NationStates Jolt Archive

What? Did I start a trend?

Seriously though, I do that to everyone - I don't know why Neo feels singled out.

Maybe objecting to your wording is easier than refuting your arguments? :)

What? Did I start a trend?

Seriously though, I do that to everyone - I don't know why Neo feels singled out.
I do it to stir, so yes, I do it to Neo. Stirring is fun. :D

Also - if you ARE willing to accept theological responses, with no other evidence... why chose the Christian creation myth?
Exactly.

I seem to recall that Ancient Egyptian myth had some story on the lines of a goddess manually stimulating her 'god', until he 'spilled' the world into reality...
I remember that one. At least they weren't so repressed. ;)

Curious - show me this 'physical evidence'?

You are aware, of course, that you have to prove that anything you use as 'evidence' here, CANNOT have happened any OTHER way, than through divine intervention?
no, you dont...
there are a few ways (reply if you think of more) that our universe could be created:
1)the energy necessary for the creation of the universe was from within the universe (self creation)
2)the energy necessary for the creation of the universe never needed to be there (infinite universe)
3)the universe was created by the big bang, but the expansion of the universe slowed down for a period of time, then sped up... (hesitation)
4)the size of the universe has always variated from large to small in a congruent way (oscillation)
5)the big bang happened, and the universe is expanding, but its expansion is slowing down (Einstein/Friedmann)

#1 could have never happened, because the universe could have never created itself from anything,
#2 defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics (?),
#3 defies Hubble's expansion rate for the universe,
#4 hasn't yet been proven because an unknown force would have to act on
the universe congruently,
which leaves #5

#5 stays constant with all of the scientific knowledge that we have gathered today. it stays stead with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, Hubbles constant, and other evidences that are widely accepted by scientists, whether secular or not. after looking at what he discovered, he bitterly wrote this in his journal about an such an "omnipotent being", not wanting to refer to a God or creator:

"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgement on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?"

Einstein went on to create a static, or infinite, model of the universe in 1917 using a new tool, the cosmological constant. this was carefully added, along with other mathematics, to each side of his original equations, to produce an infinitely expanding universe. however, this constant was wrong for two reasons:

1) the constant made it so that vacuums in space had mass, and
2) the larger the distance between two bodies in space, the greater the force acted on them, repelling them faster

the constant defied the laws of physics and Einstein soon acknowledged it. as early as 1919, he stated it was "gravely detrimental to the formal beauty of the theory." In 1931, einstein discarded the constant from his field equations, and conceded that it's introduction was "the greatest mistake of his life."

no, you dont...
there are a few ways (reply if you think of more) that our universe could be created:
1)the energy necessary for the creation of the universe was from within the universe (self creation)
2)the energy necessary for the creation of the universe never needed to be there (infinite universe)
3)the universe was created by the big bang, but the expansion of the universe slowed down for a period of time, then sped up... (hesitation)
4)the size of the universe has always variated from large to small in a congruent way (oscillation)
5)the big bang happened, and the universe is expanding, but its expansion is slowing down (Einstein/Friedmann)

#1 could have never happened, because the universe could have never created itself from anything,
#2 defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics (?),
#3 defies Hubble's expansion rate for the universe,
#4 hasn't yet been proven because an unknown force would have to act on
the universe congruently,
which leaves #5

#5 stays constant with all of the scientific knowledge that we have gathered today. it stays stead with the wnd law of thermodynamics, Hubbles constant, and other evidences that are widely accepted by scientists, whether secular or not. after looking at what he discovered, he bitterly wrote this in his journal about an such an "omnipotent being", not wanting to refer to a God or creator:

"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgement on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?"

Einstein went on to create a static, or infinite, model of the universe in 1917 using a new tool, the cosmological constant. this was carefully added, along with other mathematics, to each side of his original equations, to produce an infinitely expanding universe. however, this constant was wrong for two reasons:

1) the constant made it so that vacuums in space had mass, and
2) the larger the distance between two bodies in space, the greater the force acted on them, repelling them faster

the constant defied the laws of physics and Einstein soon acknowledged it. as early as 1919, he stated it was "gravely detrimental to the formal beauty of the theory." In 1931, einstein discarded the constant from his field equations, and conceded that it's introduction was "the greatest mistake of his life."

I don't see your point?

How does anything that CAN be explained scientifically (outside of any theological response) be used as 'evidence' for creation by a god?

I don't see your point?

How does anything that CAN be explained scientifically (outside of any theological response) be used as 'evidence' for creation by a god?
my point is that the creation of the universe from a singularity by an intelligent being fits perfectly with scientific knowledge of today...

if i didnt put it in my last post, here it is

my point is that the creation of the universe from a singularity by an intelligent being fits perfectly with scientific knowledge of today...

if i didnt put it in my last post, here it is

Okay, I'm confused.

Not that I don't agree with you... the universe COULD have been created by an intelligence, I'm not denying it.

However...

Neo Cannen said: "If a metaphysical entity chose to intercede into it there would be physical evidence. Which is what we see with the nature of the world".

Implying that there is some form of incontravertable physical evidence for the hand of a 'creator'.

I said: "You are aware, of course, that you have to prove that anything you use as 'evidence' here, CANNOT have happened any OTHER way, than through divine intervention"?

Since, any evidence that CAN be explained by another origin, is not 'physical evidence' of the hand of a creator, is it?

Adn, that was the post you responded to... but I don't see how your comment relates to that?

Do you believe that there IS undeniable physical evidence of a 'god' intervening?

Or - do you believe that evidence doesn't have to conclusively prove 'god' as the ONLY creation force, to be acceptable as evidence of 'god'?

my point is that the creation of the universe from a singularity by an intelligent being fits perfectly with scientific knowledge of today...

if i didnt put it in my last post, here it is

Doesn't really matter, however, as it is inherently an untestable hypothesis - and therefore unscientific.

Adn, that was the post you responded to... but I don't see how your comment relates to that?

Do you believe that there IS undeniable physical evidence of a 'god' intervening?

1) i was responding to your question of my point
2)yes. the universe itself.

Doesn't really matter, however, as it is inherently an untestable hypothesis - and therefore unscientific.
no it is not. (unless you are talking of another "it")
if the universe has a finite beginning, it means that there must be a intellegent creator

1) i was responding to your question of my point
2)yes. the universe itself.

Okay - what about the universe 'proves' that the only possible creation mechanism is divine intervention?

no it is not. (unless you are talking of another "it")
if the universe has a finite beginning, it means that there must be a intellegent creator

No, it doesn't. How do you justify that assertion?

Come to think of it, how do you justify the assertion that the universe has a 'finite' beginning?

Okay - what about the universe 'proves' that the only possible creation mechanism is divine intervention?
a)the thousands of variants and variables needed for the creation of life in this universe
b)the number of planets in the universe
c)the size of the universe
d)the proof of a singularity, or ultimate beginning

a)the thousands of variants and variables needed for the creation of life in this universe
b)the number of planets in the universe
c)the size of the universe
d)the proof of a singularity, or ultimate beginning

How is that proof?

a)the thousands of variants and variables needed for the creation of life in this universe
b)the number of planets in the universe
c)the size of the universe
d)the proof of a singularity, or ultimate beginning

None of that: proves 'god' as the only possible origin, or is inexplicable by other means.

The number of planets 'proves god'? How? The size of the universe 'proves god'? How?

Bear in mind, the universe is still visibly increasing in size - which means it must have been smaller before... so - was it less 'proof' of 'god' then?

I can think of a dozen explanations for the origin of the universe that do NOT require a god.... how do you justify the assertion that ONLY divine intervention is 'proved' by this 'evidence'?

You are also ignoring the fact that: given enough time, even 'unlikely' events are pretty much guaranteed to happen, eventually.

How is that proof?

(And, here is someone else making my point... but in much more concise fashion than I managed).

:)

How is that proof?
FOR ALL OF YOU WISHING TO REPLY TO MY POSTS, PLEASE READ:
Please use deductive reasoning from now on.



the reason why it is proof is mathematical. the chance of all of the variables for the creation of life and the universe being identical to the required values for the creation of life and the universe is incredibly slim. the chance for evolution of life on earth is one over 10 to the power of 172, if you count the number of variables and the chance of those variables being precisely what they need to be. the chance for the "evolution" of sorts of the universe is much slimmer than those.

FOR ALL OF YOU WISHING TO REPLY TO MY POSTS, PLEASE READ:
Please use deductive reasoning from now on.



the reason why it is proof is mathematical. the chance of all of the variables for the creation of life and the universe being identical to the required values for the creation of life and the universe is incredibly slim. the chance for evolution of life on earth is one over 10 to the power of 172, if you count the number of variables and the chance of those variables being precisely what they need to be. the chance for the "evolution" of sorts of the universe is much slimmer than those.

And, from the 'observable evidence', the chances of 'god' are even less... so, we still need to know how you think you are 'proving' divine creation?

I call 'false'.

Prove it, Neo.

I need to see a source cited, for your 'assumption' that radioactive decay is non-linear.

Of course radioactive decay isn't linear. It's a virtually perfect exponential function. That's why they measure it by "half-life" instead of it's full life. It has to do with the statistics of decay. The more particles are present, the larger the possibility is that some will decay.
That said, scientists use radioactive decay on a logarithmic scale, which means they can measure it just as easily as a linear function. It's just as accurate, but never disappears altogether, so it can be measured for million years after being deposited.

None of that: proves 'god' as the only possible origin, or is inexplicable by other means.

The number of planets 'proves god'? How? The size of the universe 'proves god'? How?

Bear in mind, the universe is still visibly increasing in size - which means it must have been smaller before... so - was it less 'proof' of 'god' then?

I can think of a dozen explanations for the origin of the universe that do NOT require a god.... how do you justify the assertion that ONLY divine intervention is 'proved' by this 'evidence'?

You are also ignoring the fact that: given enough time, even 'unlikely' events are pretty much guaranteed to happen, eventually.
thats like saying that, given enough time, the "unlikely" event of a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a car will happen... its mathematically impossible

yes, the universe is increasing in size... that proves god. i dont want to explain it again so ill move on.

there are a dozen or so explanations... none have been verified by matematical or scientific fact... except for the adiabatic big bang, in which the universe was created by an intellegent, quite plausibly inside the singularity, then exploded (hence big bang) with massive results, leading to the existance of the universe.

And, from the 'observable evidence', the chances of 'god' are even less... so, we still need to know how you think you are 'proving' divine creation?
And just because the odds are low, doesn't mean that the universe coming into existence. On the other hand there is no evidence of there being a god.

Sayig that "we don't understand everything about the universe so tehre must be a god" is NOT evidence.

no it is not. (unless you are talking of another "it")
if the universe has a finite beginning, it means that there must be a intellegent creator

Which still doesn't matter. You cannot test the idea that there is an omnipotent being - because it cannot be disproven.

thats like saying that, given enough time, the "unlikely" event of a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a car will happen... its mathematically impossible

yes, the universe is increasing in size... that proves god. i dont want to explain it again so ill move on.

there are a dozen or so explanations... none have been verified by matematical or scientific fact... except for the adiabatic big bang, in which the universe was created by an intellegent, quite plausibly inside the singularity, then exploded (hence big bang) with massive results, leading to the existance of the universe.

Since the universe is expanding at a (basically) linear rate, there must have been some point when the universe couldn't have been any smaller, making this point the beginning of our universe. [There are theories of a continually expanding and contracting universe, but the problem with these theories is that everything we know about physics says the singularity that forms between intervals is physically impossible.] Since the fourth dimension (time) is causal in nature (every event has a cause before it), this means that there must be some quality of existence that is unconfined by time. This could be an effect that exists in more than the four dimensions we know, or one that does not exist in time at all, merely intersects it. Such a quality would also have to exist in at least one dimension beyond the ones we know.

But the existance of other dimensions in of itself is dubious. For one thing, there's just as much evidence of it as there is for God. The only reasoning scientists can give for believing in it is that their theories wouldn't work without it. That's about as qualified an argument as saying God has to exist because the universe couldn't possibly happen without him. Scientists and people who understand their theories simply have to take it on faith that the dimensions exist. Even if we were able to find some some extradimensional wormhole floating in space, we wouldn't have the proof for these dimensions. Since we don't exist in them, we can't say we know they are there. For all we know, that wormhole could be God's toilet.

Now, another possible quality of existence that could start the universe is a simple awareness. The awareness wants something, it gets something, the same way we can imagine whatever we want. The universe we have would be analogous to a day dream. It wouldn't be the same, of course, seeing as how we are incapable of coming up with free-thinking, conscious entities in our own day dreams. So in this "day dream", the first thing the awareness wants (by which I mean, the thing he wants that occurs at the earliest point in the time line, since he isn't confined to the timeline) is for there to be a universe. He sets down three spatial dimensions to hold a quantity of energy, some of which is tied up in matter, and sets it free through time. Maybe he starts with a single point that grows, or maybe he doesn't see a need to have all that excess; he just starts where the universe would be if it had started from a singularity. There you have Genesis 1:1, if you want to look at it as a Judeo-chritian.

How I see it, these two are just as provable, so, from a scientific view point, just as possible. I go with the second version, personally.

Second, as for God. Ok, so you don't believe in the god of Isac and Jacob and so on. Lets at least put this in place and get you down to one god. Ok, so we know that is at LEAST one god now. Now, can there be more? If you say yes, then how many? If you have three, why not four? Why not five? etc.... They are gods after all, they dont have to reveal themselves to you. Now, we can have an infinite amount of gods. Sorry, but the way you took your last breat just pissed off god number 10^10293983474.34382. You are dead. Struck down in your prime by a vengeful god. By the zero, one, infinity principle(it's an engineering thing), there can only be one god.

I've no idea who originally wrote this (different sources of mine give different/no sources for their own quotation) but the following is a segment of a much longer missive that your "we know that there is at LEAST one god" assertion reminded me of (in reverse).

You certainly doubt that thunder is caused by the anger of Zeus, or that Allah is the one true god. Like myself, you see them as myths created to explain the unknown, to give life some kind of meaning, to enhance culture, or to empower the ruling caste. They are born in human imagination, and can be explained without reference to a supernatural world. There are many gods which Christians reject. I just believe in one less god than you do. The reasons that you might give for your atheism toward Roman gods are likely the same reasons I would give for not believing in Jesus.

Since no one actually delt with these points before, I will post them again.

I said rubbish because the age of the earth you gave according to radiometric data is wrong. If you think it is not, give me a reference.

You said rubbish and completely failed to actally analyise any of the reasons I gave you. I will now give them to you again and this time you can actually READ them. And then perhaps you can expalin WHY you think they are wrong, rather than just calling them rubbish

1 - You take out the assumption that radiometric decay in uranium is constant. Its not. It starts off fast and then slows down. Also large scale enviromental change can alter the surrondings to such an effect which alters the rate of decay

2 - You remove the assumption that you know how much of the first element in the chain there was. You dont. You dont know how much of any original piece of rock was lead and how much was Uranium

3 - You remove the assumption that the radiometric decay occurs in an isolated system and that any lead present comes only from the decaying Uranium. Dr Melvin Cook, who won a Nobel prize for his research into this field, discovered that if you put in a neutron reaction correction to the dating methods that the result comes out in the 10'000's of years and not millions

Other studies done using the same techniques found the same thing, coal from Russia, supposedly 300 million years old had these corrections applied and it came out as just over 1600 years

And there are further problems with other dating systems

4 - The Potassiem Argon dating system is extremely unreliable. When applied to rocks that were known to be only at the very most 200 years old, results varied from 22 million to 200 million

5 - Carbon 14 dating assumes that the rate of production of carbon 14 is equal to the rate of decay (. However for such a state to be achieved it requires 30,000 years from the start of the atmosphere. But modern studies, even those by Dr Libby who discovered the method, discovered that such equalibrium has not been achieved and that formation of carbon 14 is still 24% more than decay.

Reference W.F.Libby "Radiocarbon dating" University of Chicago press 1955

In America, scientists used the Carbon 14 dating system on a living snail, discovering that this LIVING snail was more that 27,000 years old!

Reference

"Science" volume 224 1984 pgs 58-61

Dr Cook.M "Pre-History and Earth Models" London 1966

Please use deductive reasoning from now on.
I'll try.

the reason why it is proof is mathematical. the chance of all of the variables for the creation of life and the universe being identical to the required values for the creation of life and the universe is incredibly slim. the chance for evolution of life on earth is one over 10 to the power of 172, if you count the number of variables and the chance of those variables being precisely what they need to be. the chance for the "evolution" of sorts of the universe is much slimmer than those.But not zero.

May I reintroduce you to a simple game of chance. Roll a dice. What number did you get. Do you realise that five out of six times you rolled that dice you would not have rolled that number?

Not too impossible for you? Then take a pack of cards, choose a card. There's at least 51 chances in 52 (more in more, if you retained the jokers and "rules of bridge" card) that this card was not chosen. This card, were it sentient, might say "wow, I was chosen, how unlikely was that". It only says that because (apart from being sentient) it was chosen...

Still, that's still fairly likely.

The lottery. Boil it down to six random numbers from 1 to 49. Matching all six is 1 in 13,983,816. Why do people ever buy tickets? Because it could be them. (BTW, have you ever heard people say "I had a feeling it was my lucky day" after winning lotteries and other random competitions. How about all the people who had the same feeling and didn't win, eh?)

There are more extreme examples, but you get into 'scientists calculate the probabilities of being hit by lightening are' territory and I haven't the figures to corroborate (though I trust you can recalculate the above maths from the base conditions given to confirm I'm correct about the games of chance).


And all this is apart from the fact that I believe that your methods for establishing thhe true likelihood of life are way overboard.

In all this I try to avoid the "because we are here, life did occur to produce us" argumants. I also do not sink so low as to suggest that the old "two arms, two legs, two eyes" body-plan is just chance but that it looks 'normal' to us, because I cannot add values to those probabilities that we could agree on.

Instead, let's stick to pure numbers.

Anything that is "just one chance in $value" can happen. It can happen on the first go (1/$value chance of it happening). It can happen in the second go (1/$value if looked at independantly, $value-1/$value^2 if looked at as "second time following a failed first time" or 1/(1-(($value^2-2$value+1)/($value$^2))) of it happening either one of the first two times or even both, correct me if I'm wrong). But, whatever you do, it's never 1/$infinity. It's always 1/$something, where $something increases (factoring both sides of the division so the numerator is always '1') the more times it happens. It can happen.

And that's assuming a '1' at the top. What if there are many different possible 'solutions' to life-initiation? I cannot quantify it, but you cannot easily deny that there are. A lot of our molecules have a left-handed/right-handed biomolecular bias, and a world which generated the bias opposite of ours would be representative of a 'life chance', giving twice as many different initial possibilities as before (the reactions that produced our 'protoosugars' could have produced their 'protosugars') and halving the probabilities at a stroke. Actually, I can think of a big flaw in that argument, but it's actually a flaw that (uncorrected) is in your favour, so for the sake of simplicity and goodwill I won't go into those details.


And are the numbers calculated from the chances that "exactly N molecules of carbon, M molecules of potassium, L molecules of oxygen..." meet in the right place at the right time? They shouldn't be. They should be based upon the possibilities of simple mloecules forming from interactions of simpler molecules. Might we assume that water is already water when we start the clock? If not, it doesn't matter because the first time H2 molecules and O2 ones meet (maybe with a little energy to kick-start things, but not much) there'll be a production of H2O. And when H2O meets various things it'll make various other things. Carbon chains are easily built up in the right conditions (which is their beauty) and those conditions would have been easy to find on early Earth (on differently constructed worls there might have been Si-chains, but that's speculation given we have no practical experience. However, a Silicon-based life-form, living on a world 'surprisingly' adapted to him, could as easily be ignorant about the possibilities of us developing... But there I'm straying from pure numbers.) The pont being is that it isn't unlikely that water formed. In fact, it seems positively unlikely that it wouldn't exist, given the conditions our planet formed in. Other molecules similar. I'm really not seeing any probabilities that approach the ones you give, but even if they do this only means they are improbable, not impossible.


There is no mathematical proof that life cannot (naturally) exist.

Here's a link I got from my biology professor. It's full of better, more comprehensive arguments than could possibly be voiced here. Pro-evolutionists looking for ammunition, and con-evolutionists who are up for a challenge, take a look.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There is no mathematical proof that life cannot (naturally) exist.

Wrong. I have explained this before but no one has bothered to listen. Mutations (the genetic changes required to advance from one species to another) are exceptionally rare. So rare in fact that it takes 10^7 generations of a single genome to get any significent change. That means something in the region of millions of generations for just ONE change. Now if you then apply that to four mutations you get 10^28 and so on. At this point, the Earth itself doesnt have the resorces to sustain that kind of population. Not to mention the fact that not all of any one of those generations would survive and so you would need even more generations to sucessfully pass on that infomation. Your dice analogy, to play on that, what if you had a series of dice the first one 1-6 and the next one marked 7-12 etc all the way up to say 300 million. Where exactly would you keep them all? And what are the odds that you would roll the second highest number on every dice EVERY time.

Wrong. I have explained this before but no one has bothered to listen. Mutations (the genetic changes required to advance from one species to another) are exceptionally rare. So rare in fact that it takes 10^7 generations of a single genome to get any significent change. That means something in the region of millions of generations for just ONE change. Now if you then apply that to four mutations you get 10^28 and so on. At this point, the Earth itself doesnt have the resorces to sustain that kind of population. Not to mention the fact that not all of any one of those generations would survive and so you would need even more generations to sucessfully pass on that infomation. Your dice analogy, to play on that, what if you had a series of dice the first one 1-6 and the next one marked 7-12 etc all the way up to say 300 million. Where exactly would you keep them all?

Thats natural mutation. There is a background level of radation over the whole planet causing mutations in genomes all the time. Each cancer starts off as a mutation and then grows if it is not killed off quickly enough. Obviously those are not beneficial mutations but I'm just saying they happen often. But i'm way out of my depth here, I havent studied biology for years, ask a biologist or go to talk origins to get a batter answer.

Thats natural mutation. There is a background level of radation over the whole planet causing mutations in genomes all the time. Each cancer starts off as a mutation and then grows if it is not killed off quickly enough. Obviously those are not beneficial mutations but I'm just saying they happen often. But i'm way out of my depth here, I havent studied biology for years, ask a biologist or go to talk origins to get a batter answer.

Ionising radation causing mutations that are beneficial! Do you have any idea of the odds against that. You remember the fruit fly expirements. Some ended up blind, others with crumpled wings. None of them ended up any better off than they had started.

