Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Toddsterpatriot]

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."

Someone should tell all those cell biologists they are now out of a job now that we're looking for information concerning cells outside of the plane of existence we're on.

Nothing wrong with looking. If the big bang did happen I would expect life to be found somewhere other than this planet. That to me is just more evidence supporting creation, life only existing on this planet.

Matter and energy scattered throughout the universe by the big bang why would there be just life on our planet ?

That to me is just more evidence supporting creation, life only existing on this planet.

Life only exists on this planet? Link?

 

[daws101]

It is logical to assume a designer. Because you don't understand the abilities of the designer does not mean the assumption is illogical.

It is never logical to imagine a fantasy and then delude oneself that this fantasy was responsible for everything you see.

How would you prove its only fantasy ?

he or anyone else has no need to, as the complete lack of any evidence of an intelligent creator (not the appearance of design) does that all by itself..

 

[itfitzme]

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."

Someone should tell all those cell biologists they are now out of a job now that we're looking for information concerning cells outside of the plane of existence we're on.

Nothing wrong with looking. If the big bang did happen I would expect life to be found somewhere other than this planet. That to me is just more evidence supporting creation, life only existing on this planet.

Matter and energy scattered throughout the universe by the big bang why would there be just life on our planet ?

Well, now there is the problem, basing expectation on insufficient evidence. The only observation of life is on this planet. So far, we have eight classified planets, in this Solar system, of which we have observed life on one. That is a statistically insignificant sample with which to draw a conclusion.

Again, it is the fallacy of shit doesn't happen. The fact is that shit does happen, however improbable it may be.

None of it leads to the conclusion that life didn't arise spontaneously. Early it did.

Probability of life existing, 100%, empirical observation.

Probability of God existing, 0%, empirical observation.

Probability of god creating life, 100%*0%=0%.

You insist on creating god out of nothing, to fill in for what you don' know.

If life exists nowhere else in the universe, all it proves is that life exists nowhere else in the universe. Nothing more.

 

[daws101]

Finally back in front of my computer. I was in Vegas and just could not respond on my phone it was a major pain in the you know what.

Itfitzme thank you for the information on physics it really is not a subject That I am as well versed in as I should be. That said philosophy in science it exists andnecessary for building theories and coming up with assumptions. I believe many come in and suggest only empirical evidence should be accepted that is not the case because only empirical evidence can be interpreted wrong. Philosophy plays a large part in science all you need to do is look at theories that are filled with conjecture. Many people are affected by the bias when interpreting evidence and their assumptions.

If we just relied on empirical evidence we wouldn't get very far in science. Still you need to have sound logic to properly interpret if you lack sound logic you will get too many bad assumptions and faulty interpretations.

I will post this and show how important logic and philosophy really are in performing good science.





The Design Argument

Does the intricate design of the universe serve as evidence for the existence of God?

Imagine walking in the desert and coming across two small stones in close proximity to each other. Most probably, you would think nothing of it. Two stones randomly sitting beside each other is no big deal.

You continue your walk in the desert and stumble upon three rows of stones piled up in a brick-layer fashion. Chances are you would quickly surmise that someone was here and arranged these stones in this manner. It didn’t just happen.

You continue your walk and happen to find a watch lying in the middle of the desert. Would you suspect that a windstorm somehow threw these pieces together and randomly created a watch?

Somebody made that watch. It didn’t just happen. Design implies designer.
DID THE UNIVERSE HAVE A DESIGNER?

The intricacy of design in our world is staggering—infinitely more complex than a simple brick wall or a watch. Dr. Michael Denton, in his book “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” describes the intricate organization of nerve cells in the brain [pp. 330 - 331].

There are 10 billion nerve cells in the brain. Each of the 10 billion cells sprouts between 10,000 to 100,000 fibers to contact other nerve cells in the brain, creating approximately 1,000 million million connections, or, 10 to the 15th power.

It is hard to imagine the multitude that 1015 represents. Take half of the United States, which is 1 million square miles, and imagine it being covered by forest, with 10,000 trees per square mile. On each of the 10,000 trees, which are on each of the one million square miles, there are 100,000 leaves. That’s how many connections are crammed inside your brain. And they’re not just haphazardly thrown together. They form an incredibly intricate network system that has no parallel in the industrial world.

