Atheism

welcum brothers grunto (....grunto ??? :confused: ) and chuck

have a nice stay

Thanks for the welcome brothers and sisters.

I fear your concerns of possible conversion of Atheists due to your posts is a little misplaced

format_quote Originally Posted by root

I fear your concerns of possible conversion of Atheists due to your posts is a little misplaced

Is that directed towards me?

Hi Chuck,

No, it's not intended for you. It's a general comment on how blatantly members post issues concerning atheism and their display of complete arrogance to an atheists point. I will give you an example:

I had a real good luagh at the concept that if the Moon was a "cm" closer or further from the Earth then life could not exist and thus we must have been created. Interesting for at least 2 seconds. I just fail to see how the Moon has any relevence to creationist\evolutionist theory.

Of course like *s* says we see it in Allah's signs or is it all one big coincidence that the sun and the moon if they where just a few centimetres out there would be no chance of life

And it's actually quite false.

Our local star travelling at 130 MPS is close enough for me, the actual average figure is 140 MPS with the earth averaging 150 MPS.

In reference to the earth's relative position from the sun, and the degree of accuracy required for life as we know it within a band to replicate earth's tempuratuer is actually around 120 miles nearer or further from the sun (I don't know the true figure), but note i say "life as we know it"

From the Rational Proofs for the Existence of a Single Unlimited Creator of the Universe

If you think that the universe is void of any complexity and therefore design maybe you should get in contact some of todays scientists who admit to this fact despite their atheistic background, and enlighten them with your discoveries.
Here's a few of todays renowned scientists referring to the Big Bang Theory and design in the universe

The mathematical physicist Paul Davies, a professor at the University of Adelaide in Australia, performed lengthy calculations of the conditions that must have existed at the moment of the Big Bang and came up with a result that can only be described as astonishing. According to Davies, if the rate of expansion had differed by more than 10-18 seconds (one quintillionth of a second), there would have been no universe. Davies describes his conclusion:

Careful measurements puts the rate of expansion very close to a critical value at which the universe will just escape its own gravity and expand forever. A little slower and the cosmos would collapse, a little faster and the cosmic material would have long ago completely dispersed. It is interesting to ask precisely how delicately the rate of expansion has been "fine tuned" to fall on this narrow dividing line between two catastrophes. If at time I S (by which the time pattern of expansion was already firmly established) the expansion rate had differed from its actual value by more than 10-18, it would have been sufficient to throw the delicate balance out. The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude
Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, 1984, p. 184

Bilim Teknik (Science Technique, a Turkish scientific periodical) quotes an article that appeared in Science in which the phenomenal equilibrium that obtained in the initial phase of universe is stated:

If the density of the universe was a little bit more, in that case, according to Einstein's relativity theory, the universe would not be expanding due to the attraction forces of atomic particles but contracting, ultimately diminishing to a spot. If the initial density had been a little bit less, then the universe would rapidly be expanding, but in this case, atomic particles would not be attracting each other and no stars and no galaxies would ever have formed. Consequently, man would never come into existence! According to the calculations, the difference between the initial real density of the universe and its critical density, which is unlikely to occur, is less than one percent's one quadrillion. This is similar to place a pencil in a position so that it can stand on its sharp end even after one billion years… Furthermore, as the universe expands, this equilibrium becomes more delicate.
Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technics ) 201, p. 16

Even Stephen Hawking, who tries hard to explain away the creation of the universe as a series coincidences in A Brief History of Time, acknowledges the extraordinary equilibrium in the rate of expansion:

If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History Of Time, Bantam Press, London: 1988, p. 121-125


Despite his own materialist bent, Dr Davies admits this himself:

It is hard to resist that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out… The seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design.
Paul Davies. God and the New Physics. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983, p. 189


The molecular biologist Michael Denton addresses this question in his book, Nature's Destiny:

If, for example, the gravitational force was a trillion times stronger, then the universe would be far smaller and its life history far shorter. An average star would have a mass a trillion times less than the sun and a life span of about one year. On the other hand, if gravity had been less powerful, no stars or galaxies would have ever formed. The other relationships and values are no less critical. If the strong force had been just slightly weaker, the only element that would be stable would be hydrogen. No other atoms could exist. If it had been slightly stronger in relation to electromagnetism, then an atomic nucleus consisting of only two protons would be a stable feature of the universe-which would mean there would be no hydrogen, and if any stars or galaxies evolved, they would be very different from the way they are. Clearly, if these various forces and constants did not have precisely the values they do, there would be no stars, no supernovae, no planets, no atoms, no life.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 12-13


Paul Davies comments on how the laws of physics provide for conditions ideal for people to live:

Had nature opted for a slightly different set of numbers, the world would be a very different place. Probably we would not be here to see it…Recent discoveries about the primeval cosmos oblige us to accept that the expanding universe has been set up in its motion with a cooperation of astonishing precision.
Paul Davies. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, Foreword

Arno Penzias, who was the first, along with Robert Wilson to detect the cosmic background radiation (for which discovery the pair received a Nobel prize in 1965), comments on the beautiful design in the universe:

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has underlying (one might say "supernational") plan.
Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 122-23

I could go on...but if you want to enlighten us with something more than these scientists please do so....

format_quote Originally Posted by root

And it's actually quite false.

Actually, a few cms is quite far-stretched(perhaps the poster meant in ratios). However, it's correct. The sun is 93 million miles away. If the earth was close to or farther away from the sun compared with the present location then life would not exist. But then one should measure the exact miles needed.

format_quote Originally Posted by kadafi

Actually, a few cms is quite far-stretched(perhaps the poster meant in ratios). However, it's correct. The sun is 93 million miles away. If the earth was close to or farther away from the sun compared with the present location then life would not exist. But then one should measure the exact miles needed.

Theory of creationism - We exist, so it implies we were created?

Theory of intelligent desig universe - Our planet is precisely (though this is not true) positioned in order for life to exist, so it implies it was created?

We know that during the formation of a solar system, Lighter gasses are pushed to the outer ring whilst heavier matter remains closer to the star that created the light & dense matter. Hence solid planetery matter forms closer to the star whilst Gas planets form on the outer. Out of an infinate number of stars which in turn creates an even greater number of infinate planets, The mathmatical probability will favour that many planets will be within the distance required to replicate the tempuratures our earth is exposed to. It's a simple numbers game!

format_quote Originally Posted by sonofadam

If you think that the universe is void of any complexity and therefore design maybe you should get in contact some of todays scientists who admit to this fact despite their atheistic background, and enlighten them with your discoveries.
Here's a few of todays renowned scientists referring to the Big Bang Theory and design in the universe

The mathematical physicist Paul Davies, a professor at the University of Adelaide in Australia, performed lengthy calculations of the conditions that must have existed at the moment of the Big Bang and came up with a result that can only be described as astonishing. According to Davies, if the rate of expansion had differed by more than 10-18 seconds (one quintillionth of a second), there would have been no universe. Davies describes his conclusion:

Careful measurements puts the rate of expansion very close to a critical value at which the universe will just escape its own gravity and expand forever. A little slower and the cosmos would collapse, a little faster and the cosmic material would have long ago completely dispersed. It is interesting to ask precisely how delicately the rate of expansion has been "fine tuned" to fall on this narrow dividing line between two catastrophes. If at time I S (by which the time pattern of expansion was already firmly established) the expansion rate had differed from its actual value by more than 10-18, it would have been sufficient to throw the delicate balance out. The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude
Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, 1984, p. 184

Bilim Teknik (Science Technique, a Turkish scientific periodical) quotes an article that appeared in Science in which the phenomenal equilibrium that obtained in the initial phase of universe is stated:

If the density of the universe was a little bit more, in that case, according to Einstein's relativity theory, the universe would not be expanding due to the attraction forces of atomic particles but contracting, ultimately diminishing to a spot. If the initial density had been a little bit less, then the universe would rapidly be expanding, but in this case, atomic particles would not be attracting each other and no stars and no galaxies would ever have formed. Consequently, man would never come into existence! According to the calculations, the difference between the initial real density of the universe and its critical density, which is unlikely to occur, is less than one percent's one quadrillion. This is similar to place a pencil in a position so that it can stand on its sharp end even after one billion years… Furthermore, as the universe expands, this equilibrium becomes more delicate.
Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technics ) 201, p. 16

Even Stephen Hawking, who tries hard to explain away the creation of the universe as a series coincidences in A Brief History of Time, acknowledges the extraordinary equilibrium in the rate of expansion:

If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History Of Time, Bantam Press, London: 1988, p. 121-125


Despite his own materialist bent, Dr Davies admits this himself:

It is hard to resist that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out… The seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design.
Paul Davies. God and the New Physics. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983, p. 189


The molecular biologist Michael Denton addresses this question in his book, Nature's Destiny:

If, for example, the gravitational force was a trillion times stronger, then the universe would be far smaller and its life history far shorter. An average star would have a mass a trillion times less than the sun and a life span of about one year. On the other hand, if gravity had been less powerful, no stars or galaxies would have ever formed. The other relationships and values are no less critical. If the strong force had been just slightly weaker, the only element that would be stable would be hydrogen. No other atoms could exist. If it had been slightly stronger in relation to electromagnetism, then an atomic nucleus consisting of only two protons would be a stable feature of the universe-which would mean there would be no hydrogen, and if any stars or galaxies evolved, they would be very different from the way they are. Clearly, if these various forces and constants did not have precisely the values they do, there would be no stars, no supernovae, no planets, no atoms, no life.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 12-13


Paul Davies comments on how the laws of physics provide for conditions ideal for people to live:

Had nature opted for a slightly different set of numbers, the world would be a very different place. Probably we would not be here to see it…Recent discoveries about the primeval cosmos oblige us to accept that the expanding universe has been set up in its motion with a cooperation of astonishing precision.
Paul Davies. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, Foreword

Arno Penzias, who was the first, along with Robert Wilson to detect the cosmic background radiation (for which discovery the pair received a Nobel prize in 1965), comments on the beautiful design in the universe:

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has underlying (one might say "supernational") plan.
Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, p. 122-23

I could go on...but if you want to enlighten us with something more than these scientists please do so....

Your referencing out of date material, scientific discovery has a faster paced evolution than you have posted. Their is not much point debating this post of yours since it acknowledges that the mathmatical calculations are wrong. But tries to use this to rubbish evolution since if it is wrong, then creationists are right? Which has a slight arrogance about it. Science, as a result of not being able to run a succesful simulation predicted "dark matter" (I mentioned this several months ago), well, since science moves forward quickly not only have they found "dark Matter" but they have found an entire invisible galaxy of it. Those calculations did not include the extreme gravity of "Dark Matter"

Last Updated: Wednesday, 23 February, 2005, 07:15 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/4288633.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4161323.stm

(uh hum) I stated in this forum that dark matter existed, yet still required to be proved...... Now proof exist's.......

The reason I like science so much is that it enables us to time travel, to look into a visual past to show things that are invisble - true alchamy.....

Thanks for posting something which has nothing to do at all with what I posted - and I dont see what dark matter has to do with anything I mentioned - but dark matter is another theory (or is it fantasy) - which I'm sure will also be outdated very soon and dumped or propogated depending on the scientists own materialist bent and outlook to the universe.

format_quote Originally Posted by sonofadam

Thanks for posting something which has nothing to do at all with what I posted - and I dont see what dark matter has to do with anything I mentioned - but dark matter is another theory (or is it fantasy) - which I'm sure will also be outdated very soon and dumped or propogated depending on the scientists own materialist bent and outlook to the universe.

If you speak about Gravitational forces & mathmatical calculations including Physics & Chemistry and finally matter within the confindes of a created\evolved universe, you must consider dark matter since it is now a fact and cannot go away. None of your quoted sources were able to apply this to their model.