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.
I know you're more intelligent than this. Really ? mocking reality. Sorry you resort to a desperate attempt at making a point. You're are using a cycle that has coded instructions as the basis of your point. It really is a poor analogy.
Yes, I'm mocking your misunderstanding of the 2nd Law.
Coded instructions mean the 2nd Law works? Or that it doesn't work?
The 2nd law has a greater affect as time passes. Somewhere between 2.7 and 3.5 billion years ago life supposedly showed up, in truth they don't know. That is a lot of time to pass in a universe where entropy never decreases but over time only increases,and you think complexity and order would increase. Sorry but that is absurd if you really believe in the 2nd law.
Face it, the universe and everything in it were created and we are seeing the effects of the 2nd law at work no matter how you fudge the numbers.
How, then, is creationismas opposed to naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define scientific. Too often, science and naturalism are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
Is creationism scientific?
Yes, I'm mocking your misunderstanding of the 2nd Law.
Coded instructions mean the 2nd Law works? Or that it doesn't work?
The 2nd law has a greater affect as time passes. Somewhere between 2.7 and 3.5 billion years ago life supposedly showed up, in truth they don't know. That is a lot of time to pass in a universe where entropy never decreases but over time only increases,and you think complexity and order would increase. Sorry but that is absurd if you really believe in the 2nd law.
Face it, the universe and everything in it were created and we are seeing the effects of the 2nd law at work no matter how you fudge the numbers.
The 2nd law has a greater affect as time passes.
Can you prove it?
in a universe where entropy never decreases but over time only increases
An acorn growing into an oak tree decreases entropy in itself.
Sorry but that is absurd if you really believe in the 2nd law.
You still don't get it.
Yes, I'm mocking your misunderstanding of the 2nd Law.
Coded instructions mean the 2nd Law works? Or that it doesn't work?
The 2nd law has a greater affect as time passes. Somewhere between 2.7 and 3.5 billion years ago life supposedly showed up, in truth they don't know. That is a lot of time to pass in a universe where entropy never decreases but over time only increases,and you think complexity and order would increase. Sorry but that is absurd if you really believe in the 2nd law.
Face it, the universe and everything in it were created and we are seeing the effects of the 2nd law at work no matter how you fudge the numbers.
The 2nd law has a greater affect as time passes.
Can you prove it?
in a universe where entropy never decreases but over time only increases
An acorn growing into an oak tree decreases entropy in itself.
Sorry but that is absurd if you really believe in the 2nd law.
You still don't get it.
How, then, is creationismas opposed to naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define scientific. Too often, science and naturalism are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
Is creationism scientific?
One word: Evidence.
Why are you going outside this system we call the universe, to explain phenomena that happen within the universe? You need to provide a justification for belief by any evidence of ANYTHING outside of this system. You haven't, and can not, so therefore, creationism is unscientific.
Amen. Why must some, if not most, divide people up into little groups? People these days are obsessed with labels. I believe to label something is to become closed minded to it
That is nature at work. Every living organism stay's with their own kind.
How, then, is creationism—as opposed to “naturalism,” defined as “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted”—scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define “scientific.” Too often, “science” and “naturalism” are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
Is creationism scientific?
The 2nd law has a greater affect as time passes. Somewhere between 2.7 and 3.5 billion years ago life supposedly showed up, in truth they don't know. That is a lot of time to pass in a universe where entropy never decreases but over time only increases,and you think complexity and order would increase. Sorry but that is absurd if you really believe in the 2nd law.
Face it, the universe and everything in it were created and we are seeing the effects of the 2nd law at work no matter how you fudge the numbers.
The 2nd law has a greater affect as time passes.
Can you prove it?
in a universe where entropy never decreases but over time only increases
An acorn growing into an oak tree decreases entropy in itself.
Sorry but that is absurd if you really believe in the 2nd law.
You still don't get it.
Yes every object animate or inanimate decays over time.
The 2nd law has a greater affect as time passes. Somewhere between 2.7 and 3.5 billion years ago life supposedly showed up, in truth they don't know. That is a lot of time to pass in a universe where entropy never decreases but over time only increases,and you think complexity and order would increase. Sorry but that is absurd if you really believe in the 2nd law.
