User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Community of Austin
A superior intelligence

The universe has a number of key properties, that allow life to exists. There are only two explanations, the universe is only one of many others universes, that the perfect conditions just happen to be in this universe, and nowhere else. The second explanation is that a superior intelligence is behind the Big Bang, a superior intelligence is the one that caused the Big Bang. I'm a Christian, and I do accept the posibility of a big bang, and that there are multi-universes, which to me, if thats the case, God is the one who rules the laws in the multi-universes. However, the focus of this message is to show atheist the high probability (to them, I know for sure,100%) that a superior intelligence exists.

To my opinion, if everything was just accident, then scientist would have already explain many mysteries, like what happend before the Planck time, why we have the laws in the universe?, or even at least find a string, or even detect a dark matter particle, or maybe at least science should have created life already, if life has been around for more than 3 billion years, has survive many hits by meteorites and even by another planet, if life appeard when earth was young, little after earth was 500 million years old, why hasn't science yet made life? If life happen to be an accident, why can't the powerful brain make it yet?? Earth was too hot for life, during the first 500 million years anyways. I am not saying that they won't create life, but shouldn't they have done it already?????? Isn't the brain superior than accident??

To me I think life and the universe are no accident, atheist need to see the high probability that God exists.

Your first paragraph has a false dichotomy. Why can't there just be one universe?

We don't know of other universes, so we don't know how they might differ. We don't know what constants of this universe are truly constant or which ones might be different across universes. On this giant unknowns, apologists have made up their minds that 1) there are universe-creating knobs that a god could fiddle with, 2) there's an unexplained infinite intelligence outside of all universes (wow!!!), 3) although many people think god is perfect, he got bored one day and decided to change perfection, 4) he fine-tuned up a universe that just happened to have the magical properties necessary to create life, 5) god sat around 10 billion years while this happened, 6) god wasted the VAST majority of the universe as completely incompatible with life, 7) some Christians go so far as to assert that the purpose of the universe was human life. Have you ever computed what portion of the universe is hospitable to life? It's a very worthwhile exercise.

What an amazing bunch of back-asswards rationalization based on wild speculation. Until you can demonstrate multiple universes and the mechanism by which the were created, nobody should take any of this nonsense seriously.

At the quantum level, everything is an "accident". Nothing is deterministic.

Scientists are making a lot of progress on how life got created. There have been a number of recent discoveries in this area, such as the creation of amino acids by natural phenomenon, conditions under which they self-assemble, and even the discovery of relatively small RNA chain that could self-replicate. They've also been working on how cell walls may have been naturally created.

Most of your post is based on the logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance or the argument from incredulity. You're saying if we don't know X, or if you can't believe X, then Y must be true. No. The time to believe Y is when there is sufficient evidence for Y. What evidence do you have FOR the argument that your god exists? I suggest that maybe you pray and ask for his help on that. I look forward to your answer.

BTW, if you make an argument that depends on lies, logical fallacies, or emotional manipulation, I'll conclude that you agree with me, that there is no reason to believe in gods.

i think your missing the whole point of his argument.

the laws of physics where created once (or made or written, whichever way you would like to word this) the fact that it allowed a whole universe, life and pretty much everything to create itself from nothing!! IS very lucky. Therefore since the laws of physics and such can only be written once, it to me at least is quite reasonable that there was a god or gods, that created everything, that designed everything, that made the near coincidence more than just that.

I don't think this is a "reasonable" argument at all. It's inventing a story to fill a gap in our knowledge. The story raises more questions than it answers, so it's not really an explanation at all. It's just moving the question around.

The time time believe in a god is when there is evidence FOR a god, not a gap in our knowledge. Any god whose existence depends on what we know is necessarily a product of our imaginations, which concedes the point.

Sorry Mike, as don pointed out that's a false dichotomy, there is no reason to think the earth is here by "accident". There is no reason to think life developed by "accident". They just did. The earth was fortunate enough to be in a life supporting location with the right conditions to not only start life, but to evolve into a diverse array of life. Simply because you can't imagine it happening by natural means, doesn't make your beliefs justified or true. Argument from ignorance.

Michael said, "The universe has a number of key properties, that allow life to exists. There are only two explanations, the universe is only one of many others universes, that the perfect conditions just happen to be in this universe, and nowhere else."

