Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[Swa]

Prove what? It's a definition

Definitions are meaningless. Facts support their use and make them meaningful. You seem to be confused here.

Mechanism for defining complexity?

what are you smoking?

Mechanism for creating complexity, or in your case a lack of it.

If I don't know something, I'm not ashamed or embarrassed to admit it.

I don't know many things, what started the big bang for example.

Evolution however, I've done enough research to know it's true. Not just internet clicky clicky, I've been to all sorts of museums, the cradle of human kind, I've been to caves and seen sites where they're currently still excavating hominid fossils.

There have been more hominid fossils found in South Africa than the rest of the world combined so it's embarrassing and pathetic that you dismiss it.

Your loss though.

Yet you don't want to admit it when you don't know. You do not address the problems with evolution that have been pointed out to you and simply dismiss them as not being a problem for you because you believe that evolution can happen. It sounds more like a fundamentalist belief than something you actually researched.

What a cumbersome way to prove evolution exists. Just use bacterial resistance. You can prove evolution exists in 5 hours, and you can see it happening in real time with your own two eyes.

Bacterial resistance does not prove evolution. Evolution requires an ongoing change from one type of organism to another.

I can prove evolution and I can formulate a theory of evolution by piecing the information and facts that has been discovered over time. For example:

1) I know evolution, the change of a living organism to survive better in this environment, exists. My evidence antibiotic resistance

2) I know life is diverse and forever changing with always the more superior lifeforms advancing forward as dominant. My evidence is fossils.

3) I know life changed many times according to the conditions of earth, my evidence is the ice shards extracted in the antarctic which keep a detailed atmospheric record, Just like how volcanic rocks keep a record of the earth's magnetic field.

4) I can prove the existance of forced evolution i.e Breeding and of course synthetic evolution i.e our technology

5) I can prove that water, organic chemistry and energy are required for life

6) I can prove that membranes and cells can come into existance and self replicate from amino acids. The experiement was recently done using amino acids and basic fatty acids an extention of miller's experiment, unfortunately I forgot the name of the experiment, I saw a documentry on BBC K.

1) You describe adaptation, ironically a creationists concept known for millennia.

2,3) You know life is changing. That does not imply that any change is possible. Ironically for your case the fossil record actually shows life to be largely static and resistant to change.

4) Dogs are a good example of how over thousands of years of selective breeding to maximise change they still remain dogs. Synthetic evolution is not a proof of evolution. If you have to prove that evolution occurs through selecting what DNA changes to perform and induce them then you have only proven it can't happen by itself. You have proven creation.

5) Water, organic chemistry and energy are a requirement of creation as well. You seem to be grasping at straws here.

6) Miller's experiment was shown to be largely flawed by not mimicking the correct conditions present on earth. It also showed that the conditions have to be exactly controlled or it would destroy it. Miller's experiment only showed the components of life so artificially designing an experiment to make cellular structures only shows it doesn't happen by chance, because outside influences would destroy it before evolution can even start. When Dean Kenyon spent his career trying to prove Miller's experiment he came to the conclusion that it's not possible.

The only thing I cant prove is that this "primodial soup" really existed. Though I can extrapolate my data collected thus far and safely say that it must have. Similarly like how we can safely say that a super massive singularity powers the rotation of the milkyway galaxy even though we cant see it. Also how we safely say that air exists.

The only evidence for the primordial soup is - oh wait there isn't any. You believe that it was there just like you want to believe evolution is true. The problem (for you) is that without that you can't assume there must have been evolution from a primordial soup.

It also states that the gods arrived on their golden ships in the sky (not as simply as this though). So one must look at this objectively, is it possible that humanity was aided by aliens (no im not joking or making fun here, dead serious all avenues must be explored), that provided knowledge tools and uplifted animal homosaipians into what they are today? Before you laugh know that if you have a dog and teach him to sit, play dead ect in the wild this will not occur, your dog has recieved knowledge from your intellectual interference. This would also explain a lot of the miracles quoted in ancient religions that are now extinct.

I don't laugh at such notions. There is enough evidence in history to suggest this is the case if you want to see things in a material context. Though it should be kept in mind that ancient civilisations had a tendency to use physical descriptions for things they couldn't comprehend. Likewise there is enough evidence to consider God a real possibility. What people do not understand is that these are not questions of science.

