The Creationist Corner

[SkyWriting]

I'm going to scream the next time someone who doesn't understand evolution thinks it is random. Evolution is NOT random!

Fine. It's the result of intelligent design and supernatural influence.

 

[SkyWriting]

The hummingbird is a very small creature.

* It's brain is about the size of a BB.

I think ants are more amazing,
and with a smaller head.

 

[SkyWriting]

The hummingbird is a very small creature.

* It's brain is about the size of a BB.

Lets give proper credit.....

The bird weighs less than a grape,
has a brain smaller than a pea,
and flies thousands of miles each
year between the place it nests
and where it chooses to winter.

 

[rockytopva]

I think ants are more amazing,
and with a smaller head.

6 Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:
7 Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler,
8 Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest. -Pr 6

And with... If I may add.. The smallest of brains!

 

[Strathos]

Fine. It's the result of intelligent design and supernatural influence.

Yes, because God wrote all the laws of nature. Including those that govern evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, because God wrote all the laws of nature. Including those that govern evolution.

Which laws govern evolution?
Would these be Tarzan laws?

 

[Strathos]

Which laws govern evolution?
Would these be Tarzan laws?

The laws of genetics and natural selection.

 

[Kylie]

Fine. It's the result of intelligent design and supernatural influence.

Citation needed.

Please define how you determine if something is the result of an intelligent agent seeking a specific outcome, and also explain how we can determine if something is the result of supernatural influence.

 

[SkyWriting]

Citation needed.

Please define how you determine if something is the result of an intelligent agent seeking a specific outcome, and also explain how we can determine if something is the result of supernatural influence.

Science rules out the creation of matter from nothing.
Science also rules out results with no cause.
Science also claims that all current mater did not always exist before the Big Bang.
Science shows us that intelligence and order do not come from sources with no intelligence or order.
So science requires supernatural influence to explain why matter, energy, order, life, and intelligence exists.

Can you point out the properties of matter that would lead to life?
Given an infinite amount of matter and time, why would life form?

 

[Holoman]

Supporters of one of the multiverse hypotheses include Stephen Hawking,[6]Brian Greene,[7][8]Max Tegmark,[9]Alan Guth,[10]Andrei Linde,[11]Michio Kaku,[12]David Deutsch,[13]Leonard Susskind,[14]Raj Pathria,[15]Alexander Vilenkin,[16]Laura Mersini-Houghton,[17][18]Neil deGrasse Tyson[19] and Sean Carroll.[20]

An impressive list of names for a theory with absolutely no evidence, indeed.

It is a shame that YE creationists and evolutionists are so hostile to one another, they both become stubborn and stop in the quest for genuine truth. Biologists are ignoring holes in the theory, while the YE creationists refuse to accept the evidence that the earth probably is old. I'm not sure why it even matters whether YE or OE is true, it doesn't really change our understanding of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science rules out the creation of matter from nothing.
Science also rules out results with no cause.
Science also claims that all current mater did not always exist before the Big Bang.
Science shows us that intelligence and order do not come from sources with no intelligence or order.
So science requires supernatural influence to explain why matter, energy, order, life, and intelligence exists.

Can you point out the properties of matter that would lead to life?
Given an infinite amount of matter and time, why would life form?

Not when one gets down to the quantum level. Then we can see matter created from nothing, events happening with no cause.

And science says that matter may not have existed before the Big Bang, but it does not need to. The total energy of the universe has been measured to be zero to a very high accuracy and that means there has been no violation of conservation of energy by the formation of the universe.

Lastly you are flat out wrong. Science in now way shows us that intelligence and order to not come from sources with not intelligence or order. In fact there are countless examples that falsify that statement.

You still have no understanding of what science says at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An impressive list of names for a theory with absolutely no evidence, indeed.

It is a shame that YE creationists and evolutionists are so hostile to one another, they both become stubborn and stop in the quest for genuine truth. Biologists are ignoring holes in the theory, while the YE creationists refuse to accept the evidence that the earth probably is old. I'm not sure why it even matters whether YE or OE is true, it doesn't really change our understanding of God.

