Creation vs. Evolution

[Warthaug]

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

WOSU = (ss * sp) / dl

where WOSU = Weight of soiled underwear

There is a problem with the math’s. According to your theory, the farther you are from shore the less the WOSU. I would argue the farther away from shore (safety maybe a better term) the larger the WOSU. Theory should be more like this:

WOSU = (ss * sp)^dl, therefore the WOSU would increase exponentially the farther you are from safety. . .

:scared:

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

Empirical evidence? I think not. Speculative evidence, I am sure you have mounds of that.
Where it came from is exactly your problem. Without that evidence your "theory" is unfounded and contrary to accepted Scientific "law".

Do you even know what the difference is between a theory and a law? They aren't even comparable - laws are the what; theories are the why.

As pointed out by others the amount of empirical evidence is huge for the big bag and age of the universe, including (but not limited to):

1) Elemental composition of the universe
2) Value of the Hubble constant
3) Cosmic microwave background
4) Age of the oldest detected astronomical features

Of course the second law does away with the "Energy always existed" argument. so the foundation of the natural explanation of the origin of the universe is flawed and unscientific on it's face.

How exactly does "the entropy of a closed system always increases" disprove this? Energy, in whatever form, is still energy. Be it matter, potential or kinetic (heat), or for that matter gravitational (i.e. the singularity before the big bang) its all still energy.

Multitude of words does not equal truth

And the bible is. . .

The simple logical conclusion is that the origin of the universe HAD to be supernatural. After that is clear we could move on to the next argument being the origin of life.

How exactly is that the logical conclusion? You're saying that a simple theorem, which explains pretty much everything we see in the universe (i.e. the big bang) is LESS logical then a sheepherders myth from 3000+ years ago which is both self—contradictory, but also contradictory to many things we observe in our universe?

Unusual logic.

Bryan

 

[BarryNL]

I think the world is only six - seven thousand years old.

So, the cenote system in the Yucatan was somehow formed in the last six-seven thousand years?

I'm glad you're wrong - I'd hate for those caves not to be there.

 

[H2Andy]

What your saying is that anything that we do not clearly understand at this moment "HAD TO BE SUPERNATURAL."

yup...

since we don't understand how the US keeps getting into a deficit EVEN THOUGH our tax base and our economy keep growing, then it must be supernatural...

 

[Thalassamania]

yup...

since we don't understand how the US keeps getting into a deficit EVEN THOUGH our tax base and our economy keep growing, then it must be supernatural...

You mean that God willed that we have a deficit?

 

[Potapko]

Lamont has already answered all the points with complete clarity. I just want to amplify one.
What your saying is that anything that we do not clearly understand at this moment "HAD TO BE SUPERNATURAL." That's a very strange approach to knowledge. So, if we don't yet understand it, there's no point in looking into it since you've already got all the answers, e.g., it must be supernatural.

No, I am saying that since a naturalistic conclusion is contrary to known and accepted scientific law, it is illogical and impossible according to known facts.

On the other hand, Those that cling to a naturalistic explanation even though it is contrary to known scientific law are allowing the conclusion to drive the research therefore negating it's validity.

 

[dlndavid]

yup...

since we don't understand how the US keeps getting into a deficit EVEN THOUGH our tax base and our economy keep growing, then it must be supernatural...

can you say "pork barrel"

 

[Potapko]

Do you even know what the difference is between a theory and a law? They aren't even comparable - laws are the what; theories are the why.

As pointed out by others the amount of empirical evidence is huge for the big bag and age of the universe, including (but not limited to):

1) Elemental composition of the universe
2) Value of the Hubble constant
3) Cosmic microwave background
4) Age of the oldest detected astronomical features



How exactly does "the entropy of a closed system always increases" disprove this? Energy, in whatever form, is still energy. Be it matter, potential or kinetic (heat), or for that matter gravitational (i.e. the singularity before the big bang) its all still energy.




And the bible is. . .



How exactly is that the logical conclusion? You're saying that a simple theorem, which explains pretty much everything we see in the universe (i.e. the big bang) is LESS logical then a sheepherders myth from 3000+ years ago which is both self—contradictory, but also contradictory to many things we observe in our universe?

Unusual logic.

Bryan

I am just trying to get the argument to stay in one place. Do you want to argue the origin of the universe or the origin of life or the origin of species. These are three completely different arguments with three different sets of scientific evidence.

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.

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.

 

[Potapko]

And no, I didn't say it was correct. I said it was possible that God started the Big Bang since I can't prove it otherwise. However, if this was a horserace I'd be betting big against that idea. ...

Seems strange to me to "bet big" on a theory contrary to accepted laws of science. More like betting on a magical mystery.

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

That IS great faith!

Oh, btw, WE do not have to "prove" anything. Just trying to do as commanded by the Master by being salt and light in a dark world. Rotting meat cannot be made good again, you can only slow the process.

 

[H2Andy]

can you say "pork barrel"

it depends... how much is in it for me?