Atheism Test

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[B]atheism
One entry found for atheism.

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

This test is for atheists only

If you are a true atheist then clink on the link below and take a short test to prove your authenticity. Only real atheists are challenged and invited to take this test.

Start with the question: Are you an honest atheist? Answer yes or no then continue with the rest of this test.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheiststest.html [/B]

more easily practiced than is your test, is a middle finger to it.

despite the word "apology" being present in the link.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I don't think that I will ever get you dude. The very first time that I talked to you you came out swinging at me. I answered your quesiton in a concise manner. You bugged about why I didn't respond with Bibile quotes and what not. I told you plain and simply that your post didn't warrant a lengthy response. Did I not answer your question? I answered it but I guess it was not how you wanted me to.

You are not to decide what you have answered and whaty you have not.

A response is NOT an answer. An answer solves a problem, something that many of us here have observed you incabable of doing.

Originally posted by Alliance
You are not to decide what you have answered and whaty you have not.

A response is NOT an answer. An answer solves a problem, something that many of us here have observed you incabable of doing.

✅

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[B]atheism
One entry found for atheism.

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

This test is for atheists only

If you are a true atheist then clink on the link below and take a short test to prove your authenticity. Only real atheists are challenged and invited to take this test.

Start with the question: Are you an honest atheist? Answer yes or no then continue with the rest of this test.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheiststest.html [/B]

edit: I'm agnostic because I don't believe in magical people in the sky? 😆 That test is so aweful.

Since when does Agnostic mean that we believe that there is 'considerable evidence' of a supreme being? What a crock

hehe

If a scientist can trust Christ for salvation from his sins, what is your hang up?

A Scientist’s Faith Evolves Toward Christ
By Jamie McComber

Richard Deem, a Reasons To Believe (RTB) apologist, has been a scientist since childhood. As a boy, he raised hundreds of hydras in a glass jar. The one-half inch long water animals used their tentacles to paralyze the tiny shrimp Deem provided as their food. Then the hydras pulled the helpless shrimp into their mouths. Deem often stayed to watch the “feeding frenzy” and wondered about the God who created his tiny predatory pets.

Two decades later, Deem came to know that God in the person of Jesus Christ. Now he uses scientific research to “pull” deists, atheists, and skeptics closer toward the God who created both colossal galaxies and microscopic crustaceans.

Deem volunteered initially to serve RTB as a correspondent in 1994 and worked with others to expand RTB’s Web site in 1997. Currently, he’s a member of the RTB Speakers Bureau and an apologist at RTB book tables during conventions. Deem presented two posters at the June 2000 “Putting Creation to the Test” Conference.

He works as a researcher/specialist in the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. Deem is currently studying the promoter element of the interferon gamma gene in intestinal lymphocytes. He has written or co-authored 25 peer-reviewed technical articles about immunology and inflammatory bowel disease.

Deem believes he’s “a sinner saved by grace,” but it took time for his faith in Jesus Christ, the Creator, to evolve. Raised in a moral but non-Christian home, Deem’s agnostic parents valued education and encouraged his scientific studies. A backyard storeroom became a research center, where he studied Planaria (flatworms) under a microscope, examined juvenile hydras budding from a parent, and watched Wolf Spiders hunt insects in a terrarium.

Deem maintained a keen interest in science throughout his elementary and high school years. He earned a bachelor of science degree in Biological Sciences at the University of Southern California in 1976. While there, he attended classes in which evolutionary theories were discussed, but he remained unconvinced about abiogenesis, the chemical origin of life. “I concluded there must have been a Creator God who at least created the earliest life forms,” he says. “I became a deist, but was skeptical of being able to sort out which of the world’s religions represented the true God.”

Deem earned a master’s degree in Medical Microbiology at California State University, Los Angeles in 1979, and performed immunological research on Crohn’s Disease at the University of California, Los Angeles. He investigated why particular intestinal immune cells “ganged up” against epithelial cells to destroy sections of patient’s intestines.

Then Deem acquired Crohn’s disease himself and moved from a research bench to his bed. This inflammatory intestinal disease kept Deem bedridden and in nonstop pain for two months. Unable to concentrate even while reading, Crohn’s disease afforded him plenty of time to question whom he trusted. “I cried out to God,” Deem says, “and promised to try to follow Him. . .” Miraculously, all symptoms of this incurable disease disappeared within three months. Deem’s apathy toward God also disappeared, and he cast aside his deism.