Imagine walking by that in the desert! The natural response when perceiving design of such mind-boggling complexity is to conclude that there must be a designer behind everything who created it. None of this just happened.
RANDOM WRITING SAMPLE

Rabbeinu Bachya, in his major philosophical work “The Duties of the Heart” [10th century] presents this argument in the following manner:

Do you not realize that if ink were poured out accidentally on a blank sheet of paper, it would be impossible that proper writing should result, legible lines that are written with a pen? Imagine a person bringing a sheet of handwriting that could only have been composed with a pen. He claims that ink spilled on the paper and these written characters had accidentally emerged. We would charge him to his face with falsehood, for we could feel certain that this result could not have happened without an intelligent person’s purpose.

Since this seems impossible in the case of letters whose formation is conventional, how can one assert that something far subtler in its design and which manifests in its fashioning a depth and complexity infinitely beyond our comprehension could have happened without the purpose, power, and wisdom of a wise and mighty designer? (“The Duties of the Heart,” The Gate of Oneness, Chapter 6)

The two most common objections to this argument go as follows:

The argument is too simple. There seems to be a big jump from concluding that someone must have made rock formations in the desert to concluding that there is a Creator who must have made the universe.

What about evolution? Over a very long period of time everything could have come about as a random occurrence! With millions of years to play around with, isn’t it possible for some kind of order to emerge just by chance?

Let’s address these two objections.
ADDRESSING ARGUMENT NUMBER ONE

The principle “design implies designer” applies across the board, whether the designer is a Bedouin nomad piling rocks in the desert or the Infinite Source of all existence. Intellectually it is the same logical process. In fact, there is more reason to assume a designer in the latter case since the level of design is much higher.

Simplicity is not an inherent fault in an argument. Perhaps the reason why some people take issue with this application of logic is due to the accompanying consequences.

Since the Bedouin doesn’t make any moral demands on our life, there is no resistance to drawing the logical conclusion that someone designed that rock formation. But when the conclusion points to God, cognitive dissonance kicks in, creating an instinctive opposition to what one perceives to be threatening. [See the previous article in this series: “Seeing the Elephant”

When the interference of cognitive dissonance is removed, what is the objective standard of design that we need to see in order to conclude something was created? What we need is a control experiment that determines this threshold of design in a case that has no threatening consequences. “The Obvious Proof”, a book by Gershon Robinson and Mordechai Steinman, delivers a compelling presentation of the design argument, and describes such a control experiment involving millions of people concluding the necessity of a designer.

The laboratory consisted of theaters across the globe that showed the film “2001: A Space Odyssey.” In the film, American scientists living in a colony on the moon discover during a dig the first evidence that intelligent life exists on other planets. What did they find? A simple monolith—a smooth, rectangular slab of rock. The Americans keep this significant discovery secret, afraid of the widespread culture shock and social ramifications this would have without proper preparation.

Thousands of film critics and millions of moviegoers went along with the film’s basic assertion, agreeing that intelligent creatures other than man must have created this smooth, rectangular monolith. It didn’t just randomly appear. Free from all emotional and intellectual bias, in the comfort of darkened theaters with popcorn in hand, people unanimously agreed that a simple, smooth slab with a few right angles was conclusive proof of intelligence.

When the conclusion does not point to God, everyone realizes that the simplest object can serve as the threshold of design, the point at which one concludes an object could not have come into existence by random accident. The universe, infinitely more complex than a monolith, had to have been created.
WHAT ABOUT RANDOM EVOLUTION?

Given enough tries over a long period of time, isn’t it possible for complex structures to emerge randomly? After all, with sufficient trials even improbable events eventually become likely.

Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University, uses a national lottery to illustrate this point [“Origins”, Bantam, p.121]. The odds of winning the lottery may be 10 million to one. Winning would be incredibly lucky. But if we were to buy a lottery ticket every day for the next thirty thousand years, a win would become probable, (albeit very expensive).

But what are the odds of life coming about by sheer chance? Let’s take a look at two examples to get a sense of the odds involved in random evolution.

