Your conclusion on God's existence

TecK NeeX · May 8, 2006

Duke said:

Lmao wow i just can't believe you're pointing out fossils as evidence to support Evolution, if there is anything fossils prove it's creationism. Because all fossils in the fossil record show us that these creatures appeared fully and complete.

Anyways Evolutionists IGNORE and AVOID the fossil record these days and you should to, cause i really dont feel like getting into that once again.

Again same with the belief in God. FAITH. my flip flop works just fine here as well.

Duke said:

Dont use Jokermans false information and ASSUME its true

Got that? Good. Now stop assuming

HH100 · May 8, 2006

Props to fields316_2000 and TecK NeeX, my brothers in Christ.

Sebastian · May 8, 2006

fields316_2000 said:

......wtf? its not about what someone tells us. a scientist does not just say "look, this foosil is about 10000 years old, believe it". he proves that this fossil is 10000 years old, like Duke already said. big difference.

fields316_2000 · May 8, 2006

you guys put your faith in what a man with a degree says. we put our faith in what we believe is god. same faith, but different directions.

for example i tend to think that god has made this earth specifically to hold life,especially humans, just as the book of genesis says.

the earth is covered in water. water is the only element lighter as a solid than a liquid; this means that when it freezes ice floats. if ice froze like everything else, the earth would be frozen solid and would have killed off any chance for anything to live.

we can talk ourselfs into a hole with who's assuming what. did you know that most of the science thats out there is 'changing' due to new evidence presented? how can science - which is according to you something to hold on to as fact-change ever so often when the word of god doesnt? i mean how long did it take scientist to realize that the earth wasnt flat and all that? but someone blindly followed them as if they were 100% correct without stopping to question where THEY got the information from. but at least duke can say he got it from jokerman..

Illuminattile · May 8, 2006

fields316_2000 said:

I will ban the next person who posts that

Duke · May 8, 2006

fields316_2000 said:

lol....if provided with enough evidence to support this new evidence for whatever, yes, i will change my point of view. Such is the nature of science.

I don't want to reply to your other points because you are making no sense at all.

"

the earth is covered in water. water is the only element lighter as a solid than a liquid; this means that when it freezes ice floats. if ice froze like everything else, the earth would be frozen solid and would have killed off any chance for anything to live. "

Seriously. What the fuck are you saying? For Pete's sake, if you're going to take the time to post here at least make yourself understandable.

Duke · May 8, 2006

TecK NeeX said:

Once again you show no knowledge at all about evolution. All fossils show that the creatures appeared full and complete? What the hell were you expecting? Half creatures? Unfinished creatures?

Evolution isn't like putting a modelling kit together, mate. It's exactly that, evolution. A slow, gradual process of change.

Teck said:

?? Making no sense.

Teck said:

No, it's not faith. Like I said, while we can't literally witness it, it doesn't mean we don't know what happens, or what's going to happen, or what happened. Direct visual contact is no requirement to provide evidence. I don't understand why you're so adamant it is.

Teck said:

It doesn't even matter if it's false or true.

The point is that you took a scientific theory and twisted it a bit so you can rebuke it better. The twisting part pisses me off.

You constantly twist and manipulate words and theories slightly so you can fit them in your own theories. No one said Jokerman's answer is the right one, but at least he posts a proper scientific theory. What you and fields are doing is taking scraps of scientific information, add them up yourselves and draw your faulty conclusions.

And that's really not-fun to debate over. So like I said, and this for the last time, I'm done. You're so narrowminded it makes my penis fall off.

Ilu said:

I'm not the only one getting pissed over this semi-scientific "debunking" either so it seems..

Sebastian · May 8, 2006

Duke said:

haaaahaha

Duke said:

add me to the list

Sebastian · May 8, 2006

Duke said:

oh i just wanted to point it out...once more. this is the main part and i think everyone with half a brain should be able to understand it.

TecK NeeX · May 8, 2006

Duke said:

It is YOU that knows fuck all about Evolution, Darwinian Evolution that is. Darwinian Evolution is the most widely accepted theory. Yes im expecting half this half that creatures, millions of them. Darwin expected to find some, millons of them to. Darwin was aware of this problem, "why do we not find any" he says. he hoped in the future scientists will unearth them, but nothing!.

