Why'd you do it that way, God?

#1 Creation of matter and energy is impossible. (So a "God" is needed to explain why we see matter.)

If creation of matter is impossible then God couldn't have created it and if god did create it then creation of matter is not impossible.

But really, all the energy (of which matter is a part) was present at the Big Band and it simply changed shape and size. It wasn't created ex nihilo.

#2 Everything degrades down. Nothing evolves up to more a more complex system. (Evolution "up" is impossible)

That isn't true. Simply precipitating salt crystal by evaporating the water out of a solution increases the complexity of that system.

And only closed systems must increase entropy, not "everything".

#3 The Cosmos is headed to death, not life.

We don't know that. Odds are that there's another planet out there evolving life right now.

The three laws of Thermodynamics

Those laws are about the movement of heat and are not applicable to the evolution of biological systems.

quote:

---

#1 Creation of matter and energy is impossible.
(So a "God" is needed to explain why we see matter.)

---

but then a "God" needs explanation - oops, problem not solved.

Don't come back and say God is eternal, outside time and therefore does not need an explanation. I could claim the same for a non-supernatural precursor of the universe. Neither of us would be justified. What happened before the big bang, if anything, is currently unknown. That's all we can say about it.

quote:

---

#2 Everything degrades down. Nothing evolves up to more a more complex system. (Evolution "up" is impossible)

---

Reality shows us otherwise. You're right within a closed system such as the universe as a whole, but thermodynamics does not prevent parts of that system from getting more 'complex' at the expense of others.

We see evolution of complex life from simple life in the fossil record.

quote:

---

#3 The Cosmos is headed to death, not life.
(Again, Evolution as a source of life is contrary to Science. Evolution as a way to cope with decay and death is valid. Life DOES change to cope with a decay in the environment. But no NEW information is created or added.)

---

Eventually you may be right that the cosmos is heading towards death, depending on the ultimate fate of the Universe. But there are billions of years ahead of us before that becomes the case - far longer than the universe has already been in existence. The sun is likely to keep shining pretty much as it is for another 4 billion years or so. So, the eventual fate of the universe is irrelevant for what we see now and will see in the conceivable future.

'Devolution but No NEW information' is the latest mantra of creationists. It has nothing to do with science. It can only survive while creationists define information in an unmeasurable way or by diktat as something that needs intellect to create. It will go the way of all previous creationist mantras when even creationists are forced to admit that their theories make no sense.

#1 Creation of matter and energy is impossible.

Agreed. This is one good reason why "creation" is a fairy-story for children.

#2 Everything degrades down. Nothing evolves up to more a more complex system. (Evolution "up" is impossible)

But this is, of course, not true.

(Again, Evolution as a source of life is contrary to Science. Evolution as a way to cope with decay and death is valid. Life DOES change to cope with a decay in the environment. But no NEW information is created or added.)

So people keep telling me. Curiously enough, all these people have one thing in common: gross scientific illiteracy.

Scientists, meanwhile, keep telling me stuff like this:

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision.

--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).

So the question I have to ask myself is this: who knows more about science --- scientists, or people who make stuff up?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If creation of matter is impossible then God couldn't have created it and if god did create it then creation of matter is not impossible.

I didn't say the creation of matter and energy was impossible, Science said that.

But really, all the energy (of which matter is a part) was present at the Big Band and it simply changed shape and size. It wasn't created ex nihilo.

I don't know who this "But Really" is or where he publishes.

#2 Everything degrades down. Nothing evolves up to more a more complex system. (Evolution "up" is impossible)

That isn't true. Simply precipitating salt crystal by evaporating the water out of a solution increases the complexity of that system.

With one room of vapor, and one a vacuum with a crystal of salt in it, the second has far less energy, and infinite less complexity.

And only closed systems must increase entropy, not "everything".

I don't know that particular law.

#3 The Cosmos is headed to death, not life.

We don't know that. Odds are that there's another planet out there evolving life right now.

The three laws of Thermodynamics

Those laws are about the movement of heat and are not applicable to the evolution of biological systems.

Energy is energy by any name.

The Laws of Science, don't apply to "the evolution of biological systems."

We agree completely!!!

.

Edited by -Sky-, : .

"According to science, the universe is HUGE, and we are but a mere speck." But then "Science" is no less biased or based on hope and faith than the Pope.

