This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Use you brains you halfwits.
If you make a machine - no, not a toaster idiot - that can make copies of itself from resources around it....then let it run idefinitely. What do you think will happen.
Now, now. You might have to use use brains here and apply some commonsense and basic intelligence. I know its going to be hard for you but give it a try anyway.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That machine will eventually breakdown and cease to function. And a many generations from now, its descendants will look much different to the original machine and will likely also lose certain functions.
But noway in hell, will the descendants be more complex or a whole new machine. It just doesn't happen in THE REAL WORLD. Keep dreaming evolutionists. A Living cell is merely a BIOLOGICAL machine.
It does happen in the real world. We observe that it happens. Your hypothetical situation does nothing to resolve the fact that what you're saying is not true. Biological machine or not, reproduction with variation induces change over time, which can and does increase complexity, if doing so is beneficial to survival.
Not true, provided the machine does not make perfect copies of itself, that each time there's at least a few things that are a little bit different. When environmental pressures favor the survival of these machines due to small differences, over time those machines add up to what look like large differences, and sometimes those large differences make the future generations "more complex" than the original.
Not only that, but sometimes the machines will enter an environment or have the environment change around them where a certain part of its machinery is no longer needed for its original purpose. This part may become vestigal, or it could also, in time due to continued small changes and environmental pressures, become re-worked to surve a new purpose. This also seems to make the machine more complex than its ancestors.
Not true. If the machine does not perfectly reproduce itself each time, if every copy is slightly different from its predecessors, and the small changes, due to the environment produce a higher rate of survival, then over time these small changes add up, and the small changes eventually look like large changes, which in the end serves to make the new machines seem more complex than the predecessors.
My toaster has never done anything other than make brown bread, and only when I've asked it to do so. I've certainly never found any little toasters in my kitchen.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Damn, I'd love to see how a computer, car, plane evolves to a more complex version through random events. Aint happening. And don't say it's different with living cells because it isn't.
I have a degree in Biochemistry and those cells must obey the same natural laws as physical machines do. Obviously, it is idiotic to insist that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics doesn't refute evelotion because anyone would commonsense nows it does.
If you do have a degree in biochemistry, you need to study physics more(in which I have a degree). The only idiotic thing is your misunderstanding of the second law.
The total entropy of our universe cannot be decreased. We are burning calories, and dumping heat into the environment, and that eventually goes into space. We are making outer space more disorderly in the process of evolution.
The descendants won't be more complex either simply due to yes, the second law of thermodynamics. The programming passed on over generations will eventually degrade over generations - the programming definitely won't become more complex due to random events in an open/closed system. Keep dreaming.
all living cells are BIOLOGICAL machines and there's no way you can deny this fact - there are inputs, process, output.
If I built a machine that preduces exact copies of itself and allow it to run indefinitely. Eventually that original machine will break down and cease to function. Also 1 million yeares from now, it's descendants won't look like the original machine.
The seed is a biological machine. It was made in such a way that in takes in inputs, processes them and produces outputs to eventually produce a tree. Again, a biological machines.
machines do not become increasingly complex through random events, in an open system, over long periods of times. Just doesnt happen.
There is no proof of makrogrowth! Ever seen a seedling grow into a big tree? Biologists claim that this takes many years, but all they could prove is microgrowth... ;)
Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
f a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too.
Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease."
PestManPat, atheists, and christians: I would like to direct you to a website, made by Christians, specifically intended to assist Christians in their discussions with Atheists. Atlthough I don't buy it a bit, their arguments are the best I've seen. Due to YouTube's restrictions on links, I spell it funny below so you'll have to type it in. Remove parentheses and spaces:
Ericinnit, do you really fail to see that verse 21 ESTABLISHES a rule that a man should NOT be punished for beating a slave to the point that the slave is unable to walk, (as long as the slave gets up after "a day or two") then your denial is beyond staggering.
It specifically SANCTIONS the act by forbidding any punishment as long as the slave doesn't die.
I don't fail to see that verse. It's not slavery as we know from hundreds of years ago. People used to give themselves to the wealthy in order to pay off debts etc.
The word you're looking for is "indentured servitude" which is not what is described at all. It's slavery with BEATINGS, as it expressly says!
As it says, the Hebrews could legally sell their daughters into slavery, and their new masters (who had the right to use them as "wives" against their will) would not be punished for BEATING them, as long as the slave survived a day or two.
Yes it's the same God. He sanctioned putting to death those who turned against Him. Keep his rules and you'd be fine. The rules have changed now, although The Jews still keep the rules of the old testament because they are still waiting for the Saviour.
Obviously you have a problem with this because you don't want to keep His rules. You want to make up your own rules and hope everyone else lives by them too.
Your god is indecisive, inconsistent, and frankly, he "used to" be a big jerk!
Those passages endorse selling your daughter into slavery! That's not punishing those who turn against god, that's EVIL and CRUEL!
But I'm sure "things were different" back then. Somehow back then, it wasn't cruelty to sell your own child, not just as a slave but even as a wife (a woman who is sold a wife against her will is a SEX SLAVE.)
If you would like to chuck the Old Testament (You seem to be admitting the contradictory nature of the Old and New) then maybe you should be consistent and chuck Creation as well.
jesus said there would be many false messiahs,false christians so i dont blame you for thinking that,jesus himself said "many will come in my name,perform powefull works in my name ect and yet i will say to them get away from me you workers of lawlessness.
The tree isn't the seed alone. The seed gained energy from the earth, rain, co2, and the sun. To prove my point, put a seed on your table and leave it. If it turns into a tree on it's own, then maybe you can have your point. You totally misunderstand the law.
And God promised to never send another global flood. Has he broken that promise? No.
If it were a local flood, Noah could have just gone to other side of the mountains. No need for an ark or to put loads of animals onto it. The reason for the flood was to kill all the wicked people as punishment. Noah and his family were saved because they were righteous.
The fact that the account of the Flood omits the melting of the polar ice caps (Yet includes such silliness as a "vapour envelope" and illogical, subterranean oceans) is rather strong evidence of the origin of the flood myth: it's entirely human. The point is that god didn't write the Bible--men did. And they didn't know about the ice at the poles.
The melting of the ice caps didn't cause the flood. Nothing did; there wasn't one. The findings of geology don't support a flood--they soundly refute it.
Feel sorry all you like. I cannot forgive you, only Jesus can grant that.
My faith doesn't stand in the way of any science. God gave us understanding of the things He created. Many scientists are Christians, past and present.
It's the bible, and your strict adherence to it, that leads you to dogmatically reject what science has learned. There is no rational basis for your beliefs. You said it yourself: it's about faith.