It seems like you've created your own version of the theory and made it sound even more rediculous.

Slow gradual process BEGETS millions if not billions of intermediate forms.

Because you know fuck all about whats been going on with the theory evolution since darwins death? Is that why i dont make sense? Ill let you know what i mean by evolutionists ignore and avoid the fossil record.

Here are some quotes from a few of them

"the known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution [i.e., a species becoming a new species] accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." (Steven M. Stanley-Macroevolution p. 39. )

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change...All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. "(Stephen J.G, National History Vol. 86)

This is just a very small sampling of literally hundreds of quotations found in publications by evolutionary scientists who ADMIT that fossils CANNOT prove evolution to be a fact of earth history. Like i Said before Charles Darwin was aware of this problem. After more than a century of fossil-hunting, the problem is even worse than in Darwin's day. Thats a Fact

Do i still not make any sense to you?

We dont know what happens, we dont know whats going to happen, we dont know what happened Duke. All we can do is speculate and guess and throw in a few maybies. what do you get? An absurd theory. Thats all we know.

Duke · May 8, 2006

TecK NeeX said:

Just this one more comment:

You go on and on about "intermediate" forms. There is no in-between forms. There is no begin and end to evolution. Creatures don't start at A and evolve to P. They evolve as the situation dictates. Every so called "intermediate" creature is one in his own right.

Half-this half-that creatures? Sounds more like a bad genetical experimentation movie than actual evolutionary theories.

You need to understand that it doesn't follow some path or fixed guideline. Every branch evolves on it's own accord. Some die out in an evolutionary dead end (sabre tooth tigers), some evolve to something more succesful (we), some have been the same for the past 50 million years because the concept is so good (crocodiles).

But even then, I guess there are animals you can refer to as half this half that. Sea mammals for example. However, the big picture is so big because of the huge time span that one can't really speak of "half creatures" or something of the sort.

And why do we not find any refers to the "missing link" between ape and man. If you've been paying attention you would've noticed the thread a few weeks ago about a new human form being found that provides us with yet another piece of the puzzle. Researchers are working on this as we speak. It's not an instant happening, they're not going to find one fossil and lo and behold the puzzle is complete. That's not how science is conducted. Piecemeal things will be discovered.

TecK NeeX · May 8, 2006

Duke said:

Let me be a little more specific on why Millers expirement is invalid

Here is what what science tells us today.

Problem #1

MILLER'S ASSUMPTIONS: He used methane, ammonia, and water vapour in the experiment.

REAL CONDITIONS: Primitive earth contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen instead of methane and ammonia

WHY IS THE EXPERIMENT INVALID: Ferris and Chen from the USA repeated the experiment with the gases that existed at that time. Not even one amino acid was obtained

Problem #2

MILLER'S ASSUMPTIONS: He assumed oxygen to be non-existent in the primitive atmosphere.

REAL CONDITIONS: Findings show that there was a huge amount of free oxygen in the primitive atmosphere

WHY IS THE EXPERIMENT INVALID? With such an amount of free oxygen available, the amino acids would have broken down, even if they could have been formed.

Problem #3

MILLER'S ASSUMPTIONS: There was a special mechanism set up to synthesize the amino acids in the experiment. This mechanism, called the "Cold Trap", isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed and preserved them

REAL CONDITIONS: It was impossible for these kinds of mechanisms to have existed in nature. Under natural conditions, amino acids are exposed to all kinds of external destructive factors.

WHY IS THE EXPERIMENT INVALID?: If the mechanism known as the "Cold Trap" had not existed, the spark source and other chemicals released during the experiment would have destroyed the amino acids

Now can you tell me how I'm twisting these Real facts?

Whats the whole fuss about Millers expirement anyway? Even if amino acids had formed, it is impossible for these simple organic molecules to give rise to extremely complex structures such as proteins by chance and produce a living cells.

Even mankind today is unable to reproduce such structures in laboratories using the most advanced technology and atmospheres fit for life. how do we expect life to have emerged by chance? you can call me stubborn and narrowminded all you want but that is beyond anything you have called me.

