|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 8:00:08 PM
|
|
|
CherishedbyGod
Posts: 2545
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: atheistinpeace
quote:
ORIGINAL: CherishedbyGod
This one is for AiP 
I have wanted to ask this of you for a long time...
If you are so much in "peace", why do you feel the need to announce it 
See what you mean! But...
I mean to say that I'm not here to cause trouble. Seeing that I'm treading on your turf by posting here, and having seen some pretty shoddy arguing from atheists before I signed up, I just wanted to use my screenname to confirm my wholly benign intentions.
AiP
Thank you for that explanation! I appreciate it and I do appreciate you, believe it or not. I love souls, atheist, agnostic, apostate, etc. I've never read your posts, however. I tend to stay away from things that might put doubt in my mind, having been that route before.
But, I know you have been here awhile and you must be a gentleman since you haven't been kicked off
So, a very belated welcome to you
cherished....
_____________________________
~I would love for you to come and learn about Jesus of Nazareth with me in the Writer's Roundtable Folder~
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 8:17:50 PM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gazingstock
quote:
I actually didn't sidestep. That question doesn't require only a 'yes' or a 'no' because 'sufficient' is HIGHLY subjective. Perhaps you need a word other than sufficient if you're talking about objectivity.
You most certainly did, but that's okay. Try it this way:
1) Do you believe it is possible to know for a fact that God is real?
2) Name one thing that would prove to you God is real.
No, I didn't. "Sufficient" is a subjective word and cannot be applied generally to all people in your question.
1) I believe people can be 100% certain of something just because they're cocky, but in a philosophical sense.. technically, no, I don't think it's possible to know for a fact that God is real.
2) If someone convinced me the Bible was inerrant, I may believe in God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 8:24:05 PM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tapestry
quote:
It can be an argument against atheism, a question about atheism, or even a question about my personal life as an atheist. All is welcome!
The dictionary says that an atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Please show me proof that God does not exsist.
Thank you.
Don't use the word "proof" so readily. No one can prove or disprove something like that.
I don't think God exists because no theist has convinced me. Their arguments are usually illogical, appealing to only emotions, lies, or ignorant of science.
I see nothing specially credible about Jesus, because we know for a fact people even today can convince others they can perform miracles of the sort that surround Jesus... such as Sathya Sai Baba. And deism is an unnecessary step with no evidence, only explaining power. There is a vast number of things that can explain a problem, but it takes evidence to assert it truthfully.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 8:26:00 PM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
You're an atheist? Wow, I've never met a person who had infinate knowledge before...
You see, because that's what you'd need in order to say that there is no God.
You would have to know the intimate details of exactly everything there is to know in the universe to be able to say that there is no evidence to prove the existence of God. I'm sure that you don't have infinate knowledge of everything, so the best you can do is to say that you are an agnostic. Atheists by definition do not exist.
Now, to your "beginning" explaination: go back in your mind to the very first thing... An atom of anything, or whatever the very first "thing" was that existed to which just a nanosecond before there was nothing... How did that come into being? Since time exists, and all things wind down, or die, or burn up, or expire, ect... then it's safe to assume that on a much larger scale there MUST have been a beginning to everything. So what caused it? (Remember, start with absolutely nothing - that's a "zero" with the edges rubbed out)
I don't say there is no God. I simply lack a belief in one due to insufficient evidence.
You don't have to know everything in the universe to lack a belief in something.
From what I do know, however, I believe the Christian god is highly unlikely. But it's specifically because I don't know everything that I'm not willing to say he for sure doesn't exist.
What more evidence do you need. Do you understand the awesome perfect complexity of the planet you live on, the total harmony of the eco system, and the unimaginable complexities of a human being. How can you really right off all of this as not being evidence of a creator. There is just simply no way all that we see could have happened by chance.
Perfect is subjective. I find small pox to be a horribly unperfect disease for a child to endure.
Evolution explains the complexity of humans. However, how do you explain a being complex enough to furnish a being you find too complex to have natural origins? That's the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 8:27:39 PM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephK
quote:
primordial earth had hydrogen, hydrogen-cyanide, methane, ammonia
Where did primordial earth come from?
Over 4.6 billion years ago our solar system was born from the gases of a nebula.
Gravity caused the dust from the nebula to swirl together.. creating bigger pieces of debris.
At the center was a dense nucleus, or protosun.
The extreme heat that was generated in the center began to burn the abundant hydrogen atoms in its core, becoming a self-sustaining nuclear-fusion reaction that grew to be our sun.
The clumps of rock continued to form and grow thanks to gravity. These became planets..
