A thing in SCIENCE ''WE'' like to call .... WHAT? You have never even read a science book. You are not a 'WE', a scientist, you are a 'them', a creatard.
If your idea of Thermodynamics was true you couldn't grow in childhood.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics (which says that things get worse over time) is referring to energy in a CLOSED system. But the earth is NOT a closed system. In fact it is quite open and can receive energy from an outside source. The earth DOES receive energy in the form of nuclear fusion from the sun's rays every day. That is why things on earth (like evolving species) have the potential to get better instead of worse. This guy only thinks he studied thermodynamic laws.
Yeah, dumb scientists. Next they will be telling us that trees grow. This would be completely contrary to the second law of thermodynamics as you have stated it, so trees growing are clearly an illusion. Either that or you have completely failed to understand that law.
Hahah this guy has obviously never taken a class in thermodynamics or physical chemistry.
Anybody watching this video needs to look up the difference between Open, Closed, and Isolated systems. The crap this guy is spewing only qualifies for an ISOLATED system where no energy or matter can enter or escape. To form more complex systems and defeat entropy you need a huge constant energy source like, you guessed it,
@itsjustameme You who reject science and logic and insist on camp 2 being correct frequently revert back to that old overused tactic of calling those who disagree with you as stupid.
it forces me to conclude we have two camps. On the one hand we have biblical christianity, on the other hand we have those that oppose biblical christianity, and on the other hand we have islam, and on the other hand we have hinduism, and on the other hand we have buddhism, and on the other hand we have shintoism, and on the other hand.... have i made my point yet?
This dipshit couldn't understand the significance of thermodynamics with a brain transplant. His understanding of science and what it claims is abysmal. Evolution doesn't make things "better". We aren't better than bacteria, just more complex and complexity can be shown to be a natural consequence of the localized condition of reverse entropy we enjoy here on earth. Go take some actual science classes instead of just spouting bullshit you THINK you understand.
Does this drooling moron actually think he's being clever or convincing with his non-sequiturs? I could find more scientific understanding on 4chan... tragic
You really have no idea what a law or a theory is do you? You should also try looking up what entropy is. NOT at answersingenesis, but in an actual textbook. Entropy is not some abstract concept like "disorder". This is just a simple way of explaining it to the layperson. It is measurable and describes the quantity of energy available to do useful work in a system. It really has very little to do with complexity or evolution in the way you think it does.
The only thing people are to thermodynamics are energy sinks and sources. How much energy do you take out of the system, how much do you store, how much energy do you release back into the system. Energy in should equal energy out and energy stored.
@TerrencePhillip66 And as long as the energy used in creating the energy stored in our bodies is greater than that energy stored in our bodies, then disorder in the system has increased - THERMODYNAMIC DISORDER ( look up the definition - it is not a psychological neat room/messy room perception of order but a statistical measure) - and the 2nd law is not violated.
You have absolutely no grasp on science whatsoever. Your incoherent rambling only serves to drown out the cries coming from dying brain cells. You should drop the science bit all-together and stop pretending you understand simple scientific concepts .
thermodynamics has a mathematical basis, lets see your maths for an open system . That bright shiny thing in the daytime sky is the SUN. Guess where the energy comes from for local organisations.
Your definition of 2nd law would not allow a baby to be conceived , grow or be born. Since they are you must be wrong.
I also think you wrong with gravity. It seems to be a feature of distorted space/time rather than an energy field like magnetism.
The Second Law has nothing to do with crumbling pavement, the natural process of human aging, or the state of your hair when you wake up. It has everything to do with work and energy, and how much work can be done by a system.
The Second Law also influences the big chemistry set called humans, as all the chemical processes that go on inside living things must follow The Second Law.
Thermodynamics has nothing to do with theology, stop using it that way!
I am a Christian that actually believes in the Big Bang Theory because the universe is constantly expanding but that God caused the Big Bang otherwise it is just illogical to believe nothing caused the Big Bang.
@conservative608 Believe it or not, it is possible for "nothing" to create the Big Bang, quantam mechanic wise haha. Blew my mind when I heard that as well, but it would be possible for our universe to have been created with zero total energy before the Big Bang.
A snowflake moves from disorder (water) to order (ice) NATURALLY, without divine intervention. How is this possible?
We must consider the Gibb's free energy. Because snowflake formation is exothermic, and deltaG=deltaH-T*deltaS, the total entropy of the universe can increase, yet ice freezing remains spontaneous. The same is true with DNA organizing.
I guess theTRUTHgroup missed that day of chemistry class.
if the reason you believe your version of thermodynamics is because you think scientists say it's true, why do you believe a god? you're being bias, you can't do that in science.
Holy cow, you really don't understand thermodynamics.
In the first place, the second law states that entropy generally increases in a closed system. This means that entropy can and does decrease (a) locally and (b) in an open system. The Big Bang Theory is perfectly in line with the Laws of Thermodynamics (with the universe's entropy being at a minimum at the Planck Epoch). The Theory of Evolution doesn't really address the Laws of Thermodynamics at all, since it takes place in an open system.
No, just no... Things only slow down in space due to gravitational attraction, Gravitational pull does not weaken unless it does so through an indirect result such a slowing of the mass or its becoming less massive.
Roads wear down due to erosion and the fact that cars travel on it all the time which wears the road down.
Ecosystems are perfectly natural systems that can survive and grow and flourish by themselves without need for ANY outside intervention.
Actually, nowhere in science does it state that everything came from nothing. That is never even implied in science. A singularity is FAR from nothing. A singularity is an infinity away from nothing.
Also, your statement about the 1st Law is inherently ignorant of Quantum Mechanics. Within Quantum Mechanics there is a particle called a virtual particle, a particle that can arise from quantum fluctuations in quantum fields that can exist even in empty sapce. And they self-destruct too.
Also things do not get worse, they continually progress towards higher entropy. IF (keyword: IF) and ONLY IF there is an outside influence of some sort from the universe, Completely and utterly different.
Here's a question, your scientific understanding will be displayed: Which has a higher entropy, a gas cloud or a planet/star??
Furthermore, entropy is a measurement of disorder. Moreover, it's a measurement of how MUCH disorder there is ranging from high to low and is entirely relative. The underlying concept beneath entropy being symmetry, how much can you manipulate something before you can get a noticeable change. If this can be done easy, then you have a low entropy enviroment. If this cannot be done easily, you have a high entropy enviroment.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ONLY applies to a closed system.... Cities, Countries, Continents, Planetoids, Stars, Earth, the Sun, the Solar System, the Milky Way Galaxy, and our own galaxy cluster are ALL open systems. EVERYTHING in the universe is ultimately an open system except for the universe itself.
@Domodeath I am a physicist, I don't just believe in the laws of nature because i was raised that way, I know they are a fact, bla bla bla
But what was the matter at hand? O yes: My life is nonsense and a guy from the 'born-more-than-once-faction' told me kindly. But apart from me: What if people sticked to their business? You pray and i do the science. What would happen if i told people about the quaternity of Christianity, the gender of Jesus and the abortion of Mary? Mind your own entropy!
A snowflake forming naturally moves from disorder to order. Snowflakes are a natural process that occurs w/o any godly, supernatural intervention, that SEEMS to violate thermodynamics. The reason snowflake formation is possible is because ice freezing is an exothermic process. Clearly when you discuss entropy in your video you are ignoring enthalpy, and I believe that if you took a year or so to understand it, you would see how ignorantly flawed your argument is.
@3:30 you mention that the big bang states that everything came from nothing, however, the big bang model is that EVERYTHING expanded from an infintesimal point, that is not the same as saying that nothing exploded, please refrain from attacking strawmen...
"Well, if you're one of those "Big Bang People" (you mean physicists and astronomers), or an "evolutionist" (you mean biologists), or (GASP!) maybe even an atheist - more than likely, you'd be all of those..."
So, people who accept science theories are automatically atheists? That's quite a leap of logic - did you know Darwin was a Christian, or that the Big Bang theory was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest?
Science isn't anti-God, so much for your credibility.
their is nothing new underneath the sun we could not understand that concept 50 years ago but now we do its obvious Solomon was pointing from gods divination to thermodynamics that matter and energy can nether be destroyed nor created just converted in other words what was here from the beginning is still here today just in different forms.
People at a 20 year reunion are an example of entropy DECREASING at a local level. They have more mass, that mass is confined in largely hydro-carbon molecules. These molecules are storehouses of energy, they burn very nicely. This energy has not been dispersed more evenly throughout the system. It has become more concentrated. The system now has more energy available to it.
