Lost_Soul

That is an argument ad homenim(sp?) and as such is not valid in any debate. Since you don’t seem to get how much evidence of God there is (evolution was just to prove that science makes mistakes and big ones) even though you cannot refute any of my other points, I am going to go ahead and show some more evidence that proves my point. Okay, here it is... all compiled into one mega-post. The Anthropic Principles point out that there are over one hundred variables to this Universe, that would have made life as we know it impossible, if they were even slightly different. Either this Universe had to be finely tuned to the conditions that make the evolution of life possible, or there have to be googolplexes of Universes. If there are that many Universes, then the chances of a Being Like God evolving would also be equally increased by all that abundance. Ecological niches tend not to stay empty. You could, of course call such a Being something other than "God." But if it quacks like a Cosmic Duck and waddles like a Cosmic Duck and builds little universe nests that produce baby Cosmic Ducklings, why not call it a Cosmic Duck? To name just a few of the finely tuned variables that are mentioned in the books, "God the Evidence," by Patrick Glynn, John Leslie, in Universes" and from George Greenstein's "The Symbiotic Universe." Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been merely 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster. Leslie, page 5. The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example). Leslie, page 24. Leslie got this information from P.C. W. Davies, 1980 (Other Worlds), pp. 176-177. "A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons, --yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars." Leslie, page 4, quoting Hawking, Physics Bulleting: Cambridge, vol. 32, 1980, pp 9-10. The charges of the electron and proton have been measured in the laboratory and have been found to be precisely equal and opposite. Were it not for this fact the resulting imbalance would force every object in the universe--our bodies, trees, planets, rocks, stars, to explode violently. The Universe would consist solely of a uniform and tenuous mixture not so very different from air. There would be nothing else. Greenstein's "The Symbiotic Universe." The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery. Unique among the molecules water is lighter in its solid form than its liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and Earth would be covered with solid ice. This property is traceable to unique properties of the hydrogen atom. Leslie, p 30, quoting Barrow and Tipler pp 143-144. CF Debtys Wilkinson, Our Universes (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), pp 171-172. The synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules--on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the center of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4. beryllium-8 and carbon-12--allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long." Wilkinson, pp 181-183. See also John Gribbon and Martin Rees, Cosmic Coincidences (New York: Bantam, 1989 pp. 243-247. Scientific Evidence for Ephesians 4:15, 4:10 and 1 Corinthians 12:27 The Gaia Hypothesis states that all the life forms on Planet Earth work together to keep the planet life-bearing. There is much evidence for this. The heat output of the Sun has changed much down through the ages, and yet the temperature of our planet has maintained the narrow range necessary to maintain Life. The level of atmospheric gasses has also remained, for the most part, a steady constant despite changing conditions. This is extremely important. If there were not enough oxygen in the atmosphere, fauna would die. If there were too much oxygen and not enough carbon dioxide and methane, plants would die and the atmosphere would be so flammable, fires would overrun the Earth. Too much of both oxygen and carbon dioxide would also be fatal. But a third gas, methane, (produced by termites and digestion) is just abundant enough to keep the oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in check. Some kind of biological feedback system must be working to keep all this balanced. As of yet, there is no evidence Gaia is sentient, but She is biological. Near Death Experiences: Medical science has advanced to the point where people can enter a hospital DOA (Dead On Arrival) and leave it alive! Cardiac Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and other medical procedures are restoring the life functions of many who would have been considered irreversibly dead in earlier times. According to a recent Gallup poll at least 8 million people in the United States have had Near Death Experiences (NDE's). Most of these people now have an unshakable belief that there is something beyond this earthly life of ours. There have been some small attempts by scientists to clarify whether these experiences are real or hallucinatory. Their attempts have lead to some intriguing statistics. Dr. Kenneth Ring found out quite early that a patient who receives anesthesia is less likely to report a NDE than one who has not. Thus drugs do not seem to be the cause of NDE's. World wide researchers have found that NDE's do not vary from country to country or culture to culture. An Australian Aborigine will report the same kind of experiences as a New York Taxi Driver (not using the same language, of course). Also the number of reported incidences is amazing. Thousands have entered their names into the database of the International Association of Near Dead Studies. There is disagreement about what NDE's are, but that they have occurred to millions of normal people, is beyond doubt. Some of the evidence is anecdotal. One lady found herself floating up to the hospital roof, where she noted a red shoe in the gutter. Upon her return to life, she told the doctor, who laughed and laughed. The Doctor told the janitor who also laughed, but he went up on the roof and looked for himself, and sure enough, there was the red shoe in the gutter! Another lady told her doctor she had watched her medical procedure while floating above the operating table. To prove it she mentioned that there were several coins on top of the cabinet in the operating room. The doctor got a chair, stood on it and looked, and sure enough the money was there in the denominations the patient had mentioned. Some evidence is more scientific. Dr. Michael Sabom, a cardiologist connected with the Atlanta Veterans Administration Medical Center, divided patients into two groups; twenty-two patients who had reported NDE's while being resuscitated, and twenty-five who didn't. He asked the twenty-two patients who had the NDE's to describe what the resuscitation attempt had looked like to them. He asked the twenty-five who had not reported any such experience to imagine as accurately as possible what they thought their resuscitations had been like. Twenty out of the twenty five of the imaginers made major errors in their attempts to report