A path to faith with science

Some people don't think that faith and science are compatible. This is to demonstrate that is not the case and that science plays a part in helping to confirm God's existence and reveal his divine nature. This is to demonstrate one path to God. There is contained within both evidence for God's existence and attributes from the nature of the physical universe, and also evidence from direct communication from God and mankind.

Finding out whether God exists or not is not just for philosophers and genius scientists. it's something we all should try to learn and find out. If a loving God exists, there must be evidence that the average person can understand.

This is not completely exhaustive but a path formed using science, logic, and deductive reasoning. It also analyzes and critiques different philosophies and religions. It must be made clear that this is in no way meant to personally attack and harm any reader of this regardless of his religious or philosophical beliefs, but is a serious discourse with an effort show a path to the Christian God using science, logic, reason. This is of course biased just like you are, and doesn't claim to be unbiased. It does not either negate faith, but shows that faith in God is reasonable and not blind but rather based upon solid and infallible proofs. I by no means take full credit for producing this article but it was mostly from Christian and creationist resources.

After reading, I invite you to share your thoughts or objections in a serious and mature manner, and am open for debate and exchange of ideas. This is long (what do you expect?), so I don't suggest you rush through it. Take a seat, relax and smoke a bowl if that helps (but not to much you'll have to think quite a bit). Here we go.

To start, I must first build upon things which I know. I must really
dig down deep. In this world today, people doubt and are critical of so much, even their own existence. I will start from what I do know and build upon that. I'm starting with no preconceived notions and no special schools of thought etc.I'll be using an open mind, logic, honesty and common sense.

Now, all logic starts with at least one assumption. And although logic is exact, if you start from a faulty premise you could get incorrect results, so you have to be careful. In geometry proofs are called givens or axioms. These are facts which must be true but are nearly impossible to prove such as 1=1.

So what is it that we can assume? What is the most basic thing? What is it that you can say that you know for sure without a doubt? Sometimes it's hard to recognize, perhaps because we do it all the time, or perhaps it's because we lack an outside perspective. The most basic thing we can can know for sure is...

You are thinking.

Which is pretty basic. You can't say you know
anything more certain than that. No matter what you do, you're always thinking, even if you think that maybe you aren't you, you still are thinking about it. If it weren't true, you wouldn't be able to say it, or read it, or anything.

Now we know for a fact that you are thinking. This is definitely a
solid fact. Some people don't believe in black and white facts, but
rather a spectrum of grays. But close magnification of this spectrum would show black and white dots, and an even closer look would show the fabric of the paper, some stained with ink and some not. If we could look even more closely we could see the molecules of ink near the molecules of paper. And we could look down deeper and deeper.

Some things we don't know. Perhaps we never will. But this doesn't mean answers don't exist, or are fundamentally ambiguous.A fact is a fact whether anyone recognizes it or not. The fact is you are thinking. Which leads us to our next assumption.

Those who think exist.

Now we have two givens which are assumed to be true.

1.you are thinking
2. Those who think exist.

And if you are thinking and if thinkers exist, then you exist. A firmly
grounded conclusion by deductive reasoning. This is very important to know and painfully obvious to many. Now because of a natural law of the universe we call time, we can come to our next conclusion.

Your thought requires the passage of time.

Now what we know as thought requires the passage of time, but it remains possible there are other, higher forms of thought. No matter how you define thought, it still requires the passage of time. It also doesn't matter how you define time. Because it's the effect of time that matters at this point, and not it's nature.
One of the implications of time is that it allows for beginnings and endings.

Now imagine you were like Helen Keller only worse. Imagine you were blind and deaf, and you have no senses at all, no outside stimulation, unable to recognize your bodies position. And you were that way from birth. You would never be able to know the outside world existed.

But how do we know? How do we know that anything exists outside of you? Could life be a self created hallucination? No, not really. To imagine that would be very.... unrealistic. It's an assumption, but while it may be hard to prove it's impossible to disprove. And besides, all evidence suggests that everything else is just as real as you.

The outside world exists.

This is a big assumption, but one that we all had to learn at a
very early age, for instance when we recognized our parents as
sources of food. This assumption is very important, because we couldn't have gone on further without it. Now we can move on to explore the outside world. One of the discoveries you will make about the outside world is that every action creates an equal reaction. This is newtons third law of motion. Another way of saying it is that events do not occur without a cause. Nothing moves without being first pushed or pulled or affected first. This is not opinion, but fact firmly supported by everything so far, and also every single empirical observation that's ever been made.

Another thing you might find in the outside world is something called the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is the study of the energy that atoms and molecules have as they interact with each other. There are three major rules that all things must obey regarding thermodynamics. These can be described in very complex terms or very simple terms .Here they are:

1st law says: energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
2nd law says: the entropy of the universe is always increasing.
3nd law says: the average temperature of all matter can never reach zero.

Entropy by the way, is a measure of the unavailability of a systemâ??s energy to do work.

When any physical thing interacts with another, the 1st law of
thermodynamics says energy is never lost and never created. Even when a fire is put out or something explodes.The total energy of the universe remains the same. You can never get more than you start with.

Th second law says entropy is always growing. This can be stated other ways, like the energy available to do work, is always decreasing. Or, some of the energy put into process is lost to friction. This means no perpetual motion machines. All things go from an ordered state to a disordered state, and from complex organization to complete regularity.

It's as if all the energy in the universe were in an hour glass, so that as time passes the energy is used and falls into the bottom of the hourglass, where it becomes less useful, or useless. All of the energy in the universe is becoming unavailable to do work ever again. When it's used up, it's all over. This is the second law of thermodynamics, and it is the most rigorously tested law in all of science.

There are two "exceptions" to the second law though. The first one is life. If the forces behind the second law had their way, our bodies would deteriorate within a short time. But life has a way to overcome this problem. It's as if life is walking up an escalator, and the 2nd law drags you down just as it's stepping up. How does life delay a fundamental law of the universe? It doesn't actually.

You and your environment decay at a certain rate. But since you are alive you can eat part of your environment. As a result that piece of food is decayed very rapidly, and you remain less degraded.

How does life channel the energy found in food into the specific
functions of maintaining it's delicate and intricate structures? A major part of any living cell is it's blueprint, it's DNA. These blueprints are designs for the cellular machinery which is designed so it can acquire energy from food, carry on the functions of life, and duplicate itself over and over again. It works because it makes a path of less resistance making probable what would otherwise be impossible.

The degradation of information bearing systems such as DNA and the 2nd law are related. The link to how the 2nd law applies to energy and information is found in thermodynamic probability, a field pioneered by Ludwig Boltzmann in 1896 and confirmed by Max Plank in 1912. Modern statistical thermodynamics is used to clearly show that information is subject to the same degrading force that constantly increases the amount of entropy in our universe.

The second "exception" to the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the only way to make progress up the escalator. Things can only be more organized by intention. Intelligence and the ability to apply force are required to assemble a computer for instance, or a submarine, or a watch.

Some people think that life can increase it's complexity on it's own without intelligent direction.And although no one has ever seen it happen, and even though it would be a violation of the second law, alot of people claim it's a fact regardless.

The third law of thermodynamics really doesn't matter at this point.

we need one more thing now before we can use the first two laws of thermodynamics. it's a consequence of time. It's the possibility for beginnings and endings. When you started this book, you knew that it would end, and your own life will end someday.

In fact, all complexity will "end" eventually. Even the universe will end at some point. If things continue on as they have the entropy in the universe will reach it's maximum level and no energy will be left to do work. The stars will burn out, all life will die, and the average temperature will be very close to absolute zero. The second law is our guarantee of utter and complete demise.

Also, because a thing is degrading toward and end not only implies there was a beginning, it necessitates one. Because the energy available to do work decreases with time, and since the total amount of energy to do work cannot exceed the amount available the furthest one can extrapolate back in time is the point where they were equal. This is the earliest possible date. That is, a beginning. We can also say that the universe needed an original source of motion. We can see that an original source of kinetic energy was required because

1. the universe exists.
2. Events occur within the universe.
3. All events require that something caused them.

Therefore something started all motion in the first place. If anything has motion, an original mover must have existed.

Imagine you were riding your bike somewhere and there was a great big freight train blocking the road as far as you can see, all the way to the left, and all the way to the right. The train seems endless. But you would rightly assume that the train is not infinitely long, and at some point has an end. The 2nd law prohibits perpetual motion machines so the train cannot go on moving forever either.

Also, each car is being pulled by the one in front of it. No car moves unless it was pulled. You would rightly assume further that there is an engine car which is different from the other cars, the original mover. You determine that it pulled the first car which pulled the second etc.

The universe is very much like a machine that is in motion. It's laws of operation tell us that it's in motion. It cannot be perpetual, therefore it hasn't been around forever and someday will stop. Every atom of our universe is rubbing and pulling and bumping against each other. And since nothing moves until a force is placed on it, the original force must have begun the cascade of movement that we see today.

Now to discuss the presence of order and complexity. A very similar argument can be used to show that because complexity is decreasing with time, it must have started higher to begin with. Now remember that order can only come from intelligence able to direct force.

Some may say that life can do the job without the intelligence by evolution. But even if this were possible, who would have created the first life form or the low levels of chemical entropy throughout the universe? Our universe must have had an original designer. Something to reduce entropy and increase complexity.

That the entropy can decrease on it's own is quite impossible. As a result it will never happen, and it never has.Unless that is, you believe in miracles.

The fact that the universe exists and that life exists is nothing short of a miracle. A miracle is something that happens even though it's physically impossible. Is that a contradiction? No , here's why. If we know that low entropy systems like life can never be created by the universe but we know both things exist, then something besides our universe must be responsible.

Motion and complexity exist, and the universe cannot provide either one. But rather, it's losing complexity and randomizing all motion. Not only is the universe unable to sustain itself, it could never have even begun by itself. Our universe is unable to stand alone, and something else must exist. There is a word for this .

It's called the supernatural.

The very things that necessitate the existence of the supernatural can tell us something about it. If we look back we'll see that something outside of our universe was responsible for decreasing entropy. Something had to have worked in the opposite direction of the second law to establish higher degrees of complexity. Life and large amounts of energy available to do work, could not have spontaneously appeared in our universe without outside help. Something outside of the universe must have been responsible for their presence originally.

Complexity is a state of low entropy and high specific order. In contrast, nature forces all things toward regularity, like the the molecules of a crystal, or towards disorder as seen in molecules of gas. This kind of regularity btw is the opposite of complexity and contains little or no information.

The second thing we know of the supernatural is that something was necessary to get things moving in our universe. The "prime mover" must be there somehow.

With what's been discussed so far we can't really talk about other things like whether there's a realm beyond that one, or whether the place is big or small or whether size or time or dimension even matter.The only thing that can be discussed at this point is the part of the supernatural which gave our universe order and complexity. So what is the nature of that thing? Well for one it exists, and that it never needed to be started, because if not, then the thing which started it is the thing which didn't need to be started. Either way, there's something supernatural which has always existed. we can know that for sure because we know that we exist and that something started us. That thing would be in the same spot we're in that is, if it wasn't inherently eternal.

Something must ultimately be responsible for the condition and existence of everything else. If you don't agree, try imagining another scenario. In order to deviate from the logical path we're on, you would have to imagine that one or more of the laws of the physical universe was not always the way it is now. (contrary to what all modern scientific knowledge is based upon). Or you could imagine that an outside realm could spontaneously generate a decaying universe like ours without intention, being eternal itself. But this scenario is a kind of super universal pantheism which cannot fulfill the requirements of existence that the universe needs. It's needs not just force, but complexity donated as well. This requires an intelligence with the ability to direct force.

Something supernatural must have started our universe and designed systems of high complexity. We know that this is valid because the 1st law of thermodynamics states that in our universe energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So the source for energy in moving things must be supernatural.

According to modern science, it turns out that matter and energy are interchangeable : E=mc2 . They're two sides of the same coin. This has implications when we talk about what a prime mover is. It means that energy in the form of motion (kinetic energy) was provided by an outside source. But what about the matter that was being moved? Because matter and energy are so similar we can see the issue has already been addressed. If the energy for motion must have come from the supernatural then the energy for matter must have too. That is, the original provider of all energy.

