God or Big Bang/Evolution: Where do we Come From?

[TheCatPhysician]

As for the Old Testament copying The Epic of Gilgamesh, see here.

Also, the Bible does not tell how old the earth is. When it says God created the Earth in six days, it most likely doesn't mean day as in 24 hours, because how could Adam have named every animal in one day? There are other places in the Bible that say day, but refer to a long period of time. Each "day" could have been thousands of years. Somewhere in the Bible it says something like, "A day to God is like a thousand years." See here for more.

there are ZERO creationist articles being published in scientific journals because creationists have no science to back them up.

Well actually, there are.

your websites are not backed by scientific data, despite the fact that they lie and say they are.

* Creationist, Chemist, & Lecturer
* Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)
* Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich
* D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)
* F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry) Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.
* Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company
* Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford
* Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages
* NATO three-star general
* Deceased
* Dr. Wilder-Smith was featured in an award-winning film and video series called ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be

I encourage you to download some of this guy's lectures and check them out. I linked to them before, here is the link again. No offense, but these kind of are backed by scientific data.

for example, http://evolutionisimpossible.com/chemistry.html tells us: "The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order."

not only is this false, but you have to DELIBERATELY avoid correct information to make this claim. it is clearly a LIE.

I am perfectly fine with accepting this, but I would like to see a source first, if that isn't too much trouble.

abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution. evolution exists no matter how the first replicator formed.

Well, I think we might be arguing about different things, kind of. I do believe in evolution, in that I believe things can evolve. I just don't believe that suddenly life came from non-living matter, and that all life today evolved from that. I am also having trouble believing in macroevolution, but I am not adament in this.

likewise, it is physically impossible for life not to have evolved. evolution IS the only explanation for us being here. nobody has ever proposed any other, and there is no scientific controversy over it. the only controversy is political.

So let me get this straight: You just said abiogenesis wasn't relevent, so you're saying a creator could have made the first form of life, as long as everything evolved from that. If not that, then you must be saying that the first life came from non-life, and everything evolved from that. If it's the latter, then please first explain to me how that could have happened in spite of the Laws of Thermodynamics before saying all alternatives are physically impossible.

by the way, you have not addressed my post about OBSERVED speciation and the evidence for common descent.

Actually I did, kind of subtly. I linked to a big article that is a critique of "29 Evidences for Macroevolution". The part that deals with speciation can be found here. Although, I am not entirely sure on this myself yet, I am still doing some research.

 

[snex]

As for the Old Testament copying The Epic of Gilgamesh, see here.

i see no evidence for the claims made in this article.

Also, the Bible does not tell how old the earth is. When it says God created the Earth in six days, it most likely doesn't mean day as in 24 hours, because how could Adam have named every animal in one day? There are other places in the Bible that say day, but refer to a long period of time. Each "day" could have been thousands of years. Somewhere in the Bible it says something like, "A day to God is like a thousand years." See here for more.

the only reason to interpret the "days" in genesis as something other than 24 hour periods is because we subsequently discovered that it was wrong, and people who demand that the bible be inerrant need to square this away. on this issue, i must side with young earth creationists. genesis clearly intends to convey 24 hour days. the bible simply doesnt match with science on the matter.

Well actually, there are.

I encourage you to download some of this guy's lectures and check them out. I linked to them before, here is the link again. No offense, but these kind of are backed by scientific data.

actually, there arent. i did not say that there were no scientists that were creationists, and that they do not publish in scientific journals. i said that creationist articles do not get published. there is not a single published article that presents any form of creationism as its conclusion.

I am perfectly fine with accepting this, but I would like to see a source first, if that isn't too much trouble.

this is basic biology youd learn in high school. cytochrome c, for example, is different in almost every species of organism. the amount of differences depend on how closely related two species are (what a coincidence if evolution is false!). there was also an experiment done where cytochrome c was substituted across multiple species, and despite the fact that the proteins were coded using different nucleotides and had different amino acids, the cytochrome c worked perfectly. you can see references to this in the 29+ evidences article on talkorigins.

Well, I think we might be arguing about different things, kind of. I do believe in evolution, in that I believe things can evolve. I just don't believe that suddenly life came from non-living matter, and that all life today evolved from that. I am also having trouble believing in macroevolution, but I am not adament in this.

life didnt suddenly come from non-living matter. it took a long time with a lot of random trials. most specific abiogenesis hypotheses have little confirming evidence for them, but clearly life exists and clearly it didnt always, so it had to get here somehow. while youre perfectly free to believe that god did it, this is not testable and therefore not scientific. it can also pose theological problems when science eventually does discover how life formed.

So let me get this straight: You just said abiogenesis wasn't relevent, so you're saying a creator could have made the first form of life, as long as everything evolved from that. If not that, then you must be saying that the first life came from non-life, and everything evolved from that. If it's the latter, then please first explain to me how that could have happened in spite of the Laws of Thermodynamics before saying all alternatives are physically impossible.

im not saying that all possible alternatives are impossible, im saying that of the current theories known, evolution is the only possible one among them. again, youre free to believe that god did it, but this is not scientific as it is not testable, and again, it poses theological problems when science tackles the issue.

regarding thermodynamics, they really have nothing to do with it, at least not in the way you think they do. there is nothing in thermodynamics that prevents order arising from chaos, or organization arising from order. abiogenesis hypotheses follow thermodynamics just as a human growing from a zygote does. there is no argument against abiogenesis that isnt also against human fetus growth, and since we know human fetus growth works, we are safe in saying that attempts to use thermodynamics to disprove abiogenesis is flawed.

and if abiogenisis did violate thermodynamics, it is just as much an argument against special creation as it is against abiogenesis.

