Good news: More Americans believe in the devil than in evolution
posted at 2:00 pm on December 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Via the new Harris Poll, a long-distance dedication to my pal CJ, the creationist-slayer. Key data points are in yellow. I’m not sure how to explain Catholics’ greater credulity on matters as diverse as evolution, ghosts, and UFOs, but your theories are welcome. As for the top line, we already have theistic atheists. Why shouldn’t we have atheistic theists, too?
One other intriguing data point at the link: More Americans believe the Old Testament is the word of God (55 percent) than the New Testament (54 percent). Presumably the former attracted Jewish votes that the latter didn’t, but that margin should have been more than offset by a subset of Christians — like, say, George Bush — who don’t regard the OT as literally true but surely take the gospels at face value. Here’s David Brody of CBN picking up on that on CNN yesterday. Exit quotation: “Well, hello! It’s the Holy Bible!”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 16 Next »
DarkCurrent, this is be best answer to the distant star question that I have seen, from my 11:58 post:
This is all they have, apparently.
God did it.
QED
It’s time for me to stop tormenting others. Besides, I want to watch Tennesse torment Houston.
Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 1:02 PM
There is also that disparity between the Torah and the Old Testament being the word of God–more believe that the latter is than the former. Sometimes popular opinion is formed without a familiarity with the subject matter–especially when answers are reduced to “yes” or “no” votes in polls.
dedalus on December 14, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Uh, no.
How does stretching out the universe make light from things far away arrive faster? In fact the universe, or at the least the part we can see, does appear to be expanding. The result is that light arrives at a lower wavelength, an effect that is observed to be in direct relation to distance as determined through various other methods. It doesn’t arrive faster however.
DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Olaf, rehab or some sort of mental health intervention should be a high priority for you. You are a religious loon. A prime example of where fundamentalism takes an otherwise sane person.
dakine on December 14, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Pretty much the same response I’ve always gotten. Can’t argue with magic.
DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 1:10 PM
DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 1:15 PM
The better question is;
Then the question answers itself.
Secondly I just showed you how many of your “scientific” assumptions are in fact lies perpetrated on the masses.
How ironic that a drug addict such as yourself suggests that I need rehab or institution.
hilarious.
Besides I’m not a fundamentalist, I just am aware of the fact that evoluition is a non scientific ideology being forced on the masses by the intolerant and ideological pseudo scientific community.
Even if I was an agnostic I would still understand that.
SaintOlaf on December 14, 2008 at 1:19 PM
No, Olaf. You are a fundamentalist, of that there is no doubt. You are also dull and uninteresting.
dakine on December 14, 2008 at 1:23 PM
It sounds like you’re proposing a new theory of cosmology. Can you share in detail (with the math please)?
Intuitively, if things were nearby and then moved away very rapidly, we should see them nearby, and then moving away rapidly, right? Rapidly enough to get them to their current locations (much, much faster than the speed of light if we’ve only got 6 or 7 thousand years to work with) and everything goes dark rapidly…
You didn’t ’show’ me anything. You just made a bunch of unsubstantiated statements. I don’t take that as ’showing’, which perhaps explains the apparent difference in our worldviews.
DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Some of you evolutionists seem a bit tired. Care for a banana?
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 1:59 PM
The evolution theory as taught in our schools is one of the dumbest and dangerous religions in the history of planet earth. And yet, you never hear the atheists and humanism and the “free thinkers” (I love that, free thinkers, lol) complaining that separation of church and state (even though I don’t agree with separation of church and state) has been violated. They certainly love their religion being taught to children in public schools.
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 2:05 PM
It appears that the Titans are having a tough time of it.
I’ll take one, beating one’s head agains a brick wall can sap one’s strength.
Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Funny how people who explain their theory with could have’s, might have’s, must have happened, we think, and this could explain, complain that people who don’t agree with them make unsubstantiated statements. Those who believe that silverfish and elephants have a common ancestor call people who don’t buy their argument ignorant. Maybe we just need more substantiated proof than “must have happened because we’re here aren’t we?”