If a thing provides the energy for the creation and motion of all other things, that thing is called all powerful because it must be the ultimate source for all energy regardless of what form that energy takes. If something provides the energy so that all other things can exist, then it is the foundation of all that exists. It is the foundation of all existence and it is self sustaining therefore it is eternal. If we stopped here we'd be left with a sort of universal pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that the universe is the ultimate self sustaining and eternal power.

But as things stand, it would rather be the realm outside of the universe that is the ultimate power, which is really just a magnified version of pantheism.

complex organization can only come from intelligent design. Left to themselves all things fall apart. Only an intellect can reverse the process through intentional construction. Not one incident of spontaneous generation of a complex organized system has never been seen. for good reason. It's impossible.

Next to point out a common misconception that many people have. The subject is evolution and the difference between macro evolution and micro evolution.

Macro evolution is the process that causes a certain species to gain complexity and become a higher species. This is what is typically meant when referring to the term evolution. This is the process that allows a multicellular organism to to develop new organs for sight or movement, or a dinosaur to develop wings and feathers to become a bird. This process is also what allows for the presence of extremely complex chemical processes in cells which before had only simple ones.

There is a separate and very different process known as micro evolution. Micro evolution is the scientific term for minor changes in living organisms. Micro evolution cannot change one animal into a better one, but it can make some changes that better suit the animal. The process allows for different breeds of dog or horse for example.It also allows for wild animals to adapt to small changes in their environment. It is usually reversible and it's extremely important for the survival of all life on earth.

The difference for these two is in how the animals change. In micro evolution the animals genes are reshuffled so that different genes can be used in the next generation.Here's an example.

Two squirrels who both have a gene for white color (b) and a gene for black color (B) would have children that are a mixture. 25% would get BB and would be black. 50% would get a big B and a little b and would be grey.. 25% would get bb and would be white.

One generation of gray squirrels may find that the trees in the forest are much darker than before. As a result those squirrels who are black (BB) would hide among the tress from predators more easily and be more common than any squirrel with a light colored gene (b). If the trees stay dark for a long time then the gene for light color may even be lost.

Macro evolution is different. It requires that random changes in the genetic code (mutations) result in a new gene never before seen, which has a new function. If the function is good, it will pass it on to it's children. For example a squirrel might find that one of it's children has grown sharp barbs on it back instead of fur. A new gene has arisen from accidental events in the parents reproductive organs. The result is that none of the wolves want to eat the new squirrel. The squirrel has many children and passes on the new trait.

This is how a single cells genetic code would eventually become complex enough to grow a large animal. Of course, it would take many many years for this to happen....

In summary micro evolution uses information already present in the animal to allow small changes in the animal's characteristics while macro evolution depends on new information forming on accident. Of course, an information losing mutation may give an animal a survival advantage over it's peers, but macro evolution depends on not only having a survival advantage, but also an increase in information and complexity.

There's a problem then. Macro evolution depends on blind chance and the laws of the universe, they always become less complex, not more. In addition macro evolution has never been observed. Therefore macro evolution is a fiction.

fiction -
1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories) c : a work of fiction; especially : NOVEL
2 a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction> b : a useful illusion or pretense
3 : the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination

Unfortunately micro evolution is often used to try to prove that evolution is a fact. even the term micro evolution is misleading. Two very different ideas.

So why would anyone believe in a fiction? The only reason to hold onto the feasibility of macro evolution is that it's attached to a larger question, which takes us back to the topic before. We are forced to admit that our universe was given high levels of complexity. But what's capable of doing this? It of course. We already know that It is all powerful. we can also say that It is infinitely intelligent.

Why? If it designed and created all things, then it knows the details about all things. This attribute is called omniscience.This includes the future, because even space-time, the fabric within which all matter and energy exists requires an origin. Therefore if time is a created thing then it's creator must exist independent of it. It can see the end of time just as easily as the beginning. It knows all things, past, present, and future. After all that there's really nothing left to know. Therefore we have discovered the existence of a being that is:

1. All powerful
2. Infinitely intelligent
3. all knowing
4 and the creator of all things.

The proper title of such a being is you guessed it : God.

God-
A being conceived as the perfect omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.The principal object of worship in monotheistic religions.
- The American heritage dictionary / second college edition

Now we know that God exists, but there are still some things we don't know.we don't know if God is the only thing supernatural, or if there are other things out there as well. we also don't know what God is beyond what we've gone through. So, who is God?

Which God is God? Is it important that we know who God is? Does God have many names? Which religion, if any are correct? can they all be right? Does God want us to know? Can we really know anything more?

There are many things that we already do know that can help us answer those difficult questions. Most religions claim to know the answers to them all. But if it matters and we know the answers and God allows us to find them then God would have provided the means for finding everything we need to know. What this means is that it is possible for one or more existing religions to be correct.

It also remains possible that none of them are correct and God has chosen to remain anonymous. But if God did want to be known, it is impossible that God might fail. God is omnipotent and omniscient including perfect knowledge of the future.It is impossible that a perfectly powerful and all knowing God would fail to accomplish any goal. Now, where does that leave things?

Back at the beginning, apparently. We'll start with what we know about God already and use deductive reasoning. we will compare our discoveries with what all of the religions teach. This will go faster than you think.If nothing else the possibilities can at least be narrowed down. Since we've discovered that there is an all powerful God, and since several religions teach differently, we can already make an important observation. All of the religions can not be valid. Now to analyze the religions by category.

The most powerful category is this one : atheism vs. theism. Since we know God exists this is very easy to categorize. All world views that are atheistic are false.

Darwinism
humanism
naturalism
Marxism
materialism
dialectic materialism
evolutionary systems

These cannot tell us anything about who God is. The public schools should be informed of this.All philosophies that deny the existence of God are incorrect. Now to the next category : pantheism vs. supernaturalism. If you'll look back you'll remember that pantheism is the belief that the universe itself is God, that it has always existed and is responsible for creating life. But remember our universe is unable to create anything but degradation. It is inadequate, it can't even sustain itself, let alone create life.

Therefore all religions that are pantheistic are false religions:

Buddhism
Hinduism
Astrology
New age philosophies
Unity religions

This has dealt with alot of religions, and has definitely given you something to think about for sure. But remember our results are based on logic and firmly grounds proofs. To deny the results are true would be to deny one or more of those assumptions. If you think one of these is unreasonable, by all means try to come up with an alternative and work through the consequences yourself. But before you do, remember that pantheism can revealed to be false by the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is the most rigorously tested law in all of science. The only assumptions you could deny to save pantheism would be the ones before the 2nd law:

- All events are caused
- possibility for beginnings and endings
- the outside world exists
- your thoughts require the passage of time
- you exist
- thinkers exist
- you are thinking

I wouldn't feel good about getting rid of any of those. But some people do. For example, the only way you could logically support buddhism is to deny that the second law always holds true, or to deny that the outside world exists, or that time is real, or that reality is even real. In fact, these are some of the things that buddhism does claim! They are forced to. I think this is unrealistic, and dangerous. Besides, there is no evidence to support that the 2nd law, the outside world, or reality are not real. The case is quite the opposite. I hope these facts do not elude anyones notice.

The next category to analyze is polytheism vs. monotheism .Polytheism is the belief that there are many distinct Gods. Monotheism is the belief there is one all powerful God. Polytheism denies the existence of an all powerful God, although there is often a chief God like Zeus to the ancient Greeks or Vishnu in the Hindu pantheon. These Gods are the most powerful but are not all powerful. So which one is more likely?

Based on the recent discoveries, there can only be one God. Polytheistic religions have Gods that are very powerful but are inadequate nonetheless. All of the characteristics that we attributed to God (all powerful, creative, all knowing, eternal, prime mover) are inseparable. This is because it's impossible for anything to self exist unless it's eternal. The creator existed before anything else, therefore it is eternal. Also the thing which creates all other things, is by definition, all powerful. So those three traits are inseparable. As far as being all knowing goes, we already know that the creator is the designer, and so must have intimate knowledge of all things. Therefore God must be one.

There are a great many polytheistic religions. Buddhism, Hinduism, animistic religions, tribal religions etc. You may have notice that most of them are pantheistic also. That takes care most of the religions and world views that exist. Not taken be spoken arrogantly, but reasonably based upon what has been shown so far. We could go on, but the categories would get quite complex.It suffices to say that any religion which denies what is known about God or our universe must be false.

Here's an idea. Here's a list of all of the known religions and a reference giving description of all of them.

List of world's religions:

Major philosophical systems (referred to as not religious or non spiritual belief systems)

Naturalism
materialism
marxism/ dialectic materialism
atheism
humanism/secular humanism
cosmic humanism (aka. new age spirituality)
evolutionary theory / darwinian and neo- darwinian

"World" Religions

Baha'i faith
Buddhism
Christianity
Confucianism
Hinduism
Islam
Jainism
Judaism
Shinto
sikhism
Taoism

Neo-Pagan religious faiths

Asatru ( Norse paganism)
Druidism
Goddess worship
Wicca
Witchcraft

Small non-christian religions

caodaism
Druidism
Druse
Eckankar
Gnosticism (also, Christian Gnosticism)
(gypsies) rom, roma, romani, Rroma
Hare krishna - iskon
lukumi
macumba
mowahhidoon
native spirituality
new age spirituality
osho (followers of rajneesh)
santeria
satanism
scientology
thelema
unitarian-universalism
vodon (voodoo)
zoroastrianism

Other ethical groups and spiritual paths

Agnosticism
unitarian-universalism
teachings of dadaji

Sects, denominations, and cults not listed

Most of this was obtained from Ontario consultants on religious tolerance (OCRT).

This is a good time to discuss agnosticism. You may have heard of it before. Agnosticism is a claim to ignorance. It is the belief that it is impossible to know if God exists let alone any details about his personality. Some people simply use the term to mean "I don't know but maybe someday I'll find out". For the purposes of this article, agnosticism will be divided this way:

Agnosticism type A - It is impossible to know if God exists.
Agnosticism type B - it is impossible to know any details about God (it is impossible to know any details about God beside his omnipotence, omniscience and eternal nature.These are the qualities that define God with a capital G.)

But since we have already determined that God does exist, agnosticism type A can be ruled out. Leaving us with one question..

Are any of the remaining religions correct? Or must we admit ignorance at this point? Logically, one thing can be said. Agnosticism B can be proven false, if any of the remaining religions can be proven true. The first question to ask is, what religions are left? You can probably think of at least one. They will all be supernatural and monotheistic. They are:

1. Judaism
2. Islam
3. Christianity

Perhaps this is a good time for you to reflect on what's been discovered so far. We are left with four possibilities. Either God is unknowable, or He is as Judaism describes Him, or He is as Islam decibels Him, or He is as Christianity describes Him.

First, let's take a look at each one in chronological order. A library or the internet used with discernment is a good way to study about religions btw.

Judaism, though not in it's modern form, has been around the longest. According to Judaism's historical books written by men including a man named Moses and a few prophets, God created the universe and all the things in it including people. Then the first two people turned away from God by committing the first sin. This event is called the fall . They fell from perfection and Good to imperfection and bad. At this point death and decay entered the world. But God promised he would one day send a messiah. This messiah would allow people to escape judgment and spiritual death. According to Judaism mankind is made of body and spirit. When the body dies, the spirit is left. It goes to either hell or heaven (paradise).The remainder of the historical accounts of Judaism is very interesting and is well worth reading. But for the purpose of this article, we already have what's needed to know.

Although there is a long history of how God interacted with the Jewish people, the messiah has never come according to modern orthadox Judaism, and they are waiting for him still, almost 3,500 years later. This brings us to the next religion chronologically.

Christianity is another supernatural monotheistic religion. And it just so happens to be dependant upon Judaism. Christians believe that the messiah has already come. His name was Jesus, or more accurately in greek Iesous (ee-ay-sooce) or in Hebrew, Jehoshua. meaning God-saved. There's a difference between the two religions however. Modern Judaism means to claim the messiah only for themselves. Christianity claims the messiah came for everyone! According to Christianity, Jesus did conquer death just as God had promised he would. He did this in a way no one expected him to; he died and came back to life. And in doing this he took upon himself the penalties for all crimes ever committed against God by mankind. But another interesting part is that each person has to be included in this process of redemption, or else pay the penalties for their crimes all by themselves. So Christianity claims to complete the story that Judaism began by means of a messiah.

