 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6791
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
And you think that putting words into your debating opponent's mouths which YOU KNOW FOR A FACT they themselves don't believe (BECAUSE THEY'VE TOLD YOU SO ABOUT 110 TIMES), and then attacking the manufactured strawman is honest?!? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | putting words into your debating opponent's mouths |
Ha, amazing! Let him without sin cast the first stone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6791
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | | putting words into your debating opponent's mouths |
Ha, amazing! Let him without sin cast the first stone. |
You seriously think I'm guilty of what Pete does?
I can give you probably dozens of times in which Pete has explicitly been told that his claims about what evolutionists think are false, and yet he persists in using the same dishonest argument.
Can you give me an example where I did anything of the sort?
As for setting up fake websites and deceiving scientists into giving interviews which would later be quote-mined, can you give an example of scientists stooping to such lows in order to
a) Trick creationists into giving interviews, OR
b) Quote mining the hell out of an interview by means of skillfully dishonest editing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll give you an example....
'dust hates science', or something to tha effect.
Who casts that upon me? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6791
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | I'll give you an example....
'dust hates science', or something to tha effect.
Who casts that upon me? |
I'm not sure you 'hate' it. You certainly have an unhealthy disrespect for it, though. In order for you to disagree with this statement, you'd have to start believing in evolution, but as soon as you start believing in evolution, then I'll stop saying that you disrespect science.
I say you disrespect science because you really do. Evolutionary biology is GOOD science. You think it's bad science and that it's wrong, even though it is all based on the scientific method and completely sound reasoning. That's disrespectful of science.
Pete says that evolutionists believe that the whole Universe sprang forth out of nothing and that completely random processes created the perfection that we see all around us. It has been pointed out to Pete literally dozens of times that this is not the case and that evolutionists DON'T believe this. Yet he continues to make the same arguments.
You don't see the difference in these two scenarios? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P wrote: | | Pete says that evolutionists believe that the whole Universe sprang forth out of nothing and that completely random processes created the perfection that we see all around us. It has been pointed out to Pete literally dozens of times that this is not the case and that evolutionists DON'T believe this. Yet he continues to make the same arguments. |
Well, your differences with Pete are understandable. You've stated that you do not recognize a time earlier than the Planck epoch. Of course we use the term 'time' homonymously. Also you agree the universe is finite and has a beginning.
Pete recognizes a cause for the universe that transcends the beginning. A cause that existed independent of the finite beginning of the universe.
So, where you see nothing, Pete sees God. It's that simple. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5901
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey if Pete wants to call God "nothing" then I don't think there's any argument |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6791
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: |
Well, your differences with Pete are understandable. You've stated that you do not recognize a time earlier than the Planck epoch. Of course we use the term 'time' homonymously. Also you agree the universe is finite and has a beginning. |
If you can call it 'a beginning'. It's not like the start of a movie. The 'beginning' of the universe certainly doesn't match our intuitive notion of 'beginning'.
| Dust wrote: |
Pete recognizes a cause for the universe that transcends the beginning. A cause that existed independent of the finite beginning of the universe.
So, where you see nothing, Pete sees God. It's that simple. |
Pete can believe that if he wants. That's ok. What's NOT ok is when he keeps making stuff up which evolutionists don't believe and saying that they believe it DESPITE having been told literally dozens of times that we don't believe it.
That's why I'm taking exception here. You implied that I am a hypocrite with your quote from Jesus about casting the first stone. I don't believe that I do anything even remotely close to this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6844
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What's NOT ok is when he keeps making stuff up which evolutionists don't believe and saying that they believe it DESPITE having been told literally dozens of times that we don't believe it. |
| Quote: | | Ha, amazing! Let him without sin cast the first stone. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6791
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | What's NOT ok is when he keeps making stuff up which evolutionists don't believe and saying that they believe it DESPITE having been told literally dozens of times that we don't believe it. |
| Quote: | | Ha, amazing! Let him without sin cast the first stone. |
|
You'll have to do a better job explaining your accusation of hypocrisy than this... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pete
Tiger
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 812
Location: Arlington Hts., Il. USA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
I'm not sure you 'hate' it. You certainly have an unhealthy disrespect for it, though. but as soon as you start believing in evolution, then I'll stop saying that you disrespect science.
I say you disrespect science because you really do. Evolutionary biology is GOOD science. You think it's bad science and that it's wrong, even though it is all based on the scientific method and completely sound reasoning. That's disrespectful of science.
