For newbies....

[Freodin]

First, an apology. This post is likely to be biased in favour of Evolution Theory, or mainstream science in general, but, as a rule of thumb, it really aplies to "creationists" more than "evolutionists".
I will thus keep my argumentation aimed towards you creationists, but evolotinists are invited to read, and heed this advice.


When you come here for the first time, you might be filled with a fervor to spread this new and fascinating thing you have just discovered. You want to tell all the world "THE TRUTH (TM)"!

Perhaps you have just come from a website where it was "scientifically proven" that the world is only 6000 years old.

Or you just read a book where it was explained exactly how the plants could grow on the second day of creation without sunlight.

You have found "proof" againts those evil god-haters, who propose some views that cannot agree with God´s word - and you want to share it.


Well, consider that many of us have been here - and in other related discussions for a while. We know many of the arguments that are presented as "new" and "undisputable".

We know about Dr.Dino/Kent Hovind and his 250,000$ offer, AIG, the Paluxy tracks and polonium halos.

We have debated that and countless other things many times before.

Many are not convinced, many questions are still open - but the debate does already exist.


So, if you come here, and post for the first time, please ASK about a certain topic.

Provide informations that you think are relevant and ASK "So, what do you think? Is this not a proof against (whatever)?"

If you come here, certain of your imminent and glorious victory, with an argument that has been debated, and at least for some of us, completely disproofed twenty years ago - people will react, err, impatient.

An argument may be new for you, but nor for others. Be polite.


So, why do I only bash creationists now, and leave evolutionists unharmed?

I do not.

As has been shown be persistent questioning, it is very difficult to find some positive evidence FOR creationism.

It simply happens more often that people find some new (hypothetical) piece in the puzzle of life than people find things like dinosaur tracks over human footprints, the Ark of Covenant or a working theory for the accleration of the speed of light.

If you think you have found something new - whereever it comes from - post it. But please be open-minded.

Don´t act as if you had just found the hammer to smash the satanistic evolutionists or deluded creationists.

 

[Melchior]

Bump

 

[OldBadfish]

Of course there's more *evidence* for evolution, mankind, especially evolutionary scientists can only test and theorize about known materials and findings, they are not looking for answers in the spiritual realm, they are relying solely on what they can find and what is testable from materials found on earth.

Many scientists are considering the fact of intelligent design and spontaneous creation.

Well they are. Many are wising up and realizing the roadblocks that evolution theories present, are unanswerable in scientific terms.

I know, I'm not a newbie, I'm and oldbie, but I thought I would try to square up the bias.

But we all know what I said is true, it has been said already.

Nobody has physical *proof* of anything concerning our existence.

 

[Arikay]

Many are wising up and realizing the roadblocks that evolution theories present

isnt this a myth?

Can you show us any biologists that are wising up and realizing the roadblocks that the theory of evolution presents?

 

[OldBadfish]

I could, and have before, but no one considers.

I just thought I'd fire up the thread a little.

Well ok, I'll add something about The First Law of Thermodynamics. The Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy

The first law has been defined as follows: When a closed system is altered adiabatically, the total work associated with the change of state is the same for all possible processes between the two given equilibrium states.

A more succinct and comprehensible definition might be something like this: Matter/energy may be altered (converted), but not created from nothingness nor destroyed or reduced to nothingness. The First Law teaches that matter/energy cannot spring forth from nothing without cause, nor can it simply vanish.

So where did something come from nothing? Realistically evolutionary theories cannot answer this, actually nobody can.

Of course then we could get into Entropy. Maybe I'll make an Entropy thread. But I don't want to ruin a good thread.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Badfish,

I see you are still using that out of context quote from Carl Sagan for your signature.  Here's the rest of the quote again.

The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament).

Sagan is saying something rather different than your partial quote implies. I bolded just part of it so that you might get the message more clearly this time.  In my opinion using a deliberately deceptive partial quote for your signature does not speak well for your credibility, especially since it was already pointed out to you.

I am still waiting to see a creationist actually quote a scientist in context but I won't hold my breath. 

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

 

[OldBadfish]

The Law of Entropy (disorder) demands that we view the universe as "devolving" not "evolving."

In combination with the First Law of Thermodynamics the Second Law (Entropy) demands that the universe was most complex and orderly when it first came into existence.

Models for the origin of the universe need to incorporate this fundamental fact to be scientifically credible.

If we can find out how the Universe sprang from nothing, then we will know how life began, maybe.

 

[OldBadfish]

Today at 07:26 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #6

Badfish,

I see you are still using that out of context quote from Carl Sagan for your signature.  Here's the rest of the quote again.

The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament).

Sagan is saying something rather different than your partial quote implies. I bolded just part of it so that you might get the message more clearly this time.  In my opinion using a deliberately deceptive partial quote for your signature does not speak well for your credibility, especially since it was already pointed out to you.

I am still waiting to see a creationist actually quote a scientist in context but I won't hold my breath. 

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

So instead of giving a viable explaination as to how something came from nothing, your more worried abot my Sagan quote?

Alllright I think enough Sagan supporters have said enough, I'll remove it, but I'll be on the watch for any out of context biblical quotes, mmmmmkay?

Oh and BTW, I know exactly what the book Cosmos says, I have read it, it's quite interesting.

You guys are funny. hehe

 

[Arikay]

Hmmmm. You havent answered my question.

Yes Please start a new thread on the laws of thermodynamics.
So far in this one you have missunderstood the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics.

So I would say start another thread as to not muddle this one.

 

[OldBadfish]

There feel better?? Poor Sagan getting quoted out of context. Even though the whole quote is based upon assumptions, speculation and opinion.

I can find many scientists that concede to reality and quote them, I will look.

 

[Arikay]

Not just scientists. Biologists.

Evolution is biology. so I want to see recent biologists who have seen the light and who now dont believe in evolution.

Today at 07:39 PM Badfish said this in Post #10

There feel better?? Poor Sagan getting quoted out of context. Even though the whole quote is based upon assumptions, speculation and opinion.

I can find many scientists that concede to reality and quote them, I will look.

 

[OldBadfish]

Today at 07:38 PM Arikay said this in Post #9

Hmmmm. You havent answered my question.

Yes Please start a new thread on the laws of thermodynamics.
So far in this one you have missunderstood the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics.

So I would say start another thread as to not muddle this one.

I misunderstood the second law of Thermodynamics? I don't think so.

I am aware of the theory of evolution, but it is a fruitless debate and don't really care to debate it.

I don't care to look for biologists who know about the obvious roadblocks that every person knows about.

Why don't you show how something can come from nothing?

I'll start a thread, and don't beat me to it, I'll do it in a little while.

 

[notto]

Today at 02:57 AM Badfish said this in Post #3

Many scientists are considering the fact of intelligent design and spontaneous creation.

How many of them are named Steve?

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Oh and BTW, I know exactly what the book Cosmos says, I have read it, it's quite interesting.

So you knew all along that you were misrpresenting what Sagan said. I thought you would rather admit to ignorance than dishonesty and was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Dishonesty it is then.  Thanks for clearing that up.

 
The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Arikay]

Why don't you show how something can come from nothing?

You do realize this has nothing to do with evolution, right? Its about a completly difrferent theory. (or not covered in science at all, depending on how you look at it).

Today at 07:43 PM Badfish said this in Post #12



I misunderstood the second law of Thermodynamics? I don't think so.

I am aware of the theory of evolution, but it is a fruitless debate and don't really care to debate it.

I don't care to look for biologists who know about the obvious roadblocks that every person knows about.

Why don't you show how something can come from nothing?

I'll start a thread, and don't beat me to it, I'll do it in a little while.

 

[Arikay]

I don't care to look for biologists who know about the obvious roadblocks that every person knows about.

so I would assume you are backing out of your claim that you will find people who know about evolution (biologists) that now support creationism?

I dont know about any road blocks against the theory of evolution. Maybe start a thread about them too.

(again, remember, what evolution is, and what it isnt. Like evolution has nothing to do with the begining of the universe, etc.)

Today at 07:43 PM Badfish said this in Post #12



I misunderstood the second law of Thermodynamics? I don't think so.

I am aware of the theory of evolution, but it is a fruitless debate and don't really care to debate it.

I don't care to look for biologists who know about the obvious roadblocks that every person knows about.

Why don't you show how something can come from nothing?

I'll start a thread, and don't beat me to it, I'll do it in a little while.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Badfish wrote 

The Law of Entropy (disorder) demands that we view the universe as "devolving" not "evolving."

There is no "law of entropy" but I assume you mean the second law of thermodynamics. There are several ways to state the second law. The one that I think is relevant here is that no process can exist with the sole effect of transfering heat from a cooler body to a hotter body.  Since the universe is theorized to have been hundreds of billion or even a few trillions of degrees at the instant of the big bang it would seem that the second law is not violated in subsequent processes. The cooling  to the 2.7 K microwave backgound results in tremendous entropy production.  The entropy of the universe has increased since the moment of the big bang as required by the second law. This is a bit oversimplified but the thermodynamics of the big bang are more than a little hairy. Here is one of least difficult presentations I have found.

http://astro.uni-tuebingen.de/~wilms/teach/cosmo/cosmochap7.pdf

You can find the entropy expression on page 9. 

Did you really think that the physicists working on the big bang had never thought of the second law? Here is another reference on big bang thermodynamics.

http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~mjhudson/teaching/phys787/chapter04.pdf

Here's an abstract describing a recent approach using a statistical fluctuation in a generalized Dirac sea as the source of the big bang.  It didn't necessarily come from nothing. It may have come from something we don't quite understand yet and may never quite understand.
http://lbl.confex.com/lbl/2001/program/abstract_1584.htm

If it is the result of a massive statistical fluctuation, who is to say that God did not initiate it?  On the other hand maybe our universe is just one of those things that pops up from time to time.


The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

 

[OldBadfish]

Today at 08:04 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #14



So you knew all along that you were misrpresenting what Sagan said. I thought you would rather admit to ignorance than dishonesty and was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Dishonesty it is then.  Thanks for clearing that up.

 
The Frumious Bandersnatch

I wouldn't say dishonesty, as his quote is semi coloned, indicating a seperate statement followed by qualifying statements.

 

[OldBadfish]

Today at 08:20 PM Arikay said this in Post #16

I don't care to look for biologists who know about the obvious roadblocks that every person knows about.

so I would assume you are backing out of your claim that you will find people who know about evolution (biologists) that now support creationism?

I dont know about any road blocks against the theory of evolution. Maybe start a thread about them too.

(again, remember, what evolution is, and what it isnt. Like evolution has nothing to do with the begining of the universe, etc.)

I said I'll look, but what difference does it make? There are many evolutionists turned creationists and visa versa.

I don't have to backout, I could search the web and come up with something, but who really cares?

Unlocking the origins of the Universe would most likely open up many windows into our existence, which very much affects the theory of evolution BTW.

 

[Cantuar]

So where did something come from nothing? Realistically evolutionary theories cannot answer this, actually nobody can.

Well, fiat creation ex nihilo certainly can't.

Exactly what the "something from nothing" aspect of the first law has to do with evolution is anybody's guess. However, if it's true that the universe started at a singularity, then the laws of nature don't apply till after the start. In which case the attempt to apply the first law to the singularity is meaningless.