In 600 ad. a man named Muhammed came along, and just like Christianity he had a few adjustments to make in the previous monotheistic religions. In the city of mecca, he purportedly began receiving messages from God, who he called Allah in 610 ad. They came to him in small pieces over the next 22 years during which he moved to Medina with his followers. He had some trouble getting things started, but soon the religion grew to be very large. The beliefs of Islam center around the collection of writings given to Mohammed. They call it the quran or Koran which means "the recitation". And many muslims do recite it regularly. But one thing that makes Islam different is that Mohammed's revelation takes a very different perspective but is loosely analogous to the previous two religions. According to the Koran, Allah created all things in six days. First Allah created other beings. Then he formed man from clay, a sperm drop and a clot of blood. Then God gave man mental capabilities and breathed into him some of his special attributes. Then Allah told the other beings to submit to man. But the other beings refused and from that point on were determined to destroy mankind. This is the one we call Satan. According to the koran, a messiah was never promised or needed. Because there was never a fall from perfection. Perfection includes pain and suffering, but in the future it will end. Things were created as they still are. Pain and suffering were created by Allah for the purpose of spiritual purification. That includes all pain and suffering in this life and the next. Since the beginning, Allah sent prophets to guide mankind away from evil behavior so they wouldn't have to go to hell for a very long time after they die. These were the same prophets who wrote the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. But the koran reports that these scriptures have tremendous errors in them. This is why the Torah and Koran do not agree on most issues.

In fact, it is the very intent of the Koran to correct these errors. It's not a bad idea to study it yourself with discernment. There, all three described in simple terms. You might have thought that comparing the validity of these three would be time consuming and difficult, or that it would be too hard to answer all of the questions that need to be answered. But there is a simpler way.

There is one question whose answer can distinguish between these religions efficiently. Since logic is best kept simple and efficient as possible, this is the best question we can ask. This is a question of tremendous importance. Here's why. First, Christianity insists that Jesus Christ is the messiah, that is the very son of God; God in the flesh. Second, Islam insist that Jesus is the prophet of Allah, no more no less. Third, modern Judaism claims that he was just a man: crazy, eccentric, or maybe just unlucky, but just a man nonetheless.

He must have been one of these three things. Now to find out the answer. If he was just a man, we should find that no special, supernatural or divine events ever occurred near, by or through him. And if he was a prophet of Allah, then we should find that there were some supernatural events surrounding him, like the performing of miracles or the fulfillment of his prophecy. And if he was the messiah, the son of God, the most important person to ever walk the earth then we'd expect there to be quite a bit of evidence to verify that this is true. Or it would be easy to prove otherwise. Naturally, if you want to know if someone is the messiah you must look to the source of the concept. The Pentateuch and the subsequent writings of the Hebrew Prophets can also be found in the first half of the Christian Bible. You may need a copy of one or the other to follow along. You can also find a bible study in many versions online, one of them is at BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 50 versions and 35 languages. . We need to see if Jesus fits the descriptions. Not just some of them, but ALL of them must be met. In addition, the fulfillment of these criteria should be unambiguous and reflect supernatural, unique and even divine verification. Otherwise, the scriptures themselves should be held to suspicion as Islam claims.

One of the first thing we can look into is the matter of timing. Do the Hebrew scriptures predict when the messiah should appear? Yes, in fact they do. In one of the most specific prophecies ever written, the prophet Daniel gives the exact date that the messiah should appear (Daniel 9:24-25). Unfortunately, the knowledge of historical calendars and dating systems required to translate that date is probably beyond most people. But others have translated the information for us.

483 years after the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus in 445 BC. = ad 30-33.

Daniel gives us a precise date that the messiah would come. While Daniel did refer to an exact date, historians do not have enough information to determine exactly what that date is. As a result, a three year range is given as a date. As the verses in Daniels book says,

"from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until messiah the Prince there will be 7 sevens and 62 sevens..." "...then after the 62 sevens the messiah will be cut off...."

Daniel uses the term sevens, sometimes translated weeks, to mean a group of seven years. 7 + 62 sevens = 69 sevens. 69 x 7 years equals 483 years. The decree came in 445 b.c from Artaxerxes the king of Persia.Using 360 day years as the Hebrews did, we add 483 years and come to ad. 32 plus or minus 1.5 years.

There is an interesting piece of historical fact to support the veracity of his testimony. One of the most powerful and compelling of all fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, the Seventy Weeks of Daniel is one with which all Christians should be familiar. It is eye opening for Gentiles and Jews alike.

1. The book of Daniel was written during the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century before Christ. Skeptics who deny authentic authorship by Daniel still have to admit that the book appears in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) by the second century before Christ. Even this later date makes this a valid and powerful prophecy.

2. Read Daniel 9:24-26. The following terms are crucial to understanding the prophecy: "Anointed one" is the Messiah that the Jews were waiting for (Messiah is Hebrew for Anointed One), "Cut off" always refers to killed in the O.T., and "Weeks", or "Sevens" (depending upon translation) is the Hebrew word Heptad. Heptad is used to mean either a period of seven days or a period of seven years (Comparable to our use of "Decade" for ten years). This passage is stating that 69 times seven years after the decree to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem the Messiah would be killed for his people.

3. The Hebrew calendar consisted (and still consists) of 12 months of 30 days each, resulting in a 360 day year. The conversion from that calendar to ours is as follows:

a. 69 X 7 = 483 Hebrew years
b. 483 X 360 = 173,880 Days
c. 173,880 / 365 (Days in our calendar year) =476 Years in our calendar after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem the Messiah will be cut off.

4. In Nehemiah 2:1 we read that in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes the decree was given to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (vv 2-9). King Artaxerxes is a historical figure whose reign secular historians say began in 464 B.C. 20 years from that date would be around 445 B.C. when the decree is issued. Traveling forward in time 476 years brings one to 33 A.D. (Remember that there is no year 0. The year after 1 B.C. is 1 A.D.).

5. There is general agreement among historians, whatever their opinion of Jesus, that 33 A.D. is the year that he was crucified. That makes this an amazingly accurate, incredibly specific fulfilled prophecy. So 30-33 BC is the same time period that Jesus taught in Israel. At the end of this period of time, many Jews in Jerusalem hailed Jesus as the messiah on his entry into Jerusalem. By the end of that week, Jesus was executed. As the prophecy said, " after the 62 sevens the messiah will be cut off and have nothing". This is an amazing fulfillment of prophecy, which was made almost 500 years earlier. But let's not stop there. Let's look at all the prophecies. Following will be a nice list of prophecies that pertain to the messiah.
Messianic Prophecy Chart

1. Messiah is to be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15)

â?? Jesus was born by Mary (Matthew 1:18â??25, Luke 2:1â??7, Galatians 4:4)

2. Messiah was to be descended from Abraham (Genesis 12:3, 18:18)

â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Abraham (Luke 3:34, Acts 3:25, Galatians 3:16)

3. Messiah to be born of Jacob (Numbers 24:17,19)

â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Jacob (Matthew 1:2, Luke 3:34)

4. Messiah to be descended from Judah, a son of Jacob (Genesis 49:10)

â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Judah (Luke 3:33, Matthew 1:2)

5. Messiah to be descended from King David (Psalm 132:11, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15, Isaiah 11:10)

â?? Jesus is a direct descendant of Kind David through both his mother and adoptive father (Matthew 1:6, Luke 1:32â??33, Romans 1:3, Acts 2:30)

6. Messiah to be crucified (Psalm 22, 69:21)
7. Messiah will be pierced (Zechariah 12:10, Psalm 22:16)
8. Messiah will be killed (Isaiah 50:6, Daniel 9:26)

â?? Jesus was crucified, pierced, and executed (Matthew 27:34â??50, John 19:28â??30, John 19:34, 37, Matthew 26:67, 27:26, 30)
â?? Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 when he was crucified "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)

9. Messiah to be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14)

(Note: The Hebrew word "almah" for 'virgin' has sometimes been translated simply as 'young woman'. 'Virgin' is a better translation because:

-Nowhere in the Scriptures is "almah" used of a non-virgin

-The author clearly intends the event to be a significant sign; a young woman having a baby would not be significant )

â?? Jesus was born of Mary who was, at that time, a virgin
(Matthew 1:18â??25, Luke 1:26â??35). Mary later bore other children by her husband Joseph (Matthew 12:46â??50).

10. Messiah will be gentle, mild and meek (Isaiah 42:2â??3, 53:7)

â?? Jesus did not come to fight or incite the people to war. He never raised His hand against another except to drive the money changers from the temple (Matthew 12:15â??20, 26:62â??63, 27:11â??14)

11. Messiah will not exclude the Gentiles in his mission (Isaiah 42:1, 49:1â??8)

â?? Jesus accepted the repentance of many Gentiles and preached that gentiles will be included in God's plan for the salvation (Matthew 12:21)

12. The message the Messiah will bring (as written in Isaiah) matches the message Jesus brought (Isaiah 52:13 â?? 53:12)

â?? All four Gospels (The Messiah brings Salvation through his suffering)

13. The Messiah will perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5â??6)

â?? The Gospels are full of Jesus' miracles; here are a couple of passages which summarize this (John 11:47, Matthew 11:3â??6)

14. Messiah to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)

â?? Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1, Luke 2:4â??6)

15. Messiah will enter the temple with authority as the messenger of God (Malachi 3:1)

â?? Jesus taught in the temple and synagogues as one having authority, not as one who simply reads the scriptures and preaches from them (Luke 4:15â??21, Matthew 21:12, 7:28â??29)

16. Messiah will enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9)

â?? Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21:1â??10)

17. Messiah will be forsaken by his disciples (Zechariah 13:7)

â?? Jesus' disciples all deserted him at the time of his arrest and crucifixion (Matthew 26:31, 56, 75)

18. They would cast lots for his clothing rather than divide it among them (Psalm 22:18)

â?? The clothes of the one to be executed became spoil to the executioners (Matthew 27:35, John 19:24)

19. Although he was to die as a criminal his grave would be that of a rich man (Isaiah 53:9)

â?? Jesus was buried in the tomb that a rich man had purchased for the time of his own death; instead, he donated it to Jesus (Matthew 27:57â??60)

20. The Messiah would be bought with 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12)

â?? Judas Iscariot was paid this amount to betray Jesus, that is, to find a time when He was alone and not protected by multitudes of followers so that He could be seized easily (Matthew 26:15)

21. Messiah to be betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9)

â?? Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot betrayed Jesus (John 13:18â??30; 18:1â??9)

22. Messiah to be the Son of God (Psalm 2:7, Proverbs 30:4)

â?? Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and was later announced to be God's son at the time of His baptism (Luke 1:32, Matthew 3:17)

23. Messiah to be raised from the dead (Psalm 16:10)

â?? Matthew 28:1â??20, Acts 13:35â??37

24. Messiah will ascend into heaven (Psalm 68:18, [Ephesians 4:8])

â?? Luke 24:51, Acts 1:6â??11

25. Messiah will be both God and Man (Jeremiah 23:5â??6).

In these verses, the Messiah is described as both descended from King David and as YHWH ( Jehovah ), sometimes translated 'The LORD'. YHWH was the Hebrew name for God which was regarded as too sacred to pronounce. I regard it sacred too, but for educational purposes I'm pointing it out.

â?? (l John 1:1â??14)

There you go. You may have noticed that all of the fulfillments from that list are from the New Testament. Is this a valid source of dependable historical information? Most of these reference come from four books collectively called "the Gospels" . Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are all accounts of Jesus' life. And if you were to look into how they were written and in what environment you would find that they are even more dependable and valid than anything else we know about history.

Jesus was a public figure. Among the Jewish people in Israel at that time, there probably wasn't a single person who had not heard of Jesus. And a great many of them had actually heard his teaching in person, not to mention the many incredible miracles he performed which were not denied even by the pharisees who were against him.

The 4 accounts of Jesus' life that we have today were written by four distinguished gentlemen named Mathew Levi, John Mark, Dr. Luke and John the son of Zebedee (who was very young at the time). If they had lied about the facts or made any changes in their accounts, everyone would have known about it. There were just too many eyewitnesses to who Jesus really was.

