Okay, I keep posing this question on other threads, and it keeps getting blotted out by petty bickering:

What makes the universe existing of its own accord any more absurd than God existing of his own accord?

As humans we create, and seeing creation assume that something must have, in turn, created us. However, religious creation stories aside, why is that necessarily the case? It seems logical to conclude that if God(s) can exist independent of creation, that the universe could also exist independent of creation.

Feel free to weigh in with thoughts other than "because the Bible said", because we already know that argument.

because energy and matter cannot be eternal

you have said that before, as though it means something.

it seems that you invented the term "eternal" applied it to something.

semantically equal to saying that mass/energy cannot be holy.

please post a link to the website that told you this so I can see what THEY were talking about.

you have said that before, as though it means something.

it seems that you invented the term "eternal" applied it to something.

semantically equal to saying that mass/energy cannot be holy.

please post a link to the website that told you this so I can see what THEY were talking about.


http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

Just did a google search.

Author: Jonathan Sarfati, Answers in Genesis. First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(1):20-22, 1998.

I thought you considered AIG to be full of crap?

Irrelevant, the question was what is the source of your quote....
And I will try to forget your comment of what you think my considerations are.

I thought you considered AIG to be full of crap?

as it is.

I was interested in WHICH crap you were attempting to regurgitate so as to be able to counter IT rather than trying to invent a meaning for what you almost said.

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

so yes, mass/energy is eternal.

2nd Law:entropy is increasing to a maximum.

introducing space/time into the mix.

this is where eternity fits in.

at the end of time, where entropy stops pushing mass/energy around, and eternity begins, all the energy is there, undiminished in its glory.

perfect, whole, and complete.

how big ?

how would "you" measure ?

space/time, take away time and space becomes meaningless, no referents.

just big enough for a partical pair to quark into existance inside of.
they would look around and see the entire energy of a universe crunched up submicroscopicly, and bored.

the difference in energy density between a universe in eternity mode and a partical that spontaniously appears in it would affect different parts of the universe DIFFERENTLY depending on distance from both particals, eh ?

a universe of energy the size of an atom with a photon/antiphoton pair showing it that it is way too small.


It defines instantly (on the Planck axis) the reflection's crash point between the photon/antiphoton entangled, i.e. the reflection's crash point between ...
www.teoriadelcampounico.it/abstract.htm



So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause?

no good reason to, with so many sufficient causes to choose from until more data comes in.

It isn't a binary set.

We haven't even begun to scratch the surface on discovering the conditions that made our universe come into being. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and all that.

What I'm trying to get at is that we're nowhere near a solution to this question, so calling it one way or the other is more than a little premature.

the fact that energy is neither created or destroyed in the physical realm implies a source of energy that transcends the universe


it sounds like you are talking about creating the universe and filling it up with "energy".

as though they were two seperate things, one that can be created, and one that must be tranported into the new creation from somewhere else.

in your language - god lit up the water and DIVIDED the water putting some up in heaven and some below.

minimum entropy.

He didn't NEED to create the water, it is everywhere, just waiting to be divided.




the fact that entropy always increases in the universe implies a highly ordered state as you look back in time (if that were possible)

half the "water" in heaven, half the "water" in the great deeps.

The Flood was a great leap forward for entropy with the "waters" from heaven falling, and the "waters" from hell rising to meet and rest at earth level.
{murdering the races of man in one fell splash :bowdown: :screwyou: }


so what is this energy YOU are talking about both being created and destroyed, in direct opposition to the first law ?


notice the 50+/50- split of perfect 0 entropy.

"GOD DID IT" is just about as unscientific as you can get because it can not be disproved.

Science does not prove anything. To the contrary, science exists to disprove theories. Any time the news reports on a "new theory that proves X" they are full of shit, the new theory disproves something that came before.

And this entire thread has still failed to answer my question. YZF, you tried with matter and energy not being eternal. However, as honegod pointed out, the First Law of Thermodynamics suggests that energy and matter are indeed eternal. The Second Law is nearly impossible to apply on a universal level because it can only be observed in a laboratory where a closed energy system can be created. Physics gets rather shaky on the macro and micro sides of things.