Hint: Take thermodynamics lessons in a science class, and not a Sunday School class.
Wow this makes no sense at all .... A fat man on the beach can oil himself with some nice scented lube; that'll make him smell better, so YOU ARE WRONG!
The arguments made in this video are painfully incoherent and I shudder to think that there may be people using this information to mentally weigh the 'validity' of science vs. the validity of 'God'. It's scary that people actually believe these nonsensical claims. Please read some high school level text books on physics, chemistry, math, and biology before posting any more videos.
You do realize that people like you who are telling the general populace that they have to be scientifically illiterate to be a christian are part of why christianity is on the decline, right?
@theTRUTHgroup You're not interested in truth. Your arguments are so stunningly ignorant that one must conclude it's willful. I've watched a few of your vids and not one makes a truthful case. Calling yourself theTruthgroup is an insult to honesty and knowledge. In you case, it's not much different from used car salesman that advertise with the word Honest preceding their name.Your use of "we call it thermodynamics" shows how dishonest you are, You're no physicist, don't present yourself as one
@theTRUTHgroup I'm just so baffled you call yourself the "truth" group, then lie through your teeth in the video.
You've lied about the relationship between science and atheism, and you're lying about thermodynamics by completely misrepresenting the laws. And you're doing it on purpose, as the end justifies the means.
@theTRUTHgroup ''Things do not get better with time'' So tell me about your childhood. What happened to you from age 2 to 10? Did you grow and become more organized, more organized than the peanutbutter and jelly sandwich you ate. You definition of entropy would mean life could not exist. Not a good argument.
@theTRUTHgroup the truth? dude you realize there is like HOW many religions>? if you grew up in iraq would you still be believeing in jesus? no, youd be believing in mohammed, because youd be told a different fairytale. religion is for small minded, weak people.
@theTRUTHgroup Entropy Tells about the decrease of Energy in a Closed System. you basically recited something that you never put time into actually research
@theTRUTHgroup This video is so excellent! It baffles me too that folks so willingly ignore the truth in the Bible and how science completely supports it.
@markpianoman Actually, I use thermodynamics to show that Genesis is not literal. It's all an extension of the 1st Law. But you keep right on going, demonstrating the need for more and better science and math education in this nation.
'wax old' yeah because its not common sense that things get older. "More than likely you'd be all of those" no, you don't have to be an atheist to understand cosmology or biology. 'Everything came from nothing' Nowhere in science does anything even close to claim that. You not understanding science does mean science works by miracles, it just means you have no idea what you're talking about. I'll give you a hint, it's not the biblical christianity camp
'things do not get better over time' entropy can and does decrease in pockets in open systems, IE earth 'They get worse' there is no 'better' or 'worse' its a matter of usable energy in the system 'Planets will cool down' unless there is, say, a trillion trillion trillion ton fusion reactor pumping energy into it. Did you really just say that gravitational pull weakens? "Does the pavement on the highway actually get better" it does when you add energy. NONE of those are examples of entropy
"might sound complicated" nice way to alienate your audience, treat them like idiots. "it's not a theory, its not 'this might be what happens' thats not a scientific theory either, a theory is a logical framework incorporating evidence and facts to explain a phenomenon. "These are laws" yes, scientific laws, which are DEscriptive, not PREscriptive 'energy can't just appear out of nowhere' see; quantum fluctuation.
Damn, if we just had some external energy source outside our planet so that there'd still be plenty of energy left even after we factored in the entropy losses from conversions. You know, like, some giant ball of gaseous hydrogen, deuterium and tritium that fuse together and emit energetic photons in the process. I wonder where we could find such an object in close vicinity to our planet. Hmm.
You say science is knowledge from observation, and then reject evolution.
Evolution being notorious for the amount of studies, and observation put into it?
Genetic science, our very DNA is an observation of evolution. In fact it matches up with the fossil record. Well the fossil record was the first observation of evolution. DNA later came to confirm the fossil record and prove genetic adaptations over time gradually changing a species DNA.
there is a very good reason creation "science" has lost to evolution every single time it has been brought to court (about 16 times in regards to what to teach in public schools). hint: creationism isn't science.
As I've already stated, the irony contained within the title alone, tells the person - who has the misfortune of watching this video - that Daniel (the ignorant creatard in this video) doesn't even realize that there is no such thing as a "scientific proof". I tried to explain this simple fact to lastdaysguitar, however, he is as ignorant as Daniel, even after showing the evidence in favour of my claim, he simply stopped replying, and ran away, as opposed to retiring respectfully.
You mean that book you wrote? Youtube gives you 500 characters for a reason. You can't carry on a conversation by dominating it. This isn't a classroom, it's a written conversation. The limitation is there so that finer points can be discussed.
Why should someone keep participating? It would take at least an hour, if not more, to formulate a response to your entire monologue, and most people just don't have that kind of time.
Which question are you answering specifically? As you said, I wrote a lot, and six months have passed since writing it. It would help if you let me know what it is you are on about specifically?
"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."
Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.
You see, each of these respected individuals knows the limits of science, and knows that scientific proof simply doesn't exist. There's no need for it to.
Things do not get better with time? You loose a loved one and over time you accept there passing and move on with your life? A man has a hangover and over time he feels better? A damaged cannot heal itself but a wounded leg over time can. Things do and do not get better over time, its a hard statement if your going to say only things don't get better over time period.
This guy has no frigging idea about what a scientific law, or for that matter, what a scientific theory is.
"It's not a theory, it's not hey, this might be what happens, or I think maybe this happened if that could have happened. These are laws, and of course laws are observable, they're testable, they're repeatable"
This guy doesn't understand that a law merely states the observable, whist the theory explains the mechanism behind the observable.
Look, before this conversation goes any further. I challenge you to find a single cited source, or definition, which provides an explanation for the term Scientific Law, and one that states that a "Law is a proven theory".
If you find ANYTHING - from a credible source - which states that a proven theory becomes a law, or that a law is a proven theory, then you and I can talk. Until then, I have no time to debate people who champion ignorance.
Erm, hardly. I've simply stated that if you would like to have a conversation on a given matter, we should agree on the definition of a word, or a term, or even an idea.
You stated that a "law is a proven theory". I've asked you to find a single source that supports your definition, and then we'll talk. Otherwise you and I will simply be going back and forth throughout the debate, and I have not time or energy for such childish, non academic drivel.
Can you please point out to me where I attacked this gentleman's beliefs? As far as I can tell, I merely pointed out that he doesn't have a clue about the subject he discussed in his video.
As a layman, I too am practically ignorant - compared to a scientist - on the topic of discussion in this video. However, I am not the one going around making videos, proclaiming that because I'm ignorant, and can't work out the answer to a given question, then a God must have done it!!!
So, like I said. If you want to continue this conversation, the you will have to provide me with a description of the word "law" that supports your description.
I'd imagine that if I made the statement "it says in the bible that God wants all disobedient children, who disrespect their parents, to be stoned to death", and you disagreed with the accuracy of that statement, then you'd probably want me to cite "Deuteronomy 21: 18-21" as my source. I merely ask the same of you.
Seeing as you have been absent for the past two hours, I am guessing that you are researching your claim, and having very little success in finding evidence to support it.
To save you the trouble, I've provided you with two links to two individuals who have two definitions for the terms theory and law. Enjoy!
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Why we use the term Theory in stead of Law in science.
betty you are wrong again, I was not researching, I was busy WORKING, but of course leave it to an athiest to not know ANYTHING about something and claim to know all about it.
You haven't had the courtesy to answer my questions - which were posed PRIOR to yours... why do you expect me to answer yours when you don't show the same courtesy?
Answer: stink brained athiests are immoral hypocrites who do not keep to the standard they set for others.
Leave it to a creationist - who takes things way to seriously - to not detect my sarcasm. Of course I knew you weren't researching, you're a creationist. Why would you want to go and actually read up on stuff when all knowledge is already in your little black book?
OK, so instead of you actually having to lift one of those chubby little fingers of yours, you want me to exert myself, in order to educate you. Is that right? Do you honestly think I'm going to fall for that one?
Do you honestly think I have any interest in debating - yet another - creationist, who hides behind silly questions, and poses as someone who is seeking knowledge, when actually you will not read a single thing I send you, nor will you listen to a single argument I present. And why me anyway? I've already told you I'm not a scientist, I'm merely a layman with a healthy interest in science. If you want to know what I know, then go read a few books. If you want to know what.....