Physicist Stephen Hawking, writes in his book “A Brief History of Time”:

It is a bit like the well-known horde of monkeys hammering away on typewriters—most of what they write will be garbage, but very occasionally by pure chance they will type out one of Shakespeare’s sonnets. Similarly, in the case of the universe, could it be that we are living in a region that just happens by chance to be smooth and uniform?

Well could it be?

In response to Hawking, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a physicist, calculated the odds of monkeys randomly typing an average Shakespearean Sonnet in his book “Genesis and the Big Bang.” He chose the one that opens, “Shall I compare you to a summer’s day?”

There are 488 letters in the sonnet ... The chance of randomly typing the 488 letters to produce this one sonnet is one in 26 to the 488th power, or one in 10 to the 690th power. The number 10690 is a one followed by 690 zero’s! The immense scale of this number is hinted at when one considers that since the Big Bang, 15 billion years ago, there have been only 10 to the 18th power number of seconds, which have ticked away.

To write by random one of Shakespeare’s sonnets would take all the monkeys, plus every other animal on earth, typing away on typewriters made from all the iron in the universe, over a period of time that exceeds all time since the Big Bang, and still the probability of a sonnet appearing would be vanishingly small. At one random try per second, with even a simple sentence having only 16 letters, it would take 2 million billion years (the universe has existed for about 15 billion years) to exhaust all possible combinations.

Robert Shapiro cites Nobel laureate Sir Fred Hoyle’s calculation of the odds of a bacterium spontaneously generating [p.127]. At first Hoyle and his colleague, N. C. Wickramasinghe, endorsed spontaneous generation, but reversed their position once they calculated the odds.

A typical bacterium, which is the simplest of cells, is made up of 2,000 enzymes. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe took the probability of randomly assembling one enzyme and multiplied that number by itself 2,000 times to calculate the odds of a single bacterium randomly coming together. Those odds are 1 in 1040,000. Hoyle said the likelihood of this happening is comparable to the chance that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

These are the odds of just a single, simple cell, without which evolution cannot even get started. Never mind the odds of more advanced compounds like an organ or all the enzymes in a human being.

Shapiro writes:

The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.

For all intents and purposes, an event with the probability of 1 in 1040,000 qualifies in real-world terms as impossible.
SOME THINGS ARE IMPOSSIBLE

Imagine you are the presiding judge over a murder trial. Ballistic tests match perfectly with a gun found in the possession of the accused. The odds of another gun firing the bullet that killed the victim are let’s say one in a billion.

The defendant claims that it is a sheer fluke that his gun happens to match the ballistics tests and that there must be another gun out there that is the real murder weapon. “After all,” he says, “it is a possibility.”

The defendant’s fingerprints are found all over the victim’s body. He claims there must be another person out there who happens to have astonishingly similar fingerprints. Again, it is possible.

There are also eyewitnesses who testify to seeing a man gunning down the victim who looks just like the defendant. The defendant claims there must be another person out there in this big world who looks just like him, and that man is the real murderer. After all—it’s not impossible.

You are the judge, and you need to make a decision. What do you decide?

In the pragmatic world of decision-making, odds this high are called impossible. One needs to weigh the evidence and come to the most reasonable conclusion.

Does the universe have a Creator? Look at the design, look at the odds and look honestly within. Where does the more rational conclusion lie?


Intelligent Design Argument

let me get this straight, you post a link a site that is diametrically opposed to what you believe as proof of something there is no quantifiable evidence for.
wow! how desperate are you?

Do you think a creationist would disagree with these arguments made by ID ? Crationists make the same arguments.

You should have this straight by now. I have said in the past I agree with ID on many points, most importantly irreducible complexity.

that comprehension problem popping up again? or are you just dodging the statement?

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you're referring to the sun blasting energy through our atmosphere ?

Are you more complex than a fertilized egg?
It must be because you used energy.
That's why your Second Law error is an error.

It's why the claim that the Second Law makes evolution impossible, is so silly.

It takes more than energy.

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?12

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
The Ultimate Ingredient: Designed and Coded Information
Photo copyrighted, Films for Christ.
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith in the ORIGINS motion picture series.

The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:

"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13

teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is “directionlessness,” having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14

Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. Dr. Wilder-Smith:

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."15

Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.

