(November 10, 2014 at 3:44 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 9, 2014 at 11:32 pm)coldwx Wrote: No thank you, I will take it now please. You will be too busy getting demolished by Esquilax to bother with petty assertions like there is no fossil record. I will hear what you have to say right here.

Mannn please

I will ask again. Please provide the defense of your claim that there is no fossil record.

Getting awfully close to reporting you for trolling, HRH.

(November 10, 2014 at 2:33 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 9, 2014 at 12:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: The possibilities are endless, but there is only one reality. So to say something is possible isn't saying much at all. Stating the likelihood is where you can acutually get somewhere.

Right, there is only one reality...and the reality is the fact that if something is possibily necessarily true, then it is actually true.

Are you arguing an oxy moron? What is a "possibily necessarily"? Either it is a possibility or a necessity, not both.

Quote:

(November 9, 2014 at 12:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: What is the likelihood that abiogenesis is true? It is based on chemical reactions which we know exist.

I don't know about that.

There is a series of stages of chemical reactions that lead to a protocell. Are you claiming that there are no series of chemical reactions that can eventually lead to a protocell? Which stage(s) would be impossible?

Quote:

(November 9, 2014 at 12:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: It's also based on self-replicating molecules which we also know to exist (e.g. RNA). So the likelihood is pretty high.

Or this. Go in a lab and demonstrate it, and then start barking.

http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/2009/010809.html

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shorts...rna-e.html

Quote:

(November 9, 2014 at 12:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: What is the likelihood that God created life? Well it is based on an intelligents that doesn't have a physical body which we have never seen that.

We've never seen life from nonlife and consciousness from unconsciousness either.

First off, your arguing as if they're on the same footing. They are not. The nonlife to life you are still working with physicsal stuff while God is an acting, talking intelligence without a physical body.

Actually we have seen consciousness from unconsciousness, think how humans are born. A human starts from a single cell and grows up to an adult. A single cell does not have consciousness while an adult human does.

Quote:

(November 9, 2014 at 12:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote: It is based on a being that can break physical laws of nature which we have never seen either. So God's likelihood is pretty small.

Right now, there is no physical law of nature which state that life can come from nonlife and consciousness from unconsciousness.

There is also no physical laws preventing it to. What is your point?

Heads up folks, I've posted my opening statement in the evolution debate. His_Majesty is quite confident in PM, so we'll see how he handles it.

(November 10, 2014 at 5:56 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Heads up folks, I've posted my opening statement in the evolution debate. His_Majesty is quite confident in PM, so we'll see how he handles it.

With nonsense - just like he does here.

(November 10, 2014 at 5:56 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Heads up folks, I've posted my opening statement in the evolution debate. His_Majesty is quite confident in PM, so we'll see how he handles it.

The Force is strong in that one.

(November 10, 2014 at 3:44 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 9, 2014 at 7:54 pm)Natachan Wrote: This shows a lack of understanding about thermodynamics, cancer, and chemistry. Now ignorance of these subjects isn't terrible, they're hard subject to grasp, so I'll assume that the statement was made in ignorance.

I will assume that the statement was right on the money in the context I was saying it in.

(November 9, 2014 at 7:54 pm)Natachan Wrote: Cancer is rarely, if ever, just due to decay. What I learned in chemistry was that it was often the result of added energy. This can be the result of radiation, viruses, or other pathogens in the body.

Even of it was the result of general decay, it would not follow that this was due to the second law as you claimed. The human body is NOT a closed system, and as such the second law does not apply.

According to Christian theology, when God made Adam and Eve, they were "good". They were the best specimen of mankind that the world had ever seen...after they disobeyed God, their bodies began to deteriorate, and they eventually grew old, and died. The same thing with their offspring. That is the second law of thermodynamics, which state that over time, closed systems will begin to lose its energy to do work. The human body IS a closed system. There is nothing outside it that will keep you from getting old and dying. Over time you will start losing more and more of your senses, until your body just stops operating as a whole.

---

1) there was no Adam and Eve, but that's not relevant to the point. Since
2) the human body is NOT a closed system. Because, by definition, a closed system does not receive matter (and in some cases energy) from the outside. Do you eat? Do you poop? Then your body is taking in and letting out both matter and energy. And as such is not a closed system.

Aging and cancer are unrelated (well, mostly). Cancer is caused by: radiation (an addition of energy), viruses and disease, and in some cases there are some genetic factors. But it is in no way related to the second law, which states only:

Chemistry, A Molecular Approach Wrote:For any spontaneous process, the entropy of the system increases (delta S > 0).

(November 10, 2014 at 3:50 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The argument against infinity is independent of the state of the universe, whether you want to call it the current state, prior state, or future state. Doesn't matter. The argument is against any past-eternal chain of cause/effect, no matter what you want to theorize it as...

Infinity problem...

Infinity problem needs to be addressed and taken care of.

Sorry, wrong. Any descriptions and interpretations of the chain of cause & effect are necessarily dependent on the current state of the universe. Since we have no way of describing causality (or even suggesting that causality could exist) in other states, no premises can be made in that regard. Thus the Infinity Problem is one of your invention, not an actual concern until/unless it's possible to show that causality follows the current-state-universal models in other states.

Let's just solve the infinity problem by making a special exception for the universe. Why? Just because! See, now the problem is solved and we know that the universe can be infinite because we know it's infinite!