TecK NeeX · May 8, 2006

Duke said:

Just this one more comment:

You go on and on about "intermediate" forms. There is no in-between forms. There is no begin and end to evolution. Creatures don't start at A and evolve to P. They evolve as the situation dictates. Every so called "intermediate" creature is one in his own right.

Half-this half-that creatures? Sounds more like a bad genetical experimentation movie than actual evolutionary theories.

You need to understand that it doesn't follow some path or fixed guideline. Every branch evolves on it's own accord. Some die out in an evolutionary dead end (sabre tooth tigers), some evolve to something more succesful (we), some have been the same for the past 50 million years because the concept is so good (crocodiles).

But even then, I guess there are animals you can refer to as half this half that. Sea mammals for example. However, the big picture is so big because of the huge time span that one can't really speak of "half creatures" or something of the sort.

And why do we not find any refers to the "missing link" between ape and man. If you've been paying attention you would've noticed the thread a few weeks ago about a new human form being found that provides us with yet another piece of the puzzle. Researchers are working on this as we speak. It's not an instant happening, they're not going to find one fossil and lo and behold the puzzle is complete. That's not how science is conducted. Piecemeal things will be discovered.

Sorry i stopped reading when i read the part "there is no beginning to evolution"

Duke · May 8, 2006

lol...you keep rambling on about this one experiment that is totally irrelevant to what I am saying.

You've pissed me off enough and now i'm going to abuse my powers by closing this thread, seeing that the subject matter is pretty much exhausted.

EDIT: Reopened on Jokey's request and WHO KNOWS, maybe even Teck has something left to say.

Duke · May 10, 2006

TecK NeeX said:

Let me be a little more specific on why Millers expirement is invalid

Here is what what science tells us today.

Problem #1

MILLER'S ASSUMPTIONS: He used methane, ammonia, and water vapour in the experiment.

REAL CONDITIONS: Primitive earth contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen instead of methane and ammonia

WHY IS THE EXPERIMENT INVALID: Ferris and Chen from the USA repeated the experiment with the gases that existed at that time. Not even one amino acid was obtained

Problem #2

MILLER'S ASSUMPTIONS: He assumed oxygen to be non-existent in the primitive atmosphere.

REAL CONDITIONS: Findings show that there was a huge amount of free oxygen in the primitive atmosphere

WHY IS THE EXPERIMENT INVALID? With such an amount of free oxygen available, the amino acids would have broken down, even if they could have been formed.

Problem #3

MILLER'S ASSUMPTIONS: There was a special mechanism set up to synthesize the amino acids in the experiment. This mechanism, called the "Cold Trap", isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed and preserved them

REAL CONDITIONS: It was impossible for these kinds of mechanisms to have existed in nature. Under natural conditions, amino acids are exposed to all kinds of external destructive factors.

WHY IS THE EXPERIMENT INVALID?: If the mechanism known as the "Cold Trap" had not existed, the spark source and other chemicals released during the experiment would have destroyed the amino acids

Now can you tell me how I'm twisting these Real facts?

Whats the whole fuss about Millers expirement anyway? Even if amino acids had formed, it is impossible for these simple organic molecules to give rise to extremely complex structures such as proteins by chance and produce a living cells.

Even mankind today is unable to reproduce such structures in laboratories using the most advanced technology and atmospheres fit for life. how do we expect life to have emerged by chance? you can call me stubborn and narrowminded all you want but that is beyond anything you have called me.

That's not what "science" says, thats what Dr Miller said. Dr. Miller may be conducting science, but it doesn't mean he's right. Science = trial and error.

And that's what I mean by twisting words and statements. Millers experiment holds no value for me. His theories hold no value for me. Yet you keep reposting as "What science says" and it's simply not true. It's what Miller said, he doesn't speak for the entire scientific community.

Oh and Jokerman, if you please

Jokerman · May 10, 2006

TecK NeeX said:

Of course I knew you knew about it. And I also knew you'd be quoting back to me the scientists on the exact website you did. I didn't say Miller's experiment proved that's how life started. I was simply answering your "utter failure" comment.

