This is just one example – there are many others – of the “fine-tuning” of the laws of physics for life."

The rest is just atheist blabber and opinion.

Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff

In his final paper on the multiverse hypothesis, the world’s best-known atheist made a supernatural creator more plausible, says academic and author Philip Goff

www.theguardian.com

So can you admit that there are no aliens and no abiogenesis now? That creation scientists, Dr. William Lane Craig, and I were right and you were wrong after your disbeliefs for so long?

You apparently did read the quotations you posted. No mention of “fine tuning” by your gods. That seems odd because your claim regarding “fine tuning” was: "discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang admit to the fine tuning facts". If Hawking discovered that your gods “fine tuned” the universe, why do you think ha never made that statement?

Why is “fine tuning” by your gods not identified in the quotes you posted when you insist such a discovery was made by Hawking? Did Hawking forget to announce his discovery?

Now, you are in denial. This is die hard ATHEIST Stephen Hawking. He's using CIRCULAR reasoning to try and explain his findings. Do you think he actually believes the stuff that he makes up? Even Fort Fun Indiana isn't dumb enough to believe that multiverse stuff. Instead, he's stuck on the older book of there are aliens and abiogenesis happens. Look at this dumb bunny. Do you still believe? You can't accept the truth?

Former Israeli space security chief says extraterrestrials exist, and Trump knows about it
A "galactic federation" has been waiting for humans to "reach a stage where we will understand... what space and spaceships are," Haim Eshed said.

Former Israeli space chief says aliens exist, and Trump knows about it

A "galactic federation" has been waiting for humans to "reach a stage where we will understand... what space and spaceships are," Haim Eshed said.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Blues Man]

I don't need to use my own words I used yours.

This goes to show I understand and can explain myself with certainty while you are ignorant.

you have been saying there is no intelligent life in the universe but us then you changed that to there is no life in our solar system.

Again, that's not what I said, but what your stupid, foolish mind thinks he heard.

and if you can't understand that it can take tens of thousands of years or longer for light from a star in our own galaxy to reach us here on earth then you fail to have the most rudimentary grasp of physics.

This is what I want you to explain how it works, but you don't understand it enough to explain because of your stupidity.

Even the moron Biden is

at you.

We are done.

it's exactly what you said.

Your whole argument is that if there was intelligent life in the universe that they would have been found by now becuase you obviously don't understand the distances involved within our own galaxy never mind the entire universe and you don't grasp the limits of light speed communication over such vast distances

View attachment 437681 Dumbass.

when you can't argue post a stupid picture

I actually lol when u post. It perfectly describes stupid, stupid, stupid you (who can't explain himself, but just repeat). You make me laugh like...

I get it you can't reply intelligently so you resort to juvenile picture posting

 

[Hollie]

You seem to be fact challenged.

Stephen Hawking did not discover any fine-tuning facts. Your claim he did is false, misleading and a misrepresentation of fact. Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts.

Yes, Hawking admitted it in 2010 (read The Grand Design), but then babbled on about multiverse. What a maroon. Anyway, he is another atheist scientist who died without any aliens or abiogenesis just like Carl Sagan. All of us here will die before aliens or abiogenesis because science shows that it does not happen. It means there are no aliens and abiogenesis.

As for the rest, it's you getting all emo about this. Poor baby.

Nonsense. Your claim regarding "fine tuning" specifically stated it was "discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang admit to the fine tuning facts "

That simply is false and a fraud.


In his book A Brief History of Time (1996 edition) Hawking quite clearly does not propose any "fine tuning". (p. 133):

"Moreover, the rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen."

Once again. it falls to you to support your claim. Let’s have you identify a submission to one of the peer reviewed journals made by Hawking delineating his ‘fine tuning’ facts. Let's have you provide the Exact Citation wherein "fine tuning facts (discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang)"



Coincidently, page 133 of The Grand Design has this statement:

But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.

Did you actually read The Grand Design? Or did you do a cut and paste job?

What about p. 155, p. 159, p. 161, and p. 162?

p. 155
"The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints not just on our environment but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life but also the characteristics of our entire universe, and that is much more difficult to explain."

p. 159
"Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4 percent in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it."

p. 161
"The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system hat is extremely fine-tuned, and very litle in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being."

p. 162
"Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way."

It goes to show you that Hawking admitted to fine tuning and a STRONG Anthropic Principle. He still wouldn't admit that it's just Earth and no other life besides humans.

However, the articles from around the same time discussing fine tuning have been deleted.

Here's an article and atheist opinion piece from 2018:

Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God?
"Scientists have discovered a surprising fact about our universe in the past 40 years: against incredible odds, the numbers in basic physics are exactly as they need to be to accommodate the possibility of life. If gravity had been slightly weaker, stars would not have exploded into supernovae, a crucial source of many of the heavier elements involved in life. Conversely, if gravity had been slightly stronger, stars would have lived for thousands rather than billions of years, not leaving enough time for biological evolution to take place. This is just one example – there are many others – of the “fine-tuning” of the laws of physics for life."

