Ok, now you're just being willfully stupid.

Yes, life in the Universe is possible, but that doesn't mean your favored theory about how life arrived in the Universe is possible.
What favoured theory? I have no idea how life arrived in the universe. I suspect we never will. Even if we reproduce the exact conditions that gave rise to life and see single celled life created that doesn't mean that's how it started however many billions of years ago. I never claimed to know these things. Claiming to know things you can't possibly know is religions act, not sciences.

The probability has been calculated, more often than not, at many, many times greater than the number of atoms in the Universe.
Citation needed.

There has been no scientific proof provided showing that abiogenesis is possible.
Already admitted. But there is a sound theoretical basis behind.

To rule out at the least a possible designer is simply personal bias

Did you somehow miss the part THAT YOU QUOTED where I said I can't prove god doesn't exist. I simply stated that it's incredibly improbable.

There is plenty of positive evidence for Gods existence
Really? Please point me to the peer reviewed scientific paper that shows this. Otherwise, all you have are anecdotes.

faith in abiogenesis is simply blind faith

If I had "faith" in abiogenesis, that would be correct. But once again, I ask you do you understand the difference between what I think is probable based on observed facts and "taking something on faith"? I don't "believe" in abiogenesis. It seems like a reasonable explanation for the origin of life (certainly better than "magic beard in the sky did it"), but right now, it's just a hypothesis. Not even a theory. If we obtain some evidence one way or the other, I will switch my position. You're locked into yours regardless of the facts.

A God existing does not violate anything we know about the Universe.Thermodynamics would like a word with you.

Just because we understand the mechanics of something does not rule out an agency behind it. It would be like taking apart a car and then saying that because we understand how the car is put together that gasoline does not exist.
Jesus, that is so stupid I don't even know where to start. Do you actually read what you've written? Do you understand what the word "agency" means? Gasoline is the not the agency of a car, the driver is. A car without a driver does nothing (until google get their way anyway). And we can clearly see all the parts of a cars design where input is required from the driver and energy provided by the gasoline.

If you can show me a magical ghost car that drives without a driver or fuel source, I will believe in god. Meanwhile, we live in a universe that functions just fine without the requirement for any supernatural agency.

The bible says that everyone is provided evidence of Gods existence
The bible is a bad story book written by tribal idiots who didn't have a clue about their world. I don't give a shit what it says. Call me when you have actual evidence.

Hey robbersdog49, thanks for the level headed reply. I'll address your comments in a few pieces here:

The origin of life and Darwinian evolution are two entirely different things. Regardless of how you believe the first life came about we do know from the fossil record and evidence about the way the environment and climate changed on earth in those early millennia that the first life was simple single cell organisms.

In my study of the evidence from the fossil record, I found more evidence that contradicted the assertions of Darwinian evolution than confirmed it. The Cambrian explosion for example, where basically every type of animal body plan comes into existence at around the same time, contradicts the idea that these things happened gradually over long periods of time. In fact, a new theory was invented called "punctuated equilibrium" which says that the reason we aren't finding the transitional fossils is that the changes happen too quickly to be found in the fossil record. Instead of a theory based on the evidence, we have a theory to explain away the lack of evidence.

Evolution is the process which turned these very simple life forms into the complex forms you see all around you today. It's an ongoing process and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

The evidence for micro evolution is overwhelming. The reason we have hundreds of different breeds of dogs is because of micro evolution. Darwin discovered this and all the credit should go to him, but where the leap of faith took place was when he supposed that because we see changes within species, that therefore all life evolved from a common ancestor. This claim is not substantiated scientifically. You cannot see macro evolution taking place anywhere in the world, and you cannot find the transitional fossils to say it ever took place. You cannot test it in a laboratory, it is a historical claim based on weak circumstantial evidence.

Science doesn't know exactly how life first came about. It doesn't claim to. We know that it did because we're here, but how? Not sure. But that's not a problem, science doesn't claim to know everything. Science is a process we use to find out about the world around us. It's not a book with all the answers.

Science is all about what we don't know. It's a process of discovery, and you can't discover something you already know. Religious people like to show any gap in the knowledge of scientists as showing they are frauds, or know nothing and that this means their own views must be true. That's just a stupid logical fallacy. Just because no one else has the answer doesn't mean you can just claim your version must be correct.

Science not being able to tell us how life started has no effect on the validity of the statement 'God did it'.