Wrong. I have explained this before but no one has bothered to listen. Mutations (the genetic changes required to advance from one species to another) are exceptionally rare. So rare in fact that it takes 10^7 generations of a single genome to get any significent change. That means something in the region of millions of generations for just ONE change. Now if you then apply that to four mutations you get 10^28 and so on. At this point, the Earth itself doesnt have the resorces to sustain that kind of population. Not to mention the fact that not all of any one of those generations would survive and so you would need even more generations to sucessfully pass on that infomation. Your dice analogy, to play on that, what if you had a series of dice the first one 1-6 and the next one marked 7-12 etc all the way up to say 300 million. Where exactly would you keep them all?

Genetic mutations happen all the time. 99% of the time, they don't effect noticeable traits, but they are still happening. In fact, 10^-4 to 10^-6 mutations per gene happen per generation. Seeing as how any given species has far in excess of 10^6 genes, you can pretty much count on any creature having a few mutations. It is very rare that these mutations prove to be an advantage in the organism's environment, however. And small populations encourage evolution more than large ones- more opportunity to phaze out negative traits.

Ionising radation causing mutations that are beneficial! Do you have any idea of the odds against that. You remember the fruit fly expirements. Some ended up blind, others with crumpled wings. None of them ended up any better off than they had started.

You admit mutations happen often then? Obviously detrimental mutations happen more often than benefical ones. Doesnt mean benefical ones dont happen.

Since no one actually delt with these points before, I will post them again.



You said rubbish and completely failed to actally analyise any of the reasons I gave you. I will now give them to you again and this time you can actually READ them. And then perhaps you can expalin WHY you think they are wrong, rather than just calling them rubbish

1 - You take out the assumption that radiometric decay in uranium is constant. Its not. It starts off fast and then slows down. Also large scale enviromental change can alter the surrondings to such an effect which alters the rate of decay

It is constant on a logaritmic scale. Exponential decay on a normal scale. This is the most basic law of radioactivity.

2 - You remove the assumption that you know how much of the first element in the chain there was. You dont. You dont know how much of any original piece of rock was lead and how much was Uranium

3 - You remove the assumption that the radiometric decay occurs in an isolated system and that any lead present comes only from the decaying Uranium. Dr Melvin Cook, who won a Nobel prize for his research into this field, discovered that if you put in a neutron reaction correction to the dating methods that the result comes out in the 10'000's of years and not millions

Other studies done using the same techniques found the same thing, coal from Russia, supposedly 300 million years old had these corrections applied and it came out as just over 1600 years

And there are further problems with other dating systems


I can only assume geologists knew the conditions of earth from that period and knew what types of rocks the earth was likely to produce. I'm no geologist. Care to give a source to any of these meaningless numbers? And Dr Melvin Cook never won the Nobel prize.

4 - The Potassiem Argon dating system is extremely unreliable. When applied to rocks that were known to be only at the very most 200 years old, results varied from 22 million to 200 million


Thats probably the wrong dating method to use for that timescale. All radioactive substances have a different half life and so will be more accurate at measuring different timescales. Notice both results are significantly over 6000 years.

5 - Carbon 14 dating assumes that the rate of production of carbon 14 is equal to the rate of decay (. However for such a state to be achieved it requires 30,000 years from the start of the atmosphere. But modern studies, even those by Dr Libby who discovered the method, discovered that such equalibrium has not been achieved and that formation of carbon 14 is still 24% more than decay.

Reference W.F.Libby "Radiocarbon dating" University of Chicago press 1955

In America, scientists used the Carbon 14 dating system on a living snail, discovering that this LIVING snail was more that 27,000 years old!

Reference

"Science" volume 224 1984 pgs 58-61

Dr Cook.M "Pre-History and Earth Models" London 1966

The rate of carbon 14 production is approximately equal to the rate of decay. Otherwise we'd be swamped in carbon 14 right now.

Since no one actually delt with these points before, I will post them again.



You said rubbish and completely failed to actally analyise any of the reasons I gave you. I will now give them to you again and this time you can actually READ them. And then perhaps you can expalin WHY you think they are wrong, rather than just calling them rubbish

Let's have a go. Can't promise to be sufficiently knowledgable about all of them, so apologies in advance.

1 - You take out the assumption that radiometric decay in uranium is constant. Its not. It starts off fast and then slows down. Also large scale enviromental change can alter the surrondings to such an effect which alters the rate of decay

Rate of decay cannot be affected by environment, it a 'quantum'-level chance occurance. A Uranium atom may decay, or it may not. (In quantities as small as a few atoms, you'd have to consider them all 'happening' to go into decay a lot sooner, or a lot later, than you'd normally expect, but in geological samples you can generally squash that down to a ikely rate of error much lower than that you get from natural variation in sampling). The only factor that may influence this is the presence of subatomic radioaactive decay products (typically neutrons, from other recently decayed atoms) which striking the atom we are observing and initiating decay. The beuaty of this sistuation is that a spontaneous decay produces (say) two daughter atoms that add up (together with any other particles emitted) to the original atom, whereas a neutron-induced decay produces decay products that add up to the original atom plus the neutron. Differing products, different reason for decay. From this we can deduce whether or not it was spontaneous or induced, and we can use this (and the density of original material, as established from the densities of remaining original material and densities of the various 'daughter' materials) to deduce the factor/rate which we would expect to see.

And you are right, it is not strtictly linear, it is (as already said) logarithmic, but strictly so in order that we can treat as 'linear' the exponential rate and thus say "over $time, half of the product will have decayed". From this, we can say "three quarters of the original product was decayed, thus two periods of $time have passed". Not 'linear', in the strictest sense of the term, but it doesn't vary from a linear plot as seen on a logarithmic scale, thus is accurate and 'constant' (although by proportion, rather than actual amount).

2 - You remove the assumption that you know how much of the first element in the chain there was. You dont. You dont know how much of any original piece of rock was lead and how much was Uranium1) Except that lead and uranium (for example) are chemically different. You know the chemical reactions that would produce the uranium ores and the ones that would produce the lead ores, and find that you have lead residing in places that only uranium should exist in.
2) The lead isotope produced by decay or uranium may not be the same lead isotope as that found in 'general' lead deposits so you can be sure that it was originally Uranium and decayed, and only after getting 'fixed' in this particular deposit.
3) It's not just lead, you find, but also other daughter atoms (I forget which ones) which you can match, proportion-by-proportion, against the lead. Any lead left over might well have already been there (points 1 and 2 excepted). It gets slightly more complicated when ;ead's 'sibling' product itself decays, but then you have further products which can also be analysed for proportion and reinforce both the original proportions and (with compatible half-lives) plug into equations that might give you better answers of 'time existing' than the "Uranuium->Lead+whatever" does for the time scales concerned. (Been ages since I learnt the specifics, so apologies for not mentioning names for the 'whatever'.)


3 - You remove the assumption that the radiometric decay occurs in an isolated system and that any lead present comes only from the decaying Uranium. Dr Melvin Cook, who won a Nobel prize for his research into this field, discovered that if you put in a neutron reaction correction to the dating methods that the result comes out in the 10'000's of years and not millionsDealt with the "lead from other sources" in the last question. Dealt with the neutron-decay in the response from item 1. As for this example, was he dating rock apparently formed millions of years ago? I'd like to knowmore, because this is a 'thrown fact' devoid of any detail.

Other studies done using the same techniques found the same thing, coal from Russia, supposedly 300 million years old had these corrections applied and it came out as just over 1600 years

And there are further problems with other dating systemsSeepage of material from other layers? Impurity of sample? Mishandling of sample? Mathematical errors? I'm not saying it's wrong, just it sounds a bit too much to suggest that just because one (or several) samples show anomalies that the problem is in the (otherwise) tried and tested system. Yes, the system should be looked at, but also the new results. That's why we didn't all go "yes, cold fusion does work, our understanding was all wrong" when the experiments by Ponds and Fleischman were revealed, and instead we looked at both the surrounding theories and the results, and (it appears) found P & F's results to be wrong. (At least until we come up with a consistent theory that shows why the attempts to repeat the results did not work for most...

4 - The Potassiem Argon dating system is extremely unreliable. When applied to rocks that were known to be only at the very most 200 years old, results varied from 22 million to 200 millionYou choose the system of isotopes that you measure by both what elements (original and daughter products) are present in the rock and how well-proportioned their respective decay half-lives are w.r.t. what you're looking at. (Which is why radiocarbon dating isn't any good for geology or for discovering how many days a body has lain undiscovered, but is fairly good for things hundreds/thousands of years ago.)


5 - Carbon 14 dating assumes that the rate of production of carbon 14 is equal to the rate of decay (. However for such a state to be achieved it requires 30,000 years from the start of the atmosphere. But modern studies, even those by Dr Libby who discovered the method, discovered that such equalibrium has not been achieved and that formation of carbon 14 is still 24% more than decay.

Reference W.F.Libby "Radiocarbon dating" University of Chicago press 1955Carbon in biological functions is preferentially taken in as one isoptope trather than another (because of the mass difference, I assume) and so the Carbon 14 to Carbon 12 ratio is essentially fixed while the biological specimen is alive (it loses carbon, it gains carbon, net result is that it always has the same ratio). When it dies, the spontaneous decay then changes that ratio in the entrenched carbon mix. You may have to cater for the differing proportions of carbon at any one time, but you can get that kind of information from ice-cores or tree rings (which show clear seasonal cycles and can be used to confirm 'years gone by' since they formed).

I hope that answers that point, though I really couldn't say if your Dr Libby comments are accurate.

In America, scientists used the Carbon 14 dating system on a living snail, discovering that this LIVING snail was more that 27,000 years old!

Reference

"Science" volume 224 1984 pgs 58-61

Dr Cook.M "Pre-History and Earth Models" London 1966Bad sampling? Perhaps it fed on a source of carbon that was strangely-biased in some way? Perhaps they prepared it wrong. I'll look for that later, but while I accept there are good reasons to look at the theories, sometimes, the above says to me "the observations may be wrong, check those as well as the theories".

There is no mathematical proof that life cannot (naturally) exist.Wrong. I have explained this before but no one has bothered to listen.Listened, examined, found wanting. Sorry.

Before I argue anything else, let me repeat "Improbable does not mean Impossible". The fact that it should not have happened does not mean it did not. No individual should ever have won the lottery, by your argument.

Mutations (the genetic changes required to advance from one species to another) are exceptionally rare. So rare in fact that it takes 10^7 generations of a single genome to get any significent change. That means something in the region of millions of generations for just ONE change. Now if you then apply that to four mutations you get 10^28 and so on. At this point, the Earth itself doesnt have the resorces to sustain that kind of population. Not to mention the fact that not all of any one of those generations would survive and so you would need even more generations to sucessfully pass on that infomation. Your dice analogy, to play on that, what if you had a series of dice the first one 1-6 and the next one marked 7-12 etc all the way up to say 300 million. Where exactly would you keep them all? And what are the odds that you would roll the second highest number on every dice EVERY time.You're many orders of magnitude wrong in those assumptions. Cite?

Ionising radation causing mutations that are beneficial! Do you have any idea of the odds against that. You remember the fruit fly expirements. Some ended up blind, others with crumpled wings. None of them ended up any better off than they had started.Few of them did. The ones that died (or never hatched, or didn't have a sexual imperative/ability) never produce offspring of their own. This biases it all towards "slightly beneficial mutations", but with a majority still being "neutral mutations", under natural breeding, and only when scientists intervene to encourage 'legs-for-head' mutations by artificially allowing them to breed do you get any really wierd non-beneficial mutations entering the gene-pool by unnatural-selection.

This is an interesting metaphor someone told me once about creation and the whole age of earth debate. It is quite interesting I though and though most of you wont like it because there is no way to prove it, it does make a level of sense. Suppose you put a video in the video player at 1:00PM and the video is three hours long. You then fast forward it to half an hour into it. Now to anyone else who comes into the room after you have fast forwarded it, all the evidence would point to the fact that half an hour has passed. The video is half an hour into its playback and the moniter on the video player shows 00:30 minutes. Now consider the same with the world. God creates the world by the methods you describe in certian cases but because of who he is and what he has done, the speed at which he creates it is far faster. If you look at it from the post Eden standpoint, it is reasonable to assume that a great deal has happened but actually its just all happened very fast. Obviously thats a matter of faith not science, but it is an interesting metaphor would you not agree.

Its possible Pangea is what was formed when God created land. And then he moved it about. Also remember Genesis talks about animals being created "According to their kinds" so it makes sense of animals to be well adapted.

Nope that does not make sense. As i said, the environment changed drastically. Let me sum it up how perfectly this fits together:
First of all, there existed continents before the formation of pangea. Plate tectonics are fairly well understood since the breakup of the previous supercontinent (Rodinia), which occured about 700 million years ago near the end of the Precambrian.
During the late Carboniferous (note i'm too lazy today to describe what happened between Cambrian and Carboniferous. I will post it though if you insist on it), the continents collided, forming the supercontinent Pangaea. The large equatorial coal swamps which existed during the Carboniferous (hence the name), dissappeared during the Permian as the climate on the supercontinent became very hot and dry.
The dominant land animals of the Permian were the Pelycosaurs and the Therapsids (which morphologically both belong into the line of mammalian ancestry).
At the end of the Permian, there was the worst mass extinction in Earth's history - as 90% of all lifeforms perished. On the land, the previously dominating Therapsids were now largely supplanted by the Archosaurs (ancestry of both Crocodiles and Dinosaurs) and the herbivorous Rynchosaurs. Therapsids evolved into mammals by the late Triassic (Megazostrodon is a good example of an early mammal). The first Crocodiles and Dinosaurs also appeared by Late Triassic. Then at the end of the Triassic, there was another mass extinction which wiped the bulk of the land animals. Following that event, the dinosaurs radiated and became the dominant land animals during Jurassic and Cretaceous (note: as a proof how dominant they were, there are no other large land animals during that time!). During the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods , Pangaea eventually began to brake up. Animals living on different continents evolve differently. During the Cretaceous we can see that the Dinosaur fauna on the northern continents becomes different from the fauna on the southern continents. This continued with the mammals (who radiated after Dinosaurs went extinct) in the Tertiary and can be seen even today (best examples would be the endemic faunas of Madagascar, Australia and New Zealand). South America did also once have a very unique fauna (made of Litopterns, Notoungulates, Marsupials, Rodents and Xenarthrans), but it was largely replaced at around 3 million years ago when immigration from North America via the Isthmus of Panama occured (this is also called great American Fauna Interchange). The Notoungulates and Litopterns became extinct in the early Pleistocene, and the other groups suffered heavy losses (although, amongst Xenarthrans, the glyptodons and giant sloths were successful in North America, but they became extinct at the end of the last ice age). There exist of course remnants of this indigenous South American fauna today, such as anteaters, armadillos, capybara and the opossum.
Well, i could continue here, but the rest of your nonsense deserves an appropriate answer as well. I hope you see from this what a tight relationship paleogeography and evolution have. :)

Its possible that when God moved about the continets in the early days, the rate at which such things happend increased, because it was how everything else happend. After Eden, then everything moved at a much slower rate, without God's intervention in such matters.

Look, if you just would take a look at the width of the Atlantic (4800 km between Africa and North America) and take into consideration that it becomes about 3cm bigger each year, and calculate backwards you will find that the Atlantic Ocean did start to exist about 160 million years ago during the Middle/Late Jurassic. Of course, this is a vague estimation that goes by the assumption that the drift rate was about constant (which is unlikely), but it is known to be not much higher (the highest is 10cm/year in the Tonga-Fiji region). And it is consistent with fossil record and remanent magnetism on the sea floor, therefore it must be correct that the Atlantic began to exist in the Jurassic. There is also no evidence of divine intervention in plate tectonics.


The slowing down idea aslo explains mythological dragons later on in history. Genesis 6 talks about how the age of man is limited. At this sort of time the oxygen content of the atmosphere decreased and the level of atmospeheric pressure increased (not so sure about the pressure, I know it changed, just cant remember if its increase or decrease). Thus also decreasing the lifespan of every other animal. So its possible that when Noah took the animals onto the ark,

Ouch! How did you come up with that inconsistent nonsense?!?

There are circa 5000 species of mammals, circa 9000 species of birds, circa 7900 species of reptiles, circa 5700 species of amphibians, circa 800,000 *described* species of insects (real number must be much higher). I'm just talking about the living species here. I don't know how many known extinct species of land animals there are, but including the unkown (i.e. cryptic species), you can imagine that the total number must be *many* times higher. When talking about extinct animals, i'm not just talking about dinosaurs, man.

Now, with that info, consider this:
First, there is not enough room on Noah's Ark if you take a pair of each kind (plus 6 additional pairs from 'clean' animals are mentioned).
Second, how would they have prevented the animals from eating each other.
Third, how would you feed them over the span of a year? Rather, how would a single family be able to feed them over one year?
Fourth, the biblical Deluge Story was ripped from Sumer mythology.
(actually there are many other inconsistent things, but i'm too lazy to list them up all here).

Regarding the vapor canopy theory, that would require an atmospheric density 900 times higher than on on real Earth. It would be totally inhospitable to life.

Then, there is no evidence that people in earlier ages lived up to 500 years or were more healthier than people today. It's rather the opposite. There is also no evidence for the existence of the Nephilim (that race of giants that supposedly inhabited pre-deluge Earth). People in earlier times were somewhat smaller on average (and the recently discovered 'dwarf' hominid species Homo floresiensis was even just 1m tall!).
If rest of giant hominids would be found, that would be a paleontological sensation. Instead, we find different stuff like feathered Dinosaurs and whales with legs. Funny, huh?
Btw, I reckon though that fossils of elephants in the Mediterranean have been interpreted as the rests of cyclops by some ancient Greek philosopher, and i wouldn't rule out that the myth of the Nephilim did come from a similar source.

he took young dinosaurs (not fully grown ones) and when they got out, because enviromental conditons had changed they no longer grew to full size hence the idea of dragons.

Regarding dragons, these have just been interpreted in relatively recent times to be similar to Dinosaurs. Most dragons from mythologies were either snakes (see 'wyrm', also the latin word 'Draco' originally means snake), crocodiles (see Leviathan as depicted in the book of Job) or a fixed combination of specific animals (see Chinese Dragon). There is no evidence of Humans and Dinosaurs living contemporary (it wouldn't have worked since mammals radiated only after Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago and the first Hominids appeared way later).

Regarding dinosaurs, do you have any idea about how many dinosaurs there were? There are circa 600 known genera (just genera), and the total number of dinosaur species that existed must have been much higher.
Then, do you have and any idea about how fast they grew (at least the larger ones). Imagine that a 50-ton animal has to grow from a soccer-ball-sized egg. That requires an enormously fast growth rate.

I wont say these things are certian, but the do make sense scriptually and to an extent scientificly. Your quite free to disagree with my interpreatiaon but you must see it as a posibility.

LOL! That stuff is far from certain, it's absolutely nonsense since there is no evidence for it. And nope, i don't see it as a possibility because it is inconsistent with the world we see.

LOL! That stuff is far from certain, it's absolutely nonsense since there is no evidence for it. And nope, i don't see it as a possibility because it is inconsistent with the world we see.

This is what I am talking about. You assume supiority. Evidence of itself does not draw a picture. Evidence is a series of brush strokes on a canvus. However it takes a human mind to intepret them in a particular way. Like the optical illusion of a duck/rabbit. The evidence there is the same but intepretations are different. Now I can see the logic in what you are saying but the fact that you blattently refuse to see any logic in what I am saying is the arrogence that I am talking about. People like you simpley refuse to see any other possible ideas. I am happy to admit that the world may be several million years old and that beings may have evolved. Because in the end, that doesnt seriously damage Christianity. What does damage it however is when a Christian puts forward an alternitve idea which does fit in with science and scripture which is then hollerd out by scientists. Why, not because its wrong but because they refuse to seriously accept an alternitve perspective. In this regard, science isn't much diffrent from History. You have the same evidence about something, just diffrent intepretations, both valid. Now I am willing to agree to dissagree, but if your unwilling, it just demonstrates the level of arrogence I was talking about before. Evolution is not a supirior idea. It has evidence. So does creationism. Its just that evolutioninsts insult creationism far more and so it looks worse. There is evidence for both sides, just accept that both have valid points and both have invalid points. Its assuming that your idea is supirior that causes these unproductive debates.

This is what I am talking about. You assume supiority. Evidence of itself does not draw a picture. Evidence is a series of brush strokes on a canvus. However it takes a human mind to intepret them in a particular way. Like the optical illusion of a duck/rabbit. The evidence there is the same but intepretations are different. Now I can see the logic in what you are saying but the fact that you blattently refuse to see any logic in what I am saying is the arrogence that I am talking about. People like you simpley refuse to see any other possible ideas. I am happy to admit that the world may be several million years old and that beings may have evolved. Because in the end, that doesnt seriously damage Christianity. What does damage it however is when a Christian puts forward an alternitve idea which does fit in with science and scripture which is then hollerd out by scientists. Why, not because its wrong but because they refuse to seriously accept an alternitve perspective. In this regard, science isn't much diffrent from History. You have the same evidence about something, just diffrent intepretations, both valid. Now I am willing to agree to dissagree, but if your unwilling, it just demonstrates the level of arrogence I was talking about before. Evolution is not a supirior idea. It has evidence. So does creationism. Its just that evolutioninsts insult creationism far more and so it looks worse. There is evidence for both sides, just accept that both have valid points and both have invalid points. Its assuming that your idea is supirior that causes these unproductive debates.

Where does Creationism have evidence? You didn't show me any evidence so far. And Creationism requires all the evidence i mentioned so far (which is awfully lot) to be untrue. You know, i'd be willing to believe anything if there was sufficient evidence for it. I'm not arrogant at all, i'm just talking about the real world.

Oh, and Neo, that Dr. Melvin Cook never received any nobel prize (I'm saying this the second time now!).

I know mutations are not directed, Im not talking about directed mutations. Just individual mutations within a genetic molicular chain. Mutations of any kind are extremely rare, occuring only once in every 10 million dupications of a DNA molicule. Therefore the odds of getting two mutations are 1 in 10ttp14 and 4 is 1 in 10ttp28 etc.

The figure you quote is inaccurate in that the every 10 million replications of a DNA molecule is not the complete molecule but the base pairs - Do you know how many bp there are in the human genome? Look it up. Do the math. See that you to are a mutant even when compared to your parents.

Mutation rate much highier than this have been found esp in bacteria with their faster generation rate (some times as low as 20 mins) Means that enourmous quantities of mutation are thrown up evey second. Bacteria had about 1 billion years to get the basics right anf once we cracked cells with nucleouses (sp?) we have not got much more complex. The vast majority of complexity is in the cell. Putting together a larger creature is not that much more difficult to be honest, if you can do ten cell co-operativly millions of cells is not that big a leap, it is the same basic functions writ large.

