Religion

Your assuming there is a “god” out there that actually gives a damn.

Presumably your "God" is responsible for the laws of physics. If so "He" gave us the second law of thermodynamics which can be stated "all systems tend to maximum disorder "

In the 19th century, a scientist William Thomson, also known as Lord Kelvin, discovered the second law of thermodynamics, which explains why, over time, natural systems tend to decay and break down. One factor that inspired him to reach this conclusion was a careful study of Psalm 102:25-27.

Oh bullshit . . . what is your source for that crapola?

No, Kelvin did not "discover" it. He gave an alternative statement of it. His religious leanings were directed towards the impossibility of "evolution of life by natural causes" implying "divine intervention to reverse disorder".

(A subtle point here which goes beyond religious ad hoc "explanations" involves whether "order" and "disorder" are anthropocentric concepts. But such a discussion also questions the very nature of what we mean by "explanation" and "reality" and would write off religion as a credible candidate !)

Max Planck restated the proposition at the same time that Thomson did. They were both restating the propositions of Carnot, Clausius and Joule.

First, the Bible says that God is the source of life. (Ps. 36:9) Life did not arise and cannot arise spontaneously from lifeless material. This is in complete agreement with scientific laws and experimental tests. The laws of statistics, the law of entropy, calculations from thermodynamics and kinetics all converge on the conclusion that spontaneous generation of life cannot occur, it just does not happen.

Kelvin, one of the world’s greatest physicists, also said the following significant statement: ‘If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to believe in God.’ I must declare myself in full agreement with this statement.”

In the words of Setanta-



First- The Bible is nothing but a book of appalling circular logic filled with superstitious nonsense, which should have been voided from legitimacy like all other fairytales…

As for the rest of you drivel- it’s still undecided. Thankfully, actual scientist are still trying to find the truth to their answers, not an easy copout- “God did it”. And for the closing quote- thanks for the joke I thought it was hilarious myself. LOL

In fact, the evidence (for anyone who understands chemistry) is that what we call organic molecules can and will form in any circumstances in which the components are present. A recent pointed example of this is the finding that there are organic molecules on the poles of Mercury. You are in way over your head. Kelvin, by the way, was in Edison's camp, declaring that alternating current was too dangerous for ordinary use, and that direct current was the wave of the future. That boy was about as good with pronostication as your book of bronze age fairy tales.

You and Telamon are correct.
Obviously, creationists would avoid Prigogine's (1977 Nobel Prize) discovery that importation and dissipation of energy into chemical systems could reverse the maximization of entropy rule imposed by the second law of thermodynamics. In short he demonstrated the occurrence of spontaneous structures in complex chemical systems. This effectively rules out the necessity for "life" to be a "non-natural" event.

Yes, Not only does science give one reason to believe in God, but it causes one to see the need for a revelation from God about himself. The Bible fills that need. Chemist says: “As a scientist, it is more reasonable for me to believe in a Creator than in an eternally existing cosmos. . . . One cannot rightly know God from the natural world alone. The scientist may work for an eternity, but he will never come to know God and all His attributes. . . . Man is but a creature of a Creator; therefore, man cannot learn about God by investigation of His creation alone, but he needs a special revelation. That special revelation is God’s Word, which has been given in the Scriptures.

Well to you, is widely held today that the Bible is unscientific, and some point to Galileo’s experiences to prove it. But is this the case? When answering that question, we have to remember that the Bible is a book of prophecy, history, prayer, law, counsel, and knowledge about God. It does not claim to be a scientific textbook. Nevertheless, when the Bible does touch on scientific matters, what it says is completely accurate.

“…what you've just said ... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points…” ~Mr. Oblaski
May someday you WAKE THE **** UP AND JOIN REALITY!

Yea Spread, Tela's reply is typical of so many a2k participants apparently terribly angry at all times about nearly everything. You mustn't take them seriously because at length they'd persuade you to quit thinking about anything

On a purely intuitional basis I'd agree if for no other reason

(a) The humanoid is the most complex object in the Universe

(b) Without him the entire Megillah seems a hopeless, superfluous exercise in the random bouncing of molecules to a meaningless end

© The constants seem to have been "adjusted," some within a fraction of one percent, specifically to permit the evolution of life

However it's a very subtle revelation, not at all scientific but again intuitional


So the Christian asserts anyhow

But why

The latter is so much easier to explain. With creation for instance the 12-year-old will respond for instance, "Yes but who created the creator"

Yes but most of us feel so much more comfortable with a revelation that doesn't counter scientific evidence

…while it's "special" only inasmuch as it requires real intellect

Only however in a somewhat unsatisfactory symbolic form

Sorry Spread but yes, largely so

Forgive me Spr but not being familiar with the tome I wonder if you'd mind offering a few specific examples

From what we already know Fres, it's apparent that She didn't invent them, they're natural and necessary, a change in any one of them conflicting with one or more of the others but the pantheist does intuitively see something to the Entire Megillah beyond the senseless, fortuitious jostling of particles

Spread, the results of recent experiments seem to question your assertion

To the contrary many if not most scientifically-inclined are sure it can

Yet many others, especially the apodictical existential pantheist such as I agree. There's nothing ungodly about spontaneous generation

Did you know for 50 years, British philosopher Antony Flew was highly respected as an atheist by his peers. “Theology and Falsification, became the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the 20th century.” In 1986 Flew was called “the most profound of the contemporary critics of theism” (the belief in God or gods). So it came as a great shock to many when, in 2004, Flew announced that he had changed his viewpoint, so I do not waste my time perhaps you do.

Neglected Time is what Jesus told the disciples in one of his parables. “To everyone who has, shall more be given and richly given; but from him who has nothing, even what he has shall be taken.”—Matt. 25:29

One swallow does not a summer make. That one prominent critic of theism changed his mind doesn't mean that theism is therefore enshrined intellectually as a valid viewpoint. This is just a variation on argumentum ad populum.

"Si 50 millions de personnes disent une bêtise, c'est quand même une bêtise."

--Anatole France

("If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.")

("If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.")
Yes so you are foolish then.

LOL
O' the irony