The God of the gaps fallacy is simply a red herring in these conversations. I don't purport to say that because science can't explain something, that means God did it. Science is all about the principle of parsimony; what theory has the best explanatory power. I purport to say that the idea of a Creator has better explanatory power for what we see than the current scientific theories for origins, not because of what science cannot explain, but for what science has explained. I think the evidence we do understand, in physics, biology, cosmology and information theory overwhelmingly points to design for many good reasons that have nothing to do with the God of the gaps fallacy.

There is also it seems a point of pride for those who think the best position is to say "I don't know", and accusing anyone who thinks they do know as being wrong headed, arrogant, or whatever. It's a very curious position to take because there are plenty of things we can know. No one is going to take the position that if you say the answer to 2 + 2 is 4 and you deny that any other answer is valid, you are arrogant or using fallacious reasoning. Yet, it is arrogrant and fallacious to those who think that science is the sole arbitor of truth when someone who believes in God points to a Creator as the best explanation. They think that because they believe no one else could know the answer except through scientific discovery. You have to realize that is a faith based claim and not an evidence based claim. You think that way when you place your faith in science as what is going to give you the correct answers about how and why you are here. I like these quotes for Robert Jastrow, who was an Astronomer and physicist:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law."

As for the age of the earth, there's a huge amount of evidence which says it's about 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old. That's plenty of time for evolution to take us from simple single cell life to the complex animals we've become today.

Have you ever studied the scientific proofs for both sides? There are some "clocks" which point that way, and there are other clocks that point the other way. The clocks that point to the old Earth have many flaws, and there are simply more evidences that point to a young Earth. That video I provided shows the evidences I am talking about.

The origin of life and Darwinian evolution are two entirely different things. Regardless of how you believe the first life came about we do know from the fossil record and evidence about the way the environment and climate changed on earth in those early millennia that the first life was simple single cell organisms.

Evolution is the process which turned these very simple life forms into the complex forms you see all around you today. It's an ongoing process and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Science doesn't know exactly how life first came about. It doesn't claim to. We know that it did because we're here, but how? Not sure. But that's not a problem, science doesn't claim to know everything. Science is a process we use to find out about the world around us. It's not a book with all the answers.

Science is all about what we don't know. It's a process of discovery, and you can't discover something you already know. Religious people like to show any gap in the knowledge of scientists as showing they are frauds, or know nothing and that this means their own views must be true. That's just a stupid logical fallacy. Just because no one else has the answer doesn't mean you can just claim your version must be correct.

Science not being able to tell us how life started has no effect on the validity of the statement 'God did it'.

As for the age of the earth, there's a huge amount of evidence which says it's about 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old. That's plenty of time for evolution to take us from simple single cell life to the complex animals we've become today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Hey Newtboy,

God provided four major lines of evidence so that you would know that He exists. The first is Creation itself:

Rom 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

His existence is so evident from the Creation that He considers that people are without excuse for their unbelief.

A quick science fact for you:

The Moon is 400 times smaller than the Sun, and the Sun is 400 times farther away from the Moon. This is the reason they appear to be the same size in the sky. The Moon is also receding from the Earth at a few centimeters at year. This would mean it is only a “coincidence” that we happen to live at a time that the Sun and Moon have an exact correspondence in the sky, making solar eclipses possible. Yet, the scripture says God created the Sun and the Moon for signs and seasons, for days and years. The amount of “coincidences” really adds up to an absurdity when you study the conditions necessary for us to be here. You can find a good study on that here:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Privileged-Planet-John-Rhys-Davies/dp/B0002E34C0

The other lines of evidence are your conscience, the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and bible prophecy. I understand, perhaps, where you’re coming from. It very much has to do with what your worldview is. If you start apriori with the idea that there is no supernatural and no divine being, you won’t recognize the evidence right in front of your face. You will instead embrace alternative explanations for the origins of life which appear to be pragmatic but start with a greater amount of faith required than a belief in an all powerful Creator God.

The 1999 one from Gabriel Knight 3 also appeared at the start of the original Half Life. The music fit the tone perfectly.

Jeez, why not just comment on the bad comedy already...Last I checked a sense of humor about race, creed, and color hang-ups was one of the more popular stick-in-ass pokes-Sell that tired shit to Rivers and Silverman....Last I checked calling someone an asshole wasn't kosher decorum here on the Videoshift but I suppose hypocrisy does have has its merit. But seriously, don't really mind being called asshole if the shoe fits.