The biggest problem with the concept is that religion may not be sectionalised for convience, it claims to be a way of truth, in terms of hinduism, the problem lies with the reincarnation principle. How can you have a equilibrium of souls? when the population is growing ? where do these new souls come from? Conversely monoesthetic religions like Islam and christianity that believe in eternity heaven and hell. The problem with these lies with the fact that eternity cannot exist, if its born/created it will die/break over time.

How can you claim that eternity cannot exist? The problem is in trying to misuse science of the physical world with a metaphysical concept. Science can't show where the universe comes from because it is limited to our reality conversely science can't show why there has to be existence in the first place or why our chronological understanding should apply. Philosophically we can make the argument that change can not exist because anything that changes requires an initial state and ultimate start so it must be an illusion. Everything therefore must be pure existence without state that would make eternity into the past and future irrelevant.

[Swa]

The next thing I have a problem with all religion, is that what makes this text of yours "holy" ? what differs it from any other old fable. I highly doubt that the sky parted and a master copy came down gently to ground in a bathe in a brilliant pure light. Then the fact remains is why are there so many different religions? if its one god then there should be one religion, if so what happens to the religion of those cultures that are now extinct? where are their gods gone too? the norse gods aztec gods trojan greek egyptian ect ect ect. Again this violates the fundamental law of monesthetic religion, thus the proper conclusion would be a polyesthetic religion would be correct to commodate this, which violates monoestheic religion a redundant nonsensical cycle.

Not really the place for this but if you are saying that human desire to follow their own desire is proof that all religion is false that is fallacious. In the pure sense all religion must be false because all groups of people define elements they can reconcile with so it's a compromise and differs from the original. When it comes to religious beliefs however some will be more correct than others. You can't claim your own belief as the correct one and all others false as a matter of fact.

Now the next thing, the lack of power of god. I dont know about you but I have not called in to work or school or anytime in my lifetime that I could not make it because "its raining fire". Now if you say you spoke to god and try to change the world, we admit you to psychiatry. Which comes to my most killing blow to religion as a whole. It is not god that created man, its man created god. Currently there is an experiment conducted known as the 'God helmet'. Its suppose to find the existance of god within our brains, as a certain portion known as the limbic system in the brain is resposible for thirst, emotions and a lot of other things, mirrored are these gyrii that allow the concept of god. When subjects are exposed to the stimulus of the god helmet, they are reports to have felt the presence of others which they often described as "angels". Medically, this system is in play to protect the human psych from extreme traumatic damage, and is in place to maintain sanity in events of extreme release of neutrotransmitters. Logically this makes sense, if you watch these miracle programs on TV you will see stories of people who claimed they saw god and a bright white light ect. Intellectuals tend to dismiss them as seekers for fame and the religious falsy approve of them as subjective evidence to comfort their religious egos. Look in the story of moses, he claimed to have spoken to god after extreme stress, with almost all prophets. There are many factors to this system so its difficult to say as the data is still in its infancy.

I don't know if you are implying that because God does not interfere on a continual basis He lacks power. That's fallacious reasoning. Also people speaking to God does not make them insane and it takes a lot more than hearing God talk back to get someone committed. You have to prove reasonably that they are a danger to themself or others. Psychiatric conditions are diagnosed more on behaviour and feeling than hearing voices. People that claim to hear voices often pass or even surpass tests for rationality. It's amazing how far people will go to try and disprove God.

Finally by disproving religion as a whole I can start to disprove creationism and combine that to my proof of evolution to come up with a more factual scenario. However creationism claims a very disturbing fact. "God created everything and everyone". Lets explore what this means, if that holds true then that would mean god can create energy... however thats a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. One might want to argue at this point that god is above the laws of physics. To which I respond, why? why would god be above his own laws if he indeed created everything? I have proof that the law of thermodynamics has never been violated, even at a fundamental quantum level. Though I have never seen any proof of god's existance. As I stated before a text with fancy words does not pass as evidence. When last have you seen a micracle if biblical proportions like raining fire, plague selecting those of a certain belief. Doesnt happen sorry. Thus your religious text is no different from lord of the rings and harry potter. 4000 years from now some living thing might dig up a harry potter book, if it can understand the book, harry potter would be considered a god. He has magic fights evil ect ect ect. Creationism and religion hold ZERO ground in reality. While mathematics and physics hold some definite ground.

You haven't disproved religion and the fact that you think you can shows your facts are not grounded in reality. Let's look at biblical creationism more closely. God not only can create everything but did including energy. The implication is not that God violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics (what a misapplied twisting of it ) but that God created matter, space and time, the laws of thermodynamics and all other laws and continues to sustain them through His will. The naturalistic view of reality is thus that creation can be understood in predictive ways because there are actual unchanging laws ordained by God. Your claim that you have "proof" that the laws have never been violated thus only proves this claim true and not that God didn't put these laws in place or can't suspend them or intervene.