And even more, the book that Dr. Luke wrote is an extremely well researched piece of historical workmanship. He interviewed 100s of eyewitnesses and spent time putting all of their accounts together. So we can know with a high degree of certainty that the gospels are dependable and accurate. Which means that Jesus fulfilled the requirements for messiah perfectly. All that's needed now is divine verification. That is, evidence that he was more than just a prophet. This isn't that hard, since hundreds and hundreds of people saw Jesus after he was crucified. Not surprisingly, these people were the first Christians since they had seen with their own eyes Jesus risen from the dead. Also, even before Jesus was raised from the dead, he raised another man from the dead also (John 11), and many more people were there to verify that miracle also.

Unfortunately for Islam, the Koran says that noone can ever come back from the dead. And since we have very strong evidence that indeed took place, the koran is in error at this point. Not to mention the things we've already gone over, like the fact that the messiah which was foretold to come actually came right on time. Yet the Koran says that there is no messiah and we never needed one. That's two big errors.

And third, the Koran claims that the gospels are also holy scriptures from Allah! This is hard to believe, since the main topic of all 4 gospels is Jesus Christ the messiah, the one and only son of God. Yet the Koran not only denies that Jesus Christ was the son of God, but even that he died on a tree.

It's hard to imagine a slip of the pen leading to such a cohesive doctrine. In fact, as has been shown, the entire bible ( Pentateuch, the prophets, and new testament) has Jesus the messiah as it's central theme throughout.. Isn't it suspicious that a book that took 2,000 years to write by 40+ different people from different times and cultures could be so central in it's theme? And no book has been challenged as much as the bible since it's completion.

It turns out a similar method as shown above is the best way to rule out cults and sects as well that claim to be an extension of Christianity via some subsequent revelation from God. Any belief which claims Jesus as one of their "holy men" yet contradicts who he was or what he said is in error and should be held with suspicion.

From what's been discovered so far, it's apparent that modern Judaism started out with the right idea, but took a wrong turn. That leaves agnosticism type B incorrect because Christianity is proven correct. Christianity not only fits with what we know about God, but it is abundantly proved by historical, prophetic, and miraculous events. And it is completely unique in this respect. No other religion is verified in such a powerful way.

Few things are as well documented as Jesus' life and deeds. And no other religion has such an amazing 100% accuracy rate for it's prophecies.. Now that we know that the bible can be trusted, we can look at what it reveals about the meaning of life. The bible is exactly what it claims to be, a message from God to mankind. It explains where we came from, why we're here and where we're going. So what does it say about why we're here? What is the meaning of life? It should be obvious by now.

The meaning of life = GOD

Jesus said in John 14:6, " I am the way, the truth, and the life, and noone comes to the Father but by me". The bible is clear on several important issues. Everyone is born with a sinful, selfish nature, as descendants from Adam the first man. All sin and evil are crimes committed against God himself. God demands justice, and he will not allow evil in his presence. But God has made a way for justice to be met, our crimes to be accounted for, and for our redemption.

This redemption is made through Christ Jesus, who being sinless and both God and man, is able to take the punishment upon himself, and offer himself as a sacrifice for our sins. Not only this but he was raised up from death as a new creature. Those who wish to be saved must turn away from sin and acknowledge God's righteousness, forgiveness and salvation in Jesus Christ, and then they will be received as children of God, receiving his grace and transformed with Christ Jesus from death to life and perfection, just as he was risen from death to glorification.

That's why I typed all this, to convince you to become a Christian. I made it plain and obvious from the beginning, and I hope I convinced you. If not, I invite you argue with me or talk about it, or even read and study on your own. I hope that you got the message, and hope the best for you. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

I find that the idea of the bible saying that everyone is born sinful and selfish is just one of the many many reasons I am not a christian. Science does not deny the bible, but those with religious stature fear science as a means of gaining information they cannot control. Spirituality is a wonderful thing, as religion can also be, but it is the organsied nature of it that's the downfall.

I liked alot of the post until you told me that you were trying to convert me. By all means share your belif, but don't try to change mine. Accept that earth IS diversity, and that without that diversity we lose balance.

I'd like to add that quotes from the bible are not evidence. Every sunday when I am woken up by religious people, they answer my questions with bible quotes, and nothing more. They don't encourge freedom of thought and expression, or the importance to find yourself during your short life, but instead seek to teach you the way to read a book. A book written by MEN, telling other MEN how to make the world a good place.

You don't need promise of immortality to make you want to be a "good" person, do you?

You feel the need to make a post telling others that what they believe is wrong, trying to convert them.

Buddhist teachings will generally adopt a laid back attitude, generally accepting that everyones journey is differnt and all are entitled to their own opinions.

I'm amused when, after stating early on that all we are sure of is our own concious thought, you then go on to "disprove" other faiths with "facts" and references. You brand others incorrect, with very weak proof.

"Our universe can't sustain itself, let alone create life. Therefore all religions that are pantheistic are false religions"

Perhaps the most vauge and insulting comment you made.

Quote:

---

Science does not deny the bible, but those with religious stature fear science as a means of gaining information they cannot control.

---

Perhaps that's true in the sense that they don't want the information to fall into the hands of people that will abuse that information, but I can honestly tell you that no honest Christian would ever fear a release of scientific information that is honest, even if it seems to contradict thier religion.

Modern empirical science was sprung from Christians as a result of a release of ideas and freedom through the reformation. When Science was hijacked by evolutionists in the early 20th century Christians never tried to shut science down. And even today there are times when new data is discovered that may temporarily seem to support evolution. But I can personally tell you there's no reason to fear because like you said science does not deny the bible.

People need to stop using galileo as an excuse and get educated and realize that The Roman Catholic Church is not established by God, but was an invention of men. Of course evil people will hijack religion. If nothing else, because it's so powerful. But the truth I have found is the most harmful people are people who are deceived more than are intentionally deceivers.

Quote:

---

I liked alot of the post until you told me that you were trying to convert me. By all means share your belif, but don't try to change mine. Accept that earth IS diversity, and that without that diversity we lose balance.

---

What do you expect? I'm a christian and I want everyone to be saved. Recognise my good will. I was honest from the beginning and that desire to save others isn't going to just go away. I was trying to be open and honest. There's plenty of room for discussion, I'm not preaching at you from a pulpit.

Quote:

---

I'd like to add that quotes from the bible are not evidence.

---

Not sure what you're referring to. And yes quotes from the bible can be used as evidence when presented in the right way.

Quote:

---

You don't need promise of immortality to make you want to be a "good" person, do you?

---

Without God there is no morality. And I think if people really wanted to be good they would love God and recieve him , because only God is good.

Like I said, I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I hope at least it gave you something to think about.

Quote:

---

You feel the need to make a post telling others that what they believe is wrong, trying to convert them.

---

yes.

Quote:

---

I'm amused when, after stating early on that all we are sure of is our own concious thought, you then go on to "disprove" other faiths with "facts" and references. You brand others incorrect, with very weak proof.

---

hardly

Quote:

---

Perhaps the most vauge and insulting comment you made.

---

That's only one sentence. There were streams of deductive reasoning behind that statement.

Please don't be bitter. What is it that you disagree with or have objections to, and let's talk about it.

I don't need a book to tell me how to decrease suffering. I don't need written rules to illustrate the differnce pain and joy.

Humans who have had little or no contact with the bible are perfectly capable of making morally just decsions and being aware of them. Even a certain type on monkey (Apologies I forget the name) Has shown that they can regonise others pain and respond by comforting them.

So no, I don't agree that without God there is no moralitly. All we need to do is recognise suffering, and the ability to do so is built into us geneticly.

I find it abit ignorant to say that good will doesn't exist outside of christian society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iambreathingin

I don't need a book to tell me how to decrease suffering. I don't need written rules to illustrate the differnce pain and joy.

Humans who have had little or no contact with the bible are perfectly capable of making morally just decsions and being aware of them. Even a certain type on monkey (Apologies I forget the name) Has shown that they can regonise others pain and respond by comforting them.

So no, I don't agree that without God there is no moralitly. All we need to do is recognise suffering, and the ability to do so is built into us geneticly.

I find it abit ignorant to say that good will doesn't exist outside of christian society.

---

When you talk about what is right or wrong, there has to be a standard . Good and evil are recognised as something that all people are accountable to recognise as a spiritual truth, but without God saying anything is right or wrong morality is meaningless, and any personal conviction to help someone suffering for example without a standard of morality is meaningless. You feeling like helping someone because they're down trodden doesn't prove it's right if there is no God, even if a whole planet full of people feels the same way, it still is only feelings.

Our deep recognition of love as a higher standard contrastingly is recognition of God's spiritual nature, which we cannot see. We don't see any proof that being kind is right in the natural universe. It's bound up within our hearts, and we receive it despite it's being absent in the physical world, being it's beyong this world.

My point remains in tact. You don't need the christian God of the bible to acheive any of those things. You argue that people do good things wihtout god in their lives, and that those good things are then meaningless? Surely the same spiritual conviction will belongto hundreds of beliefs all over the world.

I didnt' say that helping people proved there was no God, I said it didn't prove there was one.


It's difficult to reply to such al arge post on a forum really. If you'd like to email me and arrange a time where we couuld come online and have a chat I'd be happy to do so.

[email protected] is my addy, so go nuts. ;)

That was some of the worst logic ever. God exists and is omniscient and omnipotent because the universe exists and is a complex system? Who is to say that the Big Bang didn't happen because the previous iteration of the universe collapsed, then exploded, and that this has been going on forever, like the beating of a heart? That wouldn't require a God at all, just time and matter. It's human to assume there must be a beginning and an end to everything, but just because it's human to assume that doesn't mean it's true.

As for life, that too is explainable, without an omnipotent being. Let's say there is an X percent chance that the molecules necessary to form a simple bacterium will randomly hook up. X > 0, but could be a very, very, very small number. However small that number may be, if anything *can* happen, then given time, it *will* happen, no question about it. Once you have low-level life replicating, then evolution kicks in, survival of the fittest, best adaptability to environment, increased complexity, and so on. This doesn't require God either.

I'm not saying there *is* no omnipotent being out there. I am saying that you haven't even come close to proving there is. Since one can't prove a negative, it's up to the proponents of a theory to prove the positive...or fail to do so. So far, you have failed.

Quote:

---

That was some of the worst logic ever. God exists and is omniscient and omnipotent because the universe exists and is a complex system?

---

Can you please tell me where it says that because I typed that all up myself and I don't remember seeing that anywhere. Those attributes wern't shown to be proven valid simply by the universes exisistence but by natural laws that point towards a creator. The second law of thermodynamics was shown amoung other thing, that order nad igh levels of complexity can only come fgrom an intelligence able to direct force. There was a lot more to it then that. That post took a long time to type, and you declared it to be summarized by " God exists and is omniscient and omnipotent because the universe exists and is a complex system." Please recompose your objection, and I will answer it formally.

Quote:

---

Who is to say that the Big Bang didn't happen because the previous iteration of the universe collapsed, then exploded, and that this has been going on forever, like the beating of a heart?

---

Because the 2nd law says it can't. from If God created the universe, then who created God? :

Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.

Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is â??openâ??. According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass. Some recent evidence for an â??openâ?? universe comes from the number of light-bending â??gravitational lensesâ?? in the sky. Also, analysis of Type Ia supernovae shows that the universeâ??s expansion rate is not slowing enough for a closed universe It seems like there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a â??big crunchâ??. Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable â??inflationaryâ?? version of the â??big bangâ?? theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapseâ??a â??flatâ?? universe.

Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical â??big crunchâ??. As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, â??There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.â?? Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and thatâ??s the end.

Quote:

---

That wouldn't require a God at all, just time and matter.

---

wrong, even that would require a creator to begin the universe with low levels of entropy in the universe to begin with.

Quote:

---

Let's say there is an X percent chance that the molecules necessary to form a simple bacterium will randomly hook up. X > 0, but could be a very, very, very small number. However small that number may be, if anything *can* happen, then given time, it *will* happen, no question about it.

---

In the world of faith in evolution time is the beloved God. With enough time, anything can happen, despite it's imporobability or incompatability with human experience.

The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional â??simpleâ?? cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 1057800. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros. It would take 11 full pages of magazine type to print this number. To try to put this in perspective, there are about 1080 (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours that would â??onlyâ?? amount to 10160 electrons.

