Creation vs. Evolution

[H2Andy]

It is saying, "it is contrary to thousands of experiments performed by thousands of scientists", but I'm going with it.

what is? what are you talking about?

 

[dlndavid]

we'll build to you a bridge to your island

 

[H2Andy]

we'll build to you a bridge to your island

dude, that's not pork!

that's intelligent allocation of tax payers money!

 

[lamont]

You mean that God willed that we have a deficit?

OMG! God props up the dollar and keeps the interest rates low on US Treasury Bills!!!! Every other country in the world would have had a classical current account adjustment by now, but God keeps the interest rates low and property values jacked up! Its suddenly so clear to me!!!!

 

[lamont]

Seems strange to me to "bet big" on a theory contrary to accepted laws of science.

Its not contrary, general relativity predicts it, and empirical observation confirms it. You are fixing on the infinity in the theory (which has no empirical observation to back it up) and trying to invalidate the entirety of the theory based on that. Its like invalidating the existence of black holes based on the fact that the curvature of space-time at the center of one is predicted to go to infinity. That prediction is almost certainly wrong and is indicative of where general relativity breaks down, but black holes certainly do exist, even though we do not know what happens at the exact center of one -- similarly we don't know what happened when we extrapolate the big bang back to infinite energy density, but observationally we know the big bang occured. That is actual science.

 

[Warthaug]

I am saying the first and second law demand a place and time and method of the "arrival" of energy on the scene.

The first and second law preclude a natural explanation for this occurence. You can argue with the law if you want to. .

You've yet to explain how these laws preclude the big bang. There is nothing - I repeat - nothing in those laws which preclude big bang theory as it is currently expressed:

First law - energy can neither be created or destroyed; it can only change form. The big bang starts with a singularity - AKA gravitational energy (and probably other energy; we know little about the interior of singularities). This energy then gives birth to all other energy/matter in our universe.

And the conversion of gravitational energy into matter is hardly anything new. Hawking radiation being the classical example of gravitational energy being turned into matter.

Second law - the entropy of a closed system always increases. This is a non-starter - we don't know if our universe is open or closed. But even assuming it is closed, this still doesn't preclude the big bang. All the second law really says is any time you convert matter from one form to another you'll loose some in the form of heat. This most certainly happened in the big bang (microwave background being the evidence for this), and this law is also followed by our universe today (generation of heat during fusion, etc). Of course, if the universe is open then this really becomes a moot point; after all, if energy can enter our universe from somewhere else then the question of where the initial energy of the universe came from is rather obvious…

So I ask again - how do these laws preclude big bang theory? Aside from what we don't know happened inside of the singularity, everything else involved in the big bang obeys these rules.

The problem is that this is too simple. Your "simple theorem" does not address the initial argument at hand. You have nothing to explode with a big bang.

Sure we do - a singularity.

Bryan

 

[Thalassamania]

THEDIVINGPREACHER: You state a defective premise as though it was granted and fact, and then reach for defective conculsions based on the defective premise.

If you want to have faith, that's fine ... say that it's a mystery and you can't explain it, but to try and demonstrate that all of western empirical thought can be made wrong though the use of that magic wand is beyond the pale.

The topic doesn't matter, origin of the universe, origin of life or origin of species, your methods don't hold up.

 

[Warthaug]

There is a new lecture, available on-line, which some people here may be interested in. It does a pretty good job of going over the conditions which lead to the evolution of life, and how life was shaped by the physics of the universe. Maybe on interest to some of you:

http://aics-research.com/lotw/

Next week a new lecture will be posted, and this lecture will be moved to the archives. So if you're reading this after Sept 11th you'll want to hit the archives and look up sept 4ths lecture.

http://aics-research.com/lotw/archives.html

Bryan

 

[novicediver]

"OUCH!!" cries the dead horse.......

 

[caymaniac]

THEDIVINGPREACHER: You state a defective premise as though it was granted and fact, and then reach for defective conculsions based on the defective premise.

If you want to have faith, that's fine ... say that it's a mystery and you can't explain it, but to try and demonstrate that all of western empirical thought can be made wrong though the use of that magic wand is beyond the pale.

The topic doesn't matter, origin of the universe, origin of life or origin of species, your methods don't hold up.

I do believe the diving preacher has shown your defective conclusions. It does matter, do you think you are smarter than all people that have faith in God? Where do you think your intelligence has come from?

One big question for you to answer..............do you believe there is evil in our world?