Rose on December 14, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Where is the barrier that prevents small changes from becoming large changes?
dedalus on December 14, 2008 at 2:27 PM
dedalus, I’m guessing you realize this, but you’re wasting your time. Any idea or fact that challenges or threatens to undermine a fundamentalist Christian’s “truth” as outline in the Bible is going to be rejected out of hand. They hate uncertainty and doubt. Facts and logic be damned in the brainwashed mind of a fundamentalist. All the answers are to be found in a rather poorly written piece of fiction authored many years after the events it purports to document. It’s a racket, and the folks you’re “debating” with have bought in hook, line and sinker.
dakine on December 14, 2008 at 2:57 PM
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the death-knell for evolution. It’s unfortunate that so many of these evolutionists who argue the earth is billions of years old have no understanding of it.
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Dang! I sure got in late on this one.
But I can’t pass on a chance to hassle some monkey spawn.
The devil is the father of all lies. Evolution is a lie. Ergo … .
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Bombardier Beetle Defies Evolution
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 3:25 PM
You, decline, are the fundie here. You accept a lie because you cannot face the truth. You out of hand say there is no supernatural. Where is your proof.
You naturalists say that if it cannot be proved in a lab, then it is not true. Prove that statement in a lab.
You do not belive on God simply because you do not want to believe. The evidence for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is there–you just choose to ignore it.
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Hey, David. Glad to have you along side us on the front line of battle. United we stand, divided we fall. It can’t be any clearer than that.
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 3:38 PM
If any of you evo-divas are really interested in answers to your objections (rather than childish ad hominem ejaculations), search “starlight and time” and take time to read the stuff.
If you are not interested, go and pick lice off your neighbor and leave us neanderthals to our ignorance.
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Hey, back at you.
In the ’80s Steve Camp had a song that said, “I want to light my candle on the front porch of hell.”
Light ‘er up, brother (sister?).
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 3:44 PM
davidk, you typically and predictably just helped make my point. If the Bible told you that the earth was flat, there would be no convincing you otherwise. You’ve chosen to deal with your fear of death and the unknown by buying into the biggest scam in history. More power to ya brah…just don’t expect the sane and rational among us to go along for your deluded ride.
dakine on December 14, 2008 at 3:47 PM
I’m just as opened minded as the next airhead–prove to me that there is no God and that Jesus is not His Son and that evolution is true.
I want solid, scientific proof. Not just a bunch of conjecture.
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 3:55 PM
BTW: The Bible does not say the earth is flat–as much as you wished it did, but it does say:
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 4:03 PM
I am waiting for
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 4:05 PM
First off, that is not what the Bible says, okay. Second, Christianity is not a blind faith. It is the only religion that can prove itself. You don’t have to believe the Bible just because somebody tells you to. We can prove the existence of a Creator without the use of faith.
This is so stupid. You say Christians are the ones who have “blind faith,” and are refusing to face facts. If you are an evolutionist do you realize that you’re defending the idea that we all came from a rock!? Talk about having faith, lol. Give me a break!
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 4:20 PM
There are no lies in the Word of God and using the word ‘if’ will not put them there. Stating that the world is flat is lie. If you can find me a lie that is in the bible I may try to listen to your drivel.
thomasaur on December 14, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Despite the obvious incongruency of “intuition” being acceptable scientific methodology and then complaining about “unsubstantiated statements” I direct you to this as plausible answers to this apparent contradiction.
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 4:27 PM
It is pointless to argue these matters with fundamentalist Christians. You guys have all the answers. Everything you need to know is contained in the Bible. I get it. You don’t like uncertainty and doubt. As I stated previously, live your lives in blissful ignorance. Please just refrain from attempting to impose your superstitions and mythology on the rest of us who prefer to live in the real world.
dakine on December 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Still waiting.
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Either its forever and ever, or light refraction began after the pea exploded. Pretty much can’t have it both ways.
Why do you think I said the 9th?