This exact process has been observed in the extrasolar universe.
what is an extrasolar universe, and if it takes billions of years to happen, how exactly has it been observed?
Do the clumps of rock really continue to grow to then wind up in perfect orbits around the sun? That is very interesting. And was it 8 rocks or 9 rocks, cause you know that little planet pluto might not really be one.
Did you observe the resurrection of Jesus?
We've observed this happening in the extrasolar universe. That means, we've actually seen these processes outside our solar system. They have been observed.
And planets aren't in perfect orbits around the sun.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 8:33:10 PM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: designed
I have a question.
Where does "love" come from?
Romantic love? Mainly pheromones, and some other neurotransmitters.
Lust? Testosterone and estrogen.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 8:35:05 PM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
quote:
ORIGINAL: tsnody2001
The truth is unknowable? How do we know that 6 + 4 = 10? Is that not truth? By the way, I'm not saying Jesus is a math problem. FAITH is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. FAITH and ALL the created universe are very "true" evidences for the existence of God.
There are numerous questions that we don't know the answer to. Even theists.
Faith is not evidence for the existence of God.. care to explain?
And simply evidence does not make a truth known for certain. We have evidence of how life started but we don't know for sure yet.
you don't have evidence but guesses and ideas, supported by experiments based on those guesses and ideas.
You have guesses and ideas that a certain holy book is actual truth. The difference is, you call it faith and know for certain you are correct. I call it a circumstantial belief and I don't know for certain I am correct.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 8:36:36 PM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
Prex,
You said
quote:
Well, then we're brought into some weird physics. New research is working on what happened before the Big Bang, if that's even a coherent question, why it exists, etc. There are physicists that research how things may not need a cause, at least on a quantum level (at a quantum level, particles pop in and out of existence) and the most popular theory being worked on right now is String Theory which hopes to explain everything from the laws of nature to the Big Bang. It's a very complicated subject but it has to do with multi dimensions, which seem to be supported by math.
So if they can come with something that works and may have happened, and the tests and experiments they run actually work, does that then mean that it is true? Or does it mean that in their limited knowledge, they came up with a possibility that they deem sufficient, their biased tests prove it, and now it must be taken as fact, even though they could never have any idea what it was like b4 the Big Lie theory, I mean big bang.
I know it's tempting to shed doubt on scientific methods when they contradict your holy book, but that's just how science works. It examines the evidence, and looks for more evidence, and tries to reach conclusions but never works upon faith in saying those conclusions are for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 8:40:21 PM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
Now if we believers in God keep throwing the first cause question at any "Big Bang Theory or other theory believers, later a nonbeliever would soon ask who created God if everything has to have a first cause, well that answer will be very simple to me because it's in the bible. God has always been
The universe could have always been. God is an unnecessary extra step.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
I think to make this thread worth replying to would be if you asked us questions.
I did that many years ago. That's one reason why I'm an atheist today.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 8:41:41 PM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
Alright, got some stuff to work on..
I hope to see many more questions when I return!
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 8:45:29 PM
|
|
|
tsnody2001
Posts: 78
Joined: 4/29/2008
From: Terre Haute, IN
Status: offline
|
Today is decades after Bill Werber played with Babe Ruth, but he must be lying.
_____________________________
"Saving faith shuts my mouth and excludes boasting, but it leads me to boast in Christ.... Saving faith is not dependant upon my obedience, but obedience is the hallmark of the man or woman filled with the Spirit." -- Sinclair Ferguson --
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 8:45:49 PM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 5698
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are getting their sweaters ready....
Status: online
|
As a former atheist and rabid hater of Christianity.. there is so much I could interject into this discussion. Darwinian (macro) Evolution is not science, it is faith-based guesses at best and sheer fiction at worst. It is clear to anyone who looks at the evidence with an open mind that apes becoming man (Peking man, etc) is false. Peking man and the like are not a distant relative but rather dinner.
To say that "hominids" like Peking man and his partners are closely related to humans because both can walk is akin to saying that a hummingbird and a helicopter are closely related because both can fly.
In reality, the distance between an ape who cannot read or write and a descendant of Adam who can compose a musical masterpiece or send a person to the moon is the distance of infinity.
No matter how many years the evolutionist postulates, chance operating on natural processes can no more create a chimp than it could create a cell. Sorry for the rant, but so much can be said.
Dr. Louis Bounoure, former director of research at the French National Center for Scientific Research, calls macro evolution "a fairy tale for grown-ups." I call it a cruel hoax! In fact, the arguments that support evolutionary theory are astonishingly weak.
