Surely someone as 'wise' as you could not possibly believe that your brain has evolved by blind chance. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case. You are a 20-something year old person and you know everything.
Ad Hominem fallacy. What does it matter if he's 20 or 60 or 3? he can still be right. Furthermore, your own arrogance leads you to presume that since the brain seems so complex to YOU, it couldn't possibly have evolved by chance.
There has to be a first cause
Why? Also, red herring.
For what purpose would an infinitely small universe have to exist?
You assume that there is a reason everything happens. That's bullshit. Everything in the world is probably completely arbitrary. And again, red herring.
You claim that the universe has always existed, yet scientists (not college students) have known for some time that the universe (space, time, and matter) had a beginning
No they don't. The universe has always existed, for as long has time has (if such a phrase is usable. Time is woven into the fabric of the universe, and there was no "before". Btw, nice Ad Hominem. College students constantly contribute to their fields. It's called a thesis. And yet again, red herring.
In addition, there are problems with the evolutionary theory and the big bang theory. I am not a scientist; these are the brute facts, realized by thousands of scientists. Why do you think scientists are turning to God? Are you smarter than every scientist?
Appeal to authority. Just because they're scientists, doesn't mean they're always right. Ever heard of Galileo? Furthermore, you fail to provide statistics that scientists are increasingly theistic. Even if they are, it has no bearing on the validity of atheism. Many scientists acknowledge the irrationality of believing in God, but continue to believe anyways, like Stephen Hawking. Also, the big bang is an observation, not a theory. Through the Dopler effect, we have observed galaxies receding. Rewind the clock and you find that about 15 billion years ago, all matter and space-time was at a single central point. And will you stop with the red herrings? The big bang relavent to the biological theory of evolution.
To believe that something nearly infinitely complex like DNA could evolve is utterly laughable. To believe that all of the systems vital to a 'new' animal's existence would simultaneously come into being is ridiculous
Strawman distortion. Evolution does not claim the simultaneous creation of DNA. Furthermore, that's abiogenesis, not evolution. And systems don't come into being to support animals. Animals evolve to the existing system, and can even change it.
As you know, evolution is taught in high schools around the country, despite the fact that there is no proof of this pseudo-science, and that it is only wishful thinking. I suspect atheists the world over have been brainwashed into believing this crap, and told to not worry about the problems with the evolutionary theory and big bang theory, because of course science has to be right, even though it's not real science
Folks, when your opponent starts spouting conspiracy theorist shit, you know he's rather pointless to debate. And when he doesn't even bother to proove bold assertions...well, I don't need to say much more.
Oh, look, here's a transitional fossil...oh sorry, my mistake. Haven't found one yet, atheist. Give me a few more thousand years, and I still won't find one. (Shouldn't you be digging around with the other atheist pseudo-scientists, trying to find proof of evolution?) I'll save you some time. You won't find any, either.
List of transitional fossils:
Falcarius utahensis- An omnivorous missing link between the small, fierce predatory ancestors of therinzisaurs (and dromaeosaurids) and slow, lumbering vegetarian therinzisaurs proper
Lucy- A missing link between humans and their ape-like ancestor (though a more proper link would be something like Ramapithecus, one of the first apes to take up a plains-dwelling existence).
Archaeopteryx- The link between birds and dinosaurs.
Coelocanths + relatives (sp?)- The missing links between fish and amphibians.
Cynodonts- The transition between therapsids and mammals proper.
Alioramus- A possible early Tyrannosaur
...Undubitably, you will decry these all as either hoaxes or different species in their own right, and then will again ask for the transitionals. I demand that you define what a transitional form should be, and then I will provide suitable examples.
You seem to be very proud of your atheist quotations. Good for you. They prove nothing. How about a quote from scientists which indicate the mathematical impossibility of an accidental universe?
You lie. Only some extremely bullshit mathematics could come up with an answer to the question you pose. Time began when the universe began. There was no accidental cause.
How about a quote which states that life is much too complex to evolve by chance? This is precisely why some scientists embrace the panspermia hypothesis, though that doesn't explain where that life came from.
Show me that quote. All other such quotes have been shown to be bullshit. In reality, the first living organism was extremely simple, and they had an entire ocean and hundreds of millions of years to work with. Not surprising that life came up. Panspermia is a valid hypothesis as well, but you are correct in saying it simply shifts the origins of life to somewhere else.
It's obvious that you found the idea of God to be utterly ridiculous, so you immediately trusted your gut feeling and became a permanent atheist. Unfortunately for you, it takes infinitely more faith to believe in random forces that create something from nothing than to believe in a Creator God.
Oy. How many times has this been said? Get it through your head: there is no evidence of your creator God. There is evidence that the Universe is guided by arbitrary law and chance.
I just like to smack these letters down for fun. I'm sure you've already written your own. I think you're lucky for getting hate-mail, somewhat. I don't get to do this often.
"
- PeZook
-- Asuka
