12-05-2007, 08:45 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,689
|
|
|
I have zero problem accepting that the earth just happens to be the right distance from the sun to have had life evolve. Lucky us I say! There is nothing wrong with being in a random set of ideal circumstances and I don't need to believe that man was created to feel glad to be here!
__________________
currently: 1984 GTV6 (Sabrina) 1992 164L (Jill) 1992 164S (Kelly) 1989 Spider Veloce (Julie)
|
12-05-2007, 08:51 AM
|
 |
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 6,155
|
|
|
IMO, any theistic belief is totally contrary to science, and is nothing more than an agenda based idea promoted by those in control of society at any one particular time. I have seen NO emperical evidence for ANY theistic belief system! At least science has SOME emperical evidence backing it!
|
12-05-2007, 10:40 AM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 499
|
|
 Quote:
Originally Posted by 1,6 HF
What I'm saying is that you fundamentally misunderstand science. Which is why you seems to believe that evolution "violates the laws of physics", when it's actually governed by the laws of biochemistry.
|
This statement is a reference to the claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If one views the earth as a closed system then the total entropy of the system should increase with time (and can never decrease). Since organisms are more highly organized than inanimate matter, and highly-evolved organisms are more complex than less-highly evolved organisms, then observing evolution would suggest that total entropy has decreased in violation of the Second Law. The difficulty here is calculating the total entropy of the earth as a system. This is just not a practical calculation to make, although theoretically not impossible. However, God would have seemingly had to violate the second law to create the earth in the Genesis sense, so it is unclear where thermodynamic considerations leave us...
Last edited by MALDI; 12-05-2007 at 10:42 AM.
|
12-05-2007, 04:04 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Csank
Chuck, The bible also says .....
|
Alex,
Alot here to discuss. My comments in bold.
The bible also says that Adulterers should be stoned That was part of their civil law in Old Testament times. Did you see the story last week about the British school teacher in Sudan whose class named a teddy bear "Mohammed," and there were calls to execute her for that? that God created everything in a week (Right), and that everybody descended from two people (science agrees with that). The old testament God demanded child sacrifice as well Other than Abraham and Isaac, where Isaac wasn't sacrificed, not sure where you're getting this? The bible and its many books has been translated many times and books have been added and dropped throughout the history of the Jewish-Christian beliefs. For you to say that one sentence which states in an English translation that "God created each species according to their kind" and then to interpret that so that it means a contradiction of the Theory of Evolution just doesn't make any sense to me. Either God created everything or He didn't. Either every animal, plant, etc. was created unto it's own kind, or it wasn't. The Theory of Evolution says that everything evolved out of nothing, into something, which changed into something else, and on, and on, then all of a sudden stopped. Still scratching my head on that one....
You state that "evolution isn't scientific". And yet, instead of producing any real dispute of Darwin's original theory, you try to repudiate his theory as applied to Physics and Chemistry and state that the theory is neither observable nor repeatable. In so doing, you have discredited your own arguments as being unscientific. Darwin was not a scientist (I'm not one either). Darwin's book was mostly filled with opinions and a few theories. Darwin main theory is that all species "evolved" from one another (macro-evolution)." There is not one fossil record of any transitional species (except the ones that have been faked). There are no transitional forms found alive today in nature, nor have there ever been any transitional forms ever identified. It is not observable, nor is it repeatable. Richard Goldschmidt, a scientist, atheist and evolutionist, destroyed Darwin's natural selection theory back in the 1940's. He understood through careful scientific research that natural selection would never produce a different species. I could go on here for days but those are my reason for saying Darwin's theory is not scientific. Regarding the laws of nature: The First Law of Thermodynamics (aka Conservation of Energy) states the total amount of energy in a closed system remains contant but can't be recreated. Evolution says matter is self originating and not conservative. The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals with entropy, that all things gradually decay. Systems go from order to disorder. The evolutionists believe that things get better over time. Einstein called the 2nd law "the premier law of all science." Unfortunately, entropy is increasing in our world as I think you would agree.