The loss of so many minds to religion, although they are typically the weak ones, is still tragic.
This is laughable. "a) Worship and fear me or b) wail and gnash your teeth in an eternity of agony in a lake of fire." Sorry, not much of a "Choice", Big Guy.
You cannot say Christians are killers when atheists have killed more people than all religions put together. You have mentioned regimes I have nothing to do with.
That is the choice, you have chosen option b. What's suprising is that you know what the choice is, yet you still want to burn in Hell.
Firstly, He isn't my God, He's our God. He isn't mean, He is fair. What has he done that you think is mean?
He doesn't have low self-esteem, He just says that He is a jaelous God and not to have any other gods. We have free will, it's up to us. We can have a relationship with Him, or deny Him. If you opt for the latter, just don't expect to be with Him after your body dies.
Jealous, huh? Seems to me if I could throw fireballs around the universe and make planets, I wouldn't need to be worshipped, I wouldn't be jealous, and I wouldn't need others to validate my existence.
But that's me... I'm an arrogant god. (Lowercase G).
I've been reading your comments on hairyreasoner's video. You seem educated and I was wondering if you would be interested in reading "Why we believe in god" by FritzTV. It's based on the latest neuroscience, some of which will soon be taught in high school psychology classes. Perhaps you can recognize some of your own thinking patterns. It can't hurt to learn. If not for anything else, for the sake of rebuttal material. to arm yourself with.
I have a sound understanding of the law. In the same way that it poses no problem to the developing embryo, it poses no obstacle to the evolution of life.
Pat, have you ever, in a structured curriculum, studied Thermodynamics? Physics? Organic Chemistry? Molecular Biology? I believe everyone else on this thread has, yet at every point we are "way off" or "missing the point" yadda yadda. Can you explain to us pat the proclivity of creationists to pontificate in such a blustery manner on subjects that they lack a clear understanding of? If you can't I think I can..
So this entire universe, inconcievably vast and ancient, billions upon billions of stars in each of billions upon billions of galaxies spanning billion upon billions of years, exists solely for the benefit and contemplation of mankind in his brief and fleeting existance therein? Yeah.. I'll buy that for a dollar. Creationists severely overestimate their significance in the cosmos.
reading your comments i dont know where to begin.you are so way off.its like a a sereies of misconceptions that just get adopted and repeated by evolutionist debators.point 1. darwin first proposed a workable theory,had he not done so scientists would not have looked for evidence to support darwins theory,,scientists beforwe darwin attributed complex design to a creator.
if evolutionists were truly going where the evidence leads them they would have changed tack with the first glimpses into the inner workings of the cell.instead they insist on staying on the evolution train and look for new ways to explain the ever expanding complexities.and when one finaly comes to a point of realisation such as dean kenyon who had even wrote a book on chemicle evolution,suddenly they lose all credability in scientific "evolutionist" communitys.
thats a good question,im saying we have other kinds of evidence apart from science,why do we have to restrict ourselves to science.we have observable evidence,order in the universe & complexity of structures point to a designer,we have prophacy,we have reason ie
if we can accept that some "thing" has always egsisted why not some "one"
Just watched this again. Still think it's good. Creationists want a "real debate," but are incapable of figuring out that there is and can't be any debate. They really don't know enough to debate. If they could figure out what real homework is - and then go out and do it for an honest day or two, THEN we could have a debate, but of course by then it wouldn't be necessary.
Yep. FallibleFiend you are again 100% locked on. It is apparent to me that the zeal and fervor with which an individual attempts to dismiss or discredit evolutionary theory is always inversely proportionate to that individuals understanding of it. Take solace in the fact that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting evolutionary theory is diminished not one iota by their inability to comprehend it.
They think and argue in a manner diametrically opposed to scientific method i.e. " I have arrived at a conclusion and I will now and try to find 'facts' that support my it." Bah.. why bother to educate yourself on complicated scientific theory when you already believe yourself to be in possession of the "truth".
"darwin arrived at a conclusion and then looked for supporting evidence."
This is patently false. Darwin's purpose on the Beagle was to find evidence of God's divine Creation. The captain was a bible-banger who made this quite clear. The evidence led Darwin in another direction.
Naturalists had already developed this idea by the end of the eighteenth century. If any single person deserves credit for evolution, it should be the Frenchman Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1744-1829), who called his theory "transformism" rather than "evolution".
Darwin had learned of transformism at Cambridge, though he remained a "creatonist" until after the Beagle returned to England. As he pondered what he had seen in the Galapagos, he realized that many of these observations could be explained the by this heretical idea.his free ride on the beagle was funded by creationists.cont-
there is no doubt he already had considered the ideah after learning of the concept at cambridge. it wasnt that he discovered that creatures evolved and then proposed a theory,he already had the ideah,the nature of his assignment meant he had to keep quiet.
the allegation was that creationists start with a belief then look for supporting evidence[and thats apparantly not science] but that darwinists look for evidence first and then form an opinion
as i have shown darwin already had the ideah,,so no difference
Darwin's was a theory to explain the nature of life. He did not have all the answers, and never pretended that he did. He was quite clear in describing his shortcomings. Science does not cling to his theory, in all regards, to the last letter, at all costs, like biblical zealots do with their precious and absurd scriptures. Science has corrected flaws and continues to, itself, evolve. Religion, without realizing it, died a stagnant death a long time ago.
I mean: I wish biblical zealots truly WOULD cling to the last letter of the bible. Since they cling only to the words they like, (while also claiming that every word is "holy") it is pointless to point out contradictions.
OK. Thanks. I get you now. I wasn't sure which "they" you were referring to: Scientists or bible-bangers. I agree with you. I can't believe the blind denial you run into when you point out a biblical error.
but explains the difference,ie the parable of jesus were not real events but stories to teach princibles,Genesis is real and scientificly acurate but often misunderstood by ignorant people.yours is an argument from ignorance.
excuse my fast writing.systematic or accurate in the manner of an exact science.
eg: the order of creation first water then light then plants then creatures .this is scientifically acurate.if genesis claimed that animals came before water or before plants it would be un scientific and the question is how did the bible writers get it
prophacy is a strong indication of bible truth.the signs of the last days for instance.also if the bible is a true account of creation ect it should be scientificly correct.while other religions have nonsense storys of creation such as the blood of a fallen god becoming a river ect genesis records the correct order of creation,water sunlight,plants fish animals ect.
