Think if God eliminates any one of the listed below, ask yourself will this earth be able to support life for ever.
1. Earth round & tilted on an angle. If it didn’t have tilt at this
angle we wouldn’t have four seasons. If it was flat, we
would have night and sun would burn every thing. Nothing
will grow on earth.
nothing would live on earth. It was too far, earth would be frozen. No life on earth.
2. Sun grows our crops, gives sweetness to our fruits and vegetables. If it was too close
3. If we had only one whether all the time nothing will grow on earth. Constant summer whether would dry up all water resources. No life on earth.
4. Without sun heat rain would never happen. Leaves of fruit trees convert sun light into sugar and sweeten the fruits. Without sun heat agriculture would be impossible.
5. Without Oceans there would be no rain and fish for our food. The current of warm water in oceans affect weather in coastal areas.
6. Without mountains, we won’t have natural water reservoirs that supply us water through out the years.
7. Without night constant day light will destroy all trees and plants and nothing will grow. Humans and animals regain their strength in night and plants get enough oxygen in night to survive next day light.
8. Constant night would make it impossible to grow food.
9. Without Arctic and anarchic zones think what will happen
10. Moon also affect weathers and may have other benefits which I don’t know to mention here.
11. Without Oxygen there would be no life on earth.
12. Without trees and bushes we won’t have oxygen to live.
11. Without water there would be no life on earth.
12. Without birds and insects trees won’t polarize and we won’t have fruits.
13. Without animals and all life forms on earth we won’t have balance in ecology on earth. Remember American sheep owners killed all the wolves and in result population of dears grew in millions. The grass in jungle wasn’t enough for them to survive and they starting eating crops and also started coming into towns to eat plants and bushes by houses. Then American Government brought Wolves from Canada some 40 or more years ago to correct human mistakes.
14. Without vegetarian animals, humans won’t have source of their protein. So God creates more females in such animals than males to keep their population balanced.
15. Every specie of animals and birds etc. help balance the ecology of earth. It is meant to support life on earth..
16. W/O good soil on earth food production isn’t possible
17. W/O trees, plants and crops we won’t survive. Where is barren, people and animals are hungry and migrate to fertile areas.
18. If producing electricity wasn’t possible, think what would be our life.
19. If steel wasn’t in earth, we wouldn’t have durable goods and high rises wouldn’t be possible to build.
20. If plants and minerals were not here, we will not find cures of diseases.
I am running out of things to add. May be many of you will add more in this list.
Atheists please explain:
Did this near perfect life supporting system evolve by itself without any creator ? If you say Yes, you are not accepting your wrong belief.
if sun wasn’t placed here by God, was life possible?
You know life wouldn’t be possible if any of the major things in above list get eliminated life wouldn’t be possible. For example Sun, Earth being round and its tilt, Water, Oxygen
Oceans, plant life etc.
How is it possible that every thing needed to support the life on earth happened by itself?
Every living thing on earth is playing its role to support life on earth. How all needed things came into existence by themselves without any creator?
If you say all are evolved by itself, you are wrong because if Oxygen wasn’t here
NO LIFE COULD HAVE EVOLVED.
i dont agree with this, i just wanna c how diffrent people aproach such questions
The claim assumes life in its present form is a given; it applies not to life but to life only as we know it. The same outcome results if life is fine-tuned to the cosmos.
We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity would make life impossible.
Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes.
If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it?
Many fine-tuning claims are based on numbers being the "same order of magnitude," but this phrase gets stretched beyond its original meaning to buttress design arguments; sometimes numbers more than one-thousandfold different are called the same order of magnitude (Klee 2002).
How fine is "fine" anyway? That question can only be answered by a human judgment call, which reduces or removes objective value from the anthropic principle argument.
The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental (Kane et al. 2000). It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997), or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible.
If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would be unsuitable for life. We happen to find ourselves in one where life is conveniently possible because we cannot very well be anywhere else.
Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. (The scarcity of life and multi-billion-year delay in it appearing argue against life being a motive.) Fine-tuning, if it exists, may result from other causes, as yet unknown, or for no reason at all (Drange 2000).
In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.
atheists are weak minded people
The fool has said in his heart, "there is no God."
Psalms 14:1
References :
All of answers in genesis’ lies (where you got this crap from) are thoroughly destroyed at talkorigins.com
References :
And if rain drops were gum drops, oh what a rain that would be.
The point is, What Ifs are pointless and prove nothing.
Evolution has mountains of evidence, your specific deity has none.
