Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[Silent Hunter]

Which part of, "If MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed) what need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity" (or any deity for that matter) are you having difficulty understanding?

Same thing as before... we are agreeing that the cause of everything is something which exists eternally.

We aren't agreeing, that you think we are is testament to your stupidity.

Since MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED, what need is there for a "cause" to create it, eternally existent or otherwise?

6days, are you stupid-on-steroids or are you just a moron?

Well.... my wife thinks I am a sweetie-pie, so your question is a false dilemma.

I see you're still having a difficult time coming to grips with what constitutes a logical fallacy. You can be stupid-on-steroids, or a moron, or an imbecile, or mentally deficient and still be a "sweetie-pie".

6days, just answer the question you've avoided three times so far...

What need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity hypothesis if, by the first law of thermodynamics, MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)?

 

[George Affleck]

What need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity hypothesis if, by the first law of thermodynamics, MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)?

Amazing the laws God has in place to make you look stupid.

 

[George Affleck]

I'm not particularly afraid of something you can't prove exists.

Already proven.

Jesus rose from the dead.
Its a fact. Deal with it.

 

[Silent Hunter]

What need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity hypothesis if, by the first law of thermodynamics, MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)?

Amazing the laws God has in place...

... and you know this because of your religious belief, not because you have any actual knowledge.

I'm going to predict your next step will be to conveniently isolate and immunize your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity from examination. Which begs the question, how can creationists even make the claim, "Mydeitydidit!!!", without even the slightest evidence of its existence?

 

[Silent Hunter]

I'm not particularly afraid of something you can't prove exists.

Already proven.

Actually, no, it hasn't.

Jesus rose from the dead. Its a fact. Deal with it.

It would help your "argument" a great deal if you understood the difference between a "religious belief" and a "fact".

I haven't encountered a creationist yet who has any integrity whatsoever.

 

[JudgeRightly]

We aren't agreeing, that you think we are is testament to your stupidity.

Since MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED, what need is there for a "cause" to create it, eternally existent or otherwise?

I see you're still having a difficult time coming to grips with what constitutes a logical fallacy. You can be stupid-on-steroids, or a moron, or an imbecile, or mentally deficient and still be a "sweetie-pie".

6days, just answer the question you've avoided three times so far...

What need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity hypothesis if, by the first law of thermodynamics, MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)?

SH, I believe I've already addressed this issue you are having.

If something creates something, then it inherently cannot be subject to that which it created, nor can it be bound by it.

If God (because let's be honest, we're talking about the God of the Bible here) created a universe, He is therefore inherently NOT subject to the laws of that universe, but outside of them.

He is "supernatural." Literally "beyond nature."

The first law of thermodynamics, a "natural" law, does not apply to a "supernatural" Being.

So EITHER:

"Goddidit." In other words, God (a "supernatural" Being) created the natural universe we live in.

OR

You have to logically explain how the universe has always existed without violating any of the known physical laws.

OR

You have to logically explain how the universe created itself without violating any of the known physical laws.

OR

You have to present a logical fourth possible method of how the universe could have come into existence, that does not include the other three (which I assert is not possible), without violating any of the known physical laws.

Go on, I'm waiting.

Oh, and the parts I highlighted in yellow text in your post, I assert that you cannot explain the existence of the universe WITHOUT violating any known law of physics EXCEPT by "SH's-personal-preferred deity-did-it." (AKA multiverse or some other external-to-the-universe source, otherwise known as more complexity to explain this complex universe).

 

[JudgeRightly]

Actually, no, it hasn't.

It would help your "argument" a great deal if you understood the difference between a "religious belief" and a "fact".

I haven't encountered a creationist yet who has any integrity whatsoever.

In what way is the evidence for Jesus' resurrection insufficient?

 

[6days]

What need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity hypothesis if, by the first law of thermodynamics, MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)?

You are the one who keeps trying to introduce the God of the Bible into the conversation. What I said is "we are agreeing that the cause of everything is something which exists eternally."


We both agree that the universe had a beginning, so we agree the cause pre-existed... the cause was something which existed eternally.


BTW... it seems you are mis-stating the 'law' "The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed" http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20120221015143

 

[George Affleck]

... and you know this because of your religious belief, not because you have any actual knowledge.