Heartening to see pat that you are aware of the fact that all of these creation stories are utter nonsense, because indeed they are. You now only have one left to go.. c'mon, you can do it.
as i said genesis is scientificly correct.if it said adam was created on day one and then water ,sunlight plants ect then it would be nonsense but it is in the correct order.think about that.
Correct according to what? The bible itself? Pat, I'm 47 years old, I assure you I have thought about that and much, much more. I know exactly where you're going with this and can save you time by telling you I am immune to it, being an adult. I thought I'd just give you a shot but don't presume to "educate" me, I spent eight years and six figures on a real education thanks. Good luck to you.
im 45 myself,if youve spent 8 years learning only one theory ie evolution then youve wasted your money.
if you have researched all posabilities then good on you,im on here talking to guys like hairy to learn more of what others believe,im not a fan of credulity,
Pat listen closely.. you telling me that I've spent 8 years learning only one thing and my institution wasted my money tells me that our interaction is over. Like hairy, I loathe presumption. Again good luck man.
read my comment again,because i hate people miss quoting me,i said "if" i also said "if" youve reasearched other posabilities so i havent presumed anything.however you saying
" I know exactly where you're going "
is presuming is it not.settle down a bit man im not after a slanging match.
So.. you genuinely entertain the notion, you actually consider it possible to attend eight years of University and study only "evolution"? Really? See.. this is kinda what I was trying to explain. You say " if you've spent 8 years learning only one theory ie evolution then you've wasted your money" then assume the role of prostrate martyr at my taking offense. I see through this kind of thing like used Nuetrogena.
Explain to me pat, in the name of all things great and small, how ANY college graduate hasn't "reasearched" other "posabilities". Unless of course you mean Oral Roberts University.
what i meant was that there are only 2 theories to explain the origen of life,creation and evolution,yet only one theory is taught in school and university.
as i said "if you have researched all posabilities then good on you".
Creationism is not a theory in any scientific sense. The theory that is taught in universities is the only actually scientific theory - the one that explains and is supported by the VAST preponderance of evidence, and refuted by none - the theory of evolution.
it doesent matter how one defines it or weather it fits evolutionists definition of a theory,,it is an oposing view of the origen of life,,and evidence is not restricted to testable or physical
evidence.observable evidence is just as important.
There are lots of "views" which oppose evolution. There are also views that oppose round Earth. They are not scientific - not based on what evolutionists say, but based on what science is and how it works.
to try and compare my view of creation to belief in a flat earth is wrong.obsevable evidence shows me it is round,,to say creation or intelligent design is not scientific or there is no evidence is delusional,,
ie:if we were created we should see complex life forms enven in the microscopic world,if we evolved we should see simple life forms,,even a single celled organisom is like a city,,so there is scientific evidence supporting creation.
Neither ID nor any other type of creationism is scientific. To say otherwise is to express a clear misunderstanding of the limits of science, by which of course I mean "real science" and not the cartoon version that promulgated on creationist websites and church brochures. The argument you express doesn't make sense.
the question is how did we get here.the answer should not be limited to what we can discover through science with our 5 senses.when looking for the tv remote in the lounge room does an old lady dismiss the possability of it being under the couch simply because she cant bend down to look.
There are many ways of building knowledge. Not all of them are equally reliable. Not all of them have checks in them, ways of testing hypotheses and recovering from error. Science while far from a perfect enterprise is very good at discovering and recovering from its own errors. In public school science classes, kids should learn the scientific method.
your missing the point.science does not have a big enough vantage point to decide if we have a creator or not.einstein said it best "The scientists' religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection"
I never said that science has a big enough vantage point to decide whether we have a creator. I have consistently maintained (albeit not in this thread) that the subject of God is entirely outside the purview of science. Evolution does not refute a creator. However, evolution is science - and should be taught in a public science classroom, while creationism is not and should not.
why?,how did we get here is one of the most important questions we can ask.why cant it be taught as an option in schools,,do we not teach philosophy do we not encourage free thought,,creation by your own admition is a real possability.
re:evolution does not refute a designer - darwins theory was an explination of how life could arise without the need for a designer.
Creationism is not science. It cannot be derived or discussed in scientific terms, except insofar as we can explain how it fails as a scientific theory. We should teach science in a science class.
Darwin's theory was an explanation of how speciation could occur - not how life could arise. His theory hasn't got anything to do with a creator.
darwin originaly thought life was the result of a creator,he then removed the need for one with his theory.there have been many scientists who have concluded a creator based on there scientific knowledge check out dean kenyon.
"darwin originaly thought life was the result of a creator,he then removed the need for one with his theory."
The word 'need' is ambiguous. In any case, the fact that Darwin was able to explain speciation in naturalistic terms does not mean that he then rejected the idea of a creator.
Concluding that a creator exists does not equate to rejecting Darwinism, nor does it equate to being a creationist, although Kenyon IS indeed a creationist.
Pat: I have thought a great deal about the limits of science. Where do those limits lie, and why do they exist? I'm not sure that those limits aren't arbitrary, and artificial.
We don't know how life originally began. True. We don't know YET.
can you concede that we can not exclude something simply because we dont have access to all the information.and is it logical to draw a conclusion within the limits of science when we know it is limited,ie the lady and the couch.steven hawking said"i know to much to think i know everything"
If I could add my 2 cents: the complexity we see in life is extraordinary and OBVIOUSLY tends to make some suspect a creator. The degree of complexity seems incomprehensible, so, to some, must be of divine origin.
I'd submit that it is instead caused by the incomprehensibly long time that evolution has been acting. In other words, complexity in no logical way necessitates a creator.
hairy at one point in time there was only lifless inanimate objects,and then with out any direction
something became animate and alive,no amount of time could explain that in my mind.break anything down to its simplest form and you are still left with a complex designed structure.
science alledgedly works on accepting something only after experimentation and obsevation,show me the succesfull experiments and observations of abiogenesis,actual life from non life.the gap between non life and life is far far greater than the gap between the first alleged cell and a human,perhaps it is your mind that isnt well.
actually that asumption is based on a wrong interpretation of genesis.your right the sun did come before the planets,,it was light on the earth that became visable.
originaly the earths atmosphere was thick.verse one saise darkness covered the earth.but by verse 3 it had thinned enough to allow photo synthesis,,by verse 14 the atmosphere had thinned enough to allow the sun and the moon to become visable
in the expanse,,genesis is a description of gods prepareing the earth for life and then creating life,,
later in the flood story we see what happened to the rest of that atmoshpere.
I feel that the bible or any of the holy books of our time are 100% correct. I believe in god but somethings about the bible aren't very clear. And they've been rewritten and re interpretted so many times. We are just human so of course we probably got the message wrong somewhere. Infact; who knows. All religions could be crap that some civilization made up. I mean, why should our god be any more believable than the ones of Ancient Greece of Egypt.
