a scientific proof that GOD existes ... ( long read )...

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for gubrushadow
gubrushadow

2735

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 gubrushadow
Member since 2009 • 2735 Posts

The First Law of Thermodynamics

What is the truth of modern science regarding the origin of all matter in the universe? Do scientists tell us that it has always existed? Or have they determined that there was a moment in time in which all matter came into existence? The answer to the second question is, yes! But what is the proof that this is true?

The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary, this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine origin—a specific moment in which it was created by someone who was all-powerful.

With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with the discovery of radium in 1898 by Madame Curie, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. Each helium atom has a weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0, uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms until eventually the end product becomes the heavy inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time. While the process of uranium turning into radium is very long, the radium turns into lead in 1,590 years.

What are we saying? There was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It breaks down. This means there was a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, all of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—have not existed forever. This represents absolute proof that matter came into existence or, in other words, matter has not always existed!

This flies directly in the face of evolutionary thought—that everything gradually evolved into something else. Here is the problem. You cannot have something slowly come into existence from nothing! Matter could not have come into existence by itself. No rational person could believe that the entire universe—including all of the radioactive elements that prove there was a specific time of beginning—gradually came into existence BY ITSELF!

Through your own efforts, try to build something—anything—from nothing. Even with your creative power engaged in the effort, you would never be able to do it. You will not be able—in a hundred lifetimes of trying—to produce a single thing from nothing! Then, can any doubter believe that everything in the entirety of the universe, in all of its exquisite detail, came into existence completely by itself? Be honest. Accept facts. This is proof that the existing natural realm demands the existence of a Great Creator!
The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy. This bears some explanation and we will consider several examples.

Remember that evolutionists teach that everything is constantly evolving into a higher and more complex order. In other words, they believe things continue to get better and better instead of worse and worse.

If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If a ball is placed on a hill, it will always roll downhill and not uphill. Energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable energy to unusable in the performing of that task. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level—where less and less energy is available for use.

When applied to the universe, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is winding down—moving toward disorder or entropy—not winding up or moving toward more perfect order and structure. In short, the entire universe is winding down!

Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other. Consider: "Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, 'It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true'" (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967, p. 35).

Like a top or a yo-yo, the universe must have been "wound up." Since the universe is constantly winding down, the second law of thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: Who wound it up? The only plausible answer is God!

EVOLUTION

The theory of evolution is shot full of inconsistencies. Evolutionists have seized on many theories, within the overall theory of evolution, in an attempt to explain the origins of plants, animals, the heavens and the earth.

Over and over, these "theorists" try to explain how life evolved from inanimate material into more complex life forms until it reached the pinnacle—human beings.

Yet, as one geologist wrote, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as student…have been debunked" (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Dept. of Geology, Imperial College, London, The Nature of the Fossil Record, Proceedings of the Geological Assoc., Vol. 87, 1976, pp. 1132-1133).

Perhaps the biggest reason that so many theories within the overall theory of evolution collapse is because they contain terrible logic requiring great leaps in faith to believe. Here is one example of a "debunked" theory: "Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: 'Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative.' 'Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's closest relative.' 'Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man's closest relative.' 'On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man's closest relative'" (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967).

oh no its too long , well have fun :P

Avatar image for ToppledPillars
ToppledPillars

1590

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 ToppledPillars
Member since 2010 • 1590 Posts

This is far from scientific

Avatar image for warownslife
warownslife

5289

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 warownslife
Member since 2010 • 5289 Posts

Hurry! someone read this and give me a tl:dr. Please hurry.

Avatar image for gubrushadow
gubrushadow

2735

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 gubrushadow
Member since 2009 • 2735 Posts

This is far from scientific

ToppledPillars
:roll:
Avatar image for Fightingfan
Fightingfan

38011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Fightingfan
Member since 2010 • 38011 Posts
All that says is they can't prove he does/doesn't exist. Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
Avatar image for warownslife
warownslife

5289

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 warownslife
Member since 2010 • 5289 Posts

All that says is they can't prove he does/doesn't exist. Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed.Fightingfan
Really? I thought so. *sigh* Well it was wrong to hope.

