Question for the biblical religious

[Kirkland Laing]

All the scientific laws. It cannot and hasn't been observed, measured, or tested and proven. It is simply a theory which means...... belief.

All evolution except variations within a species. There is no evidence that a cat can turn into a dog or an apple tree will start producing oranges eventually. You can get different types of cats or different types of oranges but there is no transitional species and there never will be because it is fatal.

A half functioning anything wouldn't be able to reproduce. A half functioning eye is useless, a half functioning stomach, etc.... It is incomprehensible that the raw materials to support life and life itself all evolved in anything resembling the fairytale of evolution.

Evolution is in violation of all natural laws specifically entropy. There is zero evidence, only belief and story of what might have happened long before there were people.... Again the point is that it's a story based upon loosely tied together current observations. From the big bang theory, to natural selection, it's a philosophy, not a science.

There is endless observation, testing etc. to prove evolutionary theory. Vast quantities of evidence. But no absolute proof, as with most scientific thories. Gravity is a theory. So is electricity. We think our knowledge of electricity theory is how we generate gigawatts of power every day all over the world, for instance, but it may be that Jesus's tears come down from heaven and invisibly work their way into the electricity-generating process, so until we can rule out every single possible alternative possibility things like gravity, electricity and evolution will have to remain theories.

The theory of evolution doesn't claim that cats turn into dogs, or even that we're descended from apes. Evidence from the fossil record and from DNA however shows us that we and apes have a common ancestor. Ape DNA for instance is 98.something % the same as yours. To put that in perspective your wife or girlfriend's DNA is only 97.something % the same as yours.

It's very comprehensible that raw materials came together to start life. Biochemists have learned how nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of cells could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry and current biotechnology discoveries, including recent advances with stem cells etc.


Any issues you may percieve with entropy or thermodynamics aren't in conflict with evolution. I'd be interested to see you explain this point more fully.

[luvfightgame]

All the scientific laws. It cannot and hasn't been observed, measured, or tested and proven. It is simply a theory which means...... belief.

All evolution except variations within a species. There is no evidence that a cat can turn into a dog or an apple tree will start producing oranges eventually. You can get different types of cats or different types of oranges but there is no transitional species and there never will be because it is fatal.

A half functioning anything wouldn't be able to reproduce. A half functioning eye is useless, a half functioning stomach, etc.... It is incomprehensible that the raw materials to support life and life itself all evolved in anything resembling the fairytale of evolution.

Evolution is in violation of all natural laws specifically entropy. There is zero evidence, only belief and story of what might have happened long before there were people.... Again the point is that it's a story based upon loosely tied together current observations. From the big bang theory, to natural selection, it's a philosophy, not a science.

There is endless observation, testing etc. to prove evolutionary theory. Vast quantities of evidence. But no absolute proof, as with most scientific thories. Gravity is a theory. So is electricity. We think our knowledge of electricity theory is how we generate gigawatts of power every day all over the world, for instance, but it may be that Jesus's tears come down from heaven and invisibly work their way into the electricity-generating process, so until we can rule out every single possible alternative possibility things like gravity, electricity and evolution will have to remain theories.

The theory of evolution doesn't claim that cats turn into dogs, or even that we're descended from apes. Evidence from the fossil record and from DNA however shows us that we and apes have a common ancestor. Ape DNA for instance is 98.something % the same as yours. To put that in perspective your wife or girlfriend's DNA is only 97.something % the same as yours.

It's very comprehensible that raw materials came together to start life. Biochemists have learned how nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of cells could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry and current biotechnology discoveries, including recent advances with stem cells etc.


Any issues you may percieve with entropy or thermodynamics aren't in conflict with evolution. I'd be interested to see you explain this point more fully.

Thermodynamics actually works against evolution. Things don't get better on their own. Energy must be constantly added and there must be a method in place to harness that energy or it is destructive.

So the first law is.... matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from?

Second things tend towards disorder, and lose energy or heat. Why doesn't my pizza stay hot on its own?

You said it is comprehensible that raw materials came together on their own. I disagree, but I will give you that point, cause the problem is much bigger. Where do you get the raw materials? Then if they manage to come together, how does the material to support them and the mechanism to reproduce all happen at the same time? One flaw is fatal. It is incomprehensible to think you could put all the materials for a house in the same place and they would assemble themselves, then have gas, water, electric all hooked up and ready to go, and then to top it off be able to start reproducing? It's magic.... Not science.

[Andre]

All the scientific laws. It cannot and hasn't been observed, measured, or tested and proven. It is simply a theory which means...... belief.

All evolution except variations within a species. There is no evidence that a cat can turn into a dog or an apple tree will start producing oranges eventually. You can get different types of cats or different types of oranges but there is no transitional species and there never will be because it is fatal.

A half functioning anything wouldn't be able to reproduce. A half functioning eye is useless, a half functioning stomach, etc.... It is incomprehensible that the raw materials to support life and life itself all evolved in anything resembling the fairytale of evolution.

