I'll try to answer

If there is no God, things exist just because that's what our universe is like. It just exists. It is unlikely but possible on a windy day for wind at the beach to whip the sand in one spot into the shape of a hand. That's just the way it is. There is no special explanation. No explanation using a God is needed.

As far as monkeys not evolving, they had the natural resources to stay alive and not evolve. Enough food. Warm enough. Enough water. Enough ability to get away from enemies. The ones that evolved into man were wanderers and needed more skills to survive, or they died. And they evolved in stages into modern homo sapiens, man.

Monkeys apparently came from fish. We all probably came from the water, developing limbs to handle life out of water and breathing apparatus to handle straight air. First amphibians. Then purely land dwellers.

 

I think it's a matter of size

Current estimate for the size of the universe is about 1 with 23 zeros miles. So a person would be roughly 1/100000000000000000000000000 of the size of the universe. Pretty inconsequential. With all those galaxies and black holes to run we just don't count for much in God's scheme of things. So God doesn't give much of a damn if we get squashed or heartbroken or highly elated or have a good fuck or whatever.

 

Here is something that may blow your mind. Mushrooms are not plants. They are actually genetically closer to animals than they are to plants. However we are all genetically related to plants too. You see all life (on Earth at least) has DNA, these things can be checked.

 

I should point out, monkeys have in fact evolved too, they have evolved just as much as us, the difference is they have evolved along a different branch of the evolutionary tree. Humans have evolved to have bigger brains and the ability to possess greater intelligence. With that came language, civilization and technology. Intelligence and bigger brains was not an added bonus or necessity for monkeys or apes to survive. It is a misconception to say they are less evolved than us, they have just evolved differently.

 

Of course Don't forget radio 4 tonight, for the weekly radio show of "The infinite monkey cage" Tonight the show will be Physics vs Chemistry ! For the show that aired last week on acoustics, I was part of that audience !

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/timc

 

gods

god says worship no god before me if you would go to my heaven.

i would not wish to be in the christian gods heaven

i would go to the realm of woden and the einherrier to take up knowledge and combat prowess.

i will not worship a Jewish would be messiah(third in line)at that time. even though he was a philistine(his tribe)christian dogma makes for war only, the peace of conquest, destruction and genocide

i am not impressed by the christian churches unrepentant ways and find their use of mercenaries for the last 600 years to be questionable at best.

 

So much irony oozes from this thread when one considers the number of arguments against god based on the big bang, then the arguments against religion and its supposed inability to coexist with science, and then one finally considers who proposed the big bang to begin with.

 

It's almost as if people intentionally, purposefully misunderstand the way evolution works.

Monkeys and homo sapiens share a common ancestor, just as man shares a common ancestor with the petunia. It's simply a question of when the evolutionary paths of each species diverged from that common ancestor. Our divergence from the evolutionary path of monkeys was much more recent, obviously.

And it's fairly clear to me that SOME monkeys are more evolved in terms of intelligence than some human beings.

 

I take it that that's a reference to Georges Lemaitre...and that you're trying to argue, in that subtle way of yours, that because Lemaitre was a religious man, the Big Bang must therefore be entirely consistent with the existence of a supreme being.

Of course, it's also consistent with the nonexistence of a supreme being.

 

Lemaitre being a religious man would place no religious necessity on his discoveries, anymore than a vegan nutritionist's discoveries would necessarily prove that meat is unhealthy for you. As you have said, the big bang really does not go in favor of one view or the other. My comment was merely on irony and nothing more, and I think you simply over thought it.

Not only does nearly every atheist I meet speak as though science and religion are incompatible, but they also speak as though the big bang is an argument against god. Lemaitre is the height of irony because they fail to realize that the argument from science, which they are pushing against religion, was given to them by a man of religion. Which, of course, leads to them unknowingly attacking their own position of science and religion, since they are using a religious man's science, and proving the two to be perfectly compatible. It is all the more poignant for the fact that Lemaitre was not merely "religious," in the nature of someone who shows up to church once a month, but was, in point of fact, a priest.

 

Since I exist, I am God.

 

Throughout history, many (if not most) prominent scientists have been religious men and women. And yet, they're discoveries inevitably brought about the steady retreat of religion -- what had been articles of faith, within the realm of the supernatural, became matters of scientific understanding, the result of natural law. Lemaitre may have been a believer, and an unwitting contributor to this retreat, but a contributor nonetheless. The more we understand about the way the universe works, the less there is for God to do. We may not have taken the final steps toward understanding of the origins of the cosmos, but there's no reason to believe that we won't eventually do so. And that understanding is always, at every step, incompatible with belief in the supernatural.