Avatar image for ToppledPillars
ToppledPillars

1590

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 ToppledPillars
Member since 2010 • 1590 Posts
[QUOTE="ToppledPillars"]

This is far from scientific

gubrushadow
:roll:

Why are you rolling your eyes? I don't see why you cannot just seperate reason and faith
Avatar image for R_Dawkins
R_Dawkins

28

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 R_Dawkins
Member since 2010 • 28 Posts

Non-sequiturs, non-sequiturs everywhere.

Avatar image for hydratedleaf
hydratedleaf

159

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 hydratedleaf
Member since 2010 • 159 Posts
1. The laws of thermodynamics do not apply to 'before' or 'outside of' the universe, only to what goes on within it. 2. Evolution's truth or falsity is irrelevant to God's existence. /thread
Avatar image for Agent-Zero
Agent-Zero

6198

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Agent-Zero
Member since 2009 • 6198 Posts
So there is so much wrong with this. Too much for me to write.
Avatar image for Filthybastrd
Filthybastrd

7124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 Filthybastrd
Member since 2009 • 7124 Posts

Oh dear.. Creationism.......

The whole thing is based on that we can't prove God does'nt exist which is the exact opposite of science.

Avatar image for ToppledPillars
ToppledPillars

1590

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 ToppledPillars
Member since 2010 • 1590 Posts
[QUOTE="hydratedleaf"]1. The laws of thermodynamics do not apply to 'before' or 'outside of' the universe, only to what goes on within it. 2. Evolution's truth or falsity is irrelevant to God's existence. /thread

This, research thermodynamics a bit first TC, don't just copy paste something you found that probably doesn't have a reliable source
Avatar image for Sajo7
Sajo7

14049

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#13 Sajo7
Member since 2005 • 14049 Posts
Why on Earth would you present that weak understanding of thermodynamics and then apply them to an omnipotent being? Also what does evolution have to do with God?
Avatar image for strope
strope

78

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#14 strope
Member since 2005 • 78 Posts
As soon as you do some research and understand science, feel free to come back and edit your post. You might try using a few sources less than 40 years that haven't already been thoroughly debunked. Even if what you were saying is true, how does that prove your god is the one? Why not Zeus or Odin or dozens of other deities? You fail at science.
Avatar image for Oleg_Huzwog
Oleg_Huzwog

21885

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 Oleg_Huzwog
Member since 2007 • 21885 Posts

Perhaps the biggest reason that so many theories within the overall theory of evolution collapse is because they contain terrible logic requiring great leaps in faith to believe. Here is one example of a "debunked" theory: "Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: 'Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative.' 'Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's closest relative.' 'Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man's closest relative.' 'On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man's closest relative'" (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967).gubrushadow

Is it me or is this "debunking" actually further supporting the concept of common ancestry across species?

Avatar image for bloodling
bloodling

5822

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#16 bloodling
Member since 2006 • 5822 Posts

This represents absolute proof that matter came into existence or, in other words, matter has not always existed!

Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative.

gubrushadow

:lol:

Avatar image for wstfld
wstfld

6375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 wstfld
Member since 2008 • 6375 Posts
LOL. The evolution quotes are from the 60s and 70s.
Avatar image for Mousetaches
Mousetaches

1293

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 Mousetaches
Member since 2009 • 1293 Posts

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"]Perhaps the biggest reason that so many theories within the overall theory of evolution collapse is because they contain terrible logic requiring great leaps in faith to believe. Here is one example of a "debunked" theory: "Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: 'Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative.' 'Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's closest relative.' 'Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man's closest relative.' 'On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man's closest relative'" (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967).Oleg_Huzwog

Is it me or is this "debunking" actually further supporting the concept of common ancestry across species?

I lol'd, it's true, this does prove the common ancestor theory.
Avatar image for black_cat19
black_cat19

8212

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 black_cat19
Member since 2006 • 8212 Posts

HUGE leaps of logic! YAY!!!