Look, the point is that Creationists can't on one hand say that the 2nd law makes evolution impossible, and then on the other say living systems are exempt from that law, because they are "pre-programmed" by God.
the second law princible is only relevent to things without intelligent direction.intelligence is the driving force for order.a sand castle will not arise by itself,build one and leave it alone and it will
break down,,stay there and keep shoreing it up and it will remain.the key is intelligence
According to creationists, LIFE violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
gregrutz 4 months ago
i liked you last line. good vid
rochet75 3 years ago
By this same logic, cleaning your room breaks the second law of thermodynamics and is therefore impossible.
sofakingkewl3 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Use you brains you halfwits.
If you make a machine - no, not a toaster idiot - that can make copies of itself from resources around it....then let it run idefinitely. What do you think will happen.
Now, now. You might have to use use brains here and apply some commonsense and basic intelligence. I know its going to be hard for you but give it a try anyway.
fulconer 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That machine will eventually breakdown and cease to function. And a many generations from now, its descendants will look much different to the original machine and will likely also lose certain functions.
But noway in hell, will the descendants be more complex or a whole new machine. It just doesn't happen in THE REAL WORLD. Keep dreaming evolutionists. A Living cell is merely a BIOLOGICAL machine.
fulconer 4 years ago
It does happen in the real world. We observe that it happens. Your hypothetical situation does nothing to resolve the fact that what you're saying is not true. Biological machine or not, reproduction with variation induces change over time, which can and does increase complexity, if doing so is beneficial to survival.
bloodyinkpen 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
DEVOLUTION: The origin of the Species.
Not Evolution.
Obvious.
fulconer 4 years ago
Not true, provided the machine does not make perfect copies of itself, that each time there's at least a few things that are a little bit different. When environmental pressures favor the survival of these machines due to small differences, over time those machines add up to what look like large differences, and sometimes those large differences make the future generations "more complex" than the original.
bloodyinkpen 4 years ago
Not only that, but sometimes the machines will enter an environment or have the environment change around them where a certain part of its machinery is no longer needed for its original purpose. This part may become vestigal, or it could also, in time due to continued small changes and environmental pressures, become re-worked to surve a new purpose. This also seems to make the machine more complex than its ancestors.
bloodyinkpen 4 years ago
Not true. If the machine does not perfectly reproduce itself each time, if every copy is slightly different from its predecessors, and the small changes, due to the environment produce a higher rate of survival, then over time these small changes add up, and the small changes eventually look like large changes, which in the end serves to make the new machines seem more complex than the predecessors.
bloodyinkpen 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Think of it this way:
Thre are billions upon billions of machines out there with specific purposes. They are called cells.
That seed you held was a machine made up of other machines.
Understand this and the 2nd law and you will see how impossible evolution is.
fulconer 4 years ago
My toaster has never done anything other than make brown bread, and only when I've asked it to do so. I've certainly never found any little toasters in my kitchen.
Your arguments are spurious in the extreme.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Damn, I'd love to see how a computer, car, plane evolves to a more complex version through random events. Aint happening. And don't say it's different with living cells because it isn't.
I have a degree in Biochemistry and those cells must obey the same natural laws as physical machines do. Obviously, it is idiotic to insist that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics doesn't refute evelotion because anyone would commonsense nows it does.
fulconer 4 years ago
If you do have a degree in biochemistry, you need to study physics more(in which I have a degree). The only idiotic thing is your misunderstanding of the second law.
The total entropy of our universe cannot be decreased. We are burning calories, and dumping heat into the environment, and that eventually goes into space. We are making outer space more disorderly in the process of evolution.
killingthyme 4 years ago
Also, living things are not the only examples of spontanious self-organization in nature.
There are others: formation of galaxies, soil separation, oil and water separating, crystal formation, tornadoes and whirlwinds
killingthyme 4 years ago
The earth is not a closed system. It is the same as saying a baby growing in its mothers womb violates the second law.
nitesco 4 years ago 2
The earth is not a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. The earth is not a closed system.
maybe that'll help them?
neveruse513 3 years ago 2
The descendants won't be more complex either simply due to yes, the second law of thermodynamics. The programming passed on over generations will eventually degrade over generations - the programming definitely won't become more complex due to random events in an open/closed system. Keep dreaming.
fulconer 4 years ago
all living cells are BIOLOGICAL machines and there's no way you can deny this fact - there are inputs, process, output.
If I built a machine that preduces exact copies of itself and allow it to run indefinitely. Eventually that original machine will break down and cease to function. Also 1 million yeares from now, it's descendants won't look like the original machine.
fulconer 4 years ago
The seed is a biological machine. It was made in such a way that in takes in inputs, processes them and produces outputs to eventually produce a tree. Again, a biological machines.
machines do not become increasingly complex through random events, in an open system, over long periods of times. Just doesnt happen.
Obvious.
fulconer 4 years ago
There is no proof of makrogrowth! Ever seen a seedling grow into a big tree? Biologists claim that this takes many years, but all they could prove is microgrowth... ;)
Johannes9126 4 years ago
lol...good one. Makes you think, doesn't it?
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
Unfortunately I didn't invent this joke. It was one of cdk007's videos...
Johannes9126 4 years ago
Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
mpenso 4 years ago
f a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too.
mpenso 4 years ago
Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.
mpenso 4 years ago
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease."
mpenso 4 years ago
difficult to follow but effective nevertheless. "when you have an understanding of reality you really don't need to consult god".
niginit 4 years ago
PestManPat, atheists, and christians: I would like to direct you to a website, made by Christians, specifically intended to assist Christians in their discussions with Atheists. Atlthough I don't buy it a bit, their arguments are the best I've seen. Due to YouTube's restrictions on links, I spell it funny below so you'll have to type it in. Remove parentheses and spaces:
carm(.)org(/)bible_difficulties(.) h t m
pburto 4 years ago
thanks for that but i was hoping for a reply to my comment re the order of creation.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
Maybe you are being too literal... Oops...Never mind.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
To start with, Exodus 21, vs. 7-11.
But I recommend reading all of Exodus 21... it's a HOOT!
For example, Exodus 21, vs. 20-21 say that a man need NOT be punished for beating his own slave, unless the slave dies.
pburto 4 years ago
Exodus 21 was clearly guidelines for the Hewbrews of that time. The Bible recognised slavery existed, but never ecouraged it.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
Yeah... The last thing the bible would ever do is dictate morality to a populace that has its own rules!