This is an interesting metaphor someone told me once about creation and the whole age of earth debate. It is quite interesting I though and though most of you wont like it because there is no way to prove it, it does make a level of sense. Suppose you put a video in the video player at 1:00PM and the video is three hours long. You then fast forward it to half an hour into it. Now to anyone else who comes into the room after you have fast forwarded it, all the evidence would point to the fact that half an hour has passed. The video is half an hour into its playback and the moniter on the video player shows 00:30 minutes. Now consider the same with the world. God creates the world by the methods you describe in certian cases but because of who he is and what he has done, the speed at which he creates it is far faster. If you look at it from the post Eden standpoint, it is reasonable to assume that a great deal has happened but actually its just all happened very fast. Obviously thats a matter of faith not science, but it is an interesting metaphor would you not agree.Yes, interesting.

And along similar lines to 'Last Tuesdayism'.

It also presupposes the existence of a supreme being (the big flaw in all your counter-theories). The world appears to work quite well working in a contemperanious way for five billion years, using behaviour consistent to that which can be accurately observed as currently occuring (or replicatable/derivable when you reach the extremities of the range). Your main objection to evolution is one that equates 'improbable' with 'impossible', and to explain away the appearances of age you invoke complex occurances not-the-least of which is an untestable assumption that there's a Big Bearded Guy In The Clouds.

And why a BBGITC? Why not a Raven that stabbed the land and fixed it into place, after rising from the deep? Or a woman falling from a hole in the sky, being caught by birds and animals who decided to make the world from the earth from a toad's mouth packed round a turtle (she then has twins)? Or eternal ancestors awaking from dark slumber 'finding' half-completed humans made of rock and carved them limbs and features? These summarise (badly) the Inuit, Huron and Australian Aboriginal myths. Do you believe them? Why not? Is it the appearance of land from the sea? The first human 'arriving' out of nowhere or perhaps being created out of non-living substances? I didn't even choose those examples to counter the Out Of Eden story, but they fit well, don't they? They maybe get some things out of order, but then so do the two Genesis stories when compared to each other.

I don't say there was no Creator, but at the moment I don't see evidence of a Judeo-Christian one or any of the others, and the world turns nicely (and has turned nicely) based on the rules of nature that I do see evidence for (or have sufficient confidence that others see evidence for) and those rules of nature consistently allow not just evolution, but even the fabled abiogenesis (within a span of time that makes sense given physical evidence). Accepting widely understood and confirmed information about how the stars are apparently moving, I even discern a 'big bang', though I must resort to supposition and 'aesthetic' reasoning to infer what particular conditions sparked that into existence.

This does not mean that, last tuesday, the world did not come into being with us all in situ, doing (I assume) the same job as you're doing now and (probably) having the same ficticious (Judeo-Christian or Big-Bang) world view as you have now, and that all our memories from beforehand were planted by the Invisible Pink Unicorn. This could be the case, yet if the evidence exists that plate techtonics occured and various other things happened prior to Last Tuesday then what is the reason to reject this evidence and (spontaneously?) decide that an IPU did it. If the IPU appeared and told me, maybe, but why accept the tale from someone else?

Intelligent Design is essentially an IPU. People do believe in it, for all we know there may be someone who met the designer Himself. The rest of us, however, can believe our own eyes when we look at the exposed strata in edges and gorges, we can see the breeds of dogs that exist, we can understand the information widely available from the astronomical community and we can make all the assumptions that we want but no orginal assumption of Intelligent Design is backed up by practical observations. Indeed, ID is designed around the 'truth' of their being a designer and practical observations are then cherry-picked and packed around that concept if they fit.

Very well said, E B Guevara.

Btw, does anybody else except Neo Cannen believe that I'm arrogant? :confused:

Yes, though to some extent, rightly so. He's been debating in circles for a little while now...

But I tell you what, asking that question seems pretty arrogant to me.

This is an interesting metaphor someone told me once about creation and the whole age of earth debate. It is quite interesting I though and though most of you wont like it because there is no way to prove it, it does make a level of sense. Suppose you put a video in the video player at 1:00PM and the video is three hours long. You then fast forward it to half an hour into it. Now to anyone else who comes into the room after you have fast forwarded it, all the evidence would point to the fact that half an hour has passed. The video is half an hour into its playback and the moniter on the video player shows 00:30 minutes. Now consider the same with the world. God creates the world by the methods you describe in certian cases but because of who he is and what he has done, the speed at which he creates it is far faster. If you look at it from the post Eden standpoint, it is reasonable to assume that a great deal has happened but actually its just all happened very fast. Obviously thats a matter of faith not science, but it is an interesting metaphor would you not agree.


And why would your benevolent Jesus do such a thing? Does he want people to go to hell? Apparently so, because I was fooled by this "illusion" of sorts.

Since no one actually delt with these points before, I will post them again.



You said rubbish and completely failed to actally analyise any of the reasons I gave you. I will now give them to you again and this time you can actually READ them. And then perhaps you can expalin WHY you think they are wrong, rather than just calling them rubbish

--Snip--

Dr Cook.M "Pre-History and Earth Models" London 1966


Let's see, whilest searching the Nobel Prize (http://www.nobelprize.org) official website for a Cook, I've found,

Peter Cook
James Cook
A.H. Cook
Clarence Cook
Josiah Parsons Cooke
H.L. Cook
D.J. Cook
R.H. Cook

But surprise of surprises! I found no Melvin Cook even mentioned as a past nominee! Meaning your post has no value, as the source cited is either a liar, or . . . something else.

Edit: While not mentioned on the offical Nobel Prize page, I managed to find him on another site Christian Answers (http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/cook-ma.html). I have no idea of that validity of this site, just citing where I found him.

Oh btw, i'd also like recommend a few good books related to the topic:

"Evolving Continents" by Brian F. Windley, 1996 (Third Edition)
"Vertebrate Palaeontology" by Michael J. Benton, 1997 (Second Edition)

:)

Anyways, i'm off for the day.

Hmm, another source Salt Lake Community College (http://www.slcc.edu/schools/hum_sci/physics/whatis/biography/cook.html).

Another conflict in the scientific community was instigated when Cook was asked by a General Authority of the LDS church, Joseph Fielding Smith, to write "An introduction" to his book Man: His origin and Destiny. The strong criticism of this book led Cook to a position of defending it and to a deeper involvement in issues pertaining to Science and Religion. He gained notoriety and perhaps some acceptance when he announced, in a well-publicized seminar at the University of Utah, that evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics. The press carried an article throughout the country regarding the idea. The fall of American Association for the Advancement of Science in Switzerland carried on a vigorous discussion of the issue. The next year a formal conference was held at Wistar Institute in Philadelphia to debate the subject. Most agreed that evolution does indeed violate the second law of thermodynamics, however, the conference came up with another theory, unproved, which they called "negentropy." Scientists needed to believe that there was increasing complexity with random mutation. Cook's efforts in this area have been devoted to showing that "negentropy" is a fallacious concept.

Ah, the plot thickens. This doesn't necessarily mean that he was correct, but it does lend credence to Cook's opinion.

This is what I am talking about. You assume supiority. Evidence of itself does not draw a picture. Evidence is a series of brush strokes on a canvus. However it takes a human mind to intepret them in a particular way. Like the optical illusion of a duck/rabbit. The evidence there is the same but intepretations are different. Now I can see the logic in what you are saying but the fact that you blattently refuse to see any logic in what I am saying is the arrogence that I am talking about. People like you simpley refuse to see any other possible ideas. I am happy to admit that the world may be several million years old and that beings may have evolved. Because in the end, that doesnt seriously damage Christianity. What does damage it however is when a Christian puts forward an alternitve idea which does fit in with science and scripture which is then hollerd out by scientists. Why, not because its wrong but because they refuse to seriously accept an alternitve perspective. In this regard, science isn't much diffrent from History. You have the same evidence about something, just diffrent intepretations, both valid. Now I am willing to agree to dissagree, but if your unwilling, it just demonstrates the level of arrogence I was talking about before. Evolution is not a supirior idea. It has evidence. So does creationism. Its just that evolutioninsts insult creationism far more and so it looks worse. There is evidence for both sides, just accept that both have valid points and both have invalid points. Its assuming that your idea is supirior that causes these unproductive debates.


Ah, most likely the best thought out post I've seen you give, Neo. However, do not lump all evolutionists together, as not all assume superiority. Just as I must not group all creationists together. Both are theories, and both have consistencies.

Hmm, another source Salt Lake Community College (http://www.slcc.edu/schools/hum_sci/physics/whatis/biography/cook.html).

Another conflict in the scientific community was instigated when Cook was asked by a General Authority of the LDS church, Joseph Fielding Smith, to write "An introduction" to his book Man: His origin and Destiny. The strong criticism of this book led Cook to a position of defending it and to a deeper involvement in issues pertaining to Science and Religion. He gained notoriety and perhaps some acceptance when he announced, in a well-publicized seminar at the University of Utah, that evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics. The press carried an article throughout the country regarding the idea. The fall of American Association for the Advancement of Science in Switzerland carried on a vigorous discussion of the issue. The next year a formal conference was held at Wistar Institute in Philadelphia to debate the subject. Most agreed that evolution does indeed violate the second law of thermodynamics, however, the conference came up with another theory, unproved, which they called "negentropy." Scientists needed to believe that there was increasing complexity with random mutation. Cook's efforts in this area have been devoted to showing that "negentropy" is a fallacious concept.



Ah, the plot thickens. This doesn't necessarily mean that he was correct, but it does lend credence to Cook's opinion.

If you mean he has 'credance' because he fights against a crackpot idea (negentropy), then yes. I think his credance (and I must admit I've not knowingly come across this guy's name before, though that doesn't mean much and I could have forgotten about him anyway) went downhill if he even half-seriously suggested the whole 'entropy violation' idea in the first place. Similarly, the press (who I don't expect to be wise about such things, so can partially forgive) were wrong to give credance to the statement, the AAAS should know better (assuming they are the legitimate scientific organisation I know of, not a rip-off religiously controlled one, and why are they meeting in Switzerland?) (I also assume it's "The fall[/autumnal] meeting of" or "The fall conference of", otherwise the sentence doesn't even make sense) and if it was a spoof discussion I would have let the press know. There's not enough controversy n the idea (it's just plain wrong) for any group of serious scientists to have a 'vigorous discussion' about.

A formal conference on the subject? Checking on the Wistar Institute (probably only the 'host premises' for the discussion) they do at least appear to be a leading medical research non-profit organisation. I can see the partial connection, but I've a feeling they weren't involved in fielding the whole entropy/life idea. (I must admit I'd half expected to find them as the front-end of a Evangalical organisation, but I think I was wrong about that, unless it's much less obvious...)


No scientist I know has any trouble believing randomness creates complexity. But then I'm most closely connected with the whole Artificial Life scene (and if there's any science where "belief in a Creator" might prevail, it's that one... after all, the researchers are Creators, so why shouldn't they believe that they are in someone else's experiment? :)) and it pops up all the time there. A lot of effort is put in to try and prevent 'inherant order' from appearing (i.e. don't try to aim for, and unconsciously select, a particular solution, just let it arise on its own, if it's going to at all...)

"Negentropy" sounds like bad science. Here, at least, I'm with Cook.

Ah, most likely the best thought out post I've seen you give, Neo. However, do not lump all evolutionists together, as not all assume superiority. Just as I must not group all creationists together. Both are theories, and both have consistencies.I probably look like an "Evolution is superior" person. Hands up on that. I like to think I'm more an "Evolution is a decent theory, Creationism is not" type of person, but when you're discussing with those who think otherwise it's hard to not appear biased (by definition, given I think 'otherwise' from them).

I'm going to be awfully unfair now. I don't mean to be, but I think I can see what's coming. (As a Fatalist, I don't think we can avoid it, anyway.) What I really want to know is what consistencies Creationism is supported by? There must be some, for it to be a popular idea, because to be otherwise would mean it's a Dogma not a Theory.

And why would your benevolent Jesus do such a thing? Does he want people to go to hell? Apparently so, because I was fooled by this "illusion" of sorts.

Its not an "illusion". It isnt intended to make everyone think its older than it is. It could just be that thats how he did it. Used systems that we all know and recognise but using his power acellerated the timescale. Its not rearly important to the Christian faith to know how old the earth is.

Ah, most likely the best thought out post I've seen you give, Neo. However, do not lump all evolutionists together, as not all assume superiority. Just as I must not group all creationists together. Both are theories, and both have consistencies.

Thank you. Its nice to be apriciated once in a while

As I've been pondering this ongoing debate, and watching all sides debate in circles and all other shapes, I'm haunted by this question: Why is it that if a person believes in a creator or a designer, all his scientific discoveries based on this assumption are deemed invalid and unscientific?

Would it be scientific of me to "scientifically" observe a computer and assume that it just randomly came together by chance? I suppose the argument might be made, "but you could find the person who built it." I don't think that argument is valid, but I'll pretend it is...and continue...

Would it be scientific of me to "scientifically" observe the Egyptian Pyramids and assume they randomly came together by chance? If someone argued that there are historical writings and records, I could just label that as "religious" writings at worst, and erronious at best. Besides no one I know ever saw the Pyramids being built, and any records that exist are over thousands of years old. Therefore, I could think that the Pyramids were formed by many earthquakes, possibly a flood...or maybe even by aliens!

Which brings me back to this thought - The Facts (bones, fossils, geographic layers, dust, cosmic radiation etc.) examined by evolutionists, creationists, and IDists are the same. The scientific interpretation comes out of a preset worldview.

I'm also becoming more convinced that the debate of world origin is not as much science as it is philosophy.

Arguments against intelligent design sound just like the arguments people make against evolution. One side says, God doesn't exist, so intelligent design can't happen. The other side says, God exists, so it can't be "random" (yes, I know evolution is not exactly random). Both are ignorant of the fact, that the design can be intelligent and evolution could still have occurred. I can place a bunch of structures in a petri dish and knowing which structures I've placed and the conditions I've placed them in, predict the outcome. Did I actively control the outcome? Not really. Did the reactions still occur? Yup. But, was there intelligence behind the reactions? Well, I'd like to think so (some people here might argue that if it was me that started it...). The point is that not all theories of intelligent design necessary say that evolution didn't occur. The theory by the originator of this thread amounts to ID. ID naysayers haven't disproved the existence of God, so you can't combat ID with God doesn't exist. ID supporters certainly haven't disproved evolution so that's a nonsense argument as well. If you believe, like ID people often do, that the universe is decreasing in entropy as a system, then there must be some source preventing the natural maximizing of entropy , in this case, from a divine source. The only way to discount this would be to prove that the universe is maximizing its entropy. Try doing that without first saying God cannot exist.

Arguments against intelligent design sound just like the arguments people make against evolution. One side says, God doesn't exist, so intelligent design can't happen. The other side says, God exists, so it can't be "random" (yes, I know evolution is not exactly random). Both are ignorant of the fact, that the design can be intelligent and evolution could still have occurred. I can place a bunch of structures in a petri dish and knowing which structures I've placed and the conditions I've placed them in, predict the outcome. Did I actively control the outcome? Not really. Did the reactions still occur? Yup. But, was there intelligence behind the reactions? Well, I'd like to think so (some people here might argue that if it was me that started it...). The point is that not all theories of intelligent design necessary say that evolution didn't occur. The theory by the originator of this thread amounts to ID. ID naysayers haven't disproved the existence of God, so you can't combat ID with God doesn't exist. ID supporters certainly haven't disproved evolution so that's a nonsense argument as well. If you believe, like ID people often do, that the universe is increasing in entropy as a system, then there must be some sort of entropy introduced, in this case, from a divine source. The only way to discount this would be to prove that the universe is decreasing in entropy. Try doing that without first saying God cannot exist.

Very nice...and while it's not my personal belief...you stated it very well.

As I've been pondering this ongoing debate, and watching all sides debate in circles and all other shapes, I'm haunted by this question: Why is it that if a person believes in a creator or a designer, all his scientific discoveries based on this assumption are deemed invalid and unscientific?
That's just it --for the most part they are a misuse of science. It is not because of their extraneous beliefs.

Would it be scientific of me to "scientifically" observe a computer and assume that it just randomly came together by chance? I suppose the argument might be made, "but you could find the person who built it." I don't think that argument is valid, but I'll pretend it is...and continue...

Would it be scientific of me to "scientifically" observe the Egyptian Pyramids and assume they randomly came together by chance? If someone argued that there are historical writings and records, I could just label that as "religious" writings at worst, and erronious at best. Besides no one I know ever saw the Pyramids being built, and any records that exist are over thousands of years old. Therefore, I could think that the Pyramids were formed by many earthquakes, possibly a flood...or maybe even by aliens!
Assumptions are just a first step in doing science or "being scientific", followed by hypothesis, theory, experimentation, conclusion in a never-ending cycle.

Which brings me back to this thought - The Facts (bones, fossils, geographic layers, dust, cosmic radiation etc.) examined by evolutionists, creationists, and IDists are the same. The scientific interpretation comes out of a preset worldview.
The difference I see is that "Creation Scientists" tend to limit themselves to only certain facts that directly address their topic, such as limiting themselves to a fact about the 2nd Law when they should look at the broader picture: the 2nd Law works in conjunction with all other natural forces.

Arguments against intelligent design sound just like the arguments people make against evolution. One side says, God doesn't exist, so intelligent design can't happen. The other side says, God exists, so it can't be "random" (yes, I know evolution is not exactly random). Both are ignorant of the fact, that the design can be intelligent and evolution could still have occurred. I can place a bunch of structures in a petri dish and knowing which structures I've placed and the conditions I've placed them in, predict the outcome. Did I actively control the outcome? Not really. Did the reactions still occur? Yup. But, was there intelligence behind the reactions? Well, I'd like to think so (some people here might argue that if it was me that started it...). The point is that not all theories of intelligent design necessary say that evolution didn't occur. The theory by the originator of this thread amounts to ID. ID naysayers haven't disproved the existence of God, so you can't combat ID with God doesn't exist. ID supporters certainly haven't disproved evolution so that's a nonsense argument as well. If you believe, like ID people often do, that the universe is increasing in entropy as a system, then there must be some sort of entropy introduced, in this case, from a divine source. The only way to discount this would be to prove that the universe is decreasing in entropy. Try doing that without first saying God cannot exist.
It's not that design cannot be intelligent, it's that THIS design (the design of everything working in conjunction, i.e. the universe) cannot be if one does not believe in God.

Arguments against intelligent design sound just like the arguments people make against evolution. One side says, God doesn't exist, so intelligent design can't happen. The other side says, God exists, so it can't be "random" (yes, I know evolution is not exactly random). Both are ignorant of the fact, that the design can be intelligent and evolution could still have occurred. I can place a bunch of structures in a petri dish and knowing which structures I've placed and the conditions I've placed them in, predict the outcome. Did I actively control the outcome? Not really. Did the reactions still occur? Yup. But, was there intelligence behind the reactions? Well, I'd like to think so (some people here might argue that if it was me that started it...). The point is that not all theories of intelligent design necessary say that evolution didn't occur. The theory by the originator of this thread amounts to ID. ID naysayers haven't disproved the existence of God, so you can't combat ID with God doesn't exist. ID supporters certainly haven't disproved evolution so that's a nonsense argument as well. If you believe, like ID people often do, that the universe is increasing in entropy as a system, then there must be some sort of entropy introduced, in this case, from a divine source. The only way to discount this would be to prove that the universe is decreasing in entropy. Try doing that without first saying God cannot exist.

Possibly the best post on this subject I have ever read, well done.

This is very interesting. It is the third time in as many weeks I have seen the debate of creationism vs. evolutionism. We have obviously not advanced very far since the 1920s, when a teacher in a small Southern town was put on trial for teaching evolution.

The "Intelligent Design" theory strikes me as just another attempt for religion to explain itself as a science. Taking religion exactly as it is defined, it would take very much longer than the six days allotted it in the Bible for evolution of any kind to occur. And the argument that "since it's so complex, it must be engineered" holds no water as well. It would lose its complexity if explained starting from the basic processes of amoebas--diffusion, endo- and exocytosis, the properties of lysosomes and vacuoles--and building on them all the way up through four and a half billion years to the human.

Evolution did not happen by "chance" as certain people have claimed. It was governed by the laws of natural selection, the properties of dihydrogen monoxide (a.k.a. water), sunlight, and various other environmental phenomena. These laws also do not occur by "chance". For example, natural selection (which explains why squirrels survived when dinosaurs did not) has much to do with genetics.

Based on various theorems observed by scientists, the "design" of the universe owes more to molecules of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon than some sort of creator deity.

This is what I am talking about. You assume supiority. Evidence of itself does not draw a picture. Evidence is a series of brush strokes on a canvus. However it takes a human mind to intepret them in a particular way. Like the optical illusion of a duck/rabbit. The evidence there is the same but intepretations are different. Now I can see the logic in what you are saying but the fact that you blattently refuse to see any logic in what I am saying is the arrogence that I am talking about. People like you simpley refuse to see any other possible ideas. I am happy to admit that the world may be several million years old and that beings may have evolved. Because in the end, that doesnt seriously damage Christianity. What does damage it however is when a Christian puts forward an alternitve idea which does fit in with science and scripture which is then hollerd out by scientists. Why, not because its wrong but because they refuse to seriously accept an alternitve perspective. In this regard, science isn't much diffrent from History. You have the same evidence about something, just diffrent intepretations, both valid. Now I am willing to agree to dissagree, but if your unwilling, it just demonstrates the level of arrogence I was talking about before. Evolution is not a supirior idea. It has evidence. So does creationism. Its just that evolutioninsts insult creationism far more and so it looks worse. There is evidence for both sides, just accept that both have valid points and both have invalid points. Its assuming that your idea is supirior that causes these unproductive debates.


You miss the point yet again. You cannot start with a conclusion that you have no chances of changing, look for evidence to support it, and call that *science". Period. That's not how it works.

If you want to say "this is what I believe", that is fine, but calling it science is idiotic. It would be like me murdering someone and then searching the Bible for any instance in which it was alright to kill someone, and then going, "See! I followed Christian principles! The Bible says it's ok for me to murder someone!"

Ah, the plot thickens. This doesn't necessarily mean that he was correct, but it does lend credence to Cook's opinion.

I would have to actually examine the "conference" in question, but any conference that decided that evolution violates the second law of thermo would have been a conference without anyone around who actually knew what the law says. If evolution violates the second law of thermo, so does my computer. Oops!! *poof* My computer disappeared!