What "holes" are there is the theory of evolution? I would be surprised to learn of any.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Science rules out the creation of matter from nothing.
Science also rules out results with no cause.
Science also claims that all current mater did not always exist before the Big Bang.
Science shows us that intelligence and order do not come from sources with no intelligence or order.
So science requires supernatural influence to explain why matter, energy, order, life, and intelligence exists.

Your syllogism is flawed. Science says that matter and energy are equivalent, and that the big bang was a state of high energy density, temperature, and pressure. so current matter is thought to have condensed out of the initial phase change from energy to matter and antimatter as the universe expanded and cooled. Science only has evidence suggesting life arose from non-life and that intelligence emerged with the evolution of life. Science currently says that we don't know what, if anything preceded the big bang, but that there is no evidence suggesting supernatural influence - in fact, invoking the supernatural is not a scientific proposition.

If you wish to invoke the supernatural, science can only shrug from the sidelines.

Can you point out the properties of matter that would lead to life?
Given an infinite amount of matter and time, why would life form?

The properties of matter that would lead to life are the different chemistries of the elements of the periodic table (especially carbon). Elements that were generated by stellar fusion and supernovae explosions. Star stuff. Living creatures are made of those elements.

Given infinite matter and time, every possible configuration is likely to occur, so however unlikely, life (and many other weirder things) is effectively inevitable. As it happens, it may well have taken less than half a billion years, on Earth, which suggests that, given those conditions, it's not astronomically unlikley.

 

[SkyWriting]

Your syllogism is flawed. Science says that matter and energy are equivalent, and that the big bang was a state of high energy density, temperature, and pressure. so current matter is thought to have condensed out of the initial phase change from energy to matter and antimatter as the universe expanded and cooled. Science only has evidence suggesting life arose from non-life and that intelligence emerged with the evolution of life. Science currently says that we don't know what, if anything preceded the big bang, but that there is no evidence suggesting supernatural influence - in fact, invoking the supernatural is not a scientific proposition. If you wish to invoke the supernatural, science can only shrug from the sidelines.

I don't see your illustration of the flaw. The entire paragraph?
So energy has always existed? That's odd. Or god, I guess you're saying.

But in general science doesn't have much to support for the idea of eternal energy
just existing for no good reason. Science doesn't move to the sidelines.
It's standing on the playing field and shrugging the whole game.
We have all this energy gathered from nothing and for no good reason
with no source or intention. Let's just pretend that our rules don't apply
to it's formation so we don't have to identify it's source.

Science is just playing football in the mud, with no understanding why it's here.

 

[SkyWriting]

Lastly you are flat out wrong. Science in now way shows us that intelligence and order to not come from sources with not intelligence or order. In fact there are countless examples that falsify that statement.

I'm not seeing any listed.

And you are right. There should be an infinite number of examples
for you to list. I settle for the first 100 you have though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see your illustration of the flaw. The entire paragraph?
So energy has always existed? That's odd. Or god, I guess you're saying.

But in general science doesn't have much to support for the idea of eternal energy
just existing for no good reason. Science doesn't move to the sidelines.
It's standing on the playing field and shrugging the whole game.
We have all this energy gathered from nothing and for no good reason
with no source or intention. Let's just pretend that our rules don't apply
to it's formation so we don't have to identify it's source.

Science is just playing football in the mud, with no understanding why it's here.

I do believe that science's general answer for what could have been before the big bang is "we do not know" right now. That does not support or oppose the idea of a god. In fact nothing in the real world seems to support the idea of a god. At best you have an ever changing array of old questions that have been answer and new questions that arose from those answers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not seeing any listed.

And you right. There should be an infinite number of examples
for you to list. I settle for the first 100 you have though.

Snow crystals for one.

 

[SkyWriting]

Snow crystals for one.

So 100 snow flakes then. Final answer?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So 100 snow flakes then. Final answer?

It is just a start. The point is that we can see countless examples of order coming from causes that can be shown to be natural and no examples of order coming from causes that are supernatural ones.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is just a start. The point is that we can see countless examples of order coming from causes that can be shown to be natural and no examples of order coming from causes that are supernatural ones.

So snow flakes are one answer to how life is formed
and there are "countless examples" is the other 99.
Is that the final answer?