=D

Avatar image for 194197844077667059316682358889
194197844077667059316682358889

49173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 194197844077667059316682358889
Member since 2003 • 49173 Posts

Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other.

gubrushadow
No, we don't. Entropy always increases... in a thermodynamically closed system. The Earth is not one of those; in fact, the universe at large is the only example of one of those we have.
Avatar image for rawsavon
rawsavon

40001

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 rawsavon
Member since 2004 • 40001 Posts
Hopes someone (like Xaos) will give me a tl:dr version of what TC is saying I ****ing hate science
Avatar image for hydratedleaf
hydratedleaf

159

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 hydratedleaf
Member since 2010 • 159 Posts
[QUOTE="rawsavon"]Hopes someone (like Xaos) will give me a tl:dr version of what TC is saying I ****ing hate science

Then you're in luck - this isn't science
Avatar image for rawsavon
rawsavon

40001

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 rawsavon
Member since 2004 • 40001 Posts
[QUOTE="hydratedleaf"][QUOTE="rawsavon"]Hopes someone (like Xaos) will give me a tl:dr version of what TC is saying I ****ing hate science

Then you're in luck - this isn't science

Nice one :lol:
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#24 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
Yet again, the people who argue for creationism show they have little grasp of scientific theory and laws.
Avatar image for 194197844077667059316682358889
194197844077667059316682358889

49173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 194197844077667059316682358889
Member since 2003 • 49173 Posts
[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="hydratedleaf"][QUOTE="rawsavon"]Hopes someone (like Xaos) will give me a tl:dr version of what TC is saying I ****ing hate science

Then you're in luck - this isn't science

Nice one :lol:

Also, totally correct; there are a spectacular number of misapprehensions in TC's post; one favorite is the idea that apparently evolutionary theory is supposed to be applied to matter :\
Avatar image for Bluestorm-Kalas
Bluestorm-Kalas

13073

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 Bluestorm-Kalas
Member since 2006 • 13073 Posts

Wow, I actually read all that, and no, he doesn't "existes," nor does your irrational explanation prove he "existes."

[spoiler] TC spelt exists wrong in the title and that's why I spelt it wrong. [/spoiler]

Avatar image for Ontain
Ontain

25501

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#27 Ontain
Member since 2005 • 25501 Posts

[QUOTE="gubrushadow"]Perhaps the biggest reason that so many theories within the overall theory of evolution collapse is because they contain terrible logic requiring great leaps in faith to believe. Here is one example of a "debunked" theory: "Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: 'Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative.' 'Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's closest relative.' 'Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man's closest relative.' 'On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man's closest relative'" (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967).Oleg_Huzwog

Is it me or is this "debunking" actually further supporting the concept of common ancestry across species?

he's also referencing books before the discovery of DNA and the mapping of the human genome.
Avatar image for ToppledPillars
ToppledPillars

1590

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 ToppledPillars
Member since 2010 • 1590 Posts
[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="hydratedleaf"]Then you're in luck - this isn't sciencexaos
Nice one :lol:

Also, totally correct; there are a spectacular number of misapprehensions in TC's post; one favorite is the idea that apparently evolutionary theory is supposed to be applied to matter :\

All he did was copy paste something, he clearly has no understanding of what he posted.
Avatar image for Joshywaa
Joshywaa

10991

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 0

#29 Joshywaa
Member since 2002 • 10991 Posts

*Adjusts dorky glasses*

You sir have committed a grand logical fallacy.