And I have no idea where you’re getting "perfect" from.
References :
The fact is, scientifically you can’t explain how this universe is so much suited for life and living.
So you think ”There must be a Creator!"
In essence, you’re only filling vacuum of knowledge with the idea of a Creator. Nothing else.
References :
A cheap and over embellished ‘argument from incredulity’, how dare you lecture us, what is your qualification?
Just because a stupid christian person doesn’t believe what is obviously true, why should I take you anymore seriously than I do that guy on here who calls himself stinking poop
References :
See, but we don’t think GOD is what created any of that…
therefore, your questions don’t work.
It’s just the way of the universe. With how vast the universe actually is, eventually, somewhere in time, the conditions will be right to support life. Every possible thing that can happen can and will happen at some point in time.
but it wasn’t God.
References :
i fail to see your point…you’re assuming that since these things worked out the way they did that someone must have planned it, well…that’s an awfully humanistic approach to something as grand as god. The universe is infinite, which means within it there are an INFINITE amount of possibilites. Now anyone can tell you the odds of not one thing lining up the right way in order to create and sustain life on its own in a sea of infinite possiblities are slim to none. You say god, i say nature…and because there is a never-ending amount of natural combinations in the universe, i think that my explanation is much more logical than god the construction worker.
References :
If your aunty had a penis and testicles she would be your uncle. Next question.
References :
Also, you realise that steel is not a naturally occurring substance, right? You also suggest that "high rises" and "durable goods" are essential for human life… which is obviously false.
Apparently you are just interested in arguing with people not of your religion and have no care for the notion of an individual’s right to choose their own path. So why dont you stop wasting people’s time with these questions that you dont care to get answered, only fight with "non-believers", and go back to whatever small minded church you crawled out from.
References :
You’re absolutely right.
If things weren’t the way they are, they would be different.
———
FYI, several of those points are just wrong. And several of you typos indicate a profound lack of understanding of the topics being discussed.
The fact that you don’t know this indicates that your opinion on the rest is meaningless.
Seriously, "anarchic zones?" "trees won’t polarize?" Highrises are proof of God?
Now that’s funny!
References :
Appeal to incredulity. Just because *you* can’t imagine how it happened or that it happened doesn’t mean the rest of us are so narrow in our conceptual capacity.
EDIT–John John: I call your Psalm 14:1 and raise you Proverbs 18:6:
18:6 A fools lips bring him strife, and his mouth invites a beating.
EDIT v. 2.0: A very simple answer to creationists’ use of the anthropic principle is to point to life at the thermal vents on ocean floors. It is very obvious that life does not have to exist at room temperature in an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere. We can see critters getting along just fine in what amounts to high temperature, lava powered battery acid at pressures of several tons per square inch.
References :
Actually, all models of early earth show very little oxygen content to the atmosphere, with the earliest life forms being anaerobic. The oxygen catastrophe has been widely written about. It was later life that had structures that harnessed oxygen as one of the best possible electron acceptors. Outside of that context, oxygen is actually quite toxic, even to human life…but it requires an elementary understanding of both chemistry and biology to understand why. Your post indicates that you lack both of these.
If the conditions on earth were not conducive to life, then we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. There are an uncountable number of stars with planets around them. The fact that life of some sort exists on at least one is virtually guaranteed.
References :
You are suffering from the anthropic principle.
If life evolved differently such that we all breath hydrogen underwater through gills, you would be asking the same sort of questions, except replacing one component for another.
We need to think more critically.
References :
An atheist perspective.
You do know that only about 1% off all species that have ever lived are still walking the Earth at this moment. I would hardly call that a remarkable work of god. And that is pretty powerful evidence that this isn’t the eutopia creationists claim for harboring life. The Earth is an incredibly cruel and unforgiving environment. The ones who adapt best to its surroundings survive. Why is that so hard to understand?
References :
please explain then if every thing has to have been placed here then there must be a creator…who created the creator
References :
atheist how do u usually answer questions like this?
I normally DON’T answer questions like this because they normally come from people that are quoting from the bible. I have learned that if you are to closed minded to leave any room for debate then you are to closed minded for me to speak to. If I was forced to answer I would say that NONE of your evidence is evidence for a GOD figure. It is simply right place right time.
I don’t need to place an imaginary figure in place to fill a lack of knowledge. I don’t have the answers to your questions but that once again DOES NOT MAKE THE ANSWER GOD…
References :
I would go "ha ha ha ha man you wasted so much time putting a lame argument together".
