1) it would take longer than 13 billion years from the singularity for mankind to evolve from rocks

2) how our planet supports and sustains life is rather suspicious. everything from how water recycles, to oxygen production, to the atmosphere's protection, it's all too coincidentally perfect.

objectively speaking, it would be more unbelieveable that there isn't a higher being who made it all. everything about how the universe works suggests that it was designed to support life, somewhere.

If your really interested in this subject, i suggest you read the book Evolving in Eden... Can't remember the author's name.

Bob Enick

O RLY.

If our world is perfect, how come I can think of half a dozen ways it could be better and more efficient?

Define perfect.

The point is not it is "perfect" or not, rather it is inconceivable and insulting to suggest that what you have around you just poofed into existence for no purpose at all.

The universe is meant to crumble over a large period of time, it was designed that way. Whatever is in this life was not meant to be permanent. In other words, "your" half of a dozen ways of improving it is ludicrous.

What the fuck kind of basis can you have for saying it would take longer than 13 billion years?
Do you even realize how long 13 fucking BILLION years is?

the same basis that you would have that life can evolve in that amount of time. we are both speculating.

-quoted from michael behe, science writer

There are four important forces in nature, that affect the way matter holds together, the way atoms bond to each other, and the way planets, stars, and galaxies form. These are the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity. Physicists (who are not like the rest of us) have asked questions such as, “what would happen if the values of these constants were altered? Well, it turns out that very bad things happen if you raise or lower the values of these forces by more than a few percent. Things like a universe in which there is only hydrogen, or one in which there is no hydrogen (both bad). Also, the ratio of these forces to each other have to be finely balanced. For instance, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity is critical to one part in 10^40 !! Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist who’s a lot smarter than me, has come up with a list of 35 physical constants that must all have values within narrow ranges for even the possibility of life to exist. As one astrophysicist, Paul Davies, has said, “the laws of [physics] …seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design…[there] is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe…The impression of design is overwhelming. “ (quoted by Ross in Creator and the Cosmos, p. 157).

the explosion (Big Bang) produced an outward expansion that was amazingly balanced to the mass of the universe; if the initial rate of expansion had varied by more than one part in 10^50, the universe would have either collapsed with a thud, or expanded too rapidly to allow the formation of galaxies and stars. In addition, a finite age to the universe means that chance processes do not have an infinite amount of time to work. And, knowing the complexity that has to be produced, the universe is far too young to have produced life by chance alone.

this argument is completely retarded, if you find it convincing... just... LOL.

Fucking moron.

and that makes the bible true?