Religous Debates

[Seanachaidh]

This universe is not perfectly ordered Arch, Seanachaidh, and creationist company, The sun will one day shrivel up the earth, is that perfectly ordered.

That is not what I was referring to.  What I'm referring to is the evolutionary theory, which deals with organisms, not the universe as a whole.  Evolution "assumes" that organisms become more complex and stable when left to themselves,  which again goes against the second law of thermodynamics.

The simple fact that the universe isn't perfectly ordered further supports the fact that in order to follow scientific law, it had to be perfectly ordered to begin with, and further  

The laws of thermodynamics only works in a closed system btw, repeated words tho...

The earth is a closed system.  

order can and does only come from a Designer.  The level of order within our universe is staggering, and to say that it is was the work of nothing more than a natural phenomenon is awfully arrogant.

Please look up the following definitions it is very hard to read your post when the words are infact incorrect to use.

Order
Phenomenon
Awfull
Arogant

I'm not about to take english lessons from someone who is not sure how to spell simplify, and does most of his arguing through posting ill-informed Youtube videos.

edit:Srry, that last statement was a little harsh...

[John.d.h]

Earth is not entirely a closed system, as we get input from the sun.  The universe as a whole is a closed system if and only if there is no god.

[Gabbe]

Earth is not entirely a closed system, as we get input from the sun.  The universe as a whole is a closed system if and only if there is no god.

Thermodynamics are laws of the universe, so the universe doesn`t work as a closed system since the laws only matters within the universe.

This universe is not perfectly ordered Arch, Seanachaidh, and creationist company, The sun will one day shrivel up the earth, is that perfectly ordered.

That is not what I was referring to.  What I'm referring to is the evolutionary theory, which deals with organisms, not the universe as a whole.  Evolution "assumes" that organisms become more complex and stable when left to themselves,  which again goes against the second law of thermodynamics.

The simple fact that the universe isn't perfectly ordered further supports the fact that in order to follow scientific law, it had to be perfectly ordered to begin with, and further 

The laws of thermodynamics only works in a closed system btw, repeated words tho...

The earth is a closed system. 

order can and does only come from a Designer.  The level of order within our universe is staggering, and to say that it is was the work of nothing more than a natural phenomenon is awfully arrogant.

Please look up the following definitions it is very hard to read your post when the words are infact incorrect to use.

Order
Phenomenon
Awfull
Arogant

I'm not about to take english lessons from someone who is not sure how to spell simplify, and does most of his arguing through posting ill-informed Youtube videos.

edit:Srry, that last statement was a little harsh...

I did have problems to notice the argument.

Nice loadpack of insults without any backup tho.

[John.d.h]

Earth is not entirely a closed system, as we get input from the sun.  The universe as a whole is a closed system if and only if there is no god.

Thermodynamics are laws of the universe, so the universe doesn`t work as a closed system since the laws only matters within the universe.

Huh?

[Gabbe]

The laws of thermodynamics are the laws of this universe. anything outside the universe doesn`t have anything to do with the thermodynamics as that is the laws of this specific universe. that means it wouldn`t work as a closed system since anything outside won`t be affected. was that clearer?

[Gabbe]

Just to answer the new creationist dude,

The earth is a closed system. 

The earth aquires heat and light from the sun, the earth is not a closed system. UNDISPUTEABLE

I'm not about to take english lessons from someone who is not sure how to spell simplify

I was actually asking you to be more precise when stating something, you didn`t really do what i told you to do right? Oh great, we have soem arrogance and ignorance here. If you do not know the definition of the two, please, use the very helpfull tool "Google.com" to enlighten yourself with evidence. How i spell has zero to do with how you express yourself and you have shown that you understood me, never the less i did write the word how it is supposed to be, and yes im not sure how to spell it, thank you for your guidance on how to. Am i asking you to take english lessons? No, i cannot find that anywere in my post. I simply asked you to express yourself clearer so i can understand better what you mean because i could also ramble up words you couldn`t understand and you would stand there clueless of what to say.

Please use these links:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=order+definition

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Phenomenon+definition

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=awfull+definition

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=arrogant+definition

Now what i could do is start making fun of you and your understanding of what a debate and arguing is, because you obiviously don`t know. On television our politicians "debate" and that is not how a debate should work. A debate should be used to find the truth, i am sure arch can verify that i only search truth, currently i think evidence points evolution and abiogenesis. Not god and creation. But you`ll find google very helpfull as you search along for the defintion of words that i may use.

and does most of his arguing through posting ill-informed Youtube videos.