New International Version: 20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
pburto 4 years ago
Ericinnit, do you really fail to see that verse 21 ESTABLISHES a rule that a man should NOT be punished for beating a slave to the point that the slave is unable to walk, (as long as the slave gets up after "a day or two") then your denial is beyond staggering.
It specifically SANCTIONS the act by forbidding any punishment as long as the slave doesn't die.
pburto 4 years ago
I don't fail to see that verse. It's not slavery as we know from hundreds of years ago. People used to give themselves to the wealthy in order to pay off debts etc.
Leviticus 25:8-54 tells about slavery.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
The word you're looking for is "indentured servitude" which is not what is described at all. It's slavery with BEATINGS, as it expressly says!
As it says, the Hebrews could legally sell their daughters into slavery, and their new masters (who had the right to use them as "wives" against their will) would not be punished for BEATING them, as long as the slave survived a day or two.
That is not indentured servitude.
pburto 4 years ago
The bible doesn't say it's ok to beat someone, it just says not to kill someone who beats their slave.
The bible cannot be understood properly if you look at just one or two verses. You need to know the whole story.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
There's no context you could fabricate that can explain away the slavery clearly endorsed in the bible.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
I've already said it doesn't endorse slavery. If you wish to believe the lie that it does, then that's up to you.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
The bible is very clear about slavery: it's an entirely acceptable practice. It's a way of life.
Remember: just make sure your slaves are circumcised too!
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
Lol yet again you get something wrong. Circumcision was a practice for Jews. Slaves weren't Jews.
Show us where the Bible says it's acceptable to have slaves.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
Genesis 17:13 instructs Abraham to circumcise all males in his house regardless of whether they are his own offspring, or if he just purchased them.
It does NOT tell Abraham to not buy other human beings, or in any way suggest that humans are not property.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
Well done. Abraham and Isaac were the founders of Judaism.
So, because the bible doesn't tell him not to do something, does that mean it's ok to do it?
Has anyone ever told you not to walk down the street naked?
ericinnit1 4 years ago
Founders of Judaism? So, it's OK for Jews to have slaves and not Christians? What's your point?
You asked where the bible condones slavery. You've been shown.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
Nope, it's not ok for Jews to have slaves. The Bible doesn't say it is ok.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
It most clearly does.
Considering who wrote it, and when, makes that fact rather unsurprising.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
Prove your point then. Write on here the verse that says it's ok to have slaves.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
I already have.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
See, you can't prove your point. You've not posted it already either.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
I sure can't prove my point to you. You are as blind and as dogmatic as is possible. You can lead a horse to water...as they say.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
PS I'm glad you're going to the creation museum, you might learn something.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
"PS I'm glad you're going to the creation museum, you might learn something"
I'll keep my mind open.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
Maybe there's a deeper (Dare I say NONLITERAL) meaning?
Nah. I doubt it.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
Read Exodus 35:2. Fair warning... Once you read it you'll have to kill your neighbors as commanded by god.
Or... you can choose blissful ignorance and continue to debate without knowledge.
All of a sudden knowledge is a scary thing huh?
pburto 4 years ago
If you are under the old convenent. If you are a Christian, you are a follower of Jesus Christ and under His new convenent, as I am.
So, you are wrong and as you can see, I have knowledge, thanks.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
I know it's old testament, and your response was predictable, but it's the same god.
At best, your god "used to" sanction killing and selling your own children into slavery. Affirm or deny?
pburto 4 years ago
Yes it's the same God. He sanctioned putting to death those who turned against Him. Keep his rules and you'd be fine. The rules have changed now, although The Jews still keep the rules of the old testament because they are still waiting for the Saviour.
Obviously you have a problem with this because you don't want to keep His rules. You want to make up your own rules and hope everyone else lives by them too.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
Your god is indecisive, inconsistent, and frankly, he "used to" be a big jerk!
Those passages endorse selling your daughter into slavery! That's not punishing those who turn against god, that's EVIL and CRUEL!
But I'm sure "things were different" back then. Somehow back then, it wasn't cruelty to sell your own child, not just as a slave but even as a wife (a woman who is sold a wife against her will is a SEX SLAVE.)
pburto 4 years ago
Also... I WANT TO make up my own rules? No, I HAVE made up my own rules. I have free will, remember?
For the record, I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic who subscribes to evolution.
pburto 4 years ago
Which scriptures are you talking about?
ericinnit1 4 years ago
Sorry, I replied below but didn't submit it as a reply.
pburto 4 years ago
If you would like to chuck the Old Testament (You seem to be admitting the contradictory nature of the Old and New) then maybe you should be consistent and chuck Creation as well.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
I don't chuck any of the Bible. It's just a matter of understanding.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
Harry: You know I'm with you... but I think it's fair to ask this...
Isn't the big bang theory contrary to the second law?
pburto 4 years ago
Christianity is like the worst religion on the face of the earth.
sue01234567890 4 years ago
not trying to be mean. No offense but that's just my opinion
sue01234567890 4 years ago
jesus said there would be many false messiahs,false christians so i dont blame you for thinking that,jesus himself said "many will come in my name,perform powefull works in my name ect and yet i will say to them get away from me you workers of lawlessness.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
Gooj: feel free to completely ignore any future videos until I specifically inform you that puppets and rappers have been included!
Then again, are you volunteering? Then I would just have to track down some rappers...
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
The tree isn't the seed alone. The seed gained energy from the earth, rain, co2, and the sun. To prove my point, put a seed on your table and leave it. If it turns into a tree on it's own, then maybe you can have your point. You totally misunderstand the law.
And God promised to never send another global flood. Has he broken that promise? No.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
What prominence did the melting of the polar ice caps have in that silly little story?
None. There were no ice caps in the middle east. Does the bible refer to anything outside of the region?
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
What have the ice caps got to do with anything?
If it were a local flood, Noah could have just gone to other side of the mountains. No need for an ark or to put loads of animals onto it. The reason for the flood was to kill all the wicked people as punishment. Noah and his family were saved because they were righteous.
Nobody knows where the Garden of Eden was.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
The fact that the account of the Flood omits the melting of the polar ice caps (Yet includes such silliness as a "vapour envelope" and illogical, subterranean oceans) is rather strong evidence of the origin of the flood myth: it's entirely human. The point is that god didn't write the Bible--men did. And they didn't know about the ice at the poles.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
You do not understand about the Bible do you.
Why are you talking about the polar ice caps? They didn't cause the global flood, if that is what you are saying.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
The melting of the ice caps didn't cause the flood. Nothing did; there wasn't one. The findings of geology don't support a flood--they soundly refute it.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
Not at all. The fact that we have fossils is evidence of the global flood. They would have had to be buried by a sudden catastrophe.
