Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What do you know about the Anthropic Principle? Did you know that there are many Anthropic Coincidences that in a nutshell are tantamount to evidence of design? No? You did not know this or you simply deny this? How do you explain Anthropic Coincidences? Based on what you have discovered about these amazing coincidences what do you intelligently, logically, deduce? Be smart and rational with your response please. Thank you.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design.shtml

http://www.godsci.org/gs/new/finetuning.html

Good enough for me.

Do you know what the odds of me posting this post right now are?

they are so astronomically impossible that I must have not done it, in fact, such improbable things cannot happen naturally.

But you believe that energy can be created and destroyed. You cannot have it both ways.

*Sighs.*

Merge into creationism/evolution thread, please.

And you think that we should consider this carefully why? Because it was posted in YET another christian website, that obviously skews information to fit what they think?

The second link is merely about cause and effect. duh........... like everything else in NAture.

Originally posted by inimalist
Do you know what the odds of me posting this post right now are?

they are so astronomically impossible that I must have not done it, in fact, such improbable things cannot happen naturally.

So you are in denial? Do you believe that these coincidences just came about on their own? That would not be logical.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So you are in denial? Do you believe that these coincidences just came about on their own? That would not be logical.

Logical?



http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/fundy.html

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Logical?



http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/fundy.html

"If we received a single intelligent signal containing information from space then we would conclude that there is intelligent life out there. Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It's certainly reasonable to make the inference that this isn't the random product of unguided nature, but it's the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer."
Walter Bradley, quoted in The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, p110
(The human genome, has 80,000 genes arranged in 3 billion DNA molecule pairs.)

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
(The human genome, has 80,000 genes arranged in 3 billion DNA molecule pairs.)

. . . and over 95% of it is junk. So much for this:

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
"If we received a single intelligent signal containing information from space then we would conclude that there is intelligent life out there. Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It's certainly reasonable to make the inference that this isn't the random product of unguided nature, but it's the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer."
Walter Bradley, quoted in The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, p110

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
. . . and over 95% of it is junk. So much for this:

If it is just junk how come the best minds in the world (collectively) cannot create it?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
If it is just junk how come the best minds in the world (collectively) cannot create it?

There is a tremendous difference between have not and can not.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There is a tremendous difference between have not and can not.

Why haven't they (if it's nothing more than junk)?

What is the hold up?

Originally posted by FeceMan
*Sighs.*

Merge into creationism/evolution thread, please.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why haven't they (if it's nothing more than junk)?

What is the hold up?
Technology.

God, just shut up.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
"If we received a single intelligent signal containing information from space then we would conclude that there is intelligent life out there. Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It's certainly reasonable to make the inference that this isn't the random product of unguided nature, but it's the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer."
Walter Bradley, quoted in The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, p110
(The human genome, has 80,000 genes arranged in 3 billion DNA molecule pairs.)

Originally posted by FeceMan
Technology.

God, just shut up.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So you are in denial? Do you believe that these coincidences just came about on their own? That would not be logical.

lol. /sigh

Probability only says what the likelihood of a particular thing happening is.

It does not take into account that something, no matter how unlikely, must happen and posits no reason for why they do.

So, just because something improbable happens (lets remember that there is something like a 1000000000000000000000000000 to one chance for any particular thing) does not even indicate that there needs to be a reason to explain away the improbability.

Why improbable things happen is not a real question.

X

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
"If we received a single intelligent signal containing information from space then we would conclude that there is intelligent life out there. Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It's certainly reasonable to make the inference that this isn't the random product of unguided nature, but it's the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer."
Walter Bradley, quoted in The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, p110
(The human genome, has 80,000 genes arranged in 3 billion DNA molecule pairs.)

Poor use of the word information, but sure, I've heard genetiscists say similar things.

The space thing though... We have found plenty of signals from space that APPEARED to be created by intelligences. They had patterns and variability that was thought to be impossible when it comes to what innert matter produces.

However, that appearance of intelligence turned out to be natural causes.

XX

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
If it is just junk how come the best minds in the world (collectively) cannot create it?

wrong interpretation of junk, and honestly, if you have the money to donate to the scientists who are doing the research, I'm sure they would be glad to do something as trivial as making junk DNA.

However, we don't know nearly enough about genetics for man-made genes to be useful at all. We could do it, but since research funding is hard to come by or trivial matters, most scientists would rather do something that will actully have actionable results.

XXX

It is kinda logical to be fair.

I remember using the Anthropic Principle to cling to agnosticism for a long time. Then it was just like, "Oh, right. That doesn't really justify anything. If the forces weren't as they are, we wouldn't be here to talk about it."

For your God to create the universe from outside and apart the universe, He would have to be outside of Time and Space, making it literally impossible affect time and space.

Beyond that, people love to say that if, say, the force of gravity was off by {insert astronomically small number}, we couldn't exist as we do. But gravity's a Constant. So are the other forces in the anthropic principle. And how could a constant be anything other than it is? It can't.

My argument doesn't disprove a God. There's plenty of other means to do that, and also plenty of philosophical and scientific explanations for the existence of the universe that don't involve a God....and they make much more sense. But the Anthropic Principle is an insanely weak way of trying to justify an irrational belief using scientific data that isn't related to a Creator in any way.