In June of 1988, Deem was “set up” for a blind date with Carole, a Christian schoolteacher. She talked with him about her faith in Christ and gave him biblical resources. Carole’s influence led Deem to read the entire New Testament. “Things seemed rather bland . . . until I got to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew,” he says. “The message is unique to what the world says about God’s requirements. I had led a ‘good moral life’ but became aware I was guilty in God’s eyes. The Holy Spirit convicted me that Jesus was the Son of God and that He is the only way to find peace and communion with a Holy God."

Deem studied the Bible and made a decision to follow Christ in November 1988. He didn’t understand how the Genesis creation account would stack up against “real science,” but Deem trusted God to solve his paradox. Shortly after he married Carole in 1989, they attended Sierra Madre Congregational Church, in Sierra Madre, California, and visited the Paradoxes Sunday school class led by Dr. Hugh Ross. “Rich’s eyes lit up after he walked into the Paradoxes class,” recalls Carole. “He trusted God to prove the accuracy of the Bible’s creation account and rejoiced to learn God’s Word was scientifically accurate.”

Deem continued his Bible study and read Romans with a small group at home. Later, the Deems invited neighbors to attend a small “Bible Paradoxes” class at their home. He studied Dr. Ross’s books and volunteered to be an RTB correspondent. In this role, Deem answered the biblical questions many people asked. A few atheists chose to correspond with him about Bible contradictions and many Mormons shared their religious testimony. “The hard-core Mormons were interested in putting across their position,” he recalls. “A couple of people considered becoming Mormons and wrote back later to say they changed their minds because of our correspondence.”

Other people sent RTB long lists of their objections about the Bible. Deem and other volunteer correspondents answered every objection and corresponded many times with people who replied with still more objections.

Deem later assisted RTB for two years as a reviewer of apologists’ correspondence. Then he put together what has become a 500-page Web site: GodAndScience.org. The site offers stunning stellar photos, “Answers for Atheists,” evolution vs. creation/design, and many papers that provide scientific evidence for the validity of the Bible. As a former deist, Deem knows many skeptics could accept Jesus as Messiah once they find some reasonable answers to their questions.

As parents of three young sons, the Deems teach their children that evangelism can be “fun.” The family regularly celebrates the Passover Seder meal because if offers a nonthreatening means of outreach to neighbors while pointing to Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Guests delight in watching their children hunt for the Afikoman, the broken middle matzah. Some parents are amazed to learn how it points to the Messiah.

It has also become a tradition for the Deems to put large “tombstones” in their front yard planters during Halloween. “We wanted to introduce the passerby to God,” Deem shares, “so we printed Bible verses about His judgment against sin and about salvation through Jesus.” The laminated messages are mounted on pegboard, attached to stakes, and spotlighted for young goblins, vampires, and their parents to read while collecting candy from door to door.

The Deems teach a “Question Club” class in conjunction with Dr. Ross’s Paradoxes Sunday school class at Sierra Madre Congregational Church. The Deems introduce scientific paradoxes to children; paradoxes that lead them toward a greater trust and respect for the Bible as the written word of God.

Deem’s passion for communicating the Christian message through sound reasoning finds a precedent in one of his most cherished Bible verses: “‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the Lord. ‘Though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool’” (Isaiah 1:18).

Deem thinks his first step toward salvation occurred when, as a child, he examined pond water under a microscope and asked, “I wonder Who made this?” “The heavens declare the glory of God,” of course, but so do tiny Planaria.

Even reading the first paragraph gives you insight into how biased this article is.

Should be titled, "A Scientist trades Logic for Stupidity."

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
If a scientist can trust Christ for salvation from his sins, what is your hang up?

[b]A Scientist’s Faith Evolves Toward Christ
By Jamie McComber

Richard Deem, a Reasons To Believe (RTB) apologist, has been a scientist since childhood. As a boy, he raised hundreds of hydras in a glass jar. The one-half inch long water animals used their tentacles to paralyze the tiny shrimp Deem provided as their food. Then the hydras pulled the helpless shrimp into their mouths. Deem often stayed to watch the “feeding frenzy” and wondered about the God who created his tiny predatory pets.[/B]

Sounds to me like he was agnostic to begin with. I know I didn't sit watching my fish and thinking "I wonder what God created them?"

And how does raising animals as a child make one a scientist since childhood? To my knowledge many children have pets. As a child I certainly did - lizards, insects and all the rest. I read huge amounts on them - but despite having read scientific texts it didn't make me a scientist (although one of my teachers always said about how I could be an entomologists.)