These numbers defy our ability to comprehend their size. Fred Hoyle, british mathmetician and astronomer has said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubikâ??s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same timeâ??and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by the evolutionists (real world â??simpleâ?? bacteria have about 2,000 proteins and are incredibly complex). As Hoyle points out, the program of the cell, encoded on the DNA, is also needed. In other words, life could not form by natural (random) processes.

An evolutionist might argue that the odds of winning the lottery are pretty remote, but someone wins it every week. But In the analogy cited above, there has to be an outcome. Someone has to win the lottery. By contrast, in the processes by which life is supposed to have formed, there need not necessarily be an outcome. Indeed the probabilities argue against any outcome. That is the whole point of the argument. But then the evolutionist may counter that it did happen because we are here! This is circular reasoning.

The order in the proteins and DNA of living things is independent of the properties of the chemicals of which they consistâ??unlike an ice crystal where the structure results from the properties of the water molecule. The order in living things parallels that in printed books where the information is not contained in the ink, or even in the letters, but in the complex arrangement of letters which make up words, words which make up sentences, sentences which make up paragraphs, paragraphs which make up chapters and chapters which make up books. These components of written language respectively parallel the nucleic acid bases, codons, genes, operons, chromosomes and genomes which make up the genetic programs of living cells.

The result of the lottery draw is clearly the result of a random selectionâ??unless family members of the lottery supervisor consistently win! Then we would conclude that the draw has not been randomâ??it is not the result of a random process, but the result of an intelligent agent.

United States taxpayers are spending millions of dollars yearly in funding the Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). If those listening hear a radio signal with random noise, it is clearly the product of a natural process, but if there is a pattern such as â??dah-dah-dah-dit-dit-dit-dah-dah-dahâ??, it will be hailed as evidence for an intelligent, although invisible, source.

If such evidence indicate an intelligent source then surely the incredible amount of information on the DNA in living things, equivalent to a library of a thousand 500- page books in a human being, shouts Creation by a Creator! The more we know about the biochemical workings of living cells, the stronger the evidence becomes for the intimate involvement of a creator. But aside from all this, the second law of thermodynamics just won't allow evolution to take place. Period. I guess you didn't get that.

Quote:

---

Once you have low-level life replicating, then evolution kicks in, survival of the fittest, best adaptability to environment, increased complexity, and so on. This doesn't require God either.

---

I'd love for you to give me a simple explanation of how this can happen, when the laws of the universe and all probability show it can't. Mutations don't make things better. They make things worse. But in the world of evolution, mutations are the name of the game. Evolutionists believe time and chance can defy all probability and the natural laws of the universe. Evolutionsts believe that disorder can produce order . They don't even beleive the word impossible can even apply when it comes to evolution, but they would never consider the possibility of a creator who made all things.

Quote:

---

I'm not saying there *is* no omnipotent being out there. I am saying that you haven't even come close to proving there is. Since one can't prove a negative, it's up to the proponents of a theory to prove the positive...or fail to do so. So far, you have failed.

---

Actually I have show ample proof that the universe must have required an intelligent designer ie, God. But as far as proving it, no I can't do that, and noone can prove evolution the way you mean either. I did exactly what I said I would do. I showed a logical and reasonable path held firm with scientific proofs that lead to faith in a creator. The evidence shows that a creator is necesary, but requires a person to have faith in something not seen. That's where the evidence leads and so you have to follow upon that path.

There is still 0 proof or even evidence to suggest one concious being that created the universe. When every counter (such as fossils) is responded to with "The devil did it to confuse me" then I really question how arguing with somone so convited to their cause could be worth it.

While I read what you write with an open mind, my myself believeing in somthing greater than what we known, you seem to be already set in your beliefs and this is the condition belonging to all those devoted to their faith. Your belief is so strong that your mind will not have you believe otherwise, the idea of testing your own faith by actually considering alternatives would seem to put you off on some unconcious level.

the more you talk the less you listen and unless you'd like to hold a real time conversation with me I want no further part in this thread.

I'll leave you with this thought.

You have no more proof than we do. You do however have conviction to your belief, where as I for example am open to anything my logic approves of. As Buddha taught, believe nothing that does not agree with your own sense of logic, even if it is I who says it. (or somthing to that effect)

natureisawesome - I don't think you understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics and its application to evolution.

The 2nd law :
"No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body"

You are taking this to mean "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease"

Order from disorder is common - take a Snowflake or the helical structure of DNA. Life = Order from disorder - its all around you ;) If these violate the 2nd law, well, they do it a LOT.

Anyway we are NOT talking about a closed system here - we have a Sun which is throwing out all the energy needed to support and sustain life on this planet. You seem to have neglected that bit...

Just read the thread and Jamstigator's

Quote:

---

I'm not saying there *is* no omnipotent being out there. I am saying that you haven't even come close to proving there is. Since one can't prove a negative, it's up to the proponents of a theory to prove the positive...or fail to do so. So far, you have failed.

---

..sums it up rather well IMO.

just to clear things up, good and evil are easy to define, and don't require "God". Good is everything that coencides with the normal actions and thoughts of mankind, where evil is anything that deviates from the normal path. ie, the average person doesn't kill people, therefore someone that murders is "evil". It is pretty simple. In the past, where there was much more bloodshed, David murdering Goliath was interpreted as Good simply because it coeicided with the normality of the time (basicly a duel to the death, which wasn't an uncommon occurance). They used to stone people back in the day, and the bible even preached it, and it was good because it was the normal, acepted punishment, where nowdays, stoning is not generally practiced because for the majority of the world, it is no longer the norm, and would be considered evil now.

also, scientists don't go trying to convert christians, so maybe christians should leave science alone and stick to faith, like the bible says you should(Thou shalt not test the Lord your God).

"If those listening hear a radio signal with random noise, it is clearly the product of a natural process..."

Actually, that's not true. Encrypted data is basically indistinguishable from random noise. (There are some security software packages that take advantage of this to hide an encrypted volume within another encrypted volume, for example, so if tortured you can give up the passphrase for the outer encrypted layer, while denying the very existence of an inner encrypted layer.)

There is a theory that this is why we haven't yet detected signals from other intelligences; we're seeing the signals just fine, but because they're encrypted we don't know that's what they are. Of course, this leads to the question: why would they encrypt their signals? And one scary answer is: something out there is hunting down and eradicating intelligent civilizations when it detects them, leaving behind only those civilizations that *do* encrypt their data/signals.

BTW, the second law of thermodynamics argument didn't convince me. The amount of matter+energy in the universe will (so far as we know) never either go down nor go up. It may change form (solids to plasma, matter to energy, energy to matter, whatever), but that's it. If that's so, if the amount of 'stuff' in the universe cannot be altered, then if a contraction/expansion cycle could happen once, it could happen infinitely. I concede your point that apparently the universe will not contract (this time), at least so far as we can tell, but there's a lot of unanswered questions related to dark matter that need to be answered before anyone can say for sure. We haven't even *found* dark matter yet, despite the fact that it comprises the bulk of the universe in which we exist.

Now, here's a snippet from Wiki:

"The smallest DNA bacteriophage is the Phi-X174 phage, thought to be larger than Hepatitis B, at about 4 kb. [1]

Nanobes are thought by some to be the smallest known organism, about ten times smaller than the smallest known bacteria. Nanobes, tiny filamental structures first found in some rocks and sediments, were first described in 1996 by Philipa Uwins of the University of Queensland. The smallest are 20 nm long. Some researchers believe them to be merely crystal growths, but a purported find of DNA in nanobe samples may prove otherwise. They are similar to the life-like structures found in ALH84001, the famous Mars meteorite from the Antarctic."

So, this means that the DNA data in a nanobe would be around 400 bytes. Not millions of pages, not 10^50000 or anything of the sort. While the random creation of the molecules necessary to form a bacteria (4000 bytes or so) would be unlikely, 400 bytes, given billions of years, and probably quadrillions of planets, is not at all implausible. And once you have even this crude form of life, the inevitable path to increased complexity has begun. This post has more data in it than a nanobe.

delta9 uk said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta9 UK

natureisawesome - I don't think you understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics and its application to evolution.

The 2nd law :
"No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body"

You are taking this to mean "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease"

Order from disorder is common - take a Snowflake or the helical structure of DNA. Life = Order from disorder - its all around you ;) If these violate the 2nd law, well, they do it a LOT.

Anyway we are NOT talking about a closed system here - we have a Sun which is throwing out all the energy needed to support and sustain life on this planet. You seem to have neglected that bit...

---

I do understand what the second law of thermodynamics means. Not only can the entropy of a closed system not decrease, the entropy of an open system can't decrease either!

from Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics :

Question 1: Open Systems
â??Someone recently asked me about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stating that they thought it was irrelevant to creation/evolution because the earth is not an isolated system since the sun is constantly pumping in more energy.

â??This does seem to be a valid pointâ??do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?â??

Answer 1:
The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:

that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)

usable energy is running out

information tends to get scrambled

order tends towards disorder

a random jumble wonâ??t organize itself

It also depends on the type of system:

An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running downâ?? see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.

A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.

An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesnâ??t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

â?¦ there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. â?¦ There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.1

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization, covered in Question 2 below. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun wonâ??t make you more complexâ??the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sunâ??s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

Itâ??s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

Question 2: What about crystals?
To quote one anti-creationist, Boyce Rensberger:

If the Second Law truly prohibited local emergence of increased order, there would be no ice cubes. The greater orderliness of water molecules in ice crystals than in the liquid state is purchased with the expenditure of energy at the generator that made the electricity to run the freezer. And that makes it legal under the Second Law.2

Answer 2:
Rensberger is ignorant of the creationist responses to this argument. An energy source is not enough to produce the specified complexity of life. The energy must be directed in some way. The ice cubes of his example would not form if the electrical energy was just wired into liquid water! Instead, we would get lots of heat, and the water breaking up into simpler components, hydrogen and oxygen.

The ice example is thermodynamically irrelevant to the origin of life. When ice freezes, it releases heat energy into the environment. This causes an entropy increase in the surroundings. If the temperature is low enough, this entropy increase is greater than the loss of entropy in forming the crystal. But the formation of proteins and nucleic acids from amino acids and nucleotides not only lowers their entropy, but it removes heat energy (and entropy) from their surroundings. Thus ordinary amino acids and nucleotides will not spontaneously form proteins and nucleic acids at any temperature.

Rensberger also fails to distinguish between order and complexity. Crystals are ordered; life is complex. To illustrate: a periodic (repeating) signal, e.g. ABABABABABAB, is an example of order. However, it carries little information: only â??ABâ??, and â??print 6 timesâ??.

A crystal is analogous to that sequence; it is a regular, repeating network of atoms. Like that sequence, a crystal contains little information: the co-ordinates of a few atoms (i.e. those which make up the unit cell), and instructions â??more of the sameâ?? x times. If a crystal is broken, smaller but otherwise identical crystals result. Conversely, breaking proteins, DNA or living structures results in destruction, because the information in them is greater than in their parts.

A crystal forms because this regular arrangement, determined by directional forces in the atoms, has the lowest energy. Thus the maximum amount of heat is released into the surroundings, so the overall entropy is increased.

Random signals, e.g. WEKJHDF BK LKGJUES KIYFV NBUY, are not ordered, but complex. But a random signal contains no useful information. A non-random aperiodic (non-repeating) signalâ??specified complexityâ??e.g. â??I love youâ??, may carry useful information. However, it would be useless unless the receiver of the information understood the English language convention. The amorous thoughts have no relationship to that letter sequence apart from the agreed language convention. The language convention is imposed onto the letter sequence.

Proteins and DNA are also non-random aperiodic sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures, which are caused by the properties of their constituents. The sequences of DNA and proteins must be imposed from outside by some intelligent process. Proteins are coded in DNA, and the DNA code comes from pre-existing codes, not by random processes.

Many scientific experiments show that when their building blocks are simply mixed and chemically combined, a random sequence results. To make a protein, scientists need to add one unit at a time, and each unit requires a number of chemical steps to ensure that the wrong type of reaction doesnâ??t occur. The same goes for preparing a DNA strand in a correct sequence. See Q&A: Origin of Life.