Says on that link that hymen is of Yiddish origin, means 'life.' Now Yiddish just happens to be one of my favorite dying languages btw and Christ could be sort of an asshole when he wanted to...

He means the origin of life on earth. That is one of the most hotly debated and unsolved questions in science. It could also be something we can never know for sure, because it only had to happen once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Anyway, I do think it's cool that they're making some high-budget cosmology lessons for the masses. If you want something less focused on entertainment and flashy presentation, you've got lots of options.

System Shock 2 is my #2 game of all time (only beaten by the original Half-Life) so when Bioshock came out, I was really psyched that I'd get to return to that FPS/RPG style of gameplay. I thought they did a lot of things great in Bioshock (the art style, the graphics, the story, the physics and mechanics of the gameplay), it's always the things that didn't make sense to me that stick in my mind first whenever anyone brings it up. Vending machines that sell ammunition? (That never made much sense to me in SS2 either.) Psychic abilities that summon......bees? They're little things, but it's always stuff like this that breaks the immersion for me. Anyone else like that?

>> ^shinyblurry:

What issues in theology do you find interesting?

Theology poses some interesting questions about about the meaning and origin of life and morality? Even if I disagree with the answers and the methodology used to come up with them, the questions themselves are fascinating.

You have to understand that I look at it from an anthropological stance. Why / how did primitive cultures use supernatural beings to explain natural phenomena, etc. I don't for a second accept the Christian idea of god. If it was true, there would be no other religions.

If we can boil all of the possibilities down to design and chance, how could you tell which Universe you were in?


I kind of abandoned this part because I don't think our differences on this matter are terribly interesting. But I'll come back to it for a second to clarify. To me, there is no important difference between these two things you're talking about.

I don't see myself as terribly different than a falling rock. While it's useful in many situations to think of myself as designing something, in absolute terms me building a house is no different than water eroding through a rock - they're just things that happen following from the state and rules of the universe. What you're calling "design" and "chance" are both, to me, just parts of "the rules for moving from one state to another" and I don't see a big philosophical difference between them (I also don't think there's any important philosophical reality to "free will", if that helps you understand my position).

If we have a start state with a certain kind of benevolent God, the rest of the stuff flows from that through state change rules of some sort - and I don't find it terribly interesting what sorts of rules and processes are involved to get from that start state to the current one (or, at least, only to the extent that those rules and processes may imply more or less arbitrariness in the start state).

Similarly, we can instantiate in enough physical rules to get the "chance" universe you describe going, and its rules could get it to the current state either determinalistically or with some element of randomness. I guess I understand how you're using "chance" here... but I don't know that it's terribly useful. Why should "what humans can predict" be of any relevance philosophically? And if we're using it that way, couldn't we similarly describe God's actions as chance? I mean, surely humans (or angels) can't predict everything he's going to do. Chance seems like a pejorative when applied to God.. and to me it seems like a pejorative when applied to the operations of the universe (except where, again, that operation is actually random).

However, again, I don't think this difference is terribly important. I think I understand what you're getting at, I just see things very differently.

Yet, it is assumed to be true because "there must be a naturalistic origin to life".


I don't think you're phrasing this in a terribly fair way. Yes, many people assume there's a natural explanation for abiogenesis. This is partly because having another explanation introduces arbitrariness into the system. Say I'm a geologist and I discover Devil's Tower. It's really weird, but my inclination from the very start is that it was formed by similar processes to ones that have explained weird things in the past. Even if I can't postulate even a guess as to why it has those weird columns, I'm not crazy to guess that eventually we'll figure out an explanation that doesn't involve, say, new physical laws or aliens. (And it's certainly not helpful to say "maybe it was made in the flood").

Abiogenesis is a bigger problem and it's also one that's "lost to time" a bit. It almost certainly requires a mechanism we have yet to identify (or a mechanism someone has guessed at, but hasn't provided good details or evidence for). But, like Devil's Tower, there's no reason to expect that mechanism won't be identified - or that it will require significant changes to our understanding of the rest of science. Again, there's plausible ideas already floating around, and I think we'll probably recreate the process (though likely not with the same actual process) within the next 30 years or so.

I think you'll have to admit that God is a much better theory than "I don't know".