Two decades later, Deem came to know that God in the person of Jesus Christ. Now he uses scientific research to “pull” deists, atheists, and skeptics closer toward the God who created both colossal galaxies and microscopic crustaceans.

Deists? Really? Why do Deists need to be pulled towards Jesus? And how old is he? What, 30? Looses some of the impact if he was predisposed to theology from a young age and then fully converted. I know of dozens of stories like it. Of people converting to Christianity, Islam and Buddhism.

Deem volunteered initially to serve RTB as a correspondent in 1994 and worked with others to expand RTB’s Web site in 1997. Currently, he’s a member of the RTB Speakers Bureau and an apologist at RTB book tables during conventions. Deem presented two posters at the June 2000 “Putting Creation to the Test” Conference.

Good for him. I bet he has a T-Shirt with that slogan on it and everything. Shame RTB isn't really a power house of influence on the scientific community.

He works as a researcher/specialist in the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. Deem is currently studying the promoter element of the interferon gamma gene in intestinal lymphocytes. He has written or co-authored 25 peer-reviewed technical articles about immunology and inflammatory bowel disease.

Yes, good to see a believer who can reconcile the fact people suffer from things they have no control over and still believe God is all good at the same time. People don't ask for cancer, God is good... where does cancer come from? Oh, I see, God gave us flawed bodies, so it isn't his fault.

Deem believes he’s “a sinner saved by grace,” but it took time for his faith in Jesus Christ, the Creator, to evolve. Raised in a moral but non-Christian home, Deem’s agnostic parents valued education and encouraged his scientific studies. A backyard storeroom became a research center, where he studied Planaria (flatworms) under a microscope, examined juvenile hydras budding from a parent, and watched Wolf Spiders hunt insects in a terrarium.

Sounds like my bedroom a few years ago (except the flatworms, and hydras.)

And just as I suspected. A link to agnostics.

Deem maintained a keen interest in science throughout his elementary and high school years. He earned a bachelor of science degree in Biological Sciences at the University of Southern California in 1976. While there, he attended classes in which evolutionary theories were discussed, but he remained unconvinced about abiogenesis, the chemical origin of life. “I concluded there must have been a Creator God who at least created the earliest life forms,” he says. “I became a deist, but was skeptical of being able to sort out which of the world’s religions represented the true God.”

Um... you do realise there are a lot of Christian scientists (as well as scientists of many religions?) And that many are practical and can reconcile evolution with their faith? You are using an article that works like this:

"OMG!!! Scientist has faith!!!! Amazing! Call Ripley and Guinness!"

It is not exceptional. And as I have pointed out he was always predisposed towards religion it seems. Of course many scientists don't go to extremes in their views and don't let their faith stand in the way of theories with evidence. They have their reasons to believe, see there is evidence for science (including evolution.)

And so on and so on.

Fine-Tuning For Life On Earth
2004 June Update
by Hugh Ross

© 2004 Reasons To Believe

Evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support

The environmental requirements for life to exist depend quite strongly on the life form in question. The conditions for primitive life to exist, for example, are not nearly so demanding as they are for advanced life. Also, it makes a big difference how active the life form is and how long it remains in its environment. On this basis there are six distinct zones or regions in which life can exist. In order of the broadest to the narrowest they are as follows:

for unicellular, low metabolism life that persists for only a brief time period
for unicellular, low metabolism life that persists for a long time period
for unicellular, high metabolism life that persists for a brief time period
for unicellular, high metabolism life that persists for a long time period
for advanced life that survives for just a brief time period
for advanced life that survives for a long time period

Complicating factors, however, are that unicellular, low metabolism life (extremophiles) typically is more easily subject to radiation damage and it has a low molecular repair rate. The origin of life problem is far more difficult for low metabolism life (H. James Cleaves II and John H. Chambers, “Extremophiles May Be Irrelevant to the Origin of Life,” Astrobiology, 4 (2004), pp. 1-9).

The following parameters of a planet, its planetary companions, its moon, its star, and its galaxy must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any kind to exist. References follow the list.