I can wonder all day long about where gravity comes from or why the sun is exactly the right distance away from earth...but I don't. I accept that each morning the sun will rise in the East because the planet is spinning on its axis and rotational cycle around the sun and that I am being held in my chair by the effects of the gravity. Just because I don't understand everything and science hasn't yet explained everything does not make me believe that therefore there MUST be a higher power. Throughout history, mankind has created ideas (it's one of the things we do best) to explain what is not understood. 99.5% of the angular momentum in the solar system is in the planets, yet 99.8% of the mass is in the sun. Our planet, along with every other planet, should hurtle into the sun. Except for one thing. The sun moves at just the right slow speed so that doesn't happen. There is order in the universe. If the solar system exploded out of random chance, everything would have hurtled into the sun and would have been destroyed along time ago.
I believe that the sun is just the right distance away from earth and that our planet is an effective petri dish for life. Not as good as the pre-flood conditions but still good enough for supporting existing life. It's impossible for life to form where no life existed before (life does not come from non-life). The leap from no life to life is a BIG one. Scientists haven't found a way to do that, not even under perfect conditions... I also believe that it is very unlikely that there are not many other planets out there which support some form of life. I also keep an open mind about new discoveries in science...because they happen every day...Science is wonderful!
I started all of these threads because I am growing very tired of seeing these 'off-topic' threads being used to promote intolerance, prejudice and insult. Unfortunately, internet trolls exist everywhere. These threads are one method of diffusing the interest in those threads by spreading the interest to other controversial topics. I appreciate your tolerance of the biblical viewpoint that I've presented. Great discussion.
Chuck
|
12-05-2007, 04:09 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 443
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dretceterini
IMO, any theistic belief is totally contrary to science, and is nothing more than an agenda based idea promoted by those in control of society at any one particular time. I have seen NO emperical evidence for ANY theistic belief system! At least science has SOME emperical evidence backing it!
|
Stu, as a scientist, if God didn't create everything, where did it come from?
I think you'd be very surprised if you studied the first nine books of Genesis (creation, fall, flood), and chapters 38-41 of the book of Job where God asks Job 85 questions. Scientists are just starting to grasp some of the scientific things mentioned in those chapters.
Chuck
|
12-05-2007, 04:48 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: sacramento,ca
Posts: 3,377
|
|
|
...6 alfas .. a question where do you get your 'facts' from???on that 1 degree thing?? the earth itselfs tilts on it's own axes a bit i think it's 24 degrees summner to winter, as for why the panets do not fall into the sun?? speed!!! the earth and all the planets are rotating around the sun, and the sun itself is a large gravity hole in space time...and you have one thing right...the sun is moving thru space as all the stars are..as for the sun being in the right place..we are in the right place.. but only for so long.. as the sun starts fuseing hydrogn into helium it will expand into a red giant, then mars or maybe a moon of jupiter will be in such 'life zone'but only for a few billon years, the the sun will start sheading it's atmosphere into space and shrink down into a white dwarf.. this will be the most stable time for our sun. as white dwarfs can live many billons of years. but all life will be gone from our solar system...mecury, venus. will be gone....the earth may servive?? but only if somehow keeps an orbit around the sun.. as the sun looses mass. the earth just might stray out of our solar system...so might all the rest of the planets...maybe take a basic astronomy class, will help you...gravity. space/time steller evolution, planetary evolution. it's not that hard..and as for bio-evolution.. remember we are only here for a short time.. evolution takes longer.. if you palnted a redwood.. would you be around when it becomes full grown?
Last edited by bianchi1; 12-05-2007 at 04:53 PM.
|
12-05-2007, 05:37 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,689
|
|
|
(life does not come from non-life). The leap from no life to life is a BIG one. Scientists haven't found a way to do that, not even under perfect conditions... Why not, there was no life before the existance of time! But creationist do not need a leap! They have God! What a cop out! Oh, for anything that cannot be explained by science,creationist always state faith and God! They have all the gaps filled with God! The bible and it's theory is for the ages before sceintific understanding. Just think if todays science were to be explained to people two thousand years ago. Not going to happen, no comprehension on their part.
__________________
currently: 1984 GTV6 (Sabrina) 1992 164L (Jill) 1992 164S (Kelly) 1989 Spider Veloce (Julie)
|
12-05-2007, 06:24 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tucson Az.
Posts: 147
|
|
|
Why bump ye blindly around in the fog when ye can be brought into the light. They way is clear matey. Step ye into yon light! The beer volcano awaits the faithful, ye swabs!
RAmen!
Dave G.
|
12-05-2007, 06:28 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,689
|
|
Now a beer volcano I can appreciate!  Where do I jump?
__________________
currently: 1984 GTV6 (Sabrina) 1992 164L (Jill) 1992 164S (Kelly) 1989 Spider Veloce (Julie)
|
12-05-2007, 06:33 PM
|
 |
.
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: West Hollywood, CA
Posts: 2,775
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MALDI
This statement is a reference to the claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If one views the earth as a closed system then the total entropy of the system should increase with time (and can never decrease). Since organisms are more highly organized than inanimate matter, and highly-evolved organisms are more complex than less-highly evolved organisms, then observing evolution would suggest that total entropy has decreased in violation of the Second Law. The difficulty here is calculating the total entropy of the earth as a system. This is just not a practical calculation to make, although theoretically not impossible. However, God would have seemingly had to violate the second law to create the earth in the Genesis sense, so it is unclear where thermodynamic considerations leave us...
|
Again, I believe that you misunderstand the theoretical processes of evolution if you think that the principle of entropy is somehow implicated; it really has nothing to do with it.
__________________
Ed
1970 Lancia Fulvia 1,6 HF
|
12-05-2007, 06:42 PM
|
 |
Chair, Alfa Century 2010
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St. Louis, Charleston, Baltimore & Arnprior, ON (Canada)
Posts: 5,420
|
|
|
I am SO converting to Pastafarianism!!!
__________________
Cheers,
Alex Csank
Chair, Alfa Century 2010 - The AROC USA ALFA Centennial Convention
www.alfaromeonews.com
E-mail: alfaromeodriveralex@gmail.com or alfacentury2010@gmail.com
Mobile: (757) 636-9513
82 Spider Veloce (Desideria - Kathleen's)
84 GTV6 Maratona (Mona - resto project)
88 Milano Verde (Trogdor The Burninator)
"My name is Alex and I am an Alfaholic."
Alfisti are always welcome in our home!
|
12-05-2007, 08:46 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Prescott Arizona
Posts: 665
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6alfas
Stu, as a scientist, if God didn't create everything, where did it come from?
I think you'd be very surprised if you studied the first nine books of Genesis (creation, fall, flood), and chapters 38-41 of the book of Job where God asks Job 85 questions. Scientists are just starting to grasp some of the scientific things mentioned in those chapters.
Chuck
|
EVERYONE knows that first there was nothing, then it exploded and became everything for no particular reason- or maybe there was something, an infinitesimally small and unimaginably dense speck (which we don't know where THAT came from), which exploded at some point in time, although up til then there was no such thing as time, for no discernable reason and became our infinitley expanding universe, from which life sprang up everywhere, although we have yet to detect an intelligible signal or definative sign of life anywhere else in the cosmos after searching the heavens for the last fifty years, and life has become increasingly complex and intertwined over the eons, but it's nothing special. At least all this requires no faith to believe......very comforting
__________________
Dan Walker
'67 Duetto
|
12-05-2007, 09:18 PM
|
|
.
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: West Hollywood, CA
Posts: 2,775
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6alfas
The Theory of Evolution says that everything evolved out of nothing, into something, which changed into something else, and on, and on, then all of a sudden stopped. Still scratching my head on that one....
|
Stop scratching your head; the theory of evolution says no such thing. And evolution has not 'all of a sudden stopped'; it has not stopped at all, although the environmental factors that affect natural selection have, in many environments, been overshadowed by the impact of human meddling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6alfas
Darwin was not a scientist (I'm not one either). Darwin's book was mostly filled with opinions and a few theories. Darwin main theory is that all species "evolved" from one another (macro-evolution)."
|
Of course Darwin was a scientist (not that it matters). Have you actually read On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection? Or are you simply taking someone else's word for what it contains. But, yes, it does contain a few theories (although "macro-evolution" as a term does not appear in Darwin's writings).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6alfas
There is not one fossil record of any transitional species (except the ones that have been faked). There are no transitional forms found alive today in nature, nor have there ever been any transitional forms ever identified.
|
This is simply untrue. You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own set of facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6alfas
It is not observable, nor is it repeatable.
|
I have no idea what you mean by 'it is not observable' as a scientific critique. But, again, it fundamentally misunderstands science to say 'nor is it repeatable'. To meet a reasonable scientific standard, an experiment must be repeatable. Theories are required to be testable--not repeatable (how exactly would you repeat a theory? write it down twice?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6alfas
Richard Goldschmidt, a scientist, atheist and evolutionist, destroyed Darwin's natural selection theory back in the 1940's. He understood through careful scientific research that natural selection would never produce a different species. I could go on here for days but those are my reason for saying Darwin's theory is not scientific.
|
Again, nonsense. I don't want to 'pile on' Goldschmidt, who did some great work in genetics. But his critique of Darwinian evolution certainly did not 'destroy the idea of natural selection'. His ideas on the subject were oversimplified by both his critics in the scientific community and the creationists who would now claim that he demolished the theory of evolution. Stephen Jay Gould (that notorious evolutionist) probably wrote the most balanced analysis of Goldschmidt; you might want to read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6alfas
Regarding the laws of nature: The First Law of Thermodynamics (aka Conservation of Energy) states the total amount of energy in a closed system remains contant but can't be recreated. Evolution says matter is self originating and not conservative. The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals with entropy, that all things gradually decay. Systems go from order to disorder. The evolutionists believe that things get better over time. Einstein called the 2nd law "the premier law of all science." Unfortunately, entropy is increasing in our world as I think you would agree.
|
"Evolution says matter is self originating and not conservative"??? Where'd you come up with this silliness? Evolution does not deal with the origin of matter; it involves biochemistry, not alchemy. Again, you may be operating beyond the limits of your understanding of science. In any case, analyzing evolution in terms of entropy and conservation of matter is like trying to weigh a cow with a yardstick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6alfas
99.5% of the angular momentum in the solar system is in the planets, yet 99.8% of the mass is in the sun. Our planet, along with every other planet, should hurtle into the sun. Except for one thing. The sun moves at just the right slow speed so that doesn't happen. There is order in the universe. If the solar system exploded out of random chance, everything would have hurtled into the sun and would have been destroyed along time ago.
|
Are we still discussing evolution here? In any event, this doesn't represent a great grasp of physics. The thing that keeps the planets from hurtling into the sun is the fact that "[t]he sun moves at just the right slow speed so that doesn't happen"?? What does the balance between centripetal acceleration [M x 4 x (Pi squared) x R divided by (T squared)] and gravitational attraction [G x M x M divided by R, if memory serves (or is it R squared?)] have to do with the 'speed of movement of the sun'? I wouldn't necessarily argue with your 99.5%/99.8% balance (although I'm not sure those percentages are in fact correct), but such a balance is exactly what prevents us from hurtling toward the sun.
And, now that you mention it, in which direction is the sun moving? I, too, could go on for days.
__________________
Ed
1970 Lancia Fulvia 1,6 HF
Last edited by 1,6 HF; 12-06-2007 at 01:23 AM.
|
12-05-2007, 09:21 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: sacramento,ca
Posts: 3,377
|
|
|
... have you heard of the ' bane ' theory?.. this is a theory on how the 'big bang' happend. and as for the last 50 years of listening for other life.. the universe is a big place...and our local area of near by stars. only a few percent of them have the correct bases for any life to form.....and there are many way life might exist..right hand dna.. left hand dna. silcone base. carbon base..even arsenic base.then agian what would intelligent life look like? like us? maybe the plant they live on is a wee bit more massive, colder? warmer? 2 suns( can happen).. if the dinos. where not wiped out by any means.. would humans evolved? or would have the dino's evolved? into a intelligent species? at any moment there is an asteroid/comet with our name on it??all it takes is a 2/4 klm. asteroid comet hit..and well.... next up...
Last edited by bianchi1; 12-05-2007 at 09:32 PM.
|
12-05-2007, 09:34 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: sacramento,ca
Posts: 3,377
|
|
|
a quetion for all of you.. all animals/fish/reptiles..have red blood.....except one.. can you name it??shows there is more one way to absorb o2???
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