Avatar image for kayoticdreamz
kayoticdreamz

3347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 kayoticdreamz
Member since 2010 • 3347 Posts
his points are valid especilly the matter cant be created or destroyed part. this is perhaps what bugs me most about people being evolutionists. that we all came into existence out of nothing and then they try and tell me matter cant be created nor destroyed. it just doesnt connect as logical or possible at least the first one i dont know enough about the we are all spinning into a chaotic state if left alone theory or how well its been proven or tested. meanwhile my faiths teaching of God merely organized all the matter into its current form and then gave it life makes far more sense and is far more in line with matter cannot be created nor destroyed because God who made the universe and its laws isnt going to break those laws that hold the universe together else he would never of made the laws and created the universe in the first place. this however does not mean he cant part a red sea because he obviously knows just a tad bit more about physics than anybody on earth does and there could in fact be a very scientific within the laws of the universe reason or way he the red sea was parted. perhaps God has some power some force he executes to perform said miracles and by applying this force the universe complies with it because he is the master therefore he knows full well how to bend it to his will. which is no different than humans and inventing technology we are merely bending forces of nature to our will to create things. that also explains further how the earth can appear to be billions of years old if it was simply organized at some point rather than created. it also would hold further truth that God must of always existed by the very nature of matter was never created nor destroyed. personally i agree with that train of thought far more than big bang theory we evolved and came from nothingness and what do you know it still doesnt violate the matter c annot be created nor destroyed law and in fact applies perfectly.
Avatar image for laughingman42
laughingman42

8730

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 laughingman42
Member since 2007 • 8730 Posts

The First Law of Thermodynamics

What is the truth of modern science regarding the origin of all matter in the universe? Do scientists tell us that it has always existed? Or have they determined that there was a moment in time in which all matter came into existence? The answer to the second question is, yes! But what is the proof that this is true?

The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary, this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine origin—a specific moment in which it was created by someone who was all-powerful.

With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with the discovery of radium in 1898 by Madame Curie, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. Each helium atom has a weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0, uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms until eventually the end product becomes the heavy inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time. While the process of uranium turning into radium is very long, the radium turns into lead in 1,590 years.

What are we saying? There was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It breaks down. This means there was a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, all of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—have not existed forever. This represents absolute proof that matter came into existence or, in other words, matter has not always existed!

This flies directly in the face of evolutionary thought—that everything gradually evolved into something else. Here is the problem. You cannot have something slowly come into existence from nothing! Matter could not have come into existence by itself. No rational person could believe that the entire universe—including all of the radioactive elements that prove there was a specific time of beginning—gradually came into existence BY ITSELF!

Through your own efforts, try to build something—anything—from nothing. Even with your creative power engaged in the effort, you would never be able to do it. You will not be able—in a hundred lifetimes of trying—to produce a single thing from nothing! Then, can any doubter believe that everything in the entirety of the universe, in all of its exquisite detail, came into existence completely by itself? Be honest. Accept facts. This is proof that the existing natural realm demands the existence of a Great Creator!
The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy. This bears some explanation and we will consider several examples.

Remember that evolutionists teach that everything is constantly evolving into a higher and more complex order. In other words, they believe things continue to get better and better instead of worse and worse.

If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If a ball is placed on a hill, it will always roll downhill and not uphill. Energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable energy to unusable in the performing of that task. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level—where less and less energy is available for use.

When applied to the universe, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is winding down—moving toward disorder or entropy—not winding up or moving toward more perfect order and structure. In short, the entire universe is winding down!

Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other. Consider: "Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, 'It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true'" (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967, p. 35).

Like a top or a yo-yo, the universe must have been "wound up." Since the universe is constantly winding down, the second law of thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: Who wound it up? The only plausible answer is God!

EVOLUTION

The theory of evolution is shot full of inconsistencies. Evolutionists have seized on many theories, within the overall theory of evolution, in an attempt to explain the origins of plants, animals, the heavens and the earth.

Over and over, these "theorists" try to explain how life evolved from inanimate material into more complex life forms until it reached the pinnacle—human beings.

Yet, as one geologist wrote, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as student…have been debunked" (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Dept. of Geology, Imperial College, London, The Nature of the Fossil Record, Proceedings of the Geological Assoc., Vol. 87, 1976, pp. 1132-1133).