Evolution is in violation of all natural laws specifically entropy. There is zero evidence, only belief and story of what might have happened long before there were people.... Again the point is that it's a story based upon loosely tied together current observations. From the big bang theory, to natural selection, it's a philosophy, not a science.

There is endless observation, testing etc. to prove evolutionary theory. Vast quantities of evidence. But no absolute proof, as with most scientific thories. Gravity is a theory. So is electricity. We think our knowledge of electricity theory is how we generate gigawatts of power every day all over the world, for instance, but it may be that Jesus's tears come down from heaven and invisibly work their way into the electricity-generating process, so until we can rule out every single possible alternative possibility things like gravity, electricity and evolution will have to remain theories.

The theory of evolution doesn't claim that cats turn into dogs, or even that we're descended from apes. Evidence from the fossil record and from DNA however shows us that we and apes have a common ancestor. Ape DNA for instance is 98.something % the same as yours. To put that in perspective your wife or girlfriend's DNA is only 97.something % the same as yours.

It's very comprehensible that raw materials came together to start life. Biochemists have learned how nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of cells could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry and current biotechnology discoveries, including recent advances with stem cells etc.


Any issues you may percieve with entropy or thermodynamics aren't in conflict with evolution. I'd be interested to see you explain this point more fully.

Thermodynamics actually works against evolution. Things don't get better on their own. Energy must be constantly added and there must be a method in place to harness that energy or it is destructive.

So the first law is.... matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from?

Second things tend towards disorder, and lose energy or heat. Why doesn't my pizza stay hot on its own?

You said it is comprehensible that raw materials came together on their own. I disagree, but I will give you that point, cause the problem is much bigger. Where do you get the raw materials? Then if they manage to come together, how does the material to support them and the mechanism to reproduce all happen at the same time? One flaw is fatal. It is incomprehensible to think you could put all the materials for a house in the same place and they would assemble themselves, then have gas, water, electric all hooked up and ready to go, and then to top it off be able to start reproducing? It's magic.... Not science.

Oh ME! ME ! pick ME !



#Thought derived from feelings.

[Kirkland Laing]

Thermodynamics actually works against evolution. Things don't get better on their own. Energy must be constantly added and there must be a method in place to harness that energy or it is destructive.

So the first law is.... matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from?

Second things tend towards disorder, and lose energy or heat. Why doesn't my pizza stay hot on its own?

You said it is comprehensible that raw materials came together on their own. I disagree, but I will give you that point, cause the problem is much bigger. Where do you get the raw materials? Then if they manage to come together, how does the material to support them and the mechanism to reproduce all happen at the same time? One flaw is fatal. It is incomprehensible to think you could put all the materials for a house in the same place and they would assemble themselves, then have gas, water, electric all hooked up and ready to go, and then to top it off be able to start reproducing? It's magic.... Not science.

Thermodynamics doesn't work against evolution.
The laws actually state that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.


More importantly however the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials over a period of time.


We'll know better how matter was created when we establish radio telescopes on the moon in a few decades and can look back to the origins of the universe more clearly.

Your pizza gets cold because it's an inanimate objext that can't consume any energy and synthesise it into heat.

It's not incomprehensible that raw materials come together on their own to form complex structures. Mineral crystals, snowflakes etc. do just that. That a bunch of biomechanical processes can occur over hundreds of millions of years between substances and elements that exist in abundant quantities on the earth is already documented extensively.

[Andre]

Thermodynamics actually works against evolution. Things don't get better on their own. Energy must be constantly added and there must be a method in place to harness that energy or it is destructive.

So the first law is.... matter cannot be created or destroyed. So where did it come from?

Second things tend towards disorder, and lose energy or heat. Why doesn't my pizza stay hot on its own?

You said it is comprehensible that raw materials came together on their own. I disagree, but I will give you that point, cause the problem is much bigger. Where do you get the raw materials? Then if they manage to come together, how does the material to support them and the mechanism to reproduce all happen at the same time? One flaw is fatal. It is incomprehensible to think you could put all the materials for a house in the same place and they would assemble themselves, then have gas, water, electric all hooked up and ready to go, and then to top it off be able to start reproducing? It's magic.... Not science.

Thermodynamics doesn't work against evolution.
The laws actually state that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.


More importantly however the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials over a period of time.


We'll know better how matter was created when we establish radio telescopes on the moon in a few decades and can look back to the origins of the universe more clearly.

Your pizza gets cold because it's an inanimate objext that can't consume any energy and synthesise it into heat.

It's not incomprehensible that raw materials come together on their own to form complex structures. Mineral crystals, snowflakes etc. do just that. That a bunch of biomechanical processes can occur over hundreds of millions of years between substances and elements that exist in abundant quantities on the earth is already documented extensively.

Ok so how does (LOVE ,JOY and HEALING) just to mention 3, come into it?

[Kirkland Laing]

Joy and love are human emotions, healing is something we evolved and which is still evolving within us, but I'm guessing you have a different meaning.

[luvfightgame]

The closed loop system must have a mechanism already in place in order to harness the energy being put into the earth. See getting over one of the obstacles is just the beginning.