...

Honestly, the whole "a watch suggests a watchmaker, creation suggests a creator" argument (closely tied to this idea) doesn't fit either. And even if there is some fundamental cause of existence that is somehow Transcendant of our material existence, I'm quite certain that religion doesn't explain it adequately...or its explanations leave a lot to be desired.

When I think of complex thing forming at random it always makes me think or crystals and especially snow flakes. You have the same material coming from the same place but they all form differently and in very complex and intricate patterns. No one designed these and they form this way naturally.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
When I think of complex thing forming at random it always makes me think or crystals and especially snow flakes. You have the same material coming from the same place but they all form differently and in very complex and intricate patterns. No one designed these and they form this way naturally.

Is that why prays are never answered during snow storms? God is to busy making snow flakes.

JIA, u are heterosexual. if u were homosexual, jesus would condemn u to hell

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is that why prays are never answered during snow storms? God is to busy making snow flakes. Originally posted by Member.
JIA, u are heterosexual. if u were homosexual, jesus would condemn u to hell hum

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I remember using the Anthropic Principle to cling to agnosticism for a long time. Then it was just like, "Oh, right. That doesn't really justify anything. If the forces weren't as they are, we wouldn't be here to talk about it."

For your God to create the universe from outside and apart the universe, He would have to be outside of Time and Space, making it literally impossible affect time and space.

Beyond that, people love to say that if, say, the force of gravity was off by {insert astronomically small number}, we couldn't exist as we do. But gravity's a Constant. So are the other forces in the anthropic principle. And how could a constant be anything other than it is? It can't.

My argument doesn't disprove a God. There's plenty of other means to do that, and also plenty of philosophical and scientific explanations for the existence of the universe that don't involve a God....and they make much more sense. But the Anthropic Principle is an insanely weak way of trying to justify an irrational belief using scientific data that isn't related to a Creator in any way.

...

Honestly, the whole "a watch suggests a watchmaker, creation suggests a creator" argument (closely tied to this idea) doesn't fit either. And even if there is some fundamental cause of existence that is somehow Transcendant of our material existence, I'm quite certain that religion doesn't explain it adequately...or its explanations leave a lot to be desired.

Why doesn't

"a watch suggests a watchmaker, creation suggests a creator"

argument fit?

Read 'The Blind Watchmaker'. Has your answer.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So you are in denial? Do you believe that these coincidences just came about on their own? That would not be logical.

Is that any more logical than your belief that Yahweh does it all?

I don't think we can use the Anthropic Principle to deny the possibility of a God, depending on how it is interpreted you can give reason to any view that you want, with God or without God.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why doesn't

"a watch suggests a watchmaker, creation suggests a creator"

argument fit?

Apples and Oranges. A watch is made from things that already exist, were as the universe would have to be made from nothing. Also, we know that a watch was made or created, but there is no proof, one way or the other, rather the universe was created or not. There is the possibility that the universe has always existed in one form or another.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Apples and Oranges. A watch is made from things that already exist, were as the universe would have to be made from nothing. Also, we know that a watch was made or created, but there is no proof, one way or the other, rather the universe was created or not. There is the possibility that the universe has always existed in one form or another.

This raises a question: "Is Nothing really nothing?"

I'll save it for the philosophy forum.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But present technology is at such a zenith that is should not require much time to do anything that we desire to do.

So, why can't the best minds in the world do what God did? Why can't they create a sun and hanging in space? Why can't they create a planet uniquely habitable like ours with all of its complexity? Why can't we create a cell with all of its complication? Why can't we create consciousness with all of its wonderful mysteriousness? Why can't we create a seed that will grow into a Giant Sequoia? Why can't we create life (without using preexistent sperm and eggs)?

Well, what say you PITT_HAPPENS?

Well, your use of the word 'zenith' is totally wrong.

And what will you say once we CAN do all those things? Other than nothing because you will be long gone of old age by then.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But present technology is at such a zenith that is should not require much time to do anything that we desire to do.

That is exactly what the caveman thought right after inventing the wheel.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But present technology is at such a zenith that is should not require much time to do anything that we desire to do.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/02/brain.dish/

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/02/brain.dish/

This fails my criteria. You see, God creates from nothing; therefore, using preexistent DNA/brain cells from a rat (which God created) is not creating from nothing. Scientists must create their own living organism for this to be a valid instance. They must creat their own cell.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
This fails my criteria. You see, God creates from nothing; therefore, using preexistent DNA/brain cells from a rat (which God created) is not creating from nothing. Scientists must create their own living organism for this to be a valid instance. They must creat their own cell.

Even if we did create life you would only say it has to be made from nothing.

"Nothing" doesn't exist.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
This fails my criteria. You see, God creates from nothing; therefore, using preexistent DNA/brain cells from a rat (which God created) is not creating from nothing. Scientists must create their own living organism for this to be a valid instance. They must creat their own cell.