Your claim that the bible is nothing more than a Harry Potter book is absurd and not grounded in reality. Firstly it is an actual eye witness account delivered through generations as one. Secondly what you view as its weakness is actually its strength. It's not merely one fictional book but many independent ones that corroborate each other.

In other words:

- An evolutionist can prove the concept of evolution. Can show that change occurs. Can mathematically derive a time frame for a species to create a genetic change. Prove the existance of genetic dorminant vs recessive. Can prove that the idealogy of god is simply the stimulation of some neutrons in the brain. Can prove that cellular components like membranes can be formed with just basic elements and the proposed formula for life. The only thing that science cant prove at this moment is. The location of the primordial soup and prove/disprove god's existance in an obective mannor, i believe subjectively its already over for god.

-The creationist on the other hand, cannot PROVE their god exists. If you bring your bible as proof then im brining my harry potter book, its no different. They cannot PROVE the existance of devine power. Nor can they prove the existance of the soul. Religion has also failed to prove the events they preach. If moses caused god to rain fire on egypt, howcome I cant find any evidence? no maeteors ect NOT even a burn on the remains of the egyptian empire. Where is jesus' body? and why has god STOPPED creating life? where is noah's arc? where is noah? Furthermore creationists cant DENY evolution exists because by saying "evolution doesnt exist" you are essentially saying "Drug Resistant tuberculosis does not exist" ... sounds ridiculous huh. In conclusion creationist fail to prove their ideals and fail to disprove accepted science ideals.

In other words evolutionists claim evolution is proven but when called upon to provide this proof all they can show is:

• Some small changes and assume larger changes are possible and uninhibited and in fact occurred.
• A time frame where even they see small changes aren't enough so resort to punctuated equilibrium, large changes directly. An equally unsupported claim.
• An unsupported hypothesis that life in a form capable of evolving merely formed by itself. Something we don't see happening ever and that was proven to not happen long ago and where all indications are that it's not possible for such complexity to arise through pure natural means.
• Lines of descent that based on fossil homology, DNA, ERVs and microRNAs contradict each other where this would be expected in creation.
• A fossil record that does not show the gradualistic progression from simple to advanced organisms (more reason to postulate the equally unsupported punctuated equilibrium) that was stated by Darwin as the most obvious and serious objection against evolution that can be raised and is in fact more in line with separate created forms.

In conclusion evolutionists prove that what they really have is based on ideology alone. If you wish to disprove that then satisfactory answer these points or else you don't even have an account of history and a largely unforgeable one that counts against you.

And where is Jesus' body? Are you being serious?

[alloytoo]

Definitions are meaningless. Facts support their use and make them meaningful. You seem to be confused here.

Definitions are the foundation of common language and scientific enquiry.

Now that I have defined complexity, everyone on this thread knows exactly what I mean when I talk about it and we are better able to discuss it's relationship, if any, with entropy.

Don't whine because you've failed to come up with a definition which is consistent and useful.

Mechanism for creating complexity, or in your case a lack of it.

There are any number of natural processes which create complexity, some which require agency, some which don't.

[CoolBug]

Okay tbh, that is a silly question, where is Jesus' body.

Obviously all rational people know his physical body flew up to heaven.

Some small changes and assume larger changes are possible and uninhibited and in fact occurred.

Because vestigial hip bones in whales is a small change, biggest animal known to have existed on this planet, once a much smaller creature that walked on 4 legs.

Very small change.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

[alloytoo]

Okay tbh, that is a silly question, where is Jesus' body.

Obviously all rational people know his physical body flew up to heaven.

Well that body had a few holes, so we can safely assume some bits were left behind.

[RiaX]

Yoh, all subjective nonsense. You have tried to counter solid evidence with a set of fancy articulated phrases. Never have I come across such a pathetic counter arguement , ok time to tear apart this nonsense.

Bacterial resistance does not prove evolution. Evolution requires an ongoing change from one type of organism to another.

Yes thats like saying carbon atoms dont prove the existance of graphite and diamonds. You assume yourself to be a single living thing because you function with a singular conscious. You are made like so:

cells ---> tissue ----> organs ----> Complex organism.

