Posted on 11/16/2005 3:40:35 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
lay people trying to be physicists? madness....*shakes head*
"order tends towards disorder "....."a random jumble wont organize itself "
obviously stated without any knowledge whatsoever of nonlinear mathematics and the "anti-chaos theory". This theory can be mathematically applied to any system (macroscopic or microscopic). see examples of anti-chaos or self ordering systems in genetics for example. where we do not see regression to lower order genome, but in fact movement towards complexity and order. This makes a nonsense of the above statement. This is not a closed system still the author is treating it as such
"The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things.Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun wont make you more complexthe human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. "
Obvious error here, raw energy? a very unscientific term, energy changes STATE it cannot be destroyed in a closed or open system. The argument that solar energy cannot be harnessed by human beings is absurd. Human beings eat food that CAN harness solar energy, they eat predators that also eat food that can be harnessed by solar energy. Solar energy is also not the only form of ambient energy in our system. There is also radiation that stimulates genetic mutations. there are also quantum forces not treated by this comment and ignored. A buffoon wrote this IMHO.
" If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the suns undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). "
Mutations if combined with the mechanism of natural selection are ALWAYS successful and select for robust and strong competing advantage over the encroached or incumbent species. The mutant gene will in the case of natural selection prevail at the expense of the less robust. In terms of mutation causing loss of information? explain how recombination events or other genetic mechanisms used by biological system to "capture" genetic material and extend the genome seem to fly in the face of this statement?
My conclusion is that this is a poor and crude attempt by a lay person, probably a PHD theologian to rebut topics and arguments he does not understand. It hurts his cause not helps it.
Keep living in your idealistic dream world .... I prefer reality.
;-)
The Big Bang theory was originally from a Jesuit astronomer...
The theory of evolution (the origin of species), like the Big Bang theory, is based solely on the premise that life is an immaculate conception...
Categorical logic (Aristotle's logic) escapes you.
Is that true of the bacterial flagelum?
Well, I admit that I'm impressed that they attached a glass bead to each end of a DNA strand.
Much of the rest I'm trying to grasp.
Interesting. When you can't agree on definitions it makes debating difficult.
I always thought there was a pretty standard definition of that word. The standard definition as used in the Bible (and every other book I've ever read) is to bring into being or to cause to exist.
What is your own personal definition of "create"?
And while you are at it, what is your definition of "A Christian?" Do you believe such things as: The Deity of Christ? His Virgin Birth? His sinless life? His vicarious death on the cross for the atonement of your sins? His bodily resurrection?
Just Curious.
I take it you do not believe the Bible? Do you believe that God wrote the Ten Commandments with his own hand upon the Tablets? Or is that a fable?
Perhaps in matters of formal logic, yes, arguments from incredulity hold no water. But science is not pure, formal logic, nor does it need to use formal logic in order to be "scientific."
Fair 'nuff. Taken as showing flawed arguments for, I agree. But it still opens the door for the other...
Cheers!
I thought Balrog reserved that
post number (666) for himself. :-)
Cheers!
Agreed, but as a scientist definitions are important to me and should be established prior to any postulating. This does not make debate impossible it improves the quality of debate.
"I always thought there was a pretty standard definition of that word. The standard definition as used in the Bible (and every other book I've ever read) is to bring into being or to cause to exist."
Ah be careful, you have just generalized or created a generic definition of creation with that of the Bible's. Taken out of context this would be disastrous to any scientific or logical treatment of this subject.
My definition of creation in the context of the universe is reconciled with scientific principle. In other words I think God created the universe at a molecular level and "grew" it based on the principles he created at the time of the first molecule coming into existence. I do not believe he takes a direct hand in that creation after that moment, as that would rob free will from the equation, which God and Jesus in the new testament ministries promote. Free will is not just a function of expression with actions or choice, it has to also derive from the physical structure of space and time and matter. I am happy to debate this in more detail if you like.
"And while you are at it, what is your definition of "A Christian?"
This is defined by my religion
"Do you believe such things as: The Deity of Christ? His Virgin Birth? His sinless life? His vicarious death on the cross for the atonement of your sins? His bodily resurrection? "
Wholeheartedly
"Just Curious."
a human trait :-)
Oh, man! I just started reading this morning, am I'm at about post # 200.
So I had no idea...
FWIW, this is an interesting read, and I can't wait to see how it ends. 8^)
I hope the Freepers wo are arguing back at # 200 have settled their differences in a civil manner. ;^/
659 posted on 11/17/2005 4:34:56 AM CST by Ichneumon
As a non scientist, that's what I was hoping for when I started reading. Not so much discussion about the topic so far.
hmm some sarcasm / bitterness coming into the debate? I hope not. I fail to see how my statements could bring you to that conclusion. Please bear in mind:
2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is inspired of God......."
because someone has a different perspective to yours, please do not assume that this implies hostility or a need to attack that perspective. I hope we can genuinely discuss this without any angst?
"Do you believe that God wrote the Ten Commandments with his own hand upon the Tablets?"
Again I fail to see why this is brought into the discussion? a belief in this means what in the context of our debate? Can we stay on subject please? For the record not that it is germane I do believe in those accounts of the bible.
"Or is that a fable?"
Please point to where I have called the Bible a "fable" thats a little insulting to be honest please stop
I agree a real shame
As it seems to be impossible, I at least wish everyone couls stick to arguing without the snide remarks and personal attacks.
Never the less, I continue to read...only 400+ posts to go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.