Its not an "illusion". It isnt intended to make everyone think its older than it is. It could just be that thats how he did it. Used systems that we all know and recognise but using his power acellerated the timescale. Its not rearly important to the Christian faith to know how old the earth is.

However, going with your analogy, there *would* be evidence that the VCR had been fast-forwarded.

In science, we can't say "I want to believe X, so that means it got fast-forwarded.", we have to say "This evidence suggests that it might have been fast-forwarded, thus my theory is that it got fast-forwarded. However, if I get evidence that disputes that, my theory may change."

As I've been pondering this ongoing debate, and watching all sides debate in circles and all other shapes, I'm haunted by this question: Why is it that if a person believes in a creator or a designer, all his scientific discoveries based on this assumption are deemed invalid and unscientific?

Would it be scientific of me to "scientifically" observe a computer and assume that it just randomly came together by chance? I suppose the argument might be made, "but you could find the person who built it." I don't think that argument is valid, but I'll pretend it is...and continue...

Would it be scientific of me to "scientifically" observe the Egyptian Pyramids and assume they randomly came together by chance? If someone argued that there are historical writings and records, I could just label that as "religious" writings at worst, and erronious at best. Besides no one I know ever saw the Pyramids being built, and any records that exist are over thousands of years old. Therefore, I could think that the Pyramids were formed by many earthquakes, possibly a flood...or maybe even by aliens!

Which brings me back to this thought - The Facts (bones, fossils, geographic layers, dust, cosmic radiation etc.) examined by evolutionists, creationists, and IDists are the same. The scientific interpretation comes out of a preset worldview.

I'm also becoming more convinced that the debate of world origin is not as much science as it is philosophy.

You could devise a test to see if a person could build a pyramid. You can not devise a test to see if there is an omnipotent being outside the rules of the universe.

Arguments against intelligent design sound just like the arguments people make against evolution. One side says, God doesn't exist, so intelligent design can't happen. The other side says, God exists, so it can't be "random" (yes, I know evolution is not exactly random). Both are ignorant of the fact, that the design can be intelligent and evolution could still have occurred. I can place a bunch of structures in a petri dish and knowing which structures I've placed and the conditions I've placed them in, predict the outcome. Did I actively control the outcome? Not really. Did the reactions still occur? Yup. But, was there intelligence behind the reactions? Well, I'd like to think so (some people here might argue that if it was me that started it...). The point is that not all theories of intelligent design necessary say that evolution didn't occur. The theory by the originator of this thread amounts to ID. ID naysayers haven't disproved the existence of God, so you can't combat ID with God doesn't exist. ID supporters certainly haven't disproved evolution so that's a nonsense argument as well. If you believe, like ID people often do, that the universe is increasing in entropy as a system, then there must be some sort of entropy introduced, in this case, from a divine source. The only way to discount this would be to prove that the universe is decreasing in entropy. Try doing that without first saying God cannot exist.

(a) The ID that they want to teach in schools *does* say that evolution did not happen. It's kind of funny, since they are by definition limiting the power of the creator.

(b) While many people believe that God used evolution in God's design, that does not make it a *scientific* theory. Science uses evidence to devise the theory that evolution happened. Whether or not a God designed and started it off is completley irrelevant - as it is outside the space of anything which is falsifiable.

Meanwhile, your statement that an increase in entropy means that entropy is being introduced from outside shows a profound misunderstanding of the meaning of the word.

Possibly the best post on this subject I have ever read, well done.

In other words, "Hooray! There is someone else who also completely lacks understanding of the theories they try to discuss!"

However, going with your analogy, there *would* be evidence that the VCR had been fast-forwarded.

In science, we can't say "I want to believe X, so that means it got fast-forwarded.", we have to say "This evidence suggests that it might have been fast-forwarded, thus my theory is that it got fast-forwarded. However, if I get evidence that disputes that, my theory may change."

You are confusing "science" with "scientfic evidence". I am not saying you get to the conclusion of gods creation of the world using scientific method. I am saying it is possible to interpret the evidence available in a way that fits into the scriptures.

In other words, "Hooray! There is someone else who also completely lacks understanding of the theories they try to discuss!"

You know, insulting people gets you nowhere fast

You know, insulting people gets you nowhere fast
Says the person who doesn't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This is very interesting. It is the third time in as many weeks I have seen the debate of creationism vs. evolutionism. We have obviously not advanced very far since the 1920s, when a teacher in a small Southern town was put on trial for teaching evolution.

The "Intelligent Design" theory strikes me as just another attempt for religion to explain itself as a science. Taking religion exactly as it is defined, it would take very much longer than the six days allotted it in the Bible for evolution of any kind to occur. And the argument that "since it's so complex, it must be engineered" holds no water as well. It would lose its complexity if explained starting from the basic processes of amoebas--diffusion, endo- and exocytosis, the properties of lysosomes and vacuoles--and building on them all the way up through four and a half billion years to the human.

Evolution did not happen by "chance" as certain people have claimed. It was governed by the laws of natural selection, the properties of dihydrogen monoxide (a.k.a. water), sunlight, and various other environmental phenomena. These laws also do not occur by "chance". For example, natural selection (which explains why squirrels survived when dinosaurs did not) has much to do with genetics.

Based on various theorems observed by scientists, the "design" of the universe owes more to molecules of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon than some sort of creator deity.

9th grade biology pays off again, I see. Amoebas are much more complicated than that. You're forgetting about DNA replication, genome sequences, aligning of chromosomes... DNA is a completely developed language, like a computer program. A program more advanced than anything humans have designed. It takes gigabytes upon gigabytes to store all the information that makes up the human genome on a computer, yet DNA can store it all in a small spot within a microscopic cell.

Anyway, I've debated both sides of this issue, mainly because I don't agree with either. I'm open to the idea of evolution, mainly because I've seen evidence that I can't deny. That doesn't mean I accept it, it just means I can't really argue against it. I can even see how the bible might allow for this evidence. You'd have to look back like ten pages to see what I mean. I've seen incredibly detailed fossil records, with almost no missing links, in an ordered sequence as depth increases. It was taught in a lecture, so I couldn't exactly refer you to it.
And I've never agreed with the intelligence design theory as it stands. The people who developed it cling too much to preconceptions, like "the earth has to be 6000 years old." I've actually considered that "fastforward" idea, or something like it, and it explains a lot, but not everything.
So I just have to use what I know scientifically (I know a lot theologically, but people here are more interested in scientific evidence) to argue what I know isn't true.

Arguments against intelligent design sound just like the arguments people make against evolution. One side says, God doesn't exist, so intelligent design can't happen. The other side says, God exists, so it can't be "random" (yes, I know evolution is not exactly random). Both are ignorant of the fact, that the design can be intelligent and evolution could still have occurred. I can place a bunch of structures in a petri dish and knowing which structures I've placed and the conditions I've placed them in, predict the outcome. Did I actively control the outcome? Not really. Did the reactions still occur? Yup. But, was there intelligence behind the reactions? Well, I'd like to think so (some people here might argue that if it was me that started it...). The point is that not all theories of intelligent design necessary say that evolution didn't occur. The theory by the originator of this thread amounts to ID. ID naysayers haven't disproved the existence of God, so you can't combat ID with God doesn't exist. ID supporters certainly haven't disproved evolution so that's a nonsense argument as well. If you believe, like ID people often do, that the universe is increasing in entropy as a system, then there must be some sort of entropy introduced, in this case, from a divine source. The only way to discount this would be to prove that the universe is decreasing in entropy. Try doing that without first saying God cannot exist.

Another poster who's picked up a few facts along the way but doesnt have enough to see the whole picture. No-one is arguing who started the universe off (at least i hope not because its impossible to prove right now). Possibly it was god, i beleive it occurred without any kind of deity's help but thats irrelevant here.

The ID you propose, starting the universe off with the eventual rise of evolution toward man, if you assume the existence of god, is, I suppose possible. But this mechanism would be identical to the evolution of man by chance without the need for someone who knew where it was all going. Therefore we can use Occam's razor (in one of the few instances where it can be used correctly) and discard pluralism, that is the god concept, as it is not needed to explain the process. That is not to say a god does not exist, merely that it is not neccessary to introduce the concept of god to explain evolution.

You are confusing "science" with "scientfic evidence". I am not saying you get to the conclusion of gods creation of the world using scientific method. I am saying it is possible to interpret the evidence available in a way that fits into the scriptures.

...which would not be science so the claim that it should be taught along evolution in a science class is bogus.

If it doesn't follow the scientific method, it is not science - period.

You know, insulting people gets you nowhere fast

It's not an insult if it is true. You have demonstrated time and time again that you have absolutely no understanding of the theories involved. You are not being criticized for disagreeing with the theories - but for being completley ignorant of them and still trying to portray yourself as being knowledgeable on the subject. Some of these things have been explained to you at least a hundred times. At that point, your ignorance is your own fault.

Another poster who's picked up a few facts along the way but doesnt have enough to see the whole picture. No-one is arguing who started the universe off (at least i hope not because its impossible to prove right now). Possibly it was god, i beleive it occurred without any kind of deity's help but thats irrelevant here.

The ID you propose, starting the universe off with the eventual rise of evolution toward man, if you assume the existence of god, is, I suppose possible. But this mechanism would be identical to the evolution of man by chance without the need for someone who knew where it was all going. Therefore we can use Occam's razor (in one of the few instances where it can be used correctly) and discard pluralism, that is the god concept, as it is not needed to explain the process. That is not to say a god does not exist, merely that it is not neccessary to introduce the concept of god to explain evolution.

ID people use God to explain the decrease in entropy, granted no one can prove there actually was an decrease in entropy. People who don't believe in God say entropy is maximizing, equally unprovable. Both are lame arguments.

You're right, I missed the part that ID requires that selection was guided by an unseen hand. Again, it comes down to your belief of the entropy of the universe. One side assumes one because by their beliefs it has to be that way, and the other side assumes the opposite. Prove that universe did not decrease in entropy, increase in entropy and you won't have to argue about ID anymore.

ID people use God to explain the increase in entropy, granted no one can prove there actually was an increase in entropy. People who don't believe in God say there was no increase in entropy, equally unprovable. Both are lame arguments.

I think you mean *energy* here, not entropy.

*Everyone* agrees that entropy must always be increasing.

Edit: Well, maybe not the people who don't study it at all - I guess they would have no opinion.

I think you mean *energy* here, not entropy.

*Everyone* agrees that entropy must always be increasing.

Edit: Well, maybe not the people who don't study it at all - I guess they would have no opinion.

Shoot, you're right. It's been a while. I actually meant to use entropy but I meant that entropy was decreasing, order is increasing according to ID and the opposite according to evolutionists.

Possibly the best post on this subject I have ever read, well done.

Wow, thanks, though I don't agree. I can see several mistakes in it. I should have posted after lunch.

Shoot, you're right. It's been a while. I actually meant to use entropy but I meant that entropy was decreasing, order is increasing according to ID and the opposite according to evolutionists.

I've never read anything that states that ID thinks overall order is increasing - I'm pretty sure that the second law of thermo is said to hold for everything, but I could be wrong I suppose.

(a) The ID that they want to teach in schools *does* say that evolution did not happen. It's kind of funny, since they are by definition limiting the power of the creator.

(b) While many people believe that God used evolution in God's design, that does not make it a *scientific* theory. Science uses evidence to devise the theory that evolution happened. Whether or not a God designed and started it off is completley irrelevant - as it is outside the space of anything which is falsifiable.

Meanwhile, your statement that an increase in entropy means that entropy is being introduced from outside shows a profound misunderstanding of the meaning of the word.

A) Actually, I don't agree with teaching ID in schools. I don't care what kind it is. I don't believe the idea of a supreme being should be introduced in schools period. At the same time, no teacher should be telling children one does not exist.

B) We often use theories that are not falsifiable and accept them. There is no question that evolution occurred. Do we know exactly how it occurred? No. Will we ever? Probably not to 100% certainty.

You're right. I used entropy exactly the opposite of the way it should have been used. It's been a while and I should have reread the second law before I replied. It's funny that only the people arguing with me noticed. You'd think at least one person who agrees with me would have corrected me. I went back to edit my posts the way they should have read.

Right, so as Entropy (the amount of energy that cannot be used for work) decreases, order (in this case, ordered sets of dna, cells, elements, however you want to classify it) increases. The energy used to create the order is considered to be transfered out of the system. We do, however, have the sun to supply us with a considerable amount of energy, so the overall entropy remains the same, thus the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is preserved.

And anyways, if you see a decrease in entropy, you don't have a closed system, and you've overlooked something.

I've never read anything that states that ID thinks overall order is increasing - I'm pretty sure that the second law of thermo is said to hold for everything, but I could be wrong I suppose.

Who says it doesn't hold? If the universe is a closed system, no God (or, at least, no God who interacts with the universe anymore), then entropy must be maximizing due to the second law. If it's not a closed system, then it's possible to explain an increase in order. ID supporters argue that everything they can observe appears to have too much order for them to believe that entropy is maximizing. This is why they introduce the second law.

A) Actually, I don't agree with teaching ID in schools. I don't care what kind it is. I don't believe the idea of a supreme being should be introduced in schools period. At the same time, no teacher should be telling children one does not exist.

I can't argue here.

B) We often use theories that are not falsifiable and accept them. There is no question that evolution occurred. Do we know exactly how it occurred? No. Will we ever? Probably not to 100% certainty.

There are no *scientific* theories that are non-falsifiable. In order to become a theory, we must be able to prove it wrong. We are constantly proving assumptions wrong and changing the theory.

Meanwhile, we do use *lay* theories that are non-falsifiable all the time.

You're right. I used entropy exactly the opposite of the way it should have been used. It's been a while and I should have reread the second law before I replied. It's funny that only the people arguing with me noticed. You'd think at least one person who agrees with me would have corrected me. I went back to edit my posts the way they should have read.

I prefer "discussion" to "arguing" anyways. =)

Who says it doesn't hold? If the universe is a closed system, no God (or, at least, no God who interacts with the universe anymore), then entropy must be maximizing due to the second law. If it's not a closed system, then it's possible to explain an increase in order. ID supporters argue that everything they can observe appears to have too much order for them to believe that entropy is maximizing. This is why they introduce the second law.

They ignore, however, that biology is not a closed system - thus their assumption is completely off. They have to show evidence that the total entropy in the universe is not increasing if they wish to make the claim that the second law is not holding.

They ignore, however, that biology is not a closed system - thus their assumption is completely off. They have to show evidence that the total entropy in the universe is not increasing if they wish to make the claim that the second law is not holding.

That '2nd law of thermodynamics' discussion has occured over and over again. The result is always the same: lifeforms do not violate entropy since it they are not closed systems. They increase the entropy of their surrounding by the amount they decrease their own. Therefore, no violation. Some people just don't want to listen.

So anyways, yeah, entropy in the universe will only increase.

Right, so as Entropy (the amount of energy that cannot be used for work) decreases, order (in this case, ordered sets of dna, cells, elements, however you want to classify it) increases. The energy used to create the order is considered to be transfered out of the system. We do, however, have the sun to supply us with a considerable amount of energy, so the overall entropy remains the same, thus the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is preserved.

And anyways, if you see a decrease in entropy, you don't have a closed system, and you've overlooked something.

Precisely the point of ID supporters. You give the sun credit for the decrease in entropy on earth. ID supporters suggest that its not enough. ID supporters in general argue that God exists because at some point you have to believe one thing or another was always there or from nothing came something. Entropy is not maximized throughout the entire universe so the universe must not be infinitely old. Once you have a deity, it's a small leap to suggest its hand in the evolution of life on earth. It's not compelling evidence in my book, but it's as sound as assuming the universe popped into existence from nowhere (simplification of Big Bang) and we accept that as scientific theory simply because it doesn't bring God into the mix.

It's not an insult if it is true. You have demonstrated time and time again that you have absolutely no understanding of the theories involved. You are not being criticized for disagreeing with the theories - but for being completley ignorant of them and still trying to portray yourself as being knowledgeable on the subject. Some of these things have been explained to you at least a hundred times. At that point, your ignorance is your own fault.

No, I disagree with your interpretaion. I understand the theories. I just disagre with certian intepretations. These intepretations are not FACTS.

They ignore, however, that biology is not a closed system - thus their assumption is completely off. They have to show evidence that the total entropy in the universe is not increasing if they wish to make the claim that the second law is not holding.

They're making the same argument. Show that entropy is increasing. Show that life is increasing the entropy of its surroundings in sufficient amounts to be consistent with increasing entropy. You can't show that either. Like I said, it's not any more or less compelling than the big bang theory.

They're making the same argument. Show that entropy is increasing. Show that they are increasing the entropy of their surroundings in sufficient amounts to be consistent with increasing entropy. You can't show that either. Like I said, it's not any more less compelling than the big bang theory.

Here is the big problem - the ID people are claiming that the 2nd law is true while also claiming that it is *not* true - a paradox.

Scientists simply claim that the evidence suggests that entropy must always be increasing or stay the same - it can never decrease. These things can be demonstrated, and have been demonstrated.

No, I disagree with your interpretaion. I understand the theories. I just disagre with certian intepretations. These intepretations are not FACTS.

Well, i find that my interpretations are most consistent with the given evidence. To make an other interpretation (i.e. 'life could not have evolved on it's own' or 'Earth is 6000 years old'), you require to largely ignore my evidence - because it would be inconsistent with your interpretation.
I don't regard my interpretation as fact, but I regard the existence of evidence (i.e. fossils, continental drift, DNA evidence, etc. etc.) as fact.

Btw, what do you think about my evidence of the impossibility of the Deluge? You didn't leave a single word on that, Neo Cannen.

.
I don't regard my interpretation as fact, but I regard the existence of evidence (i.e. fossils, continental drift, DNA evidence, etc. etc.) as fact.


Listen, I will only explain this a limited number of times. The evidence is the same, the interpretation is diffrent.

Here is the big problem - the ID people are claiming that the 2nd law is true while also claiming that it is *not* true - a paradox.

Scientists simply claim that the evidence suggests that entropy must always be increasing or stay the same - it can never decrease. These things can be demonstrated, and have been demonstrated.

They aren't claiming that the second law is not true, they are just introducing a divine source into the system to make the law hold. Let's face it, if the theory was that evidence suggests a decrease in entropy in the universe and there must be some as yet unmeasured variable that explains this increase in order, then it would be accepted or at least considered. That they claim that unmeasured variable is divine is what makes people reject the theory out of hand. Again, you can't start with there is no divine source to prove there is no divine source.

Listen, I will only explain this a limited number of times. The evidence is the same, the interpretation is diffrent.

And that claim is in itself inconsistent. At least if you are a Young-Earth-Creationist (so far i haven't understood what exactly you are - it has been rather inconsistent, too).

I can't argue here.



There are no *scientific* theories that are non-falsifiable. In order to become a theory, we must be able to prove it wrong. We are constantly proving assumptions wrong and changing the theory.

Meanwhile, we do use *lay* theories that are non-falsifiable all the time.



I prefer "discussion" to "arguing" anyways. =)

How are you going to falsify Big Bang? You can measure things that are suggestive, but how are you going to falsify it?

They aren't claiming that the second law is not true, they are just introducing a divine source into the system to make the law hold. Let's face it, if the theory was that evidence suggests a decrease in entropy in the universe and there must be some as yet unmeasured variable that explains this increase in order, then it would be accepted or at least considered. That they claim that unmeasured variable is divine is what makes people reject the theory out of hand. Again, you can't start with there is no divine source to prove there is no divine source.

Dammit, that is not how it works. We assume there is no divine entity because we have no reason to beleive there is one. Whether there is a god is irrelevent since we have found a way of explaining physics, biology etc which does not rely on a god. If you have any evidence at all of a god, please show it to us.

As for the second law of thermodynamics, there is no wiggle room. Laws are simple for a reason. The earth is not a closed system therefore entropy can decrease, but in the universe overall it is increasing. Case closed on the second law argument.

How are you going to falsify Big Bang? You can measure things that are suggestive, but how are you going to falsify it?

Find something that will not agree with the thoery no matter how much you twist the thoery to fit. For example that a large area of space is heading inwards or standing still.

Find something that will not agree with the thoery no matter how much you twist the thoery to fit. For example that a large area of space is heading inwards or standing still.

Or objects that are clearly older than the proposed age of the universe.

Dammit, that is not how it works. We assume there is no divine entity because we have no reason to beleive there is one. Whether there is a god is irrelevent since we have found a way of explaining physics, biology etc which does not rely on a god. If you have any evidence at all of a god, please show it to us.

As for the second law of thermodynamics, there is no wiggle room. Laws are simple for a reason. The earth is not a closed system therefore entropy can decrease, but in the universe overall it is increasing. Case closed on the second law argument.

Dammit, no you haven't entirely explained to the complete satisfaction of a lot of scientists. Just because you dismiss those scientists as being lunatics because they don't agree with your view of the world, does not make them cease to exist.

Case closed? Show me that in the universe overall it is increasing. Remember there is no wiggle room. You can't just make assertions that cannot be disproved, you have to prove them. I have time. Go ahead. But you have to do this without saying that entropy is maximizing in the universe because the second law says so. The second law does not say the universe is closed system, which is really what you need to prove here.

Find something that will not agree with the thoery no matter how much you twist the thoery to fit. For example that a large area of space is heading inwards or standing still.

Actually that would just prove the theory is incomplete, which most people accept.

Or objects that are clearly older than the proposed age of the universe.

Again, this just requires an adjustment to the theory. For example, this could just mean that rate at which things moved outward has not always been consistent with the current rate or that there is some kind of effect causing alternating expansion and contraction of the universe or parts of it (this would also explain the first assertion). None of these disprove the Big Bang theory. They are suggestive that the theory is incomplete.

Regarding the Theory of Evolution, a way to falsify it would be fossils of elephants from the pre-cambrian, or dinosaurs from the permian, since those would be impossible according to our current theories.

Regarding the Theory of Evolution, a way to falsify it would be fossils of elephants from the pre-cambrian, or dinosaurs from the permian, since those would be impossible according to our current theories.

Actually, this would only suggest that we would have to adjust the way that evolution occurred. Things are evolving and have evolved and you have to do more than what you proposed above to prove that doesn't occur.

Dammit, no you haven't entirely explained to the complete satisfaction of a lot of scientists. Just because you dismiss those scientists as being lunatics because they don't agree with your view of the world, does not make them cease to exist.

Case closed? Show me that in the universe overall it is increasing. Remember there is no wiggle room. You can't just make assertions that cannot be disproved, you have to prove them. I have time. Go ahead. But you have to do this without saying that entropy is maximizing in the universe because the second law says so. The second law does not say the universe is closed system, which is really what you need to prove here.

