Originally posted by dj2beckerI believe, in the absence of alternative viable theories, that it is the most likely process.
[b]I didn't say that at all.
Let me get this straight - do you or don't you believe in evolution?
I didn't say this either. But if I consider your claim, the first thing I would say is why do you think there is disorder?
Does the term "evolution" ring a bell? Or are you saying that evolution does not require order to be created from disorder by chance?[/b]
I'm asking you why you think disorder is the starting point. Will you answer the question?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by StarrmanI believe, in the absence of alternative viable theories, that it is the most likely process.
I believe, in the absence of alternative viable theories, that it is the most likely process.
I'm asking you why you think disorder is the starting point. Will you answer the question?
Ah, I see. You just cannot come to terms with an intelligent designer. Why may I ask? Oh, actually I know... So never mind.
I'm asking you why you think disorder is the starting point. Will you answer the question?
Because I regard a 'chemical soup' to be a rather disorderly arrangement of matter. Or do you disagree that this is the supposed starting point of the evolutionary theory?
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2becker
Ah, I see. You just cannot come to terms with an intelligent designer. Why may I ask? Oh, actually I know... So never mind.
Do tell, I'm dying to know if after all this time you have actually committed something to memory from our conversations.
Because I regard a 'chemical soup' to be a rather disorderly arrangement of matter. Or do you disagree that this is the supposed starting point of the evolutionary theory?
I disagree that there is disorder there, though I doubt you will ever see how or why.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanDo tell, I'm dying to know if after all this time you have actually committed something to memory from our conversations.
Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Ah, I see. You just cannot come to terms with an intelligent designer. Why may I ask? Oh, actually I know... So never mind.
Because I regard a 'chemical soup' to be a rather disorderly arrangement of matter. Or do you disagree that this is the supposed starting point of the evolutionary theory?
I disagree that there is disorder there, though I doubt you will ever see how or why.[/b]
I doubt you will ever understand why I never told you.
I disagree that there is disorder there, though I doubt you will ever see how or why.
I see. So it is a personal thing. I'm happy that I never have to take a peek at your bedroom. 😀
Originally posted by dj2beckerOkay, go on then, tell me why you are happy to dismiss the order of chemicals and physics, in favour of the disorder of spacial nature?
[b]Do tell, I'm dying to know if after all this time you have actually committed something to memory from our conversations.
I doubt you will ever understand why I never told you.
I disagree that there is disorder there, though I doubt you will ever see how or why.
I see. So it is a personal thing. I'm happy that I never have to take a peek at your bedroom. 😀[/b]
You say that disorder is the starting point, but you fail to take in the nature of the physics, the binding of atoms, chemical events, all of which follow ordered rules.
Are you going to tell me why I cannot come to terms with an ID?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by StarrmanOkay, go on then, tell me why you are happy to dismiss the order of chemicals and physics, in favour of the disorder of spacial nature?
Okay, go on then, tell me why you are happy to dismiss the order of chemicals and physics, in favour of the disorder of spacial nature?
You say that disorder is the starting point, but you fail to take in the nature of the physics, the binding of atoms, chemical events, all of which follow ordered rules.
Are you going to tell me why I cannot come to terms with an ID?
I never dismissed the order of chemicals and physics. In fact I believe God created an ordered universe as well as the laws of physics. But quite obviously he had to have made it from disorder.
If you cannot figure that one out, I suggest the following analogy:
compare the letters of the alphabet with matter. God created matter, in the same way as someone created the letters of the alphabet. He then ordered it by using the laws of physics that he also created. In the same way William Shakespeare used the disorderly arrangement of the letters of the alphabet and rearranged them into his works using the laws of grammer to create something meaningful.
Now the TOE cannot explain where matter came from in the first place. Neither can the TOE explain why molecules are ordered.
By believing in the TOE you have to admit that the works of Shakespeare could be recreated by the random arrangement of alphabetical letters.
You say that disorder is the starting point, but you fail to take in the nature of the physics, the binding of atoms, chemical events, all of which follow ordered rules.
This is all perfectly compatible with an Intelligent Designer. I cannot see how the TOE can be compatible with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Everything tends towards disorder.
I am querying how the chemicals could have such order in the first place simply from the evolutionary process, and how this order can be more progressive, when left over to random chance.
Are you going to tell me why I cannot come to terms with an ID?
Me thinks you are an Atheist and ID requires a belief in God.
Originally posted by dj2becker
I never dismissed the order of chemicals and physics. In fact I believe God created an ordered universe as well as the laws of physics. But quite obviously he had to have made it from disorder.
But the theory of evolution says nothing about the creation of the universe. If you believe that the universe was created ordered, then evolution would be compatible with that state thereafter.
Now the TOE cannot explain where matter came from in the first place. Neither can the TOE explain why molecules are ordered.
Exactly!
By believing in the TOE you have to admit that the works of Shakespeare could be recreated by the random arrangement of alphabetical letters.
What?! Okay, one more time, the TOE says nothing about the creation of chemical or physical laws..