References :
Okay, seriously. Your list just keeps repeating the same points over and over. You could combine most of it and have, maybe, five total complete thoughts instead of 20 tiny little points that say exactly what the one above it said.
This world and all the things on it are NOT perfect. The world was not "created" for us – we, and ALL living things, evolved in order to survive on it. You need to not look at everything with only one point of view. A little research and education would do you a world of good.
References :
The claim assumes life in its present form is a given; it applies not to life but to life only as we know it. The same outcome results if life is fine-tuned to the cosmos.
We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity would make life impossible.
Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes.
If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it?
Many fine-tuning claims are based on numbers being the "same order of magnitude," but this phrase gets stretched beyond its original meaning to buttress design arguments; sometimes numbers more than one-thousandfold different are called the same order of magnitude (Klee 2002).
How fine is "fine" anyway? That question can only be answered by a human judgment call, which reduces or removes objective value from the anthropic principle argument.
The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental (Kane et al. 2000). It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals (Nakamura et al. 1997), or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun (Livio et al. 1989). For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible.
If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would be unsuitable for life. We happen to find ourselves in one where life is conveniently possible because we cannot very well be anywhere else.
Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. (The scarcity of life and multi-billion-year delay in it appearing argue against life being a motive.) Fine-tuning, if it exists, may result from other causes, as yet unknown, or for no reason at all (Drange 2000).
In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.
References :
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html
I don’t even know where to start.
Maybe you should think about taking some science classes? It sounds like you lack a basic understanding of how life on this planet works? Perhaps you should start there and then branch out?
"If you say all are evolved by itself, you are wrong because if Oxygen wasn’t here NO LIFE COULD HAVE EVOLVED."
Says who? You must have a very narrow definition of life!
Plants don’t need oxygen. Again, they cover this in elementary science classes…you know photosynthesis? That ring any bells?
And we haven’t yet been able to explore other worlds. There maybe a world rich in nitrogen, that the life forms breath that instead? Maybe other life forms don’t even breath?
There are all kinds of possibilities. Sorry to see your so limited by your lack of knowledge.
References :
I’m not accepting my wrong belief!?!? Seriously!?!?
Let me ask you this.
Assuming there is a God, what is more impressive?
Simply "magicking" everything into being as is or creating a completely contained, self-reliant, self-propogating universe that is infinately complex and perfectly harmonious?
Everything that you listed as "proof of God" is evidence FOR evolution, not against. The reason each creature on earth is dependent on all others is because they all evolved together. Each shaping the others.
Another thing. Steel is a man-made alloy.
References :
There is microscopic life in the ice in Antarctica. Life can exist in places we never thought it could until recently. This type of life is called "extremophiles" because it exists in extreme environments. This disproves the first statement. Scientifically what you point out is inaccurate. I agree with the answer about "talkorigins" – it actually makes sense. Whoever believes the stuff you mentioned needs a science class – badly. I see by your add that you don’t believe in it but I can also see that a lot of the posters here are missing that point.
#12 – pollinate, not polarize – completely different concepts.
#19 – there is no steel in the Earth – its an alloy made from carbon and iron – it is man made and does not exist in nature.
There was life on Earth before oxygen showed up. The oxygen poisoned a lot of it and a new kind of life showed up.
Obviously, the rest is nonsense.
References :
I suspect that you are actually trying to fool us into thinking you agree with us in order to receive less antagonistic answers, so I’ll do my best to be cordial.
All of the assertions you make reflect an anthropic bias, my friend. Basically it goes like this: the only reason we find all of the above things you mention to be useful is because we have become acclimated to relying on them for survival. There are some extreme types of bacteria which not only live in deadly man-made radiation yet NEED IT FOR SURVIVAL. Suppose in a billion years if some kind of intelligent life evolves from that bacteria and argue amongst themselves if their bacterial god exists or not. The religious bacteria will say to the non-believing bacteria: "Hey, there’s all this deadly radiation here. God must have put it there, because without it we would not be able to survive!" And the atheist bacteria would say: "No, the only reason it seems that way is because we have evolved to be best suited for radioactive environments."
That’s my best attempt at explaining anthropic bias. Read up on the subject for yourself:
References :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Cos if things weren’t like they are then we wouldn’t be able to sit here thinking about it would we?
References :
You’re forgetting on thing. Actually 2 things. First, if conditions hadn’t been favorable for life to develop then you wouldn’t be here. Second, space contains water (ever heard of a comet?). Water contains oxygen. Need I go on?
Your attempt at a "gotcha" can be discredited using any 5th grade science book.
References :