The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Methinks Smidlee should educate himself about the evidence before he judges who is ignoring it. He's given precious little evidence of having a clue about biology this far.
The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!
- Thread starter Perfection
- Start date
- Status
I indeed resurrected it. Everytime I find something relevant to this thread I resurrect it. Actually, I think I resurrected it twice.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
It's not about changing minds, it's about educating.. and some people are just not willing to sit down and understand the issues, instead resorting to drive-by posts asking thought-to-be-critical questions from a cuecard.
In fact, I actually do read from the evolutionist themselves from time to time. Sometimes they even admit they case is weak but no fear they say, just say a thousand times "Evolution is true and creation is false" and everything will be alright. In many cases you can clearly tell from what they know (biology) and what they don't (fairy-tales/ evolution-creationism).
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Perfection
The Great Head.
Where do they admit that?
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
I shall enjoy watching you fail to provide cites.
Xanikk999
History junkie
Thank you for that smattering of thoughts. Can you please provide me some evidence of creationism?
Today a girl in class (Writers Workshop, not biology or anything) said she thought dinosaurs didn't really exist, they were just lizards that kept growing. Another kid burst in asking, "You believe in evolution?!"
I nearly died.
I nearly died.
Xanikk999
History junkie
Please shoot me if i ever see these idiots.
Perfection
The Great Head.
With pleasure!
DJ Bonebraker
a.k.a Laura
1. Evolution is a valid scientific claim
2. Creationism is not a valid scientific claim
Note: When I refer to creationism I'm refering to god creating life directly (not through evolution), this includes such permutations as intelligent design theory, gap creationism as well as literal 7-day creationism. I am not refering to evolutionary creationism.
Okay, with all the back biting and off topic crap (not to mention the overall arrogance of certain proponents of atheistic evolution), I decided to respond directly to the two original positions and show their logical fallability (and I can thank Dr. Ravi Zacharias' book "The True Face of Atheism" for giving me the groundwork for my arguments):
#1: If Evolution IS a valid scientific theory, then it MUST follow the laws of science. The Third Law of Motion (a.k.a. the Law of Thermodynamics) sates thus: Any closed system (which, for all intents and purposes can include the whole universe) will go from a state of order to a state of disorder, or from a higher level of complexity to a lower level, or a higher state of energy to a lower one.... UNLESS acted upon by an outside force. There have been NO experiments in the whole realm of physics that have been able to contradict Newton's Third law, yet atheistic evolutionary theory DOES go against this law by insisting that life evolves from a lower level of complexity to a higher level.
Therefor, according to the laws of science, atheistic evolution is invalid. Theistic evolution, or Intelligent design, however, provides a theory on where and how the "outside force" stipulated by the law of thermodymaics comes into play, thus it DOES follow the laws of science and is therefore valid, thus countering #2 since you include Intelligent design in with your definition of creationism.
The ball is now securely back on your side of the court.
2. Creationism is not a valid scientific claim
Note: When I refer to creationism I'm refering to god creating life directly (not through evolution), this includes such permutations as intelligent design theory, gap creationism as well as literal 7-day creationism. I am not refering to evolutionary creationism.
Okay, with all the back biting and off topic crap (not to mention the overall arrogance of certain proponents of atheistic evolution), I decided to respond directly to the two original positions and show their logical fallability (and I can thank Dr. Ravi Zacharias' book "The True Face of Atheism" for giving me the groundwork for my arguments):
#1: If Evolution IS a valid scientific theory, then it MUST follow the laws of science. The Third Law of Motion (a.k.a. the Law of Thermodynamics) sates thus: Any closed system (which, for all intents and purposes can include the whole universe) will go from a state of order to a state of disorder, or from a higher level of complexity to a lower level, or a higher state of energy to a lower one.... UNLESS acted upon by an outside force. There have been NO experiments in the whole realm of physics that have been able to contradict Newton's Third law, yet atheistic evolutionary theory DOES go against this law by insisting that life evolves from a lower level of complexity to a higher level.
Therefor, according to the laws of science, atheistic evolution is invalid. Theistic evolution, or Intelligent design, however, provides a theory on where and how the "outside force" stipulated by the law of thermodymaics comes into play, thus it DOES follow the laws of science and is therefore valid, thus countering #2 since you include Intelligent design in with your definition of creationism.
The ball is now securely back on your side of the court.
Xanikk999
History junkie
On a off topic tangent... I guess im not the only final fantasy fanatic on civ fanatics!
Hikaro post in OT more please!
Hikaro post in OT more please!
Perfection
The Great Head.
The universe is more chaotic because of life! They turn neat organized solar radiation into a messy bunch of willy nilly radio waves.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
If your misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics was fact, then children would not be able to grow into adults and it would be impossible to sort elements by name in an Excel spreadsheet.
The Earth is not a closed system, and so the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not a problem. There is ample of energy entering the system from the outside, namely from the sun.
Perfection
The Great Head.
BTW the Third Law of Motion is "For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction."
If you're going to argue, at LEAST get your scientific laws right. Newton's third law of motion != second law of thermodynamics.
Anyway, what's already said has been said - invalid not even just because the earth is not a closed system, but also because life does in fact increase the entropy of the system because of the heat waste that results from life.
Yeah, the solar system as a whole is following the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (Ooh, this again!) By mass life takes up a tiny percentage - the sun alone makes up like 99.8% of the matter in the solar system, and entropically speaking it is falling apart.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Breathtaking. You can't even be bothered to get the name of the law you're invoking right, and you accuse us of arrogance.
You're speaking of the second law of thermodynamics, which is emphatically not the same as Newton's third law of motion.
Anyway, the hole in your argument is that you tacitly assume that what goes for a closed system (such as the universe as a whole) goes for life (an open system). Did you expect that to slip us by, or did fail to put enough thought into what you say to notice it yourself?
Masquerouge
Deity
Wow that was a crappy hit-and-run if I ever saw one. I actually checked to make sure this was not a April 1st thing...
- Status
