5 Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer

[In situ]

I do: he's wrong -- again.

Like I said I have really no opinion in this matter.

 

[In situ]

I don't.

Fair enough.

In short, I don't have to justify myself.

You just did now. ;-)

Better yet, I'll take your post with a grain of sand.

Why should you not, or anything else for that matter that is claimed?

 

[In situ]

What does abiogenesis have to do with evolution?

That is a question YEC's cannot answer...

 

[KWCrazy]

That said, quantum mechanic has showed that stuff can be created from nothing...it happens all the time.

Either A: The First Law of Thermodynamics has been repealed and is no longer considered valid, or B: your statement is completely false.

The coupling and uncoupling of subatomic particles so small that gravity offers little or no attraction does not constitute coming into existence and disappearing from existence. Quantum theory is ignorance at best and a bold faced lie at its worst.

Nothing in the real world just appears from nothingness; nor does it happen in the quantum world. Our inability to detect subatomic particles before they bond or unbond has nothing whatever to do with their existence. Further, when these particles are larger the forces of gravity work on them the same way other things in this universe are effected.

Next you'll be explaining how we quantify infinity.

 

[In situ]

Why would an infinite god require attention?

I don't even understand what an infinite god is supposed to represent or mean... does anyone?

 

[In situ]

LoL!Go to the youtube page for this vid

Quite telling yes...and, sadly, quite common as well.

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't even understand what an infinite god is supposed to represent or mean... does anyone?

For the whole Christian god concept to work, they posit a being who has always existed, exists outside of time, and loves you. They don't bother to explain how this is even logical, since they claim that all intelligence requires an intelligent designer. But setting that aside for the moment, it is this concept of an "infinite" being that they are convinced is worthy of worship and tithing.

 

[In situ]

Either A: The First Law of Thermodynamics has been repealed and is no longer considered valid, or B: your statement is completely false.

The coupling and uncoupling of subatomic particles so small that gravity offers little or no attraction does not constitute coming into existence and disappearing from existence. Quantum theory is ignorance at best and a bold faced lie at its worst.

Nothing in the real world just appears from nothingness; nor does it happen in the quantum world. Our inability to detect subatomic particles before they bond or unbond has nothing whatever to do with their existence. Further, when these particles are larger the forces of gravity work on them the same way other things in this universe are effected.

Next you'll be explaining how we quantify infinity.

Any more Red herrings or Straw Mans you like to bring to the table before I respond?

 

[In situ]

For the whole Christian god concept to work, they posit a being who has always existed, exists outside of time, and loves you. They don't bother to explain how this is even logical, since they claim that all intelligence requires an intelligent designer. But setting that aside for the moment, it is this concept of an "infinite" being that they are convinced is worthy of worship and tithing.

But what does that has to do, or how is it related, with concept of infinity? Is 'infinite' a reference to Gods eternal nature? If so, why not say 'eternal' then?

 

[KWCrazy]

But the pyramids are such a ancient marvel and yet the Pharaohs that had them built believed in a after life.

NO! The pyramids are NOT a marvel!
They were supposed to be large, square buildings. However, it was a union job. After every row they moved one less block until they got to the top. Then they put one last block into place and retired with full benefits.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Either A: The First Law of Thermodynamics has been repealed and is no longer considered valid

In a sense, yes. The First Law is generally perfectly valid for macroscopic thermodynamical systems, but if you want to take it to the quantum level... well, it fails. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle allows the energy of quantum systems to fluctuate, rather than remain absolutely constant. This can be seen experimentally in phenomena like quantum tunnelling.

And despite your baseless denials, virtual particles do indeed appear 'out of nothing' with no material cause. They 'borrow' some energy from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, come into existence for a short time, and then go back to the nothing from whence they came. Though we call them virtual particles, they are very real, and produce real measureable effects.

 

[Herman Hedning]

NO! The pyramids are NOT a marvel!
They were supposed to be large, square buildings. However, it was a union job. After every row they moved one less block until they got to the top. Then they put one last block into place and retired with full benefits.

How is that not a marvel? Seeing that the union was all powerful even that long ago. 0:30 in this clip is a somewhat relevant - also I just like Woody Guthrie Woody Guthrie - Biggest Thing Man Has Ever Done - YouTube

 

[KWCrazy]

Any more Red herrings or Straw Mans you like to bring to the table before I respond?

You're the one denying the laws of physics, not I.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're the one denying the laws of physics, not I.

So says the person who claims that the universe was created from nothing by a supernatural deity.

 

[Loudmouth]

If an evolutionist can not tell us where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, does this mean that God made Jimmy Hoffa disappear?

 

[KWCrazy]

In a sense, yes. The First Law is generally perfectly valid for macroscopic thermodynamical systems, but if you want to take it to the quantum level... well, it fails.

Nobody disputes that matter/ energy are convertible to each other. The first law provides for that. Subatomic particles may in fact become too small to have weight or occupy space, but the energy remains. Whether they observable ot not has no bearing on their exiistance.

The big lie comes when people attempt to claim that these particles which can neither be created nor destroyed give credence that a much larger entity; such as an entire universe; could just as easily pop into existance. This nonsense imagines an enormous spontaneous creation of energy and matter coming from no source whatever and popping into existance.

 

[In situ]

In a sense, yes.

He is not right in any sense whatsoever - macro or micro perspective - he just makes stuff up based on the classical scripted YEC responses. There is no deeper understanding of physics theory behind what was said, nor any deeper thought process behind it which consider what we actually do know from experimental physics. It is an automated response only. Compare it with Pavlov's dogs if you like.

But don't worry, my bulldozer is fueled and ready, just want to know if KWCrazy has anything more to bring to the table before I start my rant.

 

[KWCrazy]

And despite your baseless denials, virtual particles do indeed appear 'out of nothing' with no material cause.

Q. Why did you use quotation marks? A. Because I'm right and you know it. As the first law holds, energy and matter are convertible. Something "Popping into existence" from "borrowed" energy does nothing but prove the law, not disprove it. Matter and energy are convertible. So when you say that something ops into existence from nothingness, you yourself know that is not correct. If it's physical, it has to have a source. That's the law.

 

[KWCrazy]

How is that not a marvel? Seeing that the union was all powerful even that long ago. 0:30 in this clip is a somewhat relevant - also I just like Woody Guthrie Woody Guthrie - Biggest Thing Man Has Ever Done - YouTube

Woody Guthrie was THERE!!!

 

[KWCrazy]

So says the person who claims that the universe was created from nothing by a supernatural deity.

Since the creation of matter/ energy from nothingness is a scientific impossibility, since the increasing entropy of matter contraindicates the perpetuity of matter, since our very existence validates that we were created at some point, and since there exists no mechanism for a natural origination, the only logical explanation is a supernatural creation. Otherwise you're seen to believe in that which you know to be impossible, which makes you look kind of strange.