Obviously some defense is coming from your faith, which I understand, but doesn't work for me. Looking at it strictly logically, I still see no evidence that a God or gods were necessary to create existence. It still looks like scared humans making up a loving father to take care of them, or in the case of polytheism, an entire loving extended family.

I'm agnostic, actually. I just don't know enough to make a decision one way or the other.

I play the atheist card for the sake of fun.

And anything multiplied by zero still equals nothing. Like I said, science can't prove anything. No one will ever know, its like a Tootsie Pop.

I just don't see why every one thinks that the spontaneous existence of the universe is a ridiculous idea. And thats the question that still hasn't been answered.

you failed to read my post, where I stated you can only use the First Law to reach such a conclusion if you willfully ignore the second
the universe is generally ocnsidered a closed system, because it cannot be infinite....and the Second Law applies to both open and closed systems anyway....it applies everywhere, all the time; the most universal law in physics

the most misunderstood law in physics, certainly.

and easily the most misapplied law in physics, thanks to you and your "kind".

the second law is concerned with "order" and y'all see that 'order' and are off like a shot.

an ice crystal lattice does not require direct intellegent supervision to TEMPORARILY AND LOCALLY increase "order" in strict obedience to the second law.

neither does a DNA strand REQUIRE direct intellegent intervention to flip a few coils around and produce a whole new Kind of beast.

a whole new Kind of beast.

Like a retarded guy

Or a pig with three arms.



Evolution!

the most universal law in physics, which renders darwinian fantasies impossible....not simply improbable, IMPOSSIBLE

Declamatory statements emphasized with all caps does not evidence make, Skippy.

In any case, the 2nd law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems not in equilibrium. The Earth isn't a closed system, it receives energy inputs from the sun. The fun thing about the 2nd law is that it applies to large systems. Smaller subsets of those systems can display reductions in local entropy because of inputs from other parts of that larger system, ie: the sun.

and yet an H2O molecule is fantastically structured....and the H and O atoms were clearly designed to function synergistically

forest and the trees....willfully blind eyes

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps life evolved around the properties of water and that we are pretty well adapted to it and other facets of our environment, rather than the other way 'round? You're arguing in circles, because you have no evidence of causation. You cannot prove that water was designed to serve the needs of mankind, but I can pretty definitively show you how life evolved on this planet and adapted to the environment it was presented with. Life takes what the environment presents and it either grows or it dies.

Luckily for you, life arose on this planet based on the circumstances presented to it, so that billions of years later you can hammer on your keyboard like a drunken monkey, throwing your virtual shit all over everyone you interact with. I'm just here for the spectacle and to poke a stick in your direction every now and again. Just for shits and giggles, you understand.

Cue the righteous indignation and logically unfounded arguments...

NOW! :bigthumb:

This is fun. You throw regurgitated talking points at me as if they mean something and I have an excuse to be smug.

Here we go!
The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”

There is no such thing as an 'Evolutionist.' This term was invented by Creationists in order to try and paint their cause as a struggle between two competing and equal viewpoints, when nothing could be further from the truth. Creationists are named thusly because they operate from a pre-arrived-at conclusion, that Goddidit. Scientists, on the other hand, operate from a theoretically neutral viewpoint. Now human nature being what it is, neutrality is a pursuit rather than a destination, so it's up to scientists to create a framework that can help eliminate bias.

This framework is the scientific method, the tenets of parsimony, utility and falsifiability. It is this framework that scientists trust, it is this framework that enables us to conduct research and glean meaningful results.

Creationists have no truck with objectivity, they want no part of it. The very mission statement of AiG speaks of 'proclaim(ing) the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness.' This automatically invalidates anything that they do, because that bias is inescapable. What's more, they don't want to escape from that bias. They don't want to conduct research, they want to create revenue, get grants from gullible fucks like yourself and promote a political agenda that is aimed directly at the heart of the basic tenets of free society: Freedom of and from religion.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's continue.

The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.