what had happened. None of the twenty-two experiencers made any major errors. Six of the twenty-two were able to recall very specific events during their resuscitation, such as the gurneys they were riding on, the shape of the paddles used to revive them and which family members were or weren't waiting for them in the waiting area. This is not a big study and many more of a larger nature need to be done to confirm the matter on a scientific level, but it is an intriguing start. It certainly indicates the experience is more than just a hallucination brought on by a part of the brain being stimulated and that the out of body viewpoint is real. There are several stages typical of a NDE. Not all experiencers report every stage. The early stages are reported more often than the later stages. Among those stages reported are, feelings of peace and quiet, finding oneself out of one's body, going through a dark tunnel, meeting up with a Being of Light, having one's life reviewed, coming to a border of some kind and being told if one goes through the border, one can't return, and making the decision to return. The Scientific Study of Prayer Under Controlled Conditions Proof it works. Proof it Doesn't ALWAYS Work There have been over a hundred experiments done of the effect of prayer on various life forms. Experiments with people showed that prayer positively affected high blood pressure, wounds, heart attacks, headaches and anxiety. In many cases we can suspect a psychosomatic reason for these improvements, but not all. Some of these experiments were done in a double blind manner. That means that neither the doctor nor the subjects knew who was being prayed for, and who wasn't. That can rule out the placebo effect. Subjects didn't get better just because the doctors thought they would and somehow subconsciously communicated that belief to their patients. To quote from Dr. Larry Dossey MD's book: "Healing Words" The subjects in these studies also included water, enzymes, bacteria, fungi, yeast, red blood cells, cancer cells, pacemaker cells, seeds, plants, algae, moth larvae, mice and chicks; and among the processes that had been influenced were the activity of enzymes, the growth rates of leukemic white blood cells, mutation rates of bacteria, germination and growth rates of various seeds, the firing rate of pacemaker cells, healing rate of wounds, the size of goiters and tumors, the time required to awaken from anesthesia, autonomic effects such as electrodermal activity of the skin, rates of hemolysis of red blood cells, and hemoglobin levels. It did not seem to matter whether the praying person was in the presence of the organism being prayed for, or was miles away. Objects locked in lead lined rooms and "cages" designed to block all known forms of electromagnetic energy were still affected. In one study by researcher Daniel P. Wirth the effects of prayer on wound healing were studied. This was a double blind study. Forty-four subjects were deliberately wounded with full skin thickness surgical wounds. They were not told they were going to be prayed for. None of the patients were told they were receiving any kind of a healing treatment at all. They were told to insert the arm with the wound on it through a hole in the wall for five minutes. The reason for this unusual exercise was explained to them to be for the purpose of measuring the "biopotentials" from the surgical site with a "noncontact device." Little did they know that the "noncontact device" was actually a person praying for their wounds. With twenty-two of the subjects she was in the room praying, and with twenty-two of the subjects she was not in the room praying. Several times during the study, doctors double blinded as to which patient was in what group, traced the wounds on transparent acetate sheets. Then an independent technician, also double blinded, would digitize the tracings into a computer for data collection. By day eight the wound sizes of the prayed for subjects were significantly smaller than the non-prayed for subjects. On day sixteen the result was measured again. By then thirteen of the prayed for wounds were completely healed as opposed to none of the non-prayed for wounds. Not all experiments were done double blind. In one early study done at the McGill University in Montreal by Dr. Bernard Grad, eighteen children with terminal leukemia were old to pray to God every night before going to bed. Another eighteen children with terminal leukemia were not told this. Ninety percent of the praying children survived an average of fourteen months. Only thirty-seven percent of the nonpraying children lived that long. Notice that this study does not prove that prayer CURES terminal leukemia. It only prolonged the children's lives. It did not necessarily heal them. Also note that the praying children at were very much aware that faith was being used to help them. We cannot rule out the psychosomatic effect here. Similar successes have been achieved when adults with terminal cancer were simply given psychological counseling during their fight for life. The counseled group lived longer than the noncounseled group This study does show that prayer is good for one's mental health and that improved mental health can prolong life. ARE YOU BRAVE ENOUGH TO TRY AN EXPERIMENT? There is one way to know for YOURSELF that God exists and that Christ is God. Suspend disbelief for a few moments, and take a leap of faith and have the courage to SINCERELY pray the following prayer. Now you suspend disbelief for hours at a time to watch a movie, or read a book, you can surely do it for sixty seconds to perform an important experiment! Leaps of faith are necessary in everything, even science. We wouldn't' have made it to the Moon if Humanity hadn't taken a leap of faith that the technology to make it possible would be inventible and put in the effort to invent it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If Christ is not real, you will be no worse off than you were before. If Christ is real you will have gained eternal life and found a new best friend. A few words of warning; you must be willing to commit to allowing this Presence to change you into the Being He wants you to be. If you perform it half heartedly, or with no real intention of changing, you will get nowhere. Not everyone is up to performing this experiment, Are you? "Dear Lord Jesus, I have trouble believing in you. Please help my unbelief. If you are real, please forgive me my faults and help me to forgive others. Thank you for taking responsibility for my faults yourself by dying on the cross for me, and help me to overcome my faults. Please come to live inside of me. Be my Lord and Savior. Help me to live for you, and help me to help others find you. Amen." Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "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". Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity. Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it." Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."

^Banned for being a higher level than me! >.<;

Straw Man: a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument (dictionary.com) My argument is not fabricated, nor is it weak. When you study science books and religious books, there are implications that are made. One such implication is that if evolution is true then God is not. By refuting some of the base principles of evolution, I am implying that God is real. Except that it cannot, once you apply any amount of real science and not just what some moldy old professor told you. Again, it is not a straw man argument. What, did you take a debate class in high school? Maybe you did not do so well in it? I mean, you have not been able to refute any of my points. If they were straw men, refuting them should be easy. There are so many to choose from. Try actually reading up on evolution. Study it enough and you will see that the conclusion that it leads us to (if it is correct) is that everything comes from nothing.

That's not true. First five books of the old testament are the Jewish holy book. Again, not true. Jesus did not contradict the old testament, actually, he quoted it frequently. And the jewish rabis were upset for completely different reasons. That's fine. ^^

HAPPY VALENTINES DAY EVERYONE ON AFF~! <3 :3 I know I had a great valentines day with my lover and all we did was eat out, bought wine and champaign, and rented some movies and went home after dinner to snuggle together and ate some chocolate cake and drank some alcohol and watched The Invasion and Premonition; then went to bed to sleep! X3 It was the greatest valentines I had in awhile... And we were content to stay home and spend time with each other, sense my lover is usually busy with work and school, we finally got to spend some time with each other! :3 And all day we held hands and said "I Love You" to each other, with a lot of hugging and kissing! X3 So romantic~! (well to me it was... >.>)

