Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

RL uses the imprecision of the word 'apply' .........yet the precise answer is so complex that only a mathematician can really grasp it.

because the SLT 'applies' to everything, but it simply has a different outcome for a 'closed' system than an 'open' system.

I really only come to this site when I'm waiting on information from my clients. Over the past few days my current client has been having internal resource issues so I haven't had much to do. Even though I am basically getting paid to play on A2K, with people like RL it just isn't worth it.

It is really too bad. There seems to be a small but very scientifically knowledgeable group of people here and others who are not in the field but seem to be intelligent enough to add much to the conversation. Yet, with the vast amount of idiots around who wants to bother trying to get real discussions going?

At least these threads are in Philosophy or Religion forums but you see much of the same thing in the science forum. In my humble opinion the moderators would do themselves a favor by refusing to let this stuff into the science section. Gunga's dino post is an example. I think they would get a much more robust and meaningful science forum than they have now where a day or two can go my without a real post.

But I have seen many people try and just give up and leave the science discussions that it seems few take that forum seriously anymore. Well that's my humble opinion. I just hope my client gets their act together soon or I'm going to start bringing in a book to read. I just don't have the impressive patience that some of you have with these idiots.

I really only come to this site when I'm waiting on information from my clients. Over the past few days my current client has been having internal resource issues so I haven't had much to do. Even though I am basically getting paid to play on A2K, with people like RL it just isn't worth it.

It is really too bad. There seems to be a small but very scientifically knowledgeable group of people here and others who are not in the field but seem to be intelligent enough to add much to the conversation. Yet, with the vast amount of idiots around who wants to bother trying to get real discussions going?

At least these threads are in Philosophy or Religion forums but you see much of the same thing in the science forum. In my humble opinion the moderators would do themselves a favor by refusing to let this stuff into the science section. Gunga's dino post is an example. I think they would get a much more robust and meaningful science forum than they have now where a day or two can go my without a real post.

But I have seen many people try and just give up and leave the science discussions that it seems few take that forum seriously anymore. Well that's my humble opinion. I just hope my client gets their act together soon or I'm going to start bringing in a book to read. I just don't have the impressive patience that some of you have with these idiots.

Well RL.. you won't even admit what your position is concerning the 2nd law.

Is the 2nd law of thermodynamics violated by evolution? A simple yes or no would suffice.

Energy alone is not sufficient to overcome entropy to the degree needed to generate life from non-life, nor to generate extraordinarily complex and interdependent biological systems.

You must have a mechanism to harness and regulate energy.

parados wrote:

Well RL.. you won't even admit what your position is concerning the 2nd law.

Is the 2nd law of thermodynamics violated by evolution? A simple yes or no would suffice.

Yes, naturalistic positions such as abiogenesis and evolution are not in accordance with the 2nd Law.

Energy alone is not sufficient to overcome entropy to the degree needed to generate life from non-life, nor to generate extraordinarily complex and interdependent biological systems.

You must have a mechanism to harness and regulate energy.

Simply adding energy alone will not overcome entropy and produce complexity (think: explosion).

Quote:

RL uses the imprecision of the word 'apply' .........yet the precise answer is so complex that only a mathematician can really grasp it.

Couched in kind terms, Ros says that if you don't agree then you're just not smart enough.

The real problem , however, with his answer is the logic (or lack) of it.

Quote:

because the SLT 'applies' to everything, but it simply has a different outcome for a 'closed' system than an 'open' system.

Now really Ros, did you expect that anyone would buy this?

I never said I hated him.

But I certainly don't agree with ROS that he shows any cleverness in debate. To me running away and refusing to answer questions is not an intelligent debate tactic it is cowardice. In the same way that I don't regard debate as knowingly misinterpreting what people say and when you're called on it lying and saying you never did it. I call that being a liar and a poor one at that. In just the last day or two Parados has gone to the trouble of repeatedly pointing it out to RL and RL denies it over and over. Some here might consider this good debate, some like Baddog1 may consider it a sign of integrity…to each his own.

I have no trouble in saying I've been bested in a debate. But I certainly don't see that RL has done that. As for RL keeping people playing the game with him, that may be true of some people but after only a handful of posts with him its people minus one. I know what I know and what I don't and have no interest in stroking his ego by acting as if he is either knowledgeable or clever.

Oh, by they way, I hate to ignore your smoke screen or anything, but when are you going to give us an example of evidence for creationism?

Once a replicative biology is started the obvious mechanism is Natural Selection.

real life wrote:

Quote:

RL uses the imprecision of the word 'apply' .........yet the precise answer is so complex that only a mathematician can really grasp it.

Couched in kind terms, Ros says that if you don't agree then you're just not smart enough.

You seem to have missed the context of what was said, and instead clipped out different bits to try to discredit the post as an insult, when it's clear to anyone who reads it what was actually meant.

Nice try.

real life wrote:

The real problem , however, with his answer is the logic (or lack) of it.

Quote:

because the SLT 'applies' to everything, but it simply has a different outcome for a 'closed' system than an 'open' system.

Now really Ros, did you expect that anyone would buy this?

Everyone with an unbiased view of the subject, yes. Should I take it that you don't think the SLT applies to everything? Or that you don't think the outcome is different for closed systems and open systems? Which part of any of that don't you understand?

Perhaps a response to the thesis of the thread would be in order.

The titular question of the thread has been assiduously dodged. Perhaps you can help us out, Neo. What evidence to you happen to allege there to be that the diversity of life on this planet is the result of a direct, divine creation? That is, after all, the burden of the thread. I already know what dodge "real life" will use--what's yours?

tinygiraffe wrote:

Quote:

how did god come to exist?

he evolved, obviously!

This directs us toward the underlying conundrum in trying to prove either the existence of God or the concept of creation.

From our understanding of causality, limited as it is by our perception of space and time, we cannot conceive of a prime mover that may have always existed. Our minds reject intuitively any reference to a point of "before time began", whatever that means.

But it surely must be obvious that any creator who calls himself "He who causes to become", may have created or fabricated these dimensions (IF that is the best term for them) for the simple purpose of creating sentient beings having the facility of free will. The implications of this are far reaching and certainly must include powers that we would consider beyond natural or 'supernatural'.

How could anyone prove that?

Well, before the thread was derailed we had talked some about dinos and man co-existing.

I think the soft tissue that has been discovered in the bones of numerous dinos is quite interesting , don't you?

How is it that 65,000,000 year old tissue is still in this condition?

Numerous cultures on earth give testimony that their recent ancestors co-existed with dinos.

I think it is something that's tough to ignore.

How did they know that these large reptiles existed and could represent them so accurately in their art and lore if they had never seen one?

you still don't understand how evolution works, neo?

i mean if you insist there's a creator, i take no issue with that. but the fact that you think "randomness" = evolution shows you've been selectively ignoring the evolution threads on this forum for how many years, exactly? i usually think more highly of you than that, so i'm genuinely surprised.

you still don't understand how evolution works, neo?

i mean if you insist there's a creator, i take no issue with that. but the fact that you think "randomness" = evolution shows you've been selectively ignoring the evolution threads on this forum for how many years, exactly? i usually think more highly of you than that, so i'm genuinely surprised.