Originally posted by jaywill
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.

I don't understand what you are saying, would you care to expand on that?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Don't many people believe evolution means man evolved from apes? That I
believe is standard belief for most evolutionists. Except for those that realize
that is stupid.

which evolutionists?

you know you've been corrected on this point before. that you are repeating the same false claim is either a reflection of your dishonesty on the topic, or a reflection of your complete ignorance on the topic.

my guess is both.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
which evolutionists?

you know you've been corrected on this point before. that you are repeating the same false claim is either a reflection of your dishonesty on the topic, or a reflection of your complete ignorance on the topic.

my guess is both.

It is your ignorance on the subject that needs the correcting. However, you
have shown your continual disregard for knowing the truth.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is your ignorance on the subject that needs the correcting. However, you
have shown your continual disregard for knowing the truth.

hehe. i see you couldn't name an evolutionist. just shooting your mouth off at a subject you don't understand as usual.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
hehe. i see you couldn't name an evolutionist. just shooting your mouth off at a subject you don't understand as usual.

How about Richard Dawkins?

P.S.
YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
Zero energy? What an idiot.

http://blog.case.edu/singham/2010/03/30/big_bang_for_beginners13_does_the_big_bang_theory_violate_the_law_of_conservation_of_energy


".... The total energy of the universe consists of the energy due to the motion of all the particles (called kinetic energy),
the energy that is stored because of the gravitational forces between the particles (called potential energy), and the
energy associated with the mass of all the particles (usually referred to as rest energy).

The key feature to bear in mind is that the gravitational potential energy is a negative quantity. You can see this by
realizing that in order to separate two objects, one has to overcome the attractive gravitational force and this requires
one to supply positive energy from outside. This is why launching satellites into space requires such huge amounts of
positive energy supplied by fuel, in order to overcome the negative gravitational potential energy of the satellite due to
the Earth's attractive force.

This negative gravitational potential energy exactly cancels out the positive energy of the universe. As Stephen Hawking
says in his book A Brief History of Time (quoted by Victor Stenger, Has Science Found God?, p. 148): "In the case of a
universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the
positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero." In other words, it is not the case
that something came out of nothing. It is that we have always had zero energy.

Alan Guth, one of the creators of the inflationary universe model, points out that the fact that "in any closed universe the
negative gravitational potential energy cancels the energy of matter exactly" has been known for some time and can be
found in standard textbooks. (See The Classical Theory of Fields by L. D. Landau and E. M. Lif****z, second edition, 1962,
p. 378-379.)..... "


Sigh auto mod doesn't like E. M. Lif.... 's name.

Originally posted by googlefudge
http://blog.case.edu/singham/2010/03/30/big_bang_for_beginners13_does_the_big_bang_theory_violate_the_law_of_conservation_of_energy


".... The total energy of the universe consists of the energy due to the motion of all the particles (called kinetic energy),
the energy that is stored because of the gravitational forces between the particles (cal ...[text shortened]... 1962,
p. 378-379.)..... "


Sigh auto mod doesn't like E. M. Lif.... 's name.

I've always had trouble with the notion of potential energy. It seems to be an equation-balancing convention more than a reality. If interested, there is similar thinking at

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/

in the section "2.3.3 Lange's One-Property, No-Conversion Interpretation".

But further discussion along these lines may belong in the science forum.

Originally posted by JS357
I've always had trouble with the notion of potential energy. It seems to be an equation-balancing convention more than a reality. If interested, there is similar thinking at

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/

in the section "2.3.3 Lange's One-Property, No-Conversion Interpretation".

But further discussion along these lines may belong in the science forum.

Well the issue raised here by RJHinds is that the creation of the universe is in violation of the
law of conservation of energy.

Well I assume he means that the creation of the universe violates conservation of energy law
but what he actually said was evolution violates conservation of energy which is utter utter
nonsense but given that RJHinds uses the word evolution as a catch all for everything in science
he doesn't agree with... which is all of it.

My response was to point out that the equations and laws of physics say that he is wrong and
that the creation of the universe does not violate the laws of physics according to the laws of
physics.

If you say that those laws don't actually hold and that energy isn't conserved anyway then the
question of whether the creation of the universe violates the laws is irrelevant because those laws
no longer exist.

If someone [RJHinds] is complaining that the laws of physics are violated by big bang then I can point out that
no the laws of physics are in fact perfectly compatible with big bang.
If the laws of physics are wrong then whether or not the big bang violates those laws or not is irrelevant.

You can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evidence for the Supernatural Creation of the Universe
Patrick R. Briney, Ph.D.


[b]The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is not created or destroyed. It can be changed into different forms, but there is no gain or loss of energy. Thus, the first law of thermodynamics is sometimes called the law of conservation of energy.

This princ he second law [of thermodynamics] tends to increase conviction that there is a Creator ....”[/b]

“...
According to the first law of thermodynamics, the physical properties of the universe cannot create energy. Yet energy exists. ...”

get this through your thick skull:

yes, which means either there is an exception to the law ( hence no need for stupid superstition ) or it never was “created” because it was there at the beginning of time.
-now think very carefully about this latter bit, if there is a beginning of time then whatever was there at that beginning was not “created” nor needed to be “created” because at NO point in time was there nothing ( including no energy/mass ) and therefore there would be no need for a transition from there being nothing to something and there would be no need for a transition from there being no energy to being energy! Think very carefully about this: “creation” of something X means going from a point in time when there was no X to a point in time there IS X else it would not be “created” by definition of the word.


“...
1. Evolution proposes that the entropy was reduced in the universe by physical properties in the universe. ...”

are you talking here about Darwinian evolution or evolution of the universe? WHICH ONE?

“...

2. Proposing that entropy was reduced in the universe by physical properties in the universe contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. ...”

3. Explanations that contradict data are unscientific. ...”

-unless there is evidence of an exception. That is the way science works.

“....4. Therefore, evolution as an explanation for the origin of reduced entropy in the universe is unscientific. ...”

again: are you talking here about Darwinian evolution or evolution of the universe? WHICH ONE?

Whether you are talking about Darwinian evolution or are talking here about the evolution of the universe, that process doesn't require violation of the second law of thermodynamics because the second law of thermodynamics is about entropy of ENERGY ( including potential energy ) and NOT structures that spontaneously form.


So either way, you are talking crap here from a position of total stupidity. You are a moron.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Whatever his Ph.D. is in, is clearly isn't science (or it should never have been awarded by the relevant university).

Dr. Patrick Briney has Ph.D. in microbiology. http://creationwiki.org/Patrick_Briney

It appears that he gained this PhD from UC Irvine. http://mbbc.us/briney/about_me/about_me.htm

The Fayetteville Freethinkers also have a few pages about him. http://fayfreethinkers.com/quacks/briney/

--- Penguin.