• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by True_Blue, Jun 25, 2008.

  1. mpok1519

    mpok1519 Veteran

    +311
    Christian
    Single
    you cant prove God's existence.

    everyone knows this.

    no science would ever degrade itself to superstition to fulfilling this crusade to prove His existence.
     
  2. True_Blue

    True_Blue Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

    +53
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    That's precisely right. The reason God does not display himself to us in his full glory is because if he did so, we would be unable to choose to love him. To be in the presence of God is to become utterly overwhelmed. Character is measured by a person's response to adversity. One cannot unconditionally love someone if that choice were incredibly easy. Both adversity and choice are required for us to truly love God. God created us so that we could love him. We're not dolls that squeal, "I love you" when God pulls our string. He wants us to tell him that we love hiim out of our own free will. Jesus emptied himself of all his divinity, except his infinite capacity to love, by becoming a person and allowing us to choose to follow him or not. For that reason, God cannot be absolutely 100% proven, but we can come pretty darn close (99.x percent). Crossing that remaining fraction of 1% requires faith, and a tiny amount of faith is required to enjoy companionship with God.

    Nonlinearity proves God's existence because if you take rates of decay of certain things, like the magnetic field, and show non-linear decay rates, it shows that the earth is young, and a young earth tends to validate the Bible and the account of creation. The magnetic field is decaying nonlinearly, losing half its total strength every 1400 years. If you run the clock back 1,000,000 years, its strength would begin to approximate the sun's magnetic field, and would be grossly disproportionate to the physical size of Earth. You can read more about this Creationist theory here. The source addresses all the common evolutionist rebuttals as well. If the magnetic field is caused by the dynamo effect generated by convection in the mantle, the dynamo effect does not help evolutionists because friction is also nonlinear. "Mantle convection has been slowing down." http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1991/6/91.06.04.x.html#c.
     
  3. Kyrisch

    Kyrisch This Statement Is False

    135
    +8
    Seeker
    In Relationship
    Except that genetic replication occurs spontaneously, and can be reproduced in a laboratory. Scientists are thoroughly competent regarding the means of this replication, and the model works perfectly without divine intervention.

    If the point of this thread was to falsify an assertion that can be disproven every time one of your cells undergoes mitosis, you're gonna have a tough time.
     
  4. us38

    us38 im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities

    661
    +35
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Mutations. Not entropy.

    Then your memory is really bad, or you're lying (neither would surprise me). You claimed that a constant friction force resulted in a nonlinear decay of velocity. You then posted some wholly irrelevant links, and I posted the math that proved that a constant friction force results in a linear decay in veloicty. You then quoted that post, cut out the part that showed you were wrong, then claimed we were in agreement. I can go and dig up the posts, if you like, because they are still there.

    Remember: this isn't a court. You can't bluff about what has happened in the topic.
     
  5. True_Blue

    True_Blue Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

    +53
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    If you're referring to the study previously posted, in that instance, they inserted a large piece of DNA into a yeast cell, which did the actual work of replication. And even disregarding the use of the pre-existing living organism, the creative, artificial construction of DNA by an intelligent human scientist does not prove that unintelligent chance and unintelligent chemistry can create life. And building a DNA strand is a far cry from building a living organism. I don't believe the human race will ever succeed in such a feat, according to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. As life forms ourselves, we can only create things less complex than ourselves, which I believe will forever bar us from synthesizing a living thing from stratch. An animate Frankenstein's Monster or living cell is forever outside the capacity of the human mind, in my opinion, and that obviously makes it outside the capacity of chance and chemistry.
     
  6. Kyrisch

    Kyrisch This Statement Is False

    135
    +8
    Seeker
    In Relationship
    DNA is not the only type of genetic material and was NOT the genetic material of the first cell-like things. RNA and the like is basically one half of the double helix and because of its open nature, replicates easily and spontaneously.
     
  7. mpok1519

    mpok1519 Veteran

    +311
    Christian
    Single
    true blue>> i dont think science can explain 99.x% of God. Faith can explain 100%, however.

    which is why I have a problem with the title of this thread. "Proof of God." when its not proof.