I was just trying to say that scientists dont dismiss a deity out of hand just because they dont agree with the concept, they dismiss claims of a deity because they are unfalsifiable and they have no evidence that points towards a deity at the moment. As for you comment about not having all scientists persuaded, show me one professor of biology that doesnt beleive in evolution and the evidence of a deity.

You cant really measure the entropy of an entire universe, science is about dealing with the facts available. We have seen no instances of the second law being broken and if it ever was, it would break so many funadmental concepts that a lot of the laws of physics would have to be rewritten. Bear in mind to a physicist, seeing the second law of thermodyanmics broken would be roughly equivalent to you or me dropping a ball and seeing it float uppwards. Thats enough for me, if its not enough for you, fair enough.

Find something that will not agree with the thoery no matter how much you twist the thoery to fit. For example that a large area of space is heading inwards or standing still.

Just to clear up a misconception- there is no clear center of reference to judge the expansion of the universe off of, save our own planet, sun, galaxy, et c. We don't know where relative to us the singularity was, and there's no way to determine that. Therefore, there is no "inward" and there is certainly no "standing still". There is only moving toward us, moving away from us, moving adjacent to us, or moving the same way as us. That's one of the things that really complicates concepts like speed and velocity. If you say something is moving at fifty miles an hour in space, you need to specify relative to what. Now if the univese is expanding from some focus, as the universe expands, everything should be growing more distant from everything else, which seems to be the case. There are a few things moving toward us, but that doesn't disprove the big bang. It all comes down to relative velocities.

Actually, this would only suggest that we would have to adjust the way that evolution occurred. Things are evolving and have evolved and you have to do more than what you proposed above to prove that doesn't occur.

Well, or that. I was just trying to point out that dramatically unexpected finds (like those above) do not occur. The suggestion is therefor that our current theories can't be wrong - or not wrong by much.

The relationship of the Ichthyosaurs and the Sauropterygia inside the reptiles, for example, is still unresolved. Therefor, ancestors for either groups is expected.

Just to clear up a misconception- there is no clear center of reference to judge the expansion of the universe off of, save our own planet, sun, galaxy, et c. We don't know where relative to us the singularity was, and there's no way to determine that. Therefore, there is no "inward" and there is certainly no "standing still". There is only moving toward us, moving away from us, moving adjacent to us, or moving the same way as us. That's one of the things that really complicates concepts like speed and velocity. If you say something is moving at fifty miles an hour in space, you need to specify relative to what. Now if the univese is expanding from some focus, as the universe expands, everything should be growing more distant from everything else, which seems to be the case. There are a few things moving toward us, but that doesn't disprove the big bang. It all comes down to relative velocities.

Yeah i might not have been clear. I was speaking relatively. Like finding a large number or majority of galaxies heading toward us or standing still relative to each other. I know more than enough about physics to know there is no absolute frame of reference.

I was just trying to say that scientists dont dismiss a deity out of hand just because they dont agree with the concept, they dismiss claims of a deity because they are unfalsifiable and they have no evidence that points towards a deity at the moment. As for you comment about not having all scientists persuaded, show me one professor of biology that doesnt beleive in evolution and the evidence of a deity.

You cant really measure the entropy of an entire universe, science is about dealing with the facts available. We have seen no instances of the second law being broken and if it ever was, it would break so many funadmental concepts that a lot of the laws of physics would have to be rewritten. Bear in mind to a physicist, seeing the second law of thermodyanmics broken would be roughly equivalent to you or me dropping a ball and seeing it float uppwards. Thats enough for me, if its not enough for you, fair enough.

The point is that no one (or at least those I've read and spoken to) is suggesting that the law is broken, which is why they are using it as an argument (I actually believe in determism, not ID). The second law has always been difficult to deal with because a closed system is virtually impossible. Simply observing affects the system (quantum mechanics). ID supporters suggest that if the second law is true it lies in conflict with an ordered universe, suggesting an unseen variable that they say is divine.

This kind of conflict is not uncommon in physics. Quantum mechanics proposes that observing one particle can affect another particle (over-simplified, I admit) no matter what the distance is between the two particles. Einstein proposed that this means that QM is incomplete and there is a hidden variable, often referred to as local variables, that is as yet unmeasureable. Others have attempted to prove that no outside force or variable exists according to our current definitions of those things. Neither side has been convincing enough to the eyes of the other side. As our science and our ability to observe advances, it would seem that we would move closer and closer to scientists agreeing for the most part and disputing nuances, but Bell's theorem is not a nuance by any means. It is a fundamental theory of modern day physics and those that doubt its veracity are disputing the completeness of QM which is being widely used. But mention that you believe God is that variable and you'll be laughed out of the room.

Precisely the point of ID supporters. You give the sun credit for the decrease in entropy on earth. ID supporters suggest that its not enough. ID supporters in general argue that God exists because at some point you have to believe one thing or another was always there or from nothing came something. Entropy is not maximized throughout the entire universe so the universe must not be infinitely old. Once you have a deity, it's a small leap to suggest its hand in the evolution of life on earth. It's not compelling evidence in my book, but it's as sound as assuming the universe popped into existence from nowhere (simplification of Big Bang) and we accept that as scientific theory simply because it doesn't bring God into the mix.

You still don't see it, do you? That is inherently a paradox. You cannot say "The second law holds, but it doesn't actually hold." It would be like me saying "I believe in Unicorns. Since Unicorns do not exist, there must be a God."

If the 2nd law holds true, then it holds true. If it does not, then it is wrong.

Meanwhile, the Big Bang is accepted as scientific theory because there is evidence for it, not because of a lack of God.

No, I disagree with your interpretaion. I understand the theories. I just disagre with certian intepretations. These intepretations are not FACTS.

If you actually understand the theories, then why do you post so many blatant falsehoods about them? Are you a liar?

They're making the same argument. Show that entropy is increasing. Show that life is increasing the entropy of its surroundings in sufficient amounts to be consistent with increasing entropy. You can't show that either. Like I said, it's not any more or less compelling than the big bang theory.

We have shown that entropy always increases in a closed system - which is the derivation of the 2nd law. If someone wishes to disprove the 2nd law, they are welcome to, but they must fine a specific instance which contradicts it. If they do not find an instance, it is not disproven.

I really think you need to read up on how the scientific method works.

Well, or that. I was just trying to point out that dramatically unexpected finds (like those above) do not occur. The suggestion is therefor that our current theories can't be wrong - or not wrong by much.

The relationship of the Ichthyosaurs and the Sauropterygia inside the reptiles, for example, is still unresolved. Therefor, ancestors for either groups is expected.

Actually, huge dramatic discoveries occur all the time that radically change the theory. A commonly held theory was that mammals and birds evolved seperately from dinosaurs, only recently did scientist begin to believe that birds are a descendant of dinosaurs (biologists correct me where I'm wrong). Regardless, many now believe that dinosaurs evolved rather than dying out. Certainly not a widely held belief fifty years ago.

They aren't claiming that the second law is not true, they are just introducing a divine source into the system to make the law hold. Let's face it, if the theory was that evidence suggests a decrease in entropy in the universe and there must be some as yet unmeasured variable that explains this increase in order, then it would be accepted or at least considered. That they claim that unmeasured variable is divine is what makes people reject the theory out of hand. Again, you can't start with there is no divine source to prove there is no divine source.

Wrong again. If they claim that entropy is actually decreasing, they are claiming that the 2nd law does not hold - as the decrease in entropy would violate the law.

Again, perhaps you should read up on the scientific method.

How are you going to falsify Big Bang? You can measure things that are suggestive, but how are you going to falsify it?

If the Big Bang occurred as theorists believe it did, certain things must be true. We can measure those things. If they are not true, the theory is falsified and must be altered to meet new evidence.

They're making the same argument. Show that entropy is increasing. Show that life is increasing the entropy of its surroundings in sufficient amounts to be consistent with increasing entropy. You can't show that either. Like I said, it's not any more or less compelling than the big bang theory.
You are aware that life isn't the only source of increasing entropy?

I really don't think you know what you're talking about, and this is from a person who is currently taking a thermodynamics class, so I do sort of have to know what I'm talking about.

The point is that no one (or at least those I've read and spoken to) is suggesting that the law is broken, which is why they are using it as an argument (I actually believe in determism, not ID). The second law has always been difficult to deal with because a closed system is virtually impossible. Simply observing affects the system (quantum mechanics). ID supporters suggest that if the second law is true it lies in conflict with an ordered universe, suggesting an unseen variable that they say is divine.

This kind of conflict is not uncommon in physics. Quantum mechanics proposes that observing one particle can affect another particle (over-simplified, I admit) no matter what the distance is between the two particles. Einstein proposed that this means that QM is incomplete and there is a hidden variable, often referred to as local variables, that is as yet unmeasureable. Others have attempted to prove that no outside force or variable exists according to our current definitions of those things. Neither side has been convincing enough to the eyes of the other side. As our science and our ability to observe advances, it would seem that we would move closer and closer to scientists agreeing for the most part and disputing nuances, but Bell's theorem is not a nuance by any means. It is a fundamental theory of modern day physics and those that doubt its veracity are disputing the completeness of QM which is being widely used. But mention that you believe God is that variable and you'll be laughed out of the room.

What do you mean, an "ordered universe"? If you mean a universe which obeys a set of rules which can be determined, how is the second law at odds with that?

Mention god is that variable and you'll be laughed out the room, yes, because you'll have no proof.

Case closed? Show me that in the universe overall it is increasing. Remember there is no wiggle room. You can't just make assertions that cannot be disproved, you have to prove them.

Science can never prove anything.

Meanwhile, the second law can be disproven, as all it would take is one instance in which entropy decreased in a closed system. It can never be actually proven, as there is always the chance that we will find that instance.

Meanwhile, science only concerns itself with the universe. We are not trying to explain things that exist outside our universe because it would be impossible to measure any such thing. As such, the assumption that the universe is a closed system is a valid one.

We have shown that entropy always increases in a closed system - which is the derivation of the 2nd law. If someone wishes to disprove the 2nd law, they are welcome to, but they must fine a specific instance which contradicts it. If they do not find an instance, it is not disproven.

I really think you need to read up on how the scientific method works.

You're exhausting. No one said that the second law doesn't hold or, at least, I didn't. Show me that the universe is a closed system. If you can't then you can't dismiss the intervention of a divine being. And the fact is that we had to make macroscopic assumptions in order to "prove" the second law, sufficient proof to my eyes, but we know from QM that simply observing opens the system to include the observers and thus everything the observers interact with during the experiment, etc. If I'm wrong define a closed system for me and how we go about measuring entropy in that system.

Again, this just requires an adjustment to the theory. For example, this could just mean that rate at which things moved outward has not always been consistent with the current rate or that there is some kind of effect causing alternating expansion and contraction of the universe or parts of it (this would also explain the first assertion). None of these disprove the Big Bang theory. They are suggestive that the theory is incomplete.

They would disprove the *current* Big Bang theory, resulting in it either being altered, or discarded. This is how science works.

You are aware that life isn't the only source of increasing entropy?

I really don't think you know what you're talking about, and this is from a person who is currently taking a thermodynamics class, so I do sort of have to know what I'm talking about.
Proof Of God #3142:

1. I don't understand thermodynamics.
2. Here's what I think it means.
3. It does so!
4. Therefore, the universe was created according to the creation myth I already decided I would believe in.
5. Therefore, God exists.

The point is that no one (or at least those I've read and spoken to) is suggesting that the law is broken, which is why they are using it as an argument (I actually believe in determism, not ID). The second law has always been difficult to deal with because a closed system is virtually impossible. Simply observing affects the system (quantum mechanics). ID supporters suggest that if the second law is true it lies in conflict with an ordered universe, suggesting an unseen variable that they say is divine.

...which is not scientific. The scientific viewpoint would be to say, "The 2nd law is inconsistent with the actual universe. It must not be right. Let's figure out how to alter it to make it hold."

Instead, they are saying, "OH MY GOD! I DON'T THINK THE 2ND LAW HOLDS! WE CAN NEVER FIGURE IT OUT!! GOD DID IT!!!"

You're exhausting. No one said that the second law doesn't hold or, at least, I didn't. Show me that the universe is a closed system. If you can't then you can't dismiss the intervention of a divine being. And the fact is that we had to make macroscopic assumptions in order to "prove" the second law, sufficient proof to my eyes, but we know from QM that simply observing opens the system to include the observers and thus everything the observers interact with during the experiment, etc. If I'm wrong define a closed system for me and how we go about measuring entropy in that system.

Observing a particle does change some of it properties, however, these properties are many orders of magnitude smaller that of the overall system. I dont see the need to involve quantum mechanics in thermodynamics in this discussion.

You're exhausting. No one said that the second law doesn't hold or, at least, I didn't. Show me that the universe is a closed system. If you can't then you can't dismiss the intervention of a divine being. And the fact is that we had to make macroscopic assumptions in order to "prove" the second law, sufficient proof to my eyes, but we know from QM that simply observing opens the system to include the observers and thus everything the observers interact with during the experiment, etc. If I'm wrong define a closed system for me and how we go about measuring entropy in that system.

You are confused about how to think scientifically. You cannot ask me to *prove* anything with science - it is impossible. You can only *disprove* something with science. The assumption that the universe is an open system would mean that we could get outside the universe, in which case the universe would simply expand to include that new area.

What do you mean, an "ordered universe"? If you mean a universe which obeys a set of rules which can be determined, how is the second law at odds with that?

Ordered universe - Again, they usually exaggerate the argument with the whole blowing up nails and wood and getting a shed. The point is that they feel there is too much order in the universe to follow the second law if you think the universe is a closed system. Thus they think the universe is not a closed system and introduce the supernatural (in this case existing outside of what we consider the universe to be) variable. That this variable is sentient can not be proven but it certainly is as viable as any other idea of what that variable might be.

Mention god is that variable and you'll be laughed out the room, yes, because you'll have no proof.

Okay, but assume it's some natural phenomena and that's okay, though you also have no proof.

You are confused about how to think scientifically. You cannot ask me to *prove* anything with science - it is impossible. You can only *disprove* something with science. The assumption that the universe is an open system would mean that we could get outside the universe, in which case the universe would simply expand to include that new area.

Why would it mean we could get outside the universe? We can't even get outside the galaxy, first of all. Second of all, you apply spacial constraints to what someone is arguing is supernatural (existing outside of what we can observe).

They would disprove the *current* Big Bang theory, resulting in it either being altered, or discarded. This is how science works.

In that case, we have disproven many laws that we still use. Many laws of mechanics only exist in a macro world. The introduction of QM could be quite well compared to dropping a stone and watching it fly upward into the sky. Adjusting a theory to make it more complete is hardly what we're talking about here.

Why would it mean we could get outside the universe? We can't even get outside the galaxy, first of all. Second of all, you apply spacial constraints to what someone is arguing is supernatural (existing outside of what we can observe).

If we find evidence that the universe is an open system - that would mean that we could measure something outside the universe, as measuring something outside the universe is the only such evidence there could be.

Meanwhile, I have not applied spatial constraints at all. I never said that God could not interact or even be a part of the Universe. However, God would, by definition, exist outside the rules of the universe - which is the realm of science.

In that case, we have disproven many laws that we still use. Many laws of mechanics only exist in a macro world. The introduction of QM could be quite well compared to dropping a stone and watching it fly upward into the sky. Adjusting a theory to make it more complete is hardly what we're talking about here.

And that is the problem. Evolution is a *scientific* theory which changes with new evidence. ID is a philosophy which leaves no room for other evidence. It basically throws up its hands in the air and says "It's all so complicated!! We can never figure it out!! It must be God." They are not adjusting something to make it more complete, they are taking a cop-out and saying that we just can't get it.

They are basically saying "There are no rules to the universe, it's just God", which is outside the realm of scientific thinking.

Edit: By the way, we *have* disproven, for instance, Newtonian physics. It was wrong. However, it is a good enough approximation at macro sizes and slow speeds. It is also much easier than the more correct theory, so we continue to use it where it is a good enough approximation. It has, however, been disproven.

Okay, but assume it's some natural phenomena and that's okay, though you also have no proof.

You don't *assume* that it is anything at all. You say "there is an unknown variable, but we don't know what it is." Then, you come up with a *falsifiable* hypothesis and devise experiments that might falsify it. If it is falsified - your hypothesis was wrong. If it is not - your hypothesis might be right.

You don't *assume* that it is anything at all. You say "there is an unknown variable, but we don't know what it is." Then, you come up with a *falsifiable* hypothesis and devise experiments that might falsify it. If it is falsified - your hypothesis was wrong. If it is not - your hypothesis might be right.
and that's the key. ID simply cannot be exposed to the kind of testing that a scientific theory requires.

...which is not scientific. The scientific viewpoint would be to say, "The 2nd law is inconsistent with the actual universe. It must not be right. Let's figure out how to alter it to make it hold."

Instead, they are saying, "OH MY GOD! I DON'T THINK THE 2ND LAW HOLDS! WE CAN NEVER FIGURE IT OUT!! GOD DID IT!!!"

No, really you are saying start with the premise that God doesn't exist, thus if anything I learn is inconsistent with current theory I must be able to observe or measure a way to redefine the theory without including God. Everytime we find we can't observe something or there appears to be no "natural" explanation suggesting it is God is automatically wrong because he DOES NOT exist. You start with the premise of not supernatural being, which is fundamentally flawed. Much like people use the existence of God to support the existence of God, also fundamentally flawed.

Where did the universe come from? Preuniverse sludge that exploded into the universe we know today. Yes, that sounds far more reasonable than God did it.

and that's the key. ID simply cannot be exposed to the kind of testing that a scientific theory requires.

Neither can the Big Bang because the fundamental basis of it is that some sort of preuniverse "atom" existed, but no longer exists. Test that.

Ordered universe - Again, they usually exaggerate the argument with the whole blowing up nails and wood and getting a shed. The point is that they feel there is too much order in the universe to follow the second law if you think the universe is a closed system. Thus they think the universe is not a closed system and introduce the supernatural (in this case existing outside of what we consider the universe to be) variable. That this variable is sentient can not be proven but it certainly is as viable as any other idea of what that variable might be.

I'm afraid i'm going to have to give up on you here. If you insist on using the argument thats its all to complicated to have formed on its own, i'll remind you that its very easy to make complicated patterns out of simple rules then say this is not even evidence, its entirely subjective and therefore worthless in terms of scienctific evidence.


Okay, but assume it's some natural phenomena and that's okay, though you also have no proof.

Proof is possible with natural phenomena, its not with god. You could get discredited for suggesting many things.

You are aware that life isn't the only source of increasing entropy?

I really don't think you know what you're talking about, and this is from a person who is currently taking a thermodynamics class, so I do sort of have to know what I'm talking about.

I'm not suggesting that life is the only source of increasing entropy. I'm suggesting that order that life represents must be counterbalanced by a increased lack of order in order for the second law to hold. We know the second law holds, but we can't specifically measure where the entropy went when life occurred. We can only make general theories but as we can't close the system we can't show that no divine hand exists.

No, really you are saying start with the premise that God doesn't exist, thus if anything I learn is inconsistent with current theory I must be able to observe or measure a way to redefine the theory without including God. Everytime we find we can't observe something or there appears to be no "natural" explanation suggesting it is God is automatically wrong because he DOES NOT exist. You start with the premise of not supernatural being, which is fundamentally flawed. Much like people use the existence of God to support the existence of God, also fundamentally flawed.

Wrong. There is no assumption that there is no God or that there is, simply a lack of an assumption that there is. We are dealing with the rules of the Universe. If a God set those up (as many of us believe), great - but the rules themselves are still there for us to discover.

Science cannot assume *anything* about God, as God is, by definition, outside its realm.

Where did the universe come from? Preuniverse sludge that exploded into the universe we know today. Yes, that sounds far more reasonable than God did it.

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing evolution here.

In that case, we have disproven many laws that we still use. Many laws of mechanics only exist in a macro world. The introduction of QM could be quite well compared to dropping a stone and watching it fly upward into the sky. Adjusting a theory to make it more complete is hardly what we're talking about here.
...

Yes, and quantum and relativity don't mesh together either, what's your point?

Because classical mechanics do not apply to an electron does not mean that they have been "disproven" for a roller coaster car. If that were so, then well, we'd have some problems.

You see, there are 4 fundamental forces in nature. The weakest force is gravity... when something gets big enough, gravity is the dominant force... instead of say, on the quantum scale in which electrostatic forces are the big ones...

So your neutally charged baseball with a fair sized mass will not really have much in the way of a wave function (lambda=h/mv, afterall) nor will it be attracted by an electric field. Instead, it will fall in the gravitational field.

Furthermore, I highly suggest that you learn some physics before you attempt to spout off about theories... of course it won't work in your view if you don't even have the foggiest idea of what is actually going on.

Neither can the Big Bang because the fundamental basis of it is that some sort of preuniverse "atom" existed, but no longer exists. Test that.

It has been, conditions within the first few seconds have been replicated. The way the universe is expanding now and the background radiation and many other things are evidence. Read up on it if you want.

Neither can the Big Bang because the fundamental basis of it is that some sort of preuniverse "atom" existed, but no longer exists. Test that.
there are numerous testable predictions generated by the Big Bang theory, and countless means of testing (and potentially disproving) the theory. name ONE way that science could disprove the "theory" that all existence was created by an omnipotent supernatural force; if you can't, it's not a scientific theory.

Neither can the Big Bang because the fundamental basis of it is that some sort of preuniverse "atom" existed, but no longer exists. Test that.

You can test the proposed results of it. If the results are not as you expected, the theory is wrong.

There is no way to test "God did it," because no matter what results you get, you could just say "Well, God did it that way then."

...
Because classical mechanics do not apply to an electron does not mean that they have been "disproven" for a roller coaster car. If that were so, then well, we'd have some problems.

Actually, they have been disproven. It is just that the error they introduce for, say, a roller coaster, is so many decimal points down that it simply doesn't matter. If you use quantum mechanics to calculate a roller coaster trajectory, you will get the same answer (up to a large number of decimal points) as you do out of Newtonian physics. However, it also works for electrons. As such, it is the more correct theory.

We still use Newtonian physics where it is a good enough approximation because it is *so* much easier than trying to deal with the math involved otherwise.

I'm not suggesting that life is the only source of increasing entropy. I'm suggesting that order that life represents must be counterbalanced by a increased lack of order in order for the second law to hold. We know the second law holds, but we can't specifically measure where the entropy went when life occurred. We can only make general theories but as we can't close the system we can't show that no divine hand exists.