See a change at the cellular level is sufficient to change the entire chain, especially if that cellular change occurs on the DNA of reproductive cells. You assume it cant be true for complex beings becuase you cant think past your own life span. Evolution didnt happen over night, it took millions of years. Unlike your theory of creationism which basically has god sitting with a bucket of clay and a sculpting knife going "hmmm some snakes and some monkeys and let me make this planet blue", Plastercine ftw no?

The scientific definition of evoultion is: "is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

You describe adaptation, ironically a creationists concept known for millennia

Using a synonym for evolution is not going to disprove it. You cant sectionalise things cause you feel like it.

Ironically for your case the fossil record actually shows life to be largely static and resistant to change.

Because LIFE has EVOLVED to live on earth, not to prove your theories. The earth's conditions since life has not changed drastically. Water oxygen/nitrogen based atmosphere with 9.8m/s^2 gravity and acceptable temperatures. Change the environment and the life will change by evolving, antibiotic resistance shows this, in humans race shows this. People living in hotter more sunlight intense regions are darker

The only evidence for the primordial soup is - oh wait there isn't any. You believe that it was there just like you want to believe evolution is true. The problem (for you) is that without that you can't assume there must have been evolution from a primordial soup.

Exstrapolating results to form a theory, quoting parts of a phrase to change its meaning. Very sad grasping for straws now are we? but the same can be said for you, "i dont know where earth came from" ,"god made it", "EPIC DIE HARD TRUTH". Where is your evidence of god show me - oh wait there isnt any as you say :P

Though it should be kept in mind that ancient civilisations had a tendency to use physical descriptions for things they couldn't comprehend

hence it was the workings of god. The sun = Ra /Helios. Lightning work of zues, tides for neptune/posiden, mars venus jupiter all gods in ancient times. Your modern religions are no different.

How can you claim that eternity cannot exist?

same way you claim it does

change can not exist because anything that changes requires an initial state and ultimate start so it must be an illusion

care to explain our expanding universe then?

Science can't show where the universe comes from because it is limited to our reality

Yes hence why god still has followers. No different from the ancient people who believed the stars where gods and the earth was flat.

Not really the place for this but if you are saying that human desire to follow their own desire is proof that all religion is false that is fallacious. In the pure sense all religion must be false because all groups of people define elements they can reconcile with so it's a compromise and differs from the original. When it comes to religious beliefs however some will be more correct than others.

Yes, hence religion is a culture, not a true fact of existance. No different from clothing styles from different nations.

You can't claim your own belief as the correct one and all others false as a matter of fact.

Christianity does, care to elaborate?

Also people speaking to God does not make them insane and it takes a lot more than hearing God talk back to get someone committed.

No one claimed that, people speaking to god is not the same as claiming to have met and been spoken TO by god. When I said "spoke" to god, I meant as in had a conversation, not a prayer. Belief in god actually provides people with false answers that put them at ease, provides hope and sanity. Hence why man created god. In the early evolution of mankind's intelligence they did not comprehend much of the natural world, and hence it was believed to be the "power of god". Just like how Zues god of lightning was said to create all storms, today we know this is utter rubbish. This concept applies to modern religions as well.

Psychiatric conditions are diagnosed more on behaviour and feeling than hearing voices.

Dont spout rubbish when you clearly are not medically trained.

Your claim that the bible is nothing more than a Harry Potter book is absurd and not grounded in reality

Why? whats the difference, because YOU say so? oh sorry I did not realise your word was absolute. I see two books, with writing on paper, both composed by humanity. Both are stories one of god the other of a wizzard named Harry Potter

Firstly it is an actual eye witness account delivered through generations as one

Yes from a generation that didnt even understand what the sun was. Didnt do that experiment in school to illustrate the distortion of information in class where a phrase was whispered by the teacher into one student and it had to be whispered across the class and the last student would say that phrase out loud? it was always wrong. Therefore tales told around fires ect are not credible at all, simply to distorted, because everyone likes to tell a good story.

There also eye accounts of alien spacecrafts, eye accounts of alien bodies entering area 51, bigfoot, the snowman, fairies, monsters in closests, orcs, goblins, zombies ect ... yes they all exist because eye accounts are totally credible huh. People exaggerate in their stories, because the truth is usually boring.