The rest is just atheist blabber and opinion.

Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to strengthen the case for God? | Philip Goff

In his final paper on the multiverse hypothesis, the world’s best-known atheist made a supernatural creator more plausible, says academic and author Philip Goff

www.theguardian.com

So can you admit that there are no aliens and no abiogenesis now? That creation scientists, Dr. William Lane Craig, and I were right and you were wrong after your disbeliefs for so long?

You apparently did read the quotations you posted. No mention of “fine tuning” by your gods. That seems odd because your claim regarding “fine tuning” was: "discovered by Stephen Hawking and his scientists when describing big bang admit to the fine tuning facts". If Hawking discovered that your gods “fine tuned” the universe, why do you think ha never made that statement?

Why is “fine tuning” by your gods not identified in the quotes you posted when you insist such a discovery was made by Hawking? Did Hawking forget to announce his discovery?

Now, you are in denial. This is die hard ATHEIST Stephen Hawking. He's using CIRCULAR reasoning to try and explain his findings. Do you think he actually believes the stuff that he makes up? Even Fort Fun Indiana isn't dumb enough to believe that multiverse stuff. Instead, he's stuck on the older book of there are aliens and abiogenesis happens. Look at this dumb bunny. Do you still believe? You can't accept the truth?

Former Israeli space security chief says extraterrestrials exist, and Trump knows about it
A "galactic federation" has been waiting for humans to "reach a stage where we will understand... what space and spaceships are," Haim Eshed said.

Former Israeli space chief says aliens exist, and Trump knows about it

A "galactic federation" has been waiting for humans to "reach a stage where we will understand... what space and spaceships are," Haim Eshed said.

www.nbcnews.com

I'm simply requiring you to support your claim about any gods mentioned by Hawking. BTW, I can't help but notice your false claims to Hawking invoking your gods is now the subject of sidestepping and backpedaling with some rather frantic tirades about since aliens. Funny stuff.

Further, why would you accept anything from Hawking who you admit is an evilutionist atheist?

 

[james bond]

I don't need to use my own words I used yours.

This goes to show I understand and can explain myself with certainty while you are ignorant.

you have been saying there is no intelligent life in the universe but us then you changed that to there is no life in our solar system.

Again, that's not what I said, but what your stupid, foolish mind thinks he heard.

and if you can't understand that it can take tens of thousands of years or longer for light from a star in our own galaxy to reach us here on earth then you fail to have the most rudimentary grasp of physics.

This is what I want you to explain how it works, but you don't understand it enough to explain because of your stupidity.

Even the moron Biden is

at you.

We are done.

it's exactly what you said.

Your whole argument is that if there was intelligent life in the universe that they would have been found by now becuase you obviously don't understand the distances involved within our own galaxy never mind the entire universe and you don't grasp the limits of light speed communication over such vast distances

View attachment 437681 Dumbass.

when you can't argue post a stupid picture

I actually lol when u post. It perfectly describes stupid, stupid, stupid you (who can't explain himself, but just repeat). You make me laugh like...

I get it you can't reply intelligently so you resort to juvenile picture posting

smh. Rinse, repeat.

Do I have to go to my smh pictures now?

 

[Blues Man]

I don't need to use my own words I used yours.

This goes to show I understand and can explain myself with certainty while you are ignorant.

you have been saying there is no intelligent life in the universe but us then you changed that to there is no life in our solar system.

Again, that's not what I said, but what your stupid, foolish mind thinks he heard.

and if you can't understand that it can take tens of thousands of years or longer for light from a star in our own galaxy to reach us here on earth then you fail to have the most rudimentary grasp of physics.

This is what I want you to explain how it works, but you don't understand it enough to explain because of your stupidity.

Even the moron Biden is

at you.

We are done.

it's exactly what you said.

Your whole argument is that if there was intelligent life in the universe that they would have been found by now becuase you obviously don't understand the distances involved within our own galaxy never mind the entire universe and you don't grasp the limits of light speed communication over such vast distances

View attachment 437681 Dumbass.

when you can't argue post a stupid picture

I actually lol when u post. It perfectly describes stupid, stupid, stupid you (who can't explain himself, but just repeat). You make me laugh like...

I get it you can't reply intelligently so you resort to juvenile picture posting

smh. Rinse, repeat.

Do I have to go to my smh pictures now?

hey if you need a picture book to communicate go right ahead.

I don't like to make fun of people who have learning disabilities

 

[james bond]

I'm simply requiring you to support your claim about any gods mentioned by Hawking. BTW, I can't help but notice your false claims to Hawking invoking your gods is now the subject of sidestepping and backpedaling with some rather frantic tirades about since aliens. Funny stuff.