The biggest problem is everything had to evolve at the same time. What good is it to make an evolutionary jump in one area only to have no food source, or no mate to reproduce with, or no way to digest your food. It's too many things to have possibly happened. It is actually more likely that things are devolving.

Why if evolution were true would all the prehistoric lifeforms have been so much bigger than current life forms? Wouldn't they have crawled out of the primordial ooze in a primitive weak life form? Instead we have fossils of huge versions of many of the same life forms we have now and not 1 single example of a transitional species.

Another problem is there would have been thousands of fatally flawed transitional species, but we cant find even one.

[Kirkland Laing]

The closed loop system must have a mechanism already in place in order to harness the energy being put into the earth. See getting over one of the obstacles is just the beginning.

The biggest problem is everything had to evolve at the same time. What good is it to make an evolutionary jump in one area only to have no food source, or no mate to reproduce with, or no way to digest your food. It's too many things to have possibly happened. It is actually more likely that things are devolving.

Why if evolution were true would all the prehistoric lifeforms have been so much bigger than current life forms? Wouldn't they have crawled out of the primordial ooze in a primitive weak life form? Instead we have fossils of huge versions of many of the same life forms we have now and not 1 single example of a transitional species.

Another problem is there would have been thousands of fatally flawed transitional species, but we cant find even one.

There's no need for any mechanism to be in place for life to evolve.

Nothing had to evolve at the same time. Humans didn't just crawl out of the sea and start killing animals to eat. Life began as single-celled organisms which ingested nutrients through their skins like endless single-celled organisms do today. And they reproduced asexually, like Lyle. The various species on the earth today all evolved over billions of years. Nothing happened quickly.

Species are constantly evolving, not devolving. When hominids first appeared on the earth if you were anywhere near four feet tall you could have played in the prehistoric NBA. Today we're much bigger. Various species over the billions of years of life on earth have been various sizes as they've evolved to live in their environments. You can trace the evolution of the horse from the tiny Eohippus to its current size.


We have plenty of transitional species in the fossil record, most famously Archaeopteryx which has bird and dinosaur features. Since Darwin started studying evolution the Hawthorn fly has developed a separate group that doesn't feed on hawthorn but apples instead. Human infections and diseases are constantly evolving to live with the antibiotics we use to treat them to the extent we're now having to develop totally new antibiotics. Pests like the boll weevil have evolved to become resistant to pesticides we used to use to kill them.

[pacfan]

One time I was once doing some work outside in a very hot tropical weather and tons of sweat started to pour down from my forehead. But what surprised me just a bit was that those sweats were perfectly deflected by my eyebrows away from the eyes, and that's the first time I really knew what they were for and the first time I saw them in action. They were meant to keep the irritating sweat away from the eyes. What a nice contraption, I thought. Then I thought of the theory of evolution. According to the idea of suvivivor of the fittest, those eyebrows evolved so that I might have a better chance of surviving and passing on my genes to the future generations? So that means I evolved those eyebrows so that I can see clearly without any sweat coming into my eyes and helped me fight off successfully my ancient competitors who didn't have one? Naw, I don't buy that. That's stupid - eyebrows giving me advantage over my competitors who didn't have one? and so I survived while they went into extinction? just because of them damn eyebrows? Who am I kiddin.'

So if they really didn't have any significant effect on our survivor why were they evolved? By accident or is it just for our convenience? 'Nature' must have loved us so much if they thought of our convenience, a concept, I think, not part of the evolution theory. I'm pretty sure there are lots of other features in our body that don't have much significant effects on our survivor but are just conveniently there for us. So 'nature' has a heart afterall.

[Andre]

One time I was once doing some work outside in a very hot tropical weather and tons of sweat started to pour down from my forehead. But what surprised me just a bit was that those sweats were perfectly deflected by my eyebrows away from the eyes, and that's the first time I really knew what they were for and the first time I saw them in action. They were meant to keep the irritating sweat away from the eyes. What a nice contraption, I thought. Then I thought of the theory of evolution. According to the idea of suvivivor of the fittest, those eyebrows evolved so that I might have a better chance of surviving and passing on my genes to the future generations? So that means I evolved those eyebrows so that I can see clearly without any sweat coming into my eyes and helped me fight off successfully my ancient competitors who didn't have one? Naw, I don't buy that. That's stupid - eyebrows giving me advantage over my competitors who didn't have one? and so I survived while they went into extinction? just because of them damn eyebrows? Who am I kiddin.'

So if they really didn't have any significant effect on our survivor why were they evolved? By accident or is it just for our convenience? 'Nature' must have loved us so much if they thought of our convenience, a concept, I think, not part of the evolution theory. I'm pretty sure there are lots of other features in our body that don't have much significant effects on our survivor but are just conveniently there for us. So 'nature' has a heart afterall.

Rep for you.well said.

How good does making love feel too!
It cant be against natural law;
only against a human interpetation of a divine guideline made into a localized law for more control over the masses by the leaders, dont you think?