According to Kabbalists, the G-d of Israel created the universe from Nothing. That is He created Something from Nothing. The term "Something from Nothing" in Hebrew is Yesh M'Ayin.
How can Something come from Nothing? To answer this you must understand the nature of Nothing. This can be a fruitless life-long pursuit or you can get lucky. Here is not the place to discuss the pursuit of enlightenment though. Let's just say that the epiphany of the nature of "Nothingness" is the quintessential mystical experience.
The Hebrew word for "Nothing" is Ayin. Ayin is also the Hebrew word for "eye".
Another Hebrew term for the "Nothing" source of all- is "Ayn Sof" or "without end".
Nothing does have an unusual intrinsic quality. It glows. This glow is called the Ohr Ayn Sof or the "Light of (the Nothingness) Without End. "
The Symbol that is referred to as the "All-Seeing Eye" is an allusion to the Nothingness and the glow which emanates from it.
The glow is something. It comes from Nothing.
This glow, this light is the stuff from which everything originates.
The process, known as "chaining down" or in Hebrew, "Hishtalshelus" is an important part of the body of Kabbalistic knowledge.
It is known that the G-d of Israel created all things through a process which is sub-divided into 39 divine "sub-processes". The 39 processes of creation are personified in the 39 processes that were used to create the Mishkan. The Mishkan, or Tabernacle was the centerpiece of the ancient community of Israel.
"Man was created in the image of G-d"
Zu k'neged zu. This opposite that is another important Kabbalistic concept. It is a concept of what is below reflects that which is above. It is related to the concept of "Man was made in the image of G-d".
When the craftsmen created the Tabernacle in the desert they were mimicking the Creator's efforts. They were participating in creating something out of nothing. They had created the Tabernacle. A Temple designed to mimick and therefore encapsulate the forces of creation. The Tabernacle below reflected the Tabernacle above.
The Tabernacle above created something from nothing. The Tabernacle below did the same but because it was a mirrored reflection. It also reversed the process. It returned somethingness back to the original source of Nothingness.
This is the kabbalistic concepts of "running and returning" and "reflected light".
This is the mystery of the sacrifices.
One of the purposes of the Yabernacle below here on Earth which is situated in the lowest of worlds. Is to create something out of nothing. The Earth is the physical manifestation of pregnant Nothingness. At first glance it looks like a simple blue ball from space but with man's influence (Man in the image of G-d) it's potential is limitless.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But present technology is at such a zenith that is should not require much time to do anything that we desire to do.

So, why can't the best minds in the world do what God did? Why can't they create a sun and hang it in space? Why can't they create a planet uniquely habitable like ours with all of its complexity? Why can't we create a cell with all of its complication? Why can't we create consciousness with all of its wonderful mysteriousness? Why can't we create a seed that will grow into a Giant Sequoia? Why can't we create life (without using preexistent sperm and eggs)?

Well, what say you PITT_HAPPENS?
That is just retarded, to say that our tech is so good that we can do anything... Do you have any idea how much energy and matter it would take to make a star? More then we can create...

The funny thing is that we know how to do it but just don't have the power, resources or raw material to do it.

Simulating a neutron star

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/515765.stm

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Read 'The Blind Watchmaker'. Has your answer.



Also, PITT's snowflake analogy works well enough too. I can't disprove God using the Anthropic Principle. But you trying to use it as a justification for belief is ludicrous, as the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But present technology is at such a zenith that is should not require much time to do anything that we desire to do.

So, why can't the best minds in the world do what God did? Why can't they create a sun and hang it in space? Why can't they create a planet uniquely habitable like ours with all of its complexity? Why can't we create a cell with all of its complication? Why can't we create consciousness with all of its wonderful mysteriousness? Why can't we create a seed that will grow into a Giant Sequoia? Why can't we create life (without using preexistent sperm and eggs)?

Well, what say you PITT_HAPPENS?

Give mankind a little credit... The fact that you can ask those questions is an result of human ingenuity. Technology isn't peaking, man will always search for answers... What we now know about are earth and the universe is astonishing considering the timeline.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What do you know about the Anthropic Principle? Did you know that there are many Anthropic Coincidences that in a nutshell are tantamount to evidence of design? No? You did not know this or you simply deny this? How do you explain Anthropic Coincidences? Based on what you have discovered about these amazing coincidences what do you intelligently, logically, deduce? Be smart and rational with your response please. Thank you.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design.shtml

http://www.godsci.org/gs/new/finetuning.html I believe there's intelligence involved. There has to be, otherwise it just wouldn't work. That's what I believe.

In total unintelligent evolution things are not in pairs to reproduce. Everything would die out. To recreate most things need to be in pairs. Also there is that Phi thingie, which is really cool! It's in everything. The divine number of Phi.

http://goldennumber.net/

Originally posted by debbiejo
I believe there's intelligence involved. There has to be, otherwise it just wouldn't work. That's what I believe.

In total unintelligent evolution things are not in pairs to reproduce. Everything would die out. To recreate most things need to be in pairs. Also there is that Phi thingie, which is really cool! It's in everything. The divine number of Phi.

You are an idiot,

Originally posted by debbiejo
I believe there's intelligence involved. There has to be, otherwise it just wouldn't work. That's what I believe.