Perhaps the biggest reason that so many theories within the overall theory of evolution collapse is because they contain terrible logic requiring great leaps in faith to believe. Here is one example of a "debunked" theory: "Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: 'Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative.' 'Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's closest relative.' 'Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man's closest relative.' 'On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man's closest relative'" (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967).

oh no its too long , well have fun :P

gubrushadow

EPIC FAIL #1 First law of thermodynamics- Big Bang theory does not state that the universe came from nothing. Also life didn't come from nothing. No scientists ever said it did.

EPIC FAIL #2 Second law of thermodynamics- This only applies to closed systems. The earth is constantly recieving outside energy imput.

EPIC FAIL #3 Your sources are pathetically outdated and outright wrong. DNA > everything else.

Isn't intellectual dishonesty (AKA lying) frowned upon in christianity?

Avatar image for bloodling
bloodling

5822

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#32 bloodling
Member since 2006 • 5822 Posts

his points are valid.kayoticdreamz

There is no god. There are no teachings. Only men, and the universe.

Avatar image for hydratedleaf
hydratedleaf

159

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 hydratedleaf
Member since 2010 • 159 Posts
[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]his points are valid especilly the matter cant be created or destroyed part. this is perhaps what bugs me most about people being evolutionists. that we all came into existence out of nothing and then they try and tell me matter cant be created nor destroyed. it just doesnt connect as logical or possible at least the first one i dont know enough about the we are all spinning into a chaotic state if left alone theory or how well its been proven or tested. meanwhile my faiths teaching of God merely organized all the matter into its current form and then gave it life makes far more sense and is far more in line with matter cannot be created nor destroyed because God who made the universe and its laws isnt going to break those laws that hold the universe together else he would never of made the laws and created the universe in the first place. this however does not mean he cant part a red sea because he obviously knows just a tad bit more about physics than anybody on earth does and there could in fact be a very scientific within the laws of the universe reason or way he the red sea was parted. perhaps God has some power some force he executes to perform said miracles and by applying this force the universe complies with it because he is the master therefore he knows full well how to bend it to his will. which is no different than humans and inventing technology we are merely bending forces of nature to our will to create things. that also explains further how the earth can appear to be billions of years old if it was simply organized at some point rather than created. it also would hold further truth that God must of always existed by the very nature of matter was never created nor destroyed. personally i agree with that train of thought far more than big bang theory we evolved and came from nothingness and what do you know it still doesnt violate the matter c annot be created nor destroyed law and in fact applies perfectly.

HAHAHA oh man
Avatar image for gaming25
gaming25

6181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 gaming25
Member since 2010 • 6181 Posts

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]his points are valid especilly the matter cant be created or destroyed part. this is perhaps what bugs me most about people being evolutionists. that we all came into existence out of nothing and then they try and tell me matter cant be created nor destroyed. it just doesnt connect as logical or possible at least the first one i dont know enough about the we are all spinning into a chaotic state if left alone theory or how well its been proven or tested. meanwhile my faiths teaching of God merely organized all the matter into its current form and then gave it life makes far more sense and is far more in line with matter cannot be created nor destroyed because God who made the universe and its laws isnt going to break those laws that hold the universe together else he would never of made the laws and created the universe in the first place. this however does not mean he cant part a red sea because he obviously knows just a tad bit more about physics than anybody on earth does and there could in fact be a very scientific within the laws of the universe reason or way he the red sea was parted. perhaps God has some power some force he executes to perform said miracles and by applying this force the universe complies with it because he is the master therefore he knows full well how to bend it to his will. which is no different than humans and inventing technology we are merely bending forces of nature to our will to create things. that also explains further how the earth can appear to be billions of years old if it was simply organized at some point rather than created. it also would hold further truth that God must of always existed by the very nature of matter was never created nor destroyed. personally i agree with that train of thought far more than big bang theory we evolved and came from nothingness and what do you know it still doesnt violate the matter c annot be created nor destroyed law and in fact applies perfectly.hydratedleaf
HAHAHA oh man

Thanks for your 3 words. The other person gave an explanation in why he agree's with TC, while you gave three words that was not a rebuttal or an explanation.