NASA's Kepler space telescope has spotted five planets about the size of Earth, orbiting stars in our galaxy. Because of these findings by NASA's Kepler space telescope it seem less likely that we are alone. Scientists have just started talking seriously about life on other planets. They are in the "Goldilocks zone" where the distance from the planet to their star is optimal for supporting life. Up until now we have only found one of these, Gliese 481C, and the planet's existence was in doubt. Finding FIVE of these planets, rocky planets that are optimal in size and location to support life makes it almost impossible to deny the existence of life on other planets. As many as 1/4 of all the sun-like stars in the Milky Way may have Earth-like worlds. One of astronomy's goals is to find 'eta-Earth,' the fraction of sun-like stars that have an earth. The number could be one in eight. But it's not one in 100, which was previously estimated. There could be even more Earth-size planets at greater distances, including within the habitable zone (or Goldilocks zone) located at a distance form the star where conditions are not too hot or too cold to allow the presence of liquid water.

Scientists know that life can exist in a lot of forms of liquid not necessarily water. This is why they are now searching for liquid on planets not only liquid water. Although it is true that liquid is only a key ingredient in living organisms that we know of so far.

Michael said, "The second explanation is that a superior intelligence is behind the Big Bang, a superior intelligence is the one that caused the Big Bang."

In his latest book 'The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow sum up the Physics relating to the start of the universe as follows: "Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6 of 'The Grand Design'. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." (p. 180)

Michael said, "I'm a Christian, and I do accept the posibility of a big bang, and that there are multi-universes, which to me, if thats the case, God is the one who rules the laws in the multi-universes. However, the focus of this message is to show atheist the high probability (to them, I know for sure, 100%) that a superior intelligence exists."

Well, knowing that a superior intelligence exists is not the same as a Supernatural Being. There could be more intelligent life out there but that is not the same as a Supernatural Being. All you have done is make statements without providing one shred of evidence. Where is your proof (or evidence) of gods existence? Or proof for any of the rest of your statements. You want us to provide all the answers while you say god-did-it. That's typical. I'll bet you don't come up with an answers either.

Michael said, "To my opinion, if everything was just accident, then scientist would have already explain many mysteries, like what happend before the Planck time, why we have the laws in the universe?, or even at least find a string, or even detect a dark matter particle,

In his latest book 'The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow It is explained that before the beginning of the Universe, there was nothing. No other universe, no god, no creator, no flow of time. It's hard for us to comprehend but just because we think in terms of now and earlier and later or a beginning to everything, does not mean that this is always true. Physicist Stephen Hawking compares the beginning of the Universe to the South Pole. If you start at the South Pole you can go North just like you can go forward in time from the beginning of the Universe. But you can't go South (p 135 in The Grand Design). Starting at the South pole, there is no South; this is just like at the start of the Universe when there is no earlier time.

Michael said, "or maybe at least science should have created life already, if life has been around for more than 3 billion years, has survive many hits by meteorites and even by another planet, if life appeard when earth was young, little after earth was 500 million years old, why hasn't science yet made life?

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth's history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendants. The laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating "warm little pond" hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond "evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone." Interestingly, the precursor molecules used by the team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

Michael said, "If life happen to be an accident, why can't the powerful brain make it yet?? Earth was too hot for life, during the first 500 million years anyways. I am not saying that they won't create life, but shouldn't they have done it already??????

Microbial life forms have been discovered on Earth that can survive and even thrive at extremes of high and low temperature and pressure, and in conditions of acidity, salinity, alkalinity, and concentrations of heavy metals that would have been regarded as lethal just a few years ago. These discoveries include the wide diversity of life near sea-floor hydrother­mal vent systems, where some organisms live essentially on chemical energy in the absence of sunlight. Similar environments may be present elsewhere in the Solar System.

Life began more than 3 billion years before the Cambrian, and gradually diversified into a wide variety of single-celled organisms. Toward the end of the Precambrian, about 570 million years ago, a number of multicelled forms began to appear in the fossil record, including invertebrates resembling sponges and jellyfish, and some as-yet-unknown burrowing forms of life. As the Cambrian began, most of the basic body plans of invertebrates emerged from these Precambrian forms. They emerged relatively rapidly, in the geological sense - over 10 million to 25 million years. These Cambrian forms were not identical to modern invertebrates, but were their early ancestors. Major groups of living organisms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, did not appear until millions of years after the end of the Cambrian Period.

Humans evolved through the same biological processes that govern the evolution of all life on Earth. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

Michael said, "Isn't the brain superior than accident??"