...if you want to know what scientists know, then read a few books more. Take a course, do a degree or a PhD. Either way, I could give you a list of books and sources from some of the most notable experts on given scientific matters, and you'd still insist on someone, like me, a layman, explaining it to you.
I have the intellectual honesty to say to you "I don't know all the answers". Science has the intellectual honesty to say "We don't know all the answers", but science....
PS: I'm a Principal Eng. that is why I asked you the questions: you claim the bible can;t be true, yet you do not realize that real science without agenda proves the bible is TRUE.
...keeps on asking questions, and investigating, from which we all benefit. Which is more than can be said for any benefit your little bible.
So, now that I've told you that I am not prepared to answer your questions due to laziness on your behalf, and that there are thousands of scientists who can - and do in books and papers and here on YouTube - answer those questions a hundred times better than I could, are you going to hand over your cited definition as I requested?
I've been arranging alcohol for a party this weekend. I had to see a man about 60 bottles of prosecco, I don't supposed you want to have a bet for €400 so I can win some of my outlay back? I still have to fork out another €3,000 for Saturday too. Can we maybe come to some kind of arrangement? How about this. If you can find me a cited definition of your original "laws are proven theories" statement, then I'll send a six bottle box of prosecco to the USA for your own consumption. Well?
You do not understand logi or deductive reasoning process: EVERY law recognized by mankind starts with a hypothesis/ theory of its existance.
Show me a law where ANY theory of a laws EXISTANCE is not proven intrinsically.
Note: I am NOT speaking of any theory of functionality of a given law - I am saying that if a hypothesis or theory exists that states in it's assertion that a law exists - say for example gravity, that theory is ALWAYS proven when the phenomenon is accepted as a law.
You haven't watched those video I sent you have you? This is exactly why I wanted you to define the term "law" with support of your definition, as you are now talking nonsense and really wasting my time. You merely have to watch those videos to know the answer to your inane, asinine questions.
Let me explain to you the following. I am not going to answer your questions, which are very interesting, however, I refuse to pander to your child-like game of questions for the following reasons.
1) You haven't even looked at the info I sent to you so far, so why should I waste my time sending you new info?
2) There are people here on YouTube, and plenty of books available at your disposal, where others FAR more qualified than I ever will be, who can and do answer your Qs.
You make it sound as though I'm avoiding answering a few simple questions, but actually you are asking me to give you a college education for free. Hell, it's obvious you need it, and I sympathize, but you are barking up the wrong tree.
I'm afraid that you'll have to pull those chubby little fingers off your DiMarzio's, and pick up a book, a pen and a writing pad instead, and actually do something all students have had to do at least once in their lives. Learn!
It's "Ad hominem" actually, but still. You were the one that started of with the insults, I've kept it relatively clean up until now. Remember this one? "Just what I thought betty, you're just another stink brained athiest.". It's childish, and I practically ignored it, but still, you thought it an appropriate tactic to further your advancement in this conversation. I used "chubby little fingers" as a term of endearment, not to challenge the illogical merits of your assertions, but now you...
...think it's OK to pretend as though you're form of argumentation is superior? Haha, OK. You know what, I'm so bored of your pathetic little jibes, your illogical, baseless, structureless, waffle. I think it's time you and I call it a day, and leave each other alone. You have a world of information at the click of a button, but still you choose your little black book of ignorance over an entire universe of knowledge. Congratulations, if only it were you in the garden of Eden instead of Adam..
betty: You still have avoided questions and tried to through smokescreens with your own questions to avoid answering, Daniel has the answer - you don't.
I can't help but laugh when creationists get all frustrated, after the illogical though processes are pointed out to them. As they always threaten me with Hell. It's like saying to me that a three-headed demon will get me, if I don't eat my veggies. Or that I'm in danger of being run over by a pink unicorn. Still, at least I now think I've finally uncovered what the concept of Hell must be like for you. It probably looks like a university library!
Well, if Daniel has the answers, then we're all screwed! So go join him and your sycophantic, ecclesiastical homeboys in pious genuflection, and do us all a favour. No, not go throw yourselves off a cliff (I'm not as sick as Christians); confront your fears of books, learning and cardigan-donning bespectacled folk, and collectively apply for a library card. I implore you! Much love chubby x
betty, As mentioned I'm a professional principal engineer & had GREAT grades in physics, chemistry, biology - I understand all the arguments from both sides & see way too many holes in the athiestic viewpoint.
I think if we looked at who really studied these topics you'd be outdone.
You are brainwashed by the lies of evolution and non-creation.
You think man can from rocks and lifeless goo - all done randomly and without intelligence... sorry I don't have enough faith to believe that.
Congratulations on getting GREAT grades in each of those subjects. Good for you! Unfortunately, I can only go by the things you write, the position you take, or the argument you present. You've clearly demonstrated that you lack even a basic understanding of the fundamental differences between, facts, laws and theories. You've also used the word "proven" which is a mathematical term, and doesn't apply to the science. So how am I to believe that you've completed high school with GREAT grades
My communications isn't the issue, nor is my understanding.
The philosophers a lawyers I know would take serious issue with your contention that the proper use of the word "proven" is only in the exclusive domain of mathematics.
With every post you show more and more ignorance betty.
I didn't say that the word proof was an exclusive mathematical term. I said that scientists don't use the term proof as it is used in the world of mathematics. Essentially, scientific proofs do not exist, as scientist use the word "theory" (which is akin to proof), as it has more currency, and is better suited to the job, as theories can change. A proof, on the other hand, is essentially FINAL. Such as mathematical theorems, proofs never change, unless there is an error in the original equation.
betty's 1st post: "You've also used the word "proven" which is a mathematical term, and doesn't apply to the science."
betty's 2nd post: "I didn't say that the word proof was an exclusive mathematical term. I said that scientists don't use the term proof as it is used in the world of mathematics."
Hmmm, ever been called a pedantic little shit? You'd think that after all the mistakes and spelling errors that you've made in our discourse, that you would have - by now at least - accepted the constraints imposed on a 500 word limit in the comment box. Which may result in a word or two being either removed, or simply left out now and again: as to facilitate the fluidity of expressing a given point. I wish you employed such ostentatiousness in your own comments and thought processes.
That said, let's take my sentence and rewrite it, once and for all, for you, and your little lawyer and philosopher friends to read, and decipher, and to argue in favour of, or against.
"You've also used the word "proven" which is (generally) a mathematical term, and doesn't apply to the science(s)."
If you would like my definition of "proof" in a legal sense, and in my very limited knowledge of law. Lawyers attempt to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt (highest level)...
Most folks put misspelling in youtube posts in a different category than lying... however if your contention betty is that my misspelling justifies your lying, well that pretty much says it all.
Unfortunately for you, your attempts to "prove" me to be a liar, are quite pathetic. In fact, so much so, that I do believe you will have to ask your lawyer friend to, once again, step in and demonstrate to you how ignorant you actually are in these matters. By all means, go ahead, waste what little energy you may have left in that cute and chubby little frame of yours, and see how far you will get with your assertions and accusations. As for any contention; be it mine yours or an other's,..
...you are simply constructing the most flimsy of strawmen imaginable. "if your contention betty is that my misspelling justifies your lying,..". What? Hahahaha, where on earth have you extrapolated that nonsense from? Regardless of how your mind works, it is evident that you are not merely in need of a lesson (or 20) in the natural sciences, but maybe you should also consider an English class (or 20) too. Actually, why not add a class in Law to that ever increasing list too. You're on a roll!
"In English and US law a higher standard of proof is required in criminal cases (beyond all reasonable doubt), than in civil cases (on the balance of probabilities)."
...or by preponderance of evidence (lowest proof) to advance their position.
Much like science, as much evidence is presented, at that given moment, and the best, most accurate picture is "painted", to account for the elements of a given offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, like in mathematics, a "proof" is final.
As for philosophy, well - in my mind at least - this is way too deep to cover with my limited knowledge. So I am happy to skip this one one hand it over to your friend.
" A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true."
"The amount of evidence required varies from claim to claim. For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence. A third standard, proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, is used in criminal cases and very few civil cases."
"beyond a reasonable doubt -- (highest level of proof, used mainly in criminal trials)
preponderance of evidence -- (lowest level of proof, used mainly in civil trials)"
"The majority of civil claims are subjected to a preponderance of evidence standard. If a court or legislature seeks to make a civil claim more difficult to prove, it may RAISE the evidentiary standard to one of clear and convincing evidence."