[See below for further evidence that the 2nd Law is a major problem for Evolution]

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? ? ChristianAnswers.Net

Earth is not a closed system. Right from it's original formation it has been receiving both energy and matter from outside. That process is still happening therefore earth is an open system. The fact that we can still see meteor showers and find meteorites on the planet is physical evidence that disproves your ridiculous claim about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You made a very weak argument.


S YSTEMS

An isolated system is one so completely sealed off from its environment that neither matter nor energy passes through its boundaries. This is an imaginary construct, however, an idea rather than a reality, because it is impossible to create a situation in which no energy is exchanged between the system and the environment. Under the right conditions it is perhaps conceivable that matter could be sealed out so completely that not even an atom could pass through a barrier, but some transfer of energy is inevitable. The reason is that electromagnetic energy, such as that emitted by the Sun, requires no material medium in which to travel.

In contrast to an isolated system is a closed system, of which Earth is an approximation. Despite its name, a closed system permits the exchange of energy with the environment but does not allow matter to pass back and forth between the external environment and the system. Thus, Earth absorbs electromagnetic energy, radiated from the Sun, yet very little matter enters or departs Earth's system. Note that Earth is an approximation of a closed system: actually, some matter does pass from space into the atmosphere and vice versa. The planet loses traces of hydrogen in the extremities of its upper atmosphere, while meteorites and other forms of matter from space may reach Earth's surface.

Earth more closely resembles a closed system than it does an open one—that is, a system that allows the full and free exchange of both matter and energy with its environment. The human circulatory system is an example of an open system, as are the various "spheres" of Earth (geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere) discussed later. Whereas an isolated system is imaginary in the sense that it does not exist, sometimes a different feat of imagination is required to visualize an open system. It is intricately tied to its environment, and therefore the concept of an open system as a separate entity sometimes requires some imagination.

How it works - Earth Systems

 

[daws101]

How would you prove its only fantasy ?

For the umpteenth time onus is on you to prove that your delusion is real.

What do you to go by to determine that the origins of life was a product of chaos converted to order ? Or that the origins of natural processes were produced by unguided naturalism?

With your reasoning you must suffering from delusions. For the umpteenth time,irreducible complexity is a product design. That is a rational assumption,at least as rational as saying everything we observe came in to existence by chance.

most people make asses of themselves while in VEGAS. you do it all the time.

 

[Hollie]

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."

Someone should tell all those cell biologists they are now out of a job now that we're looking for information concerning cells outside of the plane of existence we're on.

Nothing wrong with looking. If the big bang did happen I would expect life to be found somewhere other than this planet. That to me is just more evidence supporting creation, life only existing on this planet.

Matter and energy scattered throughout the universe by the big bang why would there be just life on our planet ?

It’s a shame that your extremist beliefs don’t allow you even a rudimentary understanding of the subjects you argue against. The Big Bang theory refers to a cataclysmic event in which there was a major disruption in existing matter and energy. We see evidence for this in the background radiation of the universe.

Otherwise, be careful of what you ask for. Suppose life exists elsewhere? That would be utterly devastating to the religious articles of christianity and the other Abrahamic religions as "creation" is uniquely an earthly event. Send a probe to Mars, and prove life developed off the planet Earth. This we are doing. What fundies are doing to establish their suppositions... well, forgive the irony, but, god only knows.

 

[daws101]

If you're referring to the sun blasting energy through our atmosphere ? no,because in a closed system does exchange energy but not matter.

If that is not what you were referring to please point it out.

If you're referring to the sun blasting energy through our atmosphere ?

Are you more complex than a fertilized egg?
It must be because you used energy.
That's why your Second Law error is an error.

It's why the claim that the Second Law makes evolution impossible, is so silly.

It takes more than energy.

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?12

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
The Ultimate Ingredient: Designed and Coded Information
Photo copyrighted, Films for Christ.
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith in the ORIGINS motion picture series.

The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:

"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13

teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is “directionlessness,” having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14

Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. Dr. Wilder-Smith:

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."15

Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.

[See below for further evidence that the 2nd Law is a major problem for Evolution]

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? ? ChristianAnswers.Net

non credible site!