The evolutionary origin-of-life expert Leslie Orgel confirmed that there are three distinct concepts: order, randomness and specified complexity:

Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [L. Orgel, The Origins of Life, John Wiley, NY, 1973, p. 189]

Even the simplest known self-reproducing life form (Mycoplasma) has 482 genes, and it must parasitize more complex organisms to obtain the building blocks it cannot manufacture itself. The simplest organism that could exist in theory would need at least 256 genes, and itâ??s doubtful whether it could survive.

One of the classic examples of such â??order out of chaosâ?? is the appearance of hexagonal patterns on the surface of certain oils as they are being heated. The minute the heating stops, this pattern vanishes once again into a sea of molecular disorder.

These patterns, like the swirls of a hurricane, are not only fleetingly short-lived, but are simple, repetitive structures which require negligible information to describe them. The information they do contain is intrinsic to the physics and chemistry of the matter involved, not requiring any extra â??programming.â??

legalize the green,

I feel no need to respond to your logic. I wil say though that I really really believe in God's word and I believe that people are going to hell. Now I love and care about mankind and so I'll do what I can to save asy many as possible. If this wasn't my attitude wouldn't I be a evil person?

I care about you, and I hope the best for you.

Quote
Not sure what you're referring to. And yes quotes from the bible can be used as evidence when presented in the right way.


like when you put spin on them

like....

'i did smoke marjauna, but i didnt inhale "

Jamstigator said:

Quote:

---

Encrypted data is basically indistinguishable from random noise

---

It can be simply pointed out that all information, even encrypted data is consistently patterned. Random noise can have a short lived pattern but it is usually not.

Quote:

---

There is a theory that this is why we haven't yet detected signals from other intelligences; we're seeing the signals just fine, but because they're encrypted we don't know that's what they are. Of course, this leads to the question: why would they encrypt their signals? And one scary answer is: something out there is hunting down and eradicating intelligent civilizations when it detects them, leaving behind only those civilizations that *do* encrypt their data/signals.

---

You really believe that? How do you sleep at night? That's really paranoid you know. But I suppose that is one major possibility if you believe in evolution. There are lots of parasites and creatures that live off of other creatures energy in this world. It reminds me of this science fiction story I read when I was younger where these space pigs came to the earth in supposed peace but they really just came to eat everyone.

Quote:

---

The amount of matter+energy in the universe will (so far as we know) never either go down nor go up.

---

The total amount yes.

Quote:

---

there's a lot of unanswered questions related to dark matter that need to be answered before anyone can say for sure. We haven't even *found* dark matter yet, despite the fact that it comprises the bulk of the universe in which we exist.

---

It supposedly exists. For those of you reading who do not know, dark matter is needed by old age theorists to account for rapid stellar speeds in galaxies. If there is enough of this dark matter, much more than visible matter, then the universe would also be â??closedâ??. Assuming the Big Bang model, a closed universe would eventually collapse back onto itself, if there was enough dark matter. It was hoped that this dark matter would be mostly in the form of small stars called red dwarfs. But Hubble Space Telescope measurements have indicated there are hardly any of these red dwarf stars. So cosmologists must rely more on some type of exotic matter, which has so far been undetected. A further problem is that the red dwarfs they did detect are believed to weigh in at 20 % of the sunâ??s mass, which is contrary to popular models of star formation. One of these red dwarfs was seen to produce a flare, an event supposedly reserved only for more massive stars.

Furthermore, they haven't found any dark matter in the milky way at all :

No dark matter found in the Milky Way Galaxy

Quote:

---

They are similar to the life-like structures found in ALH84001, the famous Mars meteorite from the Antarctic."

---

Which turned out to be discounted. For example, there is almost certain proof that the amino acids found in ALH84001 were the result of contamination from Earth, and other â??nanofossilsâ?? were merely inanimate magnetite whiskers plus artefact's of transmission microscopy (TEM). Of course, the humanist-dominated media and assorted â??skepticsâ?? didnâ??t give the retraction anywhere near the same publicity. Most recently they have supposedly come up with new 'evidence' .

from Conclusive evidence for life from Mars? Remember last time! :

" The new â??evidenceâ?? is tiny (one-millionth of an inch in diameter) crystals of magnetite, a magnetic oxide of iron (Fe3O4). These were analyzed using a new technique called high-power backscattered scanning electron microscopy (SEM-BSE), a method introduced by two of the researchers (J.W. and C.A.) to study endolithic (inside rock) microorganisms. These crystals supposedly show six key features that indicate that they were made by bacteria rather than forming inorganically:

they are in chains, rather than clumped by magnetic attraction
uniform crystal size and shape within chains
gaps between crystals
orientation of elongated crystals along the chain axis
flexibility of chains
a halo interpreted as a possible remnant of a membrane around chains.
In the same issue of PNAS, a NASA research team led by Dr Kathie Thomas-Keprta of NASAâ??s Johnson Space Center studied single crystals and claimed that their unique shape, which they call truncated hexa-octahedral, is evidence that they were formed by bacteria.3 "

It's hard to find information on nanobes and their proof as organisms of any sorts seems yet to be proven. But when it mentioned the antartic find that brought memories.

Quote:

---

So, this means that the DNA data in a nanobe would be around 400 bytes.

---

They're not even sure it's a living organism. you can't be sure how much information it carries.

LMAO you can copy and paste all you like - I still stand by my point.

There is no thermodynamic reason why a molecule or gene cannot, by slight changes, go from one configuration to a different one that turns out to work better.

There ya go.

With all your links pointing to the same "resource" you really won't get far with your "evidence"

No, they don't know whether nanobes are living organisms or not. The problem is, there's no consensus definition of 'life' yet; lots of wrangling over that.

Have you heard about the plasma constructs that have been seen? (Plasma is the fourth state of matter: solid, gas, liquid, plasma.) Well, anyway, there are plasma constructs that are apparently able to replicate, and they form helical structures not dissimilar to the helixes in DNA. (Seems like the helix is rather universal.) They haven't said that these plasma constructs are 'life', but they haven't ruled it out either, because they do exhibit characteristics we associate with life.

Now, if those *are* alive, that's very interesting, because of the four possible states of matter, plasma is, by far, the most common, much more common than solids, liquids and gases put together. So, it could be that plasma-based life is the most common form of life in the universe. Such life would have very little in common with us though; even if it eventually evolves into something intelligent, (if it hasn't already), we'd have nothing they want, and they'd have nothing we want. Maybe information-trading, but that'd be about it.

I'm curious, doesn't it sound like natureisawesome is suggesting that all of us that disagee with him are going to hell? That seems as if he is judging us, where the bible clearly states that only God can judge us. why is it that "christians" are always trying to save us heathens when, assuming we are decent people, our souls arn't exactly stained with the blood of the innocents. I have always figured that if God is really going to send all the jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus, taoists, scientists, ect to hell, then he isn't the kind of diety I want in my life. thankfully, i believe that God isn't so picky, so I am not too worried for my soul.

Quote:

---

LMAO you can copy and paste all you like - I still stand by my point.

There is no thermodynamic reason why a molecule or gene cannot, by slight changes, go from one configuration to a different one that turns out to work better.

There ya go.

With all your links pointing to the same "resource" you really won't get far with your "evidence"

---

Yes there is plenty thermodynamic reason and I'm not wasting my time typing it all again go reread what I've read or check out this site for information on thermodynamics (there are other laws as well but this is the most outstanding one that keeps life from forming from in organic molecules) :

Origin of Life Q&A
Thermodynamics and Order Q&A

I just don't even think you care whether it's right or wrong. Surely you didn't even understand what I wrote. If you did, and still wished to deny it, you would need to show me some mechanism or way that inorganic matter can form into complex organic information bearing systems (life) while working against the second law of thermodynamics. But you can't, because there are no exceptions to the second law. Entropy affects both energy and matter. That doesn't really leave anything left.

Why should it matter whether I use 1 site or 5? If it's right it's right, if it's wrong it's wrong. Approach the argument instead of preconcluding it's wrong by your presupposition and prejudice. Is this another attempt at character assasination? It sounds like you've already made up your mind to begin with, which is far from suprising.

Wow some size of a post there, wish I had time to get involved in this one. You are talking about entropy and stuff, that kind of scientific rhetoric can force me into an excited state. I might print that out and read it on the train to work tomorrow, if it's less than 10 pages....

LOL Of course there are no known exceptions to the second law, I didn't mention any did I?

I'm saying life IS NOT a exception. You aren't even arguing with me FFS :wtf:

Creationists mis-represent the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.

You are basically saying:
The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.


The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

* the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
* entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size.
* even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.

In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution.

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy ;). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law, so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently.

I would post more. but its you who are mis-representing facts and we can't be arguing over something you don't accept as the same version of reality :wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

Why should it matter whether I use 1 site or 5? If it's right it's right, if it's wrong it's wrong. Approach the argument instead of preconcluding it's wrong by your presupposition and prejudice. Is this another attempt at character assasination? It sounds like you've already made up your mind to begin with, which is far from suprising.

---

Its wrong, and Don't try and be funny - I have an honours degree in Medical Microbiology and Genetics so if that's "my presupposition and prejudice" then I paid a lot for it :wtf:

Come over to my Macroevolution thread instead :asskick:

and stop trying to suggest this is a personal attack - I'm attacking your ideas, I'm sure in real life you are a splendid chap :jointsmile:

Quote:

---

No, they don't know whether nanobes are living organisms or not. The problem is, there's no consensus definition of 'life' yet; lots of wrangling over that.

---

How do they not know what life is? How can they search for life if they don't know what it is? I have life, you have life. Rocks do not have life. I think it's pretty obvious what life is. If they're wrangling over something like plants yeah that can't form by evolution either, not that they've found any outside of our planet.

Quote:

---

Have you heard about the plasma constructs that have been seen? (Plasma is the fourth state of matter: solid, gas, liquid, plasma.) Well, anyway, there are plasma constructs that are apparently able to replicate, and they form helical structures not dissimilar to the helixes in DNA. (Seems like the helix is rather universal.) They haven't said that these plasma constructs are 'life', but they haven't ruled it out either, because they do exhibit characteristics we associate with life.

---

well, I've defenitley been led on a wild goose chase with this one. First of all, there are very few articles on this, and I first found one blogger on evoilutionspace who qouted another article from sciencedaily which got it's information from institute of physics which got it's information from New journal of physics. There's also one other article from the search for terrestrial intelligence. So there's really very little about this on either side of the debate. It also seems to be very new, from just this past week.

Here's what I've learned about it so far. It's not the plasma itself which is supposed to have life in it, it is inorganic "dust" within the plasma. The dust forms into spiral shaped structures. They use the term helical which really just means spiral, obviously meant to push the reader to think of it more closely resembling dna. But just because something looks "helical" by no means does that make it dna or any time of gene carring information necessary for life.

from the institute of physics article :

Quote:

---

"However, Tsytovich and his colleagues demonstrated, using a computer model of molecular dynamics, that particles in a plasma can undergo self-organization as electronic charges become separated and the plasma becomes polarized. This effect results in microscopic strands of solid particles that twist into corkscrew shapes, or helical structures. These helical strands are themselves electronically charged and are attracted to each other."

---

So what. They are still inorganic molecules. If they form corkscrews and attach together, that's not evolution, that's just chemistry. Elements and chemicals that go through a chemical reaction " self-organize" all the time. An obvious one is when water splits apart into different gases or comes together to form a liquid. They apparently mean to suggest that since these molecules are cahrges while they are in strands that it appears to be a dna like structure because the molecules in our body are charged also. Of course it's much more complicated then that and there are other known inorganic charged molecules found in the natural enviroment for sure.

Quote:

---

They can, for instance, divide, or bifurcate, to form two copies of the original structure.

---

This appears to be pure word play. If a stand of "helical" inorganic structures and it divides or splits, it's merely two stands of spiral shaped inorganic molecules!

Quote:

---

These new structures can also interact to induce changes in their neighbours and they can even evolve into yet more structures as less stable ones break down, leaving behind only the fittest structures in the plasma.

---

One again their terminology appears to be very depective. Evolve simply means change in this istance through a chemical reaction, but they want you to cnnect evolve with evolution. of course the fittest structures in the plasma are left behind, they are the fittest. This is chemistry. Not evolution.