Further, why would you accept anything from Hawking who you admit is an evilutionist atheist?

There are plenty of articles on what Hawking thought of God. I think he believed not in creator God, but the impersonal god of physics. What an idiot. The evidence was right in front of face, but he couldn't admit it. His atheist faith prevented him from the TRUTH -- no aliens and no abiogenesis. Instead, he went circular.

(I think I told you what would convince me if I was an atheist to stop my atheism.)

Finally, I'm glad you now state "evilutionist atheist" and are seeing evolution as evil.

 

[james bond]

Here's something from the OP. How can the big bang or expansion cause our solar system? The solar system appears to have been designed exactly the way it is. If it was a hair off, then it would not exist according to the fine tuning facts.

 

[james bond]

hey if you need a picture book to communicate go right ahead.

I don't like to make fun of people who have learning disabilities

You still haven't explained how out solar system is just right from a random big expansion. Which two planets do not rotate counter-clockwise and why?

You won't be able to explain, so I'll lol in the same post.

 

[Hollie]

I'm simply requiring you to support your claim about any gods mentioned by Hawking. BTW, I can't help but notice your false claims to Hawking invoking your gods is now the subject of sidestepping and backpedaling with some rather frantic tirades about since aliens. Funny stuff.

Further, why would you accept anything from Hawking who you admit is an evilutionist atheist?

There are plenty of articles on what Hawking thought of God. I think he believed not in creator God, but the impersonal god of physics. What an idiot. The evidence was right in front of face, but he couldn't admit it. His atheist faith prevented him from the TRUTH -- no aliens and no abiogenesis. Instead, he went circular.

(I think I told you what would convince me if I was an atheist to stop my atheism.)

Finally, I'm glad you now state "evilutionist atheist" and are seeing evolution as evil.

What, exactly, is an “impersonal god of physics”? Religioners seem to have invented more gods than anyone can keep track of. Humans have created gods to manage most things in nature they didn’t understand. Most of those gods have been replaced by a few, one-stop-shopping gods of convenience who now manage the affairs of humans. Were those older gods relegated to administrative duties to free up time for the newer gods?

Reading through your comments, I have to suggest that you contact Hawkin’s publisher and arrange to correct the errors made in The Grand Design. It seems a shame that Hawkin’s legacy should be tarnished as being ‘an idiot’ for not researching your work and reaching your conclusions about space aliens and such.

Am I seeing evolution as evil? I never stated that so it seems you might want to visit your local Walmart and see if they have integrity on sale.

 

[Hollie]

hey if you need a picture book to communicate go right ahead.

I don't like to make fun of people who have learning disabilities

You still haven't explained how out solar system is just right from a random big expansion. Which two planets do not rotate counter-clockwise and why?

You won't be able to explain, so I'll lol in the same post.

Apparently, your gods were up late at a party and missed the morning class on that gravity lecture. That little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago or that Schumacher-Levy thing suggests that would have been a lecture they needed to attend.

I noticed the earth was not depicted as firm and immovable in the graphic you posted. It was rather.... round, not flat.

 

[james bond]

What, exactly, is an “impersonal god of physics”?

That's Hawking's term. Did u read The Grand Design?

It appears that I have the answers once again while you avoid the truth and be obscure. If you knew abiogenesis and aliens were true, then it would be fact rn.

Religioners seem to have invented more gods than anyone can keep track of.

What are religioners? It sounds condescending. Ad hominem? Atheists are religioners, too. You might as well admit you were wrong, lost the argument, and that there are no aliens and no abiogenesis.

Humans have created gods to manage most things in nature they didn’t understand.

Atheist humans invented ToE and non-God-as-creator origins.

Reading through your comments, I have to suggest that you contact Hawkin’s publisher and arrange to correct the errors made in The Grand Design. It seems a shame that Hawkin’s legacy should be tarnished as being ‘an idiot’ for not researching your work and reaching your conclusions about space aliens and such.

Lol, lol, lol. It's Hawking.

Am I seeing evolution as evil? I never stated that so it seems you might want to visit your local Walmart and see if they have integrity on sale.

So you admit u didn't read The Grand Design. No way could that book be integrity nor the truth. It's made up scientific fairy tales based on circular logic. I doubt even Walmart carries books like that.

You're the one who called it evilution and I thought it was an excellent name for your fairy tales.

Apparently, your gods were up late at a party and missed the morning class on that gravity lecture. That little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago or that Schumacher-Levy thing suggests that would have been a lecture they needed to attend.

I noticed the earth was not depicted as firm and immovable in the graphic you posted. It was rather.... round, not flat.

Please explain what dalliance occurred on Earth 65 M yrs ago. What is the Schumacher-Levy thing?