Look, for clarity's sake, let's actually spell out what the 2nd Law says, rather than what you think it says:

"No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."

Ah ha, says I. I don't think that the 2nd Law means what you think it means.

As the honester so eloquently pointed previously, there are plenty of examples of order from disorder in inanimate objects like water, weather(tornadoes and hurricanes, anyone?) etc. Moreover, just as a plant has more usable energy than the seed that it grew from, so too could more complex plants emerge.

In short, the 2nd law doesn't care about life. All it cares about is the sole transfer of heat from a cooler body to a warmer one.

That's it, that's all. No stop beating that canard already, you witless imbecile.

Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory.

And? The universe is expanding and cooling down. In the end, there won't even be enough energy in the universe to sustain background radiation. Everything turns to dust, my friend.

Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist

Ah, quote mining: the real discipline of Creationists. Pity you're so fucking bad at it. Since the 2nd Law doesn't mean what you think it means, this quote has no validity in bolstering your case. Of course, I don't believe for a moment that you actually composed this post on your own...

It's far too well written.

So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?

The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity

a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

I covered that above.

Ever heard of a snowflake?

NEXT!

Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.

Sure enough, a stopped clock is indeed correct twice a day. Good work, there isn't much here to argue with, except to reiterate that information isn't necessarily needed to create order from disorder. I can't belabor this point enough.

Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

Ah, the second of two times in which you are correct in a day. That was quick.

So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).

While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.

Awwww, and you were doing so well, YZF.

First off, life didn't 'spontaneously' begin the process of being alive, anymore than you were born a blithering idiot. Life had to work at it, and so did you.

Secondly, as I mentioned above, complexity arises from disorder all the time on this planet, 2nd Law and all, which seems to indicate to me that chemical compounds could form, join with others to create amino acids and proteins, and voila! Life.

What you're missing, yzf, what you've always neglected is that the environment itself provides information. The environment selects life that adapts quickly and efficiently. The environment provides the pressures that gave rise to more and more complex organisms. Though in your case, there seems to have been a regression or two. The underlying system is not internal to life, it's external pressures, pure and simple. As life responds to that pressure and grows, it starts to create instruction sets for itself, growing ever more specialized and adapted to the environment.

In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist...

No such thing. Stop being such a douche.

...speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.

See, this is the dead giveaway that you contributed no original thought or synthesis of your own to the discussion, you feckless punk. Only one scientist has been quoted. He didn't have a damn thing to say about evolution, either.

You're just one big walking logical fallacy, aintcha?

So now that I'm done tearing you a new asshole, what do you have for me next? Lets hear something from your reasonings, YZF. How about that? How about you stop copying and pasting entire articles without even deigning to add word one to the discussion and you instead dazzle us with the brilliance of your ever-impressive education? How about that, you dumb fucking shit?

That's the fun thing about not being an ideologue. I'm open to any and all comers that want to do the legwork and prove their point.

Bring it on.

you lose, as always

Not so much, no. But hey, thanks for at least contributing four words of your own to the discussion.:bigthumb:

I disagree, completely....and you can only be proven wrong

I'm not wasting any more time debating a worthless, foul mouthed hack/antagonist such as yourself....go back to your hole you crawled out of



again, the water molecule itself is a stunning testament of design

Hrm, looks like you're conceding defeat to me.:owned:

Edit: Posting the same quote again in larger font does not a rebuttal make.

lol YZF just had a angry rant hehe. His m1A1 tank got a flat :rolleyes:
Take a deep breath YZf. It'll be ok I promise.
Good stuff moses. YZF invested too much time and there isnt any turning back. But good to see you were able to corner and prod him. Classic!
Now throw him back into the pond. He is our only entertainment.

this loon has brought up the same lame points on rx7club many times over the years, laced with name calling

Hrm, that sounds like someone I know. What was his name again? It's Mark something, I think. :rolleyes:

Get a fucking grip Mark, you've just described yourself.

he's worthless...manntis was actually a better debater

I'll agree with you that manntis was better at keeping things civil, but I do so enjoy poking you with a stick. The results are often hilarious.