So, could helical clusters formed from interstellar dust be somehow alive? "These complex, self-organized plasma structures exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter," says Tsytovich, "they are autonomous, they reproduce and they evolve".

These are the properties he says qualify them for "inorganic living matter". Which is interesting because according to what organic means it is life such as plants and matter and carbon compounds of living things but this has no life or genetic information observable and from what the article said it's not carbon based at all. So basiclly he's saying nonliving living matter. By autonomous he can't mean relating to the autonomous nervous system because their is no observable nervous system let alone dna. He must mean that it is in an indepent self governing state, which must be referring to how the structures forming by thier own intrinsic chemistry and physics of the structures themselves.

Hwen he says reproduce obviously they not reproducing by any organic processes so he must be reffering to how the chains split or some other process intrinsic to the nature of the molecule. evolve simply means change and is very vague and meaningless. There are other examples of chemicals that change when they are introdcued into different processes like interacting with another element or molecule.

Quote:

---

He adds that the plasma conditions needed to form these helical structures are common in outer space.

---

That's interesting. I know that most of the stars and planets if I remember correctly are supposed to be plasma and this seems to be a generally non-disfuted fact on both sides of the debate but I can see how this could in fact be an argument against evolution. If these structures are so common and the intrinsic structure of the particles may cause them to
somehow form into dna like they seem to be hoping then wouldn't life in outer space be plainly evidence all through the galaxy, let alone the universe? from what they're saying it's not carbon based and so wouldn't depend on the same things as we do for life.

I find this whole thing very outraging because they're obviously not being honest with thier wordings. Basically thier aguement seems to be, it looks to the eye similar to helical structures in dna and so maybe it is dna or will turn into dna which is lucricrous. Just because it looks like it doesn't mean it is or will in any way form into extremely complex dna and rna or some other information bearing system able to reproduce or have a consciousness or central nervous system.

From what I've read elsewhere " this throws a small wrench in the current search-for-ET works, since todayâ??s astrobiologists â??have based all of their searches and instruments on the existence of carbon andâ??on Mars, for exampleâ??on minerals that only could have formed in the presence of water.â?� Instead, it seems they should be searching for interstellar dust devils."

What do you think of what I wrote, I mean that's what this thread is about. I've answered some of your criticisms, not that I'm not find with discussing those things. You seem to have disagreements and I'd like to talk about that.

Delta 9 i'll get to you, first to drink a beer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

But how do we know? How do we know that anything exists outside of you? Could life be a self created hallucination? No, not really. To imagine that would be very.... unrealistic. It's an assumption, but while it may be hard to prove it's impossible to disprove. And besides, all evidence suggests that everything else is just as real as you.

---

Odd. The very tactic used by many to "prove" that God exists (it's nopt possible to disprove), is the same tactic we're now being asked not to use because it would be "unrealistic".

Also, If one believes that everything is an illusion, evidence doesn't really matter, as it would be an illusion also. This is what happens when someone has a view of the world and tries to make the evidence fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

These cannot tell us anything about who God is. The public schools should be informed of this.All philosophies that deny the existence of God are incorrect. Now to the next category : pantheism vs. supernaturalism. If you'll look back you'll remember that pantheism is the belief that the universe itself is God, that it has always existed and is responsible for creating life. But remember our universe is unable to create anything but degradation. It is inadequate, it can't even sustain itself, let alone create life.

---

The existence of a god or God does not disprove evolution. You just think it does, or you want it to be so. God could easily have created a system for evolution if it pleased.

And the fact that you disallow pantheism, who's to say that the universe itself isn't supernatural? Why is that not a possibility? A supernatural universe would be able to do whatever the hell it wanted.

Here's what I *can* accept from what you've written, merely as possibilities, are that

I can accept that a god may have created the universe. But, I'm also willing to believe accept that the laws as we see them today need refinement, or are completely wrong (you know, possibly being illusion and all).

I've recently converted to Pastafarianism being crossed with Last-Thursdayism. According to the evidence I've gathered, I am right, and you are wrong. You'll probably try to convince me that I'm looking at the evidence wrong.

Your use of "scripture" was nice too, but we all know that true scripture can only be originally written with (or in) Pasta, and since your "scriptures" were originally written on scrolls. then they must obviously be false.

The origin of life is just one in a very long series of questions that used to, out of ignorance, be answered, 'Well, dunno...so it must've been God.' That's what religions do, they embrace ignorance, and ascribe anything they don't understand to God. But just because we don't understand something now doesn't mean we won't understand it eventually. And even if there are some questions we *never* answer satisfactorily, that still does not mean the root cause is God. I hope we don't answer every single question -- that'd render the universe a rather boring place.

So, DNA is complicated. Many living things are complicated. So what? Fractal images can be complicated too. String theory is complicated. Dark matter is complicated. Making a really superb chili is complicated. Doesn't mean that God had anything to do with anything, or even exists. It just means that the universe in which we live can be kinda confusing, and we haven't yet figured out how everything works.

Now, if while looking through DNA scientists find some molecules signed 'Designed by God. Copyright (C) 4000 B.C. All Rights Reserved' or something, hey, maybe we should start lending more credence to theory that God did some work. Wake me up if that happens. ;)

Legalize the green said :

Quote:

---

I'm curious, doesn't it sound like natureisawesome is suggesting that all of us that disagee with him are going to hell? That seems as if he is judging us, where the bible clearly states that only God can judge us..

---

I haven't judgeed you at all. If that's what you mean by judge, the bible does not define it that way. Let's say you see somebody wearing something you don't like and so then you go up and punch him in the face. That's judging. That's what Jesus said we shouldn't do. We not to repay evil for evil or carry out punishment on anyone. If you don't beleive me, I suggest you download esword and study in in the greek. I assure you, we are all allowed an opinion and to make discernments about others and to speak out against wrong. Trying to save you is actually the opposite of judging. I recognise mans fallen state and I'm not trying to lead him to punishment or judgement, but to free you from judgement. If that's what judging means , that is how you defined it then we all must live in ignorance. i don't see anywhere in the bible where it says I have to do that.

Quote:

---

why is it that "christians" are always trying to save us heathens when, assuming we are decent people, our souls arn't exactly stained with the blood of the innocents. I have always figured that if God is really going to send all the jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus, taoists, scientists, ect to hell, then he isn't the kind of diety I want in my life.

---

Everyone believes what they are doing is "right". Everyone has thier own set of rules they like to follow. But God has his own rules. If you break the law by one rule, your're guilty of breaking the law period. These are not just crimes against man neccessarily but against God. Mankind is not full of love. It's full of evil, and everyone points the finger at someone else while they all fall into a pit together. Sinning against God is sinning against an almighty eternal perfect and holy God. He doesn't want anyone to go to hell, but he said he won't strive with man forever, and when it comes down to it, the punishment he's given warning of is the one that rightly fits. No other punishment would be enough. That's how awesome and holy he is, and when people gasp at how cruel he could be by sending people to hell they are willingly ignorant of his divine nature. God won't just let it go, there needs to be a process of redemption. Just because you do some nice things or belive in "love" whatever that means to you (it certainly seems to mean different things to different people) that won't save you. neither will being a buddhism or pagan or muslim.I wish you understood how badly God does want to accept everyone, but he can't because he won't allow evil in his presence. Indeed by his very natuire, it is good for love to hate evil. I'll stop there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Staurm

Wow some size of a post there, wish I had time to get involved in this one. You are talking about entropy and stuff, that kind of scientific rhetoric can force me into an excited state. I might print that out and read it on the train to work tomorrow, if it's less than 10 pages....

---

You're welcome to join in staurm. I think most people can read the whole thing in less than an hour. defenitely a lot less than I took to type it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

Everyone believes what they are doing is "right". Everyone has thier own set of rules they like to follow. But God has his own rules. If you break the law by one rule, your're guilty of breaking the law period. These are not just crimes against man neccessarily but against God. Mankind is not full of love. It's full of evil, and everyone points the finger at someone else while they all fall into a pit together. Sinning against God is sinning against an almighty eternal perfect and holy God. He doesn't want anyone to go to hell, but he said he won't strive with man forever, and when it comes down to it, the punishment he's given warning of is the one that rightly fits. No other punishment would be enough. That's how awesome and holy he is, and when people gasp at how cruel he could be by sending people to hell they are willingly ignorant of his divine nature. God won't just let it go, there needs to be a process of redemption. Just because you do some nice things or belive in "love" whatever that means to you (it certainly seems to mean different things to different people) that won't save you. neither will being a buddhism or pagan or muslim.I wish you understood how badly God does want to accept everyone, but he can't because he won't allow evil in his presence. Indeed by his very natuire, it is good for love to hate evil. I'll stop there.

---

God must have a very warped sense of "love". You'd think for someone (or something) that loves us so much, he'd make his alleged presence easier for stupid ol' me to see.

delta 9 uk said:

Quote:

---

LOL Of course there are no known exceptions to the second law, I didn't mention any did I?

I'm saying life IS NOT a exception. You aren't even arguing with me FFS

---

When you argue that anything plain and clear that thermodynamics poses no challange for inorganic matter to form into complex organic information bearing structures that can reproduce (Dna) then you are argueing for another exception to the second law.

Life is an exception, this was already adressed in the original post:

How does life delay a fundamental law of the universe? It doesn't actually.

Quote:

---

You and your environment decay at a certain rate. But since you are alive you can eat part of your environment. As a result that piece of food is decayed very rapidly, and you remain less degraded.

How does life channel the energy found in food into the specific
functions of maintaining it's delicate and intricate structures? A major part of any living cell is it's blueprint, it's DNA. These blueprints are designs for the cellular machinery which is designed so it can acquire energy from food, carry on the functions of life, and duplicate itself over and over again. It works because it makes a path of less resistance making probable what would otherwise be impossible.

The degradation of information bearing systems such as DNA and the 2nd law are related. The link to how the 2nd law applies to energy and information is found in thermodynamic probability, a field pioneered by Ludwig Boltzmann in 1896 and confirmed by Max Plank in 1912. Modern statistical thermodynamics is used to clearly show that information is subject to the same degrading force that constantly increases the amount of entropy in our universe.

The second "exception" to the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the only way to make progress up the escalator. Things can only be more organized by intention. Intelligence and the ability to apply force are required to assemble a computer for instance, or a submarine, or a watch.

---

Quote:

---

You are basically saying:
The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.


The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing.It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease.

---

Whichi s really just another way of saying the same thing. The heat cannot move to the warmer one, because that would require a decrease in entropy. Yes, when it comes to information, all things tend toward disorder.

This does not prevent increasing order because

Quote:

---

* the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.

---

It doesn't matter whether it's a closed sytstem or an open system or an isolated system entropy applies to all of them. There are no exceptions just as I've told you several times. It doesn't " power local decreases in entropy". That's not true. complex machinery in the form of life is required to harness that energy and put it to use for the necessary processes for life. Processes in living things are totally unlike any process we find in the natural chemical interactions we find in nature, or anything like the occurances in elements in molecules that are intrinsic to the chemistry and phsics of that substance. It's not following the natural processes of inorganic material but following upon a totally different path.

I already adressed this is in my previous post # 17. :

Quote:

---

Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun wonâ??t make you more complexâ??the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sunâ??s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

---

Quote:

---

* entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size.

---

I've already addressed this in my previous post as well Excuse me for posting it again but you're not getting it and it's too tiring to explain in on my own over and over again :

Quote:

---

Rensberger also fails to distinguish between order and complexity. Crystals are ordered; life is complex. To illustrate: a periodic (repeating) signal, e.g. ABABABABABAB, is an example of order. However, it carries little information: only â??ABâ??, and â??print 6 timesâ??.

A crystal is analogous to that sequence; it is a regular, repeating network of atoms. Like that sequence, a crystal contains little information: the co-ordinates of a few atoms (i.e. those which make up the unit cell), and instructions â??more of the sameâ?? x times. If a crystal is broken, smaller but otherwise identical crystals result. Conversely, breaking proteins, DNA or living structures results in destruction, because the information in them is greater than in their parts.

A crystal forms because this regular arrangement, determined by directional forces in the atoms, has the lowest energy. Thus the maximum amount of heat is released into the surroundings, so the overall entropy is increased.

