As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[KWCrazy]

1. the third law is about low tempuratures, not about "nothingness".

Specifically, the third law is about absolute zero; the complete absence of any heat producing material. The laws of thermodynamics apply to physical things in our universe. They are a statement of the characteristics of matter. They weren't written by man after the fact.

Physics breaks down at T = 0.
Physics is a model that deals with how stuff works IN space-time.
When there is no space-time, there also isn't any physics of space-time.

Nor will there be, because the laws which govern characteristics of matter preclude its auto-origination.

I wasn't aware that 7th graders (or the teachers of 7th grade) had knowledge that even the most outstanding physicists of this world don't have.

The most educated man in Hell is still a fool.
Science is the study of the physical world around us. It can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural.
By definition, supernatural happenings cannot be explained within the science of the natural world.
Fortunately, God's existence cannot be proven to you. If that were the case, you would have NO chance of going to Heaven. Faith is the belief in things unproven, and faith is the only way to the kingdom of Heaven. However, every single Christian knows that the supernatural world is forever. The physical world is just a temporary construct.



Please share this evidence of the supernatural.[/QUOTE]

 

[tas8831]

Perhaps we should throw out the laws of thermodynamics because they are inconvenient.
The third law tells us that in the absence of anything ; absolute zero; there is no activity. It also tells us that matter cannot created. Thus, something cannot arise from nothing.

Unless of course you want to reject the laws of physics.

So how did Yahweh do it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Specifically, the third law is about absolute zero;

About absolute zero tempurature
Not about absolute zero "anything".

The laws of thermodynamics apply to physical things in our universe.

IN our universe, yes.
What makes you think you can just extrapolate them to make any kind of point about a setting where this universe doesn't exist (yet)?

Nor will there be, because the laws which govern characteristics of matter preclude its auto-origination.

That makes no sense.
That's like saying that "before I was conveived, I wasn't aging".

Well, no.... since there was no "I" to age. Not because "I" wasn't subject to the process of aging. Rather because there was no "I" yet to apply that process to.

So therefor, no matter how I came about, "aging" wasn't part of that process.
I don't see how the concept of anything in physics of the universe is any different.

Entropy/thermo dynamics is a mechanism that applies IN the universe. It makes no sense to extrapolate it into a setting where no universe exists (yet).
It could be that you can extrapolate it. But how would you know? You'ld have to have knowledge about the state of things absent the universe. Which you don't.


So, in conclusion: thermodynamics have nothing of value to add to YOUR claim that "science tells us that the origination of anything from nothing is impossible". Because let's not forget, THAT is the claim that this exchange is about. You seem to have scrambled to make it about thermodynamics, and after I pointed out that thermodynamics aren't relevant to this subject, you seem to have gone on the defensive without acknowledging the point being made.

That point being that thermodynamics in fact does NOT tell us AT ALL that your claim about "nothingness" is accurate. So you're back to square one.

So, I'll reiterate my initial objection before you sidetracked it into irrelevant thermodynamics: when did scientists ever get their hands on a "nothing" thaty they could study, to see if anything comes from it or can come from it?

It seems to me that without such a "nothing" available for study, your claim about it can't possibly be shown accurate.

The most educated man in Hell is still a fool.

"Hell"? What are you talking about?

You're the one claiming that 7th graders are taught and know things that even the best theoretical physicists are ignorant off.....

Science is the study of the physical world around us. It can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural.

But you said that there is evidence of the supernatural.....
Are you now saying that such evidence even can't exist?

You're going to have to start making some sense really fast here.......

By definition, supernatural happenings cannot be explained within the science of the natural world.

By the same definition, neither can magical things or impossible things or non-existant things.

So we're still on square one. You said there was evidence. What is that evidence, is the question put to you.....

I'm not asking for your excuses. You said there was evidence. I'm ask for you to share that evidence. Instead, you seem to be only serving me with excuses for why evidence can't exist "by definition"?

Fortunately, God's existence cannot be proven to you

Why is that "fortunate"?
It seems to me that that is rather UNfortunate, no?
I mean, if not believing this god exists is such a big deal, then how could it be "fortunate" that we can't have any rational reasons to believe this god exists?

If that were the case, you would have NO chance of going to Heaven.

So none of the apostles had any chance of going to heaven?
I mean, they supposedly literally stood in God's (Jesus') presence, right?
They supposedly witnessed his divine power first hand in a multitude of ways, right?

I guess they all went to hell then, since they got their proof....

So, tell us all.... why would one go to hell if one would have rational reasons to believe a god exists? God doesn't like rational beliefs? He prefers gullible sheep who believe "just because"?

Sounds exremely immoral and unethical.

Faith is the belief in things unproven, and faith is the only way to the kingdom of Heaven.

So...... you have no evidence, unlike what you claimed previously?
So why did you claim that you had evidence then?

However, every single Christian knows that the supernatural world is forever.

Again with the self-contradictory nonsense....
If they know, then they don't require mere beliefs / faith.

You just said that those who KNOW (instead of just 'believe'), have NO chance of getting into heaven...................................


Make up your mind.

The physical world is just a temporary construct.

Another claim, for which you have provided no evidence at all.



It seems that your unevidenced claims are just piling up... eventhough from the first reply you got from me, I've been trying to reduce them by asking you to support the claims you're making.... Instead of getting that support, all I'm getting is even more bare claims.



Very telling.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So how did Yahweh do it?

The bible says that he just "spoke" things into existance and then they existed and "he saw it was good".


Sounds suspiciously a lot like wizards saying "abracadabra" and then POOF, a rabbit.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"The big bang" happened on day four when the singularity called "light" instantly became the sun, moon and stars.

"instantly", ey?

As a Christian, which is the basis of this thread, I do not reject the word of God and the actual confirmation on a stone tablet by God Himself that in six days He created the universe and all living things within it. Evolution is contrary to the word of God, which makes it by definition false.

When the evidence of reality contradicts a priori faith based beliefs, it's not the evidence of reality that is incorrect.........................

 

[eleos1954]

False.

The only difference between micro and macro is the amount of generations wich amounts to a lot more accumulation of micro changes - simply because there were more generations to pass and add micro changes.

It's the exact same process for both.



Note: your religious mythology has no bearing on any natural sciences.

I acknowledge what we see ... through nature ... and nature shows micro evolution ... after their kind. Where is the evidence of the transitions (in-between stages) that took place over time? If so, there should be millions of them. Where are they?

 

[Speedwell]

I acknowledge what we see ... through nature ... and nature shows micro evolution ... after their kind. Where is the evidence of the transitions (in-between stages) that took place over time? If so, there should be millions of them. Where are they?

In the fossil record.

 

[Speedwell]

Not really. "The big bang" happened on day four when the singularity called "light" instantly became the sun, moon and stars. As a Christian, which is the basis of this thread, I do not reject the word of God and the actual confirmation on a stone tablet by God Himself that in six days He created the universe and all living things within it. Evolution is contrary to the word of God, which makes it by definition false.

Let's see the stone tablet.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I acknowledge what we see ... through nature ... and nature shows micro evolution ... after their kind.

Macro evolution, isn't any different, is what I'm telling you.
You seem to have a mental block on comprehending this.

Let's try with a simple analogy.

Micro distance and macro distance.
Micro distance = taking 1 step forwards. We'll call that 1 generation.
So in 5 generations, you take 5 steps forwards.
In 10.000 generations, you take 10.000 steps forwards.
You now have covered a macro distance.

Did traveling a macro distance require another process then just "taking 1 step"?
Off course it didn't. It's the exact same process of "take a step", just repeating many times. It inevitably ends up in taking many steps and covering macro distances as opposed to the distance covered in only a couple of steps.

Where is the evidence of the transitions (in-between stages) that took place over time? If so, there should be millions of them. Where are they?

Everywhere.
In phylogenetic trees
In comparative anatomy
In biogeography
In the fossil record

Off course, if you are looking for the equivalent of a "crockoduck", then I can only point you towards a few good books where you can go and learn the basics of actual evolutionary biology, instead of the lies you've been fed through creationist propaganda....

 

[eleos1954]

In the fossil record.

Fossil record don't show transitions. Do you have any links to actual photographs (not drawings) of transitions in the fossil record? Everything I've seen myself and found online show fully formed "creatures" and then the evolution explanation/interpretation of such ... uses words like

suggest, likely, similar to, could be considered, theorized

then charts, drawings etc. are added ... where are the actual photographs of the transitions? If true, there should be many many of them.

Also,

Evolution is the supposed process by which the first cell evolved into the diversity of life we see today. Natural selection and mutations are considered its driving force. However, evolution has never been observed and natural selection and mutations cannot add the information necessary to change one kind into another.

Operational, experimental science has never demonstrated life randomly evolving from non-living elements. Such an occurrence would violate the most fundamental observable law of biology: life comes from life, not from non-life.

 

[Jimmy D]

I acknowledge what we see ... through nature ... and nature shows micro evolution ... after their kind. Where is the evidence of the transitions (in-between stages) that took place over time? If so, there should be millions of them. Where are they?

Funnily enough, they're buried in rock, where do you think they are?

Everything I've seen myself and found online show fully formed "creatures"

Yeah, creatures tend to be fully formed.

Fossil record don't show transitions. Do you have any links to actual photographs (not drawings) of transitions in the fossil record?

Are you saying that you've researched transitional fossils online and you've never seen a photo of one? You are either the worse researcher in the world...... or are lying.

Evolution is the supposed process by which the first cell evolved into the diversity of life we see today. Natural selection and mutations are considered its driving force. However, evolution has never been observed and natural selection and mutations cannot add the information necessary to change one kind into another.

Argument from incredulity.... Biologists would disagree.

Operational, experimental science has never demonstrated life randomly evolving from non-living elements. Such an occurrence would violate the most fundamental observable law of biology: life comes from life, not from non-life.

The Theory of evolution deals with life, not the origin of life.

 

[Speedwell]

Fossil record don't show transitions. Do you have any links to actual photographs (not drawings) of transitions in the fossil record? Everything I've seen myself and found online show fully formed "creatures" and then the evolution explanation/interpretation of such ... uses words like

suggest, likely, similar to, could be considered, theorized

then charts, drawings etc. are added ... where are the actual photographs of the transitions? If true, there should be many many of them.

"The Fossil Record" is not a written list, it is a phrase used to mean the entire body of actual fossils which have been discovered and are preserved in collections all over the world. If you live near a university of any size you can go and ask to look at some of them. All of the fossils will be of fully-formed creatures because all creatures are fully formed, even the "transitionals" Indeed, all creatures are transitional, because they are not what their ancestors were nor yet what their descendants will become.

Evolution is the supposed process by which the first cell evolved into the diversity of life we see today. Natural selection and mutations are considered its driving force. However, evolution has never been observed and natural selection and mutations cannot add the information necessary to change one kind into another.

Speciation has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. Is that what you mean by "evolution?"

Operational, experimental science has never demonstrated life randomly evolving from non-living elements.

You're right. Experimental science doesn't even know if it was random.

Such an occurrence would violate the most fundamental observable law of biology: life comes from life, not from non-life.

That's not a law of biology, it's a scurrilous misrepresentation of some of Louis Pasteur's experiments.

 

[eleos1954]

Macro evolution, isn't any different, is what I'm telling you.
You seem to have a mental block on comprehending this.

Well ... we believe differently and there's nothing wrong with that. However since you can't or won't stick with conversation without adding personal derogatory comments, I end the conversation with you here.

 

[tas8831]

Fossil record don't show transitions. Do you have any links to actual photographs (not drawings) of transitions in the fossil record? Everything I've seen myself and found online show fully formed "creatures"

What, exactly, do you expect to see in a fossil?

And can you show us the actual bones of, say, Mark?

 

[Steve Petersen]

A HYPOTHESIS of how live emerged from non-life:

RNA world - Wikipedia

 

[7angels]

referring to post 656

This is just not true. You should learn the basics of how science is done.

this will be the last time I talk about what is or is not a fact or theory. i want a discussion not an argument. the point of a discussion is to see different views. listed below are the definitions of a fact and theory.
theory- a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
fact- a thing that is known or proved to be true.
"he ignores some historical and economic facts"

Citation required.

do your own homework on it. I give you an example and you want references too?

No. Again, please learn the basics of how science is done.

why are you claiming I know nothing and yet you offer nothing in response? it is easy saying I know nothing and then leave it at that without any enlightenment. how am I to figure out it what you say is truth or not. your answer is the way a teenager answers when they cannot explain why. if you are right the tell me why exactly so I understand.

No.

theories become facts when enough evidence is shown to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the theory is true. you say no then explain how theories become facts. atom bombs were a theory until researched in world war 2. space travel theory until it actually happened. neutons law of gravity theory until proven. time travel is a theory until proven successful. so how do you claim that it is wrong thinking?

Whoever told you that this is how science works, was either honestly wrong or just lying.

please explain the truth and enlighten me please.

The age of the earth is not a theory, but a measurement. It's data. Fact, if you will.

no the age of the earth is a theory. no one has proven how old the earth actually is. yes geology allows you to predate to certain time periods but no one has determined an exact date. maybe they never will until either time travel is invented or the Creator tells us.

Just false. Geology as a field, for example, was kickstarted by christians who said out to collect evidence to prove that noah's flood really occured. They ended up demonstrating the exact opposite and created geology as a scientific discipline in the process.

so what you are saying is geology was a theory until it was proven am I correct?

Throughout history, whenever science and religion (any religion) went head to head on a specific point, not once did the religion turn out correct while the science wrong.

are you sure on this point? If I show you one example then does that prove I am right or if not what would it take?


Give me a single example.

ok one example. I will tell you about it but you find the sources because it will help you find other studies to look at too. there was a university study done on 100 Christians and half were spirit filled and the other half non spirit filled over a one month study(if I remember correctly) where those that were spirit filled and spoke in tongues for 1 hour increased their immune systems by 30%. those that didn't speak in tongues received no increase in their immune systems.

if all you are going to do is be negative and argue with me please don't respond. if you want to discuss your ideas vs mine then I am more then happy to engage.

God bless

 

[the iconoclast]

I'm already disappointed that you think that you can keep me happy with promises of great stuff in the future and then taking forever to actually deliver.

Have you thought about a career in politics?

Hey hey kylie

Hahah nice!! Dont worry i once made bugs wait months for a reply. It will be like a surprise!!!

 

[the iconoclast]

To the evidence.
As it stands, there seems to be the exact same kind of evidence for both. And that is "none".

Evidence, is what makes the imaginary distinguishable from the real.



I'm not holding my breath.

Hey hey

I will add this reply to our conversation.

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie

Hahah nice!! Dont worry i once made bugs wait months for a reply. It will be like a surprise!!!

It will be a surprise if you ever do it. Your constant promises while never delivering are growing irritating.

 

[the iconoclast]

It will be a surprise if you ever do it. Your constant promises while never delivering are growing irritating.

Hey hey kylie

I can understand your frustration. Please excuse me, iam in the process but im taking it slowly. I always get back to you sooner or later dont i

Cheers