Pointless

Humans appearing is not a chance event - this is a typical error of the theologist - life appearing is a chance event, evolution is a very nonrandom process indeed. Dawkins analogy - the religious view of human life appearing is like jumping from the bottom of the cliff to the top. Evolution of human life is like going round the back of the cliff, and climbing a gentle slope to the top.

Precisely.

If you have two possible answers to a problem - you go for the one that's most probably correct. The probability of being correct is based on the evidence available.

The universe could of always existed, G-d could of always existed... You fail to understand that these are all theories, all with valid arguments that compliment different mindsets.

Wisdom is acquired and not G-d given, we find the theory that best compliments our understanding.

I don't think any Jew condsiders G-d a creature.

This is complete nonsense, ancient greece was one of the most powerful/advanced societies of the ancient world - yet they practised and promoted paedophilia.

The Aztecs were uncontended and sacrificed hundreds of thousands to their G-ds, nothing contended with their reign until they came into conflict with christians.

Almost every ancient society practrised racism, it wasn't until the Jews introduced love thy neighbour to the world that we started becoming more welcoming of those from another culture.

It was not until the introduction of the Torah that the morals which define todays society were laid down... Your theory is not reflected in historical or current records... Those nations untouched by Judaism (or its offspring) have a very different morality to those that were touched.

Why would you expect religion to be universal?

science isn't universaly in harmony... does that mean science is false?

humans are a form of life (the most evolved form we know).

So my comment remains the same: "Some highly energised light beams exploded and gave birth to people".... its just as improbable as G-d theory.... but both are possibilities.

Can you show me the evidence which suggests light beams exploded and made humans?

You're fundamentally confused by natural selection, I thought I'd explained it but I'll try again.

No scientist is arguing that it was a mere 1 step between the big bang, and human life spontaneously appearing. .

Evidence for the big bang is predominantly 3 fold:

1) Universe expansion - all galaxies are moving away from a specific point in the universe - something must have given them the energy to move from this point. A cosmic explosion fits the speed and position of galaxies we observe today really rather nicely.

2) 25% of the universe is helium. We know the age of the universe from the movement of our galaxies, and stars alone could not have formed all this helium over this time. Therefore there must have been a point at which conditions were optimal for massive helium production - a big bang, ie a couple of minutes at billions of degrees in inordinately dense matter could easily explain this. And the timing fits perfectly.

3) Background radiation: background radiation cools as it expands. It is also limited by the speed of light - we know the cosmic background temperature today to be around 3 kelvin. However, we can also 'see' radiation from billions of years being far hotter than this. This is evidence that the universe must have been far smaller, and we are seeing hotter radiation from the past.

I've not explained that particularly well there, it's been a long time since I've studied it, but do feel free to google and correct me if I'm mistaken.

Can any religious argument explain these observations? Certainly none I've ever heard.

So, we've got our expanding universe. Energy is cooling and forming mass, in the forms of earths.

On these earths, it is a turbulent time, of high energies and chemicals being flung around.

We've accepted that it is possible to grow self-perpetuating chemicals in a lab, under the right conditions. These conditions must, therefore, have existed in the early world. The chemicals perpetuated, and instantly we're in to Darwinism. The ones that perpetuate survive! It's gloriously simple!

Bacteria that get a DNA mutation and get a capsule are more likely to survive....they tend to outgrow the others. A plant that grows a bit higher than the others and gets more light grows faster, produces more seeds and survives. An amphibian develops gills and can breathe unerwater - unfetterd access to the plant material there! He grows and survives!

Leave for an almost incomprehendable period of time and you've, by a stepwise process of trial and error, made it to humans and other higher creatures.

And what state are the ancient Greeks in now? The Aztecs? The Mayans? That's right kids, they're NOT HERE ANY MORE. What better argument for the role of alturism as a selective advantage.

I really think you should reserve your thoughts about Jews loving their neighbours for Israel They've reduced Lebanon to a wasteland, essentially imprisoned all of Gaza, and are threatening preemtive strikes against Iranian power stations.

Mind you, when your sense of morals comes from a fictitious book about a non-existent being slaughtering the eldest children of parents of other relgiions, who destroys cities in whom some inhabitants are homosexual, who asks for his subjects to sacrifice their children to him, then I suppose it's not suprising you think can justify all this.

Source of modern ethics, my fucking arse.

Show me the atheist who build a funeral pyre, and strapped their live child to it because G-d told them to. (Genesis 22)

It doesn't matter how many steps are taken Andy, if you start with highly energised light beams and end up with humans... then humans are made of highly energised light beams!!!

if you're going to patronise me at least attempt understand what is being said to you.

That’s just one theory, there's a million explanations for universe expansion; cyclic collapses being an obvious one.

Helium wasn't created a couple of minutes into the big bang? We know there is a large quantity of Helium in the universe, this tells us that at some point there were conditions which could produce large quantities of Helium.... It doesn't tell us that light beams exploded?!?!?

There could be infinite conditions that could produce large quantities of Helium....

The explanation of cmb lies in the early universe, but like helium there could be infinite possibilities...

Judaism.

its a glorious leap of faith.

I assume you’re talking about the Miller experiment (and similar initiatives)? Any compound formed during processes similar to these would have been destroyed as quickly as they were formed.

You're missing so many agents that are required for abiogenesis... I'm not denying or accepting life from matter... I'm just illustrating that yet again you’re mistaking theory for fact.

I subscribe to evolution! But you haven't explained how we can get from lightbeams to life....

They're still here, they were christianised.

And we'll continue to level their homelands for as long as they wage war on us... We did not pick this fight.

Surely an athiest wouldn't believe in a G-d? :spangled:

Superb.

With reference to the Torah, preferably quoting sections in order to avoid you claiming I'm taking from a bad translation, please explain why:

1) The universe is expanding radially, from an apparent single point
2) There is more helium than could be accounted for being produced by stars over the same age
3) Why cosmic background radiation was 'hotter' in the past than now.

Big bang theory could explain the lot.

NB "G-d wants them to" is not an acceptable answer in these cicumstances.

live for the weekend

andy i really enjoy reading your space talk

Just under 1000 years ago Nachmanidies stated something similar to this: "At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a mustard seed" ... At a time when Europeans thought the world was flat the great Jewish sages were discussing the conception of the universe.

You can scoff till you're red in the face, but modern science is only just beginning to catch up with theories Jews have been pushing for millenia.

Firstly, that's not in the Torah, so where exactly did it come from?

Secondly, this is like my hairdresser who told me the other week that her horoscope had been right.

Also, that doesn't explain anything about the above observations. Your 'great sages' didn't even know what a star was.

Don't be embarassed, it's great that you're interested in science

The Torah and the Oral law (which was later written down as the Talmud) were passed from G-d to the Hebrews... Will you stop professing to know Jewish scripture.

The great sages knew that they hadn't the technical know how to work out what the stars were composed of, so they merely commented on the light emmiting from them... Judaism is not a doctrine - it encourages debate to try and find the deeper meaning in our scripture... For example; Ramban believed the stars had an influence on mans behaviour while Rambam believed them to be light sources at incomprehendible distance from Earth.

If you're expecting man of 3000, 2000 or 1000 years ago to explain the composition of an atom then you're insane... But Jews of 3000, 2000 and 1000 years ago were all pushing theories which science turned it's nose at up untill the modern era.

Our understanding of the Torah is limited by man's conscience.

So, the Torah tells us to be open minded and embrace science?

Science tells us it's very improbable indeed that there is a god, therefore it tells us it's very improbably indeed that the Torah is correct.

Science says nothing of the sort, you keep confusing your ...sorry... Dawkins opinion as fact... the majority of scientists are religious and those deeply involved in cosmology tend to subscribe to a deity of some kind.

But yes, the Torah tells us to embrace science (and any other intellectual pursuit).