"Under some circumstances use of the LOW preponderance of evidence standard may be a violation of constitutional rights."
"Superiority in weight of an evidence that is more convincing (EVEN IF MINIMALLY) than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is instructed to determine which party on the whole has preponderance of evidence, and to return a verdict in its favor."
Hahahaha, you are getting PWNED biaaatch! How do you like them apples? The thing is I could have, and should have done this yesterday. It's just that I didn't realised that you needed so much attention. If I had simply just referred you to the websites, and books and papers written by qualified scientists, then maybe, instead of dragging your chubby ass around for two days straight, I could have dropped you off an intellectual cliff: much to your chagrin, but much to my delight I'm sure!
It's hard enough doing your own research, let alone someone else's, not that you'd know anything about research. But still, in this case, I may be willing to make an exception. How about you ask your "friends" to help you write a reply back to me, telling me how I'm wrong on a few points, but, unlike your pathetic previous attempts to do so, you provide your sources, and challenge my position academically? These points include:
The difference between scientific hypotheses, laws and theories.
Wow, it's as if you don't think about what you are going to write next. It just kind of travels through those heavey-set, cute an' chubby little fingers of yours, and excretes itself into a digital collage of nonsensical twaddle. I can't wait for your friends to laugh at you and say "you know what chubby? I don't agree with his atheism, but he's actually been right all along". Let's consider Occam's razor here, what's more likely to be right. The legal definitions taken from legal dictionaries
My word, it must be a huge effort for you toneven tie your laces each morning. Or do you have Velcro straps on your shoes instead? How long does it take to get to your community centre each morning on the short bus? I've seen your sort before, bless you, you probably think that licking the windows is normal behaviour in your family.
But still, it's nice to know that there are projects for special people like you, as it would be terrible for you to have to sit in a puddle of dribble and feces
The difference between mathematical proofs and scientific theories.
The hierarchy of standards of conviction (Is this the correct term? I don't know, I've very little experience in law)
- Preponderance of the evidence
- Clear and convincing evidence
- Beyond a reasonable doubt
And whilst you are at it, why don't you consider the concept of burden of proof and apply that line of logic to your story of creation, which of course lacks any evidence whatsoever!!
This has been flagged as spam show
Whacky Evangelical Jihadists
odinata 1 month ago
A thing in SCIENCE ''WE'' like to call .... WHAT? You have never even read a science book. You are not a 'WE', a scientist, you are a 'them', a creatard.
If your idea of Thermodynamics was true you couldn't grow in childhood.
gregrutz 1 month ago
The 2nd law of thermodynamics (which says that things get worse over time) is referring to energy in a CLOSED system. But the earth is NOT a closed system. In fact it is quite open and can receive energy from an outside source. The earth DOES receive energy in the form of nuclear fusion from the sun's rays every day. That is why things on earth (like evolving species) have the potential to get better instead of worse. This guy only thinks he studied thermodynamic laws.
tra1215 2 months ago
@tra1215 You got that backwards: It's energy from the sun's rays, FROM nuclear fusion ;)
gimmethegepgun 1 month ago
and like man always does he messes things up...so much for intelligent design...
highlander355 2 months ago
The laws of thermodynamics refer to energy in a closed system.
Gullpped 4 months ago
Yeah, dumb scientists. Next they will be telling us that trees grow. This would be completely contrary to the second law of thermodynamics as you have stated it, so trees growing are clearly an illusion. Either that or you have completely failed to understand that law.
djhalling 4 months ago 2
LOL i suggest you go look up the definition of theory.
A scientific theory encompasses many laws and sets of data. Its not a guess or an "I think this is what happens" scenario.
Theories (like evolution) ARE testable, observable and repeatable.
You are an idiot.
jib1000 5 months ago
And there's a thing in society we like to call idiots. theTRUTHgroup is the pinnacle of stupidity
fdasherv 5 months ago
Science should be taught in science classes. Not in Sunday School. Because this is the tragic result.
TerrencePhillip66 6 months ago
Lolwut?!
Hahah this guy has obviously never taken a class in thermodynamics or physical chemistry.
Anybody watching this video needs to look up the difference between Open, Closed, and Isolated systems. The crap this guy is spewing only qualifies for an ISOLATED system where no energy or matter can enter or escape. To form more complex systems and defeat entropy you need a huge constant energy source like, you guessed it,
THE SUN.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
cidvisions 6 months ago
watch?v=fLk1Yx2OrVI&feature=feedrec_grec_index
D3V1N3CR34710R 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We like to call...?!? Who is WE, you are not a scientist, don't understand science or logic, and don't know what the third law of thermodynamis is.
gregrutz 9 months ago
So you say there are two camps:
Camp 1 - Biblical christianity
Camp 2 - Proven theories, knowledge and reason
And that one of them lines up with real science but you can't figure out which one...
Just how stupid are you?
Well - I for one place my money on camp 2.
itsjustameme 9 months ago
@itsjustameme You who reject science and logic and insist on camp 2 being correct frequently revert back to that old overused tactic of calling those who disagree with you as stupid.
markpianoman 4 months ago
it forces me to conclude we have two camps. On the one hand we have biblical christianity, on the other hand we have those that oppose biblical christianity, and on the other hand we have islam, and on the other hand we have hinduism, and on the other hand we have buddhism, and on the other hand we have shintoism, and on the other hand.... have i made my point yet?
RipzOnNubes 9 months ago
The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system.
PineappleBeans1 10 months ago 3
This dipshit couldn't understand the significance of thermodynamics with a brain transplant. His understanding of science and what it claims is abysmal. Evolution doesn't make things "better". We aren't better than bacteria, just more complex and complexity can be shown to be a natural consequence of the localized condition of reverse entropy we enjoy here on earth. Go take some actual science classes instead of just spouting bullshit you THINK you understand.
MrMZaccone 10 months ago 3
Does this drooling moron actually think he's being clever or convincing with his non-sequiturs? I could find more scientific understanding on 4chan... tragic
4ThomasAllan 10 months ago
You really have no idea what a law or a theory is do you? You should also try looking up what entropy is. NOT at answersingenesis, but in an actual textbook. Entropy is not some abstract concept like "disorder". This is just a simple way of explaining it to the layperson. It is measurable and describes the quantity of energy available to do useful work in a system. It really has very little to do with complexity or evolution in the way you think it does.
brianpv1 10 months ago
the TRUTHgroup doesn't understand thermodynamics.... at all....
LeonhardEuler1 10 months ago 14
The only thing people are to thermodynamics are energy sinks and sources. How much energy do you take out of the system, how much do you store, how much energy do you release back into the system. Energy in should equal energy out and energy stored.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
@TerrencePhillip66 And as long as the energy used in creating the energy stored in our bodies is greater than that energy stored in our bodies, then disorder in the system has increased - THERMODYNAMIC DISORDER ( look up the definition - it is not a psychological neat room/messy room perception of order but a statistical measure) - and the 2nd law is not violated.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
You have absolutely no grasp on science whatsoever. Your incoherent rambling only serves to drown out the cries coming from dying brain cells. You should drop the science bit all-together and stop pretending you understand simple scientific concepts .
May god have mercy on your soul
newusername01 1 year ago 3
Your brain is Jello pudding.
dangioplasty 1 year ago
thermodynamics has a mathematical basis, lets see your maths for an open system . That bright shiny thing in the daytime sky is the SUN. Guess where the energy comes from for local organisations.
Your definition of 2nd law would not allow a baby to be conceived , grow or be born. Since they are you must be wrong.
I also think you wrong with gravity. It seems to be a feature of distorted space/time rather than an energy field like magnetism.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
This guys brain apparently keeps getting a lot worse over time.
Elvikowsky 1 year ago
14,666 views :0
sonicpacker 1 year ago
@ 1:34
Sun = Road Crew
Sun = Gardener
Sun = Bathers
Sun = Auto Repair
New energy, etc. is added to the Earth daily.
I thought this stinker of a creation defense had been handed off to illiterate Muslims years ago.
In a few billion years you might be onto something.
OptimisticCynic715 1 year ago
The Second Law has nothing to do with crumbling pavement, the natural process of human aging, or the state of your hair when you wake up. It has everything to do with work and energy, and how much work can be done by a system.
The Second Law also influences the big chemistry set called humans, as all the chemical processes that go on inside living things must follow The Second Law.