Actually I did, kind of subtly. I linked to a big article that is a critique of "29 Evidences for Macroevolution". The part that deals with speciation can be found here. Although, I am not entirely sure on this myself yet, I am still doing some research.

this link doesnt really deal with speciation at all. in fact, it horribly misses the point. the point of the 29+ evidences article is to show how multiple lines of evidence all converge onto evolution. professional creationists have this nasty habit of arguing with "silver bullet" tactics. that is, they always take arguments separately. they never understand the weight of combining arguments together.

for example, lets say i was trying to prove that it rained yesterday. i can tell you that:

1) the ground is wet.
2) i remember it raining.
3) the sky is still cloudy.

now if you were some kind of anti-rain fundamentalist, you would respond like this:

1) so what if the ground is wet? maybe somebody was watering the lawn.
2) so what if you remember it raining? memories arent 100% accurate anyway.
3) so what if its cloudy? its cloudy all the time when it doesnt rain.

professional creationists never understand that the arguments are meant to be taken together, not as separate "silver bullets" that each individually prove evolution. and i suspect that they do it on purpose. as you pointed out, many of these people have science degrees and publish mainstream science when they arent busy in church. there is simply no excuse for their poor scholarship in arguing evolution.

 

[MikeMan445]

The Cat Physician, I implore you to read up on the subject of evolution and current evolutionary theory.

I do this because it pains me to see that many people in this country still, unbeknownst to them, believe in an illogical, clearly fallacious idea (i.e. Intelligent Design, Creationism). They are not two different theories; one side (biologists) have an actual scientific theory, and one side (religious reactionary figures) have a laughable fairy tale with numerous holes. What's surprising isn't that people still doubt evolution. People doubt all sorts of utterly valid scientific theories. There are people that even doubt Germ Theory alive and living today.

No, what's surprising isn't that. What's surprising, and sad, is that the Intelligent Designers and Creationists have managed to fund so much money into hyping up this "grand debate" about evolution that isn't happening. Seriously. Go find a biologist. Ask him if he believes in evolution.

Go find a chemist. Ask her.

Go talk to your doctor (you know, the one you trust to keep you healthy and diagnose what's wrong with you). Ask him or her if he/she believes in evolution. They will chuckle, and politely inform you that yes, they do. After all, they need to to do their job.

You see, modern medicine is founded upon evolution. If viruses didn't evolve, you wouldn't have to go and get a flu shot every year. What would be the point? The virus that killed millions in the 1918 pandemic would be the same one that floats around today. I mean, evolution's "just a theory," right?

One problem people have is they don't think things through logically. Now, I won't go and hold you to some rigid standard of research, nor will I act like you need to have done said research to have an opinion. However, until you do the research, your opinion is unfounded, by definition. And no, going to religious websites doesn't count.

Instead, try to go to peer-reviewed, scientific journals of medicine, biology, hell - even ornithology. It really doesn't matter. If you go to a local college, they will subscribe to a good number of these for you. Go ahead and search for "creationism" or "intelligent design." I'll tell you right now you will not find a single passage, nor a single journal that has even bothered to address the subject. So what does that mean? There's some huge conspiracy on the part of every scientist in the western world to "keep this stuff secret"?

No. It's because there's nothing to discuss, and nothing to test.

Not a single viable, scientific alternative to evolution has ever been proposed since 1859 (the date the Origin of Species was published in Britain). Evolutionary theory since then has changed, improved, become more successful and explanatory, sure. But no alternative has been proposed. None. No, this isn't because the scientists "reject it out of hand".

It's because none exists. Evolution is wildly, insanely, incredibly successful. It is the most successful theory of modern science, hands down. It is the reason your drugs work. It is the reason modern pesticides work (and the reason they keep having to design new ones). It has fabulously explained the origin of any lifeform we care to examine, and it's done it with just a simple idea. An idea no more complicated than you being different from your brother or sister.

That is why it's such a shame that a portion of the American public (most of them in the Bible Belt, but not exclusively) "has doubts." That is why it makes me feel sad at the pathetic state of science education in this country.

That is why the rest of the world laughs at the 40 or so percent of americans that don't believe in evolution.

That is why you should do some more research, and let the results speak for themselves.



P.S. Btw, the distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution is an arbitrary one, without any actual logic behind it. Sit down one day and ask yourself at what point evolution stops being "micro" and starts being "macro". Sit down and inquire what would arbitrarily stop a group of organisms who are happily reproducing with modification over millions of years and say "Hey, stop that. You may become a new species soon! Better slow down that random evolutionary process for no reason!"

The idea makes no sense.

 

[TheCatPhysician]

Mikeman, thanks for the big post and concern, but it seems your whole post is based around the nonexistant fact that I don't believe in Evolution. You make a good point at the end about Micro/Macro, so I'm not going to debate on that subject anymore because I'm not sure of it myself.

As for no biologists, chemists, or doctors believing in Creation or Intelligent Design, see here.I know it's a Christian source, but just read it. There are thousands of these guys. In fact, 3 doctors that I had were Creationists.

What I am really trying to argue here is that there must have been a Creator. Time had to have a beginning somewhere, as well as matter. We know this because of the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Matter. Why would the universe accidentally and randomly come out of nowhere? Why would the Big Bang just happen?

As someone on another forum said,

As opposed to the notion that our universe was just a happy accident that popped itself out of nothingness for no reason, no purpose, and then grabbed hold of its own bootstraps and accidentally and unintentionally organised itself by means of unintelligent, goalless, purposeless, blind and stochastic processes into a rational and law-abiding universe ?

