Logic dictates that there is a God!

[gavin_sidhu]

I just dont like how people thank God for saving them from a disaster even though they lost one arm or something. I would be angry with God for putting me in the place to begin with and for the loss of my arm.

Science doesnt really explain how organisms came about, or how the first matter was created, religion does.

[jay_a2j]

"In all things give Him praise"

[heavycola]

Science doesnt really explain how organisms came about, or how the first matter was created, religion does

Holy shit. i can't go through this again. There are simply too many misguided, unquestioning people in the world. Hopefully this will all be as outmoded as witch trials soon.

[happysadfun]

Things with intricate design point to a creator. If you saw a Rolex in the woods, would you think: "It's amazing how this watch just formed itself and evolved." No! You would say: "Cool. Some rich guy lost his watch and now it's mine." You would assume it had been created and manufactured by someone. Things with intricate design point to a creator. The world is intricately designed, it points to a creator.

-Why So Many Gods, a Christian book

[morph]

yay now that Jay is back i can go back to the normal routine of saying this thread needs to die lol

[Zaphod Bebblebro]

edit - nevermind ignorance desires to remain that way.

[macwin]

I just dont like how people thank God for saving them from a disaster even though they lost one arm or something. I would be angry with God for putting me in the place to begin with and for the loss of my arm.

Science doesnt really explain how organisms came about, or how the first matter was created, religion does.

ughhhhhh....i feel ashamed that we both emerged from the same education system.....please tell me you are only seven or something?

[jay_a2j]

I just dont like how people thank God for saving them from a disaster even though they lost one arm or something. I would be angry with God for putting me in the place to begin with and for the loss of my arm.

Science doesnt really explain how organisms came about, or how the first matter was created, religion does.

ughhhhhh....i feel ashamed that we both emerged from the same education system.....please tell me you are only seven or something?

For the first two sentences or the last one? Cause the last one is accurate at least using logic.

[happysadfun]

More quotes from WSMG!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics. "Everything is moving from a state of order to a state of disorder." This, A, disproves evolution, because in evolution things are moving from disorder to order. It also means, B, that there must have been a state of order in the beginning. That would be Eden.

[Jolly Roger]

More quotes from WSMG!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics. "Everything is moving from a state of order to a state of disorder." This, A, disproves evolution, because in evolution things are moving from disorder to order. It also means, B, that there must have been a state of order in the beginning. That would be Eden.

From entropylaw.com:

"According to the old view, the second law was viewed as a 'law of disorder'. The major revolution in the last decade is the recognition of the "law of maximum entropy production" or "MEP" and with it an expanded view of thermodynamics showing that the spontaneous production of order from disorder is the expected consequence of basic laws. "

The second law seems to apply more to heat exchange than to evolution. According to Wikipedia, the 2nd law is most commonly written as:

"Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body.

This is equivalent to this scientific statement:

The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."

I'm not sure if you're referring to the creation of the earth or the universe so I'll address both. The earth is not an isolated system since we derive much of our energy via the sun. The universe is not an isolated system due to its excellent infiniteness so there is no way it can "lose" anything. Since order is imposed via the application of energy, a system which is using and losing its energy tends to break down. The earth is not losing energy because our proximity to the sun allows for the collection of ample heat energy to maintain order. The universe is not losing energy because there's nowhere else for it to go.

Order is a bit of an illusion anyway. Take a piece of paper for instance. If the piece of paper fades and degrades, one might call that entropy. However, the piece of paper was made from raw materials, which before energy was applied to them, were part of a different kind of order (perhaps a tree, a living organism with many complex biological systems requiring a high degree of order). The degraded paper, as compostable material, might be incorporated into fertilizer upon which plant might expend energy to collect nutrients and impose a new kind of order on the material. Then something eats the plant etc. etc. etc. The form taken by matter keeps changing but order won't change drastically without a dramatic change in the system. Even then, a new order will simply emerge as the system naturally moves toward equilibrium.

In any case, systems don't move toward disorder - they move toward equilibrium. In the case of humanity, we, like all living organisms, are continually trying to prevent our system from reaching equilibrium. In order to survive, we must continually disrupt the order of the system by gathering and expending energy. As for the universe, I would imagine that it, at equilibrium, would consist of nothing but energy evenly distributed over the empty vacuum of infinite space. This sounds closer to the Buddhist concept of nothingness than the Christian picture of Heaven in my opinion.