No... that, I think, is probably our strongest point of disagreement. I'm very much OK with "I don't know", and literally everything I believe has a bit of "I don't know" attached (kind of similar to how everything you believe in has a bit of God attached).

I'm not worshipping ignorance or something - knowing IS better than not knowing. But I'm also not scared of not knowing things - and I'm certainly not just going to pick something and believe in it because I don't like having some of my answer pages blank.

For you, is Scientology better than "I don't know"?

Edit:
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


Also, thanks for using the big boy version of the Bible. I quite like the Bible artistically, but I can't stand some of the new translations (despite whatever benefits some parts may have in terms of clarity).

Fair enough - it sounds like you're certain in every practical sense, but you don't believe you have "absolute knowledge". That was really the main distinction I was trying to make. Certainly I agree that you can't reason in any meaningful way without writing off certain kinds of extreme possibilities.

I think absolute knowledge is possible even from our subjective standpoint. For instance, it is absolutely true that "something" exists. Any argument against this is actually proof that it is true.

In any case, I am making a claim to absolute knowledge, because divine revelation could only ever be absolute knowledge. A person receiving such revelation would have a justified true belief in God. That's my claim. It's not something I could prove..only God could prove it, but neither am I unjustified in believing it.

I understand the contrast here, and I think I understand now what you're trying to get at better - I just don't think this contrast is fundamental to the question I'm interested in (which is different, I think, than the one you're interested in). To me the intermediary steps are fungible - it's the start states that are interesting to me, and to me they all require arbitrary stuff that I don't like, but that seem necessary.

Well, originally you were responding to this question:

"I'll ask you the same question I ask messenger..how would you tell the difference between a random chance Universe and one that God designed? What test could you conduct to find out which one you were in? When you can come up with a test to determine that, then you can tell me that there is no evidence. Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is evidence."

If we can boil all of the possibilities down to design and chance, how could you tell which Universe you were in? What test could you conduct that would tell you the difference? Atheists often demand some kind of empirical proof of God, yet they are never forthcoming on the details of what that proof would consist of. That is really the impetus behind this question..

I think this difference in focus may come down to our varying perceptions of those intermediary steps. For me, the general big bang model, ideas of how stars and planets coalesced, natural abiogenesis, and evolution are reasonably credible as they stand and I expect those theories to develop and become more credible. You see those things very differently. I think that naturally leads to a different focus.

The reason I don't see them as credible is because of a lack of evidence. For instance, there is absolutely no evidence of abiogenesis, at all. In fact, louis pasteur proved that it is most likely impossible. Life has never once been observed coming from non-life. Yet, it is assumed to be true because "there must be a naturalistic origin to life". It's a just-so story and it isn't at all credible. I've heard the odds of it happening are far greater than the number of atoms in the Universe.

People tell me that Creation sounds like a fairy tale, but then they tell me their own story that begins with "once upon a time a frog became a prince", and this somehow sounds plausible when you throw in billions of years.

time is in fact the hero of the plot. the impossible becomes possible..time itself performs the miracles.

George Wald
Harvard
Nobel laureate

I agree with this as well - to an extent. Having a unique God makes for a simple explanation in general (although it gets a bit complicated in practice for how we ended up precisely "here"). For the general problem of "how did this all get here", your recipe is very simple if it starts with God. On the flip side, God is a very big thing to assume. I think a case can be made for belief in a general God on something like this basis. Though I don't personally find it a convincing case at this time, that could change.

I think you'll have to admit that God is a much better theory than "I don't know". Yet, people bandy about "I don't know" as if this is the superior position. You have to wonder why to even think that the Universe was designed is subject to so much ridicule and derision, when it is actually a perfectly reasonable theory that is supported by evidence. As far as assuming God goes, you don't need to explain God to postulate Him as a possibility. What matters is whether the idea has explanatory power. The question always is, is God a better explanation for the evidence?

It isn't always an evidential argument, either. There many logical arguments to assume there is a God:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

Perhaps another question: for you personally, would you describe your situation as more like "God provided me with special evidence, and I reason that He must exist because of this evidence" or more like "God produced a change in me directly, such that I now believe (unmediated by your own reason)"? (Or, obviously, something in between or different altogether). I think this would clarify your situation for me.