First, the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists. No verifiable transitions from one kind to another have as yet been found. Charles Darwin had an excuse; in his day fossil finds were relatively scarce.
Today, however, we have an abundance of fossils. Still, we have yet to find even one legitimate transition from one kind to another.
Furthermore, in Darwin's day such enormously complex structures as a human egg were thought to be quite simple - for all practical purposes, little more than a microscopic blob of gelatin.
Today, we know that a fertilized human egg is among the most organized, complex structures in the universe. In an age of scientific enlightenment, it is incredible to think people are willing to maintain that something so vastly complex arose by chance.
Like an egg or the human eye, the universe is a masterpiece of precision and design that could not have come into existence by chance.
Finally, while chance is a blow to the theory of evolution, the laws of science are a bullet to its head.
The basic laws of science, including the laws of effects and their causes - energy conservation and entropy - under gird the creation model for origins and undermine the evolutionary hypothesis.
While I would fight for a person's right to have faith in science fiction, we must resist evolutionists who attempt to brainwash people into thinking that macro evolution is science.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 8:47:05 PM
|
|
|
tsnody2001
Posts: 78
Joined: 4/29/2008
From: Terre Haute, IN
Status: offline
|
.....since he's not a historian....
_____________________________
"Saving faith shuts my mouth and excludes boasting, but it leads me to boast in Christ.... Saving faith is not dependant upon my obedience, but obedience is the hallmark of the man or woman filled with the Spirit." -- Sinclair Ferguson --
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 8:53:32 PM
|
|
|
SonInMe1
Posts: 3523
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: my mom by God
Status: offline
|
quote:
Nebulae, and everything else, originally came from the Big Bang
Big bang theory is an old theory. I'm not very knowledgable in modern day evolution theories but I do know the Big bang theory has been replaced. Something about dark matter? Not sure.
Even with mutations, which if I remember correctly occur here on earth mainly due to some radiation present, the time frame for a single cell organism to develop into humankind would take 10 to the 128th power in years. I don't believe anyone believes the earth is that old.
quote:
God isn't one to rely on science.
God invented it. His world does have laws it goes on. Proof of God comes when these laws are supernaturally suspended. That...is how creation proves God.
quote:
I don't think God exists because no theist has convinced me. Their arguments are usually illogical, appealing to only emotions, lies, or ignorant of science.
No doubt there is a huge problem in the church rejecting ecience. A true faith will stand up to a challenge...and 99.9% of science does not challenge faith. Possibly intellect, but not faith. All science points to God. Always has, if it is true science and not a propaganda driven agenda.
quote:
supposed life.
Jesus is a historical figure. There is no doubt He lived. Over 500 people saw Him ressurected as well.
My only question is...
is this ( our lives ) all there is?
Ooops two questions and this is the most important....
Why?
_____________________________
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
James 4:4
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 9:18:44 PM
|
|
|
isaacsmom
Posts: 1891
Joined: 12/2/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The only written material about Jesus was written decades after his supposed life. Not a single historian or anyone for that matter that lived during and around Jesus wrote anything about him.
Matthew? Mark? Luke? John?
_____________________________
<<< My littlest punkin'
*~*~*Rachel*~*~*
My Space
pirtlefarm.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 9:23:57 PM
|
|
|
Lufia
Posts: 176
Joined: 5/25/2008
From: Canada, quebec province
Status: offline
|
The Big Bang has not been replace at all. Some scientists doesn't like the idea of the Big Bang ( because it strongly suggest a Creator) so they invented the multiverse theory... That theory, believe me, takes a lot more faith then ours in God ...
_____________________________
Give your life to Jesus and enjoy the ride!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 9:33:17 PM
|
|
|
CherishedbyGod
Posts: 2545
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: earthless
As a rabid hater of Christianity..
You were?
Why did you hate us or Christianity so much? Do you elaborate on this on another thread, earthless?
_____________________________
~I would love for you to come and learn about Jesus of Nazareth with me in the Writer's Roundtable Folder~
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 9:35:53 PM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 5698
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are getting their sweaters ready....
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PrexicKehdaki
The universe could have always been.
You can't be serious, that has not been believed by the scientific community since the 70's.
If critics of the Bible would read it with an open mind, if they would pay attention to genre, grammar, syntax, semantics and context many would recognize that their faith is placed in their own dogmatic assertions rather than in a substantive defensible argument.
Many atheist's problems, at the end of the day, is that they're closed minded. Many believe that the entire universe can only be explained through naturalistic phenomena. In other words, you look at philosophical naturalism and you say, "there we have the holy grail.." Where a truly open minded person will account for both natural and supernatural explanations for what they encounter in this world.