You know... it doesn't make sense that you don't follow the Christian beliefs and yet you believe in God and Jesus Christ. And you say you have a good relationship with him, but the thing is, to have a good relationship with God and Jesus, you must follow the Christian beliefs and teachings. What exactly are the Christian beliefs do you not follow? I don't think it's a good idea telling people about such things, many would have a hard time believing it and call you crazy. I'm just trying to look out for you and help you from having people judge you on this... you know what I mean? o.o

YEAH! YOUR THE MIRACLE BABY! THE .1%!!! XD; HOW COULD YOU BE A MISTAKE, THAT'S PROOF THAT YOU WERE MEANT TO LIVE, GOD WANTED YOU ON EARTH BADLY! I swear... you must have some GREAT, IMPORTANT THING you are suppose to do! >.><.< Let me know when you save the world! o.o XD;

Hmm... well, I'm one who forgives and forgets. But, I would be suspicous about the person doing it again. I mean, I will give chances to everyone, but once you have screwed me over twice, I will just go my own way. I mean, I'm not trying to be mean or anything but seriously... you should learn from your mistakes and be a better person from it. I'm not going to deal with the crap again especially when I know I have given the person many chances to change themselves. >_> It just shows me that the person isn't willign to change for the better and stay in their own destructive manner, whatever that may be. I am also not one to judge, after all, I hate being judged by other people, so I would be a hipocrit if I did the same thing to another. But yeah, it drives me nuts and pisses me off so much when I have people judging me and I'm not going around doing the same thing to them! D< I mean seriously people, mind your own damn bussiness and if you don't like what I do, FUCK OFF! I don't fucking judge you on the shit you do! D< As my favorite saying goes: "Before you point out the splinter in my eye, first you should remove the plank in yours!" DX<

Agreed. And I don't think being civil is overrated, it means your being the better man and actually stand out as the better person, in my opinion. >_>

Agreed. ^^ I have had those problems plenty of times, ugh, damn high school drama! D<

^Banned for not using the '^' key! To me, it seems like your banning yourself if you don't '^' on who you are banning.... >.>

Uhm... actually, "homo" means 'man' in latin. Also means 'human being' or 'mortal', but in pl., 'men' in latin. You are right about the meaning of "phobia", and together (homophobia) means 'fear of men'. And "homosexual" means 'of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex'. I have no idea where you got your information on the meaning of homo but you are wrong. "Homo" does not originally mean "homosexual" as I have stated above, but people are stupid these days and like to use slang that confuses me sometimes and take educated words and use them to mean something negative for slang. Such as "gay" for example: "Gay" means 'happy', 'merry', or 'lively mood' originally, way back when people were using educated words. It frustrates me sometimes on how far people in society has fallen to talk, I should phrase it, "ignorantly".

You have a point, and I do agree with you on this. It is sad though that that's how most people live and end up doing. Hopefully, I won't end up like that, and if I choose to have a family, I do want it to be a planned one. ^^ Me and my lover are discussing about adoption, and I know there are a lot of unwanted children out there who needs a loving family and a nice roof over their head. :3 But that's just a long off future idea that we are still thinking about and discussing. We won't do it unless we are both ready and know we want this for sure, for the benefit of the adoptive child! X3 Though, I am terrified about becoming a parent, cause I'm worried I'll be an awful one because of how I was raised, I'm terrified I'll become my parents! >_<

KUDOS my dear TurtleHermit! I shall agree with you there, nice comeback! XD I hope mine wasn't harsh... I don't think so... >.>;