 

[Hollie]

You made a very weak argument.

How strange that you would link to a site espousing Atheistic, evolutionist ideas.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you're referring to the sun blasting energy through our atmosphere ?

Are you more complex than a fertilized egg?
It must be because you used energy.
That's why your Second Law error is an error.

It's why the claim that the Second Law makes evolution impossible, is so silly.

It takes more than energy.

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?12

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
The Ultimate Ingredient: Designed and Coded Information
Photo copyrighted, Films for Christ.
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith in the ORIGINS motion picture series.

The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:

"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13

teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is “directionlessness,” having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14

Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. Dr. Wilder-Smith:

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."15

Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.

[See below for further evidence that the 2nd Law is a major problem for Evolution]

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? ? ChristianAnswers.Net

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy

And since we get energy from the sun, your Second Law claim is in error.
Still don't see it?

Sorry,yes I do see it,but the argument was not that they were denying energy is required to produce an upward,complex organization in a closed system. What they were showing was more was needed. To accomplish would be energy which we have but other things are needed as well, new coded genetic information and teleonomy. These are the critical issues that need an answer.

 

[itfitzme]

Someone should tell all those cell biologists they are now out of a job now that we're looking for information concerning cells outside of the plane of existence we're on.

Nothing wrong with looking. If the big bang did happen I would expect life to be found somewhere other than this planet. That to me is just more evidence supporting creation, life only existing on this planet.

Matter and energy scattered throughout the universe by the big bang why would there be just life on our planet ?

It’s a shame that your extremist beliefs don’t allow you even a rudimentary understanding of the subjects you argue against. The Big Bang theory refers to a cataclysmic event in which there was a major disruption in existing matter and energy. We see evidence for this in the background radiation of the universe.

Otherwise, be careful of what you ask for. Suppose life exists elsewhere? That would be utterly devastating to the religious articles of christianity and the other Abrahamic religions as "creation" is uniquely an earthly event. Send a probe to Mars, and prove life developed off the planet Earth. This we are doing. What fundies are doing to establish their suppositions... well, forgive the irony, but, god only knows.

Some will reinterpret the "meanin" of the bible. Others will claim it to be a hoax.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Michael Behe was just about laughed out of the courtroom with his Irreducible Complexity nonsense during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. I wouldn't hang my hat on anything he says.

I am impressed with a judges knowledge of science in that case

His understanding was leaps and bounds beyond the misguided fools on the school board and the delusional morons at the Discovery Institute.

Really,I am sure if it's anything like the dover trial that judge had one of the plaintiffs write up his judgement. hardly fair would you agree ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Someone should tell all those cell biologists they are now out of a job now that we're looking for information concerning cells outside of the plane of existence we're on.

Nothing wrong with looking. If the big bang did happen I would expect life to be found somewhere other than this planet. That to me is just more evidence supporting creation, life only existing on this planet.

Matter and energy scattered throughout the universe by the big bang why would there be just life on our planet ?

That to me is just more evidence supporting creation, life only existing on this planet.

Life only exists on this planet? Link?

Yep for now lol. We have something to talk about if not.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Someone should tell all those cell biologists they are now out of a job now that we're looking for information concerning cells outside of the plane of existence we're on.

Nothing wrong with looking. If the big bang did happen I would expect life to be found somewhere other than this planet. That to me is just more evidence supporting creation, life only existing on this planet.

Matter and energy scattered throughout the universe by the big bang why would there be just life on our planet ?

Well, now there is the problem, basing expectation on insufficient evidence. The only observation of life is on this planet. So far, we have eight classified planets, in this Solar system, of which we have observed life on one. That is a statistically insignificant sample with which to draw a conclusion.

Again, it is the fallacy of shit doesn't happen. The fact is that shit does happen, however improbable it may be.

None of it leads to the conclusion that life didn't arise spontaneously. Early it did.

Probability of life existing, 100%, empirical observation.

Probability of God existing, 0%, empirical observation.

Probability of god creating life, 100%*0%=0%.

You insist on creating god out of nothing, to fill in for what you don' know.

If life exists nowhere else in the universe, all it proves is that life exists nowhere else in the universe. Nothing more.