This is all perfectly compatible with an Intelligent Designer. I cannot see how the TOE can be compatible with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Everything tends towards disorder.
I doubt you really understand the 2nd law, it's more likely you got this little titbit of information from some creationsit website. As such here is a link which I hope you will take the time to read and which shows that your last statemnet is false:
http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html
I suggest you read the links at the end of the piece too, though I presume fear of having your faith challenged will keep you from educating yourself further.
I am querying how the chemicals could have such order in the first place simply from the evolutionary process, and how this order can be more progressive, when left over to random chance.
Again, the TOE is not concerned with the process of formation of chemicals, it is concerned with the process beyond the creation of life.
Me thinks you are an Atheist and ID requires a belief in God.
Even if I did believe in god, ID is pure nonsense and despite being invalidated considerably at every turn, some fools still pursue it as truth.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
3 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanSo we are agreed that the TOE falls hopelessly short at explaining origins?
Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]I never dismissed the order of chemicals and physics. In fact I believe God created an ordered universe as well as the laws of physics. But quite obviously he had to have made it from disorder.
But the theory of evolution says nothing about the creation of the universe. If you believe that the universe was c and despite being invalidated considerably at every turn, some fools still pursue it as truth.[/b]
If (according to you) the TOE is not used to explain the origin of life, how do you (as an Atheist) explain the origin of life?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by StarrmanAgain, the TOE is not concerned with the process of formation of chemicals, it is concerned with the process beyond the creation of life.
Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]I never dismissed the order of chemicals and physics. In fact I believe God created an ordered universe as well as the laws of physics. But quite obviously he had to have made it from disorder.
But the theory of evolution says nothing about the creation of the universe. If you believe that the universe was c ...[text shortened]... and despite being invalidated considerably at every turn, some fools still pursue it as truth.[/b]
Me thinks you are sucking your thumb.
Why was the Stanley Miller experiment done?
Originally posted by RolfeyI actually can prove it. I pray to the Lord Jesus Christ that if you do what I am about to tell you to do that you will find that what I am saying is true. Here's what I want you to do so I can prove you wrong. Get on your knees and pray to Jesus and tell Him you don't believe in Him, but that if He exists to show your heart the way to Him. Also, you must try to find Him even if you don't think He exists. But, just keep praying like that for some days, and see what happens, okay? Seek Him and you shall truly find Him. It's a promise in the Word of God. Then, when you gain salvation from Our Lord Jesus Christ, you will come to me in words and tell me of this blessing that the Lord has bestowed upon you and I. I'll be aghast if you got saved. I would be so happy! And, I promise I won't say, "I told you so!" 🙂 This is not about who is right or wrong. This is about your soul and eternality. This is about finding the Love of God. 🙂
going around in circles again. this does not prove anything. you have admitted you can not prove it. kindly shut up.
Originally posted by dj2beckerIt was never meant to show how anything was initially created dj, your continual attempt to undermine it by attaching to it something which lays outside its boundaries is shameful.
So we are agreed that the TOE falls hopelessly short at explaining origins?
If (according to you) the TOE is not used to explain the origin of life, how do you (as an Atheist) explain the origin of life?
I personally do not claim to know. What I think seems most likely is that chemical compounds became more complex as the world cooled until by some event they formed amino acids and other complex molecules, proteins and the like, some of which in turn eventually form DNA and physical structures which combine to form single celled organisms.
Originally posted by dj2beckerUmm... to experiment on the possible origins of life. You know that already. Your point?
[b]Again, the TOE is not concerned with the process of formation of chemicals, it is concerned with the process beyond the creation of life.
Me thinks you are sucking your thumb.
Why was the Stanley Miller experiment done?[/b]
Oh, I see, silly me, there I was thinking that you can take the TOE seperately from research into the origins of life. Come on dj, don't be so spurious.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanIt was never meant to show how anything was initially created dj, your continual attempt to undermine it by attaching to it something which lays outside its boundaries is shameful.
It was never meant to show how anything was initially created dj, your continual attempt to undermine it by attaching to it something which lays outside its boundaries is shameful.
I personally do not claim to know. What I think seems most likely is that chemical compounds became more complex as the world cooled until by some event they formed amino aci ...[text shortened]... turn eventually form DNA and physical structures which combine to form single celled organisms.
If the TOE does not attempt to explain the creation of life, would you care to explain to me why the Stanley Miller experiment was initially regarded such a great break-through in Evolutionary circles?
And surely there must be some link with the TOE and Abiogenisis? Surely the TOE should be questioned if Abiogenesis crumbles.
I personally do not claim to know. What I think seems most likely is that chemical compounds became more complex as the world cooled until by some event they formed amino acids and other complex molecules, proteins and the like, some of which in turn eventually form DNA and physical structures which combine to form single celled organisms.
Do you not require a measure of faith to believe this?
Has anyone demonstrated that this is possible? Has anyone created single celled organisms from chemical compounds? Surely, if "intelligent" human beings have never been able to create a single celled-organism from chemical compounds, a large measure of faith is required to believe that random chance can do it?
I would not call this "Science", rather "blind faith".