I'm going to predict your next step will be to conveniently isolate and immunize your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity from examination. Which begs the question, how can creationists even make the claim, "Mydeitydidit!!!", without even the slightest evidence of its existence?

No, I can't isolate God. Rather silly of you to suggest that actually.

I encourage you to examine Him in detail. There are more ways to access truth than just science. To shut yourself up to just one is unwise.

The Resurrection, if true, is not proven either true or false by the limitations of natural science because it is beyond it's capabilities. Miracles are inherently abnormal. But people didn't need science to tell them that coming back to life from being dead is abnormal. So why would we think that it could prove anything one way or the other about it other than the historical probability?

But God invites us to prove it by different methods. Jesus tells us that, in order to know things beyond natural facts, we must be born again; that is, spiritually regenerated. By this method, facts beyond nature are discerned.

But men do not want to seek first the kingdom of God so that all things will be added to them. They have a predilection towards finding things that will kill conscience and isolate them from their creator even more than they already are. The natural man seeks not the things of God because they are foolishness to him.

The man who is wise will ask how he may be regenerated to access spiritual truth. The fool will continue to trust in himself.

 

[Silent Hunter]

What need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity hypothesis if, by the first law of thermodynamics, MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)?

You are the one who keeps trying to introduce the God of the Bible into the conversation.

Huh? I've done no such thing. If you want to associate "your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity" with the (in my opinion) demonic deity described in your favorite book that's your doing.

What I said is "we are agreeing that the cause of everything is something which exists eternally."

We aren't agreeing, that you think we are is testament to your stupidity.

Since MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED, what need is there for a "cause" to create it, eternally existent or otherwise?

We both agree that the universe had a beginning, so we agree the cause pre-existed... the cause was something which existed eternally.

The current understanding of cosmology suggests the Universe as it exists NOW had a beginning. What the Universe was like prior to its present state or what "caused" the present state of the Universe is unknown.

Creationists cannot stand the phrase, "I don't know", and would rather insert their-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity in its place. 6days, you might as well believe the cause of thunder and lightning is, "Goddidit!!!"

BTW... it seems you are mis-stating the 'law' "The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed"

Mis-stated? No.

Have you ever in your entire misguided life heard of the equation, E = mc², where, E = energy, m = mass, and c = the speed of light in a vacuum? The equation, E = mc² is also known as the "mass-energy equivalence".

If we assume E = "total energy of the Universe" (It is debatable if the "Universe" is a closed system, cosmology hasn't fully answered that question yet.), then the equation can be rearranged to, m = E/c².

In words, the total amount of MASS in the Universe (for the sake of convenience we will assume the Universe is a closed system) = the total energy of the Universe divided by the speed of light squared.

If the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed then neither can the total amount of mass since mass and energy are the same thing.

If A = B, then B = A.

If you actually knew anything about physics this simple concept wouldn't need to be explained to you... again.

6days, you need not embarrass yourself further with your lack of ability to think logically, just answer the question you've avoided four times so far...

What need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity hypothesis if, by the first law of thermodynamics, MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)?.

 

[Silent Hunter]

... and you know this because of your religious belief, not because you have any actual knowledge.

I'm going to predict your next step will be to conveniently isolate and immunize your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity from examination. Which begs the question, how can creationists even make the claim, "Mydeitydidit!!!", without even the slightest evidence of its existence?

No, I can't isolate God. Rather silly of you to suggest that actually.

I encourage you to examine Him in detail. There are more ways to access truth than just science. To shut yourself up to just one is unwise.

The Resurrection, if true, is not proven either true or false by the limitations of natural science because it is beyond it's capabilities. Miracles are inherently abnormal. But people didn't need science to tell them that coming back to life from being dead is abnormal. So why would we think that it could prove anything one way or the other about it other than the historical probability?

But God invites us to prove it by different methods. Jesus tells us that, in order to know things beyond natural facts, we must be born again; that is, spiritually regenerated. By this method, facts beyond nature are discerned.

But men do not want to seek first the kingdom of God so that all things will be added to them. They have a predilection towards finding things that will kill conscience and isolate them from their creator even more than they already are. The natural man seeks not the things of God because they are foolishness to him.

The man who is wise will ask how he may be regenerated to access spiritual truth. The fool will continue to trust in himself.

