Evilution: the Descent of Man

DeletedUser

If you truly belive all that rubbish, then I'm sorry for you Virginia.

I can not fathom how you can stand living every day, knowing you will burn in hell, knowing you will never be good enough for that vindictive evil ******* of a god that you worship.
 

DeletedUser

I guess he paid himself, why that makes any more sense than superman is beyond me.
 

DeletedUser

Evolution isn't science. Science proves evolution wrong. Creation isn't science either, but at least it follows the laws of science. This is a major reason why I cannot convert to evolution, Allen.
 

DeletedUser

Creation doesn't follow laws of science: think conservation of mass and energy. God apparently created mass out of nothing. Try again.
 

DeletedUser

Creation is proved wrong by science. Ever heard of geology? History? Geography?

Evolution is very heavily backed up by science. Most modern biology is based around the idea that evolution is true.
 

DeletedUser

Creation doesn't follow laws of science: think conservation of mass and energy. God apparently created mass out of nothing. Try again.

Just because Oisin's post went on to the next page...I want Virginia to explain this one.
 

DeletedUser

"The Law of Energy Conservation—`Energy can be converted from one form into another, but can neither be created no destroyed,'—is the most important and best-proved law in science.

"The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy in the universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. It further states that although energy (or its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have verified this. A corollary of the First Law is that natural processes cannot create energy. Consequently, energy must have been created in the past by some agency or power outside and independent of the natural universe. Furthermore, if natural processes cannot produce the relatively simple inorganic portion of the universe, then it is even less likely that natural processes can explain the much more complex organic (living) portion of the universe."—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 12.

How does it work for evolution?
 

DeletedUser

There's more to creationism than life. The energy to create the mass of the universe, including life and everything else in it had to come from somewhere. God apparently created the energy out of nothing, which is impossible. Science does not support Creationism, period.
 

DeletedUser

"The Law of Energy Conservation—`Energy can neither be created nor destroyed,'

energy must have been created in the past
I couldn't think of anything that could be possibly wrong with that idea.
 

DeletedUser

The First Law of Engery Conservation states that nothing is now being created or destroyed. It therefore teaches quite conclusively that the universe did not create itself; there is nothing in the present structure of natural law that could possibly account for its own origin.
 

DeletedUser

There's more to creationism than life. The energy to create the mass of the universe, including life and everything else in it had to come from somewhere. God apparently created the energy out of nothing, which is impossible. Science does not support Creationism, period.
The First Law of Engery Conservation states that nothing is now being created or destroyed. It therefore teaches quite conclusively that the universe did not create itself; there is nothing in the present structure of natural law that could possibly account for its own origin.


God is a HUGE battery.

Didn't you guys know?!
 

DeletedUser

The First Law of Engery Conservation states that nothing is now being created or destroyed. It therefore teaches quite conclusively that the universe did not create itself; there is nothing in the present structure of natural law that could possibly account for its own origin.

The mass was already there, a much more plausible explanation then it all came out of God's bag of tricks.

No Virginia, there is not a Santa Claus.
 

nashy19

Nashy (as himself)
The First Law of Engery Conservation states that nothing is now being created or destroyed. It therefore teaches quite conclusively that the universe did not create itself; there is nothing in the present structure of natural law that could possibly account for its own origin.

Well you can say that the universe has always been here, collapsing and expansing. I don't see why we'd need a god for this. Justin has already ruled it out with his idea of complexity anyway which again suggests against a creator (because a creator would be too complicated). God is not a default it's a non-answer however if god was the default occam's razor rules it out, god and mass can be eternal however the simplest answer wins.

Personally I don't think the universe is expansing/collapsing or any similar theory's, because my own knowledge is subtly pointing me towards treating the universe like a galaxy the next one up the scale of big and small. We do not talk about these theory's because we do not know enough to discuss them, but most of us have some idea.

Nobody here thinks the universe created itself.
 
Top