This is no straw man. You know very well what the creation model is.
I know what Creationism is, but there is no model, at least no scientific model for it. Nor can there be one, since it is not testable. Perhaps it would help if you use lingo you know, instead of using the internet and guessing at the blanks.
And when I said there is no evolution model, I was being mean-spirited. There is no "single" model, but a multitude of models (i.e., plural). The study of evolution is not a simple little light switch, and thus there is no simple, single model you can flick.
Yes, there are. If the universe is constantly wearing down, as predicted by the laws of thermodynamics, you would expect that at one time it was "completely wound up" or at maximum potential energy. This is predicted by the Creation model. At one point, God created the universe.
Although the initial statement was not quoted from me, I think i'll add my two cents.
You're wrong.
Oh, did you want me to go into details? Hmm, which part? The 1st part where you're wrong, or all the other parts where you're wrong?
How about if I go by the numbers?
1. It is not determined if the universe is wearing down, since "wearing down" isn't even remotely a scientifically accurate description. Therefore, in order to comprehend what you mean by "wearing down," you would need to provide a more precise definition.
2. Creationism does not indicate that things were at a 'maximal' state when God created it, only that He created it. In fact, Creationism infers something quite different, which is that all things are constants, even our very existence.
3. A model doesn't consist of "poof." At least not a scientific model. Then again, maybe you're referring to a Playboy model who puts her cute little bunny tail in a wall socket.
4. This particular discussion is not about the "Big Bang" theory, or any other tangential debate you can present in an effort to redirect the limelight.
However, the evolution model does not predict this. If the theory of evolution were true, we would expect entropy to be decreasing; not increasing as it is.
You are completely confusing what you don't know about cosmology and physics with what you don't know about evolution and biology. Since the discussion is not about the "Big Bang" theory, or any other tangential debate you can present in an effort to redirect the limelights, pulling a rabbit out of your hat isn't going to impress a bunch of magicians. Let's stay on topic to our already existing tangent, shall we?
It makes me laugh to here you people talk about aliens. You don't deny the possibility that there could be little green men (who you've never seen), but you adamantly refuse to believe there is a God because nobody has ever seen him (that you know).
And this, my dear man, is a straw man. I made a joke when I introduced aliens into my comments, as I would have thought obvious with the reference to registered trademarks. But, just to be sure you're not still on the delusionary path of righteousness, I don't believe in intelligent aliens in outer space
(stupid ones maybe). If one provides evidence to support the notion that such aliens exist, I would treat it with typical scientific scrutiny. Belief, on the other hand, left me around the time I found out Santa Clause didn't actually live at the North Pole. Serious bummer that was.
The real reason that you (or any evolutionist) believe in the religion of evolution is because you are an atheist.
Again, the convenient labeling. I suppose you call an electrician, who has all too often verified the existence of electricity, an Electrianist.
Gee, I wonder if he bows down to Thor?
Btw, I'm not an athiest, I am agnostic. And while some of your comments may not have been directed at me, I nonetheless presented plenty of fodder for athiests to shoot in your bible-thumping direction.
You refuse to believe in God because you don't like rules.
Gee, did you meet me? Wow, omg! Like, totally. Rock on dude!
Or maybe I should indicate few people like rules, but you never met me, and likely nobody else in this forum community, so you don't actually know any of us, nor do you have any inkling of what any of us like or dislike. Give it time and maybe you'll find out. That's, of course, if you're able to control your judgemental nature.
And I thought God was the only one who was supposed to judge? Silly me.
You don't want to be told that you're doing things wrong (i.e. sin), and you don't want to hear that you deserve hell. You're rebellious, and you would hate any being like God.
That's nice, so you like being told you do things wrong, eh? Well, that would explain all those priest molestations.
Look, flaming idiot, I have a moral compass and it didn't come from the Bible. It came from proper upbringing, a conscience, and an inate sense of right and wrong. And, i've met plenty of agnostics & athiests who are considerate, respectful, and law-abiding. Contrastly, there are plenty of Bible-pounders in prison, lubricating their rectum, serving sentences for crimes I couldn't even visualize myself doing to another human being, so save your righteous indignation for the flock of miscreants you call brethren.
Note: In fact, you would be surprised to find out the percentage in prison who are religious is significantly higher than that in society.
