Creationist Lies 666 apologies
- Started
- Last post
- 173 Responses
- Kuz0
and yes discipler, the compounds maybe "are the comets", but that does not mean anythign against the fact that they are spontaneously formed complex compounds
*hears discipler in the distance frantically checking answeringgenesis website
- mikotondria20
"There is no science to suggest mindless natural processes could do this. "
So to prove this statement, I as a scientist would have to construct 2 experiments:
One with 'mindless natural processes' and the other with...
er....
'Mindful natural processes'...?Cant seem to find a mind in my laboratory supplies manual..
Please supply me a definition of what exactly I need to prove your statement.
- discipler0
and what you keep missing kuz, is this (and I will capitalize for emphasis in hopes of you finally understanding):
It is well known that, left to themselves, CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS ULTIMATELY break apart into simpler materials; THEY DO NOT ultimately become more complex or add aditional, beneficial information. Outside forces can increase order FOR A TIME (THROUGH the EXPENDITURE OF relatively LARGE AMOUNTS OF ENERGY, and through THE INPUT OF DESIGN). However, such reversal CANNOT LAST FOREVER. Once the force is released, PROCESSES RETURN TO THEIR NATURAL DIRECTION - greater disorder. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become SIMPLER and more DISORDERLY with time.
- TheTick0
Look either a) Jesus returns to earth or b) we find life in space.
If A happens well I will be shockled and suprised but I'd happily by the dude a drinkl just for the Sermon on the Mount. That was some goood work.
If B happens, well all the creationists will be runnign around trying to find biblical support for why there is life in space and conclude thatonly God could have put it there..
So, um, really guys...why bother. This isn't a scientific argument. Never was...
- discipler0
not spontaneously formed, kuz. C'mon kuz, simple logic - they are part of a universe that had a beginning. That which has a beginning requires a first cause. So, the compounds are ultimately the secondary result of prior workmanship. :)
- discipler0
exactly my point, mikotondria.
- Kuz0
So what you are saying there in your final statement, is that eventually all life dies and decays and the universe will end one day?
I already knew that. (oh the existentialist angst!) What does that have to do with evolution?
- Kuz0
oh please, discipler, answer me ONE DIRECT QUESTION
Do you realise the ridiculous stupidity of this statement???
" THEY DO NOT ultimately become more complex or add aditional, beneficial information"
Beneficial information? PSEUDO-SCIENCE ALERT!!!!
- Kuz0
not spontaneously formed, kuz. C'mon kuz, simple logic - they are part of a universe that had a beginning. That which has a beginning requires a first cause. So, the compounds are ultimately the secondary result of prior workmanship. :)
discipler
(Jun 16 05, 08:15)
-------------------------------
NOW YOU UNDERSTAND DISCIPLER!OH MY GOD!
we're throught the looking glass people.
So yeah discipler, "God" started the universe in the big bang or something, creating all this energy, that was then used for evolution to happen!
yay! evolution and god aren't mutually exclusive!
well done discipler, i know that was hard for you. :)
- discipler0
Well, Darwinian evolution states that systems, both open and closed, big or small, become more refined over time and that natural processes caused life to generate and evolve from particles to you and me. My point is that the 2nd law shows a tendency towards decay and disorder left to natural processes, NOT organization of particles into the super machine that is even a single cell (let alone the insane complexity of a single strand of DNA). And then ultimately into you and me. "Goo to you".
Now, let me buy you a primordial beer.
- discipler0
heh, you are speaking of Theistic evolution, kuz and many buy into it. The problem is twofold:
1. Why would an infinintely intelligent and all powerful God choose to create life through the cruel and wasteful and inefficient means that is species to species evolution and natural selection?
2. The notion that God sparked evolution into motion doesn't account for all the scientific problems with evolution - the trouble still exists.
- Kuz0
Holy fuck discipler.
You have gone RIGHT back to the beginning.
Instead of engaging with me, you've gone off topic
"Well Darwinian evolutions states..."
lol.
I have painfully destroyed the argument you made in your last statement, but just to make things harder for me, you've just started all over again. And round and round we go.
All your doing is restating, restating, restating, restating the same thing. Your not engaging with anythign i've said.
Well, you can't, so i don't blame you.
Good luck with converting the simpletons.
- TheTick0
God..why am I posting here..Discipler you state:
"My point is that the 2nd law shows a tendency towards decay and disorder left to natural processes,"
Sure - that makes sense on a subatomic/atomic level, but it doesn't corrallate to living organisms and the systems they produce. I think you are mixing apples and oranges...
And no, I will not debate you on this. You're wrong. I know you won't believe that or understand that, so I'm not going to argue, so don't even bother to respond to me on this. Just you're mixing up sifferent things and their metaphors...
Oh, nevermind...
- mikotondria20
Splendid.
We seem to have got somewhere, evolution and prime cause are not mutually exclusive.
By calling that process God, however, it leads to the interpretation that the user of that word believes verbatim everything written in a collection of books, by numerous authors, through many translations and judicious edits resulting in the banning of gay marriage, and the removal of evolution from school text books.
Thats the problem I have religion, not the idea that we do not have the words to describe the initiation of the whole process, but that some people choose to throw their god-given common-sense out of the window and spout meaningless dogma, knocking on my damn front door on a Sunday morning and telling me Im going to hell forever if I dont do that same.Oh, and Discipler, no - I was reinforcing Kuz's point that it is not the responsibility of science to prove that 'mindless' natural processes cannot produce these compounds, merely that the whole concept of 'mindless v mindful' physical processes is scientifically meaningless.
- Kuz0
ok ok ok.
i can;t be fucked chatting philosophy now, and i do not give a fuck about redundant nonsensical Kantian argumens of "why would a good god"
so you can shut up with that crap.. atleast for another day.
(oh and i have shown you, there are no scientific problems with evolution, and you just can't bring yourself to admit it,)
- skt0
skt - it depends on what sort of life you are referring to. I believe God governs certain aspects of that which he set into motion (and in a more holistic sense, governs it all).
viruses - I believe the only answer to this is a Theological one. I believe, before the fall of man, the earth was in a paradise state. After the fall, when decay was introduced, certain mutations occured. Things that may have been "good" at one time, slowly became corrupt.
discipler
(Jun 16 05, 07:49)hahaha. so good viruses "evolved" into bad viruses after the fall of man.
What about viruses that have become immune to human treatment? has god, in the last 50 years or so, given them a wee hand?
- Kuz0
haha, skt, easy now, you're entering into the nonsensical Kantian "why would a good god..." crap. ;)
- Kuz0
That's all for me today discipler.
Tomorrow,
Transitional Fossils
;)
- discipler0
Big surprise, I disagree. The collection of books penned by different authors which constitutes the Bible is based on an abundance of harmonizing manuscripts which attest to it's consistansy and reliability. It has survived banning attempts, burning attempts, censorship of all forms and remains a best seller today and changes countless lives. This does not change those who would twist it "to their own destruction". I do not believe Christianity is religion, it's a relationship with a living Savior - another discussion.
Whether you guys like it or not, the latest scientific discoveries about the complexity of the tiny machines that are the building blocks of life, demonstrate an irreducible complexity that is not consistent with what Darwinists have believed for these short 150 years or so. It's time to upgrade and look at what science is actually observing. Intelligent Design and Creationism is not about illegitimately imposing the dictates of faith upon science, but about raising rational objections to proposed Darwinian explanations of the biological world. It's about observing the latest scientific evidence, namely regarding biochemical machines.
Finally, I challenge you to go and research the definition of the Second Law of thermodynamics and then show me how it is not saying what I (and countless other scientists) are saying.
- Jaline0
.