Also, we wouldn't have coal or oil without the flood.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
For a second I there I thought you were being serious.
Good one.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
I am totally serious. Investigate what I say if you don't believe me.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
The fact that you are serious is very sad.
I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for all of us that religion stands in the way of understanding. What a waste.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
Feel sorry all you like. I cannot forgive you, only Jesus can grant that.
My faith doesn't stand in the way of any science. God gave us understanding of the things He created. Many scientists are Christians, past and present.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
What would make you think I want forgiveness from you? or Jesus? Forgiveness for what?
If I do something wrong, I'll apologize to the person I've wronged.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
"My faith doesn't stand in the way of any science"
So sad.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
You told me you feel sorry.
Everybody needs forgiveness for their sins. Only God can forgive you.
But if you don't believe in Him in the 1st place, you have a real problem.
Mock all you like. We know who wins in the end.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
I am sorry in the sense that I have compassion for those stricken with religion, and for all manking because of this affliction.
And I am truly not mocking, or being sarcastic. I am saddened by the waste. It's a very real tragedy.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
You can have your opinion just as everyone else can. But it's not about being stricken, or even religion. It's about faith.
You don't have to go to church, read the bible or even live a sinless life to be saved.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
It's the bible, and your strict adherence to it, that leads you to dogmatically reject what science has learned. There is no rational basis for your beliefs. You said it yourself: it's about faith.
The loss of so many minds to religion, although they are typically the weak ones, is still tragic.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
To false religions yes. It's also tragic that atheists have lost their souls to Satan without knowing it.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
I see. All religions are baseless, and false. Except one: yours. Because the bible tells you so.
I don't see much point in continuing this conversation.
Incidentally, you say I can have my opinion. That's curious, because it's a very unreligious sentiment. Very unchristian.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
Not at all. God Himself gave us free will. That's why people have turned from Him. That's why the fall of man happened in the Garden of Eden.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
Round, round you go.
The bible is evidence of nothing, least of all itself.
If god gave us free will, why are christians so anxious to slaughter those who disagree?
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
Do you mean literally? I don't know any Christians who want to kill people.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
Never heard of the Inquisition?
Or of the RC church endorsing Nazism?
The Crusades?
The Balkans?
George Bush?
The KKK?
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
"God Himself gave us free will"
This is laughable. "a) Worship and fear me or b) wail and gnash your teeth in an eternity of agony in a lake of fire." Sorry, not much of a "Choice", Big Guy.
Free will with threats attached isn't very free.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
You cannot say Christians are killers when atheists have killed more people than all religions put together. You have mentioned regimes I have nothing to do with.
That is the choice, you have chosen option b. What's suprising is that you know what the choice is, yet you still want to burn in Hell.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
Eric:
Why is your god so mean?
And why does your god have such low self-esteem?
pburto 4 years ago
Firstly, He isn't my God, He's our God. He isn't mean, He is fair. What has he done that you think is mean?
He doesn't have low self-esteem, He just says that He is a jaelous God and not to have any other gods. We have free will, it's up to us. We can have a relationship with Him, or deny Him. If you opt for the latter, just don't expect to be with Him after your body dies.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
Jealous, huh? Seems to me if I could throw fireballs around the universe and make planets, I wouldn't need to be worshipped, I wouldn't be jealous, and I wouldn't need others to validate my existence.
But that's me... I'm an arrogant god. (Lowercase G).
pburto 4 years ago
I neglected to answer how your god is so mean. (Since I have free will and I deny him, no he is not mine, but thanks for offering.)
Massive Starvation, for example.
Eternal fire, for example.
Eternal Damnation of people who commit suicide, for example.
Every form of injustice and undeserved suffering, for example.
Death to any person who works on the sabbath, for example. (Conveniently forgotten today.)
pburto 4 years ago
Etrnal fire and damnation isn't mean, it's part of our choice.
The world we live in tody isn't the world God created for us. We chose to listen to Satan and so suffered the consequences.
I don't know anyone who keeps the sabbath. If you use electricity, gas, water, you are making someone work on the sabbath.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
hello Eric
I've been reading your comments on hairyreasoner's video. You seem educated and I was wondering if you would be interested in reading "Why we believe in god" by FritzTV. It's based on the latest neuroscience, some of which will soon be taught in high school psychology classes. Perhaps you can recognize some of your own thinking patterns. It can't hurt to learn. If not for anything else, for the sake of rebuttal material. to arm yourself with.
Check it out. Peace.
blaziermissy 3 years ago
I have a sound understanding of the law. In the same way that it poses no problem to the developing embryo, it poses no obstacle to the evolution of life.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
Pat, have you ever, in a structured curriculum, studied Thermodynamics? Physics? Organic Chemistry? Molecular Biology? I believe everyone else on this thread has, yet at every point we are "way off" or "missing the point" yadda yadda. Can you explain to us pat the proclivity of creationists to pontificate in such a blustery manner on subjects that they lack a clear understanding of? If you can't I think I can..
Leatherup 4 years ago
So this entire universe, inconcievably vast and ancient, billions upon billions of stars in each of billions upon billions of galaxies spanning billion upon billions of years, exists solely for the benefit and contemplation of mankind in his brief and fleeting existance therein? Yeah.. I'll buy that for a dollar. Creationists severely overestimate their significance in the cosmos.
Leatherup 4 years ago
reading your comments i dont know where to begin.you are so way off.its like a a sereies of misconceptions that just get adopted and repeated by evolutionist debators.point 1. darwin first proposed a workable theory,had he not done so scientists would not have looked for evidence to support darwins theory,,scientists beforwe darwin attributed complex design to a creator.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
Yeah yeah pat, we know.. we're cluesless and you have all the answers.. we get it.