Speaking of the old Klub days, I'm still waiting to hear rebuttals on the amount of heat produced by the catastrophic geological model that you favor, or the lack of Al26 anywhere, despite a half-life which would indicate otherwise should the planet actually be 6000 years old.

I'm still waiting and you're still running, posting the same drivel over and over again, hoping that your audience is comprised of newcomers that don't remember your old tricks.

again, natural selection has nothing....absolutely nothing....to do with the origin of information, energy, and matter

you're blind

Nowhere, not once, did I state anything of the kind, YZF. I know it's hard to rebut the points that I do make, do yourself a favor and try not to manufacture ones that I didn't.

man, talk about hitting that nail right on the head, moses....

marky, I always told you that you werent fooling anyone.....eventually you will learn it yourself.

this loon has brought up the same lame points on rx7club many times over the years, laced with name calling

he's worthless...manntis was actually a better debater
/snore
you and I are both guilty of your above statement. We are both looney, worthless, same lame points laced with name calling. I just was letting you and moses know that I cracked a tiny smile at how he placed a tack on your chair. You sat in it and almost had a roid rage fit. Lucky I stepped in before you looked like an idiot.

explain exactly what you mean by this statement then
The underlying system is not internal to life, it's external pressures, pure and simple. As life responds to that pressure and grows, it starts to create instruction sets for itself, growing ever more specialized and adapted to the environment.


you are not referring to natural selection here?

Sure I am.

Look, DNA consists of 4 basic building blocks, right? Those can be arranged in different fashions, building DNA strands, chromosomes, etc. I'm not a biologist by any stretch of the imagination, and neither are you, so I'm not going to go into specifics.

Luckily I don't need to.

Look at it this way, duplication doesn't 'create' (this is a pretty hand-wavy explanation here, bear with me) more information in DNA, because repetition isn't new, it's just more of the same. However, we all know that the replication process of DNA is hardly foolproof. Errors occur and duplication is never perfect. The beautiful part is that this point is the cornerstone of YZF's claims: that errors creep into DNA and break it down.

Unfortunately for YZF, that's not how it works. You see, information is comprised of two things: the content and the decoder. (This theory originated in the field of computer science and has proven very useful in other fields, including cellular biology and the study of DNA.) So then, differences in DNA that are created by coping errors and mutation are 'decoded' (again, this is pretty hand-wavy, so bear with me) and produce unexpected results, some of which may be more or less complex than the previous generation. This gives rise to new systems and increased complexity overall when coupled with natural selection, because environmental pressures favor those mutations that are beneficial.

So you see, the content of DNA changes and the decoding process translates those changes into physical differences between generations, which are then favored or not based upon their level of adaptation to their surrounding environment. Natural selection does just that, it selects which 'information set' to favor, but it has nothing to do with the creation of that information, which is merely the result of recombinant DNA over successive generations that translate/decode into physical differences in the organism in question.

It's actually pretty neat.

The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems

apparant as in observable and measurable, found in CURRENT biological systems.

note also that the local decrease in entropy is more than balanced in the increase of entropy of the sun. no volation of any version of the second law.


requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply.

just like a modern computer requires a different powersupply than a 1940's analog tube computer.

These are:

a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity

a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

just as a modern computer requires a laser to read DVDs while an older computer used magnetic field strength to read floppy disks.

This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.

here it gets juicy.

"this process" must be MAGIC since it works in opposition to "natural processes".

sneaky, huh ?


classic 'out of context" , take a true statement that has nothing to do with the subject under discussion and hold it up as an explanation of the subject.

with a healthy dash of using deceptive language to give a false impression.

= creationist propaganda.

this is a pretty hand-wavy explanation here,...

It's actually pretty neat.