We have measured the chemical reactions that power life. In a closed system, nothing happens. In an open system, where energy can be provided, life can continue.

If we take a lifeform and place it in a closed system, the entropy in the system increases (as does the life).

I'm not suggesting that life is the only source of increasing entropy. I'm suggesting that order that life represents must be counterbalanced by a increased lack of order in order for the second law to hold. We know the second law holds, but we can't specifically measure where the entropy went when life occurred. We can only make general theories but as we can't close the system we can't show that no divine hand exists.
I still don't think you understand what you're talking about.

The earth is not a closed system, it is possible for one system to have a 0 change in entropy while another system experiences an increase in entropy.

Furthermore, I'm not sure where you get this notion that life somehow creates less entropy than non-life.

I'm afraid i'm going to have to give up on you here. If you insist on using the argument thats its all to complicated to have formed on its own, i'll remind you that its very easy to make complicated patterns out of simple rules then say this is not even evidence, its entirely subjective and therefore worthless in terms of scienctific evidence..

Jesus, is that even a sentence? Try periods. It makes it easer to read. Much scientific evidence relies on subjective assumptions. That's why some much theory is disproven or revamped. ID suggests that evolution is an over-simplification. Now I don't buy it, but you can't simply dismiss a theory as lunacy simply because it involves a deity. Well, you can, but I won't.

Proof is possible with natural phenomena, its not with god. You could get discredited for suggesting many things.

Is it? Big Bang suggests natural phenomena. Show proof of a preuniverse atom. That "thing" the universe exploded from is assumed by many, I would guess you, to be natural, but prove it. Ever.

According to some string theorists, The 11-dimensional Multi-verse is actually a closed system. Therefore, if you could measure everywhere at once, you would find the change in entropy.

Jesus, is that even a sentence? Try periods. It makes it easer to read. Much scientific evidence relies on subjective assumptions. That's why some much theory is disproven or revamped. ID suggests that evolution is an over-simplification. Now I don't buy it, but you can't simply dismiss a theory as lunacy simply because it involves a deity. Well, you can, but I won't.

Is it? Big Bang suggests natural phenomena. Show proof of a preuniverse atom. That "thing" the universe exploded from is assumed by many, I would guess you, to be natural, but prove it. Ever.

You're not even reading what i write now. I didnt say anything about assumptions. I said that "its too complicated" is subjective and useless. What laws rely on subjective assumptions? Assumptions, yes, subjective ones, no.

As has been stated at least 10 times already, you cant prove anything in science. The evidence stated leads us to the theory of a big bang and scientists have already created states of matter similair to the first few seconds of the big bang.

I still don't think you understand what you're talking about.

The earth is not a closed system, it is possible for one system to have a 0 change in entropy while another system experiences an increase in entropy.

Furthermore, I'm not sure where you get this notion that life somehow creates less entropy than non-life.

What I think he's referring to is that order generally decreases entropy. Not 100%, but as a general rule it works.

Edit: It works because it takes energy to order a system, and that energy becomes unusable, i.e. transferred somewhere outside the system, or stored in a form that is unusable. Background radiation is also a cause of an increase in entropy, so I don't see why the energy used to order a system couldn't become cosmic noise.

Much scientific evidence relies on subjective assumptions.

How can "evidence" rely on an assumption?

Now, a hypothesis or theory can rely on an assumption - but only if the basis for that assumption has been backed up beyond "I just think this is the way it is."

That's why some much theory is disproven or revamped.

Theory is disproven or altered because we find new evidence. What you need to realize is that the point of a scientific experiment is to *disprove* your hypothesis. If you don't disprove it, then you have supported it, but not proven it. If you do disprove it, that's actually exciting.

ID suggests that evolution is an over-simplification.

Actually, ID states that evolution is wrong because it "just couldn't have happened that way."

Now I don't buy it, but you can't simply dismiss a theory as lunacy simply because it involves a deity. Well, you can, but I won't.

Not lunacy, but definitely unscientific, unless we somehow find better measurable evidence than "I believe it."

Is it? Big Bang suggests natural phenomena. Show proof of a preuniverse atom. That "thing" the universe exploded from is assumed by many, I would guess you, to be natural, but prove it. Ever.

You keep using this word "proof". If we are to have a scientific discussion here, you really must stop using it.

What I don't get is how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to life. Life is here. If my existence were in violation of it, I'd probably split apart into my trillions of atoms. Maybe even into subatomic particles and anti-matter!

What I don't get is how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to life. Life is here. If my existence were in violation of it, I'd probably split apart into my trillions of atoms. Maybe even into subatomic particles and anti-matter!

Well, if your existence were in violation of the 2nd Law, then we would realize that the 2nd law is wrong and stop using it.

I still don't think you understand what you're talking about.

The earth is not a closed system, it is possible for one system to have a 0 change in entropy while another system experiences an increase in entropy.

Furthermore, I'm not sure where you get this notion that life somehow creates less entropy than non-life.


First of all, who mentioned the earth? I didn't. I was talking about the entire universe as a whole. If it is a closed system entropy must increase. If it does not, then there must be something that exists outside the universe. Fairly simple, I think.

Second of all, I suggested that life is ordered as I would consider the creation of the planets to be, the stars, galaxies, etc. Are you arguing that creation of things is actually a move towards less order? In that case, then I think you are probably not in agreement with most physicists, most scientists and most people, in general, and discussing this with you is a waste of time, because then everything is subject to your speculation.

I would suggest the beginnings of life suggest a move towards order, that some explain by using the sun and various other objects that are increasing in entropy to keep the overall system increasing in entropy. Now, ID supporters are simply saying that where the resultant increase in entropy is occurring is not adequately explained naturally. You cannot show that it is other than starting with the premise that the universe is a closed system.

In fact, the commonly accepted Big Bang theory suggests the universe has an age and that it started from some "thing" that existed before the universe, thus not a closed system. Oh, but if I call something that you consider natural phenomena then it's acceptable. If say that "thing" is God then I'm a lunatic.

First of all, who mentioned the earth? I didn't. I was talking about the entire universe as a whole. If it is a closed system entropy must increase. If it does not, then there must be something that exists outside the universe. Fairly simple, I think.

Second of all, I suggested that life is ordered as I would consider the creation of the planets to be, the stars, galaxies, etc. Are you arguing that creation of things is actually a move towards less order? In that case, then I think you are probably not in agreement with most physicists, most scientists and most people, in general, and discussing this with you is a waste of time, because then everything is subject to your speculation.

I would suggest the beginnings of life suggest a move towards order, that some explain by using the sun and various other objects that are increasing in entropy to keep the overall system increasing in entropy. Now, ID supporters are simply saying that where the resultant increase in entropy is occurring is not adequately explained naturally. You cannot show that it is other than starting with the premise that the universe is a closed system.

In fact, the commonly accepted Big Bang theory suggests the universe has an age and that it started from some "thing" that existed before the universe, thus not a closed system. Oh, but if I call something that you consider natural phenomena then it's acceptable. If say that "thing" is God then I'm a lunatic.
I think you're relying too heavily on the description of entropy as order to chaos... It's basically the degredation of energy into unusable states. For instance, the sun increases the entropy of the universe by radiating away heat. Likewise, every star does the same...

And also there was no "before" the big bang, at least not in our time frame. The big bang was the formation of spacetime. Therefore, no space, no time beforehand. There are some hypotheses about it, but they can't be tested...

How can "evidence" rely on an assumption?

Now, a hypothesis or theory can rely on an assumption - but only if the basis for that assumption has been backed up beyond "I just think this is the way it is."

Again, Big Bang. We started with the assumption of a magic bean that exploded to create the universe. We showed that the expansion is occurring. There appears to be some remnants of the magic bean. Good enough, right?

Read about Bell's experiments. They made many assumptions that have never been adequately shown to be backed up.

Theory is disproven or altered because we find new evidence. What you need to realize is that the point of a scientific experiment is to *disprove* your hypothesis. If you don't disprove it, then you have supported it, but not proven it. If you do disprove it, that's actually exciting.

So you can't disprove God, so therefore He exists? Or have you disproven God and not told me? Aren't experiments often used to gather evidence of a theory? But that can't be, that would make you wrong.

Actually, ID states that evolution is wrong because it "just couldn't have happened that way."

I love when someone restates a theory to make it sound ridiculous in order to argue against it. Kind of like calling the origin of the universe a magic bean.

Not lunacy, but definitely unscientific, unless we somehow find better measurable evidence than "I believe it."

Again, Big Bang. Where is your measureable evidence other than the universe is expanding at the moment?

You keep using this word "proof". If we are to have a scientific discussion here, you really must stop using it.
Fine, let's not use the word proof, which I pretty sure scientists often call for proof, but let's pretend they don't use that silly, silly word. We'll call it evidence, an acceptable synonym (since you don't like English). Personally, I pretty sure you confuse showing proof and proving.

proof n.
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

I think you're relying too heavily on the description of entropy as order to chaos... It's basically the degredation of energy into unusable states. For instance, the sun increases the entropy of the universe by radiating away heat. Likewise, every star does the same...

And also there was no "before" the big bang, at least not in our time frame. The big bang was the formation of spacetime. Therefore, no space, no time beforehand. There are some hypotheses about it, but they can't be tested...
not true... the space/time for the big bang was contained in a singularity....

First of all, who mentioned the earth? I didn't. I was talking about the entire universe as a whole. If it is a closed system entropy must increase. If it does not, then there must be something that exists outside the universe. Fairly simple, I think.

Second of all, I suggested that life is ordered as I would consider the creation of the planets to be, the stars, galaxies, etc. Are you arguing that creation of things is actually a move towards less order? In that case, then I think you are probably not in agreement with most physicists, most scientists and most people, in general, and discussing this with you is a waste of time, because then everything is subject to your speculation.

I would suggest the beginnings of life suggest a move towards order, that some explain by using the sun and various other objects that are increasing in entropy to keep the overall system increasing in entropy. Now, ID supporters are simply saying that where the resultant increase in entropy is occurring is not adequately explained naturally. You cannot show that it is other than starting with the premise that the universe is a closed system.

In fact, the commonly accepted Big Bang theory suggests the universe has an age and that it started from some "thing" that existed before the universe, thus not a closed system. Oh, but if I call something that you consider natural phenomena then it's acceptable. If say that "thing" is God then I'm a lunatic.

No-ones calling you a lunatic for beleiving in god. Life is a move toward what you would call order. The Sun on the other hand, is increasing in entropy a hell of a lot faster than we are decreasing it so it much more than makes up for it.

And since the universe encompasses everything in these 3 dimenions we call our own, anything outside it is a bit hard to find. If you're referring to god being outside them, yet again we'll need to see some evidence.

The big bang theory says nothing about what happened before the singularity. Nothing whatsoever, or on how it got there as those are both unknowns. Time is defined as starting from when the big bang happened.

Again, Big Bang. Where is your measureable evidence other than the universe is expanding at the moment?




There is loads of evidence for this. They dont just make stuff up you know. There is a Doppler red shift on nearly every galaxy. Trying reading a page on big bang evidence.

No-ones calling you a lunatic for beleiving in god. Life is a move toward what you would call order. The Sun on the other hand, is increasing in entropy a hell of a lot faster than we are decreasing it so it much more than makes up for it.

And since the universe encompasses everything in these 3 dimenions we call our own, anything outside it is a bit hard to find. If you're referring to god being outside them, yet again we'll need to see some evidence.

The big bang theory says nothing about what happened before the singularity. Nothing whatsoever, or on how it got there as those are both unknowns. Time is defined as starting from when the big bang happened.
oh... you were talking about space/time and i was "wtf?" with the space part.

I think you're relying too heavily on the description of entropy as order to chaos... It's basically the degredation of energy into unusable states. For instance, the sun increases the entropy of the universe by radiating away heat. Likewise, every star does the same...

And also there was no "before" the big bang, at least not in our time frame. The big bang was the formation of spacetime. Therefore, no space, no time beforehand. There are some hypotheses about it, but they can't be tested...

You're arguing semantics. We exist in space/time so most of our terminology uses time. Before the existence of the universe? Nope. When the universe didn't exist? Nope. The simple idea that it began suggests something previous to that beginning. Poof, existence, no such things as before. Did the universe always exist? No. So what existed before the universe? There is no before the universe. Do you see how our language sort of hinders a logical discussion. Thus the idea of before. Where did the Universe come from? A "thing" that had no space or time. Fine. Does that thing still exist? If no, how to we refer to its existence in reference to the existence of the universe since one became (became technically assumes time) the other. If yes, then what is it and how come we can't see it, measure it, interact with it? Is it supernatural? So is the idea that so haunts us about this "thing" that some people consider it to be sentient?

en·tro·py
1.Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2.A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3.A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4.The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5.Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

You want to use one, I want to use two (or sometimes four). Both have scientific basis. How can you tell me I can't use the one I choose? The ideas I'm conveying are clear and neither one can be measured in the context I'm using it.

There is loads of evidence for this. They dont just make stuff up you know. There is a Doppler red shift on nearly every galaxy. Trying reading a page on big bang evidence.

Ok, I was trying to not get too much into the science, but I'll give a simple task. Since everything is radiating outward from a single point, it should be easy to map and show where that point is. Let me know when you're ready.

No-ones calling you a lunatic for beleiving in god. Life is a move toward what you would call order. The Sun on the other hand, is increasing in entropy a hell of a lot faster than we are decreasing it so it much more than makes up for it.

And since the universe encompasses everything in these 3 dimenions we call our own, anything outside it is a bit hard to find. If you're referring to god being outside them, yet again we'll need to see some evidence.

The big bang theory says nothing about what happened before the singularity. Nothing whatsoever, or on how it got there as those are both unknowns. Time is defined as starting from when the big bang happened.

In order to show that the sun explains the decreasing entropy of life you must close a system and show that evolution occurs just from the introduced entropy from the sun. You can't do it. Choosing something that offers a lot of entropy to a lot of things that don't have life doesn't exactly explain life and certainly not evolution.

Do you trust NASA? http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

Primeval Atom, magic bean, thing, whatever.

In order to show that the sun explains the decreasing entropy of life you must close a system and show that evolution occurs just from the introduced entropy from the sun. You can't do it. Choosing something that offers a lot of entropy to a lot of things that don't have life doesn't exactly explain life and certainly not evolution.

Do you trust NASA? http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

Primeval Atom, magic bean, thing, whatever.
Huh?

The sun provides energy which counteracts that lost as entropy (heat) to the environment. The sun doesn't enduce entropy, it counteracts the entropy lost during cellular processes (the sun's energy is not heat, and can be harnessed by plants and such into usable energy).

Huh?

The sun provides energy which counteracts that lost as entropy (heat) to the environment. The sun doesn't enduce entropy, it counteracts the entropy lost during cellular processes (the sun's energy is not heat, and can be harnessed by plants and such into usable energy).
well, then, it wouldnt just be the sun... it'd be the billions of stars out there that radiate light and the sun

Recent publications (2004) by Stephen Hawking suggest that our universe is much less 'special' than the proponents of the anthropic principle claim it is. According to Hawking, there is a 98% chance that a universe of a type as ours will come from a Big Bang. Further, using the basic wavefunction of the universe as basis, Hawking's equations indicate that such a universe can come into existence without relation to anything prior to it, meaning that it could come out of nothing. As of 2004, however, these publications and the theories in them are still subject to scientific debate, and in the past, Hawking himself has asked, "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?...Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" (Hawking, 1988).

What if there was no big bang? I know I've posted this before, but Hawking's math appears good.

well, then, it wouldnt just be the sun... it'd be the billions of stars out there that radiate light and the sun
What?

How does this have anything to do with the second law. I'm making the (proper) assumption that energy from other sources besides the sun is small enough to be ignored.

What I think he's referring to is that order generally decreases entropy. Not 100%, but as a general rule it works.

Edit: It works because it takes energy to order a system, and that energy becomes unusable, i.e. transferred somewhere outside the system, or stored in a form that is unusable. Background radiation is also a cause of an increase in entropy, so I don't see why the energy used to order a system couldn't become cosmic noise.

Hmm, yes, I see.

Hmm, yes, I see.
Gibb's Free Energy perhaps?

I don't even know why we're talking about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It doesn't apply to the possibility of life, or of evolution simply because life happened, and evolution appears to be observed. Can somebody explain to me why Melvin Cook even brought up Thermodynamics anyways?

Edit: Besides, he was an industrial chemist, not a physicist, he brought it up because he didn't understand it. Because of him a collection of pseudo-scientists created the retarded notion of "negentropy" which was disproven less than 6 months later.

First of all, who mentioned the earth? I didn't. I was talking about the entire universe as a whole. If it is a closed system entropy must increase. If it does not, then there must be something that exists outside the universe. Fairly simple, I think.

You cannot take a scientific theory and attempt to apply it to a non-scientific subject. If entropy does not increase throughout the universe, then the 2nd Law is wrong. It doesn't mean that there is an outside force - it means that we were wrong about the rules of the universe to begin with. (At least from a scientific point of view).

If say that "thing" is God then I'm a lunatic.

If your idea depends upon the non-falsifiable assumption that there is a God, it is an unscientific idea. That doesn't mean you are a lunatic - it simply means that you have ceased to talk about science.

Again, Big Bang. We started with the assumption of a magic bean that exploded to create the universe. We showed that the expansion is occurring. There appears to be some remnants of the magic bean. Good enough, right?

Wrong. Your order is off. We showed that expansion is occuring, so someone came up with the idea of a big bang theory. There was never an assumption of the sort you are making.

So you can't disprove God, so therefore He exists? Or have you disproven God and not told me? Aren't experiments often used to gather evidence of a theory? But that can't be, that would make you wrong.

It is impossible to disprove God, therefore God is outside the realm of science. As such, science cannot assume *anything* about God - not that there is a God, not that there isn't.

And yes, experiments are used to gather evidence of a theory - by showing that it stands up to the test.

Suppose I built a building that I think is the strongest building ever and will never fall. I need to test that idea. I first blow wind on it - it doesn't blow over, so I have disproven the idea that wind will blow it over. I then hit it with a car - it doesn't fall over, so I have disproven the idea that hitting it with a car makes it fall. I then hit it with a wrecker ball - it doesn't fall over, so I have disproven the idea that hitting it with a wrecker ball makes it fall.

I have *supported* the idea that the building will never fall. However, I have not *proven* it, as there may be something that *can* make it fall.

I love when someone restates a theory to make it sound ridiculous in order to argue against it. Kind of like calling the origin of the universe a magic bean.

The "theory" of ID is that everything is so complicated, someone else had to design it. In other words, it couldn't possibly have happened without divine intervention. How is that a misstatement?

Again, Big Bang. Where is your measureable evidence other than the universe is expanding at the moment?

I'm not a physicist, darling, but that is part of the evidence right there.

Meanwhile, why do you keep bringing up the Big Bang as if it is mutually exclusive with God? As I have pointed out, God is not assumed to exist or not exist in science. As such, no scientific theory precludes a God anymore than it presumes one.

Fine, let's not use the word proof, which I pretty sure scientists often call for proof, but let's pretend they don't use that silly, silly word. We'll call it evidence, an acceptable synonym (since you don't like English). Personally, I pretty sure you confuse showing proof and proving.

A scientist never claims that she has proven anything - but you keep calling for people to prove things to you.

proof n.
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

That's nice. However, the majority of people use proof in a stronger sense, so we should not confuse people.

The mathematicians show proof that 2+2=4, 1 = sin^2(x) + cos^2(x)

Scientists provide evidence showing that as hard as they tried they couldn't disprove a theory.

Edit: Changed it because I didn't want to verify my trig ;)

The mathematicians show proof that 2+2=4, 1 = sin^2(x) + cos^2(x)

Scientists provide evidence showing that as hard as they tried they couldn't disprove a theory.

Edit: Changed it because I didn't want to verify my trig ;)
Let 2=3, let 1=1, let 6=6.

2+2 does not equal 4, it equals 6

:)

thats like saying that, given enough time, the "unlikely" event of a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a car will happen... its mathematically impossible

yes, the universe is increasing in size... that proves god. i dont want to explain it again so ill move on.

there are a dozen or so explanations... none have been verified by matematical or scientific fact... except for the adiabatic big bang, in which the universe was created by an intellegent, quite plausibly inside the singularity, then exploded (hence big bang) with massive results, leading to the existance of the universe.

You don't understand what the term 'mathematically impossible' means, do you?

Given sufficient time, a tornado WOULD asemble a whole car, given enough repetitions... and assuming that semi-productive components were allowed to remain.

Of course - your metaphor is wrong, anyway... the universe is largely just blobs of solid matter, interspersed with big open bits... how is that anything like a tornado in a junkyard?

The expansion of theuniverse doesn't 'prove' a god. It's not that you don't want to explain... it's more that you cannot.

Wrong. I have explained this before but no one has bothered to listen. Mutations (the genetic changes required to advance from one species to another) are exceptionally rare. So rare in fact that it takes 10^7 generations of a single genome to get any significent change. That means something in the region of millions of generations for just ONE change. Now if you then apply that to four mutations you get 10^28 and so on. At this point, the Earth itself doesnt have the resorces to sustain that kind of population. Not to mention the fact that not all of any one of those generations would survive and so you would need even more generations to sucessfully pass on that infomation. Your dice analogy, to play on that, what if you had a series of dice the first one 1-6 and the next one marked 7-12 etc all the way up to say 300 million. Where exactly would you keep them all? And what are the odds that you would roll the second highest number on every dice EVERY time.

Neo - this still doesn't PROVE anything.

You really are having something of a problem understanding the concept of proof, it seems.

Regarding your dice analogy... here's a better one.

I don't know what your dice analogy is supposed to mean... it doesn't bear any resemblence to any suggested mechanism for evolution.

Here's my improved Dice analogy.

Take one hundred regular (six-sided) dice: Roll them all and keep any that score 2 thorough to 6. This is us mimicking a survival characteristic, and the death of anything that doesn't have that characteristic.

Now - looking at all the remaining dice, we should see about 85% remaining, statistically, right?

Okay - let's assume that rolling 2, 3, 4 or 5 is a subsistence event... replicating an evolutionary characteristic that doesn't actually IMPROVE the possibility of reproduction or survival.

Keep looking at the dice - and you SHOULD see about 16 of the dice showing a number "6". Let us assume these represent a POSITIVE event.

We shall replicate this, by keeping those dice, with their "6" face up, and rolling an equal number of NEW dice.

And, we shall replicate unsuccesful forms, by removing any of the dice that came up with a "1" uppermost.

Now - roll a few times, applying the same process, each time.

We will keep close to 100 dice on the table, won't we? So - our 'evolution' model doesn't need huge amounts of space, does it?

You'll notice our "1" side dice keep 'dying out'?

You'll notice that our number of "6" side dice keeps slowly increasing?

This is evolution.... sort of... with dice.

Graves' post brought this to my attention:


Mutations (the genetic changes required to advance from one species to another) are exceptionally rare.
HUH?! no, they really, really are not. you carry tons of them in your cells right now. each of us does.

from some of my fall semester class notes:

Given that the adult human body has somewhere between between 10 and 50 trillion (10^12) cells, there are approximately 43-45 cell divisions between the fertilized egg and the adult human (2^43 is approximately 10 trillion). Assuming 15 trillion cells, if each cell carried 3 independent mutations it would add up to a total of 45 trillion somatic mutations.

However, not all somatic mutations are independent. Mutations which happen early in development are propagated to many progeny cells while mutations which occur late in development are shared by very few cells. If there are only three mutations total per cell in the 45 cell divisions in the
development of a human, the mutation rate is approximately one new mutation every 15 cell divisions. It takes 30 trillion cell divisions to give rise to 15 trillion cells, so a total of (30/15) = 2 trillion independent mutation events would account for the three mutations seen per cell. Given that there are only ~13 million minutes in 25 years, the average number of mutations per minute over a 25 year old's life is ~350,000.

now, granted, this is averaged over trillions of cells, but it certainly disproves your theory that mutations are rare.

Arguments against intelligent design sound just like the arguments people make against evolution. One side says, God doesn't exist, so intelligent design can't happen. The other side says, God exists, so it can't be "random" (yes, I know evolution is not exactly random). Both are ignorant of the fact, that the design can be intelligent and evolution could still have occurred. I can place a bunch of structures in a petri dish and knowing which structures I've placed and the conditions I've placed them in, predict the outcome. Did I actively control the outcome? Not really. Did the reactions still occur? Yup. But, was there intelligence behind the reactions? Well, I'd like to think so (some people here might argue that if it was me that started it...). The point is that not all theories of intelligent design necessary say that evolution didn't occur. The theory by the originator of this thread amounts to ID. ID naysayers haven't disproved the existence of God, so you can't combat ID with God doesn't exist. ID supporters certainly haven't disproved evolution so that's a nonsense argument as well. If you believe, like ID people often do, that the universe is decreasing in entropy as a system, then there must be some source preventing the natural maximizing of entropy , in this case, from a divine source. The only way to discount this would be to prove that the universe is maximizing its entropy. Try doing that without first saying God cannot exist.

Strawman... you are making up your own version of the thing.

Arguments against ID argue that it is 'unscientific' to ASSUME that there is a god - since it isn't provable in the 'experiment' (if you will), so how can you figure it into your observation?

Arguments against ID don't say there IS NO GOD, they just say that there is no evidence, thus, no reason to just assume it in your 'theory'.

That is how science works. If ID isn't claimed as scientific, and admits that it is theological - then there is no conflict.

Alright, I'm not quite sure if I have the power to get back into a tough and intense scientific debate.
But I will anyway; so, to open myself up to flame and attacks of all sorts, I will say now that I believe what is true: I believe that God, Father of Christ the Lord Jesus, created the universe, and about 6100 years ago, mankind sinned, and fell eternally away from him.

That's my belief, and I am prepared to defend it to the death. However, please excuse a bit of time 'twixt my posts because I am currently on a roll with my (not so short) short story.

Any intelligent debates against me are very welcome, I enjoy that sort of thing. And I would greatly appreciate an update on the current matter of discussion.

(a) The ID that they want to teach in schools *does* say that evolution did not happen. It's kind of funny, since they are by definition limiting the power of the creator.


Just responding to this one... but this is right in the middle of a whole bunch of excellent posts by Dempublicents1.

Excellent work.

The reason I responded to this one, is that this is one that always confuses me...

Why is it that some Christians argue that their 'god' is infinite, and omnipotent... and yet:

>>>Also argue that he created the world only a few thousand years ago - which doesn't seem all that infinite.... there are trees nearly that old, right?

Hard to base 'infinity' on such a small amount of time... it's like a mayfly being born in the morning, and proclaiming by lunchtime that he is immortal...

>>>Also argue that he created all the lifeforms (pretty much) as they are now... which doesn't strike me as very omnipotent... given ALL the possibilities... isn't it a little clumsy to assume that we are models squeezed into clay?

Some Christians have such two-dimensional, and limited, views of the 'majesty' of 'god'.

Alright, I'm not quite sure if I have the power to get back into a tough and intense scientific debate.
But I will anyway; so, to open myself up to flame and attacks of all sorts, I will say now that I believe what is true: I believe that God, Father of Christ the Lord Jesus, created the universe, and about 6100 years ago, mankind sinned, and fell eternally away from him.

That's my belief, and I am prepared to defend it to the death. However, please excuse a bit of time 'twixt my posts because I am currently on a roll with my (not so short) short story.

Any intelligent debates against me are very welcome, I enjoy that sort of thing. And I would greatly appreciate an update on the current matter of discussion.
Prove it.

Listen, I will only explain this a limited number of times. The evidence is the same, the interpretation is diffrent.

Not true.

"Creationists" (meaning Christian Creationists) include the scripture as part of their evidence... and have even been known to exclude any other evidence that contradicts that 'divine' evidence.

Just responding to this one... but this is right in the middle of a whole bunch of excellent posts by Dempublicents1.

Excellent work.

The reason I responded to this one, is that this is one that always confuses me...

Why is it that some Christians argue that their 'god' is infinite, and omnipotent... and yet:

>>>Also argue that he created the world only a few thousand years ago - which doesn't seem all that infinite.... there are trees nearly that old, right?

Hard to base 'infinity' on such a small amount of time... it's like a mayfly being born in the morning, and proclaiming by lunchtime that he is immortal...

>>>Also argue that he created all the lifeforms (pretty much) as they are now... which doesn't strike me as very omnipotent... given ALL the possibilities... isn't it a little clumsy to assume that we are models squeezed into clay?

Some Christians have such two-dimensional, and limited, views of the 'majesty' of 'god'.

yeah, that seems odd to me too. one of the most beautiful and amazing aspects of the genome is its ability to mutate and yet survive, to repair and revise itself...but for some reason there are religious people arguing that such beauty cannot exist because it is inconsistent with an all-powerful Creator. odd folk.

Prove it.

You haven't been to my last arguments, so, with the most patience I can muster, I will tell you that I cannot prove it in such a way that shall convince you from your, undoubtably, secular opinion. I can only defend the Scripture to the best of my abilities.

Not true.

"Creationists" (meaning Christian Creationists) include the scripture as part of their evidence... and have even been known to exclude any other evidence that contradicts that 'divine' evidence.

That makes sense. It would be wrong to try to fit God into science, for that puts science above God. However, if you put science into God, you can see remarkable results.

You haven't been to my last arguments, so, with the most patience I can muster, I will tell you that I cannot prove it in such a way that shall convince you from your, undoubtably, secular opinion. I can only defend the Scripture to the best of my abilities.
If you can't prove (prove isn't even that high of a barrier, we aren't asking for mathmatical proofs, mearly something that shows that it is highly likely that your view of events occured) it (or even support it), then it has no reason being in a rational debate based on facts...nor in any classroom.

yeah, that seems odd to me too. one of the most beautiful and amazing aspects of the genome is its ability to mutate and yet survive, to repair and revise itself...but for some reason there are religious people arguing that such beauty cannot exist because it is inconsistent with an all-powerful Creator. odd folk.

I am apart from the herd, so I will tell you that I disagree with the close-minded Creationists who love their fun-fact textbooks.

I fully support the theory of evolution, but not in the way you might think. After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, I've understood that his original theory had nothing to do with what we think of evolution today. Darwin suggested that animals can adpt to their verying conditions, which makes perfect sense with the strategies of animal breeding and plant genetic mutation (polyploidy, a fatal condition in humans, is often forced upon plant seeds, which makes their fruit jucier and bigger). Say we were habitually naked, and we moved into Alaska. Without the protection of clothing, our own miraculously adapting genes would create the overgrowth of hair on our bodies to protect our body warmth.

There, I've stated my opinion in more detail, and you're welcome to argue with me about it.

If you can't prove (prove isn't even that high of a barrier, we aren't asking for mathmatical proofs, mearly something that shows that it is highly likely that your view of events occured) it (or even support it), then it has no reason being in a rational debate based on facts...nor in any classroom.

It belongs in a debate because it is the truth, and thus can be adequately defended. However, since it is a truth based upon faith, then it cannot be proven in the strict borders of mathematics.

Ordered universe - Again, they usually exaggerate the argument with the whole blowing up nails and wood and getting a shed. The point is that they feel there is too much order in the universe to follow the second law if you think the universe is a closed system. Thus they think the universe is not a closed system and introduce the supernatural (in this case existing outside of what we consider the universe to be) variable. That this variable is sentient can not be proven but it certainly is as viable as any other idea of what that variable might be.

Okay, but assume it's some natural phenomena and that's okay, though you also have no proof.

The big problem people are having here, is the fundamental nature of entropy.

Entropy increases or remains constant... it cannot decrease, within a closed system... right?

The problem is.... that is true OVERALL... and yet people are trying to assert it for every instant, in every case.

Water molecules are disorded... this is true... but, occasionally, as the currents in water move the molecules... they will temporarily become 'more ordered', in small areas, for short periods of time... the they will become disordered again.

Human life is denial of entropy... but it is only temporary, we become more ordered (because our ordered form is 'efficient'), but we still tend towards increased entropy EVENTUALLY.

I am apart from the herd, so I will tell you that I disagree with the close-minded Creationists who love their fun-fact textbooks.

I fully support the theory of evolution, but not in the way you might think. After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, I've understood that his original theory had nothing to do with what we think of evolution today. Darwin suggested that animals can adpt to their verying conditions, which makes perfect sense with the strategies of animal breeding and plant genetic mutation (polyploidy, a fatal condition in humans, is often forced upon plant seeds, which makes their fruit jucier and bigger). Say we were habitually naked, and we moved into Alaska. Without the protection of clothing, our own miraculously adapting genes would create the overgrowth of hair on our bodies to protect our body warmth.

There, I've stated my opinion in more detail, and you're welcome to argue with me about it.
how do you see that as having "nothing to do with what we think of evolution today"? the idea of natural selection giving rise to adapted population phenotypes is pretty much the heart of modern evolutionary theory.

It belongs in a debate because it is the truth, and thus can be adequately defended. However, since it is a truth based upon faith, then it cannot be proven in the strict borders of mathematics.
Assertion does not make fact any more then it did back in the 1000's when people asserted the world was flat...

how do you see that as having "nothing to do with what we think of evolution today"? the idea of natural selection giving rise to adapted population phenotypes is pretty much the heart of modern evolutionary theory.

Two magic words, a difference of one syllable: macroevolution, and microevolution.
Microevolution: animals adapt as according to their environment, so that they will survive the climate they live in.
Macroevolution: In order to adapt, animals can, over a very, very long period of time, will actually make offspring of a new species.

If you say, "I support evolution" to any creationist, their neck hairs will stand up and blood will rush to their face in an angry fume. It bugs me, because what people think evolution is, is that mankind grew from bacterium, primorial ooze reminescent of McDonald's grease. What it really means, to me anyway, is that animals adapt in small ways according to their environment. Cold = More hair grown. A synonym to my 'evolution' would be 'adaptation.'

Assertion does not make fact any more then it did back in the 1000's when people asserted the world was flat...

Exactly, but the world was round, wasn't it?

You clearly assert that the universe is without an omni-"the typical three words" Creator. However, that doesn't make it true, does it?

No, really you are saying start with the premise that God doesn't exist, thus...

Not at all... just DON'T assume that 'god' DOES exist, for the sake of observation.

When you flip a coin, you assume that it will land one way, or the other, right?

You DON'T assume that goblins will steal it in midair, do you?

And, the reason you don't - is because there is no evidence observable to prove that goblins MIGHT steal your coin... or evenhave ANY impact on your 'observation'.

Science doesn't judge evolution or creation in terms of 'goblins', because they are not a scientifically observable phenomenon... but that doesn't eman goblins DON'T exist... science just doesn't assume anything it can't observe and repeat.

The same with god. Many scientists are Christians.... but their faith shouldn't affect their 'science'...

Neither can the Big Bang because the fundamental basis of it is that some sort of preuniverse "atom" existed, but no longer exists. Test that.

Strawman... where did you get the idea that the 'Big Bang' theory must have some sort of pre-universe atom?

You construct your own versions of your opposition, just so you can disprove them...

Strawman... where did you get the idea that the 'Big Bang' theory must have some sort of pre-universe atom?

You construct your own versions of your opposition, just so you can disprove them...

Actually, to my understanding, the Big Bang theory is that a tiny ball of energy, no larger than an atom came into being, then expanded with such force that it would seem like an explosion, thus the name "Big Bang."
At is expanded, to 20,000 light years in less then a second, it, also the universe, began to gain a vacuum.
In concordance with Einstien's E=MC^2, a vacuum that constitutes the universe we live in is not a true vacuum, but an endless sea of matter, subatomic and atoms, that have too little energy to exist for a time detectable by scientists. So, a shock of energy in our vaccum, with enough of it, would create matter in an amount in inverse proportion to the amount of energy.
The Big Bang was all the energy in our current universe, what is both in the form of matter and energy today, except that it was all energy back then. It expanded, as I said, and the vacuum expanded with it. The energy, as I said in before paragraph, turned into matter as soon as possible, and it just went on from there.
Apparently, quite a bit of the matter in the universe was created in the single second that the universe expanded from the energetic size of an atom to a 20,000 light year wide space, with as much matter as energy.

That makes sense. It would be wrong to try to fit God into science, for that puts science above God. However, if you put science into God, you can see remarkable results.

So you actually argue that the correct way to carry out a 'scientific' study, would be to discard any evidence that could be seen to conflict with scripture?

Perhaps you don't understand what 'science' is...

So you actually argue that the correct way to carry out a 'scientific' study, would be to discard any evidence that could be seen to conflict with scripture?

Perhaps you don't understand what 'science' is...

No, a scientific study would be a scientific study. However, in a debate such as the one we have, or in the everyday questions that appear in my head, I should not try to fit God into science, but science into God.

It belongs in a debate because it is the truth, and thus can be adequately defended. However, since it is a truth based upon faith, then it cannot be proven in the strict borders of mathematics.

This is a debate about the scientific justification of ID and/or Creationism.

If you argue that theological 'evidence' doesn't need to hold to the same rigours as scientific 'evidence'... and that such 'evidence' is admissable in this debate... then you are actually arguing theology.

And, this isn't a debate on 'theology', it is about 'science' (the scientific justification, remember)... so your point has no relevence to THIS debate.

No, a scientific study would be a scientific study. However, in a debate such as the one we have, or in the everyday questions that appear in my head, I should not try to fit God into science, but science into God.

I agree - god should not be fitted into science.

And, with that... there is no place for 'Intelligent Design' or 'Creationism' in the domain of science.

This is a debate about the scientific justification of ID and/or Creationism.

If you argue that theological 'evidence' doesn't need to hold to the same rigours as scientific 'evidence'... and that such 'evidence' is admissable in this debate... then you are actually arguing theology.

And, this isn't a debate on 'theology', it is about 'science' (the scientific justification, remember)... so your point has no relevence to THIS debate.

No, no, no, nonononononono. I say that I can defend the idea of Intelligent Design, Creationism, with the science you want, and the defense needed depends on the argument brought up. I can defend it's validity, but I cannot prove it is true. If the defense suffices, then, by all means, let us continue on to the debate.

I never said it was a debate on theology. I just said that I can defend the Bible. When did I say ANYTHING about theology.

And, one final thing I can say, I hope that this debate doesn't descend into a flame war, and I pray fervently that more with the viewpoints I have will come here, and argue intelligently.

I agree - god should not be fitted into science.

And, with that... there is no place for 'Intelligent Design' or 'Creationism' in the domain of science.

You're twisting my words. I mean that God should not be conformed to science, but science, which is the major problem, should be conformed to fit into God's word. Seeing as it is what is meant to be conformed.

Actually, to my understanding, the Big Bang theory is that a tiny ball of energy, no larger than an atom came into being, then expanded with such force that it would seem like an explosion, thus the name "Big Bang."
At is expanded, to 20,000 light years in less then a second, it, also the universe, began to gain a vacuum.
In concordance with Einstien's E=MC^2, a vacuum that constitutes the universe we live in is not a true vacuum, but an endless sea of matter, subatomic and atoms, that have too little energy to exist for a time detectable by scientists. So, a shock of energy in our vaccum, with enough of it, would create matter in an amount in inverse proportion to the amount of energy.
The Big Bang was all the energy in our current universe, what is both in the form of matter and energy today, except that it was all energy back then. It expanded, as I said, and the vacuum expanded with it. The energy, as I said in before paragraph, turned into matter as soon as possible, and it just went on from there.
Apparently, quite a bit of the matter in the universe was created in the single second that the universe expanded from the energetic size of an atom to a 20,000 light year wide space, with as much matter as energy.

That's one 'theory'.

Others suggest that the 'kinetic' universe is just the inevitable manifestation of a 'potential' for a universe...

Or that the current universe is born from the remains of a previous incarnation crashing in on itself...

You're twisting my words. I mean that God should not be conformed to science, but science, which is the major problem, should be conformed to fit into God's word. Seeing as it is what is meant to be conformed.

There is but one god, and his name is Allah.

Don't you agree?

Of course not... you are arguing 'christian' creationism, aren't you?

So - why should the non-religious institution of 'science', be forged into the image of YOUR religion, and no other?

That's one 'theory'.

Others suggest that the 'kinetic' universe is just the inevitable manifestation of a 'potential' for a universe...

Or that the current universe is born from the remains of a previous incarnation crashing in on itself...

I've seen that second theory. It's called the Big Crunch, but, apparently, the universe would not continue on like that for eternity, as it would become 'tired,' so such a pattern would eventually fall apart and there would be no more Big Bangs.

The first one, is that the one that has to do with the string theory, that there was a universe before the universe?

No, no, no, nonononononono. I say that I can defend the idea of Intelligent Design, Creationism, with the science you want, and the defense needed depends on the argument brought up. I can defend it's validity, but I cannot prove it is true. If the defense suffices, then, by all means, let us continue on to the debate.

I never said it was a debate on theology. I just said that I can defend the Bible. When did I say ANYTHING about theology.

And, one final thing I can say, I hope that this debate doesn't descend into a flame war, and I pray fervently that more with the viewpoints I have will come here, and argue intelligently.

It's fairly simple, really. If you are accepting the mechinism of science, in order to prove the logical and scientific validity of the 'theories' of ID or creationism - then you have to be constrained by the 'rules' of science.

If you chose to apply a different code, a different set of rules for the debate - then you are NOT arguing scientifically.

And, you can never prove ID as valid scientifically, WITHOUT arguing it scientifically.

If all your evidence is scriptural, then your argument is one of faith... and that makes your debate 'theological', rather than 'scientific'

There is but one god, and his name is Allah.

Don't you agree?

Of course not... you are arguing 'christian' creationism, aren't you?

So - why should the non-religious institution of 'science', be forged into the image of YOUR religion, and no other?

If we can argue Creationism, by any intelligent God, then we can start another debate on which religion, which Creator, is the true one. And I have a good argument for that one, too.

It's fairly simple, really. If you are accepting the mechinism of science, in order to prove the logical and scientific validity of the 'theories' of ID or creationism - then you have to be constrained by the 'rules' of science.

If you chose to apply a different code, a different set of rules for the debate - then you are NOT arguing scientifically.

And, you can never prove ID as valid scientifically, WITHOUT arguing it scientifically.

If all your evidence is scriptural, then your argument is one of faith... and that makes your debate 'theological', rather than 'scientific'

Hoping that you understand what I mean, I am not going to use Scripture to prove my argument unless I can validate Scripture to you. If necessary, I will argue scientifically, because that is our playing field. But my prime goal should be to validate the Bible, then many arguments can be adressed from there on.

Exactly, but the world was round, wasn't it?

You clearly assert that the universe is without an omni-"the typical three words" Creator. However, that doesn't make it true, does it?
Except you can prove that the world isn't flat, you can't prove the existence of a god...

If we can argue Creationism, by any intelligent God, then we can start another debate on which religion, which Creator, is the true one. And I have a good argument for that one, too.

Oh boy, picking between religions. I can't WAIT to hear the evidence in the debate.

I've seen that second theory. It's called the Big Crunch, but, apparently, the universe would not continue on like that for eternity, as it would become 'tired,' so such a pattern would eventually fall apart and there would be no more Big Bangs.

The first one, is that the one that has to do with the string theory, that there was a universe before the universe?

First: since all energy remains within our universe... (it's borders being, in effect, defined by the frontiers of the energy within it), how could the 'cycle' of universes become tired? It is bad science to assume a loss of energy from such a system.

Second: Perhaps such a 'cycle' would eventually become tired. How is that relevent? Surely, the scope of each incarnation, and the number of iterations before such a 'death' would finally arrive, pretty much equates to the eternal, anyway?

Third: The other theory wasn't about a universe before this... it was about the POTENTIAL for a universe before this.

A little like... the conversion of 'potential energy' to 'kinetic energy' when a book is released.... all the 'potential energy' in the book becomes the 'kinetic energy' of motion towards the table, when you release it.

So - whatever our 'Big Bang' is... it would be nothing more than the 'face' of the conversion of an entire universe worth of 'Potential', into an entire universe full of 'Kinetic'.

Oh boy, picking between religions. I can't WAIT to hear the evidence in the debate.

That is a debate for later, right now, we are arguing 'twixt the worship of science and the worship of a God, specifically one that MADE the universe.

First: since all energy remains within our universe... (it's borders being, in effect, defined by the frontiers of the energy within it), how could the 'cycle' of universes become tired? It is bad science to assume a loss of energy from such a system.

Second: Perhaps such a 'cycle' would eventually become tired. How is that relevent? Surely, the scope of each incarnation, and the number of iterations before such a 'death' would finally arrive, pretty much equates to the eternal, anyway?

Third: The other theory wasn't about a universe before this... it was about the POTENTIAL for a universe before this.

A little like... the conversion of 'potential energy' to 'kinetic energy' when a book is released.... all the 'potential energy' in the book becomes the 'kinetic energy' of motion towards the table, when you release it.

So - whatever our 'Big Bang' is... it would be nothing more than the 'face' of the conversion of an entire universe worth of 'Potential', into an entire universe full of 'Kinetic'.