Anyway,
No, that’s not what I’m implying. Take the blinders off.
It IS experiential. That doesn’t make it not inspired from God.
Saltysam on December 14, 2008 at 4:37 PM
You are right here. So, enlighten us.
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Waiting on what? Enlighten you on what? With each passing moment, human beings acquire more and more information regarding the world around us. Logic, science, evidence, facts…this is the stuff of knowledge acquisition. I accept the uncertainty that we don’t yet understand everything about the world in which we live. You can’t handle that uncertainty, and you choose to deal with your fear of the unknown by buying into superstition and mythology. I’m not sure what else there is to say to you.
dakine on December 14, 2008 at 4:42 PM
From an evolutionist/scientist on a Department of Energy website:
A “good guess”?
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 4:47 PM
What is superstitious about believing in God Who’s existence can be proven rather than a theory which cannot? Methinks you are the one who cannot deal with reality.
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 4:50 PM
My experience with libs and evos over the past thirty years is that they are quick on the two-step and short on proof/facts.
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 4:52 PM
If anyone is certain that evolution has occurred, accept the challenge:
Publicity stunt? Of course. To publicize that no one can prove evolution.
Just a publicity stunt? If you people are so sure of yourselves, here’s a chance to make an easy quarter mil.
I think what the guy is challenging you to do is “Put up or shut up.”
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM
The size of a pea…
Not the size of a car. Not the size of Lake Titicaca. Not the size of the moon, earth, jupiter, or the sun. Not the size of a supernova, our solar system, or our galaxy
…but the size of a pea.
Not the size of a single cell, mitochondria, human DNA chain, or an amino acid molecule. Not the size of a uranium atom, or hydrogen. Not the size of neutron, proton, or electron. Nor the size of a quark or a string or a zip or a zap.
…but the size of a pea.
A universal reference to all the peoples of the world. Something we can all imagine putting between the tips of our forefinger and thumb and hold up to the sky and peer at.
And our scientific elders tell us the story of the beginning of time. Not unlike the stories of former elders when they run up against the threshold of observed knowledge, and try to explain the way the see things.
Imagine the telling of the pea that blew up 5 thousand years from now when they refer to the primitive cultures of the 21st century.
No. We’re at the point where it must be abandoned, only to be replaced with another one.
Saltysam on December 14, 2008 at 5:06 PM
BIG BANG – REALLY A BIG DUD
The big bang theory began with Belgian Astronomer, George Edward Lemaitre (1894-1966). According to an atheist Russian astronomer, Isaac Asimov, Lemaitre conceived that this mass was at the very minunum concentrated matter around 2,000 lightyears across (12 trillion miles).
1. In 1965 the new theory said it was 275 million miles across
2. In 1972 it was 71 million
3. In 1974 it was 54 thousand
4. In 1983 it was 1 trillionth of the diameter of a proton
5. In 2002, Discover magazine says it was “nothing, just nothing at all.”
“The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing — zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth, his theory of inflation helps explain everything.” –Discover magazine, April 2002
Apparently Alan Guth has a good explanation for this nothingness. Well, let’s go to him then.
Alan Guth said in the May 1984 issue of Scientific American, “The observable universe (that is us) could have evolved from an infinitesimal region” (that means a dot). He said, “It’s then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.”
Uh, they’re joking right? They actually call that science and put it in a science book? That’s a fairy tale man, and it belongs in the garbage. I can’t believe they cut down a tree to print that. Where’s Al Gore when you need him, lol…
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 5:09 PM
david, if you’ve got “proof” of “God’s existence”, then you should get it peer reviewed and publish it. I would expect that shortly thereafter you would be world famous and accepting your Nobel prize.
dakine on December 14, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Take a deep breath everyone. It cannot be proven that a god exists, and it cannot be proven that a god does not exist. The simple fact that homo sapien appeared on Earth is no proof of anything, not Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Science fils the void of knowledge with more questions and looks for answers; religionists fill the void with a god and close their minds, forever.
Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Very well said. Someone once said a very sharp statement. He said, “The Bible is the anvil that has warn out many hammers.” LOL. Alot of people have beat on that Book to get it to bend… y’know.. it just doesn’t move. Nobodies found anything wrong with it. I’ve heard people say, “Well, I can’t find anything wrong with it, but I just don’t like it!” Oh well, now, okay.. now they’re being honest, okay.. lol .. now we know! They don’t like that Book cuz it cramps their style. Y’know, it says don’t do this, don’t do that, don’t do… well, my flesh wants to do that, but here I got a Book that says here I can’t do that. We know, uh huh, they’re not fooling anyone.
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 5:20 PM
What Peylayo said.
dakine on December 14, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Saltysam on December 14, 2008 at 4:37 PM
The universe didn’t exist in any meaningful way before the big bang. So yes, light didn’t refract before the universe…uh…existed.
The big bang is cocnfirmed by astronomy. The cosmos loooks as if there were a “big bang.” It’s that simple. Unless you’re absolutely committed to the literally interpreting the bible, I don’t see why you would want to put constraints on how God might have created the universe. And if you’re committed to literally interpreting the bible, I’m sorry to say that observations in pretty much every field of science contradict the myths in Genesis.
I guess I didn’t understand why you’re bringing up Beethoven, or his deafness.
RightOFLeft on December 14, 2008 at 5:34 PM
“The observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region” There’s that “could have” again. It would seem that the Darwinists are the ones who fill the void with things that can’t be proven because they refuse to be open minded.
Rose on December 14, 2008 at 5:37 PM
That is absolutely untrue. Do you actually believe this?
How so?
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 5:39 PM
If you look at the human body it appears to be designed. Circulatory system, reproductive system, respiratory, digestive, an incredible brain. But if we say this we are being close minded to evolution. But Right of Left says the big bang happened because the cosmos look like it did?
Rose on December 14, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Exactly. If I circled every time these people used the words “might have,” “could have,” “scientists believe,” etc. That is an answer based not on evidence but opinion, and they should admit it. It surprises me how many non-answers they give to repeated evidences for creation.
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Strange, that. That’s what I’ve always said. Provide absolute proof of the existence of a God, and I will accept it. However, I believe nothing!
OldEnglish on December 14, 2008 at 5:52 PM
That’s a really big statement, I’m sure you must have some examples.
Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 5:52 PM
By the way, I saw some discussion on whether the speed of light was a constant. I know its been called into question since about 2004. Here’s an article on the subject at New Scientist.
Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Let me start by saying that ALL knowledge is based on unproven assumptions.
1. Nothing cannot exist. Therefore, something must exist.
2. Being cannot not exist.
3. The something that must esit is, therefore, being.
4. (Here are the unproven assumptiuons upon which all knowledge is based.)Using the law of non-contradiction, the law of cause and effect, and the law of the basic reliability of sensory perception, one can argue to existence of a necessary being that has certain attributes.
5. In all of the world’s writings, only one book tells of a being is that fits that description. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (and davidk).
6. The God of the Bible is.
Noble can keep his money.
Now you. Prove evolution.
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Nonsense.
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Excuse me, I would like to ask you folks who believe in evolution, uh, a serious question. You believe you came from a rock about 3 billion years ago (thinks for a few seconds). What is the gene code of a rock? Thank you.
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 6:08 PM
David, I was only stating my initial intuition regarding the new cosmological theory SaintOlaf seemed to be introducing. Not having seen the details of his theory intuition is about all that’s available.
I read through the page at the link you provided. As usual, nothing but “magical” explanations. In fact the author does a pretty good job of debunking most himself.
I wonder if you might be the same “David K” I used to work with. Though we shared many political views, we’d have these same irresolvable debates occasionally. He was also a master of creationist theory as you seem to be. Given our common political views I wouldn’t be surprised to find him here on HotAir. Did you ever work in software development?
DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Great post !! Yep, evolutionism states that “nothing” blew-up and here we are. And then they have the gall to say creation is unscientific.
Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 6:12 PM
N.B. I highlighted the word ‘believe’ in order to use it in the sense of having a faith in something proposed. I don’t. Faith is lack of knowledge. If one has knowledge, there is no need for faith. Faith is only required as a comfort blanket, to sooth the frightened mind as to the possibility that death is final. Religion is a mythical ‘get out of jail free’ card.
OldEnglish on December 14, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Cosmologists are working on the question.
“Could have”, as opposed to “must have” seems to directly indicate an open mind, don’t you think?
DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Nonsense, again.
Do you not belive in the law of non-contradiction? As I stated, all knowledge is based on unproven assumptions. Things that are accepted without proof; accepted by faith/belief; commonly called presuppositions.
If you want to equivocate your words then you have no place in learned disussions.
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Nope. Just a schoolbus driver in my past life in eastern Kansas.
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 6:21 PM
apacalyps, the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system in that it receives energy from the sun, as well as receives material from space.
DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Then I should feel at home. Knowledge is not an assumption.
OldEnglish on December 14, 2008 at 6:24 PM
*sigh*
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 6:26 PM
DK, then admit that Darwinism is not a fact but is still a theory that has not been proven. Do not teach it in schools as fact, refusing to consider any objection to it as close mindedness. Be willing to admit there are problems with the theory and that it cannot be taught dogmatically. And when someone suggests that the brain is too complicated to have evolved from an inorganic compound admit that that is a valid observation.
But Darwinists are unwilling to make these concessions. They will continue to call evolution settled science and anyone who questions it as ignorant.
Rose on December 14, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Then get out your test tubes and “prove” that knowledge exists.
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 6:28 PM
I’m sorry, my last post was for DC, or rather Dark Current.
Rose on December 14, 2008 at 6:29 PM
I think we can safely say the universe is a “closed system.” Entropy applies to the entire universe and we see it running down.
Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 6:29 PM
That’s right, Maxx. There have been folks at Princeton University who sped light up to 300 times the speed of light and a Dr. Howe from Denmark (at Harvard University) who slowed light down to 1 mile per-hour. We cannot say for sure that the speed of light has always remained constant all through history.
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Why, of course not, that would require an attempt to think beyond the threshold of meticulous observations. Science at its best. I’ll give you that.
Of course, this type of mythical axiom is okay in science class, but any hypothesis of intelligent design is blasphemy and will be dealt with accordingly.
What surrounded the pea?
Saltysam on December 14, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Darwinian evolution is not a conclusively fact, but instead a theory. It is a theory which is well supported by the preponderance of physical evidence, but not absolutely proven to be a fact.
Any alternative theories that rely on the scientific method can also be taught as science, and the relative merits debated.
Ok?
DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 6:47 PM
That is an exceedingly naive argument and it indicates the desperate state of evolutionary theory. The second law also applies to open systems.
There are several problems with that my friend.
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 6:49 PM
Correct. However, it’d be wrong to conclude that increases in entropy on a universal scale preclude decreases in entropy on relatively tiny local scales. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent that.
DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 6:51 PM
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 6:30 PM
If the speed of light was constant, then space would be curved. If space isn’t curved then the speed of light is a variable.
Good God.
Saltysam on December 14, 2008 at 6:51 PM
But the facts are more supposition than fact. More assumption than concrete evidence. The assumptions are made in the name of science. There is no preponderance of evidence only preponderance of theory.
I asked someone on this thread to name a missing link fossil to show fins developing into limbs. He gave me the name of a fossil. I looked up the information and they only had a bone fragment of a jawbone. From this jawbone the “scientist” had drawn a sketch of what this missing link looked like, given it a name and proclaimed that it was the missing link for the fin to limb. They did this from nothing more than a jaw bone.
Sorry, but this is not science. It is assumption and theory. It settles nothing.
Rose on December 14, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Not to mention that the SLoT applies to the whole universe and the universe is a closed system.