Thermodynamics has nothing to do with theology, stop using it that way!
terrymorse 1 year ago
Props, though, for not blocking comments or ratings.
crabbieappleton 1 year ago
Videos like this make it so much the harder for real Christians to reconcile religion and science intellectually.
You should see the conversation between Dawkins and Fr. George Coyne for a glimpse of a real religious scientist.
crabbieappleton 1 year ago
Why haven't you deleted this video yet, given the many, many people who have shown you in the comments section how completely wrong you are?
Webofscience 1 year ago
I am a Christian that actually believes in the Big Bang Theory because the universe is constantly expanding but that God caused the Big Bang otherwise it is just illogical to believe nothing caused the Big Bang.
conservative608 1 year ago
@conservative608 you have been tricked my friend.How could you believe such a lie ;If you believe that you believe we evolved from a rock.
ConservativeGamerC 1 year ago
@conservative608 Believe it or not, it is possible for "nothing" to create the Big Bang, quantam mechanic wise haha. Blew my mind when I heard that as well, but it would be possible for our universe to have been created with zero total energy before the Big Bang.
Flamefrog 11 months ago
@theTRUTHgroup
A snowflake moves from disorder (water) to order (ice) NATURALLY, without divine intervention. How is this possible?
We must consider the Gibb's free energy. Because snowflake formation is exothermic, and deltaG=deltaH-T*deltaS, the total entropy of the universe can increase, yet ice freezing remains spontaneous. The same is true with DNA organizing.
I guess theTRUTHgroup missed that day of chemistry class.
That is some TRUTH you are pontificating here.
Very sad! :(
drgoldteef 1 year ago 3
I dont know why I bothered to comment on this video!!!
psychobartus 1 year ago
The stupidity is hurting my brain..
apestaartje321 1 year ago 12
"if i only had a brain"
Wizard of Oz. Starring, the STRAW MAN!
arachn1dinshoe 1 year ago 2
if the reason you believe your version of thermodynamics is because you think scientists say it's true, why do you believe a god? you're being bias, you can't do that in science.
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
Why do creationist talk about thermodynamics when what they are saying is not how the person who created it said what it was?
Is it ignorance? Are they lying? Are they diluted? Any ideas?
truckcompany 1 year ago
How gullible are these people?
JohnWoo 1 year ago
Holy cow, you really don't understand thermodynamics.
In the first place, the second law states that entropy generally increases in a closed system. This means that entropy can and does decrease (a) locally and (b) in an open system. The Big Bang Theory is perfectly in line with the Laws of Thermodynamics (with the universe's entropy being at a minimum at the Planck Epoch). The Theory of Evolution doesn't really address the Laws of Thermodynamics at all, since it takes place in an open system.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago 2
No, just no... Things only slow down in space due to gravitational attraction, Gravitational pull does not weaken unless it does so through an indirect result such a slowing of the mass or its becoming less massive.
Roads wear down due to erosion and the fact that cars travel on it all the time which wears the road down.
Ecosystems are perfectly natural systems that can survive and grow and flourish by themselves without need for ANY outside intervention.
tskasa1 1 year ago
Actually, nowhere in science does it state that everything came from nothing. That is never even implied in science. A singularity is FAR from nothing. A singularity is an infinity away from nothing.
Also, your statement about the 1st Law is inherently ignorant of Quantum Mechanics. Within Quantum Mechanics there is a particle called a virtual particle, a particle that can arise from quantum fluctuations in quantum fields that can exist even in empty sapce. And they self-destruct too.
tskasa1 1 year ago
Also things do not get worse, they continually progress towards higher entropy. IF (keyword: IF) and ONLY IF there is an outside influence of some sort from the universe, Completely and utterly different.
Here's a question, your scientific understanding will be displayed: Which has a higher entropy, a gas cloud or a planet/star??
tskasa1 1 year ago
Furthermore, entropy is a measurement of disorder. Moreover, it's a measurement of how MUCH disorder there is ranging from high to low and is entirely relative. The underlying concept beneath entropy being symmetry, how much can you manipulate something before you can get a noticeable change. If this can be done easy, then you have a low entropy enviroment. If this cannot be done easily, you have a high entropy enviroment.
tskasa1 1 year ago
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ONLY applies to a closed system.... Cities, Countries, Continents, Planetoids, Stars, Earth, the Sun, the Solar System, the Milky Way Galaxy, and our own galaxy cluster are ALL open systems. EVERYTHING in the universe is ultimately an open system except for the universe itself.
tskasa1 1 year ago
Does God wear down? Is God subject to the laws of physics?
freakincampers 1 year ago
@freakincampers no God does not wear down
God is not subject to physics
MacAr7huR 1 year ago
@MacAr7huR
Why not? He is part of this universe, is he not?
freakincampers 1 year ago
total nonsense...
Ah4b 1 year ago
@Ah4b Yes your life is :)
Domodeath 1 year ago
@Domodeath you dont sound like a real stubborn again christian... you should love me ;-) ;-) ;-)
Ah4b 1 year ago
@Ah4b I am a born again Christian, I don't just believe in Christiandy because I was raised that way, I know Christaiandy as a fact
Domodeath 1 year ago
@Domodeath I am a physicist, I don't just believe in the laws of nature because i was raised that way, I know they are a fact, bla bla bla
But what was the matter at hand? O yes: My life is nonsense and a guy from the 'born-more-than-once-faction' told me kindly. But apart from me: What if people sticked to their business? You pray and i do the science. What would happen if i told people about the quaternity of Christianity, the gender of Jesus and the abortion of Mary? Mind your own entropy!
Ah4b 1 year ago
A snowflake forming naturally moves from disorder to order. Snowflakes are a natural process that occurs w/o any godly, supernatural intervention, that SEEMS to violate thermodynamics. The reason snowflake formation is possible is because ice freezing is an exothermic process. Clearly when you discuss entropy in your video you are ignoring enthalpy, and I believe that if you took a year or so to understand it, you would see how ignorantly flawed your argument is.
drgoldteef 1 year ago
@3:30 you mention that the big bang states that everything came from nothing, however, the big bang model is that EVERYTHING expanded from an infintesimal point, that is not the same as saying that nothing exploded, please refrain from attacking strawmen...
ainefairygoddess 1 year ago
This is true comedy.
dagspoket 1 year ago
stupid evolutionist .....
fordatude 1 year ago
"Well, if you're one of those "Big Bang People" (you mean physicists and astronomers), or an "evolutionist" (you mean biologists), or (GASP!) maybe even an atheist - more than likely, you'd be all of those..."
So, people who accept science theories are automatically atheists? That's quite a leap of logic - did you know Darwin was a Christian, or that the Big Bang theory was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest?
Science isn't anti-God, so much for your credibility.
fkbryce 1 year ago
This video is an example of extreme ignorance or lying. Pick one.
csadler 1 year ago 3
@csadler
Or both.
freakincampers 1 year ago
their is nothing new underneath the sun we could not understand that concept 50 years ago but now we do its obvious Solomon was pointing from gods divination to thermodynamics that matter and energy can nether be destroyed nor created just converted in other words what was here from the beginning is still here today just in different forms.
christlover3000 1 year ago
People at a 20 year reunion are an example of entropy DECREASING at a local level. They have more mass, that mass is confined in largely hydro-carbon molecules. These molecules are storehouses of energy, they burn very nicely. This energy has not been dispersed more evenly throughout the system. It has become more concentrated. The system now has more energy available to it.
Hint: Take thermodynamics lessons in a science class, and not a Sunday School class.
DiggityDogg56 1 year ago
Wow this makes no sense at all .... A fat man on the beach can oil himself with some nice scented lube; that'll make him smell better, so YOU ARE WRONG!
VENEREALfunzone 1 year ago
Haha, I think you went to a pretty crappy school, most of this is just wrong.
MikeMarino 1 year ago
Excellent video!!
RhythmWasGiven 1 year ago
The arguments made in this video are painfully incoherent and I shudder to think that there may be people using this information to mentally weigh the 'validity' of science vs. the validity of 'God'. It's scary that people actually believe these nonsensical claims. Please read some high school level text books on physics, chemistry, math, and biology before posting any more videos.
jvp367 2 years ago
Do creationists EVER get tired of being wrong?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 31
This comment has received too many negative votes show
We never get tired of showing you the truth.
We're just baffled that you so willingly ignore it.
theTRUTHgroup 2 years ago
I don't ignore it, I see very clearly that you have no idea what you're talking about.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
You do realize that people like you who are telling the general populace that they have to be scientifically illiterate to be a christian are part of why christianity is on the decline, right?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
What "truth"?
