@dystopianfuturetoday I'd like to help you visualize what I understand a free market is or ought to be. When you say free markets are impossible, I tend to compare that to someone saying, "free speech is impossible" while holding an extreme or maybe unrealistic interpretation of what free speech ought to be as well.

Imagine when freedom of speech was first proposed, "What if we had a society where people could say whatever they want without fear of censorship or oppression?". Before we had a country where freedom of speech was in the first Ammendment of its Constitution, I'm pretty sure we didn't have freedom of speech anywhere, or mostly in any time in history. Someone could have replied, "A free speech society is impossible, which is why one has never existed, and why you were unable to come up with any working examples". Sure, because there would almost always be some asshole, usually a king, a despot or church, telling people what they could or could not say, and punishing them for it.

Now, do we enjoy absolute freedom of speech today? Not at all, and I'm fine with that. There are laws against libel, hate speech, obscenity, incitement to commit crimes, etc., which are all restrictions imposed on that very freedom.

However, all things considered, I think freedom of speech is mostly free. I don't know of anyone who advocates "restricted speech" or "highly regulated speech" as an ideal. More importantly, whenever censorship is reported or witnessed, everyone is instantly indignant and sometimes outraged, because we are all aware of how essential freedom of speech is to a free society, a freedom that should be cherished and protected.

Now let's take a look at the dynamics of free speech in society.

Just because people can say whatever they want, doesn't mean there won't be millions of people lying, deceiving each other, spreading ideologies that are COMPLETELY WRONG, etc.

Does that mean we should have laws banning ideas that are wrong? Not easy to do, because it is common sense that no one has absolute authority over truth, so such laws would hardly be fair.

Instead, we resort to letting ideas compete, letting people select for themselves what is true or not. That might doom society to eternal stupidity and ignorance or to a gradual process where truths will be preferred, and lies will tend to be exposed or ignored. Which outcome do you think is more likely? It takes time, but a free society matures with such freedoms. When abuses happen, society learns and deals with them without immediately resorting to laws and restrictions, because that would be considered censorship, and, therefore, usually unfair.

Now when it comes to economic freedom, liberals treat it as a whole different ball game, when I don't think it should be. First off, "free markets" = obscenity. They learn to understand it like you do, "absolutely free of government intervention, chaos everywhere, society is doomed", when in fact the proponents of free markets recognize that the State is necessary to enforce contracts, punish fraud and protect private property.

Liberals are mostly influenced by the socialist interpretation of capitalism as an inherently unfair system. Whenever any perceived abuse happens in an economy, they see it as resulting from an imbalance of economic power, so they rush to demand laws and regulations to forcibly correct them.

How about letting these abuses happen, and let society learn to deal with them, select them, and evolve? Just like what happens with free speech. Sure, if it's blatant fraud, theft, breach of contract, etc. the State can and should step in. Otherwise, let people come up with their own solutions. It will be a painful process, but it's better to let a free society mature by itself than oppressing it into behaving well.

Besides, if you think about it, politicians aren't any better than anyone at judging what economic practices are right or wrong. So the laws they make are usually unfair. They have the same kind of presumptuousness of someone who would claim authority over truth, and want to create laws censoring "wrong" ideas. Like keynesian economists who try to plan and steer economies because they have little theories where they claim it's smarter to use other people's money than letting people make decisions with their own money.

We would never put up with people trying to engineer society/culture through censorship. Why do we put up with that when it comes to economics?

About the thought experiment (hoping it's not a trick question), I don't see why there should be a limit on how much property a person can own, as long as the property is honestly obtained.

I don't think it's an injustice when someone owns more than others, maybe there are other factors to be considered? Forcibly redistributing property is usually more unfair than just letting society deal with any problem arising from someone having property that others want or need.

The rule of law has always been applied unevenly to people like Martin. It's just that expectations may he higher than they were before. >> ^BoneyD:

This is where it starts. Where the rule of law is applied unevenly and the delivery of justice not done, vigilantism will arise.
Zimmerman best be arrested quick smart.

This is where it starts. Where the rule of law is applied unevenly and the delivery of justice not done, vigilantism will arise.

Zimmerman best be arrested quick smart.

You're such a troll, I'm impressed.

The brand of free market he espouses disappeared way before the Fed was even established. Please keep your inner socialist in check and stop slandering free markets blaming it for every kind of problem that arises from the lack of it.

It's like we live in a dictatorship for almost a century and liberals propose a different dictatorship while blaming freedom for all our problems.

Politicians who think like you, who can't understand something as simple as the insurance business model, make a sport out of subverting it, forcing companies to provide whatever crap you think they should, with no regard to the resulting oppression, cost increases, and undesired economic consequences of their actions, like the very ones Schiff points out in this video!

You can express your hatred towards Schiff all you want, my objection is that your just dropped your ad hominem and ran away. How about at least considering his points on the stupidity of the free birth control policy?

I think Schiff's attack on the OWS was a silly stunt too, arguing with clueless socialists that the blame is not on the 1%, it's not on the people who were bailed out and currently have our money, it's on the people who took our money in the first place. The truth is that these same people also oppress most of the 1%, while benefitting an even smaller fraction of that 1% at the expense of everybody else.

Btw, I don't know how you managed to reply without me getting any e-mail notification, please don't trick your way into getting the last filthy word again, thank you.

I want a dyson sphere. Get some people on that, could ya?
>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^gwiz665:
Nuclear is not perfect, but it's the best we have right now. Coal and Oil are much worse. Wind, Solar and Geothermal are better, but not nearly the same scale as Nuclear.

There are several issues with nuclear and Chernobyl/Fukushima style disasters are frankly the least of them.
Leaving aside the obviously thorny issue of waste management, the other issue arises when you amortise the cost over the total lifetime of the nuclear plant. It's just not that cheap in terms of energy or money to build, run and then decommission.
As for renewable energy, it's nowhere close to providing the energy levels we need yet. Also there are other environmental issues with some renewable energy generation methods as well. Hydro requires large dams (concrete is an eco-nightmare) and can destroy habitats. Geothermal can affect the landscape (subsidence and sapping geysers are two common effects). Lots of people complain about wind turbines as visually unappealing (personally I find the aesthetically pleasing). I'm not saying renewable technologies are bad, merely that there are still issues with them.
In real terms, fusion is where it's at.

>> ^gwiz665:

Nuclear is not perfect, but it's the best we have right now. Coal and Oil are much worse. Wind, Solar and Geothermal are better, but not nearly the same scale as Nuclear.


There are several issues with nuclear and Chernobyl/Fukushima style disasters are frankly the least of them.

Leaving aside the obviously thorny issue of waste management, the other issue arises when you amortise the cost over the total lifetime of the nuclear plant. It's just not that cheap in terms of energy or money to build, run and then decommission.

As for renewable energy, it's nowhere close to providing the energy levels we need yet. Also there are other environmental issues with some renewable energy generation methods as well. Hydro requires large dams (concrete is an eco-nightmare) and can destroy habitats. Geothermal can affect the landscape (subsidence and sapping geysers are two common effects). Lots of people complain about wind turbines as visually unappealing (personally I find the aesthetically pleasing). I'm not saying renewable technologies are bad, merely that there are still issues with them.

In real terms, fusion is where it's at.

I would never allow a stranger into my car, and while it's terrible that a situation can arise where you can't lend a helping hand to a stranger in need in fear for your own safety, that's the reality for most of us. If someone had their car break down and asked me for help, the least (and incidentally the most) I would do is help arrange for a tow truck. If you did stop, offer a lift and get robbed, everyone would say that you have nobody to blame but yourself, that it's common sense not to pick up strangers on the road at night. Hitchhiker criminals have ruined it for everyone.

You quote The Blind Watchmaker and The Origin of Species but I highly doubt that you’ve read them yourself. If you haven’t then you’re not better than someone who is contesting the bible without having read it. You quote a LOT of scientists that you say are hostile to your position but again, have you actually read the works that you’re quoting from in their entirety? I doubt it.

Well, I have read them and I think it's fairly obvious that I understand the subject matter.

Here are just two things that I read recently that I think are worth repeating:

...degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR (Institute for Creation Research)...

....illustrate a fact, but they are not the fact itself. One thing is certain: metaphors are completely useless when it comes to the thermodynamics of calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, or the entropy change of free expansion of a gas, or the power required to operate a compressor. This can only be done with mathematics, not metaphors. Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics....

I never made the argument that entropy can never decrease in a system. I made the argument that even if you want to use the energy of the sun to explain why life is becoming more complex, you haven't explained the information that makes that possible. More energy does not equal more order. I also don't know why you keep bringing up articles from the institution of creation research and expect me to defend them. I am more than willing to admit that there are some terrible theories by creationists out there, just as there are terrible theories by secular scientists.

For myself, I am only a materialist because there isn’t any demonstrable, non-anecdotal, reproducible evidence for the existence of anything non-material. I hope you can understand that. There is the appearance of design and there is DNA, and we don’t know how everything got started but that’s not good enough for me to believe that it was designed, I need something more concrete because that is the criteria for which I will justify something as believable. I’d be very interested in some sort of evidence like that but it hasn’t happened yet and conjecture just doesn’t work for me so I’ll reserve judgment but maintain doubt and that’s all there is to it.

I can understand your position as a materialist, having formally been one. I did not see any evidence for God or spirit either, and it really rocked my world to discover that there was more, and that material reality is only a veil to a larger reality. It is mind blowing to discover that everything that you know is in some way, wrong.

I think there is some very good evidence pointing towards a Creator, but that isn't going to get you there necessarily. It seems to me though, after talking with you a bit, that if there is a God, you would want to know about it. Maybe you're not terribly interested in pursuing the subject at the moment but you now strike me as someone who is open to the truth. If He does exist, would you want to hear from Him? If He let you know, would you follow Him?

On the scope of evidence, I think the two of the most powerful arguments are the information in DNA and the fine-tuning of physical laws. There is no naturalistic process which can produce a code, and that is what DNA is. It is a digital code which stores information and is vastly superior to anything we have ever designed. It is a genetic language which has its own alphabet, grammar, syntax, and meaning. It has redudancy and error correction, and it is an encoding and decoding mechanism to transmit information about an organism. Biologists actually use linguistic analysis to decode its functions. You also have to realize that the message is not the medium. In that, like all information, you can copy the information in DNA to storage device like a hard drive, and then recode it later with no loss in information. This is a pretty good article on the information in DNA:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/language-dna-intelligent-design/

The fine tuning evidence is also very powerfully because it is virtually impossible for the laws to have come about by chance. It's important to understand what fine tuning actually means. I'll quote Dr Craig:

"That the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life is a pretty solidly established fact and ought not to be a subject of controversy. By “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist."

So it's not a question whether the Universe itself is finely tuned for life, it is a question of how it got that way. In actuality, the odds of it happening are far worse than winning the powerball lottery over 100 times in a row. Random chance simply cannot account for it because there are dozens of values that must be precisely calibrated, and the odds for some of these values happening by chance is greater than the number of particles in the Universe! For instance, the space-energy density must be fine tuned to one part in 10 to the 120th power, an inconceivably huge number. That's just one value out of dozens. Many scientists understand this.

Here are some quotes from some agnostic scientists, which a couple of Christians thrown in:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "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 mountains 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."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Just because the universe and life might have the appearance of design doesn’t mean it was designed. After all, we might all be brains in vats being experimented on by hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings and all of this is simply like the matrix. Maybe Déjà vu is evidence that it’s true but there simply isn’t any reason to believe it just like there isn’t any reason to believe in any gods.

But if that were true then the Universe is designed, and this is simply some kind of computer program. In any case, although we could imagine many scenerios I am talking about something very specific; That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He rose from the dead. Moreover, that you can know Him personally, today.

All of the concepts of god and gods have been moved back every time we discover naturalistic explanations where once those gods were accredited. What makes you think that it’s any different with these things? Just because we don’t know what’s behind the veil doesn’t mean that the idea of someone pulling the levers is a better explanation than a currently unknown natural, non-agency explanation. If we don’t know, then we don’t know and putting a god in the place of “we don’t know” isn't a good way of helping us learn more about our universe

The primary question is whether the Universe has an intelligent causation. You believe that Universes, especially precisely calibrated and well-ordered ones just happen by themselves. I happen to think that this is implausible to say the least. You're acting like it's not a valid question, and because we can describe some of the mechanisms we see that we can rule out an intelligent cause, which is simply untrue. You could describe every single mechanism there is in the Universe, but until you explain how it got here, you haven't explained anything. The real question is not how they work but why they work and that question can only be answered by answering why they exist in the first place.

It is also just a fallacy to say that because some peoples beliefs about God have been proven false, that means all beliefs about God are false. Scientists used to believe that there were only seven planets and that the Earth was flat. Does that mean that all ideas scientists have are false? No, and neither does it mean that all beliefs about God are false because people have had ridiculous beliefs about God.

The God I believe in is not ridiculous, and the belief in His existence has led to ideas that formed western civilization and propelled modern science itself. The idea that we can suss out Universal laws by investigating secondary causes is a Christian one, that came from the belief that God created an orderly Universe based on laws.

It is also not a brake to doing science to believe that God created the Universe. Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived believed in God. People like Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Max Planck, Mendel and Einstein. It certainly didn't stop them from doing great science.

Also, as I have explained, it is not a God of the gaps argument when God is a better explanation for the evidence.

We know that the universe, space-time, matter had a finite beginning but we can’t say anything at all about that beginning with any certainty. We can’t even say that whatever was that caused the universe is spaceless, or timeless. We just don’t know. This is the god of the gaps argument that started this whole thing. You’re putting a god in as the explanation for what is effectively a gap in our knowledge without anything solid to go off of. It would not be a god of the gaps argument if we eventually could know with a high degree of certainty that there is a god there fiddling with the controls but we don’t. That is the crux of this whole debate. That is why “I don’t know” is a better answer than “A god did it” because it’s absolutely verifiably true where as a god is not.

The ultimate cause of the Universe must be timeless because it must be beginningless, according to logic. I'll explain. You cannot get something from nothing, I think we both agree on that. So if the Universe has a cause, it must be an eternal cause, since you cannot have an infinite regress of causes for the Universe. The buck has to stop somewhere. This points to an eternal first cause, which means that cause is timeless. If it is timeless it is also changeless because change is a property of time. If it is changeless it is also spaceless, because anything which exists in space must be temporal, since it is always finitely changing relation to the things around it. It's timelessness and spacelessness makes it immaterial, and this also makes it transcendent. I think it is obvious that whatever created the Universe must be unimaginably powerful. So we have something which already closely describes the God of the bible, and we can deduct these things by using logic alone.

We just don’t know if the universe is entirely regressable into some sort of endless loop which folds in on itself, or something else, or even if there is a god or not. Furthermore, I hope you look into what physicist mean by “out of nothing” because it doesn’t mean what I think you think it means. It took me a while to understand what it meant and to be honest, it is a bit of a deceptive word play but it’s only that way because there isn’t another way to describe it. I don't actually believe that the universe came from "nothing". I don't know how it all started, so therefore, I have no belief. I don't need an answer to the big questions. I can say "I don't know" just fine and leave it at that.

“A proponent of the Big Bang Theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing.” Anthony Kenny

British physicist P.C.W. Davies writes, “The coming-into-being of the universe as discussed in modern science…is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization or structure upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing.”

Physicist Victor Stenger says “the universe exploded out of nothingness the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. its then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

I think we can both agree that it is better to know than not to know. That's been one of your primary arguments against the existence of God, that we simply cannot rest of the laurels of God being the Creator because that will lead to ignorance. I have already demonstrated that there is no actual conflict with belief in God and doing good science, so your argument is invalid, but I think it's ironic that on the other side of it, you are arguing that ignorance is a good thing and leads to better science. That you're even intellectually satisified with not knowing. I hope you can see the contradiction here.

The reason why I personally don’t find the whole god argument all that interesting, and the reason why I don’t actually care about it, is because it makes a heck of a lot of claims regarding the nature of god and it’s properties which just can’t be verified. There is nothing that we can concretely discover about god and no predictions that we can make which could eventually be verified meaningfully. How can we possibly know if creator is timeless, or spaceless, unimaginably powerful, transcendent, unembodied, etc? Is it rational to believe that; do you have an equal ratio of evidence to belief? What predictions can we actually make about this god(s). All we have are books and stories written and passed down throughout history. Everything else is just unjustified belief to me.

As I explained above, we can make several predictions about God based on the evidence. Belief in God is rational and can be justified. However, I understand that until you have a personal experience, it is probably going to be unconvincing to you, since this is way you see the world. You demand evidence, and lucky for you, God provides evidence. If you asked Him to come into your life, He would demonstrate it to you. He provided evidence to me, and I know you He will provide to you, especially if you take a leap of faith ask Him for it.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

@ZappaDanMan

Arise, dead videos, arise! ZappaDanMan commands it.... often enough to earn a badge.

Congrats!

You're right, I am making an argument about you. This has always been about you. I don't care about the whole god argument, I care about why you believe what you believe and that is what I'm talking about. I could care less about what you believe, the 'why' is far more significant.

It took you an hour to throw all of those quotes together to make a case. Based on that, do you really expect me to believe that you're not just quote mining from some general creationist website somewhere? Do you really expect me to believe that you've actually studied the subjects that you're presenting as evidence for your claims? You are by definition, cherry picking. You are not taking into account the whole of scientific findings, you are ignoring the information which dis-confirms your existing views, and you are unknowingly misrepresenting the facts. If you were well read on any of the subjects of physics or evolutionary biology then you'd completely understand where I'm coming from.

You are trying to make a case for the existence of a god but the only thing that you can say about this god that you believe in is that it basically follows the christian mythos.

"The God I believe in is a personal God who created us for a purpose. His desire is for us to know Him personally and attain to eternal life through His Son Jesus Christ. I believe He is the true God because He transformed my life and being, made me whole by His love, and because I received the direct witness of the Holy Spirit. Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ will receive the witness of the Holy Spirit and then Gods existence will become undeniably true. God Himself provides the evidence if you approach Him in faith."

That's you, you said that. Why do you believe those things? Are you willing to attempt to prove yourself wrong? Are you willing to work to subdue cognitive biases in order to be as certain as you can be that you aren't mistaken? How can you say that your god is the correct one and all of the rest are incorrect? How can you justify a jump from the idea that we don't understand entirely how a system works to, there must be agency behind it? That is exactly what you are asking everyone to do. That is a huge leap and it does not directly follow. Extraordinary claims such as a personal god, require extraordinary evidence. You can't simply suggest that because we don't understand something that there must be agency there, that is not how logic works nor science. You can say nothing about the true nature of something if it requires faith in order to have evidence.

The thing is, I am in doubt about you. I am in doubt about your sincerity for meaningful investigations into reality. I am in doubt that you have actually read any scientific material in their entirety. I am in doubt that you value critical thinking. I am in doubt that you understand what a logical fallacy is or how they work. I am in doubt that you are doing anything more than attempting to justify a belief that you already hold by attempting to give legitimacy in the face of dissonance.

This was always about you. Your belief is based on quotes taken out of context and stitched together to weave a picture that conforms to what you already believe in while ignoring all of the information that doesn't agree with you. This is called a confirmation bias. You wont know how unconvincing your statements and claims are until you get past that kind of bias and seek to prove what you believe wrong to see if it actually holds water.

Seek to prove your beliefs wrong before convince yourself that you are correct.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I said that God doesn’t exist? Oh yeah? Where exactly did I say that? The last time I checked, saying that I reject an idea isn’t the same as saying that the idea isn’t true. Get your facts straight.
You obviously don't think it is true if you reject it. I don't reject ideas I think are correct. What exactly is your position?
Saying “god did it” doesn’t answer anything. It doesn’t answer any question about mechanism and until someone can come up with a testable model of how god interacts with the universe which we can then make accurate predictions with, it’s a useless and meaningless statement. It doesn’t help us expand the frontiers of our understanding of reality.
The fact of the matter is that it is you who is fundamentally uneducated in everything that you mentioned and that is made obvious by your inability to form your own arguments; you’re just cherry picking quotes that support you’re cognitive bias.
You realize that your entire reply could be summed up thusly "nu uh". Just stating that you're right and I am wrong doesn't advance your argument. You don't even have an argument. Everything you've said here is logically fallacious. If you think what I've said is wrong, or cherry picked, address it directly and demonstrate why. I don't think you really understand the subject matter which is why you're trying to make the argument about me instead.
I love it when people like you pull out the second law of thermodynamics card because I know that you can’t name or explain the rest of the laws of thermodynamics without copy and pasting them from Google search. Life isn’t a closed system and the second law of thermodynamics only deals with closed systems. The 2nd law has nothing to do with anything biology or the existence of complex organisms, get your facts straight. If you had any respect for truth, you wouldn’t be making so many entirely misinformed and uneducated statements.
And this is why I don't think you understand the subject matter, because your statement that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to biological systems shows a total lack of research.
John Ross, Harvard University, Chemical And Engineering News, p.40 July 7, 1980, "Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."
Arnold Sommerfel, "...the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not." Thermodynamics And Statistical Mechanics, p.155
There is no such thing as negative entropy. Everything is always trending towards disorder.
The 2nd law equally applies to living systems:
Harold Blum, Prinston Univ., "No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world." Time's Arrow and Evolution, p.14
Everything is technically an open system in nature.
Richard Morris, "An isolated system is one that does not interact with its surroundings. Naturally there are no completely isolated systems in nature. Everything interacts with its environment to some extent. Nevertheless, the concept, like many other abstractions that are used in physics, is extremely useful. If we are able to understand the behavior in ideal cases, we can gain a great deal of understanding about processes that take place in the real world In fact treating a real system as an isolated one is often an excellent approximation.", Time's Arrows, p.113
The argument is that the energy of the sun is what is overcoming the entropy, but that doesn't explain information. Just putting power into something does not magically create organization:
George Gaylord Simpson & W.S. Beck, "But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.", An Introduction To Biology, p. 466
But there is no mechanism for information to spontaneously arise by itself, overcoming entropy in the system, and we know information comes from minds.
Charles J. Smith, "Biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.
This is why a Creator agrees with the evidence more so than evolution. Was this quote cherry picked?:
G.J. Van Wylen, Richard Sonntag, "...we see the second law of thermodynamics as a description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to our future destiny and that of the universe." Fundamentals Of Classical Thermodynamics, 1985, p.232.
Because I know that none of this is actually going to matter to you, go ahead and enlighten us with more of your church-pamphlet science.
I'm looking forward to your point by point refutation of my argument, with sources. Thanks.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr

I said that God doesn’t exist? Oh yeah? Where exactly did I say that? The last time I checked, saying that I reject an idea isn’t the same as saying that the idea isn’t true. Get your facts straight.

You obviously don't think it is true if you reject it. I don't reject ideas I think are correct. What exactly is your position?

Saying “god did it” doesn’t answer anything. It doesn’t answer any question about mechanism and until someone can come up with a testable model of how god interacts with the universe which we can then make accurate predictions with, it’s a useless and meaningless statement. It doesn’t help us expand the frontiers of our understanding of reality.

The fact of the matter is that it is you who is fundamentally uneducated in everything that you mentioned and that is made obvious by your inability to form your own arguments; you’re just cherry picking quotes that support you’re cognitive bias.

You realize that your entire reply could be summed up thusly "nu uh". Just stating that you're right and I am wrong doesn't advance your argument. You don't even have an argument. Everything you've said here is logically fallacious. If you think what I've said is wrong, or cherry picked, address it directly and demonstrate why. I don't think you really understand the subject matter which is why you're trying to make the argument about me instead.

I love it when people like you pull out the second law of thermodynamics card because I know that you can’t name or explain the rest of the laws of thermodynamics without copy and pasting them from Google search. Life isn’t a closed system and the second law of thermodynamics only deals with closed systems. The 2nd law has nothing to do with anything biology or the existence of complex organisms, get your facts straight. If you had any respect for truth, you wouldn’t be making so many entirely misinformed and uneducated statements.

And this is why I don't think you understand the subject matter, because your statement that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to biological systems shows a total lack of research.

John Ross, Harvard University, Chemical And Engineering News, p.40 July 7, 1980, "Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."

Arnold Sommerfel, "...the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not." Thermodynamics And Statistical Mechanics, p.155

There is no such thing as negative entropy. Everything is always trending towards disorder.

The 2nd law equally applies to living systems:

Harold Blum, Prinston Univ., "No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world." Time's Arrow and Evolution, p.14

Everything is technically an open system in nature.

Richard Morris, "An isolated system is one that does not interact with its surroundings. Naturally there are no completely isolated systems in nature. Everything interacts with its environment to some extent. Nevertheless, the concept, like many other abstractions that are used in physics, is extremely useful. If we are able to understand the behavior in ideal cases, we can gain a great deal of understanding about processes that take place in the real world In fact treating a real system as an isolated one is often an excellent approximation.", Time's Arrows, p.113

The argument is that the energy of the sun is what is overcoming the entropy, but that doesn't explain information. Just putting power into something does not magically create organization:

George Gaylord Simpson & W.S. Beck, "But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.", An Introduction To Biology, p. 466

But there is no mechanism for information to spontaneously arise by itself, overcoming entropy in the system, and we know information comes from minds.

Charles J. Smith, "Biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.

This is why a Creator agrees with the evidence more so than evolution. Was this quote cherry picked?:

G.J. Van Wylen, Richard Sonntag, "...we see the second law of thermodynamics as a description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to our future destiny and that of the universe." Fundamentals Of Classical Thermodynamics, 1985, p.232.

Because I know that none of this is actually going to matter to you, go ahead and enlighten us with more of your church-pamphlet science.

I'm looking forward to your point by point refutation of my argument, with sources. Thanks.



>> ^IAmTheBlurr

What you're seeing today is an apostate church that has been infilitrated by Satan and has strayed far from the will of God. If any real persecution of the church were to arise, we would probably see that more than a few of those who call themselves Christian would no longer do so, because many do not even understand what it means to be a Christian. So, this modern worship you're talking about with rock music and slick multimedia presentations, isn't really worship at all. It certainly isn't glorifying God. It's not all bad but from what I have seen, a lot of it is in a satanic spirit.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Hey shiny, criticalthud beat me to this point, but isn't modern Christian worship pretty much exactly like this video? That's been my experience playing at many churches. Would this be OK if it was in the name of God?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

5th amendment
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


Fixed for you

5th amendment

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It's refreshing to see someone else around here that can recognize that it isn't specifically religion to blame but rather the people that hide behind religion as an excuse to be assholes. There isn't anything inherently wrong with being a christian or the christian religion, the problem arises when people use religion of any kind as a pedestal and twist it how they see fit to push their agendas.


>> ^Quboid:

I really shouldn't feed the troll (and I'm increasingly thinking shinyblurry is a clued up troll because it's getting harder and harder to believe that he thinks that he is making Christianity look good), but here we go. This is what the Christian right make of freedom - it's freedom to do what they want, to say what they want. Not other people.
When you try to apply freedom to something they don't want, no no no, that's not on. You can be free to be a homophobe, or whatever they call it - something about trying to save souls, by subjecting homosexuals to mental bullying (while claiming the physical bullying is completely different). But you're not free to be homosexual, because the Bible makes some vague comments about that being bad. The Bible also says some other stuff is bad and some weird stuff is fine, but it seems you're free to ignore some of that without being a massive, massive hypocrite.
This isn't the whole right wing. I respect Dr. Ron Paul; although I don't agree with his economic policies, he understands that freedom means other people might be free to do things that, gasp, he doesn't like. Also, this isn't a rant against what Christianity is supposed to be, or those Christians who follow that. It's a rant about the Christian right, the fundamentalist, hate filled bigots and the politicians that either fall into this group, or use this group to further their careers.
The Christian Right is neither Christian, nor right.