Here is a thought, How do you know Jesus didnt get drunk get into a fight with some romans and they beat the living Jesus out of him (lol) and then nailed him to a cross ? He couldve had been "dead" and woke up just like how people pronounced dead today wake up in a morgue. At the time considering the medical knowledge was non existant it would appear that he "rised from the dead". Walked around a few days then dropped dead in a corner from infection or blood loss. Did you even consider the reality? or did you just take that he went to heaven then returned as truth? Look at easter for example, you are told by the christians and the church he came back from the dead and walked around and then ascended to heaven (ascension day), but NO account tells you WHERE, WHAT HE DID, WHAT HE WAS WEARING, NOTHING. You think if someone came from the dead you would note this yes? so apparently he just chilled in white preached and then went home put the tv on and had a beer? The fact that the different sub sections of christianity cant even agree amoung themselves how many days he walked the earth is a joke.

Please go recover forensic evidence for the dead egyptian army at the bottom of the ocean, when moses washed them away after seperating the ocean. Did their bodies, armor, swords, chariots, horses also vapourise?

Okay tbh, that is a silly question, where is Jesus' body.

Not at all, If this man is claimed to be god's son and its believed as truth, you think his phyiscal body wouldve been given a burial at least. I mean you can still find the graves of the popes of past. The farohs of egyptian empire are still resting in peace within their tombs ....

That does not imply that any change is possible

No It doesnt hence why there is cancer

unsupported hypothesis that life in a form capable of evolving merely formed by itself

Show me your solid evidence please? a book and your faith does not cut it as evidence so sorry.

fossil record that does not show the gradualistic progression from simple to advanced organisms

It does ... you assume the difference to be physical in nature, how naive. Its the DNA that dictates everything sir. The difference between you and a mouse is about 3% and the difference between you and a banana is give or take 40% in genetic terms. The more complex an organism is the more complex its DNA structures are, Early life had very simplistic DNA and peptides. Take a horseshoe crab for example, a living fossil per say. It has blue blood, because its copper based not iron based like ours. It does not have an immune system because its genetics are to "simple" to accomodate this

[Techne]

Though we of people of logic and reason (i.e scientists) should not be so defensive of our theories.

It is probably a misconception that scientists are "people of logic and reason". One only has to look at examples of scientists who believe empirical science is the only avenue of true or useful knowledge. It's called scientism and it is self-refuting. Another example would be the fact that scientists falsify data to get published and there is evidence that this is quite extensive. By doing this a scientist undermines science itself which is of course not something a person of reason and logic would do.
Here is a nice infographic on this issue from here.
E.g. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

This of course does not imply that science and the scientific endeavour is bad, in fact it is probably one of humanity's most important avenues of gaining knowledge. The point is that there is a misconception that scientists in general are "people of logic and reason". Many are but many are not too.

Then we are no better than the fanatical, they believe in words in books written by men of past, and we follow the mathematics of men written of past that has been built on to provide this so called "truth". If you are truely a man of science and intellect then you would realise the truth and that is 'There is no absolute truth'.

You are welcome to your opinion on this matter. I disagree however with the assertion and generalization about people of science and the intellect having to realize the truth that "there is no absolute truth". This appears to be an illogical and irrational stance that is self-refuting and actually something no rational and logical should accept it since it is self-refuting for obvious reasons.
Some people making this claim abuse Einstein's general and special relativity to try and support such notion, but this is confusing an empirical theory for metaphysical or ontological and/or epistemological truth.

The problem with these lies with the fact that eternity cannot exist, if its born/created it will die/break over time.

I see no logical reasons for eternity not to exist. There does not appear to be anything logically contradictory about the concept.

Now the next thing, the lack of power of god....snip

The truth of this assertion probably depends on your definition of God. Do you have one?

Finally by disproving religion as a whole I can start to disprove creationism and combine that to my proof of evolution to come up with a more factual scenario.

Evolution does not disprove creation. It's simply a category mistake to think empirical observation of change refutes the idea of creation.

However creationism claims a very disturbing fact. "God created everything and everyone". Lets explore what this means, if that holds true then that would mean god can create energy... however thats a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Three problems with this. Firstly, the problem of induction is a problem for people reverting to the "Laws of Physics" as some sort of universal absolute truth. This leads to the second problem for people who argue that there is no such thing as absolute truth. "Laws of physics would qualify as an example of something that cannot be absolutely true.

Thirdly, for the Aristotelian, prime matter and energy can be argued to be analogous concepts so an Aristotelian (coincidentally the problem of induction falls away under a broad Aristotelian essentialism) can accept the conservation of energy without violating it and still accept creation.

-The creationist on the other hand, cannot PROVE their god exists.

I think there are good arguments using reason and logic that can in principle demonstrate the existence of God e.g. Aquinas' Five Ways.

