I don't understand how evolution is such a controversial topic..

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]Some Christians believe that it directly contradicts Genesis, and then all of Christianity. However, and scholar will tell you the exact opposite.mig_killer2

The earth is NOT a sphere. Which proves the Bible WRONG.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Silver your point fails your falling into a simplistic fallacy called begging the question.. You went from point A to C.. Basically your poitn is Life is complex in many ways thus god made it.. Please tell every one here how life can be classified as complex or perfect? We have no such description except only in mathmatics.. How can the observed "perfection/complexitiy" be linked to god.. You have yet to give a single shred of evidence or REALISTIC condition that fits the premise to meet the conlcusion.. Now I am not saying god doesn't exist.. But you can not logically argue it by trying to use emperical evidence that does not exist or is based on pure speculation.Silver_Dragon17

How's this?

1. strong nuclear force constant
   if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
   if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
   if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
   if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
   if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
   if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
   if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
   if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
   if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
   if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
   if larger: no galaxies would form
   if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
   if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
   if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

1) Who is to say that these constants did not HAVE to take their current values? Is there any direct evidence that it was ever possible for the value of these constants to differ from their observed values?

2) Even if these values could differ, is there any evidence that these constants could not have taken their current value simply at random?

3) And finally and most importantly is a question that few people often ask and no one has ever been able to answer to me. Even the values of these constants could not have come about by random, is there any evidence that they could have been "created"?

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]Some Christians believe that it directly contradicts Genesis, and then all of Christianity. However, and scholar will tell you the exact opposite.slinky6

The earth is NOT a sphere. Which proves the Bible WRONG.

People choose to deny evolution are nothing short of delusional. Creationist arguments are so old and weak, you'd have to be delusional or perhaps incredibly high to find them compelling. Like that guy that follows Kirk Cameron around. One of my favorite "arguments" of his is: "Not believing in Hell is like standing on a freeway about to be hit by a truck and saying 'I don't believe in trucks.'" What a crappy argument :P Or his now infamous banana video.slinky6

[QUOTE="slinky6"]People choose to deny evolution are nothing short of delusional. Creationist arguments are so old and weak, you'd have to be delusional or perhaps incredibly high to find them compelling. Like that guy that follows Kirk Cameron around. One of my favorite "arguments" of his is: "Not believing in Hell is like standing on a freeway about to be hit by a truck and saying 'I don't believe in trucks.'" What a crappy argument :P Or his now infamous banana video.mig_killer2

[QUOTE="slinky6"]People choose to deny evolution are nothing short of delusional. Creationist arguments are so old and weak, you'd have to be delusional or perhaps incredibly high to find them compelling. Like that guy that follows Kirk Cameron around. One of my favorite "arguments" of his is: "Not believing in Hell is like standing on a freeway about to be hit by a truck and saying 'I don't believe in trucks.'" What a crappy argument :P Or his now infamous banana video.mig_killer2

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"]

That still isn't evidence for a creator. What would it look like if this universe could not support us? Clearly, we wouldn't be here to examine our chances. ;)

Silver_Dragon17

Huh?

That long list of "coincidences" that you posted. Weren't you trying to use that as evidence of a creator?

They aren't "coincidences." That was kind of the point.

No, you BELIEVE that they aren't coincidences because that allows you to essentially say "we exist, so there must be a god!"

What you have NOT done is shown how the specific value of ANY of those constants necesarily leads to the conclusion that a god (or "creator") must exist.

The sad thing is, by doing that, you've just stopped asking questions.

Someone else might wonder "hmm, I wonder why whatever constant has its specific value rather than another value." They then might look into that further. You, on the other hand, will never reach that point. Because you simply stopped asking questions as soon as you discovered that you've reached a point at which god had, in your mind, been validated. You found a gap where god fit in, and that's where you stopped. No need to ask or investigate further.

wait a minute, that guy who went on about the banana being the atheists nightmare was serious? It was not a parody?mig_killer2

He was dead serious about it. In fact such arguments color any number of prominant creationists. That one in particular sticks out because you don't have to be well versed in any science to see how stupid that argument was to begin with.

His buddy Kirk Cameron also likes to believe that the theory of Evolution requires there to be a Crocoduck, and so until we have a half-duck half-gator species, it must be false and therefore Creationism is true.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="slinky6"]People choose to deny evolution are nothing short of delusional. Creationist arguments are so old and weak, you'd have to be delusional or perhaps incredibly high to find them compelling. Like that guy that follows Kirk Cameron around. One of my favorite "arguments" of his is: "Not believing in Hell is like standing on a freeway about to be hit by a truck and saying 'I don't believe in trucks.'" What a crappy argument :P Or his now infamous banana video.slinky6

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]wait a minute, that guy who went on about the banana being the atheists nightmare was serious? It was not a parody?Atrus

He was dead serious about it. In fact such arguments color any number of prominant creationists. That one in particular sticks out because you don't have to be well versed in any science to see how stupid that argument was to begin with.

His buddy Kirk Cameron also likes to believe that the theory of Evolution requires there to be a Crocoduck, and so until we have a half-duck half-gator species, it must be false and therefore Creationism is true.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"]wait a minute, that guy who went on about the banana being the atheists nightmare was serious? It was not a parody?Atrus

He was dead serious about it. In fact such arguments color any number of prominant creationists. That one in particular sticks out because you don't have to be well versed in any science to see how stupid that argument was to begin with.

His buddy Kirk Cameron also likes to believe that the theory of Evolution requires there to be a Crocoduck, and so until we have a half-duck half-gator species, it must be false and therefore Creationism is true.

LMFAO, I just watched that video.

If those guys are right, then god REEEEAALLLY must not want us to eat coconuts.

Haha, it's a ****ing hilarious concept. Imagine a bunch of early humans walking around and basing an entire religion around the difficulty of opening up fruit.

"Coconut hard to open, Narg. God no want Narg eating coconut. Narg eat coconut, Narg go to hell."