Now that's magic.

Furthermore, matter accidentally and randomly organized itself into life, despite the Laws of Thermodynamics.

regarding thermodynamics, they really have nothing to do with it, at least not in the way you think they do. there is nothing in thermodynamics that prevents order arising from chaos, or organization arising from order. abiogenesis hypotheses follow thermodynamics just as a human growing from a zygote does. there is no argument against abiogenesis that isnt also against human fetus growth, and since we know human fetus growth works, we are safe in saying that attempts to use thermodynamics to disprove abiogenesis is flawed.

I think you may want to familiarize yourself with the Laws of Thermodynamics more, first. You see, the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to CLOSED systems, not open. A human growing from a zygote is in an open system, with energy available outside of itself.

Did you forget to read the article I posted? Article

and if abiogenisis did violate thermodynamics, it is just as much an argument against special creation as it is against abiogenesis.

Ok, yeah. You need to learn the difference between open and closed systems. If God was there to make life, that would most DEFINETELY make it an open system. Just saying something was designed is saying that 2LoT doesn't apply to it.

the only reason to interpret the "days" in genesis as something other than 24 hour periods is because we subsequently discovered that it was wrong, and people who demand that the bible be inerrant need to square this away. on this issue, i must side with young earth creationists. genesis clearly intends to convey 24 hour days. the bible simply doesnt match with science on the matter.

I did some more research, and you are most likely right about the Bible meaning 24-hour days. But I don't know if this means the Bible is wrong yet, because while there is evidence for an old earth, there is still alot of evidence against it.


Would you guys admit that it isn't too farfetched to believe that life was created here by a Creator, and then evolved? That's what I'm really trying to argue, first and foremost. If not, I ask again to tell me how life came from nonliving matter,, despite the Laws of Thermodynamics. And this time, please be sure to read the article.


EDIT:

The Cat Physician, I implore you to read up on the subject of evolution and current evolutionary theory.

I research this stuff about 1-3 hours a day, and most of the time it is Evolution. I have gone to many different places and read the theory of Evolution from pro-evolution sites, as well as from anti-evolution. I go to Talk.origins, and True Origins. When I go to google to find new sites, I search both things like "evolution" and "evolution flaws".
I am aware that getting everything from one side of an argument is ********, and trust me, I try to avoid it.

 

[Duke]

And to add to TheCat; how did the eyeball just appear? In its complex manner there is no way that it could have evolved, the only way for it to exist is if just appeared but we know that evolution doesn't do that. If the eyeball slowly and luckily evolved it would have been rendered useless because without every part the eyeball does not work. Also, when did the jump from nuclei to intelligent life happen? How could a brain just appear from a non-living nuclei?! And snex I read your little hub debate with turquiseyoshi and I saw the "example" of evolution you gave to him that a perasite can eat nylon and then you gave an example in here of a plant evolving. You have still yet to show evidence of a species evolving into another species. The plant that you gave evolved into another plant and the perasite that eats the nylon is still a perasite. Evolution does not provide answers to where we came from; I have seen the pictures the supposedly show the evolution of man from proconsul dryopithecus to homosapien but there is no proof that that little ape looking thing eventually turned into that other ape looking thing that looks like he has a little better posture. Mikeman you seem so sure the evolution explains everything; where did the big bang come from how did all that energy get there in the first place? Snex there is no proof of that one species of animal has evolved into another species of animal. And I like how you try to use the arguement that evolution follows all rules of science because God could have made a bird-fish; that is absolutely the worse arguement ever! So God didn't make a bird-fish so that must mean that there is no way God could have created everything. Man that is some solid proof right there!

 

[snex]

As for no biologists, chemists, or doctors believing in Creation or Intelligent Design, see here.I know it's a Christian source, but just read it. There are thousands of these guys. In fact, 3 doctors that I had were Creationists.

a lot more (ie, ~1% instead of ~0.01%) doctors tend to be creationists because they arent on the science end of it. they only see the end results and know that they work. the more one's field is working with hard biological facts, the more likely one is to accept evolution. regarding the working scientists that believe in creation, there may seem like a lot of them, but they are really tooting their own horn with these "thousands" claims. whenever you see stats like this, make sure you check the actual question asked to them. was it "do you believe in special creation by god 6000 years ago?" or was it "are you skeptical of darwinism?" and were the scientists that signed from relevant fields? creationists tend to have a lot of "engineers" and "mathematicians" on their lists. "biology" is probably the lowest field represented on their lists. why do you think that is?

and if you want to see the numbers from the other side.. well lets put it this way. for every individual scientist that believes in creation, there is a scientific organization that accepts evolution. one thing i really find humorous is that the NCSE decided to make a list of scientists who accept evolution, but with a twist. only people named "steve" or "stephen" or "stephanie" or some derivation thereof were allowed to sign. the list is now at 727 signatures, more than any individual creation or ID list. see here for project steve.

in any case, lists like this really mean nothing without the evidence. it is the evidence which matters, and creationism simply doesnt have any.

What I am really trying to argue here is that there must have been a Creator. Time had to have a beginning somewhere, as well as matter. We know this because of the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Matter. Why would the universe accidentally and randomly come out of nowhere? Why would the Big Bang just happen?

i love this argument... "the laws of thermodynamics say that energy cant be created, therefore it must have been created!"

the energy that makes up the universe has always existed, and the big bang does not say otherwise. the big bang only describes how it has changed over time.

I think you may want to familiarize yourself with the Laws of Thermodynamics more, first. You see, the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to CLOSED systems, not open. A human growing from a zygote is in an open system, with energy available outside of itself.

the second law of thermo applies to ALL systems, it just applies differently over open and closed systems. this is irrelevant though, since the earth is not a closed system either.

again, there is nothing in abiogenesis and evolution that violates any of the laws of thermodynamics.

Ok, yeah. You need to learn the difference between open and closed systems. If God was there to make life, that would most DEFINETELY make it an open system. Just saying something was designed is saying that 2LoT doesn't apply to it.

its irrelevant if god is there. if something violates a scientific law, it cannot be done. period. people have this misconception that intelligent agents can somehow violate the 2LoT, but this is not the case. nothing nowhere can violate the 2LoT, so if life from non-life violates the 2LoT, throwing an intelligent being into the picture does not solve the problem.

I did some more research, and you are most likely right about the Bible meaning 24-hour days. But I don't know if this means the Bible is wrong yet, because while there is evidence for an old earth, there is still alot of evidence against it.

no, there isnt. there is misrepresented science, flawed reasoning, and outright lies. if you have any particular young earth arguments in mind, ill be happy to discuss why they are wrong with you. however, youre probably better off looking through talkorigins, since pretty much every single young earth argument is dealt with there.

Would you guys admit that it isn't too farfetched to believe that life was created here by a Creator, and then evolved? That's what I'm really trying to argue, first and foremost. If not, I ask again to tell me how life came from nonliving matter,, despite the Laws of Thermodynamics. And this time, please be sure to read the article.

it is absolutely farfetched to believe that life was created by a creator. we have no evidence that a creator exists or ever existed. maybe if we discovered some kind of unambiguous message in DNA, or an underground laboratory built for creating life, but alas, no such things have ever been found.

the laws of thermodynamics still do not say what you think they do. despite what most textbooks fallaciously say on the matter, they really have nothing to do with order. 2LoT only deals with order in some circumstances, but not others. mix oil and water for example. 2LoT causes them to separate, rather than mix together. the miller-urey experiment showed that amino acids (complex molecules) spontaneously form in certain environments from much simpler molecules, and it is because of 2LoT. planets and stars coalesce into spheroid bodies all by themselves, and it is because of 2LoT. the whole "order" thing really only applies to statistical physics, and mostly deals with homogenous substances, like ideal gases or liquids. making a blanket statement that 2LoT prohibits order arising on its own is simply false, and i must admit a lot of the blame goes to textbook authors who are not clear enough to spell out such things better.

if you want to learn about current research on abiogenesis, you arent going to get it here. you need to read full books to get a full understanding on the matter. try some books by G Cairns-Smith.

And to add to TheCat; how did the eyeball just appear? In its complex manner there is no way that it could have evolved, the only way for it to exist is if just appeared but we know that evolution doesn't do that. If the eyeball slowly and luckily evolved it would have been rendered useless because without every part the eyeball does not work.

yawn. the old "what good is half an eye?" argument. ill tell you what good half an eye is. its 100% better than being blind. have you actually studied eye evolution in depth or are you simply saying "i dont know, therefore god did it?" how many peer reviewed papers on eye evolution have you read?

You have still yet to show evidence of a species evolving into another species.

i gave you the links TWICE. are you not reading them or are you just dense? speciation has been OBSERVED.

i cant even wade through the rest of your nonsense because it is so disorganized and not even in paragraph form. if you have anything of SUBSTANCE to say, like CatPhysician, then say it. otherwise, leave the debate to the adults, k?

 

[Duke]

Hmm, I guess you can't provide proof for evolution. Oh well, I wasn't expected much from you.

"i cant even wade through the rest of your nonsense because it is so disorganized and not even in paragraph form" means "yeah I have made some pretty crappy arguements in the past"
and
"otherwise, leave the debate to the adults, k?" means "I don't know so shut up"

And you say a half an eye is better then a no eye. Where did that half eye come from; are you saying you have proof that half an eye just showed up on an animal? Please provide proof for your great find.

 

[blazedaces]

I'm usually horrible at explaining things, but I'm going to try to clear this up for you, CatPhysician.

The second law of thermodynamics is two fold: a proof written by Gibbs (I forgot his full name) about how the total entropy of the universe is always increasing and a statistical inference about the world around us first proposed by Ludwig Boltzmann describing the powerful idea of entropy. Basically, things tend towards what is most statistically probable in a situation and this is why most systems tend towards further disorder. It's very easy when you use an example like a box full of puzzle pieces, or the seperate pages of a book, but as soon as you hit water and oil not mixing together things start to be a bit more complicated.

Like I said earlier though, entropy is a statistical inference, which only says closed systems tend toward a state most statistically probable. Understanding a little about statistics brings one to comprehend that it is still possible to move towards a state not the most statistically propable. The chances that mixing a box full of puzzle pieces will show a fully, perfectly made puzzle when you open it up is extremely slim, but don't you agree some of the pieces could be together correctly and it wouldn't surprise you too much?

Also, please understand that the earth is not a closed system. The sun provides energy to the earth every day and has been providing energy outward long before the earth came to be (the earth also radiates outward internal energy from below the crust). So yes, had the sun not been there and no other energy, or a better word to use would be heat source existed, life existing today would be a bit farfetched. That is exactly why life is proposed to have begun most probably near hot springs deep underwater where a lot of random reactions can occur and energy is constantly being provided.

Does this help you to understand the second law of thermodynamics any more?

 

[Duke]

So entropy and disorganization does not affect earth because the sun is giving energy? What about paint on a house, after time it chips away and fades in color. And a car will always get more scratched, rusty and not running as well as first bought. Just because there is energy being recieved by the sun doesn't mean evolution has the intelligence to randomly organize all life. So if I leave the light in my room on then in a couple billion years I will eventually get little humans because the light is giving my room energy?

 

[snex]

duke im not going to play your stupid games if youre just going to sit there with your head buried in the sand. you asked for evidence of speciation, i gave you two lists of OBSERVATION of speciation, and all you can do is continue to ask for evidence of speciation. you are showing the fundamental dishonesty of creationism, and as i told you before when you were harping on the 2LoT, i dont deal with dishonest people.

and really.. your nonsense about house paint is irrelevant. nobody is saying that 2LoT cant produce disorder. we are saying that it doesnt ALWAYS produce disorder, so giving examples of it producing disorder is pointless. we are talking about organic molecules, not paint. and organic molecules have been OBSERVED to form spontaneously.

theres that word again, OBSERVED. do you know what it means?

 

[Duke]

I looked up both links of OBVSERVATIONS of speciation. A small bug that wouldn't breed with its own type and plant that changed so much that it wasn't considered the same type of plant anymore. I am surprised by you snex, not even you can provide proof that the eye gradually evolved? You are picking and choosing parts of my post to pick at you and I both know that the paint thing wasn't serious. Now gosh dangit show me proof that the eyeball evolved and that life evolved from a nuclei and the direct evolutionary line of a brain or retract your statement that evolution is the base of all creation. Oh and if water and oil become more organized than I am sure you can provide the equation for it with no problem; because entropy is a simple equation and it should be easy for you to figure that one out snex.

 

[snex]

the equation is irrelevant. all you need to do is LOOK and see that water and oil separate. you only need equations to discuss things you havent yet looked at.

speaking of things you havent looked at, why dont you read the peer reviewed published articles on eye evolution? www.pubmed.org has 2622 paper results for "eye evolution." surely you've read them all and published refutations to each one since you so confidently claim an eye cant evolve.

 

[Duke]

Wrong again snex, I didn't say the eye couln't evolve. Infact, once the eye actually appears I bet it wouldn't have much problem evolving. But in what living organism did the eye just appear in? If evolution is correct by how it is defined then the eyeball woud have to just appear because if it just got one part here and then a few generations later get another part there and so on then it would have been rendered useless and as we know that evolution works on trial and error. And the eye would have been found useless while it is in its little bits and pieces. And you still haven't given me answers to the brain and nuclei to life question.
The equation is not irrelevant, you claim that water and oil when thrown together is more organized then when they are totally seperate or if they were to mix. You must prove this, now if you can't provide the equation then take back what you have said.

 

[snex]

did you read the 2622 papers? if not, stop claiming no evidence has been offered to you. its right there.

if you cant understand why a heterogenous mixture of oil and water is more ordered than a homogenous mixture of milk and water, then there is no point in further discussion. you deny that which is before your very eyes. your post further proves that you have no idea whatsoever what the 2LoT states and what its equations are for. thermodynamic equations tell you what reactions will happen and under what conditions. they have nothing to do with order.

how does it feel to have to deny your own vision just to defend your broken down faith?

 

[TheCatPhysician]

Heh, I can't believe you guys are using the sun argument, the one that the article I linked to refutes. So much for reading the article - here's the link again, for the third time, but you probably still won't read it: LINK.

Snex, if God created life, that was NOT a closed system. A classic example of a closed system (heh, the one they teach in Chemistry class) is if you have a perfectly clean room and you leave it completely alone with nobody entering the room, nobody messing with it. No matter how well you cleaned it, it will tend toward disorder, or get messier/worse. Things like dust forming, maybe molding, etc. But if you went in once in a while and kept it clean, 2LoT no longer applies to this situation because it is an OPEN system. Well technically, it only applies to it when you aren't cleaning it.

Likewise, if you put all the building blocks to life inside a box and left it where nothing could touch it and/or help/interfere with it, that would be a closed system. But if some scientist were to get a hold of it and give it the initial spark somehow, that would make it an OPEN system.

Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.

See that, if it is "left to its own devices." It's not left to its own devices when you've got the scientist messing with it. This is no different if you have God there to start life.

i love this argument... "the laws of thermodynamics say that energy cant be created, therefore it must have been created!"

The laws of Thermodynamics don't say energy couldn't have been created, but the Law of Conservation of Energy does.

the energy that makes up the universe has always existed, and the big bang does not say otherwise. the big bang only describes how it has changed over time.

So...energy has existed forever. If energy has existed forever, than time and matter must have existed forever, too, right? But the Second Law of Thermodynamics says things are always getting more and more disorderly, so doesn't that mean energy would be totally unavailable for work, and matter would be infinitely disorderly?

The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature.

 

[snex]

Heh, I can't believe you guys are using the sun argument, the one that the article I linked to refutes. So much for reading the article - here's the link again, for the third time, but you probably still won't read it: LINK.

this article misrepresents the 2LoT, and i have already explained how.

Snex, if God created life, that was NOT a closed system. A classic example of a closed system (heh, the one they teach in Chemistry class) is if you have a perfectly clean room and you leave it completely alone with nobody entering the room, nobody messing with it. No matter how well you cleaned it, it will tend toward disorder, or get messier/worse. Things like dust forming, maybe molding, etc. But if you went in once in a while and kept it clean, 2LoT no longer applies to this situation because it is an OPEN system. Well technically, it only applies to it when you aren't cleaning it.

the earth is an open system with or without god. hence your simplistic model of increasing disorder simply DOES NOT APPLY. the trueorigin.org article is not using the 2LoT, it is using a creationist misrepresentation of the 2LoT that demands "ordered energy" or "directed energy" or some other such nonsense that is not a part of the 2LoT in ANY scientific field.

Likewise, if you put all the building blocks to life inside a box and left it where nothing could touch it and/or help/interfere with it, that would be a closed system. But if some scientist were to get a hold of it and give it the initial spark somehow, that would make it an OPEN system.

the "initial spark" could come from lightning, ultraviolet rays from the sun, or hydrothermal vents. none of those required intelligent action.

See that, if it is "left to its own devices." It's not left to its own devices when you've got the scientist messing with it. This is no different if you have God there to start life.

but this defeats your own argument. you are trying to claim that abiogenesis VIOLATES 2LoT. but if an intelligent agent can make life from non-life, then those same processes can happen on their own if the conditions are right. either abiogenesis VIOLATES the 2LoT, and therefore life itself is impossible - intelligent action or not, or it does not VIOLATE the 2LoT, and it is possible all on its own.

take another example.. if we want ice, we put water in the freezer. that ice was intelligently formed by seemingly violating the 2LoT. but 2LoT wasnt violated. the ice lost energy, but at the expense of putting more energy out into the environment. this does not mean that ice cannot form naturally. clearly it does, and the 2LoT is not violated.

The laws of Thermodynamics don't say energy couldn't have been created, but the Law of Conservation of Energy does.

So...energy has existed forever. If energy has existed forever, than time and matter must have existed forever, too, right? But the Second Law of Thermodynamics says things are always getting more and more disorderly, so doesn't that mean energy would be totally unavailable for work, and matter would be infinitely disorderly?

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

the 2LoT did not necessarily apply before the big bang. we only know that it has applied ever since. in that sense, the big bang was a "beginning," because it represented a change of states, the same way you "begin" adulthood at 18. the energy was always there, but something happened at the big bang that put the laws of physics into effect.

and before you ask, nobody knows what made the big bang happen.

 

[Eor]

But in what living organism did the eye just appear in? If evolution is correct by how it is defined then the eyeball woud have to just appear because if it just got one part here and then a few generations later get another part there and so on then it would have been rendered useless and as we know that evolution works on trial and error. And the eye would have been found useless while it is in its little bits and pieces. And you still haven't given me answers to the brain and nuclei to life question.
The equation is not irrelevant, you claim that water and oil when thrown together is more organized then when they are totally seperate or if they were to mix. You must prove this, now if you can't provide the equation then take back what you have said.

Half an eye is useful for vision. Many organisms have eyes that lack some features of human eyes. Examples include the following:
Dinoflagellates are single cells, but they have eyespots that allow them to orient toward light sources (Kreimer 1999).
Starfish and flatworms have eyecups; clustering light-sensitive cells in a depression allows animals to more accurately detect the direction from which the light is coming from.
Some monkeys have only two kinds of color photoreceptors, allowing less color discrimination than most humans have. Some deep-sea fish can see only black and white.


Humans themselves have far from perfect vision:


Humans see in only three colors. Some fish see five. (A very few women are tetrachromats; they have four types of color receptors; Zorpette 2000.)
Humans cannot see into the ultraviolet, like bees.
Humans cannot see infrared, like pit vipers and some fish.
Humans cannot easily detect the polarization of light, like ants and bees.
Humans can see only in front of themselves. Many other animals have far greater fields of view; examples are sandpipers and dragonflies.
Human vision is poor in the dark; the vision of owls is 50 to 100 times more sensitive in darkness. Some deep-sea shrimp can detect light hundreds of times fainter still (Zimmer 1996).
The range of distances on which one may focus is measured in diopters. A human's range is about fourteen diopters as children, dropping to about one diopter in old age. Some diving birds have a fifty-diopter range.
The resolution of human vision is not as good as that of hawks. A hawk's vision is about 20/5; they can see an object from about four times the distance of a human with 20/20 vision.
Humans have a blind spot caused by the wiring of their retinas; octopuses do not.
The Four-eyed Fish (Anableps microlepis) has eyes divided in half horizontally, each eye with two separate optical systems for seeing in and out of the water simultaneously. Whirligig beetles (family Gyrinidae) also have divided compound eyes, so one pair of eyes sees underwater and a separate pair sees above.
The vision of most humans is poor underwater. The penguin has a flat cornea, allowing it to see clearly underwater. Interestingly, the Moken (sea gypsies) from Southeast Asia have better underwater vision than other people (Gislén et al. 2003).
Humans close their eyes to blink, unlike some snakes.
Chameleons and seahorses can move their eyes independent of the other.

If you want to know what use is half an eye, ask yourself how you survive with much less than half of what eyes are capable of.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html

 

[Duke]

That doesn't exlain when/how the eye was introduced in evolution.

 

[snex]

you must be a fast reader, to have read all 2622 of pubmed's articles on it.

you know, it would be a lot more convincing that youre interested in learning what evolution actually has to say if you actually read about it from its proponents, instead of filtering all information through creationist sources first.

 

[rounder_nk]

regarding the larger question of the big bang and such this comment i posted in the alternate thread for this discussion might shed some light on the situation here

 

[blazedaces]

That doesn't exlain when/how the eye was introduced in evolution.

Duke, I'd like to introduce you to the following site I found which has a lot of information about the eye (Don't you love that word, information).

http://ebiomedia.com/gall/eyes/eye1.html

This one more specifically, it's one of the links in that site, but to tell you the truth, I didn't expect you to even attempt to sift through that site, so here's specifically the most primitive eye according to that site:

http://ebiomedia.com/gall/eyes/primitive.html

Try actually reading it this time instead of ignoring it and continuing to ask for evidence over and over and over.

 

[Deleted member]

My Physics teacher is the leader of the Christian Fellowship at my high school.
Can anyone explain that?
Snex, he is a fairly rationalistic thinker, (you have to be to teach physics) but how come he can accept that God is the creator of all things AND that V=D/T?

 

[Brifa]

because physics has nothing to do with religion. go find one of your biology teachers, and ask them what they think of evolution.

 

[snex]

My Physics teacher is the leader of the Christian Fellowship at my high school.
Can anyone explain that?
Snex, he is a fairly rationalistic thinker, (you have to be to teach physics) but how come he can accept that God is the creator of all things AND that V=D/T?

because human beings are notioriously good at compartmentalizing. everybody is perfectly logical when it comes to getting our next meal, but when dealing with mystical things, even the most otherwise rational person can seem nutty. every single goofy claim you can think of, whether its religion, UFOs, homeopathic medicine, astrology, etc etc has intelligent people - often with PhDs - defending it.

in short, i explain your physics teacher's christianity the same way you explain muslim and hindu physics teachers.

 

[Deleted member]

Funny you should mention that as well, my biology teacher believes the same thing as my physics teacher. I don't take biology, but this discussion got me interested, and I asked her.


Edit: She believes that God is the creator of all things and created science, and that evolution was intended.
Snex, I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions, but please have the same for mine. I kind of feel like an idiot when you keep calling religion a goofy claim, or something nutty, or something like that. Cool? :D

 

[snex]

Funny you should mention that as well, my biology teacher believes the same thing as my physics teacher. I don't take biology, but this discussion got me interested, and I asked her.

he didnt ask you if your biology teacher was a christian, he asked what your biology teacher thinks about evolution.

 

[Crimson King]

Edit: She believes that God is the creator of all things and created science, and that evolution was intended.
Snex, I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions, but please have the same for mine. I kind of feel like an idiot when you keep calling religion a goofy claim, or something nutty, or something like that. Cool? :D

It isn't? Believing in a magic man in the clouds requires a LARGE leap of faith to me.

 

[snex]

if you called him "bob" instead of "god," youd be put in a mental institution.

thats not my opinion, its fact.

 

[Deleted member]

I do not necessarily believe in a man in the clouds, He could be a force.

 

[blazedaces]

I do not necessarily believe in a man in the clouds, He could be a force.

You mean like in "Star Wars"? May the force be with you!

 

[3.14159]

That makes you EXTREMELY loose in your definition of God. Most people define God as an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, transcendent being. Your definition is more deist than Christian (you are, I believe, Roman Catholic). A force that does not interfere with the universe and is only necessary to set it in motion (which requires the smallest possible leap of faith) is irrelevant to understanding the universe. One might as well say that the big bang happened itself, and not require the belief in a 'force' as you call it. I believe the logical principle is Occam's razor?

 

[Deleted member]

I've lost respect for some people in this thread. Seriously, some of you guys think you are too smart, and it's really getting to your heads.

If I have a girlfriend who you think is ugly, you do not say that to my face. It's just not a polite thing to do. If you went down to some places where they took religion more seriously than North America, IE Mexico, you'd get your *** kicked.

Pi: It doesn't mean anything. Has anyone seen God? No.
Why assume He is a humanoid?
And I know some of you smart-alecs will say, Why assume He exists?
I'll tell you why, because I strongly feel that the universe is too complex to happen randomly. That's all I said. (and a bit of elaboration for you guys looking for loopholes, christ, I wish I didn't have to do this) None of this Occam's Razor bull**** or whatever.
I never said God is a force, but he COULD be. Key word. Could be. I have not released what form I think God takes on.

Haven't you ever heard of Mother Nature? Most people think that is a force.

Pi, the great thing about Christianity is that in this religion, you do not have to accept everything as doctrine.
If you didn't know that, look at the fact that many Christians use medicine, and many have abortions, and many have sex for pleasure, etc, etc.
Who said anything about the force not interfering with the universe? I've clearly stated in many posts that I believe God created the universe; how is that irrelevant?

I'm sorry I had to resort to this angry post, but honestly, grow up. (Snex excluded) Especially you, blazed.

If this post gets me hated in this Debate Hall, so be it. I said that I didn't like having my religion mocked and made fun of, and some of you laughed at it. I wanted to see a post saying, "You're right, sorry. I still don't believe in God though." That would have been perfectly fine with me.
[/rant]

Crimson, Snex, can I ask why it takes you a large leap of faith that there is a God? I feel sorry for you that you are that pessimistic / rationalistic / factual outlook on life. I can imagine you denying Santa Claus the first time you got a Christmas gift. I suggest reading some of Hume's empiricist views, they're very interesting.

 

[blazedaces]

I've lost respect for some people in this thread. Seriously, some of you guys think you are too smart, and it's really getting to your heads.

If I have a girlfriend who you think is ugly, you do not say that to my face. It's just not a polite thing to do. If you went down to some places where they took religion more seriously than North America, IE Mexico, you'd get your *** kicked.

Pi: It doesn't mean anything. Has anyone seen God? No.
Why assume He is a humanoid?
And I know some of you smart-alecs will say, Why assume He exists?
I'll tell you why, because I strongly feel that the universe is too complex to happen randomly. That's all I said. (and a bit of elaboration for you guys looking for loopholes, christ, I wish I didn't have to do this) None of this Occam's Razor bull**** or whatever.
I never said God is a force, but he COULD be. Key word. Could be. I have not released what form I think God takes on.

Haven't you ever heard of Mother Nature? Most people think that is a force.

Pi, the great thing about Christianity is that in this religion, you do not have to accept everything as doctrine.
If you didn't know that, look at the fact that many Christians use medicine, and many have abortions, and many have sex for pleasure, etc, etc.
Who said anything about the force not interfering with the universe? I've clearly stated in many posts that I believe God created the universe; how is that irrelevant?

I'm sorry I had to resort to this angry post, but honestly, grow up. (Snex excluded) Especially you, blazed.

If this post gets me hated in this Debate Hall, so be it. I said that I didn't like having my religion mocked and made fun of, and some of you laughed at it. I wanted to see a post saying, "You're right, sorry. I still don't believe in God though." That would have been perfectly fine with me.
[/rant]

Crimson, Snex, can I ask why it takes you a large leap of faith that there is a God? I feel sorry for you that you are that pessimistic / rationalistic / factual outlook on life. I can imagine you denying Santa Claus the first time you got a Christmas gift. I suggest reading some of Hume's empiricist views, they're very interesting.

Delorted, this is a debate hall. It's not out in the open. The rules of conduct in here are different then those in a person-to-person conversation.

You insensitive pricks always get angry when in here, in a debate hall where people can be very open about this subject you're told the truth of what we think to your faces. Yet out there, in the real world you probably wouldn't think twice about mocking an atheist, spitting on his beliefs and laughing in his face. I've faced all these for my beliefs, what the **** have you had to put up with, some people online cracking a few jokes?!

This is a debate hall, where we're going to debate about the subjects brought up. Your overreaction is just an example of what brings about everything wrong that stems from religion in this world. If it's not athiest vs. christian it's muslim vs. jews or it's pagans vs. christians or idiots fighting over who has the better imaginary friend, bla bla bla. This is ridiculous.

How can you expect any of us to do what you cannot do yourself? When have you announced the possibility of being wrong in the matter? God, seriously, grow up, have a sense of humor and try to understand that there are other people that believe different things around you. If you can't defend your own beliefs then I don't think you truly believe any of them.

 

[Deleted member]

Your joke was not exactly well placed. And I didn't exactly see it as one, rather a very sarcastic comment which obviously stated your side on that particular topic, (the form of God).
I tried to be light hearted about it at first, but that got shot down.
I don't have to announce the possibility of me being wrong. But I will. I could be wrong. Of course. You could be too. I haven't seen any of you atheists accept that you could be wrong. So wtf is your point?

My overreaction is not an example of religion gone bad per se, I just don't want to be seen as someone who can believe in things that aren't scientifically proven, and then labelled as a moron for it.

You wouldn't believe how many people think I'm an idiot for believing in a God, so it's not just "some people online cracking a few jokes." You were the only one who "joked", and the rest just plainly and bluntly stated and obviously implied that it IS in fact idiotic of me for believing in something as farfetched as a God.

Do you honestly think I don't understand that other people believe different things? I have considered almost every thought on this page, and looked at the scientific evidence / links posted in depth. I have defended my own beliefs, in earlier posts, I don't get where you are coming from.

Your way of thinking, the fact that since you're behind a computer screen gives you the right to tell me what you think right to my face, and be a big man, is a big problem and is the cause of most flame wars. GFG.

I'm the insensitive prick? I half expected someone to quote me and say, "QQ MORE."

 

[Eor]

Del, it’s a ****ing debate ON GOD. Of course people are going to tell you that they think believing in god is stupid, stop acting like you are a misrepresented minority that is being picked on.

 

[Deleted member]

I'm not trying to act like a minority. In fact, atheists are mocking a majority (people who are religious in some way), lol. I find that lame, 's all.

 

[Eor]

That we are mocking a majority is lame? Explain how you could possible think that.

 

[Deleted member]

I guess I'm speaking for the theists, right? There are more theists than atheists...so, they are a majority.

Knowing this, we can safely say (at least, I can) that since some of you have been mocking what we believe in and making us feel stupid, it's lame.
This is way off-topic. =P

 

[Brifa]

the reason some people on these forums act like religion is idiotic is because believing in a god is ridiculous at the most fundamental level. seriously, science has got it all covered, whether you accept it or not. the only real arena left to fight in is the origin of the universe, and nobody has an answer just yet. some christians say "the universe must have been caused, everything has to be caused!" but, as snex has said before, this argument is shot down by the fact that chistians require an uncaused being (or force) to cause the universe, even though everything has to be caused according to you people. snex also pointed out that a god would violate the second law of thermodynamics just as much as a natural cause, assuming the law had any relevence.

so those are the reasons to, at the very least, be neutral on the subject. but what about specifically going against religion, as many of us seem to do? the answer is that all religions are philosophically unstable at their core. christianity, for example. your god is, according to the bible, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. however, if you think about this for a second, that's actually not even possible! how can he be all-powerful AND all-loving if there's pain and strife in the world? he loves everyone and has the power to stop us from being hurt, but doesn't. the bible says god gave us free will, but if we have free will, how can he know what we're going to do, since he's all-knowing? the christian god is unbelievably easy to disprove, as is the relevence of the bible to the modern world. many people on these forums could dispatch any other religion with just as great ease.

any religion is a ridiculous notion at best, excluding atheism and agnosticism, which follow science insofar as to not disagree with what we can physically prove to be true.

 

[JFox]

I don't see that science has disproven God...perhaps it has disproven certain aspects in certain religions, but not the existence of God.