JR

[heavycola]

In summary:


We derive our negative entropy (i.e. energy) from the sun. But the sun is obeying the 2nd law by burning itself out. So your cod physics are still bollocks.

Cause the last one is accurate at least using logic.

In what way. jay? Science explains exactly how both matter and life first appeared. Religion says an omnipotent intelligence waved a magic wand - believe what you want, but that's got nothing to do with logic.


(can't... help... posting...

[macwin]

I just dont like how people thank God for saving them from a disaster even though they lost one arm or something. I would be angry with God for putting me in the place to begin with and for the loss of my arm.

Science doesnt really explain how organisms came about, or how the first matter was created, religion does.

ughhhhhh....i feel ashamed that we both emerged from the same education system.....please tell me you are only seven or something?

For the first two sentences or the last one? Cause the last one is accurate at least using logic.

yeah using fundimentalist logic it makes perfect sense.....to the scientist though, it is off with the fairies

[jay_a2j]

We are re-hashing old posts. If science has even said, "Life cannot come from non-life". That means the ORGIN of life must be living. And that means the orgin of life must be eternal (has always existed) with the ability to create, in order for anything to exist. Now the discussion stated a few possibilities of this "eternal being". Prehistoric oose, eternal volcanoes and the logical explanation God. Believing that life just "poped up out of nowhere" is a fairytale that reaks of imposibility.

[Nikolai]

Jolly Roger, please tell me you're intelligent enough to understand that your huge explanation of how the 2nd law can coexist with evolution amounts to diddly squat in scientific terms? It's not even an accepted theory, it's a hypothesis. Additionally, it has been violently attacked in the scientific community as a deliberate attempt to make the facts fit the preconception, rather than adjust the hypothesis to fit the facts. C'mon... fourth grade science: step four of the scientific method dictates that the data gathered from the experiment be used to modify the hypothesis, not that more hypotheses be invented to explain how the data really doesn't disprove the hypothesis. If you're going to play at science, you have to play by science's rules.

Sorry, not really my fight, but I hate to see people mangling science to try to create some kind of rhetorical club with which to beat others over the head.

[mightyal]

Where does science say that 'life cannot come from non-life'? It is a highly non-scientific sort of a statement. A mystical statement in fact analagous to the belief that death is impossible - where does the life essence go to.
Science is a collection of theories that have been repeatedly tested and shown to provide a useful explanation of natural phenomena.
These theories are derived from hypotheses that researchers have created and then tested to see if they have useful predictive powers. Your statement is not testable nor does it explain anything. Much like creationism.

[jay_a2j]

Where does science say that 'life cannot come from non-life'? It is a highly non-scientific sort of a statement. A mystical statement in fact analagous to the belief that death is impossible - where does the life essence go to.
Science is a collection of theories that have been repeatedly tested and shown to provide a useful explanation of natural phenomena.
These theories are derived from hypotheses that researchers have created and then tested to see if they have useful predictive powers. Your statement is not testable nor does it explain anything. Much like creationism.

Don't remember the scientists name who stated "life cannot come from non-life" but as I recall I heard it in 8th grade science class. Give me one example of a non-living thing producing life. A rock will never produce another rock as it is not living. ONLY living things can produce life...this is common sense. The orgin of life must be eternal. Either that or you fall into the category of believing life poped up from nothing.

[Pilate]

Don't remember the scientists name who stated "life cannot come from non-life" but as I recall I heard it in 8th grade science class.

lol

[jay_a2j]

Here are a few of the many problems to be solved, before sand and water could change itself into living creatures:

1 - Spontaneous generation has been scientifically disproved

2 - Instant success would have to be necessary for the life form to survive

3 - Thousands of essential body parts and thousands more of essential chemical compounds would have to instantly form themselves

4 - Both male and female forms would need to make themselves and be near each other in space and time

5 - Law of mass action would immediately destroy chemical compounds

6 - Water is never enough to produce life chemicals

7 - There is no lab equipment out in nature

8 - Condensation problem: Water must be carefully removed for fats, sugars, and nucleic acids to derive out of protein