You're saying the pope has impirical evidence on the existence of god, and hasn't shown it to the rest of the world? That's pretty mean spirited of him...

Science has "Faith" that a majority of "lab coats" will agree that they have followed a good process and that all these white coats will agree with the conclusions drawn from the data.

Yup, a few clever people do something extraordinary, and then a whole mass of clever people make sure the first lot aren't pulling the wool over our eyes.

Thanks to them, we have airplanes, electricity, antibiotics, automobiles, food so most of the planet doesn't have to worry about bad crops, computers, ipods, mobile phones and rocket-ships.

But valid conclusions can be swept under the rug and ignored if they don't fit the biases of the majority.

Yeah, that's why we believe the earth is still flat, that it's the center of the universe, that the Sun orbits the Earth and that cats are bad luck and bring the plague.

To suggest we are a "mere speck" is not accurate and shows a huge ego.

really? It's a huge ego to look up at the sky and limitless stars and realise that our star is pretty middling as stars go, that our planet is only one of many around our star, which is one among 400 billion stars in our galaxy, that our galaxy is only one amongst hundreds of billions of galaxies? that is a huge ego?

I thought rather that the idea that a creator who created the whole universe just for you to run around in, and that your sort of person (who believes in and obeys the creator) was the most important (type of) person in it - I thought that meant you had a big ego.

According to "Science" the universe is infinite. That means we are so small that we don't actually exist in the grand scheme of things. In fact, "Science" is nothing and knows nothing about nothing compared to the infinite amount of universe outside of what we know.

I agree whole-heartedly.

Ahh, but that would be going too far. Science isn't ready to admit that we know nothing. That doesn't leave room for the man-ego to boast that science knows just about all that there is to know. Yet, I just illustrated that we know less than nothing. Especially about the infinite that we don't know. That's why there must be a Creator. Because if there isn't, then we know nothing at all. But if there is, then we aren't just less than a speck. Then we are actually the reason for the rest to exist. And clearly we still don't know everything there is to know. But at least we can relax and look forward to being with The One who does.

Now that is ego - you claim science knows nothing, nothing about the universe - but that your sky-daddy does, he knows everything - and by extension, so do you. What a grand seat you have, at the right hand of the most important creature in the universe. How humble your abode, how genteel.

Carl Sagan seems like such a pleasant fellow. I wonder if his three wives have the same opinion? They didn't seem too happy. Being a Pot-smoking Stoner, I would think he'd be easier to get along with. What a great drug-induced smile....eh?

It's nice to see that you had so much of substance to talk about, so many valid, interesting and captivating points, that you didn't have to stoop to name-calling and belittlement.

#1 Creation of matter and energy is impossible. (So a "God" is needed to explain why we see matter.) If creation of matter is impossible then God couldn't have created it and if god did create it then creation of matter is not impossible. But really, all the energy (of which matter is a part) was present at the Big Band and it simply changed shape and size. It wasn't created ex nihilo. #2 Everything degrades down. Nothing evolves up to more a more complex system. (Evolution "up" is impossible) That isn't true. Simply precipitating salt crystal by evaporating the water out of a solution increases the complexity of that system. And only closed systems must increase entropy, not "everything". #3 The Cosmos is headed to death, not life. We don't know that. Odds are that there's another planet out there evolving life right now. The three laws of Thermodynamics Those laws are about the movement of heat and are not applicable to the evolution of biological systems.

Catholic, I take it you're actually religious, but I applaud you for your sensibilities in the face of glaring, boiling ignorance.

A lot (a whole smegging bunch) of fundies blurt that "entropy always increases" line, and expect that to be a huge snag in the whole idea of evolution and life - and to have one of the fundiest come out and say that they don't even KNOW about that law (when you put it in straight words) just puts the cherry on top.

for sky, who obviously hasn't done his/her homework, the entropy in a closed system will always increase - this appears to be a solid law for a universe like ours.

If you haven't noticed, sky, the Earth is NOT a closed system. I can guarantee you that if you stay up all night thinking about it, the answer will dawn on you in the end.

#2 Everything degrades down. Nothing evolves up to more a more complex system. (Evolution "up" is impossible) But this is, of course, not true.

ordinarily, my good doctor, I would agree with you, as MOST people are far more complicated and hold far more information in them now than when they were conceived.

with the case of sky, however, I have my doubts...