You keep exaggerating things that agree with your viewpoint. Like his experiments have "been fully rejected by 99% of scientists." What, did you take a survey of scientists? All the biologists I know find his experiment useful. All the biology textbooks I know mention it, and don't mention it's been fully rejected. No one thought the experiment was telling us more than it was telling us, including Miller, as you pointed out. It was seen as a starting point and a classic of its kind. But no one said you can recreate in a laboratory a historical process that took a billion years.

It is conceivable that some variant of the Miller-Urey primeval soup would, if left long enough, find itself gradually directed toward the "right" sort of molecular arrangements automatically. For example, the action of randomly formed enzymes would lead to the high concentration of certain types of molecules at the expense of others. If those molecules in turn tended to form the very enzymes that help produce them, then a self-reinforcing cycle would arise. Whole successions of interlocking cycles could then raise the level of complexity stage by stage until, eventually, the first giant molecule capable of reproduction would be synthesized. Thereafter the going gets easier, as this fertile molecule sets about converting the remaining contents of the soup into replicas of itself. The way is then thrown open for Darwinian evolution to get to work.

Now you'll say, "But that's just speculation." No, it's not just speculation. It's speculation based on scientific findings and observations.

In recent years it has become clear that many physical and chemical systems can, in certain circumstances, leap spontaneously to states of greater organizational complexity. The laws of physics are such that, given the right conditions, matter evolves naturally and automatically along certain pathways of evolution leading to states of ever greater organizational complexity. When this complexity crosses a certain threshold the system may be said to be living. The precise details are not important, only the general trend from simple to complex. There may be many ways that chemical ( and maybe non-chemical) processes can self-organize to the point at which life emerges.

The chemist Michael Eigen has studied ways in which self-organizing, interlocking cycles of chemical processes can generate complexity vastly in excess of what would be created by simple random shuffling of molecules.

The fact that nature has a propensity to self-organize, that simple physical states tend to arrange themselves into more complex states, entirely spontaneously and without the aid of any external manipulator, suggests that the probability for spontaneous generation of life is vastly more probable than the simple statistics of random molecule-shuffling would indicate.

Duke · May 10, 2006

Thank you.

TecK NeeX · May 14, 2006

jokerman said:

Are you serious? The reaction to his experiment was as if scientists found evidence of God to creationists. His experiment aroused great excitement among evolutionists and atheists, and was even promoted as an outstanding success. how bout many and various publications carried headlines such as "Miller creates life" "Miller solves mystery of life"? what about the fact that Miller's experiment is still taught in textbooks and was presented as "fact" as the evolutionary explanation of the earliest generation of living things immediately after the completion of his experiment without giving any chance to opposition and challenges? Thats complete bullshit.

So obvioulsy many people thought his experiment told them ALOT more that what it was, including Miller. Haha

It's no wonder why your textbooks mention this rediculous experiment. It's clear that textbooks will never be rewritten to accommodate new discoveries. Teachers will also continue to teach these theories. As long as they're desquised in science and not religion no matter how unrealistic the thoery is its still "OK" to them.. thats a fact. It's like saying adding evolution to a holy book

Jokerman said:

(Assuming it's possible) In this case we can't "give the right conditions", those were the conditions in the premitive Earth assumed by scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago. The fact that he used methane and ammonia when he should have used carbon dioxide and nitrogen instead, which would have destroyed any chance of life.

He also assumed that oxygen was non-existent in the premitive atmosphere. more recent findings now tell us that there was a huge amount of free oxygen in the primitive atmosphere which also would have destroyed any chance of those amino acids or whatever a magician could pop out of his hat that is capable of "spontaneoulsy" creating life.

Woah you're gettin ahead of yourself, "Action of randomly formed enzymes"? Ha i've heard that before, problem is jokerman scientists have recently found that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. (Astronomer and Mathematician Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, 1981)

Scientists Hoyle and Wickramasinghe: Have said the follwoing.

If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court. …The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems… cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes… For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly. ..."That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code

I believe the chance of a God existing is higher than even that!!