Avatar image for SgtKevali
SgtKevali

5763

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#35 SgtKevali
Member since 2009 • 5763 Posts

Dude, come on. If you're going to post nonesense like this, at the very least read through it and make sure it isn't nonesense.

Avatar image for laughingman42
laughingman42

8730

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 laughingman42
Member since 2007 • 8730 Posts

[QUOTE="hydratedleaf"][QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]his points are valid especilly the matter cant be created or destroyed part. this is perhaps what bugs me most about people being evolutionists. that we all came into existence out of nothing and then they try and tell me matter cant be created nor destroyed. it just doesnt connect as logical or possible at least the first one i dont know enough about the we are all spinning into a chaotic state if left alone theory or how well its been proven or tested. meanwhile my faiths teaching of God merely organized all the matter into its current form and then gave it life makes far more sense and is far more in line with matter cannot be created nor destroyed because God who made the universe and its laws isnt going to break those laws that hold the universe together else he would never of made the laws and created the universe in the first place. this however does not mean he cant part a red sea because he obviously knows just a tad bit more about physics than anybody on earth does and there could in fact be a very scientific within the laws of the universe reason or way he the red sea was parted. perhaps God has some power some force he executes to perform said miracles and by applying this force the universe complies with it because he is the master therefore he knows full well how to bend it to his will. which is no different than humans and inventing technology we are merely bending forces of nature to our will to create things. that also explains further how the earth can appear to be billions of years old if it was simply organized at some point rather than created. it also would hold further truth that God must of always existed by the very nature of matter was never created nor destroyed. personally i agree with that train of thought far more than big bang theory we evolved and came from nothingness and what do you know it still doesnt violate the matter c annot be created nor destroyed law and in fact applies perfectly.gaming25
HAHAHA oh man

Thanks for your 3 words. After the other person gave an explanation in why he agree's with TC, while you gave three words that was not a rebuttal or an explanation.

to be fair what he said really is laughably wrong.

Avatar image for 194197844077667059316682358889
194197844077667059316682358889

49173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 194197844077667059316682358889
Member since 2003 • 49173 Posts

Dude, come on. If you're going to post nonesense like this, at the very least read through it and make sure it isn't nonesense.

SgtKevali
Yeah, I hate being fed rotten copypasta :(
Avatar image for bloodling
bloodling

5822

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#38 bloodling
Member since 2006 • 5822 Posts

Thanks for your 3 words. The other person gave an explanation in why he agree's with TC, while you gave three words that was not a rebuttal or an explanation.

gaming25

That's not a scientific explanation at all though. Some previous posts pretty much covered the issue.

Avatar image for ToppledPillars
ToppledPillars

1590

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 ToppledPillars
Member since 2010 • 1590 Posts
[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]his points are valid especilly the matter cant be created or destroyed part. this is perhaps what bugs me most about people being evolutionists. that we all came into existence out of nothing and then they try and tell me matter cant be created nor destroyed. it just doesnt connect as logical or possible at least the first one i dont know enough about the we are all spinning into a chaotic state if left alone theory or how well its been proven or tested. meanwhile my faiths teaching of God merely organized all the matter into its current form and then gave it life makes far more sense and is far more in line with matter cannot be created nor destroyed because God who made the universe and its laws isnt going to break those laws that hold the universe together else he would never of made the laws and created the universe in the first place. this however does not mean he cant part a red sea because he obviously knows just a tad bit more about physics than anybody on earth does and there could in fact be a very scientific within the laws of the universe reason or way he the red sea was parted. perhaps God has some power some force he executes to perform said miracles and by applying this force the universe complies with it because he is the master therefore he knows full well how to bend it to his will. which is no different than humans and inventing technology we are merely bending forces of nature to our will to create things. that also explains further how the earth can appear to be billions of years old if it was simply organized at some point rather than created. it also would hold further truth that God must of always existed by the very nature of matter was never created nor destroyed. personally i agree with that train of thought far more than big bang theory we evolved and came from nothingness and what do you know it still doesnt violate the matter c annot be created nor destroyed law and in fact applies perfectly.

