It appears to me that you are unaware of or unwilling to abide by reasonable terms of debate and discussion. So let's start with first principles.
Assuming for the sake of discussion and courtesy that your questions are sincere (and i assume that with a great deal of misgiving), i'll examine your debut here.
bigdog279 wrote:If the world was created by a big explosion, everything would have been a mess.
This is what can be described as a statement from authority. That is because you don't define your terms or explain why this is so--you just make the statement, and from it you propose to derive what one assumes you assume to be reasonable questions. However, as this is a premise for subsequent questions, it is not only appropriate to question you, it is essential to establishing a basis for discussion and/or debate.
What do you mean by "the world?" By that, do you mean the cosmos, the universe? If so, you'd have been on firmer ground to have said so--as it is, your use of "the world" is vague and could be misleading. The world can mean this planet (and that is probably the most common use of the word), or it can mean everything, as in the cosmos. One assumes that you intend the latter definition, but already we are off to a bad start, because one has to make an assumption about your meaning, rather than have a clear and unambiguous basis to begin with.
What do you mean by "a mess?" Once again, one is left to assume things about your meaning. This isn't the same as a letter-bomb going off at the post office, you know.
You're off to a bad start here already because you make a statement from authority ("big explosion"="mess"), but you don't provide even a logical basis for your assumption, let alone any evidence.
You wrote:Someone must have put everything in order.
This is a statement from authority, as well, and it is a naive and anthropocentric statement. If you place a bar magnet under a sheet of heavy paper, and shake out some iron filings onto the paper, they will align to the magnetic field and form a predictable pattern. This is not because anyone has put them "in order," it is simply a consequence of the properties of iron (which is paramagnetic).
So this statement assumes several things, and accepting it in discussion or debate is tantamount of agreeing to those assumptions. It assumes that "everything" is now "in order." It assumes that order cannot arise from circumstances or conditions, but can only arise from "someone" taking action to impose order. This is anthropocentric.
[url=http://www.answers.com/topic/anthropocentric?cat=health][b]Answers-dot-com[/b][/url] wrote:anthropocentric adj.
1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe.
2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience.
Your remark assumes that order can only arise from the actions of a self-conscious, sentient entity, such as a human being, and in this case, the implication is that there is an anthropomophic (which means having human form) deity who has put everything in order. But you are not finished with your anthropocentric statements.
Quote:If not, why is it that we live in the third planet, the perfect location from the sun. And why is it that we have body parts in the best place they could be? The arms are aligned, skin covers the whole body, and stuff like that...
This assumes that everything is ordered or "created" in the cosmos for the benefit of human beings--that is a classic philosophical definition of anthropocentric. It is also hopelessly naive, and "puts the cart before the horse." That we live on the third planet from our star is not evidence of grand design, or of any other species of human conceit, it is evidence that in the one, specific case of this stellar system, this third planet is able to support life forms such as we represent, and so they arose here. Mercury is too near the star, Venus is in the grip of a runaway "greenhouse" effect, and Mars is too far from the star. Nothing guaranteed that life as we know it would arise here, but it's damned sure it would not have arisen on any of the other planets of which we know.
I am making a statement from authority, too. That is that nothing guaranteed that life as we know it would arise here. (I have made other statements from authority, such as that life as we know it could not survive on Mercury, Venus or Mars, but in those cases, i don't allege that i am personally the authority from which the statement derives--for those statements, i rely on the evidence provided by astronomers and our space program.) I make the statement that nothing guaranteed that life as we know it would arise here because i know of no evidence to the contrary. The most likely argument to be advanced against that statement is the argument implicit in your questions--that there is a creator, a deity.
This implicit reference to a creator or deity is made even more clear in your subsequent question, which ends with yet another statement from authority:
Quote:Also, how come cycles occur? The water cycle for one. Everything couldn't have been all a coincidence...
Why could not "everything" have been a coincidence? That statement from authority is tinged with an anthropocentric assumption (all things are ordered for the benefit of humanity), and it is offered without any support, neither evidence nor a logical argument. It assumes that things have been ordered for the appearance and sustenance of a life form such as human beings, rather than understanding that a life form such as human beings exists here because it is possible and plausible given the conditions which already exist.
Quote:And just to note it, nothing among those things were Bible based...
To the extent that the bobble is about as bad a source for answering scientific questions one could find, i'd certainly agree with that statement. But any attempt on your part to claim that what you have said and what you have asked is not motivated by your personal religious prejudices would be absurdly, transparently a lie.
**************************************
So, you get asked questions because you yourself beg questions, and make assumptions and statements from authority, and to have a rational discussion, people have to ask you questions just to figure out what you mean.