Leatherup 4 years ago
if evolutionists were truly going where the evidence leads them they would have changed tack with the first glimpses into the inner workings of the cell.instead they insist on staying on the evolution train and look for new ways to explain the ever expanding complexities.and when one finaly comes to a point of realisation such as dean kenyon who had even wrote a book on chemicle evolution,suddenly they lose all credability in scientific "evolutionist" communitys.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
thats not science thats ignoring evidence to support darwinism.remember darwin had no ideah how complex cell life was,,when he proposed his theory.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
the limits lie in our vantage point of space of time and of our ability to understand.these are real limitations.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
Do you claim to have a vantage point that is somehow beyond space and time?
pburto 4 years ago
thats a good question,im saying we have other kinds of evidence apart from science,why do we have to restrict ourselves to science.we have observable evidence,order in the universe & complexity of structures point to a designer,we have prophacy,we have reason ie
if we can accept that some "thing" has always egsisted why not some "one"
pestmanpat 4 years ago
Just watched this again. Still think it's good. Creationists want a "real debate," but are incapable of figuring out that there is and can't be any debate. They really don't know enough to debate. If they could figure out what real homework is - and then go out and do it for an honest day or two, THEN we could have a debate, but of course by then it wouldn't be necessary.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Yep. FallibleFiend you are again 100% locked on. It is apparent to me that the zeal and fervor with which an individual attempts to dismiss or discredit evolutionary theory is always inversely proportionate to that individuals understanding of it. Take solace in the fact that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting evolutionary theory is diminished not one iota by their inability to comprehend it.
Leatherup 4 years ago
They think and argue in a manner diametrically opposed to scientific method i.e. " I have arrived at a conclusion and I will now and try to find 'facts' that support my it." Bah.. why bother to educate yourself on complicated scientific theory when you already believe yourself to be in possession of the "truth".
Leatherup 4 years ago
this is what darwinists have done.darwin arrived at a conclusion and then looked for supporting evidence.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
"darwin arrived at a conclusion and then looked for supporting evidence."
This is patently false. Darwin's purpose on the Beagle was to find evidence of God's divine Creation. The captain was a bible-banger who made this quite clear. The evidence led Darwin in another direction.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
Naturalists had already developed this idea by the end of the eighteenth century. If any single person deserves credit for evolution, it should be the Frenchman Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1744-1829), who called his theory "transformism" rather than "evolution".
pestmanpat 4 years ago
Darwin had learned of transformism at Cambridge, though he remained a "creatonist" until after the Beagle returned to England. As he pondered what he had seen in the Galapagos, he realized that many of these observations could be explained the by this heretical idea.his free ride on the beagle was funded by creationists.cont-
pestmanpat 4 years ago
there is no doubt he already had considered the ideah after learning of the concept at cambridge. it wasnt that he discovered that creatures evolved and then proposed a theory,he already had the ideah,the nature of his assignment meant he had to keep quiet.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
Actually, the concept of evolution predates the bible, let alone Lamarck.
What you are saying Pat, really, is that there have been a number of theories proposed to explain the changing pattern of life.
Debunk any or all; the pattern remains. Evolution has shaped life, whether we can explain it or not.
The bible doesn't.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
the allegation was that creationists start with a belief then look for supporting evidence[and thats apparantly not science] but that darwinists look for evidence first and then form an opinion
as i have shown darwin already had the ideah,,so no difference
pestmanpat 4 years ago
The concept of evolution was written before Genesis? Er, no. The first verse was probably written by God before Adam was alive.
So, who had the evolution concept before man was around?
Evolution doesn't happen. We get variations within animal kinds and that's it. Scientists call this micro-evolution just to confuse everyone.
ericinnit1 4 years ago
Darwin's was a theory to explain the nature of life. He did not have all the answers, and never pretended that he did. He was quite clear in describing his shortcomings. Science does not cling to his theory, in all regards, to the last letter, at all costs, like biblical zealots do with their precious and absurd scriptures. Science has corrected flaws and continues to, itself, evolve. Religion, without realizing it, died a stagnant death a long time ago.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
"Science does not cling to his theory, in all regards, to the last letter, at all costs, like biblical zealots do..."
Actually, I wish they would. They generally adhere only to the words they like.
pburto 4 years ago
"Actually, I wish they would. They generally adhere only to the words they like."
Sorry, this isn't clear to me. Can you explain?
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
I mean: I wish biblical zealots truly WOULD cling to the last letter of the bible. Since they cling only to the words they like, (while also claiming that every word is "holy") it is pointless to point out contradictions.
pburto 4 years ago
OK. Thanks. I get you now. I wasn't sure which "they" you were referring to: Scientists or bible-bangers. I agree with you. I can't believe the blind denial you run into when you point out a biblical error.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
rubbish,the bible is both literal and symbolic
but explains the difference,ie the parable of jesus were not real events but stories to teach princibles,Genesis is real and scientificly acurate but often misunderstood by ignorant people.yours is an argument from ignorance.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
Do you have any idea what "scientifically" actually means? After all, you use the misspelled phrase "scientifcly acurate?"
pburto 4 years ago
excuse my fast writing.systematic or accurate in the manner of an exact science.
eg: the order of creation first water then light then plants then creatures .this is scientifically acurate.if genesis claimed that animals came before water or before plants it would be un scientific and the question is how did the bible writers get it
right!
pestmanpat 4 years ago
I meant are not correct. sorry
sue01234567890 4 years ago
prophacy is a strong indication of bible truth.the signs of the last days for instance.also if the bible is a true account of creation ect it should be scientificly correct.while other religions have nonsense storys of creation such as the blood of a fallen god becoming a river ect genesis records the correct order of creation,water sunlight,plants fish animals ect.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
Heartening to see pat that you are aware of the fact that all of these creation stories are utter nonsense, because indeed they are. You now only have one left to go.. c'mon, you can do it.
Leatherup 4 years ago
as i said genesis is scientificly correct.if it said adam was created on day one and then water ,sunlight plants ect then it would be nonsense but it is in the correct order.think about that.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
Correct according to what? The bible itself? Pat, I'm 47 years old, I assure you I have thought about that and much, much more. I know exactly where you're going with this and can save you time by telling you I am immune to it, being an adult. I thought I'd just give you a shot but don't presume to "educate" me, I spent eight years and six figures on a real education thanks. Good luck to you.
Leatherup 4 years ago
im 45 myself,if youve spent 8 years learning only one theory ie evolution then youve wasted your money.
if you have researched all posabilities then good on you,im on here talking to guys like hairy to learn more of what others believe,im not a fan of credulity,
"where am i going" ive already told you!
pestmanpat 4 years ago
Pat listen closely.. you telling me that I've spent 8 years learning only one thing and my institution wasted my money tells me that our interaction is over. Like hairy, I loathe presumption. Again good luck man.
Leatherup 4 years ago
read my comment again,because i hate people miss quoting me,i said "if" i also said "if" youve reasearched other posabilities so i havent presumed anything.however you saying
" I know exactly where you're going "
is presuming is it not.settle down a bit man im not after a slanging match.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
So.. you genuinely entertain the notion, you actually consider it possible to attend eight years of University and study only "evolution"? Really? See.. this is kinda what I was trying to explain. You say " if you've spent 8 years learning only one theory ie evolution then you've wasted your money" then assume the role of prostrate martyr at my taking offense. I see through this kind of thing like used Nuetrogena.