Jackie Chan grade hand waving. :bigthumb:

we just need to translate it into christian so yzf can read it too.

the water molecule itself is a stunning testament of design

the positron is way cool too, but its very cool existance does not imply a uncreated creator, rather it screams for the existance of a previous cause which has its own previous cause.

previous causes being well established while causeless things are unknown.

an unknown cause is NOT the same thing as no cause.

that's all well and good, natural selection is rock solid science, but it always gets rid of information....as speciation proceeds, the "storehouse" of original information becomes increasingly contaminated with errors....the evidence for this is ubiquitous, I'm not sure why atheists/agnostics fight it so hard...that's where the religious aspects of Darwinism come into play: evolution will save us! we are getting better!

um....no we aren't....genetic errors continue to increase with each passing generation

Did you even read my post?

Information isn't tangible. It exists solely as a byproduct of arrangement and decoding.

That's it.

Any changes in arrangement or the decoding process changes the information content of whatever we're talking about, be it a String variable in a computer system, or DNA strands in a living organism.

So any mutation has the potential to be either beneficial or deleterious to a living creature because it isn't the mutation itself, but the environment that determines benefit or harm.

You're arguing based upon a theory of information that was developed to deal with signal loss for telecommunications, where the 'information content' was predetermined upon transmission. Signal noise from point to point is inherently deleterious, because it cannot add content to the signal. That does not describe the situation that occurs with DNA, because there is no 'transmission' beforehand. The arrangement of DNA produces information in and of itself, information that changes after every mutation or replication error.

There is no storehouse of information to corrupt.

lol I think moses is a robot.
Good stuff. logical and a good read. good stuff moses!

Any changes in arrangement or the decoding process changes the information content of whatever we're talking about, be it a String variable in a computer system, or DNA strands in a living organism.

so since jesus had human DNA and a perfect, or as close to perfect as humanly possible, "information" set, it would be possible for a mommy ape to have a severely mutated baby ape with jesus' exact gene set.

since mutations are always harmful baby jesus would die soon.

the "correct ape information" was changed to a harmful set, incorrect ape information.

jesus wouldn't be a better ape despite his perfect genetics.

too weak, no hands where his feet were, inadequate fangs.


now, would the mutated ape jesus have increased or decreased "information" in his DNA ?

{this is not a response to the quote, it is my continuation of MosesX605 most excellent summery.}

natural selection is rock solid science, but it always gets rid of information

right, BAD information.

GOOD information is what gets transmitted to the next generation, if it gets transmitted it CAN'T be bad information , by definition, because it wasn't got rid of.

so the judge of mutant baby ape jesus's information would be whether he survived being raised by apes and sires little jesus apelets, who go on to breed with the other apes.

the ape / jesus hybreds information sets would of course be subjected to selection and mutation in their own right.


{most of the jesus of the apes stuff was inspired by a book review of a Tarzan novel I read long ago.}

but beauty, structure, order ARE tangible

Three different things, all with their own guidelines on how to judge them. Beauty is tangible in an asthetic sense, but not particuarly well defined as a matter of science.

does an extra head (for example) represent beauty, order, symmetry, or structure? a beautiful flower is the sum of many parts, it's not simply the product of a chaotic stream of information

You're purposely (I hope, because the alternative is that you really are a dumb fucking shit) misunderstanding just what we're talking about. You'll note that nowhere do I state that the changes made to DNA are 'chaotic.' Order comes from how DNA functions, how the proteins and amino acids bond together, how the chromosomes form pairs, etc. That's order that we can measure.

it's like saying dots on a canvas randomly form a van Gogh work

It's not random, YZF. Mutation is random. DNA transcription errors are random. The process in which those changes are ether selected or discarded is anything but.


I disagree....the overwhleming trend of mutations is deleterious to the beauty and structure of life, and the evidence is ubiquitous

Stating something as fact doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

The overwhelming trend of mutations is change, pure and simple. The benefit or disadvantage of those changes depends entirely on how they effect the adaptation of an organism to it's environment. There is no 'ubiquitous' evidence that all mutation is bad, anymore than there is ubiqituous evidence of the Tooth Fairy.

actually, structure, order, and symmetry can be described mathematically

wrong again!

not so fast, tex....you changed the words just then...

your original statement was "but beauty, structure, order ARE tangible"....so how do you switch from "beauty" to "symmetry"??