For example, you look at the universe and say, "well.. logic tells me that every effect has to have a cause that is equal to or greater than itself. Perhaps I should at least open my mind widely enough so I can countenance the idea that there is a possibility of the supernatural."
They don't have to accept it, but they should have at least that much of an open mind. But most do not and that is the great irony of the situation. Many are closed minded bigots. Pure and simple.
Someone asked me today if people like Bill Maher, Oprah, Eckhart Tolle, etc are a real problem for Christianity.
The real problem are Christians who have objecated their responsibility to be salt and light. We haven't been transforming agents. If you take the salt out of the mix, then everything ends up being putrid.
We're supposed to be a light on the hill. But if you take a cover to that light what is going to happen?
The point is that we do not want to create a we-they siege mentality. What we want to do is reach out.
Even those who profess Christ have little ability to counter many sophomoric arguments.
An atheist like Bill Maher is constantly looking for new forums to spout his idiosyncratic fundamentalism. He has done it many times on Larry King Live - where he last time said we believe in fairy tales and are dumb for having faith.
We don't believe in fairy tales, that's the whole issue with Christianity - it is historic and evidential.
You start with the premise that God created the universe, we're not functions of random chance. This is something that you can assert philosophically, you don't even have to go to the Bible for this nugget of truth. Because there is no plausible philosophical explanation for the universe apart from an uncaused first cause.
You can postulate that it's a figment of our imagination, but those people who adhere to that belief still look both ways before crossing a street.
You can suppose that the universe sprang out of nothing, but that's absurd. Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could. It flies in the face of not only common sense but basic laws of science, like the law of conservationism.
You can suppose that the universe has eternally existed but most scientists have given up on that implausible idea by the late 70's. They no longer think that because it is ridiculous, it flies in the face of fundamental generalizations of the universe.
Therefore the only plausible explanation for the universe is that when you have an effect that is grand and glorious like the universe - that is complex.. you eventually say there has to be a cause for that effect.
If you see a baseball.. and I will be watching the Cubs and Sox tomorrow night.. they will have plain old baseballs in play, nothing particular special about it. But even that baseball no one would suppose that is just sprang into existence out of nothing, you suppose that there was a cause for that baseball.
Someone made it, it's an effect that has a cause equal to or greater than itself.
If you just look philosophically and plausibly at these things at least you're not going to say it's a fairy tale.
There are basis for us saying something complex had a Maker. A bang had a banger. We also can say beyond that God has condescended to reveal Himself. He is not merely transcended and He did that through the person of Jesus Christ, the resurrection is something we believe not because we have some odd predilection in that direction but because there is a compelling case to be made that Jesus died and rose again, the tomb was empty. Christianity cannot survive with an identifiable tomb containing the corpse of Jesus Christ.
And beyond that we have a plausible explanation for saying the Bible is divine rather than merely human in origin.
Someone like Bill Maher wants to be a fundamentalist for atheism, but a fundamentalist nonetheless. He loves to make these dogmatic assertions without defensible arguments. He says the whole Bible is a parable.
But anyone that knows anything about literature would never make a statement like that. Not even the most ardent atheist that reads instead of running off at the mouth on television would say that it is all parabolic.
That's just absurd. You can believe it or disbelieve it, but you cannot say it is all parabolic.. that is displaying an ignorance in an age of scientific and literary enlighentment that boggles the mind.
And what boggles my mind is that a guy like Bill Maher can get on television to applause and hoots and people think, "man this guy is really smart.." He is not smart at all. He may be capricious and clever in some sense but he's certainly not very bright when he takes the Bible, which whatever you say about it, is the best selling book in the history of humanity. It has been translated into more languages, it's been printed in more copies, it's been read by more people and then to simply brush it off as merely parabolic.. it displays a fundamentalism that is breathtaking.
And what is more breathtaking is that he gets away with it. And the reason is.. and we have to point back on ourselves as believers.. we haven't been able to give credible answers to honest and good questions. So someone like him who hasn't taken time, obviously to read the Bible, because if he has he would know it is not all parabolic. Doesn't know that his own arguments bordering on insanity
< Message edited by earthless -- 6/26/2008 9:42:26 PM >
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 9:45:22 PM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: earthless
As a former atheist and rabid hater of Christianity.. there is so much I could interject into this discussion. Darwinian (macro) Evolution is not science, it is faith-based guesses at best and sheer fiction at worst.
You may disagree with it but it is science.
