- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Apr 12
Oh and a quick note.
The big bang does not claim that ANY energy was created in violation of ANY laws of
thermodynamics.
The positive energy (matter, light ect) is balanced out by negative energy so the sum
total energy of the universe is zero.
You start with zero total energy and still have zero total energy.
He might know this if he was a physicist and not a wannabe biologist.
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeFrom the third link:
I think it's this guy... (RJHinds can you confirm?)
http://mbbc.us/briney/resume/resume.htm
http://mbbc.us/briney/about_me/about_me.htm
http://mbbc.us/briney/default.htm
And the microbiology thing is a giveaway.
It's the subject of choice for those who want to sound authoritative when
arguing for ID because it means you get an unders ...[text shortened]... r those who are intent on trying to
prove [or sound like they can prove] ID and creationism.
From the Bible, we discover that God created the heaven and the earth in seven days, that there is one race of people all descended from Adam, that sin is the cause of suffering and death in the world, that eight human souls and an ark load of animals were saved from a world wide cataclysmic flood, <SNIP>That's enough. How can anyone take this guy seriously?
10 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillIts not worth the effort until someone actually states that they agree with the OP. I see you are avoiding doing so. You want to wait till someone dissects it and points out all the errors, then you will stand back and say 'well it wasn't me that posted it'.
This is the lazy way. This is a wink and "Trust me. This is not science at all."
Take it apart and anaylize his comments.
We all know that RJHinds is just trolling and doesn't understand the content of what he posted. He just searched the internet for 'Evidence for the Supernatural Creation' and that is what he came up with.
If you are willing to stand behind the OP and state that you agree with what it says, then I would be willing to go though it and point out some of the errors. But as I said, if you read it your self, you would probably spot some of them straight off without my assistance.
10 Apr 12
he makes a few leap-of-faith assumptions that are not scientific.
first, he proposes that science working on the problem for 200 years is enough to come up with the answers. he is obviously out of touch with recent quantum physics studies.
second, that energy [theoretically] coming from outside the universe must be supernatural. now this may be if you define everything *in* the universe as natural and everything *outside* the universe as supernatural. however, supernatural in this sense does not mean a creator, it just means it's from unknown sources outside the universe.
now when he started talking about evolution an explanation for the origin of energy, i had to stop. he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.
11 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
No, the poster did a copy/paste and probably doesn't even understand the content of what he copied.
[b]Don't expect everyone should just take your word for it that its is all wrong.
I don't. Its obvious to anyone who takes the trouble of reading it. Read it yourself and see. If you tell me you agree with everything in the OP, then we can take it from there, but I am fairly sure that you will see at least some of the errors.[/b]
I don't. Its obvious to anyone who takes the trouble of reading it. Read it yourself and see. If you tell me you agree with everything in the OP, then we can take it from there, but I am fairly sure that you will see at least some of the errors.
Let's start with seeing if we can come to some agreement on what "supernatural" might mean. Do you think you and I might come to some agreement about that if we discuss it ?
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillHow about this:I don't. Its obvious to anyone who takes the trouble of reading it. Read it yourself and see. If you tell me you agree with everything in the OP, then we can take it from there, but I am fairly sure that you will see at least some of the errors.
Let's start with seeing if we can come to some agreement on what "supernatural" might mean. Do you think you and I might come to some agreement about that if we discuss it ?
1
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeZero energy? What an idiot.
Oh and a quick note.
The big bang does not claim that ANY energy was created in violation of ANY laws of
thermodynamics.
The positive energy (matter, light ect) is balanced out by negative energy so the sum
total energy of the universe is zero.
You start with zero total energy and still have zero total energy.
He might know this if he was a physicist and not a wannabe biologist.
11 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is because I truly understand the whole idea of the theory of evolution and
So you think you do know what evolution means, and admit deliberately misusing it? Why do you think 'adaptation' is more appropriate?
Why do you use the word 'evolution' for something else that it is clearly not appropriate for?
it actually has nothing to do with adaptation. Adaptation by natural selection is
only used to give the theory of evoulution credibility. So people, like you, are
fooled into believing evolution is a fact because adaptation is a fact. But the
real purpose of the theory of evolution is to replace God as the source of all
created life on Earth. Apes have never evolved into a man and never will.
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillI rather doubt it. I have only ever heard it defined in an incoherent way. My understanding of the word is that it is an 'escape' used by theists to try and confuse themselves and others.
Let's start with seeing if we can come to some agreement on what "supernatural" might mean. Do you think you and I might come to some agreement about that if we discuss it ?
What do you understand by the word?
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsHilarious. So what is this 'theory of evolution' that you are referring to? Its clearly not what everyone else calls the 'theory of evolution'. Why do you insist on using words in such non-standard ways? Are you attempting to confuse us?
It is because I truly understand the whole idea of the theory of evolution and
it actually has nothing to do with adaptation.
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI rather doubt it too but for different reasons.
I rather doubt it. I have only ever heard it defined in an incoherent way. My understanding of the word is that it is an 'escape' used by theists to try and confuse themselves and others.
What do you understand by the word?
But in this case the ambiguity provides an escape from commitment by the Atheist.
So we stay at a "Whose Asking ??" stalemate, I guess. Basic mutual mistrust.
11 Apr 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadDon't many people believe evolution means man evolved from apes? That I
Hilarious. So what is this 'theory of evolution' that you are referring to? Its clearly not what everyone else calls the 'theory of evolution'. Why do you insist on using words in such non-standard ways? Are you attempting to confuse us?
believe is standard belief for most evolutionists. Except for those that realize
that is stupid.