I think the same of you, just so you know

considering the error you just tried to pass off to support your argument, what should we then think about this point??

by the way, this wasnt one of your famous "typos", was it?

note the particular evidence on REAL WORLD, tangible, empirical evidence

something darwinists run from...in their religion of error and hate

dude, you need to get a clue

my post to you was hardly deserving of the PMs you just sent. it was light hearted and there were no insults whatsoever.....and for that, you have to go and be a prick?

TRUTH--you mixed up words.

TRUTH--rather than just see that and fix it, you decide that being the typical marky ass is the way to go.

You need some serious counselling, marky.....I sincerely hope you get it this year....

It’s obvious, isn’t it?’

Evolutionists

false. prejudice inspiring term



Evolutionists hail natural selection as if it were a creative goddess

false, there are no goddesses in science, creative or otherwise.


but the reality (which they invariably concede when pressed)

prejudicial, and misleading.

no pressing is needed because we say it right up front, but y'all CAN'T HEAR us.



is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite.

misleading, introduces the "information"
fairytale, implies that we are trying to HIDE how the selection that WE discovered works.




To have a way to add information,

the "information" fairytale is expanded on.



the ‘only game in town’

the only OBSERVED PROCESS



for evolution’s true believers

false and prejudicial.




is genetic copying mistakes

truth, I knew there HAD to be some in there SOMEWHERE.



or accidents,

prejudicial, an accident is a BAD thing.




i.e. random mutations (which can then be ‘filtered’ by selection).

more truth, wow, twice in one propaganda piece.

notice the prejudicial 's on filtered.



However, the problem

prejudicial, no such 'problem' exists since science is NOT trying to hype an agenda like the writer of this drivel is.



is that if mutations were capable of adding the information required,

false and misleading, introduces a nonexistant REQUIREMENT for the 'information' fairytale.



we should see hundreds of examples all around us,

and we DO see hundreds of thousands of different variations of every current and extinct type of living creature.




considering that there are many thousands of mutations happening continually.


mutations to genomes that have had millions of generations of weeding behind them having produced good strong genomes with a needed flexibility to withstand reasonable variations of environment.

Originally Posted by honegod

- and we DO see hundreds of thousands of different variations of every
- current and extinct type of living creature.

Not really, and there are almost no "in-betweens"

If you really want to argue evolution, answer a few of the REAL questions.

1. Why arent there so few "in-betweens?"

2. How can you account for the creation of complex organs, such as the eye, circulitory/respritory systems, and such other things that could not have functioned in "partial-steps"?

3. Darwin said the fossil record would either prove him right or disprove him in 50 years. It's proved him wrong and people decide to just not talk about it. Why do you think it is still reffered to as a "Theory?"

3b. Why in the world do most people get so angry when you point out that it is in fact a "theory?"

Lets start with those. three is a good number.

hail a goddess = worship, I was going for nipping the worship notion in the bud by snipping the goddess part off, too subtle, sorry.


every currently living thing has an UNBROKEN string of ancestors, back to when there were just chemicals bubbling under the sun, and before, when the gas cloud condensed into the solar system and the first light from the birth of long dead distant stars still hadn't reached us.

so EVERY lifeform is a "in-between".

we are in the process of unraveling the CURRENT state of the genetic mesh that covers the world.

once we figure how a hampster relates to a jellyfish we can start looking at what their ancestors looked like.

fossils are a good clue.

a good test for a genome model is how well it produces bones and critters that we have fossils of.



2- DNA can be mixed up into any of zillions of different patterns, and IS mixed up with each generation SEQUENTIALLY, additivly.

you are fussed that we are still working on the patterns that ARE formed and haven't got to backtracking to the changing pattern* of the past.

* not that the past pattern is changing now, but that the DNA code is different as the generations change, going backwards too.


3- I want a new theory of gravity too, I am bored with both Einstein and Newton, what is it I am supposed to be fussed about with Darwins theory again ?

Get some sleep man, not a single thing you said makes much sense even out of the context.

