Creation vs. Evolution

[lamont]

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Funny!
changing back and forth does not give an iota of explanation for where it came from and therefore how it stands against the first law.

Matter nor energy in any form cannot be created by natural means. the foolish theory called the "big bang" ultimately says that nothing exploded and here we are.

Please can someone post some empirical evidence for what exploded and where it came from?
Without it your theory floats in non-existent primordial soup.

I can provide mountains of evidence that 12-18 billion years ago the universe was substantially 'smaller' than it is now and that it had a temperature of roughly 3000K and that when matter and energy decoupled as the plasma cooled the energy gave rise to a 3000K blackbody, which due to the expansion of the universe 'cooled' to 2.7K and is observed now as the cosmic microwave background radiation. There is literally reams of empirical evidence to back this up, and there's reams of emperical evidence which is against competing theories like 'tired light' theories.

What exploded and where it came from is, basically, "not my problem". If you want to lay bets down that it was God that sparked the big bang, that's fine. But the fact that we cannot currently explain it, does not invalidate the reams of evidence in favor of the big bang theory, and it also does not *prove* that it must have been created by God. Trying to wedge *proof* of the existence of God through any uncertainty in our knowledge of the universe is not logically solid ground. You can wager on it all you like, but you get nowhere when you argue that it *must* be the work of Creation.

By the way, do you realize that this thing:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

is really childishly insulting and that you should knock it off.

 

[PaulVS]

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/atheist_believes_in_god.htm

 

[H2Andy]

"At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe."

that's scientific rigour for you ... (sarcasm)

he's entitled to believe that. good luck trying to prove it or disprove it

again, creationists and ID proponents keep confusing statements of belief with statements of scientific knowledge

 

[lamont]

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/atheist_believes_in_god.htm

i'm not actually sure what you'd call that logical fallacy -- concluding that the horse was going to win the race based on someone prestigious changing their wager to it....

 

[H2Andy]

(please take this in good humor, as it's intended)

you know how even the staunchest atheist finds God at times? i think i've worked out an equation

where

God = (ss * sp) / dl

where

ss = size of shark

sp = shark proximity to diver; and

dl = distance to shore

 

[Kim]

Sorry Andy - that one looks wrong......

For me God would have nothing to do with that....

My equation would have to be:

WOSU = (ss * sp) / dl

where WOSU = Weight of soiled underwear

 

[H2Andy]

elementary!

God = WOSU

i think i see a Nobel prize for H2Andy and Kim in the future .... thakn you ... thank you very much...

 

[Kim]

elementary!

God = WOSU

i think i see a Nobel prize for H2Andy and Kim in the future .... thakn you ... thank you very much...

Oh no....we are so screwed!!!! :light:

I hope you like Fire & Brimstone, Andy

(whatcha gonna wear for the ceremony? )

 

[lamont]

elementary!

God = WOSU

i think i see a Nobel prize for H2Andy and Kim in the future .... thakn you ... thank you very much...

The string theorists are always going on about how they're looking for the one theory of everything explained by an equation you can fit on a T-shirt. I think you guys just delivered.

 

[radinator]

So please give the evidence against the First "law" of thermodynamics. "Matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural means"

Sorry, that is not the First Law of Thermodynamics. Matter is created and destroyed by natural means all the time. I've witnessed it myself in the lab where the only 'artificial' element was the instruments to make the measurement. It's also what makes the sun shine.

Since your presupposition is false, your conclusions are not valid.

This "law" rules out TO DATE a natural explanation for the origin of the universe. Atheists will have to say that the answer just has not been found YET.

Fine, but don't call that science. A natural origin of the universe is in complete opposition to the first "law". Remember, laws have no known exceptions.

Keep the argument here till we have a conclusion.
If a natural origin is in complete opposition to a known law, the universe must logically have a supernatural origin. It is the only scientifically acceptable answer.