It is just speculation and an act of desperation by evolutionists, I'd like to see these observations and findings that only you know of. Fact is, ever since Millers useless experiment scientists and researchers deliberately avoided embarking on such experiments. Really jokerman what was the point of that long ass post of yours? If it's anything its science fiction, no evidence to support anything you've said.

In short, proteins needed for life could never have come into existence by chance or any natural processes, there is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. however, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Take DNA for example, It is known and accepted as fact that only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has EVEN come close to producing this largely complex code which is so essential to all known life.

Nope infact in recent years its has become quite clear that many chemicals in any circumstances can't without a doubt "leap Spontaneously" The evidence is just not there Jokerman. Science shows us that the complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible for anyone to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish improbable event. That is what i call a miracle.

Show me these ways, Id like to read them. Cause I really can't find anything on this chemist 'Michael Eigen'. im really interested in his work. I hope you're not just pulling shit out of your ass wrapping them up in 'Neat' scientific words making it look like a possibility. Cause lately that has been the tool of many broke atheists who have been cornered.

You wanna talk about statistics of nature and self-organizing? Lets see what mathematicians and chemists were able to tell us about chemicals and molecules arranging "by themselves" into more complex states by "spnotaneous generation".

Chemist A.J. White and Mathematician Emil Borel have calculated the odds against molecules ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 10 to the 67th to 1(1 in10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000.) against even a small protein forming by time and chance, in a right mixture of chemicals, in a right ideal atmosphere, and given up to 100 billion years. Thats an age 10 to 20 times greater than the supposed age of the Earth by the way.

Mathematicians agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th have a zero probability of ever happening

TecK NeeX · May 14, 2006

Duke said:

No thats not what Miller is saying, thats Science proving Millers experiment totally flawed, unrealistic and wishful thinking by showing us that the primitive Earths atmosphere was absolutely nothing like the atmosphere Miller used. Thats what science is telling us

Never twisted anything.

And they shouldn't

Duke · May 14, 2006

TecK NeeX said:

"

Figures don't Lie but Creationists Figure - By Alec Grynspan

One of the Creationists' ploys has been to quote two Astrophysicists as if they were experts in biochemistry.
Note that the 2 individuals in question (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) have no problem with evolution itself and considered Creationists insane. They argue ponly that the ORIGIN of life, which is not part of evolutionary fact or theory, requires either a much older universe for Panspermia or that life needed a Creator to start.
More background: Years ago Hoyle and Wickramasinghe postulated a steady-state universe and opposed the idea of the "big bang". As part of their attack on "big bang", which was rapidly winning ground over steady-state, they cooked up a "probability" for life to originate on Earth that was essentially impossible.
To then cover the fact that life actually existed on Earth, they came up with the question-begging hypothesis of Panspermia. The result was that the origin of life was pushed further back. With the probability being so low, it would have taken trillions upon trillions of years for life to form using their concept.
BUT - with a steady-state universe, a trillion zeroes in the probability equation would have had no effect on the end result, since the universe would have been eternal.
Eventually, however, the steady onslaught of evidence for a "big bang" and against a steady-state universe forced Hoyle and Wickramasinghe to acquiesce.
So they were stuck with their bogus equations. What to do?
Well, if one postulated the existence of a creator, one eliminated the problem of the equations! One further undermined the concept of a non-created universe, giving them one more kick at the "big bang" cat.
This "probability", combined with a distortion and misquotation of Dawkins, has actually been used as a claim by some extremely dishonest Creationists as the foundation of a scientific theory of Creation, even though it is nothing of the sort for other reasons.
The flaw in the equations used by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe was that they used anonymous/non-anonymous atoms and, later, genetic sequences, to calculate the probability of a random assembly becoming a modern uni-cellular organism. The same tactic by Behe was used, via the debunked "irreducible complexity" approach, to derive a probability.
But this method of applying probability is utterly dishonest.
Let us take a simple example - table salt crystals.
Table salt is made up of sodium and chlorine atoms, so let's start with a very small quantity (around 50 milligrams) of sodium and chlorine - around 10^20 atoms of each.
Let's place these elements in a small container and mix it up.
What is the probability of a sodium atom meeting a chlorine atom in this container?
Answer: Virtually Unity.
What is the probability of a *SPECIFIC* sodium atom meeting a *SPECIFIC* chlorine atom in this container?
Answer: Once the sodium atom meets any OTHER chlorine atom, it is out of the picture. Similarly, once the chlorine atom meets any OTHER sodium atom, then IT is out of the picture.