According to your "science", protein folding is impossible because it goes from a random chain of amino acid residue to a functional protein.
Earth is NOT a closed system. Thermodynamics is a non-argument.
anglicantian 2 years ago
@theTRUTHgroup You're not interested in truth. Your arguments are so stunningly ignorant that one must conclude it's willful. I've watched a few of your vids and not one makes a truthful case. Calling yourself theTruthgroup is an insult to honesty and knowledge. In you case, it's not much different from used car salesman that advertise with the word Honest preceding their name.Your use of "we call it thermodynamics" shows how dishonest you are, You're no physicist, don't present yourself as one
snappingbear 1 year ago
@theTRUTHgroup I'm just so baffled you call yourself the "truth" group, then lie through your teeth in the video.
You've lied about the relationship between science and atheism, and you're lying about thermodynamics by completely misrepresenting the laws. And you're doing it on purpose, as the end justifies the means.
Yeah, that lying is good, Christian behavior!
fkbryce 1 year ago
Scientific Proof of the Bible #3: Thermodynamics - Ozmoroid Responds
you're demonstrably wrong. Who's the one ignoring the truth!?
lennyhipp 1 year ago
@theTRUTHgroup If the 2nd law worked like creationists say life would not be possible.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@theTRUTHgroup ''Things do not get better with time'' So tell me about your childhood. What happened to you from age 2 to 10? Did you grow and become more organized, more organized than the peanutbutter and jelly sandwich you ate. You definition of entropy would mean life could not exist. Not a good argument.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@theTRUTHgroup the truth? dude you realize there is like HOW many religions>? if you grew up in iraq would you still be believeing in jesus? no, youd be believing in mohammed, because youd be told a different fairytale. religion is for small minded, weak people.
silent13379 11 months ago 3
@theTRUTHgroup Entropy Tells about the decrease of Energy in a Closed System. you basically recited something that you never put time into actually research
konohanominato 6 months ago
@theTRUTHgroup This video is so excellent! It baffles me too that folks so willingly ignore the truth in the Bible and how science completely supports it.
markpianoman 4 months ago
@markpianoman Actually, I use thermodynamics to show that Genesis is not literal. It's all an extension of the 1st Law. But you keep right on going, demonstrating the need for more and better science and math education in this nation.
NorthForkFisherman 2 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Just another reason why people laugh at creationists.
:-))
psychobackpacker 1 year ago
@psychobackpacker Only creationists don't understand why.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
'wax old' yeah because its not common sense that things get older. "More than likely you'd be all of those" no, you don't have to be an atheist to understand cosmology or biology. 'Everything came from nothing' Nowhere in science does anything even close to claim that. You not understanding science does mean science works by miracles, it just means you have no idea what you're talking about. I'll give you a hint, it's not the biblical christianity camp
OperationOperafox 2 years ago 7
'things do not get better over time' entropy can and does decrease in pockets in open systems, IE earth 'They get worse' there is no 'better' or 'worse' its a matter of usable energy in the system 'Planets will cool down' unless there is, say, a trillion trillion trillion ton fusion reactor pumping energy into it. Did you really just say that gravitational pull weakens? "Does the pavement on the highway actually get better" it does when you add energy. NONE of those are examples of entropy
OperationOperafox 2 years ago 17
@OperationOperafox "'They get worse' there is no 'better' or 'worse' its a matter of usable energy in the system"
Absolutely. The "truth" group is once again purposely misstating the word "order", repeating a tired and completely refuted claim.
This is what you get from those who think physicists, astronomers, biologists, and atheist are actually the same group of people.
fkbryce 1 year ago
"might sound complicated" nice way to alienate your audience, treat them like idiots. "it's not a theory, its not 'this might be what happens' thats not a scientific theory either, a theory is a logical framework incorporating evidence and facts to explain a phenomenon. "These are laws" yes, scientific laws, which are DEscriptive, not PREscriptive 'energy can't just appear out of nowhere' see; quantum fluctuation.
OperationOperafox 2 years ago 6
This is not a simplification of the Laws of the Thermodynamics; this is a horrible mutation. It's what might be called a STUPIDIFICATION!
This is not understanding, it's ignorance.
13shadowwolf 2 years ago
Damn, if we just had some external energy source outside our planet so that there'd still be plenty of energy left even after we factored in the entropy losses from conversions. You know, like, some giant ball of gaseous hydrogen, deuterium and tritium that fuse together and emit energetic photons in the process. I wonder where we could find such an object in close vicinity to our planet. Hmm.
KingKolunikus 2 years ago
Brilliant video.
Science is knowledge from observation. What we observe is entropy, not evolution.
Evolution is a fairy tale for retards.
Ascythian 2 years ago
You say science is knowledge from observation, and then reject evolution.
Evolution being notorious for the amount of studies, and observation put into it?
Genetic science, our very DNA is an observation of evolution. In fact it matches up with the fossil record. Well the fossil record was the first observation of evolution. DNA later came to confirm the fossil record and prove genetic adaptations over time gradually changing a species DNA.
RealistAtheist 2 years ago
What the heck is this video?
This is seriously Chem 101, Bio 101 and Physics 101 stuff he has completely backwards.....
This has to be satire...
porterwake 2 years ago
there is a very good reason creation "science" has lost to evolution every single time it has been brought to court (about 16 times in regards to what to teach in public schools). hint: creationism isn't science.
Otsegoflesh 2 years ago
F.U. You lost the Civil War and your still a Loser. hey, grow a brain. The Bible's a good book, So is Walden Pond and The Wizard of Oz.
definemaybe 2 years ago
You, sir, are exceptionally self-defeating. Keep it up! Next time I'll bring popcorn.
I think your videos alone could drive a person to atheism simply so as to not be affiliated with the likes of yourself! lol.
holyhell5050 2 years ago
holyhell5050
As I've already stated, the irony contained within the title alone, tells the person - who has the misfortune of watching this video - that Daniel (the ignorant creatard in this video) doesn't even realize that there is no such thing as a "scientific proof". I tried to explain this simple fact to lastdaysguitar, however, he is as ignorant as Daniel, even after showing the evidence in favour of my claim, he simply stopped replying, and ran away, as opposed to retiring respectfully.
GodlessComedy 2 years ago
He's probably repressing those memories at this very moment :P
holyhell5050 2 years ago
@GodlessComedy
You mean that book you wrote? Youtube gives you 500 characters for a reason. You can't carry on a conversation by dominating it. This isn't a classroom, it's a written conversation. The limitation is there so that finer points can be discussed.
Why should someone keep participating? It would take at least an hour, if not more, to formulate a response to your entire monologue, and most people just don't have that kind of time.
Self-importance does not equate to being right.
Drandon 1 year ago
@Drandon
Which question are you answering specifically? As you said, I wrote a lot, and six months have passed since writing it. It would help if you let me know what it is you are on about specifically?
GodlessComedy 1 year ago
Right on Brother! to live outside the Law you must be honest
definemaybe 2 years ago
"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."
Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.
You see, each of these respected individuals knows the limits of science, and knows that scientific proof simply doesn't exist. There's no need for it to.
Willing to now concede this matter?
GodlessComedy 2 years ago
What caused the universe betty?
What was the catylist that created the conditions of "okay, ready? set? GO!"
What kept the speed of expansion at exactly the proper rate to avoid collapsing on itself?
Why did athiests wrongly say for most of the last 2 milleniums that universe was eternal when the 1st sentence of the bible explains a beginning.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
wtf this guy doesn't know a thing about science! he doesn't even know what entropy is...
2YinYang2 2 years ago
Yeah man, i'm convinced !
ziggazaggy 2 years ago
"God created everything and put man incharge of everything, then like man always does he messes things up" Theres 2 problems with that.
1. If everything was perfect including man then how could man mess up? Plus the fact that God put the tree there.
2. Are you saying the perfect God made an imperfect creation?
Xxrr23 2 years ago 2
yes. plz read genesis.1-8
GamerzDeity 2 years ago
Things do not get better with time? You loose a loved one and over time you accept there passing and move on with your life? A man has a hangover and over time he feels better? A damaged cannot heal itself but a wounded leg over time can. Things do and do not get better over time, its a hard statement if your going to say only things don't get better over time period.
Xxrr23 2 years ago
What was the omnipotent one's reason for creating humans?
Just as this moron states god put people in charge and we mess everything up as we are pretty good at it. "over time everything is going to get worse"
So the all knowing one already knew this was going to happen. The end is foretold, the bible tells this.