I received evidence in a number of different ways. One, is that God fundamentally changed me. In the blink of an eye, where I was broken, I was now healed. Where there was addiction, there was self-control. Where there was hate, there was now love and forgiveness. Where there was darkness, there was now light. It was instantaneous and it certainty had nothing to do with me. I would have stayed the way I was, left to my own devices. It was a supernatural transformation of my inner being.

Another thing is that God has demonstrated to me, beyond all reasonable doubt, that He is in absolute control of everything. To the extent that I no longer include the word coincidence in my vocabulary. In short, He has used my internal and external experiences to give me evidence of His existence, and this is ongoing. I always experience the presence of God because His Spirit lives within me.

There are other ways that I cannot quite put into words. The peace of God transcends all understanding. His love surpasses all expectation and every height; it is a deep and wondrous mystery. He is my Father, and I am his (adopted) son. My relationship with God is a personal one that has changed my entire life in every conceivable way, beyond anything I could ever imagine or hope for.

>> ^jmzero

I find that panspermia is a plausible idea, but I don't know the evidence for or against it, but even if you accept that as true, then it only shifts the question to, "where did it come from then?" which brings us back to, probably, abiogenesis.

So you have to differentiate between "origin of life" and "origin of life on Earth" as well.

>> ^zombieater:

I like the idea of this survey, but the description mixes two different topics. The theory of natural selection and evolution have nothing to do with the origins of life on earth (the prevalent scientific theory belongs to abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). I believe this may be what gwiz touched on, in that numbers 2 and 4 also refer to evolution.
Perhaps we could ask a survey that asks about the origin of life on earth? Selections could include:
1) Creationism
2) Deism (Clockwork Universe Theory)
3) Abiogenesis
4) Panspermia Hypothesis
The Gallup poll to which you refer did not focus on the origins of life, rather how life has changed (or not changed) in our recent biological history. I doubt you meant that aliens have changed life since it first began, which is why I believe two different ideas are mixed here.


Your right, I did mix it up a bit. I tried to even it out a bit in a quick edit maybe 10 minutes afterwards when I fully re-read it (and the realization that it was slanted hit me; I also tried to make the religious stances sound more equalized--hard to do without evidence...). But, really I had it up for too long so I just left it be; or at the least I thought it was too long. I figured everyone would gather what there was to choose from and what I meant whether I made some mistakes or not. Even in my description of Evolution I made sure to make people realize that Darwin's old natural selection isn't the "exact" primer for everything in biology although a strong one. We've found much to our surprise that stranger things are going on in the lands of "Evolution" and natural selection, survival of the fittest, and other old adages taught in school as the MOST of the only things driving Evolution for the most part may be a little off--not completely--just that the window to our knowledge IS NOT closed and our horizons are broader than once thought thanks to modern scientists re-tooling their devices and machines to once again have a more thorough and "re-tooling" our look at Evolution for a harder "inside look" as well. It's more like an onion now with layers that peel off; each time you peel off one there's another ready to be peeled off... (I'll make sure I didn't get that confused in the poll, somewhere...)

As for choices two and four... I was also concerned that they both had Evolution (especially choice four as I listed it DIRECTLY, even though technically an Alien intelligence is bound to believe, perhaps, in fourteen different reasons for their existence and ours as well...so I may have "jumped the shark" so to say on that one altogether) as a primary tool in them as well as it really didn't differentiate them that much from straight up Evolution (and it did in fact make Evolution seem like the clear choice in many respects, unless you are a STOUT believer of the other two--no case was made for them). Your selection of choices certainly would have worked as well (though to be honest I think many would need to go to Wikipedia before they picked it ), but I did want to try to remain close to the Gallup Poll (as you discussed later) and you're correct in that I should have stayed away from the Evolution subject on those and focused on what their key beliefs, politics (if any), key ideas, and as I said earlier perhaps to even make a case for them--as much could be made. (That goes for @gwiz665s comment too as well, as you said; his comment noted the same discrepancy...) These are things to make sure I do on my next poll; but, I think everyone can make it through this one OK for now.

C'est la vie.

PS- My shift keys are broken and it's DRIVING me nuts. If it seems like I'm randomly not capitalizing letters that should be, that's why! Good thing I'm proof-reading right now or I would have had 10 or so just in this post alone!

I like the idea of this survey, but the description mixes two different topics. The theory of natural selection and evolution have nothing to do with the origins of life on earth (the prevalent scientific theory belongs to abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). I believe this may be what gwiz touched on, in that numbers 2 and 4 also refer to evolution.