Leatherup 4 years ago
Explain to me pat, in the name of all things great and small, how ANY college graduate hasn't "reasearched" other "posabilities". Unless of course you mean Oral Roberts University.
Leatherup 4 years ago
what i meant was that there are only 2 theories to explain the origen of life,creation and evolution,yet only one theory is taught in school and university.
as i said "if you have researched all posabilities then good on you".
pestmanpat 4 years ago
Creationism is not a theory in any scientific sense. The theory that is taught in universities is the only actually scientific theory - the one that explains and is supported by the VAST preponderance of evidence, and refuted by none - the theory of evolution.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
it doesent matter how one defines it or weather it fits evolutionists definition of a theory,,it is an oposing view of the origen of life,,and evidence is not restricted to testable or physical
evidence.observable evidence is just as important.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
There are lots of "views" which oppose evolution. There are also views that oppose round Earth. They are not scientific - not based on what evolutionists say, but based on what science is and how it works.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
to try and compare my view of creation to belief in a flat earth is wrong.obsevable evidence shows me it is round,,to say creation or intelligent design is not scientific or there is no evidence is delusional,,
ie:if we were created we should see complex life forms enven in the microscopic world,if we evolved we should see simple life forms,,even a single celled organisom is like a city,,so there is scientific evidence supporting creation.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
Neither ID nor any other type of creationism is scientific. To say otherwise is to express a clear misunderstanding of the limits of science, by which of course I mean "real science" and not the cartoon version that promulgated on creationist websites and church brochures. The argument you express doesn't make sense.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
the question is how did we get here.the answer should not be limited to what we can discover through science with our 5 senses.when looking for the tv remote in the lounge room does an old lady dismiss the possability of it being under the couch simply because she cant bend down to look.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
There are many ways of building knowledge. Not all of them are equally reliable. Not all of them have checks in them, ways of testing hypotheses and recovering from error. Science while far from a perfect enterprise is very good at discovering and recovering from its own errors. In public school science classes, kids should learn the scientific method.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
your missing the point.science does not have a big enough vantage point to decide if we have a creator or not.einstein said it best "The scientists' religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection"
pestmanpat 4 years ago
I never said that science has a big enough vantage point to decide whether we have a creator. I have consistently maintained (albeit not in this thread) that the subject of God is entirely outside the purview of science. Evolution does not refute a creator. However, evolution is science - and should be taught in a public science classroom, while creationism is not and should not.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
why?,how did we get here is one of the most important questions we can ask.why cant it be taught as an option in schools,,do we not teach philosophy do we not encourage free thought,,creation by your own admition is a real possability.
re:evolution does not refute a designer - darwins theory was an explination of how life could arise without the need for a designer.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
Creationism is not science. It cannot be derived or discussed in scientific terms, except insofar as we can explain how it fails as a scientific theory. We should teach science in a science class.
Darwin's theory was an explanation of how speciation could occur - not how life could arise. His theory hasn't got anything to do with a creator.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
darwin originaly thought life was the result of a creator,he then removed the need for one with his theory.there have been many scientists who have concluded a creator based on there scientific knowledge check out dean kenyon.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
"darwin originaly thought life was the result of a creator,he then removed the need for one with his theory."
The word 'need' is ambiguous. In any case, the fact that Darwin was able to explain speciation in naturalistic terms does not mean that he then rejected the idea of a creator.
Concluding that a creator exists does not equate to rejecting Darwinism, nor does it equate to being a creationist, although Kenyon IS indeed a creationist.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
Pat: I have thought a great deal about the limits of science. Where do those limits lie, and why do they exist? I'm not sure that those limits aren't arbitrary, and artificial.
We don't know how life originally began. True. We don't know YET.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
can you concede that we can not exclude something simply because we dont have access to all the information.and is it logical to draw a conclusion within the limits of science when we know it is limited,ie the lady and the couch.steven hawking said"i know to much to think i know everything"
pestmanpat 4 years ago
If I could add my 2 cents: the complexity we see in life is extraordinary and OBVIOUSLY tends to make some suspect a creator. The degree of complexity seems incomprehensible, so, to some, must be of divine origin.
I'd submit that it is instead caused by the incomprehensibly long time that evolution has been acting. In other words, complexity in no logical way necessitates a creator.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
hairy at one point in time there was only lifless inanimate objects,and then with out any direction
something became animate and alive,no amount of time could explain that in my mind.break anything down to its simplest form and you are still left with a complex designed structure.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
thats because your mind doesn't function properly, maybe you should work on that.
zbambam5 4 years ago
science alledgedly works on accepting something only after experimentation and obsevation,show me the succesfull experiments and observations of abiogenesis,actual life from non life.the gap between non life and life is far far greater than the gap between the first alleged cell and a human,perhaps it is your mind that isnt well.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
Pat: I'm sorry, but the order of creation described in Genesis is NOT correct. Surely the sun came before plants!
NEITHER of the 2 conflicting histories is correct.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
actually that asumption is based on a wrong interpretation of genesis.your right the sun did come before the planets,,it was light on the earth that became visable.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
originaly the earths atmosphere was thick.verse one saise darkness covered the earth.but by verse 3 it had thinned enough to allow photo synthesis,,by verse 14 the atmosphere had thinned enough to allow the sun and the moon to become visable
in the expanse,,genesis is a description of gods prepareing the earth for life and then creating life,,
later in the flood story we see what happened to the rest of that atmoshpere.
pestmanpat 4 years ago
wrong wrong wrong, god created it in one day, no ice layer no nothing.
zbambam5 4 years ago
I feel that the bible or any of the holy books of our time are 100% correct. I believe in god but somethings about the bible aren't very clear. And they've been rewritten and re interpretted so many times. We are just human so of course we probably got the message wrong somewhere. Infact; who knows. All religions could be crap that some civilization made up. I mean, why should our god be any more believable than the ones of Ancient Greece of Egypt.
That's just my opinion
sue01234567890 4 years ago
Thanks guj. Have you found a job yet? Maybe you could work as a typist.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
Look, the point is that Creationists can't on one hand say that the 2nd law makes evolution impossible, and then on the other say living systems are exempt from that law, because they are "pre-programmed" by God.
It's an absurd contradiction.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
the second law princible is only relevent to things without intelligent direction.intelligence is the driving force for order.a sand castle will not arise by itself,build one and leave it alone and it will
break down,,stay there and keep shoreing it up and it will remain.the key is intelligence
pestmanpat 4 years ago