Your meaningless religious platitudes add nothing to the discussion.

Creationists like to scream, "Evidence!!! Evidence!!!", but when pressed to actually present any to support their religious claims reply as you have, with empty and idle nonsense.

 

[George Affleck]

Your meaningless religious platitudes add nothing to the discussion.

Creationists like to scream, "Evidence!!! Evidence!!!", but when pressed to actually present any to support their religious claims reply as you have, with empty and idle nonsense.

So you agree, then, that the "things of God are foolishness" to you?

Congratulations! You have proven God to be true when He says - 1Cor2:14KJV

 

[Silent Hunter]

Your meaningless religious platitudes add nothing to the discussion.

Creationists like to scream, "Evidence!!! Evidence!!!", but when pressed to actually present any to support their religious claims reply as you have, with empty and idle nonsense.

So you agree, then, that the "things of God are foolishness" to you?

I'm quite certain I said no such thing. I quite clearly said, "Your meaningless religious platitudes add nothing to the discussion." How that becomes, "... the 'things of God are foolishness' to you", is rather poor, yet typically creationist, reasoning on your part.

Congratulations! You have proven God to be true when He says - 1Cor2:14KJV

Your meaningless religious platitudes (and now biblical quotes) add nothing to the discussion.

BTW, the christian tradition is Paul wrote 1 Corinthians... not your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity.

 

[George Affleck]

Your meaningless religious platitudes (and now biblical quotes) add nothing to the discussion.

Yes. How silly of me to post anything like that on a website called Theology Online.
And, in the Religion section too!!

I apologize for over-stepping.
Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[genuineoriginal]

MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED

Matter was created.
Matter did not exist before it was created.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Your meaningless religious platitudes (and now biblical quotes) add nothing to the discussion.

Yes. How silly of me to post anything like that on a website called Theology Online. And, in the Religion section too!! I apologize for over-stepping.

This discussion is in the "Religion" section, however, if evolution is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby, despite 6day's (often) insistence otherwise.

Quoting "scripture" from your favorite book is appropriate when you're in disagreement with your fellow bible-thumpers on nuances of doctrine but it isn't evidence for or against evolution (or the origin of the Universe).

BTW, the christian tradition is Paul wrote 1 Corinthians... not your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity.

Thanks for pointing that out.

:e4e:

 

[Silent Hunter]

... MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)...

Matter was created. Matter did not exist before it was created.

So, do you disagree with the First Law of Thermodynamics?

 

[6days]

if evolution is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby

You are having trouble with logic again. People who don't collect stamps, call stamp collecters "stupid" and "morons". Can we conclude from your argument that you are religious?

 

[Silent Hunter]

This discussion is in the "Religion" section, however, if evolution is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby, despite 6day's (often) insistence otherwise.

You are having trouble with logic again.

:rotfl: Look who's talking.

People who don't collect stamps, call stamp collecters "stupid" and "morons". Can we conclude from your argument that you are religious?

You're not making any sense.

6days, you need not embarrass yourself further with your lack of ability to think logically, just answer the question you've avoided five times so far...

What need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity hypothesis if, by the first law of thermodynamics, MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)?

 

[genuineoriginal]

So, do you disagree with the First Law of Thermodynamics?

In all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed which is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work an equal quantity of heat is produced.
~Rudolf Clausius in 1850​

Nothing I said contradicts that statement.

In a thermodynamic process involving a closed system, the increment in the internal energy is equal to the difference between the heat accumulated by the system and the work done by it.
~Rudolf Clausius​

Nothing I said contradicts that statement.

When energy flows from one system or part of a system to another otherwise than by the performance of mechanical work, the energy so transferred is called heat.
~George H. Bryan in 1907​

Nothing I said contradicts that statement.

For a closed system, in any arbitrary process of interest that takes it from an initial to a final state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, the change of internal energy is the same as that for a reference adiabatic work process that links those two states. This is so regardless of the path of the process of interest, and regardless of whether it is an adiabatic or a non-adiabatic process. The reference adiabatic work process may be chosen arbitrarily from amongst the class of all such processes.​

Nothing I said contradicts that statement.

So, what part of the properties of heat transfer in a closed system do you think is violated by the fact that matter was created?