Perhaps we could ask a survey that asks about the origin of life on earth? Selections could include:
1) Creationism
2) Deism (Clockwork Universe Theory)
3) Abiogenesis
4) Panspermia Hypothesis

The Gallup poll to which you refer did not focus on the origins of life, rather how life has changed (or not changed) in our recent biological history. I doubt you meant that aliens have changed life since it first began, which is why I believe two different ideas are mixed here.

(This is part two as mentioned in my previous comment)

I’ve read and re-read your arguments over the weekend and for a portion of today. I’ve done a lot of research into what you’ve said and I found something particularly interesting which lead me to a significant question. “Where is all of this guy’s information coming from?”

So I did a little experiment. I did a Google search for all of the quotes that you’ve replied with and can you guess what I found? All of your arguments can be taken nearly verbatim or just reworded from creationist websites. Can you honestly expect anyone to believe that you’ve done your own research or read any real books on the subject of thermodynamics or biological evolution? How can you even take yourself seriously if you haven’t spent the time putting in the work to understand what the source material says for yourself?

The problem with your theory is, I have done the research, and I do know what the source material says. I understand the theory of evolution better than most atheists I have met. I use the quotations because they are hostile witnesses to my position which gives the argument even more force. It doesn't matter where I've gotten them from; that is irrelevent. The evidence I am presenting is what is relevent.

If someone has objections about the bible, would you take them seriously if you discovered that they hadn’t actually read it? No, of course not, so how can you expect to be taken seriously if you haven’t read the source material yourself? It’s just an attempt to try to discredit something that you haven’t actually studied yourself which I find to be a bit on the disingenuous side of things.

Most atheists I've spoken to who criticize the bible haven't actually read it. I've already told you my background so you don't have an argument. I have studied these things.

I know that you’re expecting this because every creationist website prepares creationists for this criticism but you’re idea of how thermodynamics works is entirely misinformed and you won’t know by how much until you do yourself a favor and listen to a course in thermodynamics or read a book on it. If you have iTunes, go to iTunes U and search for thermodynamics, spend 12 hours learning and then you’ll see that classical thermodynamics has nothing to say about biological systems. I suspect that you probably read a lot of articles from the Institute for Creation Research website.

You haven't offered any criticism of my position and you haven't demonstrated any actual knowledge of this subject, except that which is patently false. The laws of thermodynamics apply to everything, including biological systems. Evolutionists attempt to weasel out of that by declaring that they are 'open systems' and thus immune to entropy because of the energy from the sun, but as I showed this does nothing to show where information comes from, so you cannot explain it away.

I've read a lot of science textbooks, and a lot of scientific literature. When I was agnostic, I read volumes and volumes of it, and I stay abreast of the latest discoveries. Your accusations all ring hollow, especially considering you have failed to show you understand the subject on your own.

If that is the case and you do frequent ICR then here is something to think about: (Taken directly from the conclusion to their article “Does Entropy Contradict Evolution”)

“If science is to be based on fact and evidence, rather than metaphysical speculations, then entropy does not explain or support evolution at all. In fact, at least until someone can demonstrate some kind of naturalistic comprehensive biochemical predestinating code and a pre-existing array of energy storage-and-conversion mechanisms controlled by that code to generate increased organized complexity in nature, the entropy law seems to preclude evolution altogether. The marvelously complex universe is not left unexplained and enigmatically mysterious by this conclusion, however. It was created by the omnipotent and omniscient King of Creation! If evolutionists prefer not to believe this truth, they can make that choice, but all the real facts of science - especially the fundamental and universal law of entropy - support it.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that the majority of this article is correct and that the 2nd law does indeed contradict evolution. This final conclusion from the article does something very interesting. It jumps from saying that evolution cannot have happened because it violates the 2nd law to it was created by a god. How the heck are they coming up with that conclusion!? By what evidence can they make that leap let alone make the claim that the creator is both omnipotent AND omniscient? This is my problem with how you are arguing; you are doing the same thing. You are suggesting that the math doesn’t add up and that your answer is better but you aren’t providing the math to suggest why your answer is better; you’re just telling us that it’s the answer.

What you're doing is using a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument. You're absolutely right, that is a terrible argument. That isn't the type of argument I have made. When I brought up thermodynamics, I was responding to this comment:

"The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science."

