You do not "move from entropy to order" that has never been observed in any field of science.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by stuff1
Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
So you're assuming the principle of causality transcends the universe. Do you have any particular grounds for that, or is this a case of 'as above, so below' as the alchemists used to say?
it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no-one really denies it in his heart. Source
'In his heart'! Hilarious.
Oh, by the way: I read through the second link too. More fantastic fewmets - an obscure Ph.D thesis submitted in 1977 claiming to prove that 'galaxies could not have formed from the Big Bang'. Cosmology has moved forward a bit in the generation since that was written (by the way, did he ever get his Ph.D? I find that there's only one copy of his thesis in existence, and that's in the university library.
Guess it's on that one too.
I spared myself your abiogenesis and 'macroevolution' links.
* * *
You know, it's the dishonesty of the 'intelligent design' movement, almost as much as its scientific absurdity, that makes it so repellent - and so worthy of fighting tooth and nail. There are some noble exceptions among creationists, including several ATS members - the name of my friend HeroNumber0 springs to mind - but so many of them are willing to resort to the sleaziest tactics to promote their cause. Don't those who believe in God have the courage of the moral convictions they claim so loudly? If they are trying to sell us the truth, why do they practise so often to deceive?
Any opinions on that, stuff1?
[edit on 28/5/09 by Astyanax]
Originally posted by stuff1
If one doesn’t accept causality, then one can’t rightly accept any scientific fact
What immortal hand or eye
Framed thy awful symmetry?
Originally posted by stuff1
You can't see that you are personifying the "Tao" You are playing with words when you say you "fund of Taoist philosophy" . Whether you "worship" or "fund" either way you identify yourself with a philosophy that is easily invalidated by the second law of thermodynamics. Can you argue that point?
If you are agnostic this means you think there is no way for anyone to know. However, I get to say "How do YOU know there is no way to know" which of course is a self refuting statement. On the other hand I am absolutely sure there is an absolute truth!!
I will answer you wolf vs tiger argument. I like how you are trying to invalidate me as a witness. I respect that you are trying to attack my science or logic. Most people on this board can only quote philosophy arguements. However, I first must ask why you have not attempted to argue against my many anti-evolutionary claims when I started this thread?. If you do not answer those I will assume you accept them.
The answer is I do not know which came first the wolf or the tiger! I could look it up but I will be honest about it. If you want to claim a small victory over that fact than so be it. However, how far must one travel through the fairy tale when one realizes that the first 10 chapters of a book are a farce (evolution of stars, big bang and organic evolution etc) before I can put the book down? But I can't give you that much credit. Most Evolutionist don't even know the answer to those questions, as they are not as pertinent to the evolution of man as birds, monkeys etc.
Originally posted by stuff1
Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter from Big Bang concluded that there was NOTHING then there was SOMETHING. Once the steady state model of an infinite universe was debunked the only logical conclusion is that something / someone outside of space time created the universe. To believe that a singularity was created out of nothing means you believe in miracles, just like creationist do.
Stellar and Planetary Evolution - Evolution of the stars is also based on faith. Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don’t spontaneously collapse and form stars, they need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions to get the process started, and almost all of them require having stars to start with [e.g. a shock wave from an exploding star causing compression of a nearby gas cloud]. This is the old chicken and egg problem; it can’t account for the origin of stars in the first place.
Organic Evolution - The odds of life forming from the warm primordial soup are beyond 10 to the power of 50. Meaning they would never happen randomly (like dropping red, white and blue from an airplane would never paint an American Flag on a field) no matter how much time is given. Oh did I mention that according to cosmological evolution the earth would have been negative 28 degrees on average during the time the primordial ooze supposedly existed?
Macro Evolution - The changing of one kind to another. According to evolution you are from a rock which eroded into the primordial ooze, became a "simple" cell, a simple amphibian, fish, bird, monkey etc blah, blah to you. If Macro Evolution where true you need to show that new information was created in the DNA. Yet there is not one example of clear, empirically supported examples of information-gaining, beneficial mutations. Mutations that are expressed virtually always result in loss of information or corruption of the gene. People can mutate to be immune to malaria but that is because they have sickle cell anemia. Bacteria can mutate to be resistant to antibiotics but that is because the pouch that holds the antibiotic is gone, kind of like saying a human is immune to handcuffs because his hands are gone. While it may be beneficial "in that environment" the organism is actually weaker. This is evidence of de-evolution.
Micro Evolution - Everybody can easily observe changes within a kind. Great, this does not prove Macro Evolution
Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
I never realized how much Religion encourages research of Science.
Atheism is a religion for people who worship themselves instead of God. As a Christian will typically quote the Bible during an argument, most atheists will quote The God Delusion. Since nearly every forum on the series of tubes we call "Internets" has a 90 page long religion thread, it is clear that much drama and BAWWWWW is had with such a sensitive topic. In this article we'll take a look at the atheists' side of this eternal argument and attempt to glean important facts regarding their position. BEHOLD!
Atheists suffer from a rare, more aggressive form of unwarranted self-importance. Atheists typically think they are smarter then you no matter what. Just try to correct them on something and prepare to be blasted away with some SERIOUS LOGIC! Like furries, many exhibit very serious cases of a persecution complex, believing that Secret Christian Anonymous Terrorists (SCAT) are trying to eradicate them by putting the word "God" in things. A high priest of Atheism discovered last Thursday that should a fellow Atheist hear the "Under God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance three times within an hour, they will instantly convert to Christianity and then die. Ultimately, they will all just end up burning in Hell.
Atheists are consumed by the delusion that religion somehow is the cause of all conflict and that it is directly responsible for every war and murder that has ever occurred in history, when in reality it is just a source of major lulz for their more temperate kin. Of course, most atheists fail to realize that, with or without religion, there will always be stupid people in the world who will fervently believe anything they read.
Originally posted by The Mack
The theory of evolution does have numerous holes but it has nothing to do with all religions.
Originally posted by Daniem
You shun your god's own creation (and ironically call yourselves creationists) while obsessing with a man-made book which contradicts the reality you think god created.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
You couldn't have googled it... not if you had no idea what you were looking for. See all you needed to do was to understand that they both belong to Carnivora... well anyways this just goes to prove that you don't understand modern evolutionary synthesis. If you were an evolutionist in the past, then you forsake it for wrong reasons. You didn't understand the theory.