So what was gods reason for creating us.?
There is a need for billions to suffer in eternal hell?
No I think the actual realit y is that the guy doing this video is a complete fucktard.
1A2Key 2 years ago
This guy has no frigging idea about what a scientific law, or for that matter, what a scientific theory is.
"It's not a theory, it's not hey, this might be what happens, or I think maybe this happened if that could have happened. These are laws, and of course laws are observable, they're testable, they're repeatable"
This guy doesn't understand that a law merely states the observable, whist the theory explains the mechanism behind the observable.
"That's how science works!" DICKHEAD!
bettySwollox 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Betty, Actually a law is a proven theory, so Daniels statement makes perfect sense.
Your picking nits because U don't like Daniels real message.
What caused the universe betty?
What was the catylist that created the conditions of "okay, ready? set? GO!"
What kept the speed of expansion at exactly the proper rate to avoid collapsing on itself?
Why did athiests wrongly say for most of the last 2 milleniums that universe was eternal when the 1st sentence of the bible explains a beginning.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
lastdaysguitar
Look, before this conversation goes any further. I challenge you to find a single cited source, or definition, which provides an explanation for the term Scientific Law, and one that states that a "Law is a proven theory".
If you find ANYTHING - from a credible source - which states that a proven theory becomes a law, or that a law is a proven theory, then you and I can talk. Until then, I have no time to debate people who champion ignorance.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
Just what I thought betty, you're just another stink brained athiest.
you attack other peoples beliefs - but when someone attacks yours with some basic questions about it, you shrivel up.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
Erm, hardly. I've simply stated that if you would like to have a conversation on a given matter, we should agree on the definition of a word, or a term, or even an idea.
You stated that a "law is a proven theory". I've asked you to find a single source that supports your definition, and then we'll talk. Otherwise you and I will simply be going back and forth throughout the debate, and I have not time or energy for such childish, non academic drivel.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
lastdaysguitar
Can you please point out to me where I attacked this gentleman's beliefs? As far as I can tell, I merely pointed out that he doesn't have a clue about the subject he discussed in his video.
As a layman, I too am practically ignorant - compared to a scientist - on the topic of discussion in this video. However, I am not the one going around making videos, proclaiming that because I'm ignorant, and can't work out the answer to a given question, then a God must have done it!!!
bettySwollox 2 years ago
Betty,
Daniels's answering the questions you can't... and you don't like that because you are running at all costs from the very notion of God.
What are you hiding from betty?
Are you protecting a sinful life?
Want to avoid accountability?
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
So, like I said. If you want to continue this conversation, the you will have to provide me with a description of the word "law" that supports your description.
I'd imagine that if I made the statement "it says in the bible that God wants all disobedient children, who disrespect their parents, to be stoned to death", and you disagreed with the accuracy of that statement, then you'd probably want me to cite "Deuteronomy 21: 18-21" as my source. I merely ask the same of you.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
lastdaysguitar
Seeing as you have been absent for the past two hours, I am guessing that you are researching your claim, and having very little success in finding evidence to support it.
To save you the trouble, I've provided you with two links to two individuals who have two definitions for the terms theory and law. Enjoy!
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Why we use the term Theory in stead of Law in science.
watch?v=u5X3Xtt7HBU
Scientific Law vs Scientific Theory
watch?v=S2xhPgDuUlA&feature=related
bettySwollox 2 years ago
betty you are wrong again, I was not researching, I was busy WORKING, but of course leave it to an athiest to not know ANYTHING about something and claim to know all about it.
You haven't had the courtesy to answer my questions - which were posed PRIOR to yours... why do you expect me to answer yours when you don't show the same courtesy?
Answer: stink brained athiests are immoral hypocrites who do not keep to the standard they set for others.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
lastdaysguitar
Leave it to a creationist - who takes things way to seriously - to not detect my sarcasm. Of course I knew you weren't researching, you're a creationist. Why would you want to go and actually read up on stuff when all knowledge is already in your little black book?
OK, so instead of you actually having to lift one of those chubby little fingers of yours, you want me to exert myself, in order to educate you. Is that right? Do you honestly think I'm going to fall for that one?
bettySwollox 2 years ago
lastdaysguitar
Do you honestly think I have any interest in debating - yet another - creationist, who hides behind silly questions, and poses as someone who is seeking knowledge, when actually you will not read a single thing I send you, nor will you listen to a single argument I present. And why me anyway? I've already told you I'm not a scientist, I'm merely a layman with a healthy interest in science. If you want to know what I know, then go read a few books. If you want to know what.....
bettySwollox 2 years ago
lastdaysguitar
...if you want to know what scientists know, then read a few books more. Take a course, do a degree or a PhD. Either way, I could give you a list of books and sources from some of the most notable experts on given scientific matters, and you'd still insist on someone, like me, a layman, explaining it to you.
I have the intellectual honesty to say to you "I don't know all the answers". Science has the intellectual honesty to say "We don't know all the answers", but science....
bettySwollox 2 years ago
PS: I'm a Principal Eng. that is why I asked you the questions: you claim the bible can;t be true, yet you do not realize that real science without agenda proves the bible is TRUE.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
lastdaysguitar
...keeps on asking questions, and investigating, from which we all benefit. Which is more than can be said for any benefit your little bible.
So, now that I've told you that I am not prepared to answer your questions due to laziness on your behalf, and that there are thousands of scientists who can - and do in books and papers and here on YouTube - answer those questions a hundred times better than I could, are you going to hand over your cited definition as I requested?
bettySwollox 2 years ago
where've you been betty? unable to come up with the answers to have proofs to contest the bible after 3hrs.
I see.
Hypocrite.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
I've been arranging alcohol for a party this weekend. I had to see a man about 60 bottles of prosecco, I don't supposed you want to have a bet for €400 so I can win some of my outlay back? I still have to fork out another €3,000 for Saturday too. Can we maybe come to some kind of arrangement? How about this. If you can find me a cited definition of your original "laws are proven theories" statement, then I'll send a six bottle box of prosecco to the USA for your own consumption. Well?
bettySwollox 2 years ago
I don't want your booze - answer the questions I posed to you first and I'll answer yours.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
You do not understand logi or deductive reasoning process: EVERY law recognized by mankind starts with a hypothesis/ theory of its existance.
Show me a law where ANY theory of a laws EXISTANCE is not proven intrinsically.
Note: I am NOT speaking of any theory of functionality of a given law - I am saying that if a hypothesis or theory exists that states in it's assertion that a law exists - say for example gravity, that theory is ALWAYS proven when the phenomenon is accepted as a law.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
You haven't watched those video I sent you have you? This is exactly why I wanted you to define the term "law" with support of your definition, as you are now talking nonsense and really wasting my time. You merely have to watch those videos to know the answer to your inane, asinine questions.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
still avoiding answering - betty, you've got nothing but a lie.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
lastdaysguitar
Let me explain to you the following. I am not going to answer your questions, which are very interesting, however, I refuse to pander to your child-like game of questions for the following reasons.
1) You haven't even looked at the info I sent to you so far, so why should I waste my time sending you new info?
2) There are people here on YouTube, and plenty of books available at your disposal, where others FAR more qualified than I ever will be, who can and do answer your Qs.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
lastdaysguitar
You make it sound as though I'm avoiding answering a few simple questions, but actually you are asking me to give you a college education for free. Hell, it's obvious you need it, and I sympathize, but you are barking up the wrong tree.
I'm afraid that you'll have to pull those chubby little fingers off your DiMarzio's, and pick up a book, a pen and a writing pad instead, and actually do something all students have had to do at least once in their lives. Learn!
bettySwollox 2 years ago
ad homonym - the last resort of the
athiest.
cluelessly drifting into hell, the atheist floats from really looking at their position by avoiding defending it.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
It's "Ad hominem" actually, but still. You were the one that started of with the insults, I've kept it relatively clean up until now. Remember this one? "Just what I thought betty, you're just another stink brained athiest.". It's childish, and I practically ignored it, but still, you thought it an appropriate tactic to further your advancement in this conversation. I used "chubby little fingers" as a term of endearment, not to challenge the illogical merits of your assertions, but now you...
bettySwollox 2 years ago
...think it's OK to pretend as though you're form of argumentation is superior? Haha, OK. You know what, I'm so bored of your pathetic little jibes, your illogical, baseless, structureless, waffle. I think it's time you and I call it a day, and leave each other alone. You have a world of information at the click of a button, but still you choose your little black book of ignorance over an entire universe of knowledge. Congratulations, if only it were you in the garden of Eden instead of Adam..
bettySwollox 2 years ago
betty: You still have avoided questions and tried to through smokescreens with your own questions to avoid answering, Daniel has the answer - you don't.
