Reply With Quote
No, I believe the universe expanded from a hot and dense state and energy was separated into subatomic particles, and everything else came from there....
Straw apes aside -- what kind of history do you think humans had 30,000 years ago?
Did they just make some notes on their iPads?
No, I believe the universe expanded from a hot and dense state and energy was separated into subatomic particles, and everything else came from there....
RandomGuy all you are saying in layman terms is that your research has led you to believe in evolution. My research has led me to believe otherwise.
Again, faith in physical scientific evidence, logic and reason is more valid than blind faith in a sky man and his fairy tales....Takes faith doesn't it?
What have you actually researched?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...thermodynamics
The claims of creationists go like this:
"Evolution is order from chaos (entropy), therefore it violates the second law of thermodynamics, because disordered things (organic molecules) became more ordered. (long chain RNA, etc)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system
Now ask yourself:
"Is the Earth an isolated system?"
"Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?"
Why or why not?
See, this is not difficult at all, and you don't ahve to take anybody's word for it. You can read on the subject yourself, as I have done.
Its logical to believe that we came from nothing? And if we came from something what put that something there? Or has something always existed? leaving the possibility of a creator who has always existed open.
You haven't really done any research.
If you have done research, you might be able to explain what evolution actually *is* before deciding it is obviously wrong.
If you don't even understand the theory, how can you say you have done enough research to decide if it is true or not?
You haven't researched at all, you read one site after already having decided it was full of and spammed a bunch of strawman arguments
I just want some hot wings
Again, we didn't come from nothing, we came from the universe expanding....
Not necessarily. We came from elements cooked at the core of stars which then exploded and released the chemistry for life. Overtime these elements combined to form complex molecules -- both organic and inorganic.
We believe that to be the case because these complex organic molecules can be detected with instrumentation right now. Various amino acids conducive to life processes have been detected in areas of pristine gas clouds using this instrumentation...
Evolution Could Never Happen at All
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.
No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18
The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.
Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?
Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.
This is true, although we have only just scratched the surface. It seems the more we uncover, the more we realize is still hidden and unexplained. Particle accelerators have even shown us that what we hitherto thought was empty space, is not really empty at all, that everything seems to be connected at the sub subatomic level. Thus we are all one with everything on an energy level.
Whether this is an explanation for God or not is still very much up in the air, but evolution theory does go a long ways in explaining things and IMHO does not contradict the existence of His being.
However we do know that we did not just magically appear one day when we didn't the day before. That is an extremely simplistic and naive viewpoint. And organisms are evolving now, even as we debate.
Macrocosm reflects microcosm and vice versa.
You don't read anything you Google.
google doesn't do if you can't read.
In terms of detecting life, yes. As a field though, much of the astrochemistry that answers questions of how and where life began to originate has been blooming with new data for the last 15-20 years. Instead of scratching the surface, I'd say we are standing on it already with a blindfold on.
Hence, the beauty of it. Isn't it cool that everything and everyone is basically a wavefunction?Particle accelerators have even shown us that what we hitherto thought was empty space, is not really empty at all, that everything seems to be connected at the sub subatomic level. Thus we are all one with everything on an energy level.
If there was one thing I took from my undergrad, it's that very idea tbh
Agreed.Whether this is an explanation for God or not is still very much up in the air, but evolution theory does go a long ways in explaining things and IMHO does not contradict the existence of His being.
Hence, the education going on in this thread.However we do know that we did not just magically appear one day when we didn't the day before. That is an extremely simplistic and naive viewpoint. And organisms are evolving now, even as we debate.
Biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the subs ution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
In terms of detecting life, yes. As a field though, much of the astrochemistry that answers questions of how and where life began to originate has been blooming with new data for the last 15-20 years. Instead of scratching the surface, I'd say we are standing on it already with a blindfold on.
Hence, the beauty of it. Isn't it cool that everything and everyone is basically a wavefunction?
If there was one thing I took from my undergrad, it's that very idea tbh
Agreed.
Hence, the education going on in this thread.
This is true. Blindfolds is a great analogy for our tiny little minds. This is another reference for the "veils" spoken of in the bible in weird sort of way. Do you see the correlations?
My contention from everything I've studied, meditated on, and experienced up to this point has led me to believe of and in a "sky fairie" i.e. God.
And my further contention is that we will eventually prove such a Ones existence scientifically because to my way of thinking, that is the only reasonable explanation, in fact it may eventually turn out to be man's greatest discovery, which ironically enough was first postulated a long, long time ago.
Of course at this point it is still an opinion, or mystery, or whatever you wish to call it.
You want them now = Creation watch how you answer you will get branded as a religious freak.
Or maybe you want them 12 Billion years from now = Evolutionist watch how you answer you will get branded as a clueless .
Or we can end this argument by putting nothing into a bag and wait 12 Billion years for it to finally explode into matter that slowly evolves from microbe to a fish and then to a chicken.
Afterwards we can let this lady prepare your hot wings live on the www
Darwin's bull was debunked years ago, you guys need to just move on already and try and figure out who or what is responsible.
Last edited by mouse; 10-15-2013 at 05:05 PM.
How much formal education do you have in the field of science?This is true. Blindfolds is a great analogy for our tiny little minds. This is another reference for the "veils" spoken of in the bible in weird sort of way. Do you see the correlations?
My contention from everything I've studied, meditated on, and experienced up to this point has led me to believe of and in a "sky fairie" i.e. God.
And my further contention is that we will eventually prove such a Ones existence scientifically because to my way of thinking, that is the only reasonable explanation, in fact it may eventually turn out to be man's greatest discovery, which ironically enough was first postulated a long, long time ago.
Of course at this point it is still an opinion, or mystery, or whatever you wish to call it.
Quite a bit actually. Does it matter?
My majors were physics and psychology until I became disillusioned by the nebulous nature of psychology and dropped it and replaced it with philosophy. It is my opinion that psychology should have never been considered a science.
Physics was my eventual degree with philosophy as my minor and theatre as my pastime.
Psychology and philosophy aren't in the field of science. You said "physics". So you have a BS in Physics?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