We are gonna have to just agree to disagree here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It takes more than energy.

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?12

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
The Ultimate Ingredient: Designed and Coded Information
Photo copyrighted, Films for Christ.
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith in the ORIGINS motion picture series.

The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:

"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13

teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is “directionlessness,” having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14

Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. Dr. Wilder-Smith:

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."15

Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.

[See below for further evidence that the 2nd Law is a major problem for Evolution]

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? ? ChristianAnswers.Net

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy

And since we get energy from the sun, your Second Law claim is in error.
Still don't see it?

Sorry,yes I do see it,but the argument was not that they were denying energy is required to produce an upward,complex organization in a closed system. What they were showing was more was needed. To accomplish would be energy which we have but other things are needed as well, new coded genetic information and teleonomy. These are the critical issues that need an answer.

but the argument was not that they were denying energy is required to produce an upward,complex organization in a closed system.

Wrong. Their argument was that things can't get more complex, because........2nd Law.

It's because they don't know what the 2nd Law said. Now you do.

Will you keep repeating their error? Or admit you were wrong to use their argument?

 

[Youwerecreated]

let me get this straight, you post a link a site that is diametrically opposed to what you believe as proof of something there is no quantifiable evidence for.
wow! how desperate are you?

Do you think a creationist would disagree with these arguments made by ID ? Crationists make the same arguments.

You should have this straight by now. I have said in the past I agree with ID on many points, most importantly irreducible complexity.

that comprehension problem popping up again? or are you just dodging the statement?

You are denying I said that in other threads and I believe in this one as well. Why did you dodge my question ?

 

[daws101]

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."

Someone should tell all those cell biologists they are now out of a job now that we're looking for information concerning cells outside of the plane of existence we're on.

Nothing wrong with looking. If the big bang did happen I would expect life to be found somewhere other than this planet. That to me is just more evidence supporting creation, life only existing on this planet.

Matter and energy scattered throughout the universe by the big bang why would there be just life on our planet ?

why is it you always pull this shitty old sock out of your ass when it's in a crack?
there is no possible way you could know that there is NO LIFE on other planets.
the best analogy describing ass hats like you is. you peeked out your window and erroneously decided that all your neighbors are dead or the neighborhood had been abandon long ago..
neither is fact..

 

[Youwerecreated]

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy

And since we get energy from the sun, your Second Law claim is in error.
Still don't see it?

Sorry,yes I do see it,but the argument was not that they were denying energy is required to produce an upward,complex organization in a closed system. What they were showing was more was needed. To accomplish would be energy which we have but other things are needed as well, new coded genetic information and teleonomy. These are the critical issues that need an answer.

but the argument was not that they were denying energy is required to produce an upward,complex organization in a closed system.

Wrong. Their argument was that things can't get more complex, because........2nd Law.

It's because they don't know what the 2nd Law said. Now you do.

Will you keep repeating their error? Or admit you were wrong to use their argument?

I went back and read that article I did not see where they were making that argument.

 

[daws101]

Do you think a creationist would disagree with these arguments made by ID ? Crationists make the same arguments.

You should have this straight by now. I have said in the past I agree with ID on many points, most importantly irreducible complexity.

that comprehension problem popping up again? or are you just dodging the statement?

You are denying I said that in other threads and I believe in this one as well. Why did you dodge my question ?

I've never dodge your questions ...you still don't get it ...

 

[Youwerecreated]

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy

And since we get energy from the sun, your Second Law claim is in error.
Still don't see it?

Sorry,yes I do see it,but the argument was not that they were denying energy is required to produce an upward,complex organization in a closed system. What they were showing was more was needed. To accomplish would be energy which we have but other things are needed as well, new coded genetic information and teleonomy. These are the critical issues that need an answer.

but the argument was not that they were denying energy is required to produce an upward,complex organization in a closed system.

Wrong. Their argument was that things can't get more complex, because........2nd Law.

It's because they don't know what the 2nd Law said. Now you do.

Will you keep repeating their error? Or admit you were wrong to use their argument?

You're correct they are saying that the 2nd law would interfere with evolution but the whole article goes in to why. I will tomorrow read it again and point out why they say the 2nd law interferes with evolution.