The probability of the specific atoms meeting each other?
1 in 10^40.

The probability of every single specific sodium atom meeting a specific chlorine atom?
1 in 10^80. 1 with 80 zeroes after it.

Once we have 10^20 salt molecules, what is the probability of any salt molecule linking to any other until we have a salt crystal?
Answer: Unity.
What are the chances of a SPECIFIC salt molecule meeting another SPECIFIC salt molecule? 1 in 10^20.
Of all of them meeting like this? 1 in 10^40?
Of that batch of Sodium and Chlorine making that crystal?
1 in 10^120

This is how Hoyle and Wickramasinghe and Behe established their probabilities - by using permutations and treating each component of the cell as a totally unique entity with no other properties prior to final assembly than staying where placed.
Yet a pyridine molecule(for example) is the same wherever it is! Plus the properties of the variuos components REQUIRED that they have a constrained number of possible combinations.
Further, all that we need is some form of self-replication molecule that can absorb other molecules in order to replicate and mutate - already verified to be able to form naturally (although many Creationists will quote 40-year-old editorial opinions as "proof" that it can't happen), plus the verified Dawkins effect to bring on evolution of the final form of that cell.
Let's take another look at why this natural selection sequence, which creationists edit out when pretending to quote Dawkins, improves the probability to unity.

1. Every time that natural selection causes that protoliferean form to evolve in any specific direction, all the possible directions that were possible at that time are lost from the "decision tree".
2. Since the "probability" of that path was NOT equal to that of any of the others, it shouldn't be taken as such.
The Hoyle/Wickramasinghe/Behe approach keeps these alternates as part of the probability equation and of equal weight.
3. However, these alternates are not part of the total probability equation. They are paths that, even if they had equal weight are no longer part of the equation.

Let us do a little back-of-the-envelope calculations.
Let us presuppose that there were 10^6 mutations that caused 10^6 evolutionary bifurcations - with each alternative being of equal weight.
That means that, when that primitive barely-life nucleic acid first started the sequence, the probability against the final result being a specific cellular structure would have been
2^(10^6) or 2^1000000 or 10^300000 - 1 with THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND zeroes after it.
But, at any bifurcation, the probability that SOME path would be taken is UNITY. Therefore the probability against life forming is:
1 - 1^(10^6) or 1 - 1^1000000 or zero.
In other words, the probability that modern life would form by random mutation with natural selection is
UNITY.
Note that this does not take into account the bifurcations where one of the paths is lethal (bad mutation). These would be dead ends and would reduce the probability against the current life form developing. The end result, however, cannot pass the limit of UNITY, so it can only affect the final form of life and not the probability. The argument of Hoyle/Wickramasinghe/Behe and probabilities is therefore debunked! "

oops!

Teck, you once again show that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. You use old articles and unsupported scientific theories to try and prop up your stories. Fact of the matter is that those two have been conducting somewhat, how shall I put this, "false" experiments. In any case, their methods and conclusions are debateble.

Yet you keep trying to "use" science against itself by coming up with this shit. Sadly, though, you have no idea what it's actually saying. Similarly, you also have no clue that many of those ideas have been debunked already by people that know what they're talking about.

P.S. I think Jokerman meant Manfred Eigen instead of Micheal.

There's also a good cut on entropy and Creationists' misuse of that under it.

http://www.skeptictank.org/figlie.htm

"Because the argument that increasing complexity is negative entropy, bogus though it is, is countered by the fact that the TOTAL entropy of the Earth/Sun pair is actually monstrously positive, courtesy of the Sun!"

Your conclusion on God's existence

On Probation: Please report break in guidelines to

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

On Probation: Please report break in guidelines to

Well-Known Member

On Probation: Please report break in guidelines to

On Probation: Please report break in guidelines to

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

On Probation: Please report break in guidelines to

On Probation: Please report break in guidelines to

Well-Known Member

Donate