In total unintelligent evolution things are not in pairs to reproduce. Everything would die out. To recreate most things need to be in pairs. Also there is that Phi thingie, which is really cool! It's in everything. The divine number of Phi.

http://goldennumber.net/

I appreciate your well-thought-out reply.

Never mind.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are an idiot, Dwarf, moron.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Never mind.

Quantum cosmology treats the entire universe as a single particle with a wavefunction. The wavefunction allows for an infinite number of different universes. Many will be like our own; many will not. But sooner or later, given infinity to work with, something exactly like ours will come along, allowing beings just like us to rise up and ask big questions. It's a numbers game. No Designer need apply.

This is still a theory, however. There is no empirical proof of these other universes.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
The thing is I already knew this, but do you even understand it? How about you post your own ideas instead of trying to quote other peoples ideas remember I asked you not them. As have I and many others and I have never seen you complement anyone that posted that disagreed with your position.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Burning thought I appreciate your truthful answer (thank you).

Some people who have experienced a near-death experience (NDE) and have gone to Heaven describe moving from place-to-place by thought. For example, they describe being able to walk, jump, and run, but also being able to just think about where they want to go then traveling there simply by thinking it.

So if you decide to trust Jesus for salvation and then go to Heaven, you will be able to travel by by thought as well as by walking or running.

(Again, thank you for your thoughtful answer Burning thought.)

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
The thing is I already knew this, but do you even understand it? How about you post your own ideas instead of trying to quote other peoples ideas remember I asked you not them.

Because he has no idea what he's talking about. He seems to believe that by having an "authoritive" source. His argument will magically hold weight.

Originally posted by Burning thought
seriously hmmm difficult to say really, id probably be amazed and confused at the same time that he excisted as well, id probably like to have a chat with him actually, a friendly chat

the city however would frighten me, billions all in one enormous city, seem a little overwhelming, also how would you traverse it, say i wanted to get to the other side? Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Burning thought I appreciate your truthful answer (thank you).

Some people who have experienced a near-death experience (NDE) and have gone to Heaven describe moving from place-to-place by thought. For example, they describe being able to walk, jump, and run, but also being able to just think about where they want to go then traveling there simply by thinking it.

So if you decide to trust Jesus for salvation and then go to Heaven, you will be able to travel by by thought as well as by walking or running.

(Again, thank you for your thoughtful answer Burning thought.)
He was not disagreeing with your position, so no I still haven't seen it.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
He was not disagreeing with your position, so no I still haven't seen it.

Show me where he was agreeing with anything that I said? I commended his response because it stuck to the script (just like I did with debbiejo).

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Show me where he was agreeing with anything that I said? I commended his response because it stuck to the script (just like I did with debbiejo).

Script?

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Because he has no idea what he's talking about. He seems to believe that by having an "authoritive" source. His argument will magically hold weight.

I could not improve on what that gentleman said, besides why reinvent the wheel? If it isn't broke, then why try to fix it?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I could not improve on what that gentleman said, besides why reinvent the wheel? If it isn't broke, then why try to fix it?

Because it is broke, I just explained why.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Neither debbiejoe nor Burning Thought agreed with me nor disagreed with me--they simply followed my simple request in terms of answering the question without trying to be comical, sarcastic, witty, or deliberately obnoxious. I have done so on many occasions and what I have said is that I have never seen you complement anyone that had an opposing view no matter how well thought-out and on topic it was and so far that still stands. I have and many others have responded to your numerous threads without sarcasm, humor or being obnoxious. If you can show me one time you have ever complemented anyone that disagreed with your view then I will stand corrected.

Also you think that I'm a closed minded person stuck in my belief, which you couldn't be farther from the truth. That is one of the reasons that I like to debate about religion and other topics is that I like to learn about other views and new things. I'm open to new concepts and idea but I also do not take them at face value and question the source and validity of that information. If someone could show me empirical evidence that God does exist I'm very open and would except that new information, but I have not see such evidence of his existence. However you are very closed minded on the subject and from what I see is the only reason that you are here is to convert people to your faith.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I have done so on many occasions and what I have said is that I have never seen you complement anyone that had an opposing view no matter how well thought-out and on topic it was and so far that still stands. I have and many others have responded to your numerous threads without sarcasm, humor or being obnoxious. If you can show me one time you have ever complemented anyone that disagreed with your view then I will stand corrected.

Also you think that I'm a closed minded person stuck in my belief, which you couldn't be farther from the truth. That is one of the reasons that I like to debate about religion and other topics is that I like to learn about other views and new things. I'm open to new concepts and idea but I also do not take them at face value and question the source and validity of that information. If someone could show me empirical evidence that God does exist I'm very open and would except that new information, but I have not see such evidence of his existence. However you are very closed minded on the subject and from what I see is the only reason that you are here is to convert people to your faith.

I agree PITT_HAPPENS you have answered many of my posts in keeping with my simple requests.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I agree PITT_HAPPENS you have answered many of my posts in keeping with my simple requests. That still doesn't count and many times you have not returned the same favor to me as well. I have asked you question and most of the time all you do is post someone else's view, research or other out dated text. By doing this is doesn't show anything that you understand the question that was asked and is full of much useless information and doesn't answer the direct question that was asked of you or skip over much of the post and respond to only a portion of it.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
The funny thing is that we know how to do it but just don't have the power, resources or raw material to do it.