 

Nothing anywhere can be as powerful as all the existing gases.On earth these gases are known as,Radon(RN)with an atomic number of 26,Xenon(Xe),with an atomic number of 54,Krypton(Kr),with an atomic number of 36,Argon(Ar),with an atomic number of 18,Neon(Ne),with an atomic number of 10,and Helium(He)with an atomic number of 2.These are also called the Noble Gases on the Periodic or elemental chart,on the physical chart.However on the ethereal chart,they are listed as thus,E2,E10,E18,E26,E36,E54,and note the word element,and elementary,from elementum,first principle,rudiment,beginning."Used as elementary,the beginning without importance,as of yet......thugblood what about what they say about supreme beings.....

 

Oddly however...The more the exceptional scientists learn (the ultra intelligent types) the more they tend to believe in a God. Check em out, you'll see what I mean.

Hush...

 

What an inherently false statement to make.

 

Not true...many studies indicate that the incidence of atheism among scientists is much higher among scientists than in the population as a whole. And those scientists who do believe tend to view god in deistic or pantheistic terms. That's a far cry from believing in the biblical god.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

 

Their discoveries have done no such thing. Religion is not beating a hasty retreat, it is in fact growing in many parts of the world while shrinking in others, namely, the west. And the growth or reduction of religion means nothing if one knows anything of history. Let us not forget the determinist in the 19th century declaring religion to be dead or dying. Of course, it was on the decline at the time, and of course, it rose shortly after. Everything human beings do is cyclical, and the western world happens to be in the middle of a religious decline. And just as athiests have done for a thousand years, so modern athiests are appluading their efforts and shooshing the thing out the door, as if it will not simply come back as before.

Two things in this world are constant: The cyclical rise and fall of religion. And the idea among atheists that each time there is a fall, it will be the final fall.

There has been no scientific discovery which has gone to the heart of whether or not god exists, that is merely wishful thinking among atheists and theists. What you see as further proof against god, is seen by the religious as further proof for god. And while athiests are quick to point out that this is because the religious continue to move the goal post, "There is no evolution. Ok, there is, but an intelligent being could start evolution." How quickly they forget their own backpedaling.

Lest we forget another irony of Mr. Lemaitre: one of the strongest arguments against the big bang used by atheists and fellow scientists, was that Lemaitre's work was an argument for god(yes the big bang) and therefore, considering he was a priest, should be ignored as subjective and self serving. This was because, at the time, the idea of something exploding out of relative nothingness, was not only unbelievable and unscientific, but also seemed like a rather obvious attempt on Lemaitre's part to prove the Genesis story of god creating the universe from nothing. But what happened when the evidence stacked up in favor of the big bang? Well, suddenly the argument for god, became an argument against god. Suddenly the big bang, which was a proof for god and should therefore be ignored, became a proof against god and therefore should be embraced. How terribly convenient, no?

Of course we also have the idea of Adam and Eve. An idea forever mocked and derided in scientific circles. All human beings coming from a single ancestor, a single mother and father, was seen as the very precipice of ridiculous superstition. How often were the religious mocked with questions of, "Then who did their children marry!? Oh, I guess god supports incest!? What about the birth defects that would occur if everyone were related!?"

And now, the same science that mocked the story, tells us that it is very likely we all at one point shared a single ancestor. In fact, that our genes might all be traceable back to a single woman. But is this discovery seen as vindication for religion and their "ridiculous" stories, considering they were so out in front on the issue? No, of course not. In fact, somehow the idea has been made into an attack on religion. Just as the big bang. How convenient. No?

I could go on, but my rather mundane point, if you have figured it out by now, is that both sides move the goal posts, and both sides change their arguments when it suits them. Yet somehow, I only hear of the religious changing their ideas in order to hold onto their precious deity, and I never hear of how often atheists have done the exact same thing.

We are no closer to an understanding of where this all came from than we were five thousand years ago. It is only the natural ego of each new generation which convinces us otherwise. Each question we answer, only leads to another question of, "and what about that?" The only thing that has changed is that both sides claim science has proven them right. In reality, science has proven nothing on the issue, and both sides have merely proven that they will change with the wind, rather than admit a mistake.

 

Bitch are you deaf, dumb, retarded, illiterate or all of the above?

I'm not accusing you of believe in 'a' god. I'm accusing you of being a stay at home philosopher who just pulls ideas out of her ass then tries to back it up with manufactured rhetoric and pseudo intellectual blabber.

The only argument you bring to the table is how 'you' believe things to be.

You have no empirical evidence whatsoever.

yet you insist on posting with this smug writing style like you're worth a damn.

All talk no substance. Either provide some kind of respectable, notable evidence for your claims or go play blindfolded in traffic.

M'kay? buh-bye