His points aren't valid. They are outdated and show no understanding. Not to mention they aren't even his points, he copied and pasted them from a website
Avatar image for hydratedleaf
hydratedleaf

159

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 hydratedleaf
Member since 2010 • 159 Posts

[QUOTE="hydratedleaf"][QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]his points are valid especilly the matter cant be created or destroyed part. this is perhaps what bugs me most about people being evolutionists. that we all came into existence out of nothing and then they try and tell me matter cant be created nor destroyed. it just doesnt connect as logical or possible at least the first one i dont know enough about the we are all spinning into a chaotic state if left alone theory or how well its been proven or tested. meanwhile my faiths teaching of God merely organized all the matter into its current form and then gave it life makes far more sense and is far more in line with matter cannot be created nor destroyed because God who made the universe and its laws isnt going to break those laws that hold the universe together else he would never of made the laws and created the universe in the first place. this however does not mean he cant part a red sea because he obviously knows just a tad bit more about physics than anybody on earth does and there could in fact be a very scientific within the laws of the universe reason or way he the red sea was parted. perhaps God has some power some force he executes to perform said miracles and by applying this force the universe complies with it because he is the master therefore he knows full well how to bend it to his will. which is no different than humans and inventing technology we are merely bending forces of nature to our will to create things. that also explains further how the earth can appear to be billions of years old if it was simply organized at some point rather than created. it also would hold further truth that God must of always existed by the very nature of matter was never created nor destroyed. personally i agree with that train of thought far more than big bang theory we evolved and came from nothingness and what do you know it still doesnt violate the matter c annot be created nor destroyed law and in fact applies perfectly.gaming25

HAHAHA oh man

Thanks for your 3 words. The other person gave an explanation in why he agree's with TC, while you gave three words that was not a rebuttal or an explanation.

Not much there to rebut. Your post was, I'm afraid, incoherent, and frankly there are more enjoyable things for me to be doing at half one in the morning than to try and make sense of it.
Avatar image for gaming25
gaming25

6181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 gaming25
Member since 2010 • 6181 Posts

Wow, I actually read all that, and no, he doesn't "existes," nor does your irrational explanation prove he "existes."

TC spelt exists wrong in the title and that's why I spelt it wrong.

Bluestorm-Kalas

You evolutionists want to act like youve gotten the world figured out, but yet you decide to talk down people who oppose you with your childish remarks. Maybe if you would just think about what he said without pointing out his diction (this is the internet for cryin out loud), then you could see where he is coming from.

Avatar image for 194197844077667059316682358889
194197844077667059316682358889

49173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 194197844077667059316682358889
Member since 2003 • 49173 Posts

[QUOTE="Bluestorm-Kalas"]

Wow, I actually read all that, and no, he doesn't "existes," nor does your irrational explanation prove he "existes."

TC spelt exists wrong in the title and that's why I spelt it wrong.

gaming25

You evolutionists want to act like youve gotten the world figured out, but yet you decide to talk down people who oppose you with your childish remarks. Maybe if you would just think about what he said without pointing out his diction (this is the internet for cryin out loud), then you could see where he is coming from.

I see where he is coming from, and he is absolutely entitled to his faith. However, if he wants to debase and misrepresent the content of the collective pursuit of science in some sort of misguided effort to provide an objective basis for that faith, and does so in front of me, you can be bloody well sure I'm going to call him on it. Edit: Also, lol, "evolutionist"
Avatar image for cybrcatter
cybrcatter

16210

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#43 cybrcatter
Member since 2003 • 16210 Posts

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]Hopes someone (like Xaos) will give me a tl:dr version of what TC is saying I ****ing hate sciencehydratedleaf
Then you're in luck - this isn't science



rofl.
Post of the evening.
:lol:

Avatar image for hydratedleaf
hydratedleaf

159

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 hydratedleaf
Member since 2010 • 159 Posts

[QUOTE="Bluestorm-Kalas"]

Wow, I actually read all that, and no, he doesn't "existes," nor does your irrational explanation prove he "existes."