Simulating a neutron star

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/515765.stm

Originally posted by King Kandy


A neutron star in labaratory does not hold a candle to the sun (which by the way hangs on nothing). Go God!

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
That still doesn't count and many times you have not returned the same favor to me as well. I have asked you question and most of the time all you do is post someone else's view, research or other out dated text. By doing this is doesn't show anything that you understand the question that was asked and is full of much useless information and doesn't answer the direct question that was asked of you or skip over much of the post and respond to only a portion of it.

I use my time wisely and efficiently. It is a balancing act: I respond with many of my own thoughts and I defer to other's thoughts (especially if I cannot improve on them).

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
A neutron star in labaratory does not hold a candle to the sun (which by the way hangs on nothing). Go God!
Not the point, fool.

The point is that you said we cannot create a star. Then it was said that infact we CAN, were we to have enough resources at our disposal... And then you switched the topic.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Not the point, fool.

The point is that you said we cannot create a star. Then it was said that infact we CAN, were we to have enough resources at our disposal... And then you switched the topic.

We cannot create a star. I was simply going along with what you posted, but I was not being strict in terms of nitpicking with what you posted. Read carefully: man has not created a star with the intensity or capability of the sun in our solar system, nor have we hung it into space with the wisdom, skill, and precision of Almighty God. We definitely do not keep any star in space by our power and might.

Does that sound like switching the topic King Kandy?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I use my time wisely and efficiently. It is a balancing act: I respond with many of my own thoughts and I defer to other's thoughts (especially if I cannot improve on them). You missed the point of what I said.Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
We cannot create a star. I was simply going along with what you posted, but I was not being strict in terms of nitpicking with what you posted. Read carefully: man has not created a star with the intensity or capability of the sun in our solar system, nor have we hung it into space with the wisdom, skill, and precision of Almighty God. We definitely do not keep any star in space by our power and might.

Does that sound like switching the topic King Kandy? And what is a star? Yes we have created one on a smaller scale of what a star is and what it does and if we had the recourses, material and power we could indeed create a star. There is noting really to it by "hanging" it in space, it is called a geocentric orbit and we do it all the time with satellites. Creating the Earth or a planet would be harder than creating a star.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
When I think of complex thing forming at random it always makes me think or crystals and especially snow flakes. You have the same material coming from the same place but they all form differently and in very complex and intricate patterns. No one designed these and they form this way naturally.

I don't see how the snow flake analogy refutes a designer.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
We cannot create a star. I was simply going along with what you posted, but I was not being strict in terms of nitpicking with what you posted. Read carefully: man has not created a star with the intensity or capability of the sun in our solar system, nor have we hung it into space with the wisdom, skill, and precision of Almighty God. We definitely do not keep any star in space by our power and might.

Does that sound like switching the topic King Kandy?
Yeah, we don't have the power and resources... I agree with you there... However you were making it out to be an issue of knowledge.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I remember using the Anthropic Principle to cling to agnosticism for a long time. Then it was just like, "Oh, right. That doesn't really justify anything. If the forces weren't as they are, we wouldn't be here to talk about it."
If you were using it to "cling" to agnosticism, then your beliefs mattered little from the beginning.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
You missed the point of what I said. And what is a star? Yes we have created one on a smaller scale of what a star is and what it does and if we had the recourses, material and power we could indeed create a star. There is noting really to it by "hanging" it in space, it is called a geocentric orbit and we do it all the time with satellites. Creating the Earth or a planet would be harder than creating a star.

We have not created a star nor can we. How would you power your so-called star (you cannot use the sun's energy because that would be cheating)? Do you understand what I am asking? We cannot even create one and God has created billions (all powered by God).

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
We have not created a star nor can we. How would you power your so-called star (you cannot use the sun's energy because that would be cheating)? Do you understand what I am asking? We cannot even create one and God has created billions (all powered by God).

Cheating, WTF

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Cheating, WTF hug

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, we don't have the power and resources... I agree with you there... However you were making it out to be an issue of knowledge.

It is an issue of knowledge. If we had the knowledge we would be able to locate the resources and put it all together.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It is an issue of knowledge. If we had the knowledge we would be able to locate the resources and put it all together.
We gain knowledge, we do not have "Absolute Knowledge" at our disposal.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
We have not created a star nor can we. How would you power your so-called star (you cannot use the sun's energy because that would be cheating)? Do you understand what I am asking? We cannot even create one and God has created billions (all powered by God). Do you understand what a star is? In simple terms it is a ball of gas which consists of most hydrogen and helium for the most part that is under a constant state of nuclear reaction. Size is not really a factor because even in terms of stars our sun is just a speck compared to others. A sun is self creating, if you gather enough mass the gravity of the mass will cause a nuclear reaction which will start the fireball to put it simply.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It is an issue of knowledge. If we had the knowledge we would be able to locate the resources and put it all together. Where are we going to get the "resources", we would need more mass than Jupiter to make a sun close to ours? We have the knowledge with is basic physics we don't have the resources to make it happen.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
We gain knowledge, we do not have "Absolute Knowledge" at our disposal. True. As far as knowledge goes every decade feels that they have all the truth of knowledge only to find out the next decade that they were wrong or improved upon, and so it will always be.