Of course, I don't think it is reasonable to expect them to be universally accepted. A radical skeptic that claims there is no absolute truth will of course not accept it along with any other mathematical roof. Point being, theists can resort to reason and logic if they want to prove the existence of God.

[buyeye]

theists can resort to reason and logic if they want to prove the existence of God.

But we don't have to because we have scripture, the rest of your post was good reading too.

[Techne]

But we don't have to because we have scripture, the rest of your post was good reading too.

Fair enough. Point being, if scripture is unavailable or some people don't find scripture alone to be compelling, one can still believe in God based on reason and logic.

Reason and logic leads to the preambles of faith as Aquinas would argue.

[CoolBug]

Wow you see it as logic to believe in a higher power?

I disagree even though hierarchy is probably a genetic trait for our species, and most other species.

I do believe that this is a vestigial behaviour and that we do not have to have such beliefs.

The only logical way imho is living your life to the fullest not giving such metaphysical thoughts any of your precious time or energy.

Unless you're writing a book and trying to be creative then all these gods like Poseidon, Zeus, Odin etc are all lots of fun.

For questions that we do not know we can humbly admit that we simply don't know instead of having a metaphysical entity responsible for the unknown.

It's natural to demand answers for the unknown but to make up answers imho is naive, arrogant and the easy way out, the lazy way.

Which I believe is why skepticism is such a driving force for science to seek out answers that we don't know.

Just take a look at all work done on the LHC.

[RiaX]

I disagree however with the assertion and generalization about people of science and the intellect having to realize the truth that "there is no absolute truth

Sigh, clearly some people dont understand what is meant by "the absolute truth" with regards to physics, its a common saying. See in physics there are laws and the base idea of these laws will not change, however the detail can change. In other words though the law is fact, that doesnt mean it has reached the end stage of the idea. Just like how Einstein added to Newton's law of gravity and Newton's model of space. Was Newton wrong? no he was not but his work was not complete thus even considered fact for MANY MANY years it was not absolute.

Next thing, you dont have to be a researcher or in a field with a degree to be a scientist. For example if you interested in the knowing how the natural world works (i.e physics) even if you study on your own, develop your own ideas that would make you a scientist. I have written and published 3 journal articles thus far and 2013 I will start the 4th, though does that make me more of a scientist than anyone else debating science? no it does not.

I see no logical reasons for eternity not to exist. There does not appear to be anything logically contradictory about the concept.

If it has a begining it has an end, even the universe itself is not eternal.

The truth of this assertion probably depends on your definition of God. Do you have one?

Hmmmmm, I have to get back to you on this one need to do something thinking with a cigar and whiskey.

Evolution does not disprove creation

It does, it disproves the entire theory of life. Refer to Carl Sagan's cosmos for a very nice explaination, out dated a bit but the fundamentals of the theory of evolution is there. When we say evolution in a topic like this we refer to the theory of evolution, which is driven by evolutionary force (which the creationist convieniently call adaptation). Dont take things out of context.

problem of induction is a problem for people reverting to the "Laws of Physics" as some sort of universal absolute truth. This leads to the second problem for people who argue that there is no such thing as absolute truth. "Laws of physics would qualify as an example of something that cannot be absolutely true.

explained above you didnt understand the phrase and took it in its most literate sense. In simple terms, I can rewrite all the mathematics of Newton's law of gravity but no matter what I do to it the law doesnt change. Its complexity can but the basis still stands. Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their masses, that fact will never change. Same applies to the second law of thermodynamics.

good arguments using reason and logic that can in principle demonstrate the existence of God e.g. Aquinas' Five Ways.

Sorry arguments alone is not enough to form fact. Invalid, this isnt poetry, its physics. You claim the modern model of the world with regards to the orgins of life is incorrect. Please show me how with physical evidence or even an experiment, evidence not distorted or decayed by the sands of time.

I have supported every statement that I claim as fact with HARD, physical evidence that have been frozen in time, and be repeatsed in a laboratory. Those opposing me are simply being technical to strip away at the facts, mere slander at best. Also in a thread like this I should not have to teach people how to read, or maybe I have very bad typing im not sure. Though dont combine my ideals with presented facts. My little story of Jesus getting in a fight is not fact its a 'what if?' BUT my presentation of evolution i.e the a change in a life form to enable a high survival rate in its environment, was presented using bacteria. That is fact, i've seen the mechanism of evolution under a microscope with my own two eyes. How many of you here HAVE actually conducted experiments beyond school?

