It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by radix
Yeah we must a different perspective. I asked for yours. I can only think of one. How many do you have that have occurred naturally?
Analysis taking place afterwards means there is zero possible chance one or one hundred observers could state with absolute certainty what or even why anything occurred.
To state these occur is accurate; however, to state it occurs naturally is merely substituting the word natural for theword god.
Originally posted by radix
reply to post by totallackey
Analysis taking place afterwards means there is zero possible chance one or one hundred observers could state with absolute certainty what or even why anything occurred.
If the observers can find no presence of X before the experiment but can detect X after the experiment, it's a pretty fair assumption that X was produced, no?
What or how are still unanswered.
What or how are still unanswered. Along with the why. This is assuming the experiment (including all possible variables) has been exactly reproduced.
Originally posted by totallackey
It seems as if this is akin to:
1) proving a tree falling in the woods is making a sound, even if there is no one there to hear it?
2) The most basic question is how many different types of chemical reactions are you aware of that naturally occur, and what are the results of these reactions?
Well, my understanding is things tend:
1) To stay as they are; or,
2) Fall apart
According to entropy. If the natural state is to conserve energy then what gives rise to expenditure? And if anything is expending energy, then eventually it will fall apart, not coalesce into something more complex.
Originally posted by totallackey
Why have they not proven it? And I am not talking about the sound, but the issue at hand. I have yet to see any paper without the words possible or could or might...all inconclusive. Further, none of these papers presented have been replicated...
Originally posted by totallackey
Furthermore, quit worrying about what you think or do not think about what I am or am not interested in...stay on topic...:
Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by radix
Well, my understanding is things tend:
1) To stay as they are; or,
2) Fall apart
According to entropy. If the natural state is to conserve energy then what gives rise to expenditure? And if anything is expending energy, then eventually it will fall apart, not coalesce into something more complex.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still?
Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order.
In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
It's an Ideological Crutch to help support the theory of evolution, because the theory needs so much help at it's theoretical foundation to even be plausible to get people to take it seriously.
that life is not a closed system.