TC spelt exists wrong in the title and that's why I spelt it wrong.

gaming25

You evolutionists want to act like youve gotten the world figured out, but yet you decide to talk down people who oppose you with your childish remarks. Maybe if you would just think about what he said without pointing out his diction (this is the internet for cryin out loud), then you could see where he is coming from.

He's wrong. Anyone with a high-school level of education in biology/physics can see that. We have every right to talk down to people who copy and paste utter crap on a topic they don't even understand. It's a lazy argumentum ad nauseum and deserves no respect.
Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#45 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts
I'm religious and even I think this is ridiculous. >_>
Avatar image for Bluestorm-Kalas
Bluestorm-Kalas

13073

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 Bluestorm-Kalas
Member since 2006 • 13073 Posts

[QUOTE="Bluestorm-Kalas"]

Wow, I actually read all that, and no, he doesn't "existes," nor does your irrational explanation prove he "existes."

TC spelt exists wrong in the title and that's why I spelt it wrong.

gaming25

You evolutionists want to act like youve gotten the world figured out, but yet you decide to talk down people who oppose you with your childish remarks. Maybe if you would just think about what he said without pointing out his diction (this is the internet for cryin out loud), then you could see where he is coming from.

You are absolutely correct, I am sorry that when he the TC said scientific proof I actually expected scientific proof. How rude of me.

Avatar image for metroidfood
metroidfood

11175

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 metroidfood
Member since 2007 • 11175 Posts

1. Why is God exempt from the First Law but the universe is not? And why does the beginning have to be God, and not a non-thinking, supernatural occurence?

2. No, no, no, no. This fallacy is only made if you haven't taken chemistry and don't understand the Second Law. IN A CLOSED SYSTEM entropy is always increasing. The universe (all of it) is a closed system. Earth is not. Evolution is entirely possible according to the Second Law because enthalpy (the opposite of entropy) can exist and increase in an open system as long as NET ENTROPY of the universe increase (which it is, due to the outward movement of the galaxies).

3. Quote-mining random people out of context doesn't refute the mountains of scientific evidence for the Theory of Evolution. There is a reason why it is the cornerstone of modern biology.

Avatar image for sgotskillz
sgotskillz

287

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 sgotskillz
Member since 2010 • 287 Posts

Why are religious people so insistent on forcing their beliefs upon others? Knocking on doors, handing out flyers and preaching all day long. Has it got to do with insecurities with their faith? A pacifier for a needy ego?

I concur about the second law of thermodynamics. Why is the universe assumed to be a closed system? Looking at the fractal nature of the golden ratio/fibonacci suggests an infinite system.

Avatar image for metroidfood
metroidfood

11175

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 metroidfood
Member since 2007 • 11175 Posts

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]Hopes someone (like Xaos) will give me a tl:dr version of what TC is saying I ****ing hate sciencehydratedleaf
Then you're in luck - this isn't science

I'm sigging this right now. :lol:

Avatar image for laughingman42
laughingman42

8730

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 laughingman42
Member since 2007 • 8730 Posts

[QUOTE="Bluestorm-Kalas"]

Wow, I actually read all that, and no, he doesn't "existes," nor does your irrational explanation prove he "existes."

TC spelt exists wrong in the title and that's why I spelt it wrong.

gaming25

You evolutionists want to act like youve gotten the world figured out, but yet you decide to talk down people who oppose you with your childish remarks. Maybe if you would just think about what he said without pointing out his diction (this is the internet for cryin out loud), then you could see where he is coming from.

Childish views provoke childish responses. His points are unscientific, outdated, and unsupported by actual facts. There is nothing to think about when what someone says is so blatantly incorrect.