God bless you, Bro. I’m gone.
davidk on December 14, 2008 at 6:53 PM
therefore; God cannot exist. /sarc
Saltysam on December 14, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Please point them out specifically.
DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Just look it up. Do you really think that astronomers made up the big bang just to antagonize Christians? It’s one thing to dispute the empirical basis of the big bang, but if you don’t even know enough about the subject to acknowledge that one exists, you have no right to dismiss the life work of thousands of astronomers so casually.
RightOFLeft on December 14, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Your logic is very twisted. Entropy is a universal law like gravity. That’s why they call it a “LAW” instead of merely a “theory.” It’s something you can count on anywhere, anytime. We see the effects of entropy on the universe around us, both locally and distant.
Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 6:58 PM
LOL! You’re right. It’s called academic jawboning!
Saltysam on December 14, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 6:58 PM
I’m always dumbfounded by the Left’s claim on science as if it’s their territory.
Yet, they leave out all reference to entropy when it comes to rational energy policy.
Saltysam on December 14, 2008 at 7:04 PM
What surrounds the universe now?
Also, I’m letting the “pea” thing go, because it’s not very important, but you could use the more precise word for what scientists actually believe – “singularity.”
RightOFLeft on December 14, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Maxx, it’s not too complicated. The fact is the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not preclude local decreases in entropy. If this were not the case, crystals couldn’t form for example. Other examples exist.
Despite sighs and claims to the contrary above the 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. The observable universe may be a closed system, but the earth certainly is not. As long as overall entropy in the entire system (universe) is increasing, the 2nd law is not violated.
DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Actually RightOFLeft, the Big Bang theory is in serious trouble and has been for quite some time. An increasing number of mainstream astronomers are rebelling against the theory. And why shouldn’t they? If the “BB” happened we would expect to see a homogeneous universe, but its not, it’s “lumpy.” There are galaxies and black holes and quasars and all sorts of odd features that are anything but homogeneous. In our own solar system we have moons going in both directions around planets. Not all the planets spin in the same direction. One of the planets (I forget which one) spins on its “X” axis instead of the “Y” axis. We have comets and asteroid belts, rings around planets and on and on and on. The universe around us looks nothing like we would expect if the Big Bang actually happened.
Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 7:12 PM
The creationist “fire can’t melt steel.”
Look at this way: An egg and sperm combine, which forms an embryo. The embryo grows into a human being or pick another animal). Certainly this is a case of increasing complexity. Is it magic? Does it violate the laws of thermodynamics? No, no, and neither does evolution.
If it were as simple as evolution violating the laws of the universe, biologists would abandon it in favor of “we don’t know.” Creationism is such a conspiracy theory.
RightOFLeft on December 14, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Also, I’m letting the “pea” thing go, because it’s not very important, but you could use the more precise word for what scientists actually believe – “singularity.”
RightOFLeft on December 14, 2008 at 7:07 Pm
Omnipotence.
Saltysam on December 14, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Nice. Not only that, but it’s debatable that evolution, or even life, actually represents an increase in entropy. Entropy has a mathematical definition; the role of complexity is hotly debated.
In the case of life, we decrease the entropy in the universe every time we eat and digest something.
RightOFLeft on December 14, 2008 at 7:21 PM
See Maxx, that’s why it’s called science. As apparently conflicting evidence becomes available, scientists question the theory. That’s the basis of the scientific method. The current version of the standard big bang cosmological theory would be acknowledged by most cosmologists to be at best an approximation, with issues like those you raised still to be worked out.
I don’t understand what the direction of rotation of planets and moons has to do with the discussion. If there is some point there can you please clarify what it is?
DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 7:22 PM
That is an exceedingly naive argument. The second law also applies to open systems. I’ll explain below.
