Frogs are useful, part I: CrEvo Rant #93 with Wazooloo

http://wazooloo.com
http://ianjuby.org
In this rant, Ian points out that evolution must violate scientific and natural laws, and therefore is (by definition) a supernatural process.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Ian
• Juby
• crevo
• rant
• evolution
• creation
• intelligent
• design
• frog
• to
• prince
• biogenesis
• bible
• 777quip
• Intelligent Design
• Creationism
• Darwin
• Charles Darwin
• Princess
• Debate
• funny
• wazooloo

[jakry321]

@unfad1ng "my point is that the first thing has to create itself" I disagree. If that statement was true then there are many logical implications involved. As i showed in previous comments logically nothing creates itself. It either always existed (infinite) or began to exist at some moment (finite). If the universe is infinite it causes many problems; contradicts the law of thermodynamics, it undermines all laws of logic too (nothing is needed to cause anything) Nice question at the end btw :)

[unfad1ng]

@jakry321

yeah but my point is that the first thing has to create itself, so its not a valid argument to just call upon god as an explanation because he also contradicts himself, because he needs to create himself.

and if he needs to create himself he offers no new explanation, since the universe could do the same thing if such a thing is possible.

What if god is the universe and he created himself and we all live inside him :P?

[jakry321]

@unfad1ng again that is a logical question to ask :) However, something causing itself breaks the law of contradiction and has clear fault in its reasoning. Let me explain, If the universe caused itself it would have to exist before itself in order to create itself. Do you see the problem here? if it existed before itself it wouldnt need to cause itself, it would just exist (already existing means no need to cause itself to exist) lol then you reach square one and reassess, what is its cause? :)

[unfad1ng]

@jakry321

what if the universe is uncaused? what if it caused itself?

[jakry321]

@unfad1ng if God is un-caused then your argument is invalid..so..It makes sense that in a universe of causality the the orginal cause of it all must be un-caused (hence why God fits that description of an un-caused entity) hence making your argument invalid unless you believe an infinite regression is possible then there is nothing i can say, however, i doubt that you do.

[odinata]

@Galmozzi99

Bullshit propaganda out of the Discovery Institute not only isn't "science", but its been thoroughly DEBUNKED.

Sorry geezer.

You aren't ready for this.

[odinata]

@Galmozzi99

Sorry Old Man, but copying my arguments back at me really isn't that impressive.

You even admit to not being a YEC, so I'm not sure why are you defending the bullshit that pours out of this YECs double-chinned gape.

Either way, facts are facts, and neither of your religious opinions count on that front...

[Galmozzi99]

Ahh typical atheist flat earth, you must be stupid, mocking ad hominum attacks. Why you must be a genius to have such refined arguments. Try reading "origins" by Richard Leakey and then "signature in the cell" and then critique it without merely strawmaning it, I have. Let me know when your finished. Till then spew your nonsense on someone else.

[odinata]

@Galmozzi99

I recomend them to you because they seem to be your speed--if you enjoy this flat earth garbage.

I seriously doubt if you have ever read a drop on the subject of science.

[Galmozzi99]

@odinata If you get your science from videos you may have to rethink your methods. I enjoy a variety if videos but get my "real information" the hard way, reading, try it out.