Face it, the universe and everything in it were created and we are seeing the effects of the 2nd law at work no matter how you fudge the numbers.
The 2nd law has a greater affect as time passes.
Can you prove it?
in a universe where entropy never decreases but over time only increases
An acorn growing into an oak tree decreases entropy in itself.
Sorry but that is absurd if you really believe in the 2nd law.
You still don't get it.
As time passes that oak tree will slip in to decay and die. That tree completed it's cycle.
so what as you've been told countless times.. flaws in a theory or science in general are no evidence that your fantasy is correct.none of "believers"has presented anything that gives "the god did it" conjecture and veracity at all.He does a pretty good job pointing out the important points of this issue. He showed the fallacy in your sides thinking that that 2nd law can be violated in some areas and not others. His presentation, I wished I could have seen it not just hear it. His easy to understand why theories of naturalism like abiogenesis and macroevolution violate the 2nd law. I was not intending on offending you but make you better understand why creation believe as they do. Dr. Carl made an awesome argument for creationism. In the process showed the rediculous views of your side.It's pretty simple really,you believe something that goes against known laws of Physics.There are many scientists that will admit there is no evidence that contradicts the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Dr. wieland completely and logically defeated the arguments that was being presented.If you leave any system to randomness will it drift towards disorder or not ? This is exactly what I said that if you didn't have a coded message to change an egg in to a human it would be a random process not the message forcing it's will on the matter.what are the chances of that egg becoming a human absent of the coded message in Dna ?
How many examples of randomness, do you need to admit, a random process would only produce a chaotic disorderly system ?
Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. randomness - (thermodynamics) a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work; "entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity"
entropy, S
physical property - any property used to characterize matter and energy and their interactions
conformational entropy - entropy calculated from the probability that a state could be reached by chance alone
thermodynamics - the branch of physics concerned with the conversion of different forms of energy
2. randomness - the quality of lacking any predictable order or plan
So now how would you ever get order and complexity from unguided natural processes ?
How would you get the genetic language with an absence of intelligence ?
The big bang produced chaos how did chaos produce order and complexity ?
The only chance in a chaotic event you would have to regain order is quickly, the more time that goes by the worse the disorder.
The bibles account makes much more sense according to the evidence.That order was at it's highest level after creation, and since creation the universe and everything in it has been affected by disorder, and it just keeps getting worse, being supported by the 2nd law.
Carl Weiland didn't do anything but demonstrate himself to be a scam artist. You have to be either a lunatic or a moron to think otherwise. His entire presentation was as rediculous as the mathematical "proofs" that "prove" 1=0
using stephen Hawking(an atheist) as a source is a conflict of interest...on the other hand it's a fine example of your tenuous grasp on reality.Not a problem,did matter always exist ? I would doubt it since our universe had a beginning and even if matter always existed, Where did the energy come from ? What ignited the bid bang ?
The singularity contained compressed matter so it existed before the Big Bang. The onus is on you to prove that matter was "created".
You would have to prove your claim.
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.
The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking
He does a pretty good job pointing out the important points of this issue. He showed the fallacy in your sides thinking that that 2nd law can be violated in some areas and not others. His presentation, I wished I could have seen it not just hear it. His easy to understand why theories of naturalism like abiogenesis and macroevolution violate the 2nd law. I was not intending on offending you but make you better understand why creation believe as they do. Dr. Carl made an awesome argument for creationism. In the process showed the rediculous views of your side.It's pretty simple really,you believe something that goes against known laws of Physics.There are many scientists that will admit there is no evidence that contradicts the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Dr. wieland completely and logically defeated the arguments that was being presented.If you leave any system to randomness will it drift towards disorder or not ? This is exactly what I said that if you didn't have a coded message to change an egg in to a human it would be a random process not the message forcing it's will on the matter.what are the chances of that egg becoming a human absent of the coded message in Dna ?
How many examples of randomness, do you need to admit, a random process would only produce a chaotic disorderly system ?
Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. randomness - (thermodynamics) a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work; "entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity"
entropy, S
physical property - any property used to characterize matter and energy and their interactions
conformational entropy - entropy calculated from the probability that a state could be reached by chance alone
thermodynamics - the branch of physics concerned with the conversion of different forms of energy
2. randomness - the quality of lacking any predictable order or plan
So now how would you ever get order and complexity from unguided natural processes ?
How would you get the genetic language with an absence of intelligence ?
The big bang produced chaos how did chaos produce order and complexity ?
The only chance in a chaotic event you would have to regain order is quickly, the more time that goes by the worse the disorder.
The bibles account makes much more sense according to the evidence.That order was at it's highest level after creation, and since creation the universe and everything in it has been affected by disorder, and it just keeps getting worse, being supported by the 2nd law.
Carl Weiland didn't do anything but demonstrate himself to be a scam artist. You have to be either a lunatic or a moron to think otherwise. His entire presentation was as rediculous as the mathematical "proofs" that "prove" 1=0
you've proven you don't!You would have to prove your claim.
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.
The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking
That really puts the kabash on the silly 6,000 year old earth myth.
Do you understand speculation and conjecture ?
the big bang theory states " all the energy and matter in the universe were compressed into a infinitesimally small space.."The singularity consisted of matter and and energy and is entirely consistent with the 2nd law. You are pretending that your "creator" created matter but that would violate the 2nd law. Hawkings is correct that we do not know what form matter and energy took prior to the Big Bang but he is not saying that matter did not exist prior to the Big Bang. There are no intelligent scientists who are agreeing with your delusion that matter was "created".
Once again your creationist agenda obstructs your comprehension of reality.
There is no evidence showing matter existed before time,zero none. You simply don't know don't act like you do.
Of course there is. What did the singularity consist of prior to the Big Bang? Fairy dust? Your "creators" dandruff? Matter exists! That is an irrefutable fact. The singularity consisted of matter and energy prior to the Big Bang. The onus is on YOU to prove that the singularity did not contain any energy/matter prior to the Big Bang.
Thanks for agreeing with over time all objects are affected by decay which is the result of disorder that leads to death. What we exp over time is devolution. Things are not getting better or improving in complexity,that is what you need for evolution to trend upwards. You should know by now the basics of macro evolution. Micro-adaptations do happen but they are minor changes and the genetic information is already in the Genome to adapt.The 2nd law has a greater affect as time passes.
Can you prove it?
in a universe where entropy never decreases but over time only increases
An acorn growing into an oak tree decreases entropy in itself.
Sorry but that is absurd if you really believe in the 2nd law.
You still don't get it.
Yes every object animate or inanimate decays over time.
And that proves evolution can't happen?
You poor boy. Your brain is decaying in this thread.
What a silly response knowing is no evidence anyting arising from natural uguided processes.How, then, is creationismas opposed to naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define scientific. Too often, science and naturalism are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
Is creationism scientific?
One word: Evidence.
Why are you going outside this system we call the universe, to explain phenomena that happen within the universe? You need to provide a justification for belief by any evidence of ANYTHING outside of this system. You haven't, and can not, so therefore, creationism is unscientific.
It has been explained to you. It is a temporary state from genetic data forcing its will on on matter. It is only part of the programmed process.Yes, I'm mocking your misunderstanding of the 2nd Law.
Coded instructions mean the 2nd Law works? Or that it doesn't work?
The 2nd law has a greater affect as time passes. Somewhere between 2.7 and 3.5 billion years ago life supposedly showed up, in truth they don't know. That is a lot of time to pass in a universe where entropy never decreases but over time only increases,and you think complexity and order would increase. Sorry but that is absurd if you really believe in the 2nd law.
Face it, the universe and everything in it were created and we are seeing the effects of the 2nd law at work no matter how you fudge the numbers.
The 2nd law has a greater affect as time passes.
Can you prove it?
in a universe where entropy never decreases but over time only increases
An acorn growing into an oak tree decreases entropy in itself.
Sorry but that is absurd if you really believe in the 2nd law.
You still don't get it.