9 - Precipitation problem: Enzymes would immediately be destroyed

10 - Most life chemicals not found in watery environment

11 - Lightning bolts only damage and kill and could not be the energy source

12 - Oxygen problem: Life could not originate where there is oxygen

13 - Life could not survive without continual oxygen

14 - Oxidized iron is found in rocks existing where life is said to have originated

15 - Life can not originate without water. But there can be no water without oxygen

16 - A reducing atmosphere (no oxygen) would produce life-killing peroxides

17 - Ultraviolet light in reducing atmosphere would immediately kill life

18 - Without oxygen, there would be no protective ozone layer

19 - Proteins would immediately hydrolyze and destroy themselves

20 - There would not be enough chemicals available to form even the simplest protein

21 - Nitrogen is in most biochemicals, but there is not enough concentrated nitrogen in nature to form life

22 - There is not enough available phosporus in nature either

23 - Scientists have no idea how to make fatty acids or how they could make themselves

24 - The atmosphere throughout the world would have to instantly change from no oxygen to its present oxygen-rich content

25 - Extremely complicated chemical combinations not found in nonliving material exist in living tissue

26 - Residue problem: Since such extremely rich chemical mixtures are found in living things, we should find residues of them in nature, but they do not exist

27 - Accidental formations of amino acids would produce equal amounts of left- and right-handed forms which exist in animal life

28 - Dissolution problem: Even if correct chemicals gather together, the next instant they would spontaneously disintegrate by forming with other chemicals

29 - Immediate, complete duplication and reproduction of DNA, Protein enzymes, fats, cells, etc. would be needed for survival

30 - There is not the remotest possibility life could originate by itself. There is not enough time and space in all the universe and in all eternity to product our present myriad of living species on earth



For more info: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/07prim05.htm

[Nikolai]

Gah... now you're screwing up, jay_a2j. You're assuming that life would spontaneously begin with certain characteristics which we only see in "higher" life forms. For example, you assume sexual reproduction, DNA, complex proteins, enzymes, and a whole host of other stuff that isn't necessarily required for life - at least, life as the scientific community understands it. Now, you are correct in saying that no science experiment has ever been able to spontaneously generate life, which is, I think, your main point: but don't go and screw yourself up with a lot of mistaken assumptions.

[heavycola]

OK this really pisses me off.


We are lucky enough to exist because the conditions for life existed on our planet billions of years ago. The chances of us existing are ridiculously small - BUT WE ARE HERE ANYWAY. That 1 in a million chance happened. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be here to have this discussion.


Jay: your statements are so flawed i don't know where to begin. Of COURSE 'instant success' is necessary. Welcome to the crazy, godless world of evolution.

And ending with the argument that 'life originated with an eternal creator' is just a convenient getout clause. Where did this creator come from?

"he is a necessary being and has always been."

More convenient rhetoric. It's all bollocks. The conditions for life were set within the laws of physics, all the way from the big bang itself. Whether a creator encoded those laws is another argument - but they and they alone explain everything in the universe.

A god simply wasn't needed for life to originate. I don't see why that is so hard to accept. Every christian i know has managed to reconcile their faith with the wonderful and beautiful process that is evolution - what is so difficult?

Jay i would also like you to quote a scientist that backs you up who didn't get their 'doctorate in creationist evangelism' from an online degree factory.

[happysadfun]

if evolution is true and we all evolved randomly from a bunch of little cells then how come most animals have the basic layout of a head with eyes, mouth, nose, plus legs with few exceptions. and what do you have to say about the first one. and plus, there's pascal's wager:

If God exists, I better believe in him or I'll go to hell. But if he doesn't exist, there's no harm in believing him anyway. So the logical answer is to believe in God.

[Nikolai]

ARGH! I quit. You people actually think you're being scientific, not to mention logical! heavycola, you talk about jay's convenient rhetoric, and then proceed to do exactly what you're accusing him of doing - making a lot of flat statements without scientific substantiation. At least some of his crap is based on scientific research. The only thing I can say about your crap is that it doesn't pretend to be scientific. Maybe you ought to do a little research - see if maybe you can understand his arguments, then try to respond to them in a reasonable manner, instead of spouting about things that you clearly haven't studied. The more you talk, the more it becomes obvious that you haven't studied this topic at all - you're just repeating what you heard. And happysadfun, you have the same problem - you obviously haven't studied evolutionary theory at all, or you wouldn't ask ridiculous questions that the most basic theory of evolution answers. And, for the record, Pascal's wager is a logical conundrum workable if and only if you assume that people can believe multiple things and that what they believe really doesn't matter. After all, according to that logic, if the Hindus are right, you'll probably be reborn as a worm. But if they're wrong, well... no big deal. So go be a Hindu! To say... Pascal's wager isn't nearly as strong an argument as many people think... and you'd know that if you'd thought about it instead of mindlessly repeating it!