Well except maybe number three

But I've never seen anyone get angry if you start an intelligent conversation on Einstein's or Newton's theory. I mean, I suppose they're out there, but meh? Now Darwin's zealots, thats a crew you don't want to mess with, holms.

edited for accuracy

rather, transformed into a lie.

once you figure out how elephants can grow wings and fly to the moon, you'll similarly be in good shape (in the darwinist fantasy land)

you object to my "shape" for DNA, but you have not described how you think DNA functions except for postulating a magic 'program' writer.

at the observed rate of change in DNA your preprogrammed stuff should have run out long ago.

I note that you assume that long lifespans were a good thing that we 'lost'

so why aren't there {any} christian biolabs working on RESTORING our genome to its former glory ?

oh yes, why bother, god is coming to kill us all any time now.




as to the reletive incoherency, Tofuball, sorry, between being Daddy/Santa for the first time {getting the 6 year olds Yamaha QT50 under the Christmas Tree STEALTHILY was interesting} and transforming the Girlfriend into the Fiancee things here have been ...diverting

but you are right, bedways is rightways. :peace:

Sigh.

The train article.

Again.

This is what? The fifth or sixth time that you've trotted that little masterpiece out? Every time, you get told where that article goes wrong, where it is flatly contradicted by reality.

Every time you plug your ears, throw some choice comments around like this:

facts speak for themselves: darwinian evolution is an impossible fantasy for atheists (practical or otherwise)

you will go to your grave with your faith in decay in death...you're blind....you're a weed

And then you move on, as if you've refuted anything, as if you've even contributed one original thought to the discussion.

All that article does is repeat the fallacies that you've been presenting throughout the thread, fallacies that are flatly refuted by even a cursory look at what information really is.

Information is a construct. It does not and cannot exist independently of observation/decoding. It is that decoding framework that determines what the seemingly random arrangement of DNA strands, or the words in this sentence, mean, within the context of that decoder. Another situation and a different decoder could come along and glean another, entirely different set of information from this sentence, or from a DNA strand.

There is no 'storehouse' of information, all white and pure that is continually assaulted by the passage of time and successive generations. Information in the genetic sense is created each and every generation by the physical processes that result from different DNA combinations. It is made anew, every time.

That's how bacteria can gain resistance to antibiotics. That's how scientists can observe bacteria develop and refine a flagellum over the successive generations. It happens. It's been observed. You would rather poke holes, offer God-of-the-gaps arguments and go on feeling morally superior.

Because the alternative is that you're no better than skydvr or myself, people you revile because we chose to use our brains every now and then and approach the world with a healthy dose of skepticism. As a matter of fact, you're a good deal worse. You go through the motions of piety, but have none of the virtues. You rant and rave about going to heaven, but you display none of the qualities of a person that is headed in that direction. You're a weak and scared little man who cannot face the possibility that this life is it, that it's all we have. So you've draped yourself in the flag of religion, so to speak, hoping fervently that by mouthing the words and believing platitudes in stark rejection of the facts that God will welcome you into his kingdom.

It doesn't work that way. One must act as Christian, not just loudly impersonate one.

disagree....there was information encoded in DNA, untouched by coying errors, the way God created it

And here it is folks, the incontrovertible, intractable and totally illogical position that YZF will never shake.

GODDIDIT.

Sorry, but that ain't science. It isn't even interesting.

As for whom is wasting their time here, I can only point to your 20+ posts a day, sixty odd times more than I grace this place with my presence.

But hey, I wouldn't want to get inbetween you and your delusions. That typically prompts accusatory PM's and death threats.

Take care now, in this o-so-fucking-important ministry of yours. You're doing such a good job spreading the Good News. :bigthumb:

we were talking about atoms, as I recall

and then we talked about "shape" which defined term I then applied to DNA molecules.

the origin of DNA is "magic" in your fantasy land


magic, eh ?

the same exact magic that magically transformes hydrogen and oxygen atoms into water molecules .

I don't believe in magic, but I do believe in Supernatural Power

please explain the difference, they are identical in my worldview.

