Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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..
There is no evidence of it right ? is that not your same argument regarding God ?
Given the sheer size of the universe and the fact that the laws of physics and chemistry are universal, it is not only possible but probable that there is life somewhere out there.
That said, the only life that we know about is what's on the Earth and whatever bacteria hitched a ride on any of our various space shots. Simply put, extraterrestrial life has not been proven to exist. There is no example we can point to and say "this is what we've found."
There is zero evidence for the existence of whatever supernatural concepts one wants to believe in. Indeed, the supernatural is by definition outside of the natural world, so there would be no evidence either way for science to examine.
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 onethat 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
Yep, the Earth is practically a closed system, right up to the point that an metiorite explodes over Russia. Then it's not so closed.
During the formation of the solar system, it clearly was not.
You continue to use the same faulty logic, a behavior that may now call deceitful and and dissingenuous.
You take a probability of zero and call it a certainty.
You take small probabilities and call them zero.
You take that set A intersects set B and that B intersects C to mean that C equals A.
The Earth is as open a system now as it was back then.
Yep, the Earth is practically a closed system, right up to the point that an metiorite explodes over Russia. Then it's not so closed.
During the formation of the solar system, it clearly was not.
You continue to use the same faulty logic, a behavior that may now call deceitful and and dissingenuous.
You take a probability of zero and call it a certainty.
You take small probabilities and call them zero.
You take that set A intersects set B and that B intersects C to mean that C equals A.
That source had a strong background in Physics. The source said an open system freely exchanges matter and and energy in both cases and that is not the case with this planet.
This argument is based on theory not factual empirical evidence that you're making.
And yet, energy absorbed by this planet from solar radiation is testable and measurable.
How do we test for the gods?
There is no evidence of it right ? is that not your same argument regarding God ?
Given the sheer size of the universe and the fact thaot the laws of physics and chemistry are universal, it is not only possible but probable that there is life somewhere out there.
That said, the only life that we know about is what's on the Earth and whatever bacteria hitched a ride on any of our various space shots. Simply put, extraterrestrial life has not been proven to exist. There is no example we can point to and say "this is what we've found."
There is zero evidence for the existence of whatever supernatural concepts one wants to believe in. Indeed, the supernatural is by definition outside of the natural world, so there would be no evidence either way for science to examine.
You can assume it all you want and believe it, but the view is not based on evidence. Nature convinces me of a creator and the science I have learned only reinforces that view.
That source had a strong background in Physics. The source said an open system freely exchanges matter and and energy in both cases and that is not the case with this planet.
This argument is based on theory not factual empirical evidence that you're making.
And yet, energy absorbed by this planet from solar radiation is testable and measurable.
How do we test for the gods?
Because of radiation there is no God
And yet, energy absorbed by this planet from solar radiation is testable and measurable.
How do we test for the gods?
Because of radiation there is no God
The forever befuddled.
"Wrong. Their argument was that things can't get more complex, because........2nd Law."
Which is a fallacious argument. *In fact, the second law says the opposite. *It says that entropy increases in an isolated system towards maximum complexity. If all the gas molecules are initially at one end, which is simpler, they end up all over the place, which is more complex. *Entropy is a measure of the number of arrangements, the complexity.
And, the second law also includes statements for the condition of non-isolated systems, which allow for even more control over the arrangements
The fact is, you have been misled by false logic. And you bought into it. *Now, you are propogating g
false logic. *And as it has been pointed out, you are doing so with full awareness.
1.The second law of thermodynamics - a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy.
This is not claiming what you're claiming sorry. This law shows that the process of evolution or origins of life would contradict this law.
So far the creationists argument is solid.
Because of radiation there is no God
The forever befuddled.
Yes you're.
If you don't have anything to add to the conversation take your rhetoric somewhere else.
"Wrong. Their argument was that things can't get more complex, because........2nd Law."
Which is a fallacious argument. *In fact, the second law says the opposite. *It says that entropy increases in an isolated system towards maximum complexity. If all the gas molecules are initially at one end, which is simpler, they end up all over the place, which is more complex. *Entropy is a measure of the number of arrangements, the complexity.
And, the second law also includes statements for the condition of non-isolated systems, which allow for even more control over the arrangements
The fact is, you have been misled by false logic. And you bought into it. *Now, you are propogating g
false logic. *And as it has been pointed out, you are doing so with full awareness.
1.The second law of thermodynamics - a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy.
This is not claiming what you're claiming sorry. This law shows that the process of evolution or origins of life would contradict this law.
So far the creationists argument is solid.
No, their argument shows they don't understand the 2nd Law. Not solid in the least.
This law shows that the process of evolution or origins of life would contradict this law.
LOL! Please show how.
The forever befuddled.
Yes you're.
If you don't have anything to add to the conversation take your rhetoric somewhere else.
That would have applied to your pointless one-liner. That would also apply to your mind-numbing cut and pasting from creation ministries.
Science has been trying to figure out the designers methods and repeating it. They will not eliminate the designer if they unlock the mystery only strengthen the view it took intelligence and design to make it happen.
Science has been doing nothing of the sort. Your delusion is threatened by science making factual discoveries that eliminates any involvement by your mythical "creator".
Yes they have. They have been going on the presupposition that there is no designer.
You are not using your logical thinking to see the importance of logic.
Coming from a creationist, your talk about logic is pretty humorous. Creatioinism is anti-logic.
Provide the evidence that shows the theory of creation is anti-logic, and take the points on.
1.The second law of thermodynamics - a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy.
This is not claiming what you're claiming sorry. This law shows that the process of evolution or origins of life would contradict this law.
So far the creationists argument is solid.
No, their argument shows they don't understand the 2nd Law. Not solid in the least.
This law shows that the process of evolution or origins of life would contradict this law.
LOL! Please show how.
LOL! you need to show how a spontaneous process that results in an increase in entropy produces order. Like evolution or chemical evolution that would have caused the origins of life.
When mutations actually cause change the results is usually not good. Evidence: over 6,000 genetic disorders and counting with very few benefits from mutations you can point to.
How bout the order of this planet. How the atmosphere acts as a shield,how we benefit from the sun and the moon.
It is totally absurd to think this just all happened from a huge explosion of a tiny spec.
Science has been doing nothing of the sort. Your delusion is threatened by science making factual discoveries that eliminates any involvement by your mythical "creator".
Yes they have. They have been going on the presupposition that there is no designer.
Until you can prove that there is, they will go on doing so. The ball is in YOUR court. Why do you have such difficulty grasping that simple concept?
Yes you're.
If you don't have anything to add to the conversation take your rhetoric somewhere else.
That would have applied to your pointless one-liner. That would also apply to your mind-numbing cut and pasting from creation ministries.
Hollie it's this simple,you bore me.
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?
Coming from a creationist, your talk about logic is pretty humorous. Creatioinism is anti-logic.
Provide the evidence that shows the theory of creation is anti-logic, and take the points on.
IT REQUIRES THE EXISTENCE OF A SUPERNATURAL BEING. First you have to prove the existence of that supernatural being and then prove that it is responsible for creating and managing the entire universe. Until you can prove that, your juvenile arguments are easily dismissed.
Yes they have. They have been going on the presupposition that there is no designer.
Until you can prove that there is, they will go on doing so. The ball is in YOUR court. Why do you have such difficulty grasping that simple concept?
There is evidence of purposeful design and that gets ignored. This to is a simple concept.
Science should have no bias but what do we see, a rejection of evidence over presuppositions.
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?
I think it is obvious why you're dodging your obligation to prove your assertions.
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.
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.
