Chance accident or Creator. I have proven it. Now refute it., page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 6-5-2011 @ 02:58 AM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by SuperiorEd

You keep making this claim...but you've yet to explain why word = wave...and you've yet to explain why you're making this claim when not a single person in history up until the secular discovery of wave/particle duality hadn't read this into a Bible before.

It's also not wave/light duality, it's wave/particle duality...so where is the particle?

And Hebrews 11:3 means that there was a distinguish factor between the claims of Christianity and the claims of pagan religions of the time...names that the universe wasn't shaped from anything, unlike the pagan claims which were that the universe formed out of pre-existing matter (which actually makes more sense with regards to what we know of the universe).

reply posted on 9-5-2011 @ 02:39 AM by Conclusion1

Superior Ed I have to say that you have demolished these guys in this thread.

They cannot answer your questions. Refuse to even consider your evidence, and it is evidence. I have seen them in other threads using the same rhetoric. They just do not understand yet. But you are on the verge of a tremendous breakthrough.

I appreciate your input and will find it very useful for study. Keep the threads coming Pal.

reply posted on 9-5-2011 @ 05:47 AM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by Conclusion1

Except...you know...that we can. And that he doesn't have any evidence. Hell, he doesn't seem to actually understand the science he's citing or now the difference between a 'theorem' (mathematical equation) and a theory.

E=mc^2 is a theorem, relativity is a theory.

reply posted on 9-5-2011 @ 08:59 AM by iterationzero

Originally posted by Conclusion1
They cannot answer your questions.

That would be because his questions, which are grounded in a lack of understanding of the science he tries to use to ask those questions, amount to nonsense. As witnessed by his posts regarding Earth being a closed thermodynamic system, oak trees operating at over 100% efficiency because they produce more than one acorn each, and than entropy can't be reduced except by external intelligent agencies, his grasp of physical chemistry and thermodynamics is deficient at best.

To put it another way, from one of my favorite movies:

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it.

reply posted on 9-5-2011 @ 11:11 AM by Conclusion1

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Conclusion1

Except...you know...that we can. And that he doesn't have any evidence. Hell, he doesn't seem to actually understand the science he's citing or now the difference between a 'theorem' (mathematical equation) and a theory.

E=mc^2 is a theorem, relativity is a theory.

You know I have always found theories very funny. Especially the theory of relativity. Shouldn't a theory be true in all studied cases?

dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

–noun, plural -ries.
1.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

Now whether he understands the science of it or not. I do not know. To say anything else is presumptuous.

His questions are valid.

One way around it is to say. We don't even try to answer that question. lol. I would say that is the most important question.

It is kind of like this.

X (+) Y = 47. Solve for the equation.

As you know there are many different answers for this. Each of the answers are right to the ones that take the time to figure it out, with each having evidence to back up their answer. But what were the original variables?

Conc.

reply posted on 9-5-2011 @ 11:32 AM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by Conclusion1

Dictionaries are horrible references for scientific terms.

Now whether he understands the science of it or not. I do not know. To say anything else is presumptuous.

I can tell you that he has demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of science that has been perpetuated by new age thinkers and apologists. To say that is justified.

His questions are valid.

No, they aren't. Hell, his premise is invalid. "Creator or chance accident" is a false dilemma and a straw man.

It is kind of like this.

X (+) Y = 47. Solve for the equation.

As you know there are many different answers for this. Each of the answers are right to the ones that take the time to figure it out, with each having evidence to back up their answer. But what were the original variables?

There's only one correct answer and it would be a plotting the line that would represent the equation on a graph with a straight line that intercepts the Y axis at (0,47) and the X axis at (47,0). This visual representation would contain the full set of possible solutions for this equation. There are an infinite number of answers, yet we have a handy way of representing them all visually.

reply posted on 9-5-2011 @ 12:00 PM by Conclusion1

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by Conclusion1
They cannot answer your questions.

That would be because his questions, which are grounded in a lack of understanding of the science he tries to use to ask those questions, amount to nonsense. As witnessed by his posts regarding Earth being a closed thermodynamic system, oak trees operating at over 100% efficiency because they produce more than one acorn each, and than entropy can't be reduced except by external intelligent agencies, his grasp of physical chemistry and thermodynamics is deficient at best.

To put it another way, from one of my favorite movies:

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it.

The guy just has questions. Good for him. It shows he is trying to learn something. They are far from stupid questions. To understand anything you have to have the guts to ask the questions first.

reply posted on 9-5-2011 @ 12:31 PM by iterationzero

Originally posted by Conclusion1
The guy just has questions. Good for him. It shows he is trying to learn something. They are far from stupid questions. To understand anything you have to have the guts to ask the questions first.

If he were asking questions to learn, I would agree with you. He's asking questions to preach, because he thinks he already has the answer to the questions. When people have refuted his answers, the "science" he tries to use to support his argument is so full of misunderstandings of the actual scientific concepts that they amount to nonsense. Feel free to keep cheering him on, but remember the tagline for the site: "Deny ignorance." When someone claims that the Earth is a closed thermodynamic system or that entropy can only be reversed through the intercession of intelligence, it's a sign of ignorance. Not the denial of ignorance.

reply posted on 9-5-2011 @ 02:44 PM by Conclusion1

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by Conclusion1
The guy just has questions. Good for him. It shows he is trying to learn something. They are far from stupid questions. To understand anything you have to have the guts to ask the questions first.

If he were asking questions to learn, I would agree with you. He's asking questions to preach, because he thinks he already has the answer to the questions. When people have refuted his answers, the "science" he tries to use to support his argument is so full of misunderstandings of the actual scientific concepts that they amount to nonsense. Feel free to keep cheering him on, but remember the tagline for the site: "Deny ignorance." When someone claims that the Earth is a closed thermodynamic system or that entropy can only be reversed through the intercession of intelligence, it's a sign of ignorance. Not the denial of ignorance.

He is asking the questions so maybe someone else can learn. So you believe that entropy can never be reversed?

reply posted on 9-5-2011 @ 03:00 PM by iterationzero

Originally posted by Conclusion1
He is asking the questions so maybe someone else can learn.

The discussions in this thread and others would indicate otherwise.

So you believe that entropy can never be reversed?

No, I'm quite aware that entropy can be reversed. I, and others, provided several examples of this occurring as part of a natural process, without the intervention of some "intelligence". He either ignored the examples, denied their validity, or continued to beg the question by saying that, since entropy had obviously been reversed in these cases, it must have been the result of an interceding intelligence.

You can continue being an apologist for Ed if you like, but the glaring lack of understanding of basic science that he displays in his posts speaks for itself.

reply posted on 9-5-2011 @ 03:51 PM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by iterationzero

Actually...entropy cannot be reversed. Entropy is merely the fact of the universe that there is no such thing as lossless energy transfer. Entropy has nothing to do with order, merely with loss of energy. Our planet is clearly subject to this law of the universe...but we have a lot of extra energy being pumped in by the sun to compensate for it.

reply posted on 9-5-2011 @ 05:40 PM by iterationzero

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by iterationzero

Actually...entropy cannot be reversed.

On the scale of the universe, no. On a localized basis, yes. Spontaneous micelle formation by surfactants above the critical micelle concentration is accompanied by a measurable increase in the Gibbs energy of the system. The change in enthalpy is negative in this situation, so the only other variable that accounts for an increase in G is a reduction in entropy, and a pretty large one at that.