/honegod, commence 6 year old


Quarter Penny Dime Nickel Dollar

money ?
jihiyiughuiyrt guf

magic is man made illusion

how is it that the unnatural can happen ?

what is unnatural about anything that can affect nature ?

what is supernatural about something that has entirely natural effects ?

why should a supernatural cause be assumed for a natural effect ?



since god is man made illusion, works attributed to his supernatural powers are also man made illusion, magic.

defying the Laws of Physics, for example

the point of a Law of physics is that it has NEVER been observed to be violated.

for instance, the Law of conservation of mass and the Law of conservation of energy, had to be changed when we measured mass being changed into energy.

what Law is being measurably violated by gods supernatural {magic} powers ?

in reference to what?

ANY supernatural event that resulted in measurable effects.

I'm not speaking of natural effects

no ? what supernatural effect is god currently executing that has NO measurable effect on reality ?

it has got to have something to do with the miracle of Life, eh ?


then the universe is an illusion, because the universe declares the wisdom of God

there are drugs available by prescription that will chase those illusionary gods away and let you see reality.

ever hear of Moses? parting the Red Sea?



water flowed against gravity



God sustains the universe....but the laws of physics, and the forces involved, were themseleves orchestrated


hey genius--he said "NEVER BEEN OBSERVED to be violated"....tell me, who alive today actually saw that happen? Who alive in the last generation? What about the one before? Did you actually observe water flowing against gravity, or is it a point taken on faith? I think that the answer speaks for itself.

Did you actually observe water flowing against gravity, or is it a point taken on faith?

making water flow against gravity is childs play, archimedes screw, for example.:bigthumb:

moses described a tsunami, water goeth away, water cometh back fast, fast enough to catch and drown war chariots.

no magic needed.

making water flow against gravity is childs play, archimedes screw, for example.:bigthumb:

moses described a tsunami, water goeth away, water cometh back fast, fast enough to catch and drown war chariots.

no magic needed.

Hey, don't' forget the hydrolic ram! I love those things.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question318.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram

In the Dominican Republic, there is a place called Polo Magnetico, where you can watch water "flow uphill" :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_hill

The grade is not as shallow as the article would lead you to belive, however!

Speaking of rocks floating on water; did you know you can make a really cool boat out of concrete?

I think those are awesome too.

http://www.concreteships.org/

how about making a rock float on water?

and of course, Christ performed many supernatural healings....he healed by a word or touch (or directive), completely, instantly

not like the illusionists of today

pumice floats on water.

I have seen Mommy heal most dreadful owies with a kiss.

how would you be able to tell jesus from copperfield going only on accounts by audience members ?

accounts by his stage crew, who continued the act, are suspect too, since their income relied on the marks continued belief in the magic.

try raising the dead

"CLEAR !!"

"zap"

"beep...beep...beep...beep"

next ?

"CLEAR !!"

"zap"

"beep...beep...beep...beep"

next ?

Try raising the dead after three days ;)

never happened. If it did, jesus is a vegetable and is seated at the right hand of god because he is being spoon fed

Try raising the dead after three days ;)

see how it works ?

y'all make up a superpower, declare it impossible to duplicate {actually do it for real for the first time} we figure out how to do it and you ADD complications or modify the "impossible" thing into something else entirely.

and totally drop the subject as though you never said the FIRST impossible thing, that we CAN do.

without magic.

What ever you say

you people are nerds and if you beleve such things you know where you are going when you die and it is not fun there the 12 year old

raising the dead will never be "duplicated"

the dead will rise by the power of God....even those who have rotted away in the tombs


according to your fairytale the "soul" of the dead person is seperated from their now dead body, waiting for a new body for the soul to inhabit.

so, if we assume the existance of a storehouse of souls of the 'sleeping' then all we need to do is CLONE up a bunch of new, soulless, bodies and install the old souls into them.

shazam, raised dead just the way god does it.

I hate hew you are haveing this comversation with i dont like his stupid name so i will not use it honegod sounds so retarded

heh, she spells random words phonetically, with a midwest accent.

she started hating me when I started seeing her Mother, she has mellowed somewhat since her father got married, for the first time.

{her Mommy got a genuine MAN MADE diamond ring for Christmas :bigthumb: }

nO !!!!!