Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

You cannot account for the acuity of universal constants, thus God did it. This is a God of the gaps argument. You can do nothing more than to suppose that God is responsible.This is not that. Seeing lightning happen and then saying... Ah, God did that! That's God of the Gaps. This is an argument that in order for us to exist, certain constants needed to be set at a specific value for our universe to occur the way that it has. If you come across a watch which has been meticulously designed to tell time you don't assume it got there naturally do you? If you take those constants as important to the existence of our universe then its an argument for a designer. This argument is based on that same intuition that would lead you to believe the watch was designed.2. You seem to already be pretty confident that only 1 universe is possible.Is there any proof otherwise? It seems the multi-verse hypothesis comes from a place where you can then avoid what the Big Bang means. You would never be able to prove a multi-verse because it would be completely separate from us and thus you would require a lot of faith to believe that without being able to confirm it even exists.Indeed it does, which is precisely why the strongest opposition to the Big Bang theory has always come from the religious communities. Oh I won't argue that certain Christians seem to be afraid of every single scientific discovery. I happen to believe that Christianity and Science can co-exist very well together. This is an irrelevant contention. The experiment showed that it is possible for inorganic material to become organic material. How is it irrelevant? If you can't prove that such a thing actually happened in an environment that actually would have been like Earth's then this really doesn't prove much. Remember, creating organic material is not the same as creating life.No, it is creating the building blocks of life.Which have to be assembled in a very meticulous way which current probability is not in favor of it happening naturally.Well, certainly if inorganic material can become organic, then certainly organic material can become living material. All of the steps are theoretically possible and a few of the have actually been demonstrated in the lab. To say there is no evidence is denial.Ah there in lies the problem. How? Could you please show me the step that creates the information necessary for this to happen?Do you have a source for this? When this quote is only found on creationist apologetic websites, a quote that appears that someone is arguing against a belief we know them to hold, I'm inclined to say this is a quote mine. Can you show me the paragraph in which this quote appears?John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119That being said do you have an actual rebuttal to the article I postedI don't mean to post quotes out of context although I do get the same things when people quote out of the Bible improperly so I apologize about the second quote :) However as early as May 2011 it would seem this idea needs a lot more research and that you can't make the claim that this RNA World is actually what happened until it becomes verifiable. You can offer it as a hypothesis but that's about it. "Although many scientists have provided great insights into the possibility of RNA as the origin of life, there is still no unified opinion about RNA World theory. Some argue that it was an intermediate molecule, between the first molecule and DNA. Research continues of course, as it is a tantalizing dilemma, a challenge for scientists to solve, keen to find out once and for all where we came from."Read more: http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/20112.aspx#ixzz1bRT0anhU