The theory of evolution does not state that anything happens by "accident". Humans are a biological component of nature that evolved. Some atoms arranged to form a brain that produced consciousness, but that doesn't mean atoms are conscious, or that all arrangements of atoms produce consciousness. It's the particular arrangement that matters. Consciousness is a trait that evolved because helped our species survive. Evolution is not an accident. Brains evolved over millions of years. Our brain is the result of millions of years of evolution driven by environmental pressures. That's not the same thing as by accident. Our intelligence and consciousness evolved through trial and error. There were many intermediate species that went extinct.

None of your assertions explain how anything happened. You are criticizing science (evolution) but you have no answers (except god-did-it) for how anything happened. That's all you are doing, and you haven't proven a thing.

Michael said, "To me I think life and the universe are no accident, atheist need to see the high probability that God exists."

You are saying that everything has to have a cause. Does god have a cause? If god has a cause what is it? If you are going to disregard that condition for your god theory then you will have to do the same for everything else. You have no argument.

Scientists discovered and observe evolution-taking place. Scientists have observed replicating chemical chains forming from non-replicating chains. Scientists have found the answers that have unlocked many of the mysteries of the universe and life in the universe. God-did-it has answered nothing.

Dear Mike,

What will you do if/when Science does figure out how to create life in a lab? Things are seeming much closer to that every day:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26421/?ref=rss

What if the LHC leads to discoveries about the origination of the Big Bang? What if we discover ours is the only universe?

The point is, aren't you pinning your '100%' belief on something that could be dashed by new information? That seems quite a vulnerable foundation. Staking the basis for faith on the unknown as support for one's most cherished beliefs seems most likely to end in psychological disaster as the unknown inevitably becomes known. You have my true sympathies.

Yeah, Michael. At least no-one considers life came here by accident. Although some consider that life came by chance. And out of the faith-based chance that a single part of a life-giving cell would be produced, it amazingly did.

It's nice to know that you believe everything is possible, but I would advise you not to consider all possibilities that support your belief as true. Have some grounds of doubts about an argument, at least you would be practicing your God-given brain to use logic.

MJ,

I'm Sorry but no, it's not amazing that life evolved on earth if you know how or why. It's only out of ignorance that anyone thinks life evolving on Earth was by magic and was very improbable.

It's not amazing or surprising that life evolved on earth since organic matter constantly rains down on Earth from space in the form of interplanetary debris. The crater record of the Moon shows that Earth experienced a period of late bombardment 3.8 billion years ago, just a bit earlier than when the oldest life forms appear in the fossil record. Tens of thousands of tons of extraterrestrial matter fall to Earth annually, even now. And the notion that chemical evolution occurs in space seems certain. Analyses of comets, meteorites and interstellar gas during the past two decades have proven that organic chemistry is widespread in the Universe. Terrestrial gases interacted with one another, as well as with energy, thereby synthesizing bigger molecules. Nothing magical causes this rise in complexity. The same solar energy that clearly sustains life now was also active in helping to create life billions of years ago.

Scientific theories do not require supernatural intervention in the natural world. Evolution is a paradigm for the origin of all life. The theory says life originates out of non-living chemicals and evolves to higher levels of organization simply by following mechanistic laws. Evolution, which is genetic change over time, does not rely upon any "supernatural entities" or concepts that do not otherwise exist in any scientific model. Evolution does not require anything new or unusual in the universe. The atoms that make up the molecules that make up life did not exist in the beginning. They came into existence over time as our universe evolved. The big bang is the theory of how the universe evolved. The big bang theory pertains to the explosive expansion of the entire universe that continues to this day. At quantum physics level transitions do occur spontaneously without an apparent cause, like nuclear reactions. The Universe does not require a cause. Every atom that ever was or will be came into existence during the big bang. All of the energy and mass in our universe was formed within and following the expansion of the singularity. Every atom then and now was actualized in the course of the big bang.

When the initial extremely hot universe began cooling the heat was converted into volume. As a result of the cooling of the universe subatomic particles were able to condense into the matter that we recognize in the universe today, things such as electrons, neutrons, and protons. About a million years later (when the universe was cooler) there was a condensation of subatomic particles into hydrogen atoms (much fewer helium atoms and even fewer lithium atoms). These hydrogen atoms continue to make up a large part of the matter in the universe. Beside these forms of matter there was a formation of the physical forces in the universe. The singularity, big bang, inflation and then the cooling created the energy and matter in the expanding universe, except for that life would not exist in the universe. But mass, energy, expansion (space and time) these events alone are not enough for a universe in which life can evolve. Regions of higher density within the expanding hydrogen cloud were formed, and gravitational force lead to (clumping) inhomogeneous. The clumping in the early evolving universe was necessary for the existence of life. The gravitational collapse of clouds of matter around inhomogeneous (clumps) was the source of galaxies, stars, solar systems, and planet formation. Solar systems and planets allowed the formation and composition of complex carbon based molecules and other materials that form the basis for life.

The Hubble Space Telescope will document how the universe evolved to gain insight into the most basic processes underlying the formation of everything around us. This study will allow us to chart for the first time the maturation process of galaxies.

The universe evolved and continues to evolve. The universe is expanding. The majority of the objects in the universe are moving away from the Earth. The farther away an object is from the Earth, the faster it is moving away from the Earth. If we keep looking back in time, consequently further collapsing the universe, we eventually reach a time in which the universe has been so thoroughly collapsed that it no longer exists. At this point in (time and space) will be the singularity.

"We are star stuff, which has taken its destiny into its own hands. The loom of time and space works the most astonishing transformations of matter." Carl Sagan

"It's only out of ignorance that anyone thinks life evolving on Earth was by magic and was very improbable." - Really? What then are the chances that a single component of cell be produced by non-intelligence? And what are the chances that the processes to produce this cell be started? May I know?

"Scientific theories do not require supernatural intervention in the natural world." - I think NATURALISTIC theories do not require supernatural intervention in the natural world. From the definition of "scientific", it doesn't only involve nature.

"Evolution does not require anything new or unusual in the universe." - Yes it does. A blob of goo needed something new to produce a new creature.

Again. You have a nice story of how the universe began.

And from Carl Sagan's quotes, may I know what "meaningful" means to him?

MJ,

MJ quoting Linda, "It's only out of ignorance that anyone thinks life evolving on Earth was by magic and was very improbable."

How about giving the entire quote - then you might see that the answer is right there.

Second time - Linda said, "I'm Sorry but no, it's not amazing that life evolved on earth if you know how or why. It's only out of ignorance that anyone thinks life evolving on Earth was by magic and was very improbable. It's not amazing or surprising that life evolved on earth since organic matter constantly rains down on Earth from space in the form of interplanetary debris. The crater record of the Moon shows that Earth experienced a period of late bombardment 3.8 billion years ago, just a bit earlier than when the oldest life forms appear in the fossil record."

MJ said, "Really? What then are the chances that a single component of cell be produced by non-intelligence? And what are the chances that the processes to produce this cell be started? May I know?

Second time - Linda said, "Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth's history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendants. The laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating "warm little pond" hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond "evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone." Interestingly, the precursor molecules used by the team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites."

MJ quoting Linda, "Scientific theories do not require supernatural intervention in the natural world." -

How about giving the entire quote and then you can tell I'm talking about evolution and not applied mathematics.

Second time - Linda said, "Scientific theories do not require supernatural intervention in the natural world. Evolution is a paradigm for the origin of all life. The theory says life originates out of non-living chemicals and evolves to higher levels of organization simply by following mechanistic laws. Evolution, which is genetic change over time, does not rely upon any "supernatural entities" or concepts that do not otherwise exist in any scientific model.

MJ said, "I think NATURALISTIC theories do not require supernatural intervention in the natural world. From the definition of "scientific", it doesn't only involve nature."

Have you been watching Ray Comfort videos that equate the production of cars with evolution? Just in case you didn't notice the topic we were discussing happens to be how the universe and life in the universe evolved. That does not involve equating non-natural things, like a watch on a beach - or cars, with the evolution of natural things. Watches and cars do not evolve.

MJ quoting Linda, "Evolution does not require anything new or unusual in the universe." -

How about giving the entire quote:

Second time Linda, "Evolution does not require anything new or unusual in the universe. The atoms that make up the molecules that make up life did not exist in the beginning. They came into existence over time as our universe evolved. The big bang is the theory of how the universe evolved. The big bang theory pertains to the explosive expansion of the entire universe that continues to this day."

MJ said, "Yes it does. A blob of goo needed something new to produce a new creature."

Blob of goo! Do you also think that a banana is proof of Intelligent Design?

Second time Linda, "At quantum physics level transitions do occur spontaneously without an apparent cause, like nuclear reactions. The Universe does not require a cause. Every atom that ever was or will be came into existence during the big bang. All of the energy and mass in our universe was formed within and following the expansion of the singularity. Every atom then and now was actualized in the course of the big bang."

MJ said, "Again. You have a nice story of how the universe began." And from Carl Sagan's quotes, may I know what "meaningful" means to him?