I showed it was your position that was betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science. My argument was rational, well founded, and based on solid evidence, yet you have taken the low road of trying to assasinate my character, or outright say that I don't actually know what I am talking about. Again, it is you who have failed to adaquately demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. Instead of addressing my argument, you have made the argument about me, as you have admitted to, and that is what is dishonest here.

Whether or not you resonate with that that snippet from their article or not, it illustrates how egger some people are to praise some scientific findings when those findings don’t contradict their beliefs and in the same breath, criticizes other scientific findings which do contradict their beliefs. If you encounter something that seems to contradict what you already believe to be true, it is wise to question whether what you believe to be true is actually true rather than searching for information that confirms what you believe.

It's called confirmation bias. A good example of this is looking at the question of the origin of life and believing it must have evolved despite having no actual evidence that it did.

The thing is that I know that you’re going to say that “science” has an agenda, and it does, but not like you think it does and you’ll never understand that agenda until you actually study it for yourself. You believe that it’s all about disproving god, or maintaining naturalism but it’s not.

Science is an institution run by individuals with individual beliefs and goals. Over 40 percent of biologists, astronomers and mathematicians believe in God. Belief in God is not incompatible with doing good science, nor is science in and of itself something bad. There is however a concerted effort, on the part of evolutionists, to push their version of origins on the rest of us, and they have often used legal means to do so. Evolution is pushed on the public like it is a proven fact and it is not.

You are arguing against a set of misunderstandings that you hold about what you believe the science is saying. Everything that you think you know about these matters is either a straw man, a red-haring or blatant misinformation. It would be very hard to impress on you how exactly that is true without you being educated on the source material. This is why we cannot have a conversation regarding these issues. You will just need to start reading the source material instead of going to interpretive websites; its far more interesting that way anyway.

What you're doing is jumping to a bunch of unfounded conclusions and drawing extremely weak inferences about what I have or haven't done, and then extrapolating that to a bunch of highly prejudiced judgements against me personally, and doing so in a haughty way, as if you are talking to a child. You have completely failed to include anything of substance in this reply. It is all just a sad attempt to write me off without actually addressing any of my arguments. Until you actually address the meat of my reply with a point by point refutation, this entire reply can be chopped up to one gigantic ad hom.

I am sorry to say that I find a degree of intellectual dishonesty in your method of arguing against these ideas by primarily pulling information and quotes from these sources without having done the work yourself. You are representing yourself as personally knowledgeable about the subject when you are doing nothing more than copy and pasting in quotes to support you. Besides this being a type of an argument from authority, it shows to me that you have no regard for the context in which the original quote was written. That is the definition of cherry picking and to me; it makes me think that you are more interested in maintaining your beliefs than being honestly interested in expanding your knowledge.

Or you have completely mischaracterized me, as I have demonstrated. Again, you want so badly for this to be about me. Even if I was doing everything you said I am doing, my arguments, if they were accurate, would still stand. You haven't moved one inch closer to disproving anything I've said. It doesn't matter where I've gotten the information, what matters is if it is correct or not. Regardless, I do understand the subject matter, and demonstrably better than you do thus far.

I don’t expect to change your mind. You seem deeply rooted in creationism and as you’ve said, you believe in the biblical god and that you feel that your life was transformed by him. That is a very powerful feeling, one that is very hard to overcome because it is something personal that you probably relate to. Perhaps you feel that your stability rests on the idea that a god exists and that your view of that god must be the correct one based on your personal experiences; I don’t know. I have nothing more to say other than to suggest that you read the source material so that way you can at least honestly say that you know what you’re talking about.

You aren't going to change anyones mind with this low grade excuse for an argument. This isn't about me, it's about the evidence. You say my evidence is invalid because I don't understand the subject matter, which is fallacious. The evidence is valid whether I understand it or not. However, I do understand it, and the problem here is you have no basis to criticize me because you're the one who hasn't demonstrated any understanding. You have even demonstrated the wrong understanding. However, the difference between you and I is that I will give you enough credit to assume you are a reasonably intelligent person who isn't just pretending to understand it. I am still waiting for you to prove it, however. Your attempt to make this argument about me has failed, because I have shown all of your claims about me to be false, and it is logically fallacious in the first place. If you want to continue, address my arguments directly and prove you actually know something. If my arguments are incorrect, feel free to show me why, at any time.


>> ^IAmTheBlurr: