- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 06 2012,08:31) Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 06 2012,03:47) I am not going to play if you keep changing the rules. Stu wins.
Tim
Actually I didn't change the rules you expanded the thought and I thank you but you didn't answer the question with the twist you put on it.But either way Lawn mower or Potato how would you assume it got there?
Stu already took the view that Lawn mowers are designed although on that planet Lawn mowers could be like rocks
Are you claiming that rocks aren't divinely designed?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 06 2012,16:47) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 06 2012,08:31) Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 06 2012,03:47) I am not going to play if you keep changing the rules. Stu wins.
Tim
Actually I didn't change the rules you expanded the thought and I thank you but you didn't answer the question with the twist you put on it.But either way Lawn mower or Potato how would you assume it got there?
Stu already took the view that Lawn mowers are designed although on that planet Lawn mowers could be like rocks
Are you claiming that rocks aren't divinely designed?Stuart
I know that they didn't just materialize out of thin airQuote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 06 2012,21:29) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 06 2012,16:47) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 06 2012,08:31) Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 06 2012,03:47) I am not going to play if you keep changing the rules. Stu wins.
Tim
Actually I didn't change the rules you expanded the thought and I thank you but you didn't answer the question with the twist you put on it.But either way Lawn mower or Potato how would you assume it got there?
Stu already took the view that Lawn mowers are designed although on that planet Lawn mowers could be like rocks
Are you claiming that rocks aren't divinely designed?Stuart
I know that they didn't just materialize out of thin air
But who would claim that?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 18 2011,12:34) 
Stuart
Actually let's see how knowledgeable you are Stu.Please submit the EVIDENCE that shows that each of these squares is wrong.
You can attack each square in its own post so it is easy to follow.It is no good laughing at something if you don't know why you are laughing at it.
Look forward to your replies.
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 07 2012,21:40) Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 06 2012,21:29) Are you claiming that rocks aren't divinely designed? Stuart
I know that they didn't just materialize out of thin air[/quote]
But who would claim that?Stuart
Atheists claim that everything came from nothing.
Other Atheists claim that it came from something eternal that is non-living and produced qualities that it did not have to begin with.These are the 2 options.
I think you are in the second camp.
Gravity is your God. (I am not laughing OK, I am just biting my tongue.)
However, there are some notable scientists today who believe that everything came from nothing. You disagree with them.
You ridicule ideas contrary to yours, but the irony is that you are a clueless person.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 07 2012,20:01) Atheists claim that everything came from nothing.
Not this one. As I have told you endless times.Do you have the capacity to learn from your own mistakes, or even take on board what others say to avoid constantly making strawmen of others' views?
Learning from one's own mistakes is a sign of intelligence.
Maybe only atheists are intelligently designed.
Stuart
“Just a theory” debunked by a simple explanation of what the word theory means in science:
Stuart
This page on the talkorigins website deals in great detail with creationist claims to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Basically it says that either the claims lie about the possibility of greater order arising spontaneously, which is actually possible as long as more disorder results in the universe overall, or they lie about thermodynamics forbidding particular mechanisms, which are irrelevant to the thermodynamics of a system.
You just have to wonder if any of these thermodynamics-denying creationists ever grew salt crystals as a child.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 07 2012,22:22) This page on the talkorigins website deals in great detail with creationist claims to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Basically it says that either the claims lie about the possibility of greater order arising spontaneously, which is actually possible as long as more disorder results in the universe overall, or they lie about thermodynamics forbidding particular mechanisms, which are irrelevant to the thermodynamics of a system. You just have to wonder if any of these thermodynamics-denying creationists ever grew salt crystals as a child.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
Stuart
One Problem STU thermodynamics has nothing at all to do with order it only has to actually do with heat dissipationQuote The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. Read more: <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/second-law-of-thermodynamics-2#ixzz1oTaBqgSR
” target=”_blank”>http://www.answers.com/topic….]
The point being that evolution is a theory that states energy builds without a perpetual sustaining source of Energy such as God and builds on its own limited source via random mutations of viable biological systems, the point is that according to the law of thermodynamics evolution with God(Sustaining independent life source) as its source would be literally impossible because life is not perpetual
The point being that evolution is a theory that states energy builds without a perpetual sustaining source of Energy such as God and builds on its own limited source via random mutations of viable biological systems, the point is that according to the law of thermodynamics evolution with God(Sustaining independent life source) as its source would be literally impossible because life is not perpetual
Quote (bodhitharta @ Mar. 08 2012,09:24) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 07 2012,22:22) This page on the talkorigins website deals in great detail with creationist claims to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Basically it says that either the claims lie about the possibility of greater order arising spontaneously, which is actually possible as long as more disorder results in the universe overall, or they lie about thermodynamics forbidding particular mechanisms, which are irrelevant to the thermodynamics of a system. You just have to wonder if any of these thermodynamics-denying creationists ever grew salt crystals as a child.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
Stuart
One Problem STU thermodynamics has nothing at all to do with order it only has to actually do with heat dissipationThe second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system.
Read more: ]http://www.answers.com/topic….]
Not only heat dissipation, but matter dissipation as well, which is where the order part comes in.Quote The point being that evolution is a theory that states energy builds without a perpetual sustaining source of Energy such as God and builds on its own limited source via random mutations of viable biological systems, the point is that according to the law of thermodynamics evolution with God(Sustaining independent life source) as its source would be literally impossible because life is not perpetual
Please show me the page in the Origin of Species that states that.Why did you post at all on this subject? You don't actually know anything about the Second Law of Thermodynamics by the look of it. No wonder you are a creationist: you don't appear to feel constrained by reality.
Stuart
Quote ( @ –) Stu,Mar. wrote:This page on the talkorigins website deals in great detail with creationist claims to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Basically it says that either the claims lie about the possibility of greater order arising spontaneously, which is actually possible as long as more disorder results in the universe overall, or they lie about thermodynamics forbidding particular mechanisms, which are irrelevant to t
Not only heat dissipation, but matter dissipation as well, which is where the order part comes in.Quote The point being that evolution is a theory that states energy builds without a perpetual sustaining source of Energy such as God and builds on its own limited source via random mutations of viable biological systems, the point is that according to the law of thermodynamics evolution with God(Sustaining independent life source) as its source would be literally impossible because life is not perpetual
Please show me the page in the Origin of Species that states that.Why did you post at all on this subject? You don't actually know anything about the Second Law of Thermodynamics by the look of it. No wonder you are a creationist: you don't appear to feel constrained by reality.
Stuart
Quote Hey Stu If a type writer or lawn mower was found to be on some distant planet how would you assume it got there?
Stu, I'll help you out.
BD, if something much much much more complex than a lawn mower was found to exist, would we have to say it was created? The universe is complex. But I would say that as complex as the universe is, God would have to be equally as complex. How did he come come to be? BD, how would you assume God “got there”?
And if we say he has always existed, why not say the much simpler lawn mower has just always existed?
Your answer will be: “because we know lawn mowers are complicated and complicated things don't create themselves.”
And then Stu's answer will be: Who created God? If no one created God, then the “rule” that complicated things need to be created is not valid.
And I'm not sure how the conversation will go after that. Let's see…..Quote (david @ Mar. 08 2012,16:40) Quote Hey Stu If a type writer or lawn mower was found to be on some distant planet how would you assume it got there?
Stu, I'll help you out.
BD, if something much much much more complex than a lawn mower was found to exist, would we have to say it was created? The universe is complex. But I would say that as complex as the universe is, God would have to be equally as complex. How did he come come to be? BD, how would you assume God “got there”?
And if we say he has always existed, why not say the much simpler lawn mower has just always existed?
Your answer will be: “because we know lawn mowers are complicated and complicated things don't create themselves.”
And then Stu's answer will be: Who created God? If no one created God, then the “rule” that complicated things need to be created is not valid.
And I'm not sure how the conversation will go after that. Let's see…..
Actually I couldn't say whether God is complicated or simple it seems to me that even with technology these days we keep finding we could do a lot more with something that is very simple but was originally extremely complex for us to understand it's like why did we ever need a phone with a cord or gasoline engines for that matter.“Watch or Mousetrap or Mt Rushmore.”
These are usually invoked as analogies for the alleged design in the universe. It is the apparent complexity or purpose or improbability of the appearance of that object that is made analogous to the universe or aspects of it such as living organisms or cells or components of cells.
You don’t need to consider any properties of any of these objects to know they are designed, there is enough evidence that they were designed by people in the records of the work that went into creating them.
While there is plenty of non-circumstantial evidence for the design of these objects, there is no unambiguous evidence of any kind for design in nature or in the universe, apart from what animals with their own intent can do.
Stuart
“Darwinism a faith or religion.”
Darwinism is a slightly dismissive creationist’s way of referring to evolution by natural selection.
faith
Noun:Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.Evolution by natural selection is not a matter of trust or confidence, it is a scientific theory that can in principle be disproved but hasn’t been. That is almost the opposite to the idea of trust or confidence. Evolution by natural selection does not involve strong belief in a god or any doctrines. It is anti-doctrinaire: if it can be disproved then it dies.
re·li·gion
Noun:The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
Again, there is no mention of superhuman controlling powers in science. That’s because there is no unambiguous evidence to support claims of the existence of such beings.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
