Amen. Which goes back to original point, odds are there's a creator because macro evolution and immaculate primordial soupl coming to life is complete psyence tom foolery. Neither has been proven, or recreated in a lab, and require more faith.
Define irony. Bunch of idiots believe boiling primordial soup became life. Will be crushed into boiling primordial soup by THE Life.
Read about it at - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_protected_area This was not Obama alone nor just the U.S., it was in concert with many other countries and finalized in Hobart, Australia in 2016 as defined by the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. It comprises about 2% of the world's ocean.
On the contrary Watson....my powers of deduction require only observation...the clues are for rookies ....Sherlockrivermanholmes
I post it in this thread because it's a response to your post in this thread. I thought you knew this elementary information.
I once did a back of the envelope calculation on the probability that life could evolve someplace and came up with the conclusion that it was pretty unlikely to happen here let alone anywhere else.. Don't forget the probability of a large body striking the early Earth that gave us our moon, our spin and just the right amount of iron in our new core to ward off dangerous solar radiation. Then, there's our size and our distance from the Sun. Add to that the asteroid that struck us erasing the lock job that large meat eating dinasaurs had on life enabling the rise of mammals and a myriad other improbabilities and you get an unlikelyhood that life evolved at all.
The definition of Science to me is Mankind's attempt to answer the questions of existence that GOD already knows. HE has the answers key.
When I put in my best guesses in the Drake Formula, I come up with a .0000001% (some ridiculously small number) chance of life. When you look at life on Earth, it's quite clear that if life takes hold, it really takes hold. Diversity, even in extreme environments. ~10M species on earth, (2.2M in the dead oceans!). Common sense dictates that if life has taken hold elsewhere and is common, it'd be evident because life forms grow like crazy. You'd think you'd find it just about everywhere, but we find nada in all our explorations beyond earth. I'm quite open to the Objective Truth of life elsewhere, if it is found. But the Objective truth currently is nada.
Nice. "In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence" Or in laymans terms: Men in white jackets have devised a diagnosis to cover their dismissiveness, and elevate themselves while insulting you. Now they can forcefully medicate you into a pleb because you disagree with them. So thats how oprah will win.
Serious question for god deniers: how many hours a week do you spend debunking the easter bunny? Why then do you debate against a god whom you do not believe exists? Are you perhaps trying to convert believers to your religion of darwinism? Or are you wrestling with your god given conscience?
Most would argue that the time they spend arguing against God is only in response to us God-promoters. Many also state that they believe organized religion has a detrimental effect on society, and that diminishing it's influence is a public service for the good of humanity. I doubt you'll get anyone to agree that they argue against God for the reasons you suggested.
I would add that arguing for science is not necessarily arguing against God. If God is threatened by science, He should really work on his self-esteem. God, you're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like you! barfo
I would agree with that, in that if one believes in God as creator of the universe, then science itself is nothing more than an attempt to better understand His creation. What frustrates most theists regarding science is the contention by some scientists/enthusiasts that science has the role/responsibility/result of disproving God, which is, of course, impossible.