    And proof means faith cannot exist; faith relies on the unknown. Faith relies on the unknown, and the unknown is closer to 100% than 99.x%
     
  8. us38

    us38 im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities

    661
    +35
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    You really, really need to stop making stuff up. Goedel's incompleteness theorem is a purely mathematical concept, and does not dictate what we can physically do.

    Well, that's your opinion. Reality is not known to bow to our opinions, and they don't make particularly good arguments.
     
  9. Psudopod

    Psudopod Godspeed, Spacebat

    +159
    Other Religion
    In Relationship
    I wasn't taking about friction. Please address my post and let me know you understand this much at least.
     
  10. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem states that a formal system capable of performing basic arithmetic cannot be both complete and consistent. It places limits on all but the most trivial of formal systems.

    THAT IS ALL.


    Please stop taking genuine scientific and mathematical proofs, theories, ideas, and concepts, and applying them to completely unrelated areas.

    What's next? Are you going to resurrect Bob Marley using Fourier Transforms?

    Baseless assertion. Back it up, or retract it.

    Why? Even if your absurd claims were true, we'd still be able to create organisms that are less 'complex' than us! Good gods, do you even listen to your own words?

    Since it is your opinion that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to all system, closed or otherwise, we can safely reject it as... well, I can't say, since it would be construed as flaming.
     
  11. Vene

    Vene In memory of ChordatesLegacy

    +304
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    *sigh* I would like to think you're capable of learning something. Entropy is not an issue, we have this big thing called the sun that is giving the planet more than enough energy so that the entropy on Earth can actually decrease. Plus, chemistry is not random chance. The only people who talk about origins and random chance are creationists.
     
  12. thaumaturgy

    thaumaturgy Well-Known Member

    +858
    Atheist
    Married
    Honestly, what is being argued here? What is True_Blue trying to say?

    He keeps on as if there's some "ineffible" quality about life such that he has declared some possible reactions "off limits" because they are a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    How many times must someone post this equation? I dunno, but I'll do it yet again in hopes that True_Blue will actually address the science rather than throw out more meaningless rhetoric:

    DG = DH - TDS

    So, True_Blue, what about it? You are obsessed on the linearity or non-linearlity of DS, who cares about that? Please tell me how biochemical systems cannot contain any negative DS terms? Because we know that some biochemical processes (like the attachment of a small molecule to a protein, for instance) result in a loss of rotational degrees of freedom and therefore a loss of entropy, but the key is that the larger overall system gains in entropy (ie water displaced from the surface of the protein).

    You seem to be oversimplifying the system again. As if Entropy is somehow totally antithetical to natural life to the point that life cannot exist without some supernatural intervention. Is that your stance?

    Because it is demonstrably wrong to assume all entropy is always and ever increasing at every point in every system.

    I hope ultimately you will address details of your "hypothesis", but I also realize this is very hard for you, owing to your not knowing much chemistry.

    But that is precisely why you need to be careful in telling chemists how they are mistaken.

    Please, start with one simple aspect of biochemistry that you can provide quantities for that proves that life is impossible without supernatural intervention.

    I dearly would love to better understand what you are on about here and how it provides you with some proof of God's intervention.

    I suspect what you are claiming to be further "proof" of God is actually just a failure on your part to take into account all the balances of entropy.

    (in other words if you think one reaction that results in a decrease in entropy is ipso facto proof that God must be in command, I would imagine a scientist could come along and point out that indeed this reaction does show a DECREASE in entropy but only because a linked, and perfectly natural process is showing a concommittant increase in entropy. You have merely opted for a "God of the Gaps" hypothesis in a place where most of the gaps are filled already. This is why it would really help if you would learn enough chemistry so you could more effectively express your hypothesis.)
     
  13. Vene

    Vene In memory of ChordatesLegacy

    +304
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    *note for True_Blue: In Thaumatrugy's equations "D" mean "delta" which mean "change in." So, "DS" means "change in entropy."
     
  14. thaumaturgy

    thaumaturgy Well-Known Member

    +858
    Atheist
    Married
    Vene,
    Thanks! I miss the old "font list" which included "Symbol".

    Also, a quick note to True_Blue who keeps talking about entropy as a nonlinear item...that is technically incorrect. The change in entropy may be a nonlinear fuction, but entropy itself is a measure of the states of the system, and hence isn't a "trend" either linearly or non-linearly.

    Like saying "position" is non-linear is incorrect. Indeed one can say someone's "change in position with time" is non-linear (ie they are accelerating or deccelerating nonlinearly).

    This is a subtle but important point I think True_Blue needs to iron out before he keeps going on about entropy as non-linear.
     
  15. thaumaturgy

    thaumaturgy Well-Known Member

    +858
    Atheist
    Married
    Perhaps you mean a nonlinear curve fit can always be applied to a linear function? Since one can presume that a linear function is really just a polynomial fit where all the higher order terms are zero?


    What you might also mean is that a linear equation can be used to model a non-linear phenomenon badly with a significantly small R[sup]2[/sup] and an F-statistic that shows a p-value of insiginificance.


    Is that what you meant?

    Again, you are confusing terms here. Entropy is a measure of the states of the system. It is not a trend with anything, except perhaps the temperature of the system.

    S = Q/T is a linear expression. However if memory serves, entropy is seldom analyzed except in terms of change in entropy, so

    dS = dQ/T

    I do not think that necessitates a non-linear interpretation.

    In statistical thermodynamics where S is explicitly defined rather than as a change in S it is defined as:

    S = k*ln(W)

    Where k is boltzmann's constant
    W is the number of microstates of the system.

    This is a logarithmic equation with respect to the number of microstates.

    But I think perhaps you mean the change in entropy when you talk about "linear and non-linear".

    Be very very careful here, True_Blue. Remember, in curve fitting one can apply R[sup]2[/sup] terms to each of the terms in the fit equation. So if a data set fits best with no higher order terms or no exponentials, it is by definition a linear trend. This is not just a "convention", it is rooted in the mathematics.

    I can always claim that a line can be fit with a linear or non-linear equation, but there is a direct and quantifiable means by which I can tell which is the better fit.

    I recommend that you either support your claims or drop this line of "reasoning".
     
  16. TemperateSeaIsland

    TemperateSeaIsland Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

    +162
    Atheist
    Single
    Ok here is another example of a very simple reaction that leads to a decrease of entropy in a chemical/molecular system. It's called a [2+2] cycloaddition...

    [​IMG]

    The reaction above is the [2+2] cycloaddition/photodimerization of two Cinnamic acid molecules giving truillic acid. The reaction takes two alkenes and forms a cyclobutane ring; the alkenes have a relatively large degree of freedom compared to the strained ring and the reaction involves a decrease entropy.

    Another example would be the Diels-Alder reaction, which is a [4+2} cycloaddition. This reaction is thermally driven and involves a diene and an alkene. Again these reactions have a large decrease in entropy.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2008
  17. True_Blue

    True_Blue Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

    +53
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    You're right in the sense that the Incompleteness theorems are pure math. But everything in the universe is based on math. An excellent way to demonstrate a point of philosophy or religion is to use math, which is what this whole thread is about. Reality is not Star Trek--I apply Godel's theorems to say that time machines, warp drivers, and worm holes will always be outside the capacity of human ingenuity. I will not be proven wrong on this. Abiogenesis isn't reality either. Why base an atheistic religion and philosophy on an idea that has no mathematical basis? [Though maybe someone out there has a mathematical basis they would like to share with the rest of us.]
     
  18. True_Blue

    True_Blue Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

    +53
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    If you're referring your post on springs, Hooke's law applies to the action of the spring, not the spring itself. Your example is an excellent application of 2nd law thermodynamics as applied to the decay of the order of the spring as it's used over time.
     
  19. True_Blue

    True_Blue Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

    +53
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Republican
    I didn't say what you paraphrased I said. I said that science and human observation can go 99%+ of the way toward proving the existence of God, not 99%+ of the attributes of God. Science and human observation can only comprehend an infinitesimal % above zero of the attributes of God.
     
  20. pgp_protector

    pgp_protector Noted strange person

    +15,748
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    That would only be true if God wasn't a SPIRIT.
    He is not part of this realm, this realm (All of time & space) have no impact at all on Him.
     
Loading...