In article
4ax.com> duke cox.net> writes:>>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 69
> Organization:
ThunderNews.com
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@
ThunderNews.com
> X-Original-Bytes: 3340
> Xref:
news.arizona.edu alt.atheism:1977662 alt.religion.christian:642238
>
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:00:31 +0000 (UTC), cary@
afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
> Kittrell) wrote:
>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:05:26 +0000 (UTC), cary@
afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
>>> Kittrell) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> But we are talking about why I believe - overwhelming evidence.
>>>>>>The Big Bang again?
>>>
>>>>>>Isn't it just the most interesting thing that notable scientists
>>>>>>have spent their careers elucidating that event -- names
>>>>>>such as Kip Thorne and Steven Weinberg -- themselves find the evidence
>>>>>>so very "overwhelming" that they're strong atheists?
>>>
>>>>> Isn't it just the most interesting thing that medical doctors have spent their
>>>>> careers believing that only (a) God could create life and the human body?
>>>
>>>>Well, in that case, you'd best stop trotting out the Big Bang
>>>>every time someone asks for evidence of the gods, and instead
>>>>bring up body things.
>>>
>>> The big bang is the most solid evidence to be found re creation of the universe.
>>
>>Except in the opinion of many who, unlike you, actually understand the
>>Big Bang -- because they were instrumental in doing the science behind
>>the concept.
>
> You weren't. But besides the point. The creation of the universe and all in it
> was compliments of God almighty. If you have an alternate equal or better
> answer, go for it.
>
>>> God did it. I keep asking if you can offer a viable alternative, and I wait and
>>> wait and wait.
>
>>And I keep posting Stephen Hawking's statment about there being
>>no necessity for there ever having been a moment of creation
>>at all.
>
> Existence without creation??? Shirley you jest.
Take it up with Big Steve.
Or if he's busy, with physicist Victor Stenger:
1) No laws of physics were violated when the universe came
into existence.
2) Several detailed theoretical papers have been published by
reputable scientists in reputable journals that provide various
scenarios by which our universe could have arisen
spontaneously from nothing but the quantum characteristics
of vacuum, in a way consistent with all existing knowledge.
3) Something is *more natural* than nothing. A state of nothing
will tend to undergo a phase transformationto a state of
something. The universe appears to be an evolving state
of "frozen nothing".
4) The laws of physics are those that would be expected to
exist if the universe arose from nothing. By "nothing" I refer to
a state of complete disorder -- no matter, no energy, no structure
and, most significantly, no information.
>
>>But hey, what does Stephen Hawking know? This is DUKE were talking
>>to here.
>
> You better believe it.
>
>>>> You know, hydrocephalic babies, infants
>>>>born with spina bifida, spontaneous first-term abortions. Inspiring
>>>>things like that.
>
>>> Yep, shit happens after A&E set the stage for it.
>
>>Indeed, and your God is STILL so pissed out over that that He
>>continues to take it out on tens of thousands of unborn
>>babies every year.
>
> Mankind had it's say. And that is what mankind said.
`Mankind' said: `I want my baby to be born grotesquely
deformed and die gasping before my eyes"?
No, one "mankind" -- Eve -- said "I believe I'll have a bite of that".
Upon which God decided "OK, that's IT. EVERYBODY who's
ever going to be born is gonna Medamn well pay for that!
And screw the babies while I'm at it!!!"
See the difference? (hint: that's roughly a ten billion
to one difference)
-- cary
>
>>You know? He REALLY ought to think about letting things go...
>
> Not when you are so easy.
>
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