galaxy cluster type
if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit
if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time

galaxy size
if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun’s orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions
if too small: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for long enough time

galaxy type
if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life chemistry
if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available

galaxy mass distribution
if too much in the central bulge: life-supportable planet will be exposed to too much radiation
if too much in the spiral arms: life-supportable planet will be destabliized by the gravity and radiation from adjacent spiral arms

galaxy location
if too close to a rich galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted
if too close to very large galaxy(ies): galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted
if too far away from dwarf galaxies: insufficient infall of gas and dust to sustain ongoing star formation
decay rate of cold dark matter particles
if too small: too few dwarf spheroidal galaxies will form which prevents star formation from lasting long enough in large galaxies so that life-supportable planets become possible
if too great: too many dwarf spheroidal galaxies will form which will make the orbits of solar-type stars unstable over long time periods and lead to the generation of deadly radiation episodes

hypernovae eruptions
if too few not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets
if too many: relative abundances of heavy elements on rocky planets would be inappropriate for life; too many collision events in planetary system
if too soon: leads to a galaxy evolution history that would disturb the possibility of advanced life; not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets
if too late: leads to a galaxy evolution history that would disturb the possibility of advanced life; relative abundances of heavy elements on rocky planets would be inappropriate for life; too many collision events in planetary system

supernovae eruptions
if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the

formation of rocky planets
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes present for the

formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: heavy element ashes would be too dispersed for the

formation of rocky planets at an early enough time in cosmic history
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation

white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient flourine would be produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: planetary orbits disrupted by stellar density; life on planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy elements would be made for efficient

flourine production
if too late: flourine would be made too late for incorporation in protoplanet

proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption
if farther: insufficient heavy elements for life would be absorbed
if closer: nebula would be blown apart

timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption
if earlier: nebula would be blown apart
if later: nebula would not absorb enough heavy elements

number of stars in parent star birth aggregate
if too few: insufficient input of certain heavy elements into the solar
nebula
if too many: planetary orbits will be too radically disturbed
star formation history in parent star vicinity
if too much too soon: planetary orbits will be too radically disturbed

birth date of the star-planetary system
if too early: quantity of heavy elements will be too low for large rocky planets to form
if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratio of potassium-40, uranium-235 & 238, and thorium-232 to iron will be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be sustained on a rocky planet

parent star distance from center of galaxy
if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets; wrong abundances of silicon, sulfur, and magnesium relative to iron for appropriate planet core characteristics
if closer: galactic radiation would be too great; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits; wrong abundances of silicon, sulfur, and magnesium relative to iron for appropriate planet core characteristics

parent star distance from closest spiral arm
if too large: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great

z-axis heights of star’s orbit
if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbit of life support planet
if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life

quantity of galactic dust
if too small: star and planet formation rate is inadequate; star and planet formation occurs too late; too much exposure to stellar ultraviolet radiation
if too large: blocked view of the Galaxy and of objects beyond the Galaxy; star and planet formation occurs too soon and at too high of a rate; too many collisions and orbit perturbations in the Galaxy and in the planetary system

number of stars in the planetary system
if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbit of life support planet
if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life

parent star age
if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly
if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly

parent star mass
if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would burn too rapidly
if less: range of planet distances for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the life planet’s rotational period; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen

parent star metallicity
if too small: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist
if too large: radioactivity would be too intense for life; life would be poisoned by heavy element concentrations

parent star color
if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient
if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient

galactic tides
if too weak: too low of a comet ejection rate from giant planet region
if too strong too high of a comet ejection rate from giant planet region
H3+ production
if too small: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry will not form
if too large: planets will form at wrong time and place for life

flux of cosmic ray protons
if too small: inadequate cloud formation in planet’s troposphere
if too large: too much cloud formation in planet’s troposphere
solar wind
if too weak: too many cosmic ray protons reach planet’s troposphere causing too much cloud formation
if too strong: too few cosmic ray protons reach planet’s troposphere causing too little cloud formation

parent star luminosity relative to speciation
if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop
if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop

surface gravity (escape velocity)
if stronger: planet’s atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane
if weaker: planet’s atmosphere would lose too much water

distance from parent star
if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle
if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle

This is just 30 of 154 of these parameters.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200406_fine_tuning_for_life_on_earth.shtml

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Fine-Tuning For Life On Earth
2004 June Update
by Hugh Ross

© 2004 Reasons To Believe

Evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support

The environmental requirements for life to exist depend quite strongly on the life form in question. The conditions for primitive life to exist, for example, are not nearly so demanding as they are for advanced life. Also, it makes a big difference how active the life form is and how long it remains in its environment. On this basis there are six distinct zones or regions in which life can exist. In order of the broadest to the narrowest they are as follows:

for unicellular, low metabolism life that persists for only a brief time period
for unicellular, low metabolism life that persists for a long time period
for unicellular, high metabolism life that persists for a brief time period
for unicellular, high metabolism life that persists for a long time period
for advanced life that survives for just a brief time period
for advanced life that survives for a long time period

Complicating factors, however, are that unicellular, low metabolism life (extremophiles) typically is more easily subject to radiation damage and it has a low molecular repair rate. The origin of life problem is far more difficult for low metabolism life (H. James Cleaves II and John H. Chambers, “Extremophiles May Be Irrelevant to the Origin of Life,” Astrobiology, 4 (2004), pp. 1-9).