You should be asking what Carl Sagan meant by "We are star stuff, which has taken its destiny into its own hands. The loom of time and space works the most astonishing transformations of matter."

It's more fun to learn science by watching fundie xian's videos. It's a riot! Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking books can't explain things and make you laugh Baah Whaaaa! They can't explain why a banana is proof of intelligent design - please explain why a banana is proof of Intelligent Design? I thought it was a combination of nature and human evolution. In addition to being a natural phenomenon, human beings have used polyploidy to create seedless bananas, and hybrids of different species. The most credible origin of the seedless banana is people cultivated them for thousands of years. So, polyploids include blackberries, strawberries, sour cherries, European plums, bananas, blueberries, persimmons and some apples. Wild bananas are smaller (don't taste good) and are full of seeds. That is why people in Southeast Asia and other places cultivated the domestic ones that are polyploids, meaning that they have three sets of chromosomes instead of the usual two. Without human intervention favoring them they would have probably gone extinct or would have died out. The seedless banana is the product of human (intervention) and cultivation and evolution.

About the term "meaningless". I'm sure I was discussing the astrophysicist Stephen Hawking when I used "meaningless" which could be applied to his explanation of the false concept "before the Big Bang" - before is meaningless. In their latest book 'The Grand Design' by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow they explain that before the beginning of the Universe, there was nothing. No other universe, no god, no creator, no flow of time. It's hard for us to comprehend but just because we think in terms of now and earlier and later or a beginning to everything, does not mean that this is always true. Physicist Stephen Hawking compares the beginning of the Universe to the South Pole. If you start at the South Pole you can go North just like you can go forward in time from the beginning of the Universe. But you can't go South (p 135 in The Grand Design). Starting at the South pole, there is no South; this is just like at the start of the Universe when there is no earlier time.

Science is only in the very beginnings of understanding biology. We've made a lot of progress, but serious study has only gone on for a few centuries, and for biochemistry (the relevant field) much, much less.

The earth had about a billion years to figure it out; I think we need to give it time.

In any case, this is a classic argument from ignorance. We don't know how it happened. That doesn't give you licence to claim that you do. Ultimately the god hypothesis is not even an explanation -- it just creates a new and even bigger mystery. Mr. Occam, let me borrow your razor.

More like Occam's butcher's axe.. People should be aware that they can't know everything.. there is a huge gap between "how did this happen?" and "GODDIDIT!!" a gap filled with ignorance and wishful thinking fueled by imagination.. all together called "faith" if you really want to know how or why or how something happened, "faith" in some imaginary being won't get you ANY further.. you have to start looking for the answer, even if you don't find one as long as you live

Ryan,

Scientists have developed a theory that describes how the very first microscopic life on primitive Earth evolved as a result of a series of chemical reactions. This theory is called chemosynthethis, and it explains the origin of cells. Science has proven that man was not formed in a day out of dirt or woman made from a man's rib. If there was more to the biblical story why leave it out? The Bible, as a learning tool, has no logical or reasonable merit. Why do believers insist on pushing their nonsense on others? I don't care if they all stay as dumb as a rock - I care that they don't keep it to themselves - and that is the problem.

They get on atheist messages boards to indoctrinate (the unenlightened) with the brainwashing ideas that have been pounded into their heads and expect us to say "thank you for showing me the light", but when it turns out they are building bridges to nowhere they really start squawking.

Occam's Razor again! Do they think that means just say no to science? I doesn't - it means when competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. If there are a number of explanations for observed phenomena, the simplest explanation is preferred - that answers the questions. Called also scientific parsimony. That absolutely leaves out "god did it" as a scientific explanation of anything. In scientific theories a superficially simple explanation of a phenomenon would fail to capture all the essential and relevant parts. Instead, one should choose the simplest explanation that explains the most data. "God did it" explains nothing. Basically no one should believe something for which one has no evidence; or, alternatively, that of two ideas which explain the same evidence, the simpler idea is to be preferred, but not ideas for which there is no evidence. It just so happens that the simpler idea has already been proven not to always be the best theory. Newton's theory of gravity was much simpler than Einstein's theory but Einstein's was better because it explained more.

