I’m looking at the fruit and working back to the cause. I don’t worry about objectives. But, when you find that the apples are rotten, you look to the cause. It turns out that there was a nefarious intent.
Dinosaurs may not be as ancient as we think
Sort:
Mar 15, 2025
0
#243
The natural thing in this universe is decay; the unnatural thing is low entropy and high energy coming together to form functionally complex systems without an external intervention.
Mar 15, 2025
0
#244
wrote:
The natural thing in this universe is decay; the unnatural thing is low entropy and high energy coming together to form functionally complex systems without an external intervention.
That was my hang-up the last two years that I identified as a creationist. It took half a bottle of beer poured into the sink by a biologist as we were cleaning his apartment to put my misunderstanding to rest. Of course, he explained the Second Law of Thermodynamics with some clarity while dumping the beer.
Mar 16, 2025
0
#245
There are two parts to this; it isn’t just the second law of thermodynamics. We can have entropy, but to have that coupled with the need to harness energy and make it useful simultaneously, we must direct material into a meaningful layout activity to channel energy! You think the material world would come together in such a way without falling apart isn't also in play too. In addition, the channeling must be done in such a way that it will direct highly complex work to be done with precision, equipped with error checking, ensuring that it is done correctly. Do you think that is the byproduct of an unquided process without goals or outside interference?
Seriously?!?!
Mar 16, 2025
0
#246
Probably. We're the poor monkeys pining for endless and rational order, not the universe.
Mar 16, 2025
0
#247
There is nothing that I perceive that compels belief in design. There is plenty to render design implausible.
Mar 16, 2025
0
#248
DrSpudnik wrote:
Probably. We're the poor monkeys pining for endless and rational order, not the universe.
You realize they did put monkeys in with a typewriter for a couple of months, and not a single word was produced. Even "a” and "I" were not produced because those require a space surrounding them.
Mar 16, 2025
0
#249
Ziryab wrote:
There is nothing that I perceive that compels belief in design. There is plenty to render design implausible.
By all means explain.
Mar 16, 2025
0
#250
TheJamesOfAllJameses wrote:
stephen_33 wrote:
Am I correct - that's from a Young Earth Creationist website yes?
That is the only place that provides research for creation science... Therefore we have to use resources that back our position... Because other websites have secular science and they wouldn't show anything else... Because it is "unscientific"
Alternatively, you could adopt a position consistent with objective research.
Mar 16, 2025
0
#251
No, you said nothing compels you to believe in design, and there is plenty to render design implausible. Are you going to go down the same road others here do, make a claim and fail to be able to back it up? I've been putting up the reasons for my beliefs and speak to them as well, can you?
Mar 16, 2025
0
#252
TruthMuse wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
There is nothing that I perceive that compels belief in design. There is plenty to render design implausible.
By all means explain.
But I bet they looked cute typing like they knew what they were doing.
Mar 17, 2025
0
#254
Maybe they were speaking in tongues? We just need to learn what language they were trying for.
May 2, 2025
0
#255
https://www.yahoo.com/news/living-fossil-fish-species-once-083000492.html
Apparently it pre-dates dinosaurs....
May 8, 2025
0
#257
Otherwise you may find yourself ignoring good science because of self imposed blinders.
Yes, that's exactly the point. Creationists impose self-blinders and ignore good science.
That is a statement about people not science.
It is the beginning of an essay that explains the science of macroevolution in a manner that corrects errors spawned by those with nefarious objectives.
Same thing worrying about some’s objectives is still more concern about people than evidence.
I've been quite clear that denial of evidence in favor of a religious view is precisely the objective, whether they lie to themselves or lie to us or both.
When it is a pursuit of truth and evidence is presented, it is due to the pursuit of truth the evidence doesn't change due to the person's objective and it is solid, the person's objective for good or not doesn't alter it. You spend more time worrying about motivation than you actually do to the pursuit of truth, you argue for it all the time.