The following parameters of a planet, its planetary companions, its moon, its star, and its galaxy must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any kind to exist. References follow the list.

galaxy cluster type
if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit
if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time

galaxy size
if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun’s orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions
if too small: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for long enough time

galaxy type
if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life chemistry
if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available

galaxy mass distribution
if too much in the central bulge: life-supportable planet will be exposed to too much radiation
if too much in the spiral arms: life-supportable planet will be destabliized by the gravity and radiation from adjacent spiral arms

galaxy location
if too close to a rich galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted
if too close to very large galaxy(ies): galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted
if too far away from dwarf galaxies: insufficient infall of gas and dust to sustain ongoing star formation
decay rate of cold dark matter particles
if too small: too few dwarf spheroidal galaxies will form which prevents star formation from lasting long enough in large galaxies so that life-supportable planets become possible
if too great: too many dwarf spheroidal galaxies will form which will make the orbits of solar-type stars unstable over long time periods and lead to the generation of deadly radiation episodes

hypernovae eruptions
if too few not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets
if too many: relative abundances of heavy elements on rocky planets would be inappropriate for life; too many collision events in planetary system
if too soon: leads to a galaxy evolution history that would disturb the possibility of advanced life; not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets
if too late: leads to a galaxy evolution history that would disturb the possibility of advanced life; relative abundances of heavy elements on rocky planets would be inappropriate for life; too many collision events in planetary system

supernovae eruptions
if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the

formation of rocky planets
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes present for the

formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: heavy element ashes would be too dispersed for the

formation of rocky planets at an early enough time in cosmic history
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation

white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient flourine would be produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: planetary orbits disrupted by stellar density; life on planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy elements would be made for efficient

flourine production
if too late: flourine would be made too late for incorporation in protoplanet

proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption
if farther: insufficient heavy elements for life would be absorbed
if closer: nebula would be blown apart

timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption
if earlier: nebula would be blown apart
if later: nebula would not absorb enough heavy elements

number of stars in parent star birth aggregate
if too few: insufficient input of certain heavy elements into the solar
nebula
if too many: planetary orbits will be too radically disturbed
star formation history in parent star vicinity
if too much too soon: planetary orbits will be too radically disturbed

birth date of the star-planetary system
if too early: quantity of heavy elements will be too low for large rocky planets to form
if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratio of potassium-40, uranium-235 & 238, and thorium-232 to iron will be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be sustained on a rocky planet

parent star distance from center of galaxy
if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets; wrong abundances of silicon, sulfur, and magnesium relative to iron for appropriate planet core characteristics
if closer: galactic radiation would be too great; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits; wrong abundances of silicon, sulfur, and magnesium relative to iron for appropriate planet core characteristics

parent star distance from closest spiral arm
if too large: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great

z-axis heights of star’s orbit
if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbit of life support planet
if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life

quantity of galactic dust
if too small: star and planet formation rate is inadequate; star and planet formation occurs too late; too much exposure to stellar ultraviolet radiation
if too large: blocked view of the Galaxy and of objects beyond the Galaxy; star and planet formation occurs too soon and at too high of a rate; too many collisions and orbit perturbations in the Galaxy and in the planetary system

number of stars in the planetary system
if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbit of life support planet
if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life

parent star age
if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly
if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly

parent star mass
if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would burn too rapidly
if less: range of planet distances for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the life planet’s rotational period; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen

parent star metallicity
if too small: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist
if too large: radioactivity would be too intense for life; life would be poisoned by heavy element concentrations

parent star color
if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient
if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient

galactic tides
if too weak: too low of a comet ejection rate from giant planet region
if too strong too high of a comet ejection rate from giant planet region
H3+ production
if too small: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry will not form
if too large: planets will form at wrong time and place for life

flux of cosmic ray protons
if too small: inadequate cloud formation in planet’s troposphere
if too large: too much cloud formation in planet’s troposphere
solar wind
if too weak: too many cosmic ray protons reach planet’s troposphere causing too much cloud formation
if too strong: too few cosmic ray protons reach planet’s troposphere causing too little cloud formation

parent star luminosity relative to speciation
if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop
if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop

surface gravity (escape velocity)
if stronger: planet’s atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane
if weaker: planet’s atmosphere would lose too much water

distance from parent star
if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle
if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle

This is just 30 of 154 of these parameters.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200406_fine_tuning_for_life_on_earth.shtml

No comment Grand_Moff_Gav on this post?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yes, good to see a believer who can reconcile the fact people suffer from things they have no control over and still believe God is all good at the same time. People don't ask for cancer, God is good... where does cancer come from? Oh, I see, God gave us flawed bodies, so it isn't his fault.