[Swa]

Definitions are the foundation of common language and scientific enquiry.

Now that I have defined complexity, everyone on this thread knows exactly what I mean when I talk about it and we are better able to discuss it's relationship, if any, with entropy.

Don't whine because you've failed to come up with a definition which is consistent and useful.

It's not whining. Lol I'm saying that definitions by themself are useless. It's experiment and observation that determines how they relate to the world. You claimed your definition is unrelated to thermodynamics which is contrary to the facts.

There are any number of natural processes which create complexity, some which require agency, some which don't.

Not the complexity required for life.

Wow you see it as logic to believe in a higher power?

I disagree even though hierarchy is probably a genetic trait for our species, and most other species.

I do believe that this is a vestigial behaviour and that we do not have to have such beliefs.

The only logical way imho is living your life to the fullest not giving such metaphysical thoughts any of your precious time or energy.

Unless you're writing a book and trying to be creative then all these gods like Poseidon, Zeus, Odin etc are all lots of fun.

For questions that we do not know we can humbly admit that we simply don't know instead of having a metaphysical entity responsible for the unknown.

It's natural to demand answers for the unknown but to make up answers imho is naive, arrogant and the easy way out, the lazy way.

Which I believe is why skepticism is such a driving force for science to seek out answers that we don't know.

Just take a look at all work done on the LHC.

You see it as logic and reason to believe that there isn't a higher power? Of course you don't need to have such believes but to claim they are illogical is itself stretching logic and reason. On questions that we do not know you can just as humbly admit that you simply don't know instead of claiming that there can't be a higher power. Your view that all other views except your own are irrational actually puts you in the far extreme of irrational.

[Swa]

Yoh, all subjective nonsense. You have tried to counter solid evidence with a set of fancy articulated phrases. Never have I come across such a pathetic counter arguement , ok time to tear apart this nonsense.

Evolution is subjective as shown by solid evidence but let's take it apart to see where it leads.

Yes thats like saying carbon atoms dont prove the existance of graphite and diamonds. You assume yourself to be a single living thing because you function with a singular conscious. You are made like so:

cells ---> tissue ----> organs ----> Complex organism.

See a change at the cellular level is sufficient to change the entire chain, especially if that cellular change occurs on the DNA of reproductive cells. You assume it cant be true for complex beings becuase you cant think past your own life span. /snip

That is a strawman. Nobody is arguing the existence of graphite because firstly it can be shown to exist and secondly the known process that makes it is largely irrelevant to that. Evolution however has not been shown as a plausible process for the complexity of life. Indeed from our understanding of life we know this complexity only comes from life. You're the one not thinking past your own lifespan and simply assume what happens today must have been the natural procession of life from the start.

The scientific definition of evoultion is: "is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

Now at least we have a definition so evolution isn't just change.

Using a synonym for evolution is not going to disprove it. You cant sectionalise things cause you feel like it.

Wot? Nobody is using a synonym for evolution. You're assuming that evolution happens but can only show adaptation to occur. The point remains that evolution is then still unproven.

Because LIFE has EVOLVED to live on earth, not to prove your theories. The earth's conditions since life has not changed drastically. Water oxygen/nitrogen based atmosphere with 9.8m/s^2 gravity and acceptable temperatures. Change the environment and the life will change by evolving, antibiotic resistance shows this, in humans race shows this. People living in hotter more sunlight intense regions are darker

And all that shows is adaptation. The fossil record counts against your theory. There is no succession of one organism changing to become another different organism and only a huge number of gaps there showing it likely never happened.

Exstrapolating results to form a theory, quoting parts of a phrase to change its meaning. Very sad grasping for straws now are we? but the same can be said for you, "i dont know where earth came from" ,"god made it", "EPIC DIE HARD TRUTH". Where is your evidence of god show me - oh wait there isnt any as you say :P

No change in meaning here. There isn't any evidence for the primordial soup. I don't care if you see evidence for God or not. I only care that you don't hold up theories to be the truth.

hence it was the workings of god. The sun = Ra /Helios. Lightning work of zues, tides for neptune/posiden, mars venus jupiter all gods in ancient times. Your modern religions are no different.

If you look through history you'll see no religion is actually modern. They just evolve.

same way you claim it does

I believe it does. That's different from making a claim that it can't possibly exist.

care to explain our expanding universe then?

Can be explained in a number of ways.

Yes, hence religion is a culture, not a true fact of existance. No different from clothing styles from different nations.

Exactly why you shouldn't be claiming which ones are true and which ones not as fact.

Christianity does, care to elaborate?

As fact or faith?

No one claimed that, people speaking to god is not the same as claiming to have met and been spoken TO by god. When I said "spoke" to god, I meant as in had a conversation, not a prayer. Belief in god actually provides people with false answers that put them at ease, provides hope and sanity. /snip

You were somewhat ambiguous. You can claim what you want but drawing a conclusion that there's a greater power is different from actually meeting that power. None of your "scientific" explanations can show the latter to not be the case. Your own argument of providing hope and sanity works just as easily against your own belief.

Dont spout rubbish when you clearly are not medically trained.

Ask someone who is. They'll tell you there are many requirements that have to be met to declare someone insane.

Why? whats the difference, because YOU say so? oh sorry I did not realise your word was absolute. I see two books, with writing on paper, both composed by humanity. Both are stories one of god the other of a wizzard named Harry Potter

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not claim that you should believe anything because I say so. The bible actually has a lot of history. It wasn't just picked up by somebody and assumed to be the truth. To equate it to a Harry Potter book is an absurd strawman. But I don't care what you believe or not.

Yes from a generation that didnt even understand what the sun was. Didnt do that experiment in school to illustrate the distortion of information in class where a phrase was whispered by the teacher into one student and it had to be whispered across the class and the last student would say that phrase out loud? it was always wrong. Therefore tales told around fires ect are not credible at all, simply to distorted, because everyone likes to tell a good story.

Not having a complete understanding of something does not imply that people will be wrong on everything. You'd like to assume that everyone from that time must have been illiterate. We know that not to have been the case and remarkably multiple sources confirm each other pretty closely and contrary to your telephone experiment.

Here is a thought, How do you know Jesus didnt get drunk get into a fight with some romans and they beat the living Jesus out of him (lol) and then nailed him to a cross ? He couldve had been "dead" and woke up just like how people pronounced dead today wake up in a morgue. At the time considering the medical knowledge was non existant it would appear that he "rised from the dead". Walked around a few days then dropped dead in a corner from infection or blood loss. Did you even consider the reality? or did you just take that he went to heaven then returned as truth? Look at easter for example, you are told by the christians and the church he came back from the dead and walked around and then ascended to heaven (ascension day), but NO account tells you WHERE, WHAT HE DID, WHAT HE WAS WEARING, NOTHING. You think if someone came from the dead you would note this yes? so apparently he just chilled in white preached and then went home put the tv on and had a beer? The fact that the different sub sections of christianity cant even agree amoung themselves how many days he walked the earth is a joke.

How do you know your version is the case? The fact is that no historic event can be confirmed with certainty but that does not mean they can just be discounted. If someone was resurrected from the dead I think the last thing a person would pay attention to is their clothes. I don't know what you mean by there being no accounts. The bible gives the account of the ascension 40 days after the resurrection from the Mount of Olives (Olivet). It says what He did while on earth. If you're going to nitpick over minor details heck your own theory doesn't have agreement over any details.

Please go recover forensic evidence for the dead egyptian army at the bottom of the ocean, when moses washed them away after seperating the ocean. Did their bodies, armor, swords, chariots, horses also vapourise?

Forensic evidence from something that happened 4,000 years ago when even modern crimes a few days old evidence can disappear pretty quickly? You must be joking and your criteria indicates you're looking for something unrealistic.

Not at all, If this man is claimed to be god's son and its believed as truth, you think his phyiscal body wouldve been given a burial at least. I mean you can still find the graves of the popes of past. The farohs of egyptian empire are still resting in peace within their tombs ....

I really don't know if I should take you seriously. His physical body ascended to heaven.

Show me your solid evidence please? a book and your faith does not cut it as evidence so sorry.

You want me to show you solid evidence but you don't have any of your own?

It does ... you assume the difference to be physical in nature, how naive. /snip

Don't try to avert attention. If everything has a common ancestor there are physical differences. Yet no succession of changes or even a near approximation of it can be shown.

[alloytoo]

It's not whining. Lol I'm saying that definitions by themself are useless.

Nope, you're whining that my definition doesn't suit you. Nothing more.

You claimed your definition is unrelated to thermodynamics which is contrary to the facts.

But you haven't actual presented any facts.

Fact is the second law of Thermodynamics says nothing about measuring information which is what my definition of complexity is all about.

Not the complexity required for life.

That would appear to be contrary to the fact of your own existence.

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Please move this **** to PD.