Don Fanucci

What is "large"? And I doubt it. I look at pedophile recidivism, and I think the rule of thumb is those people cannot be cured. Keep in mind behavior is not single gene encoded, there are a massive amount of genes involved, with varying effects. I'm sure there are also peer reviewed papers that show it is destructive--think about it. IF it were purely genetic, or I hate to use the term "natural", you first have to convince them they are abnormal, then you have to convince them to act "normally". Adding baggage, ya think? BTW, that is one of the big problems I have with the whole "celebrate diversity" thing. I think homosexual behavior is abnormal behavior. But then again, if I sit watching TV with my shirt half way up my stomach, and periodically scratch and belch, that would probably be consider abnormal. Also, if behavior modification were so easy, everyone would be skinny. Great question that I don't know how to handle. If there is a genetic basis, and homosexuality to them is as normal as heterosexual to us, it is very difficult to at least separate or single them out in terms of somehow having a higher degree of sin.

In a nutshell, why Christians continually generate a special and in many cases, deserved, antoginism. I do not support anything about the homosexual lifestyle, adoption, marriage, teaching it in schools, or any form of imagined "gay rights". Having said that, I also do not support hunting them down and "reprogramming" them. While the concrete evidence is not there, that homosexuality is genetic, it cannot be ruled out. This fact puts Christians in a box because if homosexuality cannot be portrayed as just another life style choice then why would God make them? Importantly, there is so much we don't know about behavior that to say that this or that behavior is a choice is both arrogant and stupid. There are many factors outside of the extremes of genes, or choice. For one, epigenetics is a new field that is just now coming into its own. You also cannot discount the effect of hormonal "wiring or rewriring". I think with regard to sexuality, there is plenty, perhaps the majority, of which are simple choices, and generally bad ones at that. But there is also plenty that are not choices but are driven by something else. The best quote I've heard regarding homosexuality being a choice is, "do you think we'd really choose to be this way if indeed we could choose?"

They do. Its called creation research, but no one hears about it because it only appears in creationist journals. The reason for that is because its bad science. If it were good science, there would be no faith vs science debate.

I have an uncle who's a Jehovah Witness and his religion pretty much sees it this way: either you're a JW, or else you're FOR SURE acting in the name of Satan. That is such an extreme view. And I know this is not shared by many Christians. Many of them (most I know at least) perfectly acknowledge that a non-Christian can be good persons, and being Christians doesn't necessarily makes you a good one. Actually, you are mistaken. From what I have gathered from these forums, the worthy brand of christianity views all good deeds as nothing more than filthy rags, and they believe their god considers only true believers can produce good *fruit*. Regards, UF You, U.F., are a liar. MG, Once again, thank you for sharing your opinion of me. Your fine demonstration of christian behavior is an example for all to see. Perhaps you should consult with your brethren regarding the truth of what I have stated before you call me a liar? If you are inclined to learn, I suggest you read up on posts #539 and #554 by Botz and OldShep, respectively on the subject of good *fruit* in this thread: Regards, UF My behavior is absolutely Christian; I am pointing at someone who is mocking God. Now I suggest YOU read that Bible you have. I continue to pray for your enlightenment, U.F. I think I missed a post that must have gotten deleted. You called him a liar, he posted the links that proved he was correct. Looks to me like a false accusation, which if so, I'm not aware of anyplace where that goes in the column under "Christian behavior".

I have an uncle who's a Jehovah Witness and his religion pretty much sees it this way: either you're a JW, or else you're FOR SURE acting in the name of Satan. That is such an extreme view. And I know this is not shared by many Christians. Many of them (most I know at least) perfectly acknowledge that a non-Christian can be good persons, and being Christians doesn't necessarily makes you a good one. Actually, you are mistaken. From what I have gathered from these forums, the worthy brand of christianity views all good deeds as nothing more than filthy rags, and they believe their god considers only true believers can produce good *fruit*. Regards, UF You, U.F., are a liar. MG, Once again, thank you for sharing your opinion of me. Your fine demonstration of christian behavior is an example for all to see. Perhaps you should consult with your brethren regarding the truth of what I have stated before you call me a liar? If you are inclined to learn, I suggest you read up on posts #539 and #554 by Botz and OldShep, respectively on the subject of good *fruit* in this thread: Regards, UF Me thinks that some folks here should get better aquainted with the search command before going all churchy on people. There are a lot more posts than just Botz and old Shep's examples. Sometimes its hard to believe this is a Christian site.

Little Italy, in NY. I live next to the Corleones. If this were true, Boston would be the safest place on the planet. I am pretty sure I wouldn't need to go far to find this either not true, or actually the reverse. Very simple: more sex=more abortions, more STDs, more pregancies. If you provide how-to information, do you think you'll get more or less sex? San Francisco is one of the most afluent cities in the US, highly educated population, yet in spite of knowing that AIDS is a death sentence, had one of the highest per captia rates in the country. I don't think the majority of Christians in the US are YEC. These folks are responsible for the bumkinized reputation of Christians, true, but are a small part of the bible belt. Look up any denomination demographic in the US and you'll see that evangelicals make up a small fraction. Nobody pays attention to YEC besides other YEC, and they generally get beaten back on every front so while people may like to stereotype Christians as all YEC, in reality, that is not true. Actually its most accept evolution. I don't recall the exact quote, but George Will said something to the effect that it is hard to believe that the universe first created, then became, conscious of itself, by chance.

Can you please explain, then, why atheists are so under represented in prison population? Why are there so fewer, in percentage, atheists in prison than in the rest of the population? Either they are smarter than Christians in not getting caught, or you are just utterly and ridiculously wrong. Judgement is left to the intelligent reader. This kind of prejudice, without any evidence, is what started the biggest wars and crimes in history. Being against blacks, against immigrants, against liberals, against albinos, against jews, etc. If I translate your words in German and replace "atheist" with "Jew", you would be indistinguishable form Joseph Goebbels. Viole, as someone who appreciates science, you have ignored the obvious flaws in this statement. First, I've never heard of any statistic comparing the ratio of christian felons to atheist felons. But more importantly, I think you are wrongly including in that group, if it exists, all those felons who become Christians after they entered prison. Lastly, and this probably goes off into a debate about baptism and salvation, or once saved can you be unsaved, if you consider violent criminals and the crimes they committed, with exceptions of course for the few pyschos that fit the Christian-bashing crime programs you see on TV or pedophile priests (people regularly associated with a church), I would wager that most violent criminals' claim to being Christians consists of them going to church once or twice on Christmas eve in their life, or were baptized when they were 2. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece And this is a comparison with UK which still has a lot of Christians. If we compare with countries like Sweden, where real Christians are a tiny minority, this inverse relationship between belief and social health looks even stronger. I didn't really need to get very far to see that this is not a clinical study and is using associations to draw cause and effect conclusions. For example, "where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution" presumes the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. As you know from many people on the board, many Christians also believe in evolution, which happens to be the official position of the catholic church. Furthermore, looking at data from gun control websites, which cite government statistics, these data, at least for murders, do not agree with your study (the US is behind Denmark, Switzeland, France, just ahead of Japan, and interestingly, Israel is a fraction of them all), though they very well could be dated. According to a table here, which was derived from the UN and European commission, the US is way down, at least for violent crime. I also found this, which sort of blows away your claims. Its a table of STDs for two periods, the latest of which is 1999. While this could also be dated, you would have to conclude that there was some massive change in the ratio of Christians/atheists, which would be dubious. In short, I could not find the exact reference for your study, but it certainly needs some scrutiny.

Can you please explain, then, why atheists are so under represented in prison population? Why are there so fewer, in percentage, atheists in prison than in the rest of the population? Either they are smarter than Christians in not getting caught, or you are just utterly and ridiculously wrong. Judgement is left to the intelligent reader. This kind of prejudice, without any evidence, is what started the biggest wars and crimes in history. Being against blacks, against immigrants, against liberals, against albinos, against jews, etc. If I translate your words in German and replace "atheist" with "Jew", you would be indistinguishable form Joseph Goebbels. Viole, as someone who appreciates science, you have ignored the obvious flaws in this statement. First, I've never heard of any statistic comparing the ratio of christian felons to atheist felons. But more importantly, I think you are wrongly including in that group, if it exists, all those felons who become Christians after they entered prison. Lastly, and this probably goes off into a debate about baptism and salvation, or once saved can you be unsaved, if you consider violent criminals and the crimes they committed, with exceptions of course for the few pyschos that fit the Christian-bashing crime programs you see on TV or pedophile priests (people regularly associated with a church), I would wager that most violent criminals' claim to being Christians consists of them going to church once or twice on Christmas eve in their life, or were baptized when they were 2.

Lions are not lions because they roar. They are lions because of how they were built. Everything about them says I am a meat eater. They have canines (omonivorous do too, but bears eat anything and everything, including prey) and big ones at that. They have claws (ominivorous bears do too, and they can be used for digging or tearing), but cat claws are retractable, which is different from other omnivorous claws. Their digestive system is built for meat, they skeleton is built for them being a meat eater. You could probably find a grazer of two that may have a characteristic or two that a lion has, but those animals that are predators are built for that and not grazing. I don't think this makes sense. Lions go a few days without eating, if you got into weeks, I think you'd have a dead lion. Are you saying they were grazers from the time they were created, up to the fall, then switched over? Don't think so. Switching over to massive amounts of meat after not eating meat can be fatal due to ammonia toxicity.

Then all species of snakes should have molars, not fangs, no? Whats up with shark teeth, seems like they wouldn't work to well on algae. What is your explanation for anacondas--would they need to squash watermelons? Why do the big cats have big canines, do you think T-Rex really used those teeth just to graze? In fact, why does any animal have canines? What's the need for venom in the animal kingdom? Why do raptors have beaks and talons, and why do some fly so fast if they only eat seeds? What do porcupine quills protect porcupines from? If you say these showed up post fall, then where are the fossilized ancestors of all these and of course, you'd be supporting evolution.

LMAO. That may be a hall of fame rebuttal.

This isn't a serious question, is it? If so, you should read more. This is a copy and paste from Wiki, but you can find your own list from Google, but the point is, a number of these folks impact your life every day. Peter Atkins (1940–): English chemist, Professor of chemistry at Lincoln College, Oxford in England.[1] Julius Axelrod (1912–2004): American Nobel Prize winning biochemist, noted for his work on the release and reuptake of catecholamine neurotransmitters and major contributions to the understanding of the pineal gland and how it is regulated during the sleep-wake cycle.[2] Sir Edward Battersby Bailey FRS (1881–1965): British geologist, director of the British Geological Survey.[3] Sir Patrick Bateson FRS (1938–): English biologist and science writer, Emeritus Professor of ethology at Cambridge University and president of the Zoological Society of London.[4] William Bateson (1861–1926): British geneticist, a Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, where he eventually became Master. He was the first person to use the term genetics to describe the study of heredity and biological inheritance, and the chief populariser of the ideas of Gregor Mendel following their rediscovery.[5] Patrick Blackett OM, CH, FRS (1897–1974): Nobel Prize winning English experimental physicist known for his work on cloud chambers, cosmic rays, and paleomagnetism.[6] Susan Blackmore (1951–): English psychologist and memeticist, best known for her book The Meme Machine.[7] Sir Hermann Bondi KCB, FRS (1919–2005): Anglo-Austrian mathematician and cosmologist, best known for co-developing the steady-state theory of the universe and important contributions to the theory of general relativity.[8][9] Paul D. Boyer (1918–): American biochemist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry in 1997.[10] Calvin Bridges (1889–1938): American geneticist, known especially for his work on fruit fly genetics.[11] Sheldon Brown (1944–2008): Bicycle mechanic and technical authority on almost every aspect of bicycles.[12] Ruth Mack Brunswick (1897–1946): American psychologist, a close confidant of and collaborator with Sigmund Freud.[13] Sean M. Carroll (1966–): American cosmologist specializing in dark energy and general relativity.[14] Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (1910–1995): Indian American astrophysicist known for his theoretical work on the structure and evolution of stars. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1983.[15] William Kingdon Clifford FRS (1845–1879): English mathematician and philosopher, co-introducer of geometric algebra, the first to suggest that gravitation might be a manifestation of an underlying geometry, and coiner of the expression "mind-stuff".[16] Frank Close OBE (1945–): British particle physicist, Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, known for his lectures and writings making science intelligible to a wider audience, for which he was awarded the Institute of Physics's Kelvin Medal and Prize.[17] Brian Cox OBE (1968–): English particle physicist, Royal Society University Research Fellow, Professor at the University of Manchester. Best known as a presenter of a number of science programmes for the BBC. He also had some fame in the 1990s as the keyboard player for the pop band D:Ream.[18][19] Jerry Coyne (1949–): American professor of biology, known for his books on evolution and commentary on the intelligent design debate.[20] Francis Crick (1916–2004): English molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist; noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1962.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Sir Howard Dalton FRS (1944–2008): British microbiologist, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from March 2002 to September 2007.[28] Richard Dawkins (1941–): British zoologist, biologist, creator of the concepts of the selfish gene and the meme; outspoken atheist and popularizer of science, author of The God Delusion and founder of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.[29] Arnaud Denjoy (1884–1974): French mathematician, noted for his contributions to harmonic analysis and differential equations.[30] Paul Dirac (1902–1984): British theoretical physicist, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, predicted the existence of antimatter, and won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1933.[31][32] Thomas Edison: American inventor[33] Albert Ellis (1913–2007): American psychologist who in 1955 developed Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy.[34]. Sandra Faber (1944–): American University Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, also working at the Lick Observatory, who headed the team that discovered 'The Great Attractor.[35] Leon Festinger (1919–1989): American social psychologist famous for his Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.[36]. Richard Feynman (1918–1988): American theoretical physicist, best known for his work in renormalizing Quantum electrodynamics (QED) and his path integral formulation of quantum mechanics . He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965.[37][38] Sigmund Freud (1856–1939): Father of psychoanalysis.[39] Erich Fromm (1900–1980): renowned Jewish-German-American social psychologist, psychoanalyst, and humanistic philosopher, associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory.[40] Christer Fuglesang (1957–), Swedish astronaut and physicist.[41] Vitaly Ginzburg (1916–2009): Russian theoretical physicist and astrophysicist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2003. He was also awarded the Wolf Prize in Physics in 1994/95.[42] Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002): American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.[43] Susan Greenfield, Baroness Greenfield, CBE (1950–): British scientist, writer and broadcaster, specialising in the physiology of the brain, who has worked to research and bring attention to Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease.[44] Jonathan Haidt (c.1964–): Associate professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, focusing on the psychological bases of morality across different cultures, and author of The Happiness Hypothesis.[45] E. T. 'Teddy' Hall (1924–2001): English archaeological scientist, famous for exposing the Piltdown Man fraud and dating the Turin Shroud as a medieval fake.[46] Sir James Hall (1761–1832): Scottish geologist and chemist, President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and leading figure in the Scottish Enlightenment.[47] Beverly Halstead (1933–1991): British paleontologist and populariser of science.[48] G. H. Hardy (1877–1947): a prominent English mathematician, known for his achievements in number theory and mathematical analysis.[49][50] Stephen Hawking: arguably the world's pre-eminent scientist advocates atheism in The Grand Design[51] Peter Higgs (1929–): British theoretical physicist, recipient of the Dirac Medal and Prize, known for his prediction of the existence of a new particle, the Higgs boson, nicknamed the "God particle".[52] Lancelot Hogben (1895–1975): English experimental zoologist and medical statistician, now best known for his popularising books on science, mathematics and language.[53] Nicholas Humphrey (1943–): British psychologist, working on consciousness and belief in the supernatural from a Darwinian perspective, and primatological research into Machiavellian intelligence theory.[54] Sir Julian Huxley FRS (1887–1975): English evolutionary biologist, a leading figure in the mid-twentieth century evolutionary synthesis, Secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935–1942), the first Director of UNESCO, and a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund.[55] Frédéric Joliot-Curie (1900–1958): French physicist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry in 1935.[56][57] Steve Jones (1944–): British geneticist, Professor of genetics and head of the biology department at University College London, and television presenter and a prize-winning author on biology, especially evolution; one of the best known contemporary popular writers on evolution.[58][59] Stuart Kauffman (1939-): American theoretical biologist and complex systems researcher concerning the origin of life on Earth. He is best known for arguing that the complexity of biological systems and organisms might result as much from self-organization and far-from-equilibrium dynamics as from Darwinian natural selection, as well as for applying models of Boolean networks to simplified genetic circuits.[60] Lawrence Krauss (1954-): Professor of physics at Arizona State University and popularizer of science. Krauss speaks regularly at atheist conferences, like Beyond Belief and Atheist Alliance International.[61] Harold Kroto (1939–): 1996 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry.[62] Alfred Kinsey (1894–1956): American biologist, sexologist and professor of entomology and zoology.[63] Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749 –1827): French mathematician and astronomer whose work was pivotal to the development of mathematical astronomy and statistics, and anticipated the discovery of galaxies other than the Milky Way and the existence of black holes.[64] Richard Leakey (1944–): Kenyan paleontologist, archaeologist and conservationist.[65] Sir John Leslie (1766–1832): Scottish mathematician and physicist best remembered for his research into heat; he was the first person to artificially produce ice, and gave the first modern account of capillary action.[66] H. Christopher Longuet-Higgins FRS (1923–2004): English theoretical chemist and a cognitive scientist.[67] Samarendra Maulik (1881–1950): Indian entomologist specialising in the Coleoptera, who worked at the British Museum (Natural History) and a Professor of Zoology at the University of Calcutta.[68] John Maynard Smith (1920–2004): British evolutionary biologist and geneticist, instrumental in the application of game theory to evolution, and noted theorizer on the evolution of sex and signalling theory.[69] Ernst Mayr (1904–2005): a renowned taxonomist, tropical explorer, ornithologist, historian of science, and naturalist. He was one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists.[70] Sir Peter Medawar (1915–1987): Nobel Prize-winning British scientist best known for his work on how the immune system rejects or accepts tissue transplants.[71] Jeff Medkeff (1968–2008): American astronomer, prominent science writer and educator, and designer of robotic telescopes.[72] Jonathan Miller CBE (1934–): British physician, actor, theatre and opera director, and television presenter. Wrote and presented the 2004 television series, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief, exploring the roots of his own atheism and investigating the history of atheism in the world.[73][74] Peter D. Mitchell (1920–1992): 1978-Nobel-laureate British biochemist. Atheist mother, and himself atheist from age 15.[75] Jacques Monod (1910–1976): French biologist who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1965 for discoveries concerning genetic control of enzyme and virus synthesis.[76] Desmond Morris (1928–): English zoologist and ethologist, famous for describing human behaviour from a zoological perspective in his books The Naked Ape and The Human Zoo.[77][78] Fritz Müller (1821–1897): German biologist who emigrated to Brazil, where he studied the natural history of the Amazon rainforest and was an early advocate of evolutionary theory.[79] Hermann Joseph Muller (1890–1967): American geneticist and educator, best known for his work on the physiological and genetic effects of radiation (X-ray mutagenesis). He won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1946.[80] PZ Myers (1957–): American biology professor at the University of Minnesota and a blogger via his blog, Pharyngula.[81] Paul Nurse (1949–): 2001 Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine.[82] Robert L. Park (born 1931): scientist, University of Maryland professor of physics, and author of Voodoo Science and Superstition.[83] Linus Pauling (1901–1994): American chemist, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (1954) and Peace (1962)[32][84] John Allen Paulos (1945–): Professor of mathematics at Temple University in Philadelphia and writer, author of Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up (2007)[85] Ivan Pavlov (1849–1936): Nobel Prize winning Russian physiologist, psychologist, and physician, widely known for first describing the phenomenon of classical conditioning.[86] Francis Perrin (1901–1992): French physicist, co-establisher the possibility of nuclear chain reactions and nuclear energy production.[87] Massimo Pigliucci (1964–): Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the Stony Brook University and is known as an outspoken critic of creationism and advocate of science education.[88] Steven Pinker (1954–): Canadian-born American psychologist.[89] Norman Pirie FRS (1907–1997): British biochemist and virologist co-discoverer in 1936 of viral crystallization, an important milestone in understanding DNA and RNA.[90] Ronald Plasterk (1957–): Dutch prize-winning molecular geneticist and columnist, and Minister of Education, Culture and Science in the fourth Balkenende cabinet for the Labour Party.[91] Derek J. de Solla Price (1922–1983): British-American historian of science.[92] Frank P. Ramsey (1903–1930): British mathematician who also made significant contributions in philosophy and economics.[93] Richard J. Roberts (1943–): British biochemist and molecular biologist. He won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1993 for the discovery of introns in eukaryotic DNA and the mechanism of gene-splicing.[94][95][96] Steven Rose (1938–): Professor of Biology and Neurobiology at the Open University and University of London, and author of several popular science books.[97] Marshall Rosenbluth (1927–2003) American physicist, nicknamed "the Pope of Plasma Physics". He created the Metropolis algorithm in statistical mechanics, derived the Rosenbluth formula in high-energy physics, and laid the foundations for instability theory in plasma physics.[98] Oliver Sacks (1933–): United States-based British neurologist, who has written popular books about his patients, the most famous of which is Awakenings.[99] Carl Sagan (1934–1996): American astronomer and astrochemist, a highly successful popularizer of astronomy, astrophysics, and other natural sciences, and pioneer of exobiology and promoter of the SETI. Although Sagan has been identified as an atheist according to some definitions,[100][101][102] he rejected the label, stating "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know."[100] He was an agnostic who,[103] while maintaining that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to disprove,[104] nevertheless disbelieved in God's existence, pending sufficient evidence.[105] Robert Sapolsky (1957–): Professor of Biological Sciences and Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University.[106] Marcus du Sautoy (1965–): mathematician and holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science.[107] Amartya Kumar Sen (1933–): 1998 Nobel Laureate in Economics.[108][109][110][111] Claude Shannon (1916–2001): American electrical engineer and mathematician, has been called "the father of information theory", and was the founder of practical digital circuit design theory.[112] Edwin Shneidman (1918–2009): American suicidologist and thanatologist.[113] Michael Smith (1932–2000): British-born Canadian biochemist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry in 1993.[114] Richard Stallman (1953–): American software freedom activist, hacker, and software developer.[115] Victor J. Stenger (1935–): American physicist, emeritus professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado. Author of the book God: The Failed Hypothesis.[116] Jack Suchet (1908–2001): South African born obstetrician, gynaecologist and venereologist, who carried out research on the use of penicillin in the treatment of venereal disease with Sir Alexander Fleming.[117] Eleazar Sukenik (1889–1953): Israeli archaeologist and professor of Hebrew University in Jerusalem, undertaking excavations in Jerusalem, and recognising the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls to Israel.[118] Leonard Susskind (1940–): American theoretical physicist; a founding father of superstring theory and professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University.[119] Raymond Tallis (1946–): Leading British gerontologist, philosopher, poet, novelist and cultural critic.[120] Frank J. Tipler (1947–): American mathematical physicist and professor at Tulane University.[121] Gherman Titov (1935–2000): Soviet cosmonaut and the second human to orbit the Earth.[122] Linus Torvalds (1969–): Finnish software engineer, creator of the Linux kernel.[123] Alan Turing (1912–1954): English mathematician, logician, and cryptographer; often considered to be the father of modern computer science. The Turing Award, often recognized as the "Nobel Prize of computing", is named after him.[124][125] Matthew Turner (died ca. 1789): chemist, surgeon, teacher and radical theologian, author of the first published work of avowed atheism in Britain (1782).[126][127] J. Craig Venter (1946–): American biologist and entrepreneur, one of the first researchers to sequence the human genome, and in 2010 the first to create a cell with a synthetic genome.[128] W. Grey Walter (1910–1977): American neurophysiologist famous for his work on brain waves, and robotician.[129] James D. Watson (1928–): 1962-Nobel-laureate co-discover of the structure of DNA.[130][131] Joseph Weber (1919–2000): American physicist, who gave the earliest public lecture on the principles behind the laser and the maser, and developed the first gravitational wave detectors (Weber bars).[132] Steven Weinberg (1933–): American theoretical physicist. He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979 for the unification of electromagnetism and the weak force into the electroweak force.[133][134][135] David Sloan Wilson (1949–): American evolutionary biologist, son of Sloan Wilson, proponent of multilevel selection theory and author of several popular books on evolution.[136] Lewis Wolpert CBE FRS FRSL (1929–): developmental biologist, author, and broadcaster.[137] Steve Wozniak (1950–): co-founder of Apple Computer and inventor of the Apple I and Apple II.[138] Elizur Wright (1804–1885): American mathematician and abolitionist, sometimes described as the "father of life insurance" for his pioneering work on actuarial tables.[139] Will Wright (1960–): American computer game designer and co-founder of the game development company Maxis.[140] Victor Weisskopf (1908–2002): Austrian-American theoretical physicist, co-founder and board member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.[141]

So, what you're saying is that you'd believe in God if the universe was smaller? Of course not. In a couple of billions years, if the universe keeps expanding at the same rate as today, all (except a few) galaxies will disappear beyond our observable universe. A civilization that starts observing the universe then, will come to the wrong conclusion that the universe is much smaller and very young (the most distant observable galaxy will not be so far away): if they used only this fact as a proof of God, they would be wrong. However, the fact that the universe is so very huge, is not a definitive argument against the existence of God, but it raises nevertheless some doubts about the fact that we are supposed to be the main target of creation. Something, much smaller, could have been enough for us. Unless, of course, the only possible necessary solution, from God's point of view, for a universe with life is to have such a big amount of extra space and mass, which I doubt. Of course, the extra stars and their explosions are necessary for manufacturing heavy elements like carbon, but from a biblical point of view, God created life without waiting for supernovas. For all we know, He could have created only the solar system in its present form and that's it. You're still trying to make this point at the expense of the fact from which you tried and failed to divert attention, namely the universe needs to have as much mass as it does in order to sustain a life-permissive planet the size of our own. Since it is a necessary condition for having a life-sustaining planet like our own, it is nonsense to talk about waste. There is none, and therefore it raises no doubts, utterly putting to rest your assertion, which you press anyways for some reason. You are right. I agree that 100 billions of galaxies are necessary to sustain life on this planet. I did not consider this in my equations, sorry about that. Use the ignore button viole, it will save you much heartburn and from having to teach third grade over and over.

Okay, but that's not at all reasonable. If you're not prepared to accept any term other than evolutionary terms, then it's the quivalent of saying, "Prove Christianity using only Buddhist terms". I'm under no obligation to defend what I believe using your worldview's terms. It's clear that you're not at all open minded about this, and by the fact that you're not even going to read we what say, any discussion with you would be rather pointless. I wish you well. LW its not that I'm not open to your explanations. I wouldn't be here if I was not because I learn much by interacting with people. But there are two ballfields to play on. We can argue creationism based on faith, and creationism based on science. The faith arguments, using how scripture is interpreted, are actually pretty good arguments based on what I have always believed about the consistency of scripture--the bible is a darn well-written book in spite of its age. So I end up arguing over interpetations, which often puts me at a disadvantage since that is my discipline, though I do note that when it suits certain people scripture is malleable or written in stone, depending on the issue. On the other hand, science is my expertise, and in those arguments, there are usually two issues that creationists argue. They spend most of their time trying to discredit evolution by reinterpreting the work of others, who are experts in their field, and much rarer, they try to make their own claims based on their own work. In neither cased do they follow the accepted rules of science, starting with applying the scientific method. So yes, I'll accept criticism of evolution, but when I rebut it, the its-too-complicated argument is really not a good come back, or Dr. so-and-so, who has a degree from the shake and bake divinity school and an MS in astronomy says.... I've even gotten criticized for using references (mandatory in research) or for reviewing the credentials of whatever creationist has made whatever claim (I presume that would be done in apologetics). So, there you have it. Don't know what else to say.

Because at first pass it seems like straight coin toss probability, except the coin has four posible outcomes instead of two (1 for each nucleotide). All these calculations leading to impossibly huge numbers are correct, meaning that things could not possibly have evolved by random chance. But that is decidedly NOT how evolution works. A quick example is a protein 400 amino acids in length (1200 base pairs). If you changed that, by random chance, into some other protein, the probablity would be brutal, the similar to writing out a coin toss sequence of 1200 tosses, and then saying what is the chance of tossing a coin 1200 and getting the exact sequence of HTHHTHTTTH...TTH. So remote that it wouldn't happen. But that is not how evolution works. First, for many if not most proteins, there are key regions that are absolutely essential and cacnot be altered (conserved regions). Other regions can be altered quite easily, and you can even stick proteins together and both retain their original functions. Second, evolution is step wise. You don't expect to see a final protein evolve from a progenitor protein in one step. It is base pair by base pair (to mention one mechanism), with natural selection rating how functional the protein is, and if it functions, it resets the number of tosses. But most importantly, and what makes all these calculations meaningless, is that instead of one coin tosser, you may have millions or billions tossing coins for millions of years, which makes the numbers much more manageable and realistic.