We need a planet 15 times the size of jupiter to create a star. I wonder could we use a gas gaint/Planet and implode it's core to create a star.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
We need a planet 15 times the size of jupiter to create a star. I wonder could we use a gas gaint/Planet and implode it's core to create a star. Jupiter if it had more mass would have become a star, not nearly the size of our sun (which is only a medium size star). Jupiter is about as big as a planet can get before becoming a star.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Jupiter if it had more mass would have become a star, not nearly the size of our sun (which is only a medium size star). Jupiter is about as big as a planet can get before becoming a star.
I'm aware of that, that's why I brought it up. It was a theory I heard a while back, but Jupiter lacks the mass and we would need to creatan implosion to create fission.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
We gain knowledge, we do not have "Absolute Knowledge" at our disposal.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. We gain knowledge--but God doesn't. God doesn't even have a GED and yet He wields absolute knowledge (in fact He created all of the laws of the universe). God never took one course in chemistry, physics, calculus, trigonometry, geometry (you know, all of the disciplines that we have to learn and study over a number of semesters) or any other course for that matter and yet His understanding is infinite. God never graduated from kindergarten let alone from a university and yet He is all-wise. How did God do it? How did He figure how to be so intelligent without ever stepping foot in a classroom? What is God's secret? Why is His I.Q. off the charts? God is smarter than every person who will ever live combined--yet He has no degree from any learning institution.

I guess this is why God (and God alone) is worshipped. He managed to figure out how to create a cell, the brain, blood, DNA, all of the systems of the human body, life, and all of the other things that leave scientists from the finest universities dumbfounded. All of the things that we struggle to understand is understandable to God because He created it. God has no education whatsoever and yet He created the earth. When was the last time that we created an earth? God has no high school diploma and yet His SAT scores are so high that they cannot be measured.

God has no undergraduate degree and yet He created DNA and told it how to function according to His wisdom. And you know what? It does. God has no drivers license and yet He controls the velocity and direction of all of the planets (i.e. all of these massive celestial objects that we still cannot create), causing them to orbit the sun perfectly. Pretty good for having never stepped foot in a classroom. Can we do that? How does God control the strong and weak nuclear forces? Oh, I forgot (slaps forehead): He created the fundamental forces. Where did God get His understanding of gravity, atoms, and energy? Should God have an ego? How did God figure out how to make water? Did He have a manual for how to create plant life? Maybe God went to Deity College where He learned how to be all-powerful? No? So then from whence came His divine power? How come God can see us but we cannot see Him?

How come God can hear us but we cannot hear Him? How come God can interrupt our lives with the Truth but we cannot interrupt His life? How come God can come to earth as a Man (i.e. Jesus Christ) but we cannot go to Heaven without becoming born again? Why did God die on the cross for our sins? Couldn't we just keep ourselves from dying and going to Hell? I thought we were the architects of our own kismet? Why are here? If we are god (individually) as New Age teaches then why do we have to learn things? If we are god then why do we have to work? If we are god then why do need sleep, food, and other things that simply encumber us? Why can't we be independent of those things like God? God does because God wills or chooses to do--but God needs nothing and no one. Why don't we know the future like God? Why can't we create our own Heaven and situate it on top of the universe like God?

We are we so arrogant and prideful to think that we know better than God Who created us? Why can't we create our own universe somewhere and be our own gods? Why are we so deceived by the devil to think that one day with enough time and technology that we could become god? Why don't we just admit it: we are not gods and we will never be gods? Why don't we acknowledge that God has wisdom, intelligence, and understanding that we cannot comprehend and power that we will never attain? Why don't we all worship God and praise Him for His goodness, mercy, love, compassion, loving-kindness, patience, long-suffering, grace, gentleness, and greatness? What is the source of God's power and how did He learn to harness it?

May I ask why you are so closed minded and not open to new knowledge? All you have done is reiterate the same thing you have said many times before only more lengthily in these posts, no new information and your explanation is that if we can't do it then God must have.

Edit: Also didn't God give us free will and the ability to think, reason, and understand and to question the world around us? With the mentality your purpose then we would have never invented many of the medicines and technology that we have today because why would we even think that we as his creations could ever understand his work? Wouldn't that by itself be us trying to become God by learning how he does it?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What do you know about the Anthropic Principle? Did you know that there are many Anthropic Coincidences that in a nutshell are tantamount to evidence of design? No? You did not know this or you simply deny this? How do you explain Anthropic Coincidences? Based on what you have discovered about these amazing coincidences what do you intelligently, logically, deduce? Be smart and rational with your response please. Thank you.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design.shtml

http://www.godsci.org/gs/new/finetuning.html

Please be smart and rational in your posts.

ID IS AN ANTRHOPIC PRINCIPLE IN ITSELF.

Anthropic coincidences do not justify nor are they used as evidence of the theory.

Thank you, please close this bullshit.

