so, how does linear friction prove God's existence?
and if He could be proven, wouldnt faith itself become a sham?
The replication of genetic material is definitely cool, no question about it. However, this whole thread is devoted to unraveling the assertions you make above. I attribute the coolness of living things to God, not to random chance working against the force of entropy.
I'm glad you make this point. Nothwithstanding the ability of DNA to heal itself and replicate, the data is showing that the genome of the human race will eventually degrade to the point that the human race will go extinct at some point in the future, perhaps within 100,000 years. The influx of human ingenuity into the genome will slow that process, but only delay the inevitable.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s18541.htm
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=51
I recall saying a week or two ago that friction is a non-linear force, and a bunch of folks posted saying I was wrong, citing linear equations describing friction. Those replies died down when I posted sources on the nonlinearity of friction.
so, how does linear friction prove God's existence?
and if He could be proven, wouldnt faith itself become a sham?
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.
I don't believe the human race will ever succeed in such a feat, according to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
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.
I recall saying a week or two ago that friction is a non-linear force, and a bunch of folks posted saying I was wrong, citing linear equations describing friction. Those replies died down when I posted sources on the nonlinearity of friction. A linear equation can always be used to model a nonlinear phenomenon. Entropy is likewise nonlinear, and it should be intuitively obvious even if the convention is to use a simple linear equation. Your joke above is mildly amusing, but it doesn't serve to address my earlier points.
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.I don't believe the human race will ever succeed in such a feat, according to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
Baseless assertion. Back it up, or retract it.As life forms ourselves, we can only create things less complex than ourselves,
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?which I believe will forever bar us from synthesizing a living thing from stratch.
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.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.
*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.I attribute the coolness of living things to God, not to random chance working against the force of entropy.
*note for True_Blue: In Thaumatrugy's equations "D" mean "delta" which mean "change in." So, "DS" means "change in entropy."
A linear equation can always be used to model a nonlinear phenomenon.
Entropy is likewise nonlinear,
and it should be intuitively obvious even if the convention is to use a simple linear equation.
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.
I wasn't taking about friction. Please address my post and let me know you understand this much at least.
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%
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?