*sigh*
*steam from the explosion slowly disperses*

I'm sorry, people, I'm sure you're trying... it just frustrates me when I see people who honestly think that they are offering good scientific reasons for their position, but who obviously haven't thought their position through for themselves. May I suggest that it would behoove all of you to go study what the opposition has to say? Then, if you can really convince yourself, using reason and logic, that your position is still right, you'll be in a much stronger position when it comes to a question like this one - a question that relies specifically on logic.

[b-b5]

if evolution is true and we all evolved randomly from a bunch of little cells then how come most animals have the basic layout of a head with eyes, mouth, nose, plus legs with few exceptions. and what do you have to say about the first one.

Evolution demands survival of the fittest. The fittest have the basic layout because that has been demonstrated to be the best for hunting and evading being hunted.

If you notice, all predators have their primary sensory detectors pointing forward. All prey have their eyes at the side of their heads allowing for all-round vision and their ears have evolved to be far better at hearing noises from all directions.

Evolution isnt random. Mutation is random.

[GabonX]

First off put aside any bias that you may have...weather it be religious or anti-religious.

Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.

Then you trace back all life to its orgin...the very first living thing.

Where did it come from?

The ONLY answer is someting or someone has always existed. And that someone or something must have the power to create (or reproduce).

There must be a God.

Science also dictates evolution could never have happened (but lets save that for a later thread).

First off, science doesn't dictate that life could not come from not life. It was you that dictated that. The same thing is true about evolution.
Second even if there was some being that existed since the beginning of time it doesn't mean that it was/is a God. If that being went on to create other life that is capable of destroying it then it was simply the first living thing, but not an almighty. I'm not saying that there isn't a God, rather that however much you would like to pretend you have the answer you don't.

[Jolly Roger]

Jolly Roger, please tell me you're intelligent enough...

Nope - not even close. I barely understand my own post.

to understand that your huge explanation of how the 2nd law can coexist with evolution amounts to diddly squat in scientific terms? It's not even an accepted theory, it's a hypothesis.

Are you talking about the theory of evolution or another theory?

Additionally, it has been violently attacked in the scientific community as a deliberate attempt to make the facts fit the preconception, rather than adjust the hypothesis to fit the facts.

Which facts?

C'mon... fourth grade science: step four of the scientific method dictates that the data gathered from the experiment be used to modify the hypothesis, not that more hypotheses be invented to explain how the data really doesn't disprove the hypothesis. If you're going to play at science, you have to play by science's rules.

Which data? Does it relate to the facts?

Sorry, not really my fight, but I hate to see people mangling science to try to create some kind of rhetorical club with which to beat others over the head.

Not my fight either. I was attempting to point out that the second law can coexist with both creationism and evolution but proves neither. In my understanding, we are essentially talking about things (including heat) naturally moving from an area of high concentration to one of lower concentration such as air flowing out of a pressurized room or heat moving from a hot stove to a cold hand. This directional flow, if unimpeded by outside sources, will continue until equilibrium is reached. Equilibrium only equates with disorder in our minds. Order and disorder are subjective qualitative terms (the people with the messiest desks and rooms always seem to be the ones who know where everything is); it might be better to say that things move naturally toward a state of lower complexity. However, this is not necessarily true either. Oxygen atoms don't tend to exist on their own - they generally exist in bonded pairs as molecules. We don't have a lot of free oxygen and hydrogen atoms floating around but we do have a lot of water. In cases such as these, the natural state is more one of complexity or order as opposed to disorder.

Note: You are correct in that I really have no idea what I'm talking about. Please feel free to enlighten me but this time please include references to the data and facts rather than just indicating that they do, in fact, exist. I am more than happy to consider what you have to say which is why I went and looked up the 2nd law in the first place.

JR