Pete says that evolutionists believe that the whole Universe sprang forth out of nothing and that completely random processes created the perfection that we see all around us. It has been pointed out to Pete literally dozens of times that this is not the case and that evolutionists DON'T believe this. Yet he continues to make the same arguments.
You don't see the difference in these two scenarios? |
P1, so what do evolutionists believe?
There is no such thing as evolutionary science. Evolution has never been proven by any scientific method. It is pure speculation - a theory! If evolution was science, it would be a fact.
If you think that the universe had a beginning then you had better show some scientific evidence for how it evolved out of nothing, or else show evidence that matter has always existed in one form or another. There is an energy source that created the material universe, and the laws of physics, as well. That source also has life.
If you believe in mindless, random evolution, then you better come up with evidence of how life began initially from non-life.
Those are both fundamental issues that you avoid, especially since science does not have labratory evidence for either scenario, and since they can't be shown scientifically, they have no sound scientific basis.
If I thought random chance produced consistent positive results, I'd head for the nearest casino. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5901
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pete wrote: | | If evolution was science, it would be a fact. |
That evolution occurs is fact. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.
| Pete wrote: | | If you think that the universe had a beginning then you had better show some scientific evidence for how it evolved out of nothing, or else show evidence that matter has always existed in one form or another. |
How would you propose we measure whta existed "before" the Big Bang?
| Pete wrote: | | There is an energy source that created the material universe, and the laws of physics, as well. That source also has life. |
Then prove it 
| Pete wrote: | | If you believe in mindless, random evolution, then you better come up with evidence of how life began initially from non-life. |
Abiogenesis is seperate from the theory of evolution. There are many theories, but it's going to take more work before anyone figures it out completely.
And even when that happens, the argument will become "aha, but this just proves that an intelligent designer had to be involved!" so there's not really much point as far as debating about it goes.
| Pete wrote: | | If I thought random chance produced consistent positive results, I'd head for the nearest casino. |
No one is claiming it produces consistent positive results (by the way, if you've got a 9 in 10 chance of winning something, random chance will produce consistent positive results  ). Natural selection ensures the positive results stick around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pete wrote: | | If I thought random chance produced consistent positive results, I'd head for the nearest casino. |
Hey, I'm with you Pete, but let's use FFT's money, since he is the one gambling on this.
Reminds me of the MIT Blackjack team. A bunch of smart mathematical strategist's who thought, over time, they could make a lot of money (the science proved it), but who actually lost a bunch of money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pete
Tiger
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 812
Location: Arlington Hts., Il. USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: |
Natural selection ensures the positive results stick around. |
There is no law of natural selection. On the other hand, the law of entropy states that entropy is also a guage of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.
It, therefore, stands that the concept of natural selection and evolution are counter to the laws of thermodynamics. All things in the observable universe are affected by and obey the laws of thermodynamics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5901
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pete wrote: | | There is no law of natural selection. |
True. It's a trend, not a law.
| Pete wrote: | | On the other hand, the law of entropy states that entropy is also a guage of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase. |
On average, yes. However it is quite possible for entropy to decrease within a closed system at a cost of increased entropy elsewhere within that system.
A thought experiment for you: imagine a 10x10 foot box that is a completely closed system. In it you have a man, a kinetic energy-powered lamp (so he can shake it to make it work since there won't be light coming from anywhere), and a dozen boxes of cereal. The man can stack the boxes (decrease entropy) at the cost of expending energy, converting it to heat energy, increasing entropy. It wouldn't take very long for the room to get quite uncomfortable with all the heat since it can't go anywhere, but that's entropy for you. Think of it as an extremely accelerated heat death, just in a room instead of the universe.
The analogy is rather simple and is likely to incur a "but it takes intelligence!!!" sort of response, but similar analogies can be made without relying on intelligent agency.
Anyway.
| Pete wrote: | | It, therefore, stands that the concept of natural selection and evolution are counter to the laws of thermodynamics. All things in the observable universe are affected by and obey the laws of thermodynamics. |
The Earth is not a closed system. While it's true enough that the universe as a whole is on average increasing in entropy, that doesn't in any way prevent localized reductions in entropy. See, we've got this great big nuke we're orbiting that constantly bathes our planet in energy. While this process increases the average entropy of the universe as a whole, it can lead to Earth-localized decreases in entropy.
And it's absolutely retarded that I actually have to explain how the law of entropy works to someone trying to use it in an argument.
So congratulations. You're yet one more tick in my theory that creationists that invoke the laws of thermodynamics in their arguments have no idea how the laws of thermodynamics actually work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