IS, there is a often ignored passage in the Bible which explains your query. "And Lo' God said unto Abraham, shit happens"

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Um... you do realise there are a lot of Christian scientists (as well as scientists of many religions?) And that many are practical and can reconcile evolution with their faith? You are using an article that works like this:

It is not exceptional. And as I have pointed out he was always predisposed towards religion it seems. Of course many scientists don't go to extremes in their views and don't let their faith stand in the way of theories with evidence. They have their reasons to believe, see there is evidence for science (including evolution.)

And so on and so on.

Very true, it annoys me when people seem to think than science and religion are at odds. Many people-pioneers in science- have had a faith in God. Christians who accept what the Bible says and don't bother questioning the world we live in are insulting both us, and the God they profess to follow.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yes, good to see a believer who can reconcile the fact people suffer from things they have no control over and still believe God is all good at the same time. People don't ask for cancer, God is good... where does cancer come from? Oh, I see, God gave us flawed bodies, so it isn't his fault.

IS, there is a often ignored passage in the Bible which explains your query. "And Lo' God said unto Abraham, shit happens"

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Um... you do realise there are a lot of Christian scientists (as well as scientists of many religions?) And that many are practical and can reconcile evolution with their faith? You are using an article that works like this:

It is not exceptional. And as I have pointed out he was always predisposed towards religion it seems. Of course many scientists don't go to extremes in their views and don't let their faith stand in the way of theories with evidence. They have their reasons to believe, see there is evidence for science (including evolution.)

And so on and so on.

Very true, it annoys me when people seem to think than science and religion are at odds. Many people-pioneers in science- have had a faith in God. Christians who accept what the Bible says and don't bother questioning the world we live in are insulting both us, and the God they profess to follow.

There is no way to reconcile evolution with faith (if faith is truly predicated on the Word of God). The Bible clearly reveals how organisms came into being and no, it was not via evolutionary process. God created the first man and woman complete, this truth precludes the process of evolving from a lower, life form into an advanced one. The Bible states that God created the animal kingdom, plant organisms, and other creatures whole and complete. Evolutionary process is conspicuously absent from the pages of the Bible. It is not difficult for God to reveal to us that all life has evolved (if it had in fact evolved). God would have easily revealed this to us. But He didn't because it never occurred. God tells us in His Word how humans came to be, but not once does He mention evolution as the cause or the method that He used to effect our existence.

It doesn't say how. It simply says, God created all the animals on the land, all the animals in the air all the animals in the sea.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
It doesn't say how. It simply says, God created all the animals on the land, all the animals in the air all the animals in the sea.

The Bible reveals how God created humanity. The theory of evolution propounds that all life descended from a lower life form (I am using laymen terms). The creation of humankind as recorded in the Bible refutes this theoretical assertion. According to the Bible the first man and woman did not evolve, but they were created complete (physically, mentally, intellectually, etc.). This fact alone debunks evolution. Since humankind is not the product of evolution it is reasonable as well as plausible (based on the Bible) to conclude that neither are animals or plants the products of evolution. Evolutionist claim that all life evolved over billions of years from a lower life form into modern-day humans. As I said before, this is contradictory and inconsistent with the Bible. The Bible indicates that humankind was created complete (both male and female) from the dust of the ground in God's image and likeness. Furthermore, the Bible states that every animal, sea creature, and plant organism produces according to its kind. In short this rules out evolution completely. Incidentally, variation within a species is not evolution (there are those who confuse variation within species with the evolution of a new species).

Praise Jesus I have seen the true light 😐

im confused, exactly what is jesusisalive's perspective right now as he seems to be making a lot of self contradictory and illogical points and its confusing to think its one whole person.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
It doesn't say how. It simply says, God created all the animals on the land, all the animals in the air all the animals in the sea.

The Bible give us contradictory accounts of creation and you expect it to tell us how?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
This fact

when you can describe a standard of evidence better than "This book says X" then you get to use that term

until then, fact should be the farthest word from your mind