Just another stink brained athiest
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
I can't help but laugh when creationists get all frustrated, after the illogical though processes are pointed out to them. As they always threaten me with Hell. It's like saying to me that a three-headed demon will get me, if I don't eat my veggies. Or that I'm in danger of being run over by a pink unicorn. Still, at least I now think I've finally uncovered what the concept of Hell must be like for you. It probably looks like a university library!
bettySwollox 2 years ago
Well, if Daniel has the answers, then we're all screwed! So go join him and your sycophantic, ecclesiastical homeboys in pious genuflection, and do us all a favour. No, not go throw yourselves off a cliff (I'm not as sick as Christians); confront your fears of books, learning and cardigan-donning bespectacled folk, and collectively apply for a library card. I implore you! Much love chubby x
bettySwollox 2 years ago
betty, As mentioned I'm a professional principal engineer & had GREAT grades in physics, chemistry, biology - I understand all the arguments from both sides & see way too many holes in the athiestic viewpoint.
I think if we looked at who really studied these topics you'd be outdone.
You are brainwashed by the lies of evolution and non-creation.
You think man can from rocks and lifeless goo - all done randomly and without intelligence... sorry I don't have enough faith to believe that.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
Congratulations on getting GREAT grades in each of those subjects. Good for you! Unfortunately, I can only go by the things you write, the position you take, or the argument you present. You've clearly demonstrated that you lack even a basic understanding of the fundamental differences between, facts, laws and theories. You've also used the word "proven" which is a mathematical term, and doesn't apply to the science. So how am I to believe that you've completed high school with GREAT grades
bettySwollox 2 years ago
Betty, you are hiding.
My communications isn't the issue, nor is my understanding.
The philosophers a lawyers I know would take serious issue with your contention that the proper use of the word "proven" is only in the exclusive domain of mathematics.
With every post you show more and more ignorance betty.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
I didn't say that the word proof was an exclusive mathematical term. I said that scientists don't use the term proof as it is used in the world of mathematics. Essentially, scientific proofs do not exist, as scientist use the word "theory" (which is akin to proof), as it has more currency, and is better suited to the job, as theories can change. A proof, on the other hand, is essentially FINAL. Such as mathematical theorems, proofs never change, unless there is an error in the original equation.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
betty's a proven LIAR:
betty's 1st post: "You've also used the word "proven" which is a mathematical term, and doesn't apply to the science."
betty's 2nd post: "I didn't say that the word proof was an exclusive mathematical term. I said that scientists don't use the term proof as it is used in the world of mathematics."
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
Hmmm, ever been called a pedantic little shit? You'd think that after all the mistakes and spelling errors that you've made in our discourse, that you would have - by now at least - accepted the constraints imposed on a 500 word limit in the comment box. Which may result in a word or two being either removed, or simply left out now and again: as to facilitate the fluidity of expressing a given point. I wish you employed such ostentatiousness in your own comments and thought processes.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
That said, let's take my sentence and rewrite it, once and for all, for you, and your little lawyer and philosopher friends to read, and decipher, and to argue in favour of, or against.
"You've also used the word "proven" which is (generally) a mathematical term, and doesn't apply to the science(s)."
If you would like my definition of "proof" in a legal sense, and in my very limited knowledge of law. Lawyers attempt to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt (highest level)...
bettySwollox 2 years ago
Most folks put misspelling in youtube posts in a different category than lying... however if your contention betty is that my misspelling justifies your lying, well that pretty much says it all.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
Unfortunately for you, your attempts to "prove" me to be a liar, are quite pathetic. In fact, so much so, that I do believe you will have to ask your lawyer friend to, once again, step in and demonstrate to you how ignorant you actually are in these matters. By all means, go ahead, waste what little energy you may have left in that cute and chubby little frame of yours, and see how far you will get with your assertions and accusations. As for any contention; be it mine yours or an other's,..
bettySwollox 2 years ago
...you are simply constructing the most flimsy of strawmen imaginable. "if your contention betty is that my misspelling justifies your lying,..". What? Hahahaha, where on earth have you extrapolated that nonsense from? Regardless of how your mind works, it is evident that you are not merely in need of a lesson (or 20) in the natural sciences, but maybe you should also consider an English class (or 20) too. Actually, why not add a class in Law to that ever increasing list too. You're on a roll!
bettySwollox 2 years ago
"In English and US law a higher standard of proof is required in criminal cases (beyond all reasonable doubt), than in civil cases (on the balance of probabilities)."
bettySwollox 2 years ago
...or by preponderance of evidence (lowest proof) to advance their position.
Much like science, as much evidence is presented, at that given moment, and the best, most accurate picture is "painted", to account for the elements of a given offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, like in mathematics, a "proof" is final.
As for philosophy, well - in my mind at least - this is way too deep to cover with my limited knowledge. So I am happy to skip this one one hand it over to your friend.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
betty, you are wrong again:
preponderance of evidence is NOT lowest proof... it is the higher proof
i.e.: more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
Really?
" A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true."
"The amount of evidence required varies from claim to claim. For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence. A third standard, proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, is used in criminal cases and very few civil cases."
bettySwollox 2 years ago
"beyond a reasonable doubt -- (highest level of proof, used mainly in criminal trials)
preponderance of evidence -- (lowest level of proof, used mainly in civil trials)"
"The majority of civil claims are subjected to a preponderance of evidence standard. If a court or legislature seeks to make a civil claim more difficult to prove, it may RAISE the evidentiary standard to one of clear and convincing evidence."
bettySwollox 2 years ago
"Under some circumstances use of the LOW preponderance of evidence standard may be a violation of constitutional rights."
"Superiority in weight of an evidence that is more convincing (EVEN IF MINIMALLY) than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is instructed to determine which party on the whole has preponderance of evidence, and to return a verdict in its favor."
bettySwollox 2 years ago
Hahahaha, you are getting PWNED biaaatch! How do you like them apples? The thing is I could have, and should have done this yesterday. It's just that I didn't realised that you needed so much attention. If I had simply just referred you to the websites, and books and papers written by qualified scientists, then maybe, instead of dragging your chubby ass around for two days straight, I could have dropped you off an intellectual cliff: much to your chagrin, but much to my delight I'm sure!
bettySwollox 2 years ago
It's hard enough doing your own research, let alone someone else's, not that you'd know anything about research. But still, in this case, I may be willing to make an exception. How about you ask your "friends" to help you write a reply back to me, telling me how I'm wrong on a few points, but, unlike your pathetic previous attempts to do so, you provide your sources, and challenge my position academically? These points include:
The difference between scientific hypotheses, laws and theories.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
WRONG betty, The preponderance of evidence is the greater weight of evidence and thus higher not lower level of evidence.
This preponderence of evidence is used to render a most plausible logical conclusion in situations where there is a degree of doubt.
The proof beyond reasonable doubt is another matter entirely.
You're an idiot.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
Wow, it's as if you don't think about what you are going to write next. It just kind of travels through those heavey-set, cute an' chubby little fingers of yours, and excretes itself into a digital collage of nonsensical twaddle. I can't wait for your friends to laugh at you and say "you know what chubby? I don't agree with his atheism, but he's actually been right all along". Let's consider Occam's razor here, what's more likely to be right. The legal definitions taken from legal dictionaries
bettySwollox 2 years ago
Betty,
Since we're talking looks I notice your profile has no photos of you, and you fight with other girls in a gym. I wonder, are you a hag?
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
My word, it must be a huge effort for you toneven tie your laces each morning. Or do you have Velcro straps on your shoes instead? How long does it take to get to your community centre each morning on the short bus? I've seen your sort before, bless you, you probably think that licking the windows is normal behaviour in your family.
But still, it's nice to know that there are projects for special people like you, as it would be terrible for you to have to sit in a puddle of dribble and feces
bettySwollox 2 years ago
The difference between mathematical proofs and scientific theories.
The hierarchy of standards of conviction (Is this the correct term? I don't know, I've very little experience in law)
- Preponderance of the evidence
- Clear and convincing evidence
- Beyond a reasonable doubt
And whilst you are at it, why don't you consider the concept of burden of proof and apply that line of logic to your story of creation, which of course lacks any evidence whatsoever!!
Good luck!
bettySwollox 2 years ago