How are they ill informed, arch said that they were ill informed, but how are they ill informed, copying arch doesn`t help, arch, don`t reply to this, i want to see him answer that for himself. (btw i call you he since i only know sean as a male name) Those videos are by the way made by a former christian who actually were studying religion and then he thought of how to defend his belief, he searched for evidence for his belief to defend it but he found that evidence points the other direction. I would call this a expert witness.

And just to re-inform you about evolution and abigenesis since you obiviously can`t have read that far when your even too lazy to look up some words on google i will post here.

Evolution is how life evolved on earth.
Evolution has many different factors determining what kind of mutations that will come, random is not used.
Abiogenesis is a theory about how life can form from Amino Acids, Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life come to begin!
Abiogenesis can be performed today and yes you can create life with amino acids today.

Srry, that last statement was a little harsh...

Your statement weren`t harsh, it were ignorant, you did not reply to me, second law of thermodynamics is already answered.

[John.d.h]

The laws of thermodynamics are the laws of this universe. anything outside the universe doesn`t have anything to do with the thermodynamics as that is the laws of this specific universe. that means it wouldn`t work as a closed system since anything outside won`t be affected. was that clearer?

Err... I think I know what you're saying, but I don't see how it applies here.  If there is something outside of our universe or metaphysical plane (like a god), then that certainly does change things, and that would mean that the universe is not a closed system b/c it's being affected by an outside force, in the same way that Earth isn't a closed system b/c it received energy from the sun, meteors, cosmic rays, whatever.

[Gabbe]

A god cannot be prooven nor tested to be prooven. Its a hypothesis, nothing indicates anything should be outside the universe, if there were evidence for such, the laws of thermodynamics would still not apply as their only affecting our universe.

[Zoythrus]

hey guys, it was fun, but im going to back out of this conversation now. Why? because i have fulfilled my duty to this thread. This is a debate, not an argument, and im tired of arguing. I have given my side of this debate, so now it's your turn to hear what i said (although i doubt that you will).

Peace to the rest of you,
Zoy

[Gabbe]

i don`t know the difference between argument and debate. I heard what you said, replied to it, didn`t get answers though..

[Zoythrus]

a debate is a discussion between friends with different beliefs, but an argument is more violent. it was never my hope to have a violent conversation, just a friendly debate. there's no point in arguing over religion. so what if you dont agree with my point of view, i dont really care; as long as i have said something in its defense, that's all i can do.

[Gabbe]

are you a solipsist?

[Zoythrus]

what does Solipsism have to do with anything?

[Gabbe]

If you are, a dispute will be unresolveable.

[modman]

We are here because we are very, very, very lucky. So how come I haven't won the lottery twenty times in a row yet?

This is called the teleological argument.  It is faulty because it implies that order can only come from a designer, in this case God.  Unfortunately, the only way we differentiate "ordered" universes from those which are not is that they contain life.

According to the second law of Thermodynamics, Every system, if left to itself, invariably tends towards disorder.

Quick!  Off the top of your head, do you know what the zeroth law of thermodynamics is, or the first?  Didn't think so, unless you happen to study physics (I do).

The second law of thermodynamics actually says nothing about disorder.  It is about the efficiency of heat engines, declaring that an engine may never be 100% efficient.

Also, this law applies only to closed systems, which the Earth certainly is not.  The sun is always supplying Earth with energy.  Adding energy to a system can create "order".  For example, a room filled with two mixed gasses can be separated by a partition (say oxygen and helium).  It requires work (in the technical sense) to move molecules from one side to the other to sort them (thus creating order).  The second law says more about the probability of one system than what must be.  The sun could provide this energy.  If you're interested, you can accomplish sorting fairly easy: with a centrifuge.  The oxygen will fall to the center because it is more massive.

The second law does come into play if the Sun disappears (hypothetically) because it creates a finite period in which life can survive on Earth.

The evolutionary theory goes against that law by assuming that everything became more and more complex the longer it exists.

You might want to note that the creation of the universe violates the law of conservation of energy.

What I'm referring to is the evolutionary theory, which deals with organisms, not the universe as a whole.  Evolution "assumes" that organisms become more complex and stable when left to themselves,  which again goes against the second law of thermodynamics.

Hmm...You seem to be a little confused (still, you know one more fact than Ben Stein: I highlighted that info).  First, you say you are only referring to evolutionary theory, then you bring up the second law of thermodynamics.  You may want to read the actual context (and indeed the text itself) of the second law of thermodynamics.

The earth is a closed system.

No, it isn't.  The only way it would be closed is if it did not receive nor emit radiation.  Still not convinced?  Research black body radiation.