You don't seem to have any intention of learning anything but are just out to have some fun, no?

If creation of matter is impossible then God couldn't have created it and if god did create it then creation of matter is not impossible. I didn't say the creation of matter and energy was impossible, Science said that. But really, all the energy (of which matter is a part) was present at the Big Band and it simply changed shape and size. It wasn't created ex nihilo. I don't know who this "But Really" is or where he publishes.

Are you conceding the point that god is needed to explain why we see matter?

With one room of vapor, and one a vacuum with a crystal of salt in it, the second has far less energy, and infinite less complexity.

Assuming you're correct, if I take that vacuum with a crystal of salt in it and then vaporize it, I would have increased the complexity. So there's your increase in complexity that you said was impossible.

And you know what, I would have had to input energy into that system, which would mean its no longer closed.

And only closed systems must increase entropy, not "everything". I don't know that particular law.

Its called The Second Law of Thermodymanics.

Energy is energy by any name.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you?

Could you define the word "energy" for me please?

You aren't talking about an amount of work, are you?

-Sky- writes: I didn't say the creation of matter and energy was impossible, Science said that.

Actually, energy is created all the time. So is matter. The sun creates heaps of energy, for instance.

I don't know that particular law.

That's the second law of thermodynamics.

The three laws of Thermodynamics.

You just said you didn't know the second law.

The Laws of Science, don't apply to "the evolution of biological systems." We agree completely!!!

He didn't say that. He said the laws of thermodynamics aren't aplicable to evolution, because evolution doesn't deal with the movement of heat.

---

I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

Catholic, I take it you're actually religious, but I applaud you for your sensibilities in the face of glaring, boiling ignorance.

I'm not that religious...

My sensibility flies right out the window when they show that they don't care to learn anything, but would rather be combative. Then I proceed to tell them to go ahead and fuck right off.

Are you conceding the point that god is needed to explain why we see matter?

See, we do agree, since that was my original point.

Science says no matter or energy can be created or destroyed.
So there is no "natural" laws to allow for matter to exist.
So there must have been a Creator that is outside of these laws.
That would be the same Person who "wrote" the laws.
Unless there is a Number of beings or persons on the task.
Which Jesus did refer to.

Even the Big-Bang Theory admits that all known laws do not apply to the time of Creation. They can't. Says Science.

And the Pope.

Edited by -Sky-, : .

Are you conceding the point that god is needed to explain why we see matter? See, we do agree, since that was my original point.

My bad... I left the word NOT out of there. I meant: "Are you conceding the point that god is NOT needed to explain why we see matter?

But apparently you think the other way.

Science says no matter or energy can be created or destroyed. So there is no "natural" laws to allow for matter to exist.

Um, no scienctific laws prevent matter from existing.

There was never a point in time in the Universe where the 'energy' did not exist. And there is no point in time before the Big Bang so no need to go there.

So there must have been a Creator that is outside of these laws.

This conclusion is based on false premises that the first law of thermodynamics prevents matter from existing without outside intervention.

Which is actually a hilarious position because it requires all those scientists to be complete fools in not noticing that in the first place. And yet, they put a man on the moon.

Actually, energy is created all the time. So is matter. The sun creates heaps of energy, for instance.

or

First Law of Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed.

In the context of chemical reactions and process, it may be more common to deal with situations where work is done on the system rather than by it.

There was never a point in time in the Universe where the 'energy' did not exist.

I'm not versed in that Religion. I admire your faith.

According to Sciences Third law of thermodynamics the normal state of the universe is zero energy. Zero matter.

There was never a point in time in the Universe where the 'energy' did not exist. I'm not versed in that Religion. I admire your faith.

You don't seem to know very much about science at all, even so far as to misunderstand its entire modus operandi to having anything to do with faith at all.

Take this one for example:

According to Sciences Third law of thermodynamics the normal state of the universe is zero energy. Zero matter.

Swing... and a miss.

at least read the wiki page on it, geez.

But alas, we're no longer even talking about the topic of this thread and you've shown that you have no intention of trying to learn anything but would rather jsut have pointless arguments so:

Fuck off, and enjoy wallowing in your ignorance.

/*tips hat