An argument 'twixt two atheist views on the creation of the universe is for another time, another place. Choose a viewpoint you like on whatever side of the spectrum you want, God or science, and settle with it, defend it, attack it, whatever you like.

If we can argue Creationism, by any intelligent God, then we can start another debate on which religion, which Creator, is the true one. And I have a good argument for that one, too.

Feel free to start that debate, if you wish.

But, that isn't THIS debate - and you have no 'scientific' evidence that proves YOUR god, in the context of this debate... and that's pretty much the point.

Except you can prove that the world isn't flat, you can't prove the existence of a god...

Ugh. Not this again.
Nor can you prove that the universe was made by a cosmic coincidence. But, like I do on God's behalf, you can argue it well.

Actually, I'm seeing something here. If science is one side of the spectrum, and God the other, then only the most virtuous and the bravest debater would use the other side to argue against it. However, you expect me to do exactly that, but don't want me to use that side, and it would be extravagantly unreasonable for me to expect you to use Scripture to disprove the Bible, for several reasons.

If we cannot find a neutral ground where we can both fight, then, if I am to use science to defend my position, then I am also prepared to use Scripture.

Hoping that you understand what I mean, I am not going to use Scripture to prove my argument unless I can validate Scripture to you. If necessary, I will argue scientifically, because that is our playing field. But my prime goal should be to validate the Bible, then many arguments can be adressed from there on.

Again, if you want to create such a thread - feel free, and I will no doubt join you there... but that isn't THIS debate.

THIS debate is pretty much about whether or not ID and Creationism are valid, in a scientific context.

'Validating the bible' isn't THIS debate, and is 'scientifically' impossible, also.

Feel free to start that debate, if you wish.

But, that isn't THIS debate - and you have no 'scientific' evidence that proves YOUR god, in the context of this debate... and that's pretty much the point.

For part 2 of your post, see my last post, #457.

Now, to start the debate, I've already told you my views, now tell me yours, and, unlike you, I will try my best to argue against them.

That is a debate for later, right now, we are arguing 'twixt the worship of science and the worship of a God, specifically one that MADE the universe.

Not at all.

I personally worship, neither.

And, THAT topic would be off-topic here, anyway.

Ugh. Not this again.
Nor can you prove that the universe was made by a cosmic coincidence. But, like I do on God's behalf, you can argue it well.

Actually, I'm seeing something here. If science is one side of the spectrum, and God the other, then only the most virtuous and the bravest debater would use the other side to argue against it. However, you expect me to do exactly that, but don't want me to use that side, and it would be extravagantly unreasonable for me to expect you to use Scripture to disprove the Bible, for several reasons.

If we cannot find a neutral ground where we can both fight, then, if I am to use science to defend my position, then I am also prepared to use Scripture.
No proof, only evidence. The evidence for the Big Bang far outweighs your (non scripture, which quite frankly is meaningless in scientific worlds as they have no proof behind them) evidence...

Actually, huge dramatic discoveries occur all the time that radically change the theory. A commonly held theory was that mammals and birds evolved seperately from dinosaurs, only recently did scientist begin to believe that birds are a descendant of dinosaurs (biologists correct me where I'm wrong). Regardless, many now believe that dinosaurs evolved rather than dying out. Certainly not a widely held belief fifty years ago.

It has been known for very long time (1870's, Archaeopteryx) that birds evolved from reptiles. And the possible ancestry had been narrowed down to three valid possibilities: basal Archosaurs, primitive Crocodylians or theropod Dinosaurs. And the recent feathered Dinosaur findings proove the latter one. Besides, anything else would be genetically and morphologically absurd, therefor must be valid. (that's what i mean).
Again i'm refering to Michael J. Benton - Vertebrate Paleontology, it's good read in that context :)

Not at all.

I personally worship, neither.

And, THAT topic would be off-topic here, anyway.

All men worship something, for most atheists, it is science. For others, agnostics, maybe, it could be everything from a superstar to themselves to money.

No proof, only evidence. The evidence for the Big Bang far outweighs your (non scripture, which quite frankly is meaningless in scientific worlds as they have no proof behind them) evidence...

Please, state your evidence to me, evidence that discredits my theories and supports yours, and I will figure out for myself weather it is accurate, and deliver a rebuttal.

All men worship something, for most atheists, it is science. For others, agnostics, maybe, it could be everything from a superstar to themselves to money.
You are SO wrong. I worship nothing. I respect science, but I don't bow down before a portrait of Pasteur...

And ooh, gender specific language... *pounces*

It is my assumption that nobody will read this, as no one in their right minds would actually read 600 posts. I also suspect that what I will say has already been said 20 times in the past posts, but I really only got through the first 20, so I don't know.
However, this issue is hard to approach because there is not really any evidence either way. All scientific theories in this area are assumptions based upon logical hypotheses that fit a set of data, and have not actually been proven to apply. In this area, I think it is a bit of a foolish thing for laymen of science to say that all their theories are "proven"; as if it is not just regurgitated from a 20 page chapter in a Bio 12 text; as they live under the illusion that they have actually read "The Origin of Species". They, themselves, have never proven anything. The fact is that none of these things are actually observable, and so cannot really fit properly under the category of science, at least not so well as quantam theory and molecular biology do. The main problem, of course, being that if you go off track just once, you cannot ever correct that mistake and you continue in the wrong direction. If anybody believes they have scientifically 'observed' the big bang, they are lunatics. Which is not at all to say it did not happen or it did. Perhaps there is a theory that fits all the facts better, and we are just not genius enough to discover it, or think it through. I think that an agnostic biologist at the American Museum of Natural History put it best when he said, "We know that species reproduce and we know that there are different species now than there were 100 million years ago. Everything else is propoganda."
As it is all logical deduction, there is no reason why logical arguments from the other side should be considered. (It seemed to be the general consensus that nothing outside of strict science, including metaphysics and philosophy, as if anything is proven to be real.) Anyway, there are arguments that DO make sense in that area of thought, such as (in the proper context) Aquinas' (from Aristotle) Prime Mover Argument, which argues that since everything in the physical world is caused (we exist because we were born, humanity exists because it evolved, the first life exists because of a combination of gases from the atmosphere, the atmosphere exist because matter and energy, matter and energy exist because of the big bang, etc...) (none of which is neccesarily true, just for the sake of emphasis) anyway, since everything which exists has a cause, there must be a first cause which does not exist inside the physical universe, therefore God.

Ugh. Not this again.
Nor can you prove that the universe was made by a cosmic coincidence. But, like I do on God's behalf, you can argue it well.

Actually, I'm seeing something here. If science is one side of the spectrum, and God the other, then only the most virtuous and the bravest debater would use the other side to argue against it. However, you expect me to do exactly that, but don't want me to use that side, and it would be extravagantly unreasonable for me to expect you to use Scripture to disprove the Bible, for several reasons.

If we cannot find a neutral ground where we can both fight, then, if I am to use science to defend my position, then I am also prepared to use Scripture.

I disagree with your fundamental premise... I know (for a fact) that there are people debating ON THIS THREAD, who are both 'scientists' and 'Christians'.

All men worship something, for most atheists, it is science. For others, agnostics, maybe, it could be everything from a superstar to themselves to money.

Prove it.

I think you in error.

I worship nothing. I believe nothing.

In order to assert otherwise.... you have to offer some evidence.

Otherwise, all you have is hollow rhetoric.

You are SO wrong. I worship nothing. I respect science, but I don't bow down before a portrait of Pasteur...

And ooh, gender specific language... *pounces*

Ignoring the 2nd part, I will tell you that you serve something, right now. I say it with absolute certainty, you may not bow down before something, but, do you have a poster of something n your room, maybe, that you look at all the time? Is there a website you feel obsessed to visit? Do you find it difficult to give away something and are greedy to obtain more of it? For THAT is worship, my friend.

Ignoring the 2nd part, I will tell you that you serve something, right now. I say it with absolute certainty, you may not bow down before something, but, do you have a poster of something n your room, maybe, that you look at all the time? Is there a website you feel obsessed to visit? Do you find it difficult to give away something and are greedy to obtain more of it? For THAT is worship, my friend.
wor·ship Pronunciation Key (wûrshp)
n.

1.
1. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
2. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
2. Ardent devotion; adoration.

There are two different kinds of worship, i.e the religious sense, and the loose adoration sense. You can't mix the two together. I adore y boyfriend, but I don't think he's a deity.

Sorry, you're still wrong.

I disagree with your fundamental premise... I know (for a fact) that there are people debating ON THIS THREAD, who are both 'scientists' and 'Christians'.

You can be a Christian scientist, good for you. However, the borderline is crossed when you begin supporting the theories that go against the very ideals you believe in. That is the side of science, the other side is the side of Creationism, defending, if neccesary from a scientific viewpoint, that God made the universe.

I, myself, plan to be a scientist as well. Something involving the study of deep space, cosmology, as it's known.

You are SO wrong. I worship nothing. I respect science, but I don't bow down before a portrait of Pasteur...

And ooh, gender specific language... *pounces*

Perhaps our enlightened friend means that women are immune to such blandishments?

Maybe not, eh?

wor·ship Pronunciation Key (wûrshp)
n.

1.
1. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
2. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
2. Ardent devotion; adoration.

There are two different kinds of worship, i.e the religious sense, and the loose adoration sense. You can't mix the two together. I adore y boyfriend, but I don't think he's a deity.

Sorry, you're still wrong.

Nice that you used a definition in your argument, but it doesn't help you much.
Def. 1: Reverent love and devotion accorded a diety, AN IDOL, OR A SACRED OBJECT.

Fervently loving money would be an example of worship. Anything you place above God Himself is, quite literally, worship. However, seeing as you do not believe in God, you clearly worship many things of material, or maybe even yourself.

It is hardiwired into every sentient human being to worship, an instinct made by God for His glory. Without God to worship, people find themselves, even if they deny it, worshiping, adoring, money, food, gaming, technology, science, sex, even themselves. And you know that as a fact, no matter how much you may deny it. What is it for you? Maybe it's some sort of drug?

You can be a Christian scientist, good for you. However, the borderline is crossed when you begin supporting the theories that go against the very ideals you believe in. That is the side of science, the other side is the side of Creationism, defending, if neccesary from a scientific viewpoint, that God made the universe.

I, myself, plan to be a scientist as well. Something involving the study of deep space, cosmology, as it's known.

Creationism and ID do not 'defend the idea that god made the universe', they defend the literal interpretation of the bible - and deny the possibility of truth in evolution.

Many christians believe that god created the universe, THROUGH the mechanisms of 'Big Bang' and 'Evolution'.

Perhaps our enlightened friend means that women are immune to such blandishments?

Maybe not, eh?

No, not quite, I say 'men' as a shorter term for 'mankind.'
The word 'men,' in the context I use it (see above), is also much more adaptable than mankind.

Nice that you used a definition in your argument, but it doesn't help you much.
Def. 1: Reverent love and devotion accorded a diety, AN IDOL, OR A SACRED OBJECT.

Fervently loving money would be an example of worship. Anything you place above God Himself is, quite literally, worship. However, seeing as you do not believe in God, you clearly worship many things of material, or maybe even yourself.

It is hardiwired into every sentient human being to worship, an instinct made by God for His glory. Without God to worship, people find themselves, even if they deny it, worshiping, adoring, money, food, gaming, technology, science, sex, even themselves. And you know that as a fact, no matter how much you may deny it. What is it for you? Maybe it's some sort of drug?
Evidence please?

I thought not.

No, not quite, I say 'men' as a shorter term for 'mankind.'
The word 'men,' in the context I use it (see above), is also much more adaptable than mankind.
How about humankind?

It is hardiwired into every sentient human being to worship...

My personal opinion, is that this is rubbish.

Have you any evidence to back up such an outrageous claim?

Creationism and ID do not 'defend the idea that god made the universe', they defend the literal interpretation of the bible - and deny the possibility of truth in evolution.

Many christians believe that god created the universe, THROUGH the mechanisms of 'Big Bang' and 'Evolution'.

Not many, few. That is a minority belief, and I have only met a grand total of two (out of some two hundred Christians) who support that theory.
That idea is stemmed off of the verse that says "A thousand years is a day unto the lord." Combined with the whole thing that God made the universe in 6 days. Since the hebrew word for that verse actually means 'a long period of time,' they argue that evolution was used by God to make the universe. I disagree vehemently. The verse "A thousand years a day," is a direct reference to the comparision of the eternal being of God compared with our meager lifespans. I looked it up.

Hard-wired, eh?

That's illogical and stupid. If you want to say something, kindly don't make it as irreverent as that.

Please, state your evidence to me, evidence that discredits my theories and supports yours, and I will figure out for myself weather it is accurate, and deliver a rebuttal.
You have no evidence.

However, I'd like to point you to the ratios of the isotopes of the hydrogen atom.

How about humankind?

Yes, fine, whatever. I am not being sexist. Please stop that.

Evidence please?

I thought not.

Not solid evidence, that can be taken from a scientific test, but I can tell you that I find a great joy in worshipping and glorifying God.
Also, I can garuntee, with absolute certainty despite the fact that I know nothing about you, that you find yourself inexorably drawn to adore some object. It could even be another human (that extra typing is just for you, preebles). If you place it above yourself, it is worship. It fulfills you, it gives you a sense of calm to put something above yourself.

Otherwise you could end up like Hitler.

You have no evidence.

However, I'd like to point you to the ratios of the isotopes of the hydrogen atom.

The ratios of the isotopes of the hydrogen atom?
I am familiar with the isotopes of H.
H-2 Deuterium, one extra neutron.
H-3 Tritium, two extra neutrons, extremely radioacive.
Both are used in nuclear fusion.

What about their ratios?

Not many, few. That is a minority belief, and I have only met a grand total of two (out of some two hundred Christians) who support that theory.
That idea is stemmed off of the verse that says "A thousand years is a day unto the lord." Combined with the whole thing that God made the universe in 6 days. Since the hebrew word for that verse actually means 'a long period of time,' they argue that evolution was used by God to make the universe. I disagree vehemently. The verse "A thousand years a day," is a direct reference to the comparision of the eternal being of God compared with our meager lifespans. I looked it up.

Perhaps it is only a minority belief where you live?

I have met literally thousands of christians, and I would say that the majority of them have believed a less than absolute interpretation of the Genesis creation-story.

In fact, it wasn't until I moved to the mountains of Georgia, that I first encountered more than a handful of people that took the Genesis account ABSOLUTELY literally.

Actually, also - while we are discussing the bible verses - I believe your interpretation to be incorrect.

Second Peter 3:8 says "...one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day".

But - in the context of Second Peter 3:9, this is obviously about the fact that there is always time for repentance: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance".

Not solid evidence, that can be taken from a scientific test, but I can tell you that I find a great joy in worshipping and glorifying God.
Also, I can garuntee, with absolute certainty despite the fact that I know nothing about you, that you find yourself inexorably drawn to adore some object. It could even be another human (that extra typing is just for you, preebles). If you place it above yourself, it is worship. It fulfills you, it gives you a sense of calm to put something above yourself.

Otherwise you could end up like Hitler.

Ah, just another mindless drone you are. Put something above you and enjoy being told what to do!

The ratios of the isotopes of the hydrogen atom?
I am familiar with the isotopes of H.
H-2 Deuterium, one extra neutron.
H-3 Tritium, two extra neutrons, extremely radioacive.
Both are used in nuclear fusion.

What about their ratios?
Roughly, how they just happen to fall in line with the ratios prodicted by the reactions occuring during the opening minutes of the big bang...


Same with the amount of He-4 in the universe.

Perhaps it is only a minority belief where you live?

I have met literally thousands of christians, and I would say that the majority of them have believed a less than absolute interpretation of the Genesis creation-story.

In fact, it wasn't until I moved to the mountains of Georgia, that I first encountered more than a handful of people that took the Genesis account ABSOLUTELY literally.

Actually, also - while we are discussing the bible verses - I believe your interpretation to be incorrect.

Second Peter 3:8 says "...one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day".

But - in the context of Second Peter 3:9, this is obviously about the fact that there is always time for repentance: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance".

You've not exactly delivered much of an argument, if it's an argument at all.
The Bible, as I see it, is very clear when it requires interpretation. In Genesis chapter 1, it clearly does not. It says 6 days, it means 6 days.

If insisting that evolution could have been part of Creation was your argument, I have delivered a rebutal, and await your response. Bump, if you will.

Continuing, though, I believe that theory to be a conformist ideal, trying to make the peace 'twixt the two sides by including both. It is a haven for those who do not want to cause dissent between them and their friends or relatives. However, it doesn't quite matter how long the universe was created over in this debate, only weather or not it WAS created. Regardless, I will be sure to ask God how long it took him when I get to heaven.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's 10:30, i've been up since six, and I'm trying to finish my short story (Creative writing homework) and this debate is only distracting me. So, I am about to leave now, and adress any arguments put in place before this post, none after.

Ah, just another mindless drone you are. Put something above you and enjoy being told what to do!

It is an instinct we all have, to put something above you, above all other things in your life. Not saying there aren't noble things to put above yourself, like world peace and such, but God is the only thing truly meant to be worshipped, and nothing placed above him.

Just a guess, but the thing you put above all others is yourself?

Also, I can garuntee, with absolute certainty despite the fact that I know nothing about you...

You can guarantee nothing.

As you have said, yourself... you know nothing about any of the people you are debating with.

Just because you chose to 'elevate' something, doesn't mean that everyone does.

It would be folly... and probably, an example of 'pride', to suggest that you know another better than they do?

Roughly, how they just happen to fall in line with the ratios prodicted by the reactions occuring during the opening minutes of the big bang...


Same with the amount of He-4 in the universe.

Describe to me what the ratios of H and He are (what the heck does that mean), and the same about the Big Bang 'ratios.'

I will not be able to respond to your answer now, but I will upon my return, tommorrow, morning, perhaps?

It is an instinct we all have, to put something above you, above all other things in your life. Not saying there aren't noble things to put above yourself, like world peace and such, but God is the only thing truly meant to be worshipped, and nothing placed above him.

Just a guess, but the thing you put above all others is yourself?

Dear fellow, I worship nothing. There are things I respect, but I put nothing above all else.

Not solid evidence, that can be taken from a scientific test, but I can tell you that I find a great joy in worshipping and glorifying God.
Also, I can garuntee, with absolute certainty despite the fact that I know nothing about you, that you find yourself inexorably drawn to adore some object. It could even be another human (that extra typing is just for you, preebles). If you place it above yourself, it is worship. It fulfills you, it gives you a sense of calm to put something above yourself.

Otherwise you could end up like Hitler.

I didn't know that you spoke for everyone, just because you have inferiority issues.

I can safely say that I don't have the slightest interest in "worshipping" and "glorifying" anything. Just because you do, doesn't mean that everyone else does.

Ugh, the way fascists are these days...

Describe to me what the ratios of H and He are (what the heck does that mean), and the same about the Big Bang 'ratios.'

I will not be able to respond to your answer now, but I will upon my return, tommorrow, morning, perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

You've not exactly delivered much of an argument, if it's an argument at all.
The Bible, as I see it, is very clear when it requires interpretation. In Genesis chapter 1, it clearly does not. It says 6 days, it means 6 days.

If insisting that evolution could have been part of Creation was your argument, I have delivered a rebutal, and await your response. Bump, if you will.


Actually - I didn't argue evolution as part of 'creation'... I only reported that SOME people believe that. I certainly do not.

But, that's okay - because I haven't seen you rebutt that particular idea, anyway... despite your claim here?

How exactly do you think you have rebutted it?

Regarding Genesis chapter 1... I (once again) disagree with your interpretation...

Genesis 1:5 says: "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day".

'God' gives the names to 'day' and 'night', but it doesn't NECESSARILY follow that we are talking 24-hour periods, here.

Perhaps this is symbolic? 'God' creating periods of warming and light, followed by periods of cool and darkness (describing the popularly accepted scientific idea that our world has periodic thaws and freezes)?

Thus, our evening and morning of the 'first day' are freezes and thaws of the first Epoch of a great history.

I would think it arrogant to try to impose our modern 24-hour day on 'gods' creation, to be honest.

Further analysis of the Hebrew, yeilds the fact that 'day' is 'Yowm' - meaning 'a period of time', often translated as a day, a year, a lifetime - etc.

Thus - what the limited English translation yields as mere 'day', is a far more complex construct in the Hebrew - easily lending itself to interpretations of far greater scope and majesty than a meager 'single rotation of the planet'.

(It is also worth remembering that the 'day' and 'night' of Genesis 1 occur BEFORE the creation of the sun and moon - thus CANNOT be describing our 'earth rotation' chronology.

It is an instinct we all have, to put something above you, above all other things in your life. Not saying there aren't noble things to put above yourself, like world peace and such, but God is the only thing truly meant to be worshipped, and nothing placed above him.

Just a guess, but the thing you put above all others is yourself?

Again - you are a little arrogant, here.

How can you say that another person has the same 'needs' (or instincts, as you are terming them), as you?

I worship nothing.

Do you guys realize how little this debate has evolved since it began? It has lost sight of some of the best arguments on both sides, and nitpicks over details, but there hasn't been any advancement. And some of you have been here since near the beginning. I don't know how you can hold it up that long. I just dropped by to see how the debate was going. I probably won't be responding here again, for a while anyway.

Again - you are a little arrogant, here.

How can you say that another person has the same 'needs' (or instincts, as you are terming them), as you?

I worship nothing.
I think what he's trying to say is a person has the same basic needs or wants... such as food... :rolleyes:... or the want to beat people over the head with rocks to get food...

:fluffle: :mp5:

Two magic words, a difference of one syllable: macroevolution, and microevolution.
Microevolution: animals adapt as according to their environment, so that they will survive the climate they live in.

Adapting is not the same as mutating. Your body adapts to cold temperatures by constricting your arteries - there is no genetic change there. In order to *evolve*, genetic change and the selection of more efficient populations which are more efficient due to their genome is necessary.

There is absolutely *no* difference between micro- and macro-evolution other than the time scale.

Meanwhile, there is a reason that Darwin's book was called "Origin of the Species."

Adapting is not the same as mutating. Your body adapts to cold temperatures by constricting your arteries - there is no genetic change there. In order to *evolve*, genetic change and the selection of more efficient populations which are more efficient due to their genome is necessary.

There is absolutely *no* difference between micro- and macro-evolution other than the time scale.

Meanwhile, there is a reason that Darwin's book was called "Origin of the Species."
theres also a reason why Darwin wrote that if any one part of his theory was proven wrong, then it would all fall apart...


KEEP THIS POST ALIVE!!!

:fluffle: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: