Oh dear. It looks like someone hasn't bothered checking the canard list before posting some of them.
Let's take a look at this shall we?
missy wrote:The atheistic position is indefensible.
The only "atheistic position" in existence, from a
rigorous standpoint, is a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported supernaturalist assertions. Which is entirely defensible, because refusing to accept assertions uncritically is a central component of proper discourse.
missy wrote:You really have only two choices - either God designed all this or this all happened by random chance
WRONG! And a total caricature of the
scientific position, which has nothing to do with atheism. That scientific position being that the universe and its contents are the product of
testable natural processes, something
every supernaturalist forgets about when erecting the above false dichotomy.
missy wrote: - and the mathematical chances of this happening are non-existent.
Well since scientists don't subscribe to your caricature of their position, these "probability" calculations don't apply. See my above remarks about testable natural processes. Oh, by the way, on what rigorous basis are these "probability" calculations founded? Only every time I delve into this matter with respect to creationist assertions, I find that either [1] the numbers involved are pulled out of their rectal passages, or [2] the foundational assumptions upon which these "probability" calculations are based, include one or more known fallacies.
missy wrote:The truth is that it is a mathematical impossibility for order of this complexity to be created by chance.
Except that once again, scientists don't subscribe to your caricature of their position. They consider that
testable natural processes were responsible, a large number of which have been documented in peer reviewed scientific papers.
missy wrote:Random chance can NOT create order.
Testable natural processes can, though. Learn this lesson quickly to spare yourself further embarrassment.
missy wrote:Where there is design, there is a designer.
Oh dear, not this trite supernaturalist shibboleth again. Sigh.
Guess what? There exist scientific papers demonstrating that evolutionary processes can "design" complex entities. I've presented said papers here in the past.
Oh, and while we're at it, do you know what is required in order to make the "design" assertion something other than a blind assertion? Only I've yet to find a supernaturalist who does.
missy wrote:The Universe is an incredibly complex design - designed by the Master Designer. God is the only logical explanation for the Universe.
Ahem. At least two physicists of my acquaintance would like to have a word with you. Allow me to introduce Messrs Steinhardt & Turok. I presented two of their papers
here. In those papers, they present an entirely naturalistic hypothesis for the origin of the observable universe, one, moreover, that admits of an empirical test of the validity thereof.
missy wrote:The incredible complexity of the Universe proves to rational people the existence of God.
No it doesn't. As scientists have established in something like a million peer reviewed papers, testable natural processes are sufficient to account for vast classes of real world observational phenomena. The number of papers in existence that say "er, we need a magic entity to account for this" is precisely zero.
missy wrote:Whether "god" created the universe or not, it still all happened by chance. So you are saying that god set the universe in motion and waited 13 billion years to come back and create us? He took a big gamble assuming that our little star would actually be born and that planets would form and that some other planet would smash into our earth to form the moon. Without the moon we wouldn't be here today. And of course, the conditions would have to be perfect for life to thrive. The odds of all this happening were very slim. So why create this enormous universe and wait all that time if he really only wanted to create us? Why not just create the earth and all life on earth in a little bubble in 7 days -- as described in genesis. That would make much more sense to me.
Ahem. Genesis erects assertions that are
known to be plain, flat, wrong. The hard empirical evidence says that your book of myths is wrong. The observable universe IS 13.6 billion years old, because ALL the evidence says so. I suggest you learn about some of it.