Random signals, e.g. WEKJHDF BK LKGJUES KIYFV NBUY, are not ordered, but complex. But a random signal contains no useful information. A non-random aperiodic (non-repeating) signalâ??specified complexityâ??e.g. â??I love youâ??, may carry useful information. However, it would be useless unless the receiver of the information understood the English language convention. The amorous thoughts have no relationship to that letter sequence apart from the agreed language convention. The language convention is imposed onto the letter sequence.

Proteins and DNA are also non-random aperiodic sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures, which are caused by the properties of their constituents. The sequences of DNA and proteins must be imposed from outside by some intelligent process. Proteins are coded in DNA, and the DNA code comes from pre-existing codes, not by random processes.

Many scientific experiments show that when their building blocks are simply mixed and chemically combined, a random sequence results. To make a protein, scientists need to add one unit at a time, and each unit requires a number of chemical steps to ensure that the wrong type of reaction doesnâ??t occur. The same goes for preparing a DNA strand in a correct sequence. See Q&A: Origin of Life.

The evolutionary origin-of-life expert Leslie Orgel confirmed that there are three distinct concepts: order, randomness and specified complexity:

Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [L. Orgel, The Origins of Life, John Wiley, NY, 1973, p. 189]

---

You see? Life requires not only order but complexity as well, and this can only come from intelligence able to direct force. Proteions in dna are non-random. You should look into information science. A good book to read on it is :

In the Beginning Was Information - Answers Bookstore

Quote:

---

* even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.

---

This was answered already too! You're just not paying attention. Remember the ice example:

Quote:

---

When ice freezes, it releases heat energy into the environment. This causes an entropy increase in the surroundings. If the temperature is low enough, this entropy increase is greater than the loss of entropy in forming the crystal. But the formation of proteins and nucleic acids from amino acids and nucleotides not only lowers their entropy, but it removes heat energy (and entropy) from their surroundings. Thus ordinary amino acids and nucleotides will not spontaneously form proteins and nucleic acids at any temperature.

---

Quote:

---

In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

---

I wasn't explicit enough. As It mentioned in the original post the kind of order, that is regularity in something like a crystal is the opposite of complexity.

Quote:

---

The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection.

---

That's rubbish. Not only do mutations not cause an increase in genetic information in an already formed organism (and even if they did the nimber of mutations causing losses of information and randomness and destruction of information from radiation are so much more it would work against it) but that doesn't even touch upon the processes needed to form the organism from inorganic molecules in the first place.

Quote:

---

All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution.

---

At first I felt like laughing, and then I felt began to feel very sad for you. Yes these processes : reproduction, heritable variation, and selection do indeed occur. These are natural proccesses part of natural reproduction and minor changes (microevolution) from genentic information and variability already present in dna. Oh it is indeed to the detriment of evolution. If a mutation makes things worse, how can it make things better? It's making things worse and better? You we do pass on copying errors (mutations) to our offspring in nature, and I'm not sorry to tell you that this isn't making the human race better. In fact it's making us worse. Many diseases are caused by this and physical abnormalities in humans and other animals. Radiation doesn't make things better. They've been hitting bugs with it for around a hundred years, and all they get is deformaties and variation within it's own kind. THAT's IT! Nothing else, no new wings when the isect had no information for wings, no change of hairs into feathers, no recorded credible increase of genetic information has ever been recorded. 2nd law is in extreme detriment to evolution.

Quote:

---

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy .

---

They're idiots and they should find new jobs. We arn't missing any information to make a conclusion on this. The conclusion has already been made and all the information neccessary to make it is already lying on the table.

Quote:

---

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy .

---

Randomization cannot prodice complexity. It can't. I know these kind of ideas are very typical of evolution though. For instance the current theory of the big bag proposed that all of the matter in the universe sprung out of "zero dimension" with "infinite heat". Zero dimension huh. Last I checked there zero was another term for nothing. So the universe orginated from the nonexistent dimension. It's just full of this type of stuff complwexity from randomness, life from nolife life from processes that we know to create corruption.

Quote:

---

I would post more. but its you who are mis-representing facts and we can't be arguing over something you don't accept as the same version of reality.

---

You indeed live in a different world.

H.b. said:

Quote:

---

Odd. The very tactic used by many to "prove" that God exists (it's nopt possible to disprove), is the same tactic we're now being asked not to use because it would be "unrealistic".

---

I don't understand what you're referring to. can you please elaborate.

Quote:

---

Also, If one believes that everything is an illusion, evidence doesn't really matter, as it would be an illusion also. This is what happens when someone has a view of the world and tries to make the evidence fit.

---

An illusion is in the eyes of a beholder, but nomatter what you think of, you are the beholder. This confirms somethings existence
(you) because the existence of your thoughts, and the existence reuqired to think of them is undeniable. You just can't get any deeper then that. If you choose to deny that you exist, then you live in hipocricy. The same perception and mind we use to recognise our own existence is also the same mind we use to recognise everything else in this world. Nothing points to the contrary, and there is no "alternative thought system" or other level or dimension of existence or knoledge to turn to to challange your perception of the universe. Even if there was, this is no way would negate the existence of what we observe now in our own dimension. This is the ultimate axiom and nothing stands against it. You cannot deny yourself.

Quote:

---

The existence of a god or God does not disprove evolution. You just think it does, or you want it to be so. God could easily have created a system for evolution if it pleased.

---

You're right he could have. But the natural laws and the universe would be very different place than we know now. There is also a different kind of evidence I turn to within me called my conscience, which is also held firm by my recognition of God's nature shown through the things he has created that a world where the existence of life is dependant upon death and corruption and neccessarily includes the suffering of the weak and perservation of the storng is not a world created by a God of love. This is in fact exactly the type of scenario Jesus hated and preaches against in the bible. The God of the bible has mercy on the weak and hates those that take advantage of those weaker or less smart then them for personal gain. But selfishness is a theme required for darwinian evolution.

Quote:

---

And the fact that you disallow pantheism, who's to say that the universe itself isn't supernatural? Why is that not a possibility? A supernatural universe would be able to do whatever the hell it wanted.

---

Is the universe natural or supernatural? A natural universe cannot be supernatural. They cannot exist in the same place. Atoms are natural, physical things. If there are supernatural forces that affect the natural world, they must therefore be outside the natural universe.

The natural universe is running down, and the fact it's losing complexity tell us it must have started with a higher degree of complexity to begin with. Since the natural universe is not able to decrese entropy on it's own, something outside of the natural universe must have done this, something with intelligence and the ability to direct force.

Quote:

---

I've recently converted to Pastafarianism being crossed with Last-Thursdayism. According to the evidence I've gathered, I am right, and you are wrong. You'll probably try to convince me that I'm looking at the evidence wrong.

Your use of "scripture" was nice too, but we all know that true scripture can only be originally written with (or in) Pasta, and since your "scriptures" were originally written on scrolls. then they must obviously be false.

---

Please forgive me but I don't know what you're saying man. It just sounds like total insanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

I don't understand what you're referring to. can you please elaborate.

---

I'm referring to what most believers use as their defensive mechanism. As long as you can't disprove something, they feel it's ok to believe in it. God can not be disproven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

An illusion is in the eyes of a beholder, but nomatter what you think of, you are the beholder. This confirms somethings existence
(you) because the existence of your thoughts, and the existence reuqired to think of them is undeniable. You just can't get any deeper then that. If you choose to deny that you exist, then you live in hipocricy. The same perception and mind we use to recognise our own existence is also the same mind we use to recognise everything else in this world. Nothing points to the contrary, and there is no "alternative thought system" or other level or dimension of existence or knoledge to turn to to challange your perception of the universe. Even if there was, this is no way would negate the existence of what we observe now in our own dimension. This is the ultimate axiom and nothing stands against it. You cannot deny yourself.

---

And if I was supernatural?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

You're right he could have. But the natural laws and the universe would be very different place than we know now. There is also a different kind of evidence I turn to within me called my conscience, which is also held firm by my recognition of God's nature shown through the things he has created that a world where the existence of life is dependant upon death and corruption and neccessarily includes the suffering of the weak and perservation of the storng is not a world created by a God of love. This is in fact exactly the type of scenario Jesus hated and preaches against in the bible. The God of the bible has mercy on the weak and hates those that take advantage of those weaker or less smart then them for personal gain. But selfishness is a theme required for darwinian evolution.

---

Really? I have a conscience as well. I don't see how a conscience means that God exists, or is evidence of anything divine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

Is the universe natural or supernatural? A natural universe cannot be supernatural. They cannot exist in the same place. Atoms are natural, physical things. If there are supernatural forces that affect the natural world, they must therefore be outside the natural universe.

---

What's your definition of "natural"? I'm suggesting that the world we perceive today and the way we perceive it are wrong. It has to be. Most perceptions that man has made over time have been false. By super natural, I mean things that we don't understand about the universe. If someone claims to know everything in the universe, show me them so I can laugh.

And maybe the universe isn't natural? There are things about the world we live in that we don't know, that may defy our assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

The natural universe is running down, and the fact it's losing complexity tell us it must have started with a higher degree of complexity to begin with. Since the natural universe is not able to decrese entropy on it's own, something outside of the natural universe must have done this, something with intelligence and the ability to direct force.

---

...assuming that these laws are correct, assuming the universe is natural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

Please forgive me but I don't know what you're saying man. It just sounds like total insanity.

---

Yeah that was kinda supposed'ta sorta be a bit wonky.

I've stated that I am a converted Pastafarian (believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster) and a Last Thursdayist (the idea that the world was created last Thursday, but with the appearance of age: people's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth). I'm suggesting that the world was created Last Thursday (always capitalized) by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I noticed that you tried to use holy books that haven't been written in or with Pasta. So I don't know why you're trying to use them as proof. That's all I was saying. If you want to use scripture, find a plate of spaghetti and just start eating. If you see a message, then you might be able to convince me.

I'm also wondering, since you seem like a smart guy, how you came to be deceived by Xianity, and why do you deny that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?

Rofl at the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is logic worthy of a fanatical christian!
A+ Newbie!

It is always sad to see a Christian attempting to tread water in the "Science Pool", and even more so when they think they are doing the backstroke while they drown.

It also truely disapoints me when someone tries to "save me" because while perhaps not the best christian, I have no doubt that God loves me, in whatever form he takes (be it Allah, God, Yaweh, Buddha, Zeus, ect). I have no doubt that being Omnibenevolent, God loves me inspite of my failings as a human, just as he forgives Natureisaewsome for being overzealous, "holier than thou" and judgemental to a fault.

the fact that someone is interpreting what God says, feels, and thinks reeks of arogance and IMHO should never be taken seriously, especially when used to try to "convert the heathens." Perhaps instead of blindly following what men say God wants, you should think about how a God that is perfect, loving, and kind can condem the vast majority of humankind for the simple aspect of not being christisan, because the God I believe in is understanding enough to forgive, and welcomes all good people into whatever heaven there is, and be it Jesus, nirvana, or 70 virgins that are waiting, will welcome with open arms all decent people, regardless of their faith.

shame on all "holier than thou christians", what makes you think you know God any more then anyone else? God is divine, how can you possibly comprehend anything God wants?

omg that is too much reading for me. ill just put out my opinion and say that i believe that there is some sort of god responsible for our existence. But i dont believe any of the religions in this world have much truth behind them at all. That being said, i think the bible is just a plaguerized book based on astrology.




Debate.

jagerbom said:

Quote:

---

That being said, i think the bible is just a plaguerized book based on astrology.

---

I'm interested to hear how you came to this conclusion.

well, it is pretty obvious that alot of the bible was streamlined to be more acceptable to the pagans (astrology refrence) such as the changing of Christmas to the Pagan holiday date, and while not only obvious, it is documented as well. Hell, Voodoo is a combination of african religions and christianity, in order to at least partially convert the "heathens".

Christianity has even gone as far as taking polytheistic religions and comparing the saints to the lesser Gods in order to make the religion more accesible and easier to assimilate into.

I don't blame the religion though, I blame the insane people that were so desperate to convert the unbelievers that they would go as far as to "adapt" their religion and make it more appealing. This is why christians arn't usually taken seriously when they talk about the bible being 100% true.