Again, you are mixing up atheists and flat Earthers with people who know the truth such as creation scientists and creationists.

 

[Hollie]

What, exactly, is an “impersonal god of physics”?

That's Hawking's term. Did u read The Grand Design?

It appears that I have the answers once again while you avoid the truth and be obscure. If you knew abiogenesis and aliens were true, then it would be fact rn.

Religioners seem to have invented more gods than anyone can keep track of.

What are religioners? It sounds condescending. Ad hominem? Atheists are religioners, too. You might as well admit you were wrong, lost the argument, and that there are no aliens and no abiogenesis.

Humans have created gods to manage most things in nature they didn’t understand.

Atheist humans invented ToE and non-God-as-creator origins.

Reading through your comments, I have to suggest that you contact Hawkin’s publisher and arrange to correct the errors made in The Grand Design. It seems a shame that Hawkin’s legacy should be tarnished as being ‘an idiot’ for not researching your work and reaching your conclusions about space aliens and such.

Lol, lol, lol. It's Hawking.

Am I seeing evolution as evil? I never stated that so it seems you might want to visit your local Walmart and see if they have integrity on sale.

So you admit u didn't read The Grand Design. No way could that book be integrity nor the truth. It's made up scientific fairy tales based on circular logic. I doubt even Walmart carries books like that.

You're the one who called it evilution and I thought it was an excellent name for your fairy tales.

Apparently, your gods were up late at a party and missed the morning class on that gravity lecture. That little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago or that Schumacher-Levy thing suggests that would have been a lecture they needed to attend.

I noticed the earth was not depicted as firm and immovable in the graphic you posted. It was rather.... round, not flat.

Please explain what dalliance occurred on Earth 65 M yrs ago. What is the Schumacher-Levy thing?

Again, you are mixing up atheists and flat Earthers with people who know the truth such as creation scientists and creationists.

I can understand you desperation to attach Hawking to your version of the gods but you should invest in a bit more study time of Hawking’s conclusions.


God is the name people give to the reason we are here. But I think that reason is the laws of physics rather than someone with whom one can have a personal relationship. An impersonal God.

Stephen Hawking


Ultimately, it makes no difference if Hawking believed in gods, your gods or someone else’s gods. Evidence is what separates mere claims vs. facts and I see you have no facts.

It’s stereotypical for the hyper-religious to denigrate the sciences and to include the complimentary sciences that support biological evolution. Your grand conspiracy theories that involve a worldwide conspiracy of evilutionist atheist scientists who are conspiring to fabricate scientific evidence is fairly typical for the hyper-religious. Your conspiracy theories are just time wasting, though.

You may believe Schumacher-Levy was a part of the grand conspiracy that haunts your world and a planet far older than 6,000 years may rock your world but it all suggests you live in a very dark world of fear and superstition.

I find it comical that you suggest Flat Earthers and ID creationers know some “twoof” when that “twoof” requires belief in magic and supernaturalism.

 

[Hollie]

hey if you need a picture book to communicate go right ahead.

I don't like to make fun of people who have learning disabilities

You still haven't explained how out solar system is just right from a random big expansion. Which two planets do not rotate counter-clockwise and why?

You won't be able to explain, so I'll lol in the same post.

Why is the earth rotating around the sun in the graphic you posted?

I thought the Bibles described the earth as fixed and immovable

Have the gods played a cruel joke on you?

 

[forkup]

Be specific.

Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.

I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.

Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?

A lot of them. For instance, individual rocks can exert gravity on another. If enough of those rocks coalesce you get the formation of planets.

 

[Ringtone]

Be specific.

Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.

I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.

No. The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of strictly natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time. The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.

The evolutionist begs the question. He assumes his conclusion, i.e., his interpretation of the available evidence, in his metaphysical premise. While his conclusion axiomatically follows from his premise, it does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence. While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not. The actual predicate of his belief flies right over his head.

Hocus Pocus

We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry. All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time. This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation and extinction per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.

 

[Ringtone]

Be specific.
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

Assuming that you're alluding to Big Bang cosmogony, it does not entail an explosion of such at all, but an expansion of matter and energy.

 

[Ringtone]

Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?

None. Why do you think biological life forms represent "order"? Please define "order" for us, in a precise scientific fashion.

You need to take your own advice and get a clue as to what conservation means in terms of biological speciation.

 

[Ringtone]

Be specific.

Once any self-replicating molecules appear, evolution is a given. Things that reproduce better will replace things that don't. That's evolution.

I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

What does that have to do with evolution? If you're going to debate the topic, you should learn the basics of it first.

Which law of physics says chaos naturally evolves into order?

First, you don’t have to be an atheist to believe in evolution.

No, you don't. You just have to mindlessly presuppose that naturalism is necessarily true.