^ What he said.

Intelligent design: a theory that uses our own observations of things we create and applies this to the rest of the universe.

Anthropic what-now?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What do you know about the Anthropic Principle? Did you know that there are many Anthropic Coincidences that in a nutshell are tantamount to evidence of design? No? You did not know this or you simply deny this? How do you explain Anthropic Coincidences? Based on what you have discovered about these amazing coincidences what do you intelligently, logically, deduce? Be smart and rational with your response please. Thank you.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design.shtml

http://www.godsci.org/gs/new/finetuning.html If only atheists were as determined as you to answer apposing questions. Sad that they just run away from the truth.

?

Originally posted by FeceMan
If you were using it to "cling" to agnosticism, then your beliefs mattered little from the beginning.

Way to make rash (and incorrect) generalizations about the state of my beliefs based on one sentence.

You know I typed up a lengthy post for JIA but I realised the guy has been brainwashed by his parents at a young age or he is just looking for attention so not much point is there. Its amazing that such a person exists, his views, ideas and beleifs are incredibley, how does one put it, fuked up to say the least.

Originally posted by Magee
You know I typed up a lengthy post for JIA but I realised the guy has been brainwashed by his parents at a young age or he is just looking for attention so not much point is there. Its amazing that such a person exists, his views, ideas and beleifs are incredibley, how does one put it, fuked up to say the least.

Right. Everyone comes to that conclusion sooner or later (most, anyway). I don't think I've directly responded to him or read his quote-happy posts for a long time now. Occasionally, sure, but more for personal amusement than any actual hope of having an intelligetn discourse.

Originally posted by Magee
You know I typed up a lengthy post for JIA but I realised the guy has been brainwashed by his parents at a young age or he is just looking for attention so not much point is there. Its amazing that such a person exists, his views, ideas and beleifs are incredibley, how does one put it, fuked up to say the least.

Brainwashed about what the Truth?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Brainwashed about what the Truth?

Oh! the irony.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
yawn


Big blue square.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
God will judge the world so justly and righteously that everyone who is cast into the Lake of Fire will go there convinced that they belong there Imagine a pelican that flies (miraculously) to every beach in the world one-by-one, gathers one grain of sand in its beak, and flies to Pluto (3,720,000,000 miles) deposits that single grain of sand then flies back to earth. The pelican picks up another grain of sand and flies all the way to Pluto deposits that grain of sand and flies back to earth. Imagine that this pelican does this at one beach then once it finishes flies to another beach and repeats this process. Then once it empties all of the grains of sand in that beach it flies to another beach and repeats the process over again. But the pelican is only able in this illustration to carry one grain of sand in its beak per trip to Pluto. If it does this until every grain of sand from every beach in the world is empty (imagine how long it would take the pelican to do this carrying only one grain of sand at a time) you will not have spent one day of your eternal sentence in the Lake of Fire. That is how long eternity is. That is a pretty short time, and not even a day in our time. The minute the bird gets to the upper atmosphere it will die with the first grain of sand.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
That is a pretty short time, and not even a day in our time. The minute the bird gets to the upper atmosphere it will die with the first grain of sand.

Do I have too read what JIA wrote to understand your post?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do I have too read what JIA wrote to understand your post? yes or just the part I quoted, it was another one of JIA's bad analogies

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
yes or just the part I quoted, it was another one of JIA's bad analogies

Just tell him that the saints in heaven will look down on the suffering in hell and because they are filled with love, they will ask god to forgive those in hell, and god will let everyone out.

Holy balls, too much blue wall of text.

Pitt, the flag on your eagle is improperly displayed. It offends me.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But I don't have any criteria. Do you mean God's criteria?

What you THINK is your god's criteria.

Can't you explain why ID is not an anthropic principle?

Originally posted by Alliance
Pitt, the flag on your eagle is improperly displayed. It offends me.



What you THINK is your god's criteria.

Can't you explain why ID is not an anthropic principle?

Why do you ask me to explain that?

Because you make a thread complaining about how evolution is supposedly an anthropic principle, but then you suggest an ACTUAL anthropic principle to replace evolution.

Originally posted by Alliance
Because you make a thread complaining about how evolution is supposedly an anthropic principle, but then you suggest an ACTUAL anthropic principle to replace evolution.

Where did I say that evolution was an anthropic principle?

Originally posted by Alliance
Pitt, the flag on your eagle is improperly displayed. It offends me.
I didn't notice that before, and that is a pet peeve of mine

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Where did I say that evolution was an anthropic principle?

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm I can't believe they used this quote to support them

"I have deep faith that the principles of the universe will be both beautiful and simple." - Albert Einstein

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I can't believe they used this quote to support them

"I have deep faith that the principles of the universe will be both beautiful and simple." - Albert Einstein

I love using their own information against them.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I didn't notice that before, and that is a pet peeve of mine

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm

In summary, scientists have discovered a long list of properties in physics that seem to be prerequisites for life. There is an elegant simplicity in the mathematical equations that express and unlock the laws of the cosmos. Not only are they fine tuned for life to exist, but they have a beautiful mathematical structure and a structure such we can discover that structure.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
prerequisites for life.