According to the "Word of God" the Bible begins by stating: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. God formed the Earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting", all at the same time. Even though, we know that there are many planets that are much older than Earth. The big bang theory of how the universe evolved includes the atoms that make up the molecules that make up life; did not exist before the big bang. They came into existence over time as our universe evolved. At quantum physics level transitions do occur spontaneously without an apparent cause, like nuclear reactions. The Universe does not require a cause. Every atom that ever was or will be came into existence during the big bang. All of the energy and mass in our universe was formed within and following the expansion of the singularity. Every atom then and now was actualized in the course of the big bang. When the initial extremely hot universe began cooling the heat was converted into volume. As a result of the cooling of the universe subatomic particles were able to condense into the matter that we recognize in the universe today, things such as electrons, neutrons, and protons. About a million years later (when the universe was cooler) there was a condensation of subatomic particles into hydrogen atoms (much fewer helium atoms and even fewer lithium atoms). These hydrogen atoms continue to make up a large part of the matter in the universe. Beside these forms of matter there was a formation of the physical forces in the universe. The singularity, big bang, inflation and then the cooling created the energy and matter in the expanding universe, except for that life would not exist in the universe. The gravitational collapse of clouds of matter around inhomogeneous (clumps) was the source of galaxies, stars, solar systems, and planet formation. Solar systems and planets allowed the formation and composition of complex carbon based molecules and other materials that form the basis for life.

The Hubble Space Telescope documents how the universe evolved to gain insight into the most basic processes underlying the formation of everything around us. These studies allow us to chart for the first time the maturation process of galaxies.

There is no way that science harmonizes with "creation week" in the bible.

I think you just like to hear yourself speak. Not only am I of the choir, but you aren't very good at singing.

He's playing a banjo and we thought it was a harp? "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" or "Glory, Glory Hallelujah"! What the hell! Nobody should be allowed to post anything you don't like! Fact based science instead of what?

The existence of superior intelligence does not mean god exists or that anything was created; forget about that. There could be alien life superior to us in the universe if it's been around longer and has survived. There is absolutely no evidence to back up creation or supernatural intervention. That is not the same as superior intelligence. Sorry, but it's too true, there is nothing supernatural in any scientific theory about the origin of anything.

Frankly, some of us are tired of your cryptic little messages after her posts with absolutely no actual rebuttal.

Michael, you said:

"I'm a Christian...However, the focus of this message is to show atheist the high probability (to them, I know for sure,100%) that a superior intelligence exists."

Okay, for the sake of argument, I'll grant you a "superior intelligence." But I've got to ask, what is it about the Christian god that makes you believe he is the superior intelligence behind the creation of the universe? Is it all of the super-advanced scientific information in the Bible that was utterly unknown to the people at the time of the writing? The information about quantum mechanics, relativity, and geologic time scales? Perhaps it was the detailed description of DNA, natural selection, and mutations? Was it his mesmerizing details about germ theory, hygiene, and parasitic biology? Was it the chapters where he discussed the other continents and their inhabitants? Was it the chapters written in modern English with mentions of Einstein, Planck, and Hawkings? Was it the chapters where God told us where, exactly, in the universe we could find life? Or was it the perfect ethical system introduced that emphasized respect, empathy, and compassion for our fellow humans regardless of superficial physical differences or ethnic diversity? A world where people didn't sell or own people. Where woman were equal to men. Where the essential emphasis was placed on empirical knowledge and learning about the physical reality and not on superstitions and non-existent magic.

Is this what made you believe that the Christian god is that superior intelligence?

Not sure how he comes to that idea.. but having in mind all you said, all the randomness and idiocy, hostality to life and waste of time, matter and space, I am tempted to call it an ultimate stupidity rather than superior intelligence

And i don't understand how one can come to the conclusion that THE intelligence created life on earth?!?! i mean you make a prokaryotic form of life, take its RNA, modify and rewrite it.. and again, and again.. and again.. and again.. and again and again and again and again.. and few more hundreds of millions agains and you get to the DNA of current life forms.. which are VERY imperfect, flawed and fragile to say the least where do you see the utmost intelligent all loving omnipotent being there? heck give me omnipotence and i will make you THE ultimate human, while performing brain surgery on myself.. with both hands, and creating few trillion universe bubbles with my feet.. all within.. well.. no time, since being omnipotent doesn't require time to do anything.. much less having to take a break on sunday after i screwed up the earth big time

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

ustream.tv

Join us for the Bat Cruise Lecture, 1:15pm September 27th at Trinity United Methodist Church, at 40th and Speedway. Lecturers will be Richard Carrier and Chris Johnson.

The ACA Bat Cruise is set for Saturday, September 27th, 6-8pm. Purchase tickets in advance here.

The audio and video from Dr. Shahnawaz August lecture is now available.