[Seanachaidh]

(btw i call you he since i only know sean as a male name)

While I do the research that everyone asks of me, I'll just point out that, although I am male, sean isn't my name.  Seanachaidh is actually a Celtic term.  Right now I'm backing out of this debate until I have a little more information about your opposing viewpoints.   

Also, Modman, please explain to me a little more on how the prospect of Creation violates the law of conservation of energy, Is this assuming that there wasn't energy to begin with?

[-Archmage-]

I'm not going to get into all this thermodynamic talk.


Evolution relies on harmful things(radiation, transposons, viruses, DNA errors) to randomly produce unintelligent changes to extremely complex cells, and somehow come up with an intelligently designed Human body. Evolutionists believe that complexity gives intelligence, why, because evolutionists believe that having a complex brain and body, gives you intelligence. Now I have seen no proof that something extremely complex just has intelligence, and a will. Besides, you still have to face down spiritualism, you have to tell the people that walk on fire, that walking on fire is impossible.


Why is evolution random?

The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all.

Natural selection is getting rid of creatures which don't have advanced genetic changes.
The theory of evolution is random. To rely on random genetic mutations, then claim that evolution is not random is ridiculous.

[John.d.h]

I think you're misunderstanding what it means by "random".  The mutations themselves may be random, but organisms will live or die based mainly on their fitness for survival rather than chance, meaning that natural selection itself is not random.

[Hectate]

You know, I've been ignoring all the debate threads on purpose, but today when I saw this one in the unread posts I thought to myself "I wonder if this is actually religious debates or just an extension of the evolutionary debate". Small surprise to see that it was the latter, at least for recent posts.

Out of curiosity, has anybody thought to actually discuss differences in various religions? The evolution/creation thing has gone around and around time and time again, but it's not "Religious Debates" as the title would lead one to believe. I've not had anybody talk to me about how Buddhism differs from Zen philosophy, how Christianity is related to Judaism, or why they believe in monotheism instead of polytheism. If any of these type of subjects interest you, I'd enjoy a (as always) civil conversation concerning them.

So anyway, sorry for the OT.

[@kukac@]

I'm not going to get into all this thermodynamic talk.

Mistake.

Evolution relies on harmful things(radiation, transposons, viruses, DNA errors) to randomly produce unintelligent changes to extremely complex cells, and somehow come up with an intelligently designed Human body.

Evolution is simply based on "counter-problems". If your skin receives radiation, but you don't die (a vital point!), then you might be able to create cells that might repel lesser radiation.

Evolutionists believe that complexity gives intelligence, why, because evolutionists believe that having a complex brain and body, gives you intelligence.

Complex brain, maybe, but I don't think so that's in case, however, I don't think that a complex body can give you any intelligence (Stegosaurus or wth).

Now I have seen no proof that something extremely complex just has intelligence, and a will.

Like a maths problem has intelligence I wouldn't call "AI" intelligence either.

Besides, you still have to face down spiritualism, you have to tell the people that walk on fire, that walking on fire is impossible.

I think I would just simply fall through the fire. But can you prove me, that walking on fire is possible? (Because walking on water is ).

The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all.

Read the bolded words again. It is possible that mutations occur randomly, however, that's not mostly in case, it's only the minority of the evolutionary chain.

Natural selection is getting rid of creatures which don't have advanced genetic changes.

You don't seem to get it either: Natural selection is not something, that kills creatures that are weak.

Weak creatures will eventually die, and can't pass down their genes. That causes Natural Selection.

The theory of evolution is random. To rely on random genetic mutations, then claim that evolution is not random is ridiculous.

Once again: you are the only one, who claims evolution is random

[Seanachaidh]

Your are the only one claiming that evolution is random.

I also happen to believe that evolution is based on random mutations somehow creating an intelligent being.  I haven't read of any evidence to the contrary.

[@kukac@]

Walking on water:

[Gabbe]

Not much time on the internet.

I also happen to believe that evolution is based on random mutations somehow creating an intelligent being.  I haven't read of any evidence to the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

... its so easy and yet noone seems to seek the evidence.

[Zoythrus]

Walking on water:

Jesus didnt just "walk" on water, He stood on the water. but physics states that you would have to constantly be in motion to do that, Jesus didnt follow that law (He made them, so he didnt have to).

[Gabbe]

Walking on water:

Jesus didnt just "walk" on water, He stood on the water. but physics states that you would have to constantly be in motion to do that, Jesus didnt follow that law (He made them, so he didnt have to).

You must proove that jesus made the law(s).