Yeah, I'm like that too when it comes to these weird phrases/slang people come up with for sexual ministrations and sexual body parts! Though... I do agree with most on what words are turn offs. And I also don't like the same words to be used repetitively in a story, it just seems boring and it shows me that the person has little vocabulary to go by when writing. >_< I also can't stand bad grammar, as BeccaStar has mentioned, just slows you down when you read the story and it just gets annoying and confusing for me; because of my language/grammar barrier sense english being my second language, I'm used to the correct english way of words used and put together in a sentence, etc. I try to use a variety of words in my stories to explain something so it doesn't seem like I'm over using a word sense that is also a pet peeve of mine. I do use arousal to explain a persons... penis, cock? (sorry guys who squirm to these words) XD; I have yet to decide on how to explain a womans... arousal without it sounding tacky or a turn off but sound tasteful. Ah well, I don't know if I'll have actual sex in my story, so I guess I don't have to worry about it then huh? lol XD

Naughty~! X3

^Banned for banning me for supporting you LOL I <3 Rosemarius X3

ROTFLMFAO!!! TurtleHermit, reading your post was so funny to me it made my day! I do agree with you on the whole bad writing in yaoi but I also agree with Juno, Rosemarius, and DemonGoddess061. There are bad writing out there, you just have to weed out the bad ones to find the good ones, which I constantly do when it comes to reading anything! I like some yaoi but not all and I also like hetero but not all as well, it depends on how well it is written and put together. Though I see love to be shared with anyone and with whatever gender, I just like to see it well put together in a story and also written well too. I mean, I do agree that most yaoi's, ones that have pairings that are hardly unlikely to see together, much even fucking one another, and yet done, makes me squirm and hate it, so I just stop reading it and move on and find another story with a better pairing that would make sense. So, your stuck having to search better pairings that are more suitable to your tastes as well as a better written story on top of that, which is what I have to do. Give DemonGoddess061 and the mods and such on whoever is running the AFF site credit for running it; at least they are trying to make it easier for us readers to put certain stories in certain categories to make it easier for us to find certain ones we prefer to read, neh.

Submissive! X3

^Banned for calling my friend Rosemarius a soggey monkey!

o.o Interesting.... >.>; Though you have a point. I do agree that there are a lot of people out there who don't deserve to be parents because they make awful parents and the children end up getting hurt and miserable. But then again, its the childrens choice on how they will grow up and live their lives. I know I am one of them who has a fucked up family, but I chose not to be like them and I'm living a life that is my own and not like theres! I chose to end up doing good and not fucked up. Freewill... everyone has a choice on what they do with their lives and how they live it!

I agree with you on this totally! X3

That seems reasonable. Abiogenesis and evolution work together. Without the first, there is no latter. I use the term evolution as a blanket term to cover both (for the purpose of this debate). The argument is based on actual science… I did not include the data because it was long, and would only be needed if someone contested it. I did not say that chaos can not produce order, but that it cannot produce information (see 'biological information). Yes, it is possible… Which is what evidence is; a demonstration of what is possible. The cosmology argument is a single piece of a larger evidentiary puzzle, not an argument unto itself, which is why I included evidence from multiple sources. And yet "it's likely" or "it's unlikely" form the basis of many scientific theories. The physics argument is stronger than that, as stars would not form ect… Of course, life may be possible, but not as we know it, and not what we consider life. Yet, still a valid piece of the puzzle. The experiment established that flagella could not have evolved. It is an irreductably complex organ, and the life forms that depend on it could not survive without it. Other examples include the incredible system of transporting proteins within cells and the intricate process of blood clotting. Actually the light comes from heat and chemical reactions in both cases. And as for the DNA, no purpose, perhaps, that we know about… Plus, it's not that odd. We design stuff with extra space all the time. Actually, near death experiences did not form the sole basis of that research (which is why I did not specify it). And it is very good evidence of the soul, which implies the existence of God. I wasn't trying to impress you. And I agree that atheism is not a religion. Yes, yes… But like I said: It is evidence, where some people say there is none. I would also argue that the burden of proof is on the original claimant (In this case me). But if someone walked up to me and claimed there was no God, they would have to verify their assertions.

Officials have said that Heath Ledger has died of an accidental prescription over-dose! So that answers everything! I suppose... T__T ::MISSES HEATH:: ;__;