There are several ways to define the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but, basically they all boil down to the same thing — that everything tends toward disorder. That is a scientific law, okay. Not an opinion. If you leave something alone long enough it will rot, rust, die, or fall apart. Everything is degrading. Your house or building is degrading. If you don’t have people constantly maintaining that building it will fall apart. The entire highway system in America will fall completely apart if we don’t keep maintaining it. Every building on this planet will fall down into a pile of rubble if somebody doesn’t keep fixing it. And even then, if they try desperately to keep fixing it, at some point it’s still gonna fall down. It’s inevitable. That’s the 2nd law. Now, your argument the 2nd law can be overcome by adding energy from the sun is absolutely fatally flawed. The universe is a closed system number one, okay. So there’s no new energy being added to it by definition. Secondly, adding energy is destructive unless a machine (a device for using energy) is already present that can harness the energy. You got intelligence involved to get things started. What you want to do is just add raw energy to an empty, barren, primitive, earth 3 billion years ago and think that’s somehow gonna do it? That’s simply flawed logic, okay. The sun adds energy to your house, but it’s gonna destroy the roof on your house. The suns energy will destroy your entire house. If you don’t keep fixing things it’s gonna completely crumble to dust, okay. The sun’s energy will destroy the roof on your car, NOT BUILD IT. It will destroy the paint job on your car! There’s only one thing that can actually use the sun’s energy, and that’s chlorophyll. And each little plant cell is more complex than a space shuttle. So to say adding energy to a primitive earth is gonna create life on earth is just ludicrous. Not gonna happen. There had to be a Designer to get things started. Thank you.
apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Maxx, it’s not too complicated. The fact is the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not preclude local decreases in entropy.
Are you really going to try and tell me that Entropy does not apply to this planet?
Alright, lets suppose you are right. Then please tell me what is coming into the Earth that causes evolution to happen.
Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Magic is a concept about things that humans do (but in reality can’t).
The stuff God does is called miracles.
Saltysam on December 14, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Speaking of omnipotence, who are you to tell God what he can and can’t do? If God wanted to form the universe from an infinitely dense point, I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be a problem for him.
And yet…
RightOFLeft on December 14, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Even if every creationist objection to pretty much all of science was right, it still doesn’t change the fact that
DINOSAURS!
The bible is wrong. Scientists are never going back to biblical natural history as fact. The only thing creationists have accomplished is to pointlessly deprive millions of Christians of a proper education about the creation of the God they’re supposed to be glorifying. It’s as if you guys are saying the Mona Lisa had to have been drawn in green crayon rather than painted.
RightOFLeft on December 14, 2008 at 7:32 PM
It was done in a laboratory!!!! It does not mean that it couild ever occur in the natural world.
I can make water flow up a pipe; therefore, I have suspended gravity.
Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Maxx, please explain how a seed can grow into a tree if entropy must always be increasing at every location in the universe at all times (this seems to be what you’re saying)?
Gamma rays ;-)
I’m not claiming to know the mechanism by which life began on earth. I’m just pointing out that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not preclude local decreases in entropy as long as the net entropy of the entire closed system is increasing. Get it?
DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Embryos grow because they are alive, they have DNA to control and sustain the process of growing. Evolution has “nothing” … by definition, that allows it to “grow,” or to become more complex, that’s why evolution can’t happen, it has no mechanism, it has no information, it has no matter and it has no energy that it can use. It simply doesn’t exist. Random/chance is not a mechanism that can build complex things.
Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 7:36 PM
you mean you don’t believe that!? HERESY! why do you want to destroy christianity?!
lolwut on December 14, 2008 at 7:39 PM
A seed grows into a tree the same way a Ford Pinto grows into a car as it goes down the assembly line. Both the seed and the assembly line have mechanisms that use energy and information to guide the process. A seed has DNA, the Assembly line has Union workers (unless its a Toyota plant).
Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Entropy doesn’t finalize the equation when it comes to the process of forming life. The universal degradation continues, just in a slightly different form. When life is formed, entropy occurs, but not enough to take the system to equilibrium. Such changes can continue on until equilibrium is attained.
BTW. The speed of light is constant – in a vacuum! Any other medium must be examined on a case by case basis as to the speed of light.
OldEnglish on December 14, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 16 Next »