by haujobbz 155 Replies latest jw friends
Rem said: That would mean that God is living and would need to have been created by another life. Infinite regression ensues...
So Pom. You say life from life....that's the only way! God is NOT from life according to you. He is life.
Now......where is your argument here?Life from life.....God WASN'T started from life.
You will NEVER ANSWER THIS....AT LEAST ON THIS BOARD. The same ist rue on some Evolutionary ideas. What's the diff?
Play the "if God is so powerful, can he make a rock so big that He himself can't pick it up" game.
I believe your point is unsubservient and inefficacious as it serves on elementary thinking .
I believe your point is unsubservient and inefficacious as it serves on elementary thinking .
What???
rem
pomegranate,
Scientific Disciplines
Established By Bible-Believing Scientists
I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. Some people who were great scientists also (allegedly) believed in the Bible, although to what extent isn't clear. Having recently read a biography of Leonardo da Vinci, for example, I can recall no particular mention of his believing the Bible (beyond the fact that he was raised in a Christian country). I know he doubted the biblical story of a worldwide flood due to the fact that the evidence available even then contradicted such a story.
Acoording to Douglas Mannering in The Art of Leonardo da Vinci:
there is no evidence that he had any interest in the legendary, theological or ritual aspects of Christianity.,On the contrary, if he was not exactly a scientist, he did have an exclusive reverence for the empirical facts on which science was to base itself.
What makes you think he was a Bible-believer, pomegranate?
My recollection of a biography of Charles Babbage also includes no account of his being a believer in the Bible. All I can find on the subject is the following anecdote by Babbage:
I resolved that at a certain hour of a certain day I would go to a certain room in the house, and if I found the door open, I would believe in the Bible; but that if it were closed, I should conclude that it was not true. I remember well the observation was made, but I have no recollection as to the state of the door
Almost all of the scientists on your list lived in the 16th to 19th centuries, when there was considerably less reason not to believe the Bible than there is now, or at the very least openly denying the Bible was probably a bad career move for scientists. Again, what does your list prove even if it is true?
Edited by - funkyderek on 11 October 2002 4:30:14
I believe your point is unsubservient and inefficacious as it serves on elementary thinking .
(Above quote from pomegranate)
Wow! I can't tell you how I envy your above the average grammer. Your almost like Farkel...can I worship you?
Who are you trying to impress! Answer the friggin question. Typical Christian,backed in a corner, who's only way out is to sling mud....kind of chickenshit if you ask me.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics - All matter and energy is becoming less ordered and less complex - everything is running down.But evolution DEFIES THIS LAW ULTIMATELY. They have to teach matter and energy is becoming MORE complex over time, everything is running UP.
Pomegranate, you have no idea how ignorant this makes you look. It's equivalent to someone arguing against the Bible by claiming that Adam and Eve couldn't have populated the earth because they only had sons. It's the type of fundamental error that's hardly even worth arguing against.
Anyway here's the solution to the (superficially) apparent problem. Please read it.
Well if it makes me look ignorant, I'm in good company, as a lot of other doctors site the same contradiction.
Why don't you just enlighten us with some important points from your lovely link?
Pome,
You claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. Can you kindly explain this in clear terms? What exactly is impossible under this law? Mutations? Childbirth? Natural selection? Genetic recombination? Evolution is descent with modificiation, something easily observed in nature every day. What evolutionary process exactly is impossible under the second law of thermodynamics?
I find it interesting that you insist on knowing thermodynamics and physics better than the 72 Nobel Laureates who filed a Amicus Curiae Brief to the US Supreme Court in 1986, saying:
"The "scientific" arguments used to discredit evolution are often included as basic tenets of creation-science. See, e.g., Pro Family Forum materials at 13, Exhibit A-5 to Pfeffer Affidavit ("Ex. A-5") ("[t]he mathematical chance of random mutation and natural selection producing one kind from another is vanishingly small, so mutation and selection could not have produced progressive evolution," and "[t]he second law of thermodynamics says things generally go from order to disorder, so simple living kinds could not have evolved by mutation and selection into complex living kinds"). These arguments, however, are all badly flawed." [bold added]
Since you started appealing to authority: What do you know about physics that 29 winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics do not know? Do you think the foremost scientists in the world have failed to grasp what you, who frequently say things that would flunk a high school level science course, understand?
Derek and Rem are right. You are merely demonstrating here that you know nothing about evolution specifically or science generally. Why be so stubborn as to refuse to get at least some knowledge of the subject you criticise?-
Jan
Edited by - JanH on 11 October 2002 7:21:53
>>You claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible.<<
As well as a bunch of other scientists. So it's not just my claim.
>>Can you kindly explain this in clear terms? What exactly is impossible under this law? Mutations? Childbirth? Natural selection? Genetic recombination? Evolution is descent with modificiation, something easily observed in nature every day. What evolutionary process exactly is impossible under the second law of thermodynamics?<<
All of it as NONE of it has been proven in a lab. It's still a hypothetical model.
As I have asked FROM THE BEGINNING of this debate, let's start at the beginning and postulate YOUR hypothesis, theory or proof on how the cell came to be. Each and every time it has been side stepped. Without this basic beginning, which complexity is unchallenged by either camp, EVOLUTIONISTS have no explaination for ANY of the cells complex existence.
From Dr. Jerry Bergman, a brilliant scientists, who's credentials are as follows:
professor of biology, chemistry, and physics at Northwest State College in Archbold, Ohio. He has over 400 publications in scholarly and popular science journals and has written 20 books and monographs. His work has been translated into eight languages. To discuss his research, Bergman has been a featured speaker on many college campuses throughout the United States and Europe, and a frequent guest on radio and television programs. Dr. Bergman has earned six college degrees, including two masters degrees and two doctorates. His last Ph.D. is in biology, and most of his course work is in the sciences.
Natural Selection and the Origin of Cells
A long standing major difficulty with the selection hypothesis relates to the hypothetical earliest levels of evolutionary development. For selection to occur, a living organism must exist that is capable of successfully reproducing, and also of ingesting, assimilating, and processing food. Secondly, a stable supply of food must be available which it can use to manufacture the various complex elements and also produce the chemical reactions necessary to obtain the energy needed to insure the organism's survival. Although many have tried, explanations of the origin of single cells by selection theory are still wanting. For selection to take place, even at the cellular level-a structure consisting of dozens of complex interrelated, functioning organelles must first exist. Many complex subcellular structures must somehow spontaneously form in conditions much different from today, and then resist the push toward entropy. Most all would disintegrate, but evolutionists must assume that some did not. These few must also have had a means to prevent destruction by too rapid atrophy, and also, among other things, must be able to ingest, to respirate, and also to effectively reproduce. Only when all of this has occurred could selection select the animal which survived best and produced more offspring. (Emphasis mine)
-------------
So are you guys going to say Dr. Bergman is stupid and uniformed? Surely your not. Then why stoop to the level of calling me such when I HAVE read, studied and examined both sides? All you guys have done is shown links. The heck with the links and explain YOUR POSITION ON YOUR OWN as I have done and not let your obvious ignorance show by saying "click here, read this link."
The information you say I refuse to read I have read and TOTALLY disagree with. It cannot stand under scrutiny. So, under scrutiny I do not accept it. There are more holes in the evolution hypothesis than there are in a piece of Swiss cheese.
(Explain the cell. No one evolutionist can.) Or, if you have some NEW in depth research regarding a new evolutionary hypothesis regarding HOW it happened, direct me to that. Because THAT is the beginning.
Edited by - pomegranate on 11 October 2002 7:42:37