It's both falsifiable and has predictive power.
Also, macro evolution is simply a lot of micro evolution over a long period of time.
Evolution is an observable fact. We see bacteria evolving and we use evolution to breed different dogs. Creationists proclaim that evolution cannot create an entirely new species. This usually comes from the misconception that evolution occurs in straight lines. That's not the case. It's divergent. In other words, one group of organism will begin to evolve in TWO DIFFERENT directions. Once these two different directions evolve so much that the two paths cannot mate, then speciation occurs.
Speciation, macro evolution, HAS been observed in finches, fruit flies, types of grass, etc.
In fact, a couple of weeks ago cultures of E. coli that have been maintained for 20 years now by Richard Lenski and recently, in his paper, he describes how one of his populations evolved the ability to metabolise citrate, something E. coli cannot do by definition.
It is clear to anyone who looks at the evidence with an open mind that apes becoming man (Peking man, etc) is false. Peking man and the like are not a distant relative but rather dinner.
quote:
ORIGINAL: earthless
To say that "hominids" like Peking man and his partners are closely related to humans because both can walk is akin to saying that a hummingbird and a helicopter are closely related because both can fly.
In reality, the distance between an ape who cannot read or write and a descendant of Adam who can compose a musical masterpiece or send a person to the moon is the distance of infinity.
No matter how many years the evolutionist postulates, chance operating on natural processes can no more create a chimp than it could create a cell. Sorry for the rant, but so much can be said.
Dr. Louis Bounoure, former director of research at the French National Center for Scientific Research, calls macro evolution "a fairy tale for grown-ups." I call it a cruel hoax! In fact, the arguments that support evolutionary theory are astonishingly weak.
First, the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists. No verifiable transitions from one kind to another have as yet been found. Charles Darwin had an excuse; in his day fossil finds were relatively scarce.
Today, however, we have an abundance of fossils. Still, we have yet to find even one legitimate transition from one kind to another.
Homo habilis, homo rudolfensis, homo georgicus, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo cepranensis, homo antecessor, homo heidelbergensis, homo rhodesiensis, homo neanderthalensis, and finally.. homo sapiens
We have many MANY transitional fossils for each homo genus.
quote:
ORIGINAL: earthless
Furthermore, in Darwin's day such enormously complex structures as a human egg were thought to be quite simple - for all practical purposes, little more than a microscopic blob of gelatin.
Today, we know that a fertilized human egg is among the most organized, complex structures in the universe. In an age of scientific enlightenment, it is incredible to think people are willing to maintain that something so vastly complex arose by chance.
Like an egg or the human eye, the universe is a masterpiece of precision and design that could not have come into existence by chance.
If you study evolution, you'll find it's not by chance. Natural selection is all but chance. They are complex, but have been given plenty of time to evolve.
quote:
ORIGINAL: earthless
Finally, while chance is a blow to the theory of evolution, the laws of science are a bullet to its head.
The basic laws of science, including the laws of effects and their causes - energy conservation and entropy - under gird the creation model for origins and undermine the evolutionary hypothesis.
While I would fight for a person's right to have faith in science fiction, we must resist evolutionists who attempt to brainwash people into thinking that macro evolution is science.
The entropy argument has long been refuted over and over again, earthless.
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
--talkorgins.org
< Message edited by PrexicKehdaki -- 6/26/2008 10:08:27 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 9:49:58 PM
|
|
|
mikejonesoftn
Posts: 58
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
God gave us enough knowledge to explore science and find brilliant things that will HELP us or ad little "umph" to life IMO, but unfortunately I think we humans are using it in a way God did not attend for us.
There are many scientist who are out to prove that God does not exist, sadly there false theories are moving humans far away from the true religion and salvation.
My Question for the OP or any other atheist/non-believer. What do you lose believing in the Bible? Even if it turned out to be false, what does it take away from your life that you can not enjoy it?
< Message edited by mikejonesoftn -- 6/26/2008 9:56:12 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 9:58:04 PM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
What do you lose believing in the Bible?
The truth.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
Even if it turned out to be false, what does it take away from your life that you can not enjoy it?
It takes away the truth, but no.. that doesn't stop you from enjoying anything.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Ask an atheist! - 6/26/2008 9:59:15 PM
|
|
|
PrexicKehdaki
Posts: 190
Joined: 6/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: isaacsmom
quote:
The only written material about Jesus was written decades after his supposed life. Not a single historian or anyone for that matter that lived during and around Jesus wrote anything about him.
Matthew? Mark? Luke? John?
All were written decades after his death.
|
|
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