*life as we know it.

If you can't answer my questions and destroy your argument by youself, I'll continue to shoot holes in yours.

Besides, its wholly coincidental that life which formed in a framework, formed to suit that framework.

Its like saying that its design that we breathe O2 and there is some O2 in the air. No. First of all air isn't mostly O2. Secondly, if there was no O2, we would have never have the ability to be able to use it; we'd die.

You can't use somethign thats not there. But just because its there and we use it, does not mean its magically a logical necessity.

i.e. your argument fails.

Chaotic inflation / Numbers game.


"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
-- Sir Arthur Eddington

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."
-- Voltaire

JIA, I have a riddle for you. I have to coins totaling 55 cents and one of them is not a 50 cent piece, what are they?

This is not just a simple riddle but a test in the way you think, I would like you to try and answer this without trying to look it up.

That is a false play on language.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
JIA, I have a riddle for you. I have to coins totaling 55 cents and one of them is not a 50 cent piece, what are they?

This is not just a simple riddle but a test in the way you think, I would like you to try and answer this without trying to look it up.

Hey! The first time I heard that one, it stumped me too. So, what are you saying.

I'm saying its perfectly correct grammar to interpret that phrase in a manner in which it would be totally unsolvable.

The "solution" relies on gramatically incorrect interpretation of the sentance.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
JIA, I have a riddle for you. I have to coins totaling 55 cents and one of them is not a 50 cent piece, what are they?

This is not just a simple riddle but a test in the way you think, I would like you to try and answer this without trying to look it up.

A better question to test JIA's intelligence in a simple math problem.

2(A+20)/120=(A-9)/2

Originally posted by Alliance
I'm saying its perfectly correct grammar to interpret that phrase in a manner in which it would be totally unsolvable.

The "solution" relies on gramatically incorrect interpretation of the sentance. I just realized there is a spelling error on it.

Corrected:

I have two coins totaling 55 cents and one of them is not a 50 cent piece, what are they?

I know! I know! Teacher! Teacher! Pick me!!!!

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I just realized there is a spelling error on it.

Corrected:

I have two coins totaling 55 cents and one of them is not a 50 cent piece, what are they?

being totally unwilling to think it through, I'll fess up to not knowing

PM me if you know or want the answer. This is a test in how JIA does some of his deductive reasoning.

Originally posted by Alliance
I'm saying its perfectly correct grammar to interpret that phrase in a manner in which it would be totally unsolvable.

The "solution" relies on gramatically incorrect interpretation of the sentance. Not really. The solution is grammatically implied actually.

Originally posted by inimalist
being totally unwilling to think it through, I'll fess up to not knowing Uh-oh. You're gonna do a "Coulda had a V8" forehead slap when you find out.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
2(A+20)/120=(A-9)/2 Now this...this I'm unwilling to think through. But it looks like the "New Coke" formula.

Originally posted by Mindship
Uh-oh. You're gonna do a "Coulda had a V8" forehead slap when you find out.

Now this...this I'm unwilling to think through. But it looks like the "New Coke" formula. It's not hard really, just annoying numbers.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not hard really, just annoying numbers.

Do you know what A is?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you know what A is? In a minute if you want me to.

I take it back, excellent numbers.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In a minute if you want me to.

I take it back, excellent numbers.

Go for it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you know what A is?
A for Anthropic.
Isn't that the topic?

Originally posted by Mindship
A for Anthropic.
Isn't that the topic?

Cose exiandon Carter

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
JIA, I have a riddle for you. I have to coins totaling 55 cents and one of them is not a 50 cent piece, what are they?

This is not just a simple riddle but a test in the way you think, I would like you to try and answer this without trying to look it up.

Anthropic Principle (or Anthropic Coincidences) What do you know about them?

This is the thread topic not riddles.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Anthropic Principle (or Anthropic Coincidences) What do you know about them?

This is the thread topic not riddles.

He is trying to get a point across to you.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Anthropic Principle (or Anthropic Coincidences) What do you know about them?

This is the thread topic not riddles.

Except YOU don't actually address YOUR own topic.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Anthropic Principle (or Anthropic Coincidences) What do you know about them?

This is the thread topic not riddles. It is a simple question and one was the last time that any thread has stayed on topic?

Do you really want me to make a tread just for this? Why not and try to answer it?

The answer to the riddle requires lateral thinking. Something I'm sure JIA is wholly incapable of.

Well it is pointless now because you either have dismissed this simple request or looked it up because you think that I'm trying to trick you which just goes to show your mistrust of man.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
It is a simple question and one was the last time that any thread has stayed on topic?

Do you really want me to make a tread just for this? Why not and try to answer it?

I got a better idea: why not stick to the thread topic?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I got a better idea: why not stick to the thread topic?


I got a better idea: why don't you answer criticism?


..and quit opening stupid redundant threads.

Originally posted by Alliance
I got a better idea: why don't you answer criticism?


..and quit opening stupid redundant threads.

Which criticism?

*sigh*

Originally posted by Alliance
*sigh*

Sigh^2

S I G H
I
G
H

Originally posted by Alliance
S I G H
I
G
H

Sight * 2