The big bang theory

[El Correcto]

His premise was Darwin’s error, one that can’t be repeatable or observable, two of the cornerstones of your hallowed ‘scientific method’.

Wrong.

 

[El Correcto]

Oh boy.. scientific fact.

then you should have no problem proving it, page 49 and still waiting christ kuks.

 

[BrownFlush]

then you should have no problem proving it, page 49 and still waiting christ kuks.

The rotation of the earth around the sum and the earth's rotation on its axis are exactly right to sustain life. If our planet rotated on its axis a little slower, temperatures in the day would be too hot and too cold during the nights to sustain life. If that rotation were faster, we would have equally big problems. The speed of the earth's rotation on its axis is just right to maintain the proper temperature and aid in several factors necessary to sustain life. Then there is the orbit of the earth around the sun . If we were just a little farther from the sun, the earth would be too cold to sustain life. If we were closer, it would be too hot. Besides these things, there is the exacting balance which exists in the gravitational pull and magnetic fields of the earth as a result of these factors. What are the odds?
Look it up Wrong Dong Tadpole King.​

 

[El Correcto]

The rotation of the earth around the sum and the earth's rotation on its axis are exactly right to sustain life. If our planet rotated on its axis a little slower, temperatures in the day would be too hot and too cold during the nights to sustain life. If that rotation were faster, we would have equally big problems. The speed of the earth's rotation on its axis is just right to maintain the proper temperature and aid in several factors necessary to sustain life. Then there is the orbit of the earth around the sun . If we were just a little farther from the sun, the earth would be too cold to sustain life. If we were closer, it would be too hot. Besides these things, there is the exacting balance which exists in the gravitational pull and magnetic fields of the earth as a result of these factors. What are the odds?
Look it up Wrong Dong Tadpole King.​

You said if it was a hair off we would be ice cubes or burnt to a crisp, interesting hypothesis.

 

[It will be fine]

The rotation of the earth around the sum and the earth's rotation on its axis are exactly right to sustain life. If our planet rotated on its axis a little slower, temperatures in the day would be too hot and too cold during the nights to sustain life. If that rotation were faster, we would have equally big problems. The speed of the earth's rotation on its axis is just right to maintain the proper temperature and aid in several factors necessary to sustain life. Then there is the orbit of the earth around the sun . If we were just a little farther from the sun, the earth would be too cold to sustain life. If we were closer, it would be too hot. Besides these things, there is the exacting balance which exists in the gravitational pull and magnetic fields of the earth as a result of these factors. What are the odds?
Look it up Wrong Dong Tadpole King.​

Wow, life as we know it thrives in the environment it exists in. What are the odds? Lol

 

[Old Man Jingles]

Atheist la don’t have to prove there is no creator. Just like rational people don’t have to prove farting doesn’t kill kittens,
the burden of proof is on the people making the claims.

That would be the Atheists!

 

[Fred's Myth]

Wow, life as we know it thrives in the environment it exists in. What are the odds? Lol

Thank you for pointing out how unlikely we would exist unless our Earth had been established with no room for error. Infinitesimal odds.

 

[Fred's Myth]

Does it matter or are you trying to bait me into another argument over semantics

You’re ignorant about the science so you deflect by arguing semantics!

Yes, it matters.

 

[El Correcto]

You’re ignorant about the science so you deflect by arguing semantics!

Yes, it matters.

Why does it matter?

 

[Fred's Myth]

Why does it matter?

Because the science punches holes in your belief system.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

The golden rule is an appeal to the moral standard, not the standard itself.

That was my entire point. Baklava made this statement:

Or you can just follow the golden rule and leave the invisible man in the sky out of it

The gist of my response:

It's incomplete as a moral guideline.

The golden rule is pointless without an absolute moral authority.

 

[El Correcto]

Because the science punches holes in your belief system.

Explain it to me.

 

[Poop Head]

 

[BrownFlush]

The golden rule is pointless without an absolute moral authority.

My point.

 

[BrownFlush]

Wow, life as we know it thrives in the environment it exists in. What are the odds? Lol

Mythical Fred is spot on....

Thank you for pointing out how unlikely we would exist unless our Earth had been established with no room for error. Infinitesimal odds.

 

[BrownFlush]

You said if it was a hair off we would be ice cubes or burnt to a crisp, interesting hypothesis.

Yeah, I did.
Also said it was a fact,

Grow some hair, Tadpole.
You're sounding stupid. Almost as bad as @It will be fine

 

[El Correcto]

Yeah, I did.
Also said it was a fact,

Grow some hair, Tadpole.
You're sounding stupid. Almost as bad as @It will be fine

You’re wrong but okay.

 

[El Correcto]

Tilt the axis just a hair too much either way and we would be toast or ice cubes.

A hair wouldn’t even constitute a degree of movement in the earth’s axis and human beings have never turned into pieces of toast or ice cubes. Is this more magic jew talk from your silly book?

 

[floridays]

Who created the matter that exploded and why are we cursed with just enough knowledge to understand how limited